Rick is correct...this thread has gone on too long now....but it somethings good just to be able to vent. :-) Besides, Rick has given me an idea....
Happy Holidays, too. DJ On 12/16/2010 09:30 PM, Richard Troth wrote: > The business case for CP40 was Project Mac, which IBM lost. But the > engineers (and some customers) recognized the value in CP and CMS and > fostered it in spite of the MIT spanking. > > Serious use of VM for MVS development did not happen until a decade later > when it saved their bacon by emulating XA before HW was available. Not too > long after that, VM/XA SF and MA isolated early customer MVS/XA from the > horrors of real hardware. (virtual machines are always less "hostile" than > real HW and it took time for MVS to mature enough to survive outside its VM > womb) > > I remember discussing MVS on VM with the MVS lead at my job circa 1985. I > was stoked because I love VM. But he was anxious to get off it and run > native. That is how many "Pookie people" seem to think of VM. They just > don't like it. You can't make people like something. (problem with free > will, I expect) In his world, there was no need for V12N and certainly no > need for CMS. > > This thread has gone on too long. If you want tools for CMS, make a biz case > or make the tools. We should leverage open source. We should take advantage > of things IBM *is* developing, such as the BFS resident critters. ALL of the > programs I have compiled on USS have dropped right in to OpenVM. (one man's > experience; YMMV; actual mileage will probably be less) > > -- R; <>< > > > On Dec 16, 2010 8:06 PM, "Dave Jones" <[email protected]> wrote: > To this best of my knowledge, I don't believe that there was a business case > made; at least it was not mentioned in any of Melinda's "History of VM" > papers. > > DJ > > > > On 12/16/2010 6:37 PM, Schuh, Richard wrote: >> >> Did anyone build a legitimate business case for C... > -- Dave Jones V/Soft Software www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544
