Re: Bad History (was: "make" question)

[Seymour J Metz]

Keep in mind that originally POSIX and UNIX were different. IBM even documented 
the discrepancies between the two. AFAIK IEEE POSIX has been swallowed by the 
successor to X/OPEN and you now only need a single certification, but that 
wasn't the case at the time of the original MVSOE.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 11:11 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Bad History (was: "make" question)

On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 16:58:15 +0800, David Crayford wrote:
>
>... I would pick gmake 9/10 because it's pervasive and more
>portable. If you work with open source software on z/OS gmake is a must
>have.
>
I imagine:

RFE: We want UNIX.

IBM: Be more specific.

Both: (After much deliberation) Single UNIX specification.

And so it went.  There's no formal specification of GNU Linux.

Sigh.

-- gil

--
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

Re: Bad History

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

john.archie.mck...@gmail.com (John McKown) writes:
> ​Not as I was told. U.S. Government said, basically, you can only bid a
> POSIX compliant (and branded?) system for any I.T. purchase. To keep their
> business, IBM grafted OpenEdition (original name) onto MVS. As time goes
> on, it does get a bit better.​

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017k.html#33 Bad History

it wasn't just FEDs POSIX compliance.  had several conversations with
the disk division (GPD morphs into adstar, during the period that IBM
was being reorged into "baby blues" in preparation for breaking up the
company) executive that initially had posix support grafted onto MVS.

late 80s, senior disk engineer got talk scheduled at the internal annual
worldwide communication group conference supposedly on 3174 performance
... but opened the talk with statement that the communication group was
going to be responsible for the demise of the disk division. The issue
was that communication group had corporate strategic responsibility
(stanglehold) for everything that crossed the datacenter walls, they
were fiercely fighting off distributed computing and client/server
trying to preserve their dumb terminal paradigm (and install base). The
disk division was seeing data fleeing datacenters to more distributed
computing friendly platform with drop in disk sales. They came up with a
number of solutions ... which were constantly vetoed by the
communication group.

"terminal emulation" (also numerous mentions of above account) posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#terminal

Since openedition was purely MVS software ... the communication group
didn't have any justification for veto'ing it. The other thing that GPD
could get away with, was investing in non-IBM startups that were doing
distributed computing that would involve IBM disks (communication group
could only veto IBM products that involved something that physical
crosses the datacenter walls). Some number of these investments the
executive would ask if we could stop by and lend any support that we
could.

adstar ref:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADSTAR
28DEC1992 13 "baby blues" time article, gone behind pay wall, but part
of it avail at wayback machine.
http://web.archive.org/web/20101120231857/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,977353,00.html
more adstar april 1993
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/24/business/company-news-ibm-gives-adstar-storage-unit-more-autonomy.html

and more May 1993: One of the biggest dominoes from the breakup of IBM
is about to fall on the West Coast, where AdStar is preparing to launch
a search for a global age
http://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/adstar-set-launch-global-review-bby-michael-mccarthbbr-clearnonebr-clearnonenew-yor/

As recently as two years ago, AdStar sold only to and through IBM, but
in 1992 it generated nearly $500 million in revenues via sales to other
companies. During 1993, AdStar officials expect this figure to grow by
roughly 70% to $850 million.

... snip ...

past posts getting to play disk engineer in bldgs 14&15
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#disk

I had also done CMSBACK late 1970s for internal datacenters. after some
number of internal releases ... it is modified to include backup for
distributed systems and released to customers as Workstation Data Save
Facility ... which is then morphs into ADMS (ADSTAR Distributed Storage
Manager) ... and is rebranded as TSM (when adstar is unloaded). some
old CMSBACK email
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#cmsback

cmsback, WDSF, ADSM, TSM ref (cmsback originally done a decade earlier
than date mentioned here)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Tivoli_Storage_Manager

other trivia: after having left IBM ... we get a call from the bowels of
Armonk asking if we could help with the breakup. Business units were
using MOUs to leverage supplier contracts in other divisions.  With
breakup, these would be different companies and the MOUs would have to
be turned into their own contracts. We were to help inventory and
catalog the MOUs ... however a new CEO was brought in and the breakup
was (mostly reversed (for a time).

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

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

Re: Bad History (was: "make" question)

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 18:29:37 -0600, John McKown wrote:
>>
>> RFE: We want UNIX.
>
>​Not as I was told. U.S. Government said, basically, you can only bid a
>POSIX compliant (and branded?) system for any I.T. purchase. To keep their
>business, IBM grafted OpenEdition (original name) onto MVS. As time goes
>on, it does get a bit better.​
>
At that time that would have eliminated MacOS, Windows, Solaris, and Linux
(at least).  I understand Microsoft threw its weight around and the gummint
said, "Close enough."

z/OS, MacOS, Solaris, ... now make the cut, some with separately priced options.
https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/
Note conspicuous omissions.

-- gil

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

Re: Bad History (was: "make" question)

[John McKown]

On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Paul Gilmartin <
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 16:58:15 +0800, David Crayford wrote:
> >
> >... I would pick gmake 9/10 because it's pervasive and more
> >portable. If you work with open source software on z/OS gmake is a must
> >have.
> >
> I imagine:
>
> RFE: We want UNIX.
>

​Not as I was told. U.S. Government said, basically, you can only bid a
POSIX compliant (and branded?) system for any I.T. purchase. To keep their
business, IBM grafted OpenEdition (original name) onto MVS. As time goes
on, it does get a bit better.​



>
> IBM: Be more specific.
>
> Both: (After much deliberation) Single UNIX specification.
>
> And so it went.  There's no formal specification of GNU Linux.
>
> Sigh.
>
> -- gil
>
>

-- 
I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove
it.

Maranatha! <><
John McKown

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

Re: Bad History

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu (Paul Gilmartin) writes:
> I imagine:
>
> RFE: We want UNIX.
>
> IBM: Be more specific.
>
> Both: (After much deliberation) Single UNIX specification.
>
> And so it went.  There's no formal specification of GNU Linux.
>
> Sigh.

some of the CTSS (IBM 7094) people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatible_Time-Sharing_System

went to the 5th flr to do MULTICS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multics

others went to the IBM cambridg science center on the 4th flr and did
virtual machines, internal network, invented GML (letters taken from
last names of 3 inventors), lots of online and performance work
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/CMS

folklore is that the belllabs people working on Multics on the 5th
flr, return home and do UNIX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multics#Unix

In the early 80s, a group from Stanford approached the IBM Palo Alto
Science Center about IBM doing a workstation, PASC invites several
internal groups for review ... who all claim that they were doing
something better (and IBM turns down the offer). The group then starts
their own company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Microsystems

late 80s, there appears to be aggreement between SUN & AT to make
UNIX exclusive.  the other vendors form organization to create an
"open" unix work-alike.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Software_Foundation

The organization was seen as a response to the collaboration between
AT and Sun on UNIX System V Release 4, and a fear that other vendors
would be locked out of the standardization process. This led Scott
McNealy of Sun to quip that "OSF" really stood for "Oppose Sun
Forever".[4] The competition between the opposing versions of UNIX
systems became known as the UNIX wars.

... snip ...

Unix wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_wars

in the 90s, they merge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Software_Foundation#Merger

By 1993, it had become clear that the greater threat to UNIX system
vendors was not each other as much as the increasing presence of
Microsoft in enterprise computing. In May, the Common Open Software
Environment (COSE) initiative was announced by the major players in the
UNIX world from both the UI and OSF camps: Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Sun,
Unix System Laboratories, and the Santa Cruz Operation. As part of this
agreement, Sun and AT became OSF sponsor members, OSF submitted Motif
to the X/Open Consortium for certification and branding and Novell
passed control and licensing of the UNIX trademark to the X/Open
Consortium.

... snip ...

triva ... recent mention of joke about head of POK being major
contributor to DEC VMS ...
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017k.html#30 Converting programs to accommodate 
8-character userids and prefixes

one of the DEC executives at OSF meetings had previously worked in
the (Burlington Mall) vm370/cms development group.

Not all of AT was UNIX. In 1975, I had moved a lot of enhancments
from CP67 to VM370 ... some old email
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006v.html#email731212
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email750102
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email750430

one of my hobbies was providing & supporting enhanced operating systems
for internal datacenters.  However, some deal was cut with AT
Longlines to get a copy (this was version w/o multiprocessor
support). AT Longlines had all the source and over the years,
continued to move it to more current IBM mainframes.  Finally in the
80s, the IBM AT national account rep tracks me down about helping
longlines move to current version (with multiprocessor). This was in
3081 period which was announced as multiprocessor only and clone vendors
were coming out with faster single processors.

Eventually IBM did come out with 3083 (3081 with processor removed) ...
mostly for the ACP/TPF market (ACP/TPF didn't have multiprocessor
support, concern that the ACP/TPF customers would all move to non-IBM
clone processors).

IBM CSC, 545 tech sq posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech
SMP posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#smp

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

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