As I recall, CP/M had PIP from the DEC world, which PC-DOS did not. Wasn't there also a change from ED to EDLIN?
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu> on behalf of Steve Thompson <ste...@copper.net> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 10:58 AM To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu Subject: Re: CONTROVERSY! z/OS UNIX: is it an enhancement or a tool of the Devil? On 05/13/2018 04:26 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote: > 1. m$ started with QDOS, not CP/M I wish I still had the documents -- but a long story quite short: I was told CP/M, and the very first copy of MS/DOS that I got, had the same commands and lack of sub-folders that CP/M I had been using had. Granted, I was not a power user of that system, I was experimenting with it. So I didn't have any reason to question what had been said back then. I don't remember QDOS itself -- I have a hazy memory of the name. > 2. CP/M was influence by RT-11 Thank you for this. I Couldn't remember the precise system, but I knew it was involved with a *nix type OS. Regards, Steve Thompson > > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > ________________________________________ > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu> on behalf of > Steve Thompson <ste...@copper.net> > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:48 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu > Subject: Re: CONTROVERSY! z/OS UNIX: is it an enhancement or a tool of the > Devil? > > I've got an observation you and your boss probably won't like. > > Windows is based on CP/M (that is what Microsoft started with). > Guess what CP/M was based on. > > Now, here we are 30+ years from M/S and Windows (~ 1983 for first > release), and they have a lower RAS than does Linux which started > after them (~1991). > > So, perhaps your boss should consider going to Linux Desktops and > get away from the problems of Windows? > > As more and more people go to Linux Desktops, Adobe (and others) > would have to change their position and go back to supporting > their products for Linux distros. > > And then the *nix file structure being case sensitive would stop > being a problem, because one would get use to it from working > with it on a daily basis. > > My biggest problem with *nix (POSIX) on z/OS is the goofy way we > have to define the files for it. > > Perhaps the MVS side of z/OS needs to learn to get along with FBA > and we can stop emulating ECKD with FBA, that then emulate FBA to > allow POSIX (Unix System Services and related file systems) to > work on/with z/OS (what overhead). > > [FBA boxes seem to be cheaper than the ones that emulate ECKD > devices -- well at least from where I sit.] > > Just my 2 cents. > > Regards, > Steve Thompson > > On 05/11/2018 09:03 AM, John McKown wrote: >> OK, I bet I got your attention on that {grin}. >> >> But, seriously, I am wondering what the "person in the trenches" thinks >> about the increasing use of UNIX files and commands becoming more prevalent >> on z/OS. I am basically asking because my manager absolutely despises UNIX >> files. And hates the current maintenance processes from IBM and CA which >> force him to use it. One of his reasons is the case sensitivity of the UNIX >> file names. Of course, like most people in the world, his mind has been >> corrupted by the case insensitivity of Windows. As well as the very >> prevalent use of space characters in Windows file and directory names. This >> case sensitivity of names may be another reason why new people, likewise >> corrupted by Windows, will take an instant dislike for z/OS. OTOH, Linux >> might find it minimally interesting. And maybe even quite interesting, if >> IBM would adopt and maintain a port of the GNU infrastructure software. >> >> What I think, and I am likely stupid on this, is that the Apple HFS+ >> approach might work. Just like, at present, when you create a zFS >> filesystem, the default for filenames on an HFS+ filesystem are, like >> Windows, case _in_sensitive. However, when an HFS+ filesystem is >> initialized, it can be set as "case sensitive". This is done on a >> filesystem-by-filesystem basis. What might be nice is to enhance(?) zFS so >> that it can be made case _in_sensitive (reverse default of HFS+). This >> might be very helpful for "naive" z/OS UNIX users. Put the ${HOME} >> directory (usually /u) under automount and set the parameters so that when >> automount creates & initializes a ${HOME} directory, it is >> case-insensitive. And, of course, they should be a way to "flip the switch" >> back an forth between case sensitivity and case insensitivity. Of course, >> the "make insensitive" conversion will need to check & abort if there two >> names in the same directory which are equivalent when case is ignored. I >> would think this would be simple; check for possible problems and if none, >> just flip the switch in some sort of "header" data area. Regardless of >> case sensitivity or insensitivity, it should be case preserving, like >> Windows. >> >> I know the response from both IBM and CA is/will be basically "suck it up, >> maggot!" (to quote a not-so-favorite D.I.) >> >> Oh, well, it is Friday. And, for me, this is almost a reasonable thought. >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
