Re: TINC?

[Gross, Randall [GCG-PFS]]

I was a college student working that one summer as an operator.  The
(only!) sysprog gave us the procedures to re-configure, which we did (to
a single partition to run a 'large' job) about once a month. (I never
got my hands on any Fine Manuals at that time, so I didn't know any
better.)  Four years later I went from application programming at the
same company to system programmer - got to do the very last SVS sysgen
and the very first MVS sysgen for that shop.  Spent the next 14 years as
a sysprog there, then got outsourced to IGS & did another 5 years as
sysprog on the same account.

Randy 

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Ed Gould
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 7:02 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: TINC?

Randy:

We used to run MFT and everyday we changed the partition sizes without
an IPL.
Now if you are saying to change from MFT to MVT then indeed an IPL was
needed, as well PCP to MFT (or for that matter MVT)?

The OS is the "key" issue and indeed VM you can "ipl" an OS and it
probably does not require an IPL(machine wise) a virtual machine needs
to be brought in .

Maybe I am missing some distinction here.

Ed


On Mar 5, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Gross, Randall [GCG-PFS] wrote:

> In college, we had a 360/40 running PCP (Primary Control Program) in 
> 64K; iirc, PCP could not be patrtitioned.
>
> I worked one summer for a company that had a 256k 360/40 running MFT 
> with (typically) 4  partitions.  Iirc, it took an IPL to reconfigure 
> MFT. (M = multimple, F = fixed)
>
> I belive MVT (V = variable) was the first OS360 operating system that 
> suppored dynamic repartitioning, but I could be wrong.  I never 
> experienced MVT - just went from MFT to SVS to MVS.
>
> Randy
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On 
> Behalf Of Lloyd Fuller
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 8:32 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: TINC?
>
> It could be that the spooler was really a resident writer.  I was just

> a newby programmer, and know that we were told that requiring more 
> than a certain amount of memory required a major operations change and

> was frowned on.
>
> It was definitely not DOS/360.  It was OS/360 and used JCL with DCBs, 
> etc, not the DOS/360 stuff.
>
> Lloyd
>
>
>
> - Original Message 
> From: John Gilmore 
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Sent: Thu, March 1, 2012 4:09:02 PM
> Subject: Re: TINC?
>
> Shmuel/Seymour wrote:
>
> 
> NFW. There was only a single partition on PCP. Based on the model I'd 
> guess that you were running DOS/360.
> 
>
> and it is correct, albeit in a Pickwickian sense, that OS/PCP "had 
> only a single partition"; but it did support both transient and 
> resident readers and writers; there were even some very primitive 
> to-2311-DASD RYO spoolers in use; and at this remove Lloyd Fuller's 
> confusion may be only a terminological one.  Still, I too guess that 
> he may have been using DOS.
>
> --jg
>
>
> On 3/1/12, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) 
> wrote:
>> In <1330520469.27305.yahoomai...@web180907.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, on
>> 02/29/2012
>>at 05:01 AM, Lloyd Fuller  said:
>>
>>> No.  When we used PCP on the Model 40 with 64K.  We had a single job

>>> partition  and, most of the time, a spool partition.
>>
>> NFW. There was only a single partition on PCP. Based on the model I'd

>> guess that you were running DOS/360.
>>
>>> It was a very simple partition (like 10K or so) that ran the 1401
>>
>> What are you trying to say? The 1401 was a computer, not a program. 
>> If
>
>> you meant that you ran the 1401 Emulator program, that confirms that 
>> it was DOS.
>>
>>> If we needed more memory for a specific purpose, we would reipl from

>>> a
>
>>> different pack and bring up OS360 with just the program partition.
>>
>> Another sign that you were not running OS/360; on an OS/360 system 
>> with multiple partitions you can amalgamated partitions with the 
>> DEFINE command; you don't need to re-IPL.
>>
>> --
>>  Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
>>  ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
>> We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
>> (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
>>
>> -
>> -
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instruct

Re: TINC?

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

edgould1...@comcast.net (Ed Gould) writes:
> We used to run MFT and everyday we changed the partition sizes without
> an IPL.
> Now if you are saying to change from MFT to MVT then indeed an IPL was
> needed,
> as well PCP to MFT (or for that matter MVT)?
>
> The OS is the "key" issue and indeed VM you can "ipl" an OS and it
> probably does not require an IPL(machine wise) a virtual machine
> needs to be brought in .
>
> Maybe I am missing some distinction here.

recent post about vm370 handshaking being done at univ. for MVT
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012c.html#16 5 Byte Device Addresses?

vm370 has function to save an virtual memory image from virtual machine
and then restore it using IPL command (using ipl-by-name function)
 sort like checkpoint/restart ... but for system. they identified
place in MVT where everything was quiesced and could jump back in
... provided for hot-restart significantly cutting MVT IPL elapsed time
startup.

note that one of the customers that had been sold 360/67 was boeing
huntsville to run tss/360 ... tss/360 was never fully realize ...  and
many customers ran machine as 360/65 with os/360. boeing huntsville had
360/67 two-processor multiprocessor configurated to run as two
independent single processor processors ... with MVT supporting several
2250M1s and long-running graphic applications. The problem was that MVT
had a horrible storage fragmentation with long running applications.  As
a result, Boeing Hunstsville had modified release 13 MVT to run in
virtual memory mode but w/o paging. The virtual memory hardware was used
to re-order storage addresses as compensation for significant MVT
storage fragmentation associated with long running applications.

This is similar ... but different to the justification for adding
virtual memory as standard to all 370s ... and move from MVT to SVS
... discussed in this past post:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011d.html#73 Multiple Virtual Mmeory

 part of quote in above:

Evans around. For reasons unknown to me, the TSO group had the flip
charts and wallboard z used. The clincher was the ability to run 16
initiators simultaneously on a 1 megabyte system, taking advantage of
the fact that MVT normally used only 25% of the memory in a
partition. The resulting throughput gain (compared to real hardware) was
substantial enough to convince Bob. It helped that Tom Simpson and Bob
Crabtree had hosted an MFT II system TSS-Style and shown similar
performance gains. Of course, since CP67 was a pickup group they weren't
considered and we had the OS/VS adventure instead.

... snip ...

Simpson and Crabtree had done HASP ... and then Simpson went on to do
modified MFT-II implementation using TSS-Style paged-mapped filesystem
paradigm called RASP (significant performance advantage over the
approach taken by SVS&MVS preseving the OS/360 disk paradigm).

This wasn't picked up and Simpson left for Amdahl where he there was
"clean-room" do-over. There was legal action about theft of code (even
tho there was no intention of ever using RASP) ... and the resulting
court audits only found a couple accidental incidents examples of
identical code. a couple old email mentioning RASP do-over:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011e.html#email810408
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011e.html#email820907
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011e.htmL#email870302

a few past posts mentioning RASP:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#68 TSS ancient history, was X86 ultimate 
CISC? designs)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#69 TSS ancient history, was X86 ultimate 
CISC? designs)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#70 TSS ancient history, was X86 ultimate 
CISC? designs)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#73 7090 vs. 7094 etc.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#0 Blade architectures
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#63 Hercules and System/390 - do we need 
it?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#75 30th b'day
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002q.html#31 Collating on the S/360-2540 card 
reader?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003e.html#65 801 (was Re: Reviving Multics
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005p.html#44 hasp, jes, rasp, aspen, gold
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006f.html#19 Over my head in a JES exit
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#24 IBM sues maker of Intel-based 
Mainframe clones
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#28 IBM sues maker of Intel-based 
Mainframe clones
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007m.html#69 Operating systems are old and busted
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010i.html#44 someone smarter than Dave Cutler
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010o.html#0 Hashing for DISTINCT or GROUP BY in SQL
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010p.html#42 Which non-IBM software products (from 
ISVs) have been most significant to the mainframe's success?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011.html#85 Two terrific writers .. are going to 
write a book
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011e.html#26 Multiple Virtual Memory
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011e.html#47 junk

Re: TINC?

[Ed Gould]

Randy:

We used to run MFT and everyday we changed the partition sizes  
without an IPL.
Now if you are saying to change from MFT to MVT then indeed an IPL  
was needed,

as well PCP to MFT (or for that matter MVT)?

The OS is the "key" issue and indeed VM you can "ipl" an OS and it  
probably does not require an IPL(machine wise) a virtual machine  
needs to be brought in .


Maybe I am missing some distinction here.

Ed


On Mar 5, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Gross, Randall [GCG-PFS] wrote:


In college, we had a 360/40 running PCP (Primary Control Program) in
64K; iirc, PCP could not be patrtitioned.

I worked one summer for a company that had a 256k 360/40 running MFT
with (typically) 4  partitions.  Iirc, it took an IPL to reconfigure
MFT. (M = multimple, F = fixed)

I belive MVT (V = variable) was the first OS360 operating system that
suppored dynamic repartitioning, but I could be wrong.  I never
experienced MVT - just went from MFT to SVS to MVS.

Randy



-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Lloyd Fuller
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 8:32 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: TINC?

It could be that the spooler was really a resident writer.  I was  
just a
newby programmer, and know that we were told that requiring more  
than a

certain amount of memory required a major operations change and was
frowned on.

It was definitely not DOS/360.  It was OS/360 and used JCL with DCBs,
etc, not the DOS/360 stuff.

Lloyd



- Original Message 
From: John Gilmore 
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Thu, March 1, 2012 4:09:02 PM
Subject: Re: TINC?

Shmuel/Seymour wrote:


NFW. There was only a single partition on PCP. Based on the model I'd
guess that you were running DOS/360.


and it is correct, albeit in a Pickwickian sense, that OS/PCP "had  
only

a single partition"; but it did support both transient and resident
readers and writers; there were even some very primitive to-2311-DASD
RYO spoolers in use; and at this remove Lloyd Fuller's confusion  
may be

only a terminological one.  Still, I too guess that he may have been
using DOS.

--jg


On 3/1/12, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)   
wrote:

In <1330520469.27305.yahoomai...@web180907.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, on
02/29/2012
   at 05:01 AM, Lloyd Fuller  said:


No.  When we used PCP on the Model 40 with 64K.  We had a single job
partition  and, most of the time, a spool partition.


NFW. There was only a single partition on PCP. Based on the model I'd
guess that you were running DOS/360.


It was a very simple partition (like 10K or so) that ran the 1401


What are you trying to say? The 1401 was a computer, not a  
program. If



you meant that you ran the 1401 Emulator program, that confirms that
it was DOS.

If we needed more memory for a specific purpose, we would reipl  
from a



different pack and bring up OS360 with just the program partition.


Another sign that you were not running OS/360; on an OS/360 system
with multiple partitions you can amalgamated partitions with the
DEFINE command; you don't need to re-IPL.

--
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

- 
-

For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN



--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <041b8b70f0a2284f8468d78cb88f67a91ac75...@corp-msg-01.pfshq.com>,
on 03/05/2012
   at 10:06 AM, "Gross, Randall [GCG-PFS]" 
said:

>I worked one summer for a company that had a 256k 360/40 running MFT
>with (typically) 4  partitions.  Iirc, it took an IPL to reconfigure
>MFT.

>From IBM System/3S0 Operating System: MFT Guide, OS Release 21.7,
GC27-6939-10"

'Partitions are defined within the dynamic area, located in the upper
portion of main storage, at system generation. The number of
partitions may then be varied within the number specified at system
generation, and the sizes and job classes of partitions may be
redefined at system initialization or during operation.'

and

'Partition redefinition is invoked in either of two ways, depending on
whether it is to be invoked during or after system initialization. At
system initialization, the partition configuration may be changed by
replying "YES" to message IEE801D "CHANGE PARTITIONS?". Alternatively,
partition redefinition may be invoked after system initialization by
entering the operator command, DEFINE. The format of this command is
shown in the Operator's Reference publication.'
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[Lloyd Fuller]

I remember reconfiguring on the fly with MFT.  The partitions had to be 
adjacent 
in memory and had to be empty:  no running programs in those partitions. 


Lloyd



- Original Message 
From: Gerhard Postpischil 
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Mon, March 5, 2012 1:27:26 PM
Subject: Re: TINC?

On 3/5/2012 10:06 AM, Gross, Randall [GCG-PFS] wrote:
> I worked one summer for a company that had a 256k 360/40 running MFT
> with (typically) 4  partitions.  Iirc, it took an IPL to reconfigure
> MFT. (M = multimple, F = fixed)

If your installation required an IPL, then I surmise it either had an alternate 
nucleus that was smaller, or that the staff weren't trained properly (note 
earlier post on redefining partitions). We ran MFT at ADR for a couple of 
years, 
and I remember redefining partitions, but never had to IPL to do so.


Gerhard Postpischil
Bradford, VT

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[Gerhard Postpischil]

On 3/5/2012 10:06 AM, Gross, Randall [GCG-PFS] wrote:

I worked one summer for a company that had a 256k 360/40 running MFT
with (typically) 4  partitions.  Iirc, it took an IPL to reconfigure
MFT. (M = multimple, F = fixed)


If your installation required an IPL, then I surmise it either 
had an alternate nucleus that was smaller, or that the staff 
weren't trained properly (note earlier post on redefining 
partitions). We ran MFT at ADR for a couple of years, and I 
remember redefining partitions, but never had to IPL to do so.



Gerhard Postpischil
Bradford, VT

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[Gross, Randall [GCG-PFS]]

In college, we had a 360/40 running PCP (Primary Control Program) in
64K; iirc, PCP could not be patrtitioned.

I worked one summer for a company that had a 256k 360/40 running MFT
with (typically) 4  partitions.  Iirc, it took an IPL to reconfigure
MFT. (M = multimple, F = fixed)

I belive MVT (V = variable) was the first OS360 operating system that
suppored dynamic repartitioning, but I could be wrong.  I never
experienced MVT - just went from MFT to SVS to MVS.

Randy



-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Lloyd Fuller
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 8:32 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: TINC?

It could be that the spooler was really a resident writer.  I was just a
newby programmer, and know that we were told that requiring more than a
certain amount of memory required a major operations change and was
frowned on.

It was definitely not DOS/360.  It was OS/360 and used JCL with DCBs,
etc, not the DOS/360 stuff.

Lloyd



- Original Message 
From: John Gilmore 
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Thu, March 1, 2012 4:09:02 PM
Subject: Re: TINC?

Shmuel/Seymour wrote:


NFW. There was only a single partition on PCP. Based on the model I'd
guess that you were running DOS/360.


and it is correct, albeit in a Pickwickian sense, that OS/PCP "had only
a single partition"; but it did support both transient and resident
readers and writers; there were even some very primitive to-2311-DASD
RYO spoolers in use; and at this remove Lloyd Fuller's confusion may be
only a terminological one.  Still, I too guess that he may have been
using DOS.

--jg


On 3/1/12, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)  wrote:
> In <1330520469.27305.yahoomai...@web180907.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, on
> 02/29/2012
>at 05:01 AM, Lloyd Fuller  said:
>
>>No.  When we used PCP on the Model 40 with 64K.  We had a single job 
>>partition  and, most of the time, a spool partition.
>
> NFW. There was only a single partition on PCP. Based on the model I'd 
> guess that you were running DOS/360.
>
>>It was a very simple partition (like 10K or so) that ran the 1401
>
> What are you trying to say? The 1401 was a computer, not a program. If

> you meant that you ran the 1401 Emulator program, that confirms that 
> it was DOS.
>
>>If we needed more memory for a specific purpose, we would reipl from a

>>different pack and bring up OS360 with just the program partition.
>
> Another sign that you were not running OS/360; on an OS/360 system 
> with multiple partitions you can amalgamated partitions with the 
> DEFINE command; you don't need to re-IPL.
>
> --
>  Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
>  ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
> We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
> (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send 
> email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <1330694818.18459.yahoomai...@web180909.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, on
03/02/2012
   at 05:26 AM, Lloyd Fuller  said:

>I did not see the message that you are quoting below from Shmuel.  We
>were  running a printer from the spooler.  I thought that it was a
>model 1401 printer, 

The 1401 was a computer; the printer on it was a 1403[1]. Different
model of the 1403 were available for S/360.

>I was a programmer and not an operator.  I know that the few times
>that we  needed more than the standard memory, we were told that
>they had to re-IPL  OS/360. 

That would have been to use a different nucleus or different PARMLIB
memories.

>Nothing was said about a DEFINE command.

Because there is only one partiton in PCP.

[1] I don't recall whether it could also use a 1443 or whether
that was restricted to the 1440.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In
,
on 03/01/2012
   at 04:09 PM, John Gilmore  said:

>and it is correct, albeit in a Pickwickian sense, that OS/PCP "had
>only a single partition"; but it did support both transient and
>resident readers and writers; 

It supported direct use of card readers, writers and reader, not a
separate SPOOL partition. The R/I was loaded between steps.

>there were even some very primitive to-2311-DASD RYO spoolers 
>in use; 

Only as the sole problem program running, not in a separate partition.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: PCP - memory lane (Was: TINC?)

[Scott Ford]

Wow a blast from the past for me

Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
www.identityforge.com



On Mar 2, 2012, at 1:40 PM, Chris Mason  wrote:

> Lloyd
> 
>> ...> When we used PCP on the Model 40 with 64K.
> 
> Back in 1967/8, a colourful customer on the patch to which I belonged was 
> running PCP on a 64K machine and it may have been a 360/40. Our ace young 
> salesman had been responsible for this! IIRC this was considered the opposite 
> of the leading edge but it seemed to work for a while!
> 
> While we did have a customer - a university - genuinely at the leading edge 
> with a 360/67, I worked at the crowded lower end among the 360/30s running 
> DOS/360. My first responsibility was assisting a customer with the "free" 
> time converting from a 1400 system to a 360/30 with DOS/360.
> 
>> Then at night we ran the 1401 emulator to do the production runs.
> 
> If I ever knew I'd forgoten that the 360/40 also had a 1401 emulator just as 
> the 360/30 had.
> 
>> ... a model 1401 printer ...
> 
> This will have been one of the models of the 1403, the N1 model of which 
> extended the life of the marque well into the 360 era and beyond.
> 
> Chris Mason
> 
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 05:26:58 -0800, Lloyd Fuller  
> wrote:
> 
>> I did not see the message that you are quoting below from Shmuel.  We were
>> running a printer from the spooler.  I thought that it was a model 1401 
>> printer,
>> but I could be wrong.
>> 
>> We were definitely running OS/360, not DOS/360.  We ran OS/360 during the 
>> day to
>> convert 1401 AUTOCODER programs to COBOL by rewriting them.  Then at night we
>> ran the 1401 emulator to do the production runs.  This was all in 1969.
>> 
>> I was a programmer and not an operator.  I know that the few times that we
>> needed more than the standard memory, we were told that they had to re-IPL
>> OS/360.  Nothing was said about a DEFINE command.
>> 
>> Lloyd
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

PCP - memory lane (Was: TINC?)

[Chris Mason]

Lloyd

>...> When we used PCP on the Model 40 with 64K.

Back in 1967/8, a colourful customer on the patch to which I belonged was 
running PCP on a 64K machine and it may have been a 360/40. Our ace young 
salesman had been responsible for this! IIRC this was considered the opposite 
of the leading edge but it seemed to work for a while!

While we did have a customer - a university - genuinely at the leading edge 
with a 360/67, I worked at the crowded lower end among the 360/30s running 
DOS/360. My first responsibility was assisting a customer with the "free" time 
converting from a 1400 system to a 360/30 with DOS/360.

> Then at night we ran the 1401 emulator to do the production runs.

If I ever knew I'd forgoten that the 360/40 also had a 1401 emulator just as 
the 360/30 had.

> ... a model 1401 printer ...
 
This will have been one of the models of the 1403, the N1 model of which 
extended the life of the marque well into the 360 era and beyond.

Chris Mason

On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 05:26:58 -0800, Lloyd Fuller  wrote:

>I did not see the message that you are quoting below from Shmuel.  We were
>running a printer from the spooler.  I thought that it was a model 1401 
>printer,
>but I could be wrong.
>
>We were definitely running OS/360, not DOS/360.  We ran OS/360 during the day 
>to
>convert 1401 AUTOCODER programs to COBOL by rewriting them.  Then at night we
>ran the 1401 emulator to do the production runs.  This was all in 1969.
>
>I was a programmer and not an operator.  I know that the few times that we
>needed more than the standard memory, we were told that they had to re-IPL
>OS/360.  Nothing was said about a DEFINE command.
>
>Lloyd

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[Lloyd Fuller]

It could be that the spooler was really a resident writer.  I was just a newby 
programmer, and know that we were told that requiring more than a certain 
amount 
of memory required a major operations change and was frowned on.

It was definitely not DOS/360.  It was OS/360 and used JCL with DCBs, etc, not 
the DOS/360 stuff.

Lloyd



- Original Message 
From: John Gilmore 
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Thu, March 1, 2012 4:09:02 PM
Subject: Re: TINC?

Shmuel/Seymour wrote:


NFW. There was only a single partition on PCP. Based on the model I'd
guess that you were running DOS/360.


and it is correct, albeit in a Pickwickian sense, that OS/PCP "had
only a single partition"; but it did support both transient and
resident readers and writers; there were even some very primitive
to-2311-DASD RYO spoolers in use; and at this remove Lloyd Fuller's
confusion may be only a terminological one.  Still, I too guess that
he may have been using DOS.

--jg


On 3/1/12, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)  wrote:
> In <1330520469.27305.yahoomai...@web180907.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, on
> 02/29/2012
>at 05:01 AM, Lloyd Fuller  said:
>
>>No.  When we used PCP on the Model 40 with 64K.  We had a single job
>>partition  and, most of the time, a spool partition.
>
> NFW. There was only a single partition on PCP. Based on the model I'd
> guess that you were running DOS/360.
>
>>It was a very simple partition (like 10K or so) that ran the 1401
>
> What are you trying to say? The 1401 was a computer, not a program. If
> you meant that you ran the 1401 Emulator program, that confirms that
> it was DOS.
>
>>If we needed more memory for a specific purpose, we would reipl
>>from a different pack and bring up OS360 with just the program
>>partition.
>
> Another sign that you were not running OS/360; on an OS/360 system
> with multiple partitions you can amalgamated partitions with the
> DEFINE command; you don't need to re-IPL.
>
> --
>  Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
>  ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
> We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
> (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[Lloyd Fuller]

I did not see the message that you are quoting below from Shmuel.  We were 
running a printer from the spooler.  I thought that it was a model 1401 
printer, 
but I could be wrong.

We were definitely running OS/360, not DOS/360.  We ran OS/360 during the day 
to 
convert 1401 AUTOCODER programs to COBOL by rewriting them.  Then at night we 
ran the 1401 emulator to do the production runs.  This was all in 1969.

I was a programmer and not an operator.  I know that the few times that we 
needed more than the standard memory, we were told that they had to re-IPL 
OS/360.  Nothing was said about a DEFINE command.

Lloyd



- Original Message 
From: Scott Ford 
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Thu, March 1, 2012 3:45:32 PM
Subject: Re: TINC?

Yeah, we did that when I was in operations many moons ago, dos/vs/power

Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
www.identityforge.com



On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:05 AM, "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" 
 wrote:

> In <1330520469.27305.yahoomai...@web180907.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, on
> 02/29/2012
>   at 05:01 AM, Lloyd Fuller  said:
> 
>> No.  When we used PCP on the Model 40 with 64K.  We had a single job
>> partition  and, most of the time, a spool partition. 
> 
> NFW. There was only a single partition on PCP. Based on the model I'd
> guess that you were running DOS/360.
> 
>> It was a very simple partition (like 10K or so) that ran the 1401 
> 
> What are you trying to say? The 1401 was a computer, not a program. If
> you meant that you ran the 1401 Emulator program, that confirms that
> it was DOS.
> 
>> If we needed more memory for a specific purpose, we would reipl 
>> from a different pack and bring up OS360 with just the program 
>> partition.
> 
> Another sign that you were not running OS/360; on an OS/360 system
> with multiple partitions you can amalgamated partitions with the
> DEFINE command; you don't need to re-IPL.
> 
> -- 
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
> ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html> 
> We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
> (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[John Gilmore]

Shmuel/Seymour wrote:


NFW. There was only a single partition on PCP. Based on the model I'd
guess that you were running DOS/360.


and it is correct, albeit in a Pickwickian sense, that OS/PCP "had
only a single partition"; but it did support both transient and
resident readers and writers; there were even some very primitive
to-2311-DASD RYO spoolers in use; and at this remove Lloyd Fuller's
confusion may be only a terminological one.  Still, I too guess that
he may have been using DOS.

--jg


On 3/1/12, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)  wrote:
> In <1330520469.27305.yahoomai...@web180907.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, on
> 02/29/2012
>at 05:01 AM, Lloyd Fuller  said:
>
>>No.  When we used PCP on the Model 40 with 64K.  We had a single job
>>partition  and, most of the time, a spool partition.
>
> NFW. There was only a single partition on PCP. Based on the model I'd
> guess that you were running DOS/360.
>
>>It was a very simple partition (like 10K or so) that ran the 1401
>
> What are you trying to say? The 1401 was a computer, not a program. If
> you meant that you ran the 1401 Emulator program, that confirms that
> it was DOS.
>
>>If we needed more memory for a specific purpose, we would reipl
>>from a different pack and bring up OS360 with just the program
>>partition.
>
> Another sign that you were not running OS/360; on an OS/360 system
> with multiple partitions you can amalgamated partitions with the
> DEFINE command; you don't need to re-IPL.
>
> --
>  Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
>  ISO position; see 
> We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
> (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[Scott Ford]

Yeah, we did that when I was in operations many moons ago, dos/vs/power

Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
www.identityforge.com



On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:05 AM, "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" 
 wrote:

> In <1330520469.27305.yahoomai...@web180907.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, on
> 02/29/2012
>   at 05:01 AM, Lloyd Fuller  said:
> 
>> No.  When we used PCP on the Model 40 with 64K.  We had a single job
>> partition  and, most of the time, a spool partition. 
> 
> NFW. There was only a single partition on PCP. Based on the model I'd
> guess that you were running DOS/360.
> 
>> It was a very simple partition (like 10K or so) that ran the 1401 
> 
> What are you trying to say? The 1401 was a computer, not a program. If
> you meant that you ran the 1401 Emulator program, that confirms that
> it was DOS.
> 
>> If we needed more memory for a specific purpose, we would reipl 
>> from a different pack and bring up OS360 with just the program 
>> partition.
> 
> Another sign that you were not running OS/360; on an OS/360 system
> with multiple partitions you can amalgamated partitions with the
> DEFINE command; you don't need to re-IPL.
> 
> -- 
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
> ISO position; see  
> We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
> (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <1330520469.27305.yahoomai...@web180907.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, on
02/29/2012
   at 05:01 AM, Lloyd Fuller  said:

>No.  When we used PCP on the Model 40 with 64K.  We had a single job
>partition  and, most of the time, a spool partition. 

NFW. There was only a single partition on PCP. Based on the model I'd
guess that you were running DOS/360.

>It was a very simple partition (like 10K or so) that ran the 1401 

What are you trying to say? The 1401 was a computer, not a program. If
you meant that you ran the 1401 Emulator program, that confirms that
it was DOS.

>If we needed more memory for a specific purpose, we would reipl 
>from a different pack and bring up OS360 with just the program 
>partition.

Another sign that you were not running OS/360; on an OS/360 system
with multiple partitions you can amalgamated partitions with the
DEFINE command; you don't need to re-IPL.

-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[Lloyd Fuller]

No.  When we used PCP on the Model 40 with 64K.  We had a single job partition 
and, most of the time, a spool partition.  It was a very simple partition (like 
10K or so) that ran the 1401 and the card punch.  If we needed more memory for 
a 
specific purpose, we would reipl from a different pack and bring up OS360 with 
just the program partition.

Lloyd



- Original Message 
From: Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) 
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Tue, February 28, 2012 5:25:00 PM
Subject: Re: TINC?

In <1330454972.6614.yahoomai...@web180914.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, on
02/28/2012
   at 10:49 AM, Lloyd Fuller  said:

>But, of course, with the spooler partition.

SPOOL? There is no SPOOL in PCP.

Oh, you mean the offline 1401.

-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html> 
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <4f4d0770.6090...@trainersfriend.com>, on 02/28/2012
   at 09:57 AM, Steve Comstock  said:

>You're promoting angel dust?

That's less toxic.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <1330454972.6614.yahoomai...@web180914.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, on
02/28/2012
   at 10:49 AM, Lloyd Fuller  said:

>But, of course, with the spooler partition.

SPOOL? There is no SPOOL in PCP.

Oh, you mean the offline 1401.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[Lloyd Fuller]

But, of course, with the spooler partition.  We have to get rid of those excess 
trees. :-)

Lloyd



- Original Message 
From: Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) 
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Tue, February 28, 2012 11:10:04 AM
Subject: Re: TINC?



Bah! Viva PCP!

-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html> 
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[Scott Ford]

Lol, love it

Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
www.identityforge.com



On Feb 28, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Steve Comstock  wrote:

> On 2/28/2012 9:10 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
>> In
>> ,
>> on 02/27/2012
>>at 02:20 PM, John Gilmore  said:
>> 
>>> Still, their UNIX-oriented initiatives are a clear danger to
>>> legitimate, MVS-based undertakings;
>> 
>> Bah! Viva PCP!
>> 
> 
> You're promoting angel dust?
> 
> :-)
> 
> -- 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> -Steve Comstock
> The Trainer's Friend, Inc.
> 
> 303-355-2752
> http://www.trainersfriend.com
> 
> * To get a good Return on your Investment, first make an investment!
>  + Training your people is an excellent investment
> 
> * Try our tool for calculating your Return On Investment
>for training dollars at
>  http://www.trainersfriend.com/ROI/roi.html
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[Steve Comstock]

On 2/28/2012 9:10 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:

In
,
on 02/27/2012
at 02:20 PM, John Gilmore  said:


Still, their UNIX-oriented initiatives are a clear danger to
legitimate, MVS-based undertakings;


Bah! Viva PCP!



You're promoting angel dust?

:-)

--

Kind regards,

-Steve Comstock
The Trainer's Friend, Inc.

303-355-2752
http://www.trainersfriend.com

* To get a good Return on your Investment, first make an investment!
  + Training your people is an excellent investment

* Try our tool for calculating your Return On Investment
for training dollars at
  http://www.trainersfriend.com/ROI/roi.html

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[McKown, John]

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
> [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 10:10 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: TINC?
> 
> In
> ,
> on 02/27/2012
>at 02:20 PM, John Gilmore  said:
> 
> >Still, their UNIX-oriented initiatives are a clear danger to
> >legitimate, MVS-based undertakings;
> 
> Bah! Viva PCP!
>  
> -- 
>  Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

How about "704 or fight!"

--
John McKown 
Systems Engineer IV
IT

Administrative Services Group

HealthMarkets(r)

9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010
(817) 255-3225 phone * 
john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or 
proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact 
the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 
HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the 
insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance 
Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The 
MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM

 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In
,
on 02/27/2012
   at 02:20 PM, John Gilmore  said:

>Still, their UNIX-oriented initiatives are a clear danger to
>legitimate, MVS-based undertakings;

Bah! Viva PCP!
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[Scott Ford]

John,
Love it, who expects techies to be well rounded, maybe square edged ...

Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
www.identityforge.com



On Feb 27, 2012, at 2:57 PM, John Gilmore  wrote:

> Not so long ago several efforts to stimulate interest in some useful
> internet conventions were described/stigmatized as the work a "shadowy
> cabal"..  Then, very shortly, responses to such accusations were
> roputinized too, as
> 
> There
> Is
> No
> Cabal
> 
> One etymology--There is a picture of the five of them arranged in a
> row in the National Portrait Gallery in London--of cabal is
> 
> Charles [King Charles II]
> Arlington
> Buckingham
> Ashley
> Lauderdale
> 
> I promise not to do it again anytime soon
> 
> John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[John Gilmore]

Not so long ago several efforts to stimulate interest in some useful
internet conventions were described/stigmatized as the work a "shadowy
cabal"..  Then, very shortly, responses to such accusations were
roputinized too, as

There
Is
No
Cabal

One etymology--There is a picture of the five of them arranged in a
row in the National Portrait Gallery in London--of cabal is

Charles [King Charles II]
Arlington
Buckingham
Ashley
Lauderdale

I promise not to do it again anytime soon

John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[Lloyd Fuller]

Isn't that what tincture is for?  :-)  Or maybe not just the extract.

Lloyd



- Original Message 
From: Scott Ford 
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Mon, February 27, 2012 2:23:52 PM
Subject: Re: TINC?

Is there a cure of TINC? Maybe a treatment ?

Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
www.identityforge.com



On Feb 27, 2012, at 2:20 PM, John Gilmore  wrote:

> I can cite only anecdotal evidence, and people always shout TINC! at
> me when I say that I suspect the machinations of a CABAL.  Moreover,
> since there are only two of them--A proper cabal should have five
> members--I don't suppose that the Gilmartin-McKown axis is anything
> more than a faction.
> 
> Still, their UNIX-oriented initiatives are a clear danger to
> legitimate, MVS-based undertakings; and some of the hybrid schemes
> they have urged are flagrantly  subversive of good order.
> 
> John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[Veilleux, Jon L]

TINCture of iodine?

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of 
Scott Ford
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 2:24 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: TINC?

Is there a cure of TINC? Maybe a treatment ?

Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
www.identityforge.com



On Feb 27, 2012, at 2:20 PM, John Gilmore  wrote:

> I can cite only anecdotal evidence, and people always shout TINC! at 
> me when I say that I suspect the machinations of a CABAL.  Moreover, 
> since there are only two of them--A proper cabal should have five 
> members--I don't suppose that the Gilmartin-McKown axis is anything 
> more than a faction.
> 
> Still, their UNIX-oriented initiatives are a clear danger to 
> legitimate, MVS-based undertakings; and some of the hybrid schemes 
> they have urged are flagrantly  subversive of good order.
> 
> John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send 
> email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If
you think you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the
sender by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately.
Thank you. Aetna   

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: TINC?

[Scott Ford]

Is there a cure of TINC? Maybe a treatment ?

Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
www.identityforge.com



On Feb 27, 2012, at 2:20 PM, John Gilmore  wrote:

> I can cite only anecdotal evidence, and people always shout TINC! at
> me when I say that I suspect the machinations of a CABAL.  Moreover,
> since there are only two of them--A proper cabal should have five
> members--I don't suppose that the Gilmartin-McKown axis is anything
> more than a faction.
> 
> Still, their UNIX-oriented initiatives are a clear danger to
> legitimate, MVS-based undertakings; and some of the hybrid schemes
> they have urged are flagrantly  subversive of good order.
> 
> John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

TINC?

[John Gilmore]

I can cite only anecdotal evidence, and people always shout TINC! at
me when I say that I suspect the machinations of a CABAL.  Moreover,
since there are only two of them--A proper cabal should have five
members--I don't suppose that the Gilmartin-McKown axis is anything
more than a faction.

Still, their UNIX-oriented initiatives are a clear danger to
legitimate, MVS-based undertakings; and some of the hybrid schemes
they have urged are flagrantly  subversive of good order.

John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN