Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, David Boyes wrote: I doubt that it would be possible to FIND a working System/7! :-) I'm pretty sure the Boston Computer Museum has one. Unknown if it's functional, but I think they at least have the shell. Scarily enough, I had a conversation with someone today who actually has virgin Multics boot tapes for the last production release. If I ever finish my Honeywell 660 emulator, those tapes have the entire Multics source on them Oi, what's necessary to grab that source? -- Cheers John. Join the Linux Support by Small Businesses list at http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb Copyright John Summerfield. Reproduction prohibited.
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
There was a numeric label in columns 1-6, I think the c was in column 7. -Original Message- From: Henry Schaffer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 2:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: An update to the little script I post the other day... Yeah, I don't know which came first, the coding form or the symbol table = design. And since everything had to fit into the first 72 columns of an = 80 column card, real estate was precious. For FORTRAN, wasn't the first column reserved to designate a Comment card? (I'm sure that the C had to go in col. 1, but I don't remember if anything else could go there.) --henry schaffer Confidentiality Warning: This e-mail contains information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, any dissemination, publication or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. The sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss, disruption or damage to your data or computer system that may occur while using data contained in, or transmitted with, this e-mail. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail. Thank you.
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
Just looked over it now. Very very nice, I think I'll make good use of it, thank you. It's funny, Unix people say (think it was Kernighan or Ritchie who said it first) that this is a spartan operating system, that commands, directory, variable names are supposed to be short and concise (thus the vowel shortage abundance :) ), but I discovered mainframe hackers' code (be it my MVS colleague's JCL or the shell code you submitted) is a lot more spartan when it comes to designating objects. Makes sense. You mainframe guys were already doing this way before I was even born, when assembly was high-level and every bit count. Guess you are the original hackers :) -- jmc On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:23:52 -0500 Lucius, Leland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here ya go. It is a tarball since it includes the required patch to the dialog package. Glad you asked for it...Enjoy! Leland -Original Message- From: Samy Rengasamy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: An update to the little script I post the other day... Can you post the updated script, Please. Thanks, Samy Rengasamy. -Original Message- From: Lucius, Leland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 5:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: An update to the little script I post the other day... If anyone is interested, I've updated that script I posted the other day that allows you to edit MVS PDSes from Linux. It now supports z/VM as well and provides improved handling of large directory lists. (The first one basically sucked for large lists.) Unfortunately, it requires a patch to the dialog package to get around command line length limitations. I won't be posting it unless there's interest. Leland
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
Just looked over it now. Very very nice, I think I'll make good use of it, thank you. Glad to hear it. It's always good to know something you did was useful to someone. It's funny, Unix people say (think it was Kernighan or Ritchie who said it first) that this is a spartan operating system, that commands, directory, variable names are supposed to be short and concise (thus the vowel shortage abundance :) ), but I discovered mainframe hackers' code (be it my MVS colleague's JCL or the shell code you submitted) is a lot more spartan when it comes to designating objects. Makes sense. You mainframe guys were already doing this way before I was even born, when assembly was high-level and every bit count. Guess you are the original hackers :) HAHAHAHA. There's not much you can do with 8 bytes. I haven't a clue why (there HAD to be a reason), but many names (member names, logons, ...) were limited to 8 bytes, so we were kind of forced to be creative. Actually, now that I think about it, didn't the Unices start out that way too? But, I did get a little carried away with that script... ;-) Leland
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
I vaguely recall where the length entry in early assembler symbol tables was only 3 bits, hence the 8 character limit on names. I'm not sure where the 3 bit limit came from, possibly older boxes like the 1401. Or because the first byte in the symbol table entry was the length and you didn't use the left most bit to prevent sign issues. I can't remembe which. -Original Message- From: Fargusson.Alan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 11:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: An update to the little script I post the other day... There was a 14 character limit on file names in the early versions of Unix. Actually this is filesystem dependent, so the limit exist today if you format a filesystem as SVFS (or something like that), which is actually almost exactly like the V7 filesystem. There was also a limit on how much of a variable name was significant in early C compilers. I don't remember how many characters though. You could have a variable name as long as you wanted, but only the first few characters were significant, which led to some interesting errors. -Original Message- From: Lucius, Leland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 6:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: An update to the little script I post the other day... Just looked over it now. Very very nice, I think I'll make good use of it, thank you. Glad to hear it. It's always good to know something you did was useful to someone. It's funny, Unix people say (think it was Kernighan or Ritchie who said it first) that this is a spartan operating system, that commands, directory, variable names are supposed to be short and concise (thus the vowel shortage abundance :) ), but I discovered mainframe hackers' code (be it my MVS colleague's JCL or the shell code you submitted) is a lot more spartan when it comes to designating objects. Makes sense. You mainframe guys were already doing this way before I was even born, when assembly was high-level and every bit count. Guess you are the original hackers :) HAHAHAHA. There's not much you can do with 8 bytes. I haven't a clue why (there HAD to be a reason), but many names (member names, logons, ...) were limited to 8 bytes, so we were kind of forced to be creative. Actually, now that I think about it, didn't the Unices start out that way too? But, I did get a little carried away with that script... ;-) Leland Confidentiality Warning: This e-mail contains information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, any dissemination, publication or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. The sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss, disruption or damage to your data or computer system that may occur while using data contained in, or transmitted with, this e-mail. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail. Thank you.
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
Yeah, I don't know which came first, the coding form or the symbol table design. And since everything had to fit into the first 72 columns of an 80 column card, real estate was precious. -Original Message- From: Fargusson.Alan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 11:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: An update to the little script I post the other day... Now that you mention it, I worked with an IBM assembler on a System3 that had a similar limit. This was due to the fact that the mnemonics were in a fixed position on the card, I think in position 10, which left 8 characters for the definition of symbols. I would bet that there was something similar on the System360 assembler. I think the System7 had a similar limit as well, for the same reason. I would guess that the 3 bit field was used because there was an 8 character limit, rather than the 3 bit field causing the 8 character limit. -Original Message- From: Ward, Garry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 8:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: An update to the little script I post the other day... I vaguely recall where the length entry in early assembler symbol tables was only 3 bits, hence the 8 character limit on names. I'm not sure where the 3 bit limit came from, possibly older boxes like the 1401. Or because the first byte in the symbol table entry was the length and you didn't use the left most bit to prevent sign issues. I can't remembe which. -Original Message- From: Fargusson.Alan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 11:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: An update to the little script I post the other day... There was a 14 character limit on file names in the early versions of Unix. Actually this is filesystem dependent, so the limit exist today if you format a filesystem as SVFS (or something like that), which is actually almost exactly like the V7 filesystem. There was also a limit on how much of a variable name was significant in early C compilers. I don't remember how many characters though. You could have a variable name as long as you wanted, but only the first few characters were significant, which led to some interesting errors. -Original Message- From: Lucius, Leland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 6:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: An update to the little script I post the other day... Just looked over it now. Very very nice, I think I'll make good use of it, thank you. Glad to hear it. It's always good to know something you did was useful to someone. It's funny, Unix people say (think it was Kernighan or Ritchie who said it first) that this is a spartan operating system, that commands, directory, variable names are supposed to be short and concise (thus the vowel shortage abundance :) ), but I discovered mainframe hackers' code (be it my MVS colleague's JCL or the shell code you submitted) is a lot more spartan when it comes to designating objects. Makes sense. You mainframe guys were already doing this way before I was even born, when assembly was high-level and every bit count. Guess you are the original hackers :) HAHAHAHA. There's not much you can do with 8 bytes. I haven't a clue why (there HAD to be a reason), but many names (member names, logons, ...) were limited to 8 bytes, so we were kind of forced to be creative. Actually, now that I think about it, didn't the Unices start out that way too? But, I did get a little carried away with that script... ;-) Leland Confidentiality Warning: This e-mail contains information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, any dissemination, publication or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. The sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss, disruption or damage to your data or computer system that may occur while using data contained in, or transmitted with, this e-mail. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail. Thank you.
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
This is the good kinda stuff. I like history lessons. Heck, I've never even seen a card reader/punch 'cept in old movies. Really interesting. Leland
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
- Original Message - From: Fargusson.Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 10:56 AM Subject: Re: An update to the little script I post the other day... Now that you mention it, I worked with an IBM assembler on a System3 that had a similar limit. This was due to the fact that the mnemonics were in a fixed position on the card, I think in position 10, which left 8 characters for the definition of symbols. I would bet that there was something similar on the System360 assembler. I think the System7 had a similar limit as well, for the same reason. System/7 !?!?!?! I haven't heard mention of that in decades. Is there a Linux port for it? I would guess that snip2eof -- jcf
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
Heck, I've never even seen a card reader/punch 'cept in old movies. Okay, ladies and gents. I'll hold him down and you can all jump on him... You young whipper-snappers don't know how good you got it. Why, when I was young, all we had was wood-burning computers! We had to go out in the snow every morning and chop kindling so we could boot up! Great Minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people. - Admiral Hyman Rickover Gordon Wolfe, Ph.D. (425)865-5940 VM Enterprise Servers, The Boeing Company -- From: Lucius, Leland Reply To: Linux on 390 Port Sent: Friday, August 1, 2003 10:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: An update to the little script I post the other day... This is the good kinda stuff. I like history lessons. Heck, I've never even seen a card reader/punch 'cept in old movies. Really interesting. Leland
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
Heck, I've never even seen a card reader/punch 'cept in old movies. Okay, ladies and gents. I'll hold him down and you can all jump on him... :-D (hehehehehe)
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
I doubt that it would be possible to port Linux. I don't think GCC works on 16-bit systems. -Original Message- From: John Ford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 10:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: An update to the little script I post the other day... - Original Message - From: Fargusson.Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 10:56 AM Subject: Re: An update to the little script I post the other day... Now that you mention it, I worked with an IBM assembler on a System3 that had a similar limit. This was due to the fact that the mnemonics were in a fixed position on the card, I think in position 10, which left 8 characters for the definition of symbols. I would bet that there was something similar on the System360 assembler. I think the System7 had a similar limit as well, for the same reason. System/7 !?!?!?! I haven't heard mention of that in decades. Is there a Linux port for it? I would guess that snip2eof -- jcf
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
Air traffic control? -Original Message- From: John Ford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 1:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: An update to the little script I post the other day... I doubt that it would be possible to FIND a working System/7! :-) - Original Message - From: Fargusson.Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 12:26 PM Subject: Re: An update to the little script I post the other day... I doubt that it would be possible to port Linux. I don't think GCC works on 16-bit systems. -Original Message- From: John Ford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 10:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: An update to the little script I post the other day... - Original Message - From: Fargusson.Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 10:56 AM Subject: Re: An update to the little script I post the other day... Now that you mention it, I worked with an IBM assembler on a System3 that had a similar limit. This was due to the fact that the mnemonics were in a fixed position on the card, I think in position 10, which left 8 characters for the definition of symbols. I would bet that there was something similar on the System360 assembler. I think the System7 had a similar limit as well, for the same reason. System/7 !?!?!?! I haven't heard mention of that in decades. Is there a Linux port for it? I would guess that snip2eof -- jcf Confidentiality Warning: This e-mail contains information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, any dissemination, publication or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. The sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss, disruption or damage to your data or computer system that may occur while using data contained in, or transmitted with, this e-mail. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail. Thank you.
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
Now THAT was funny! Sorry Gordon, I'm laughing too hard to jump on Leland. On Friday 01 August 2003 13:39, you wrote: Air traffic control? -Original Message- From: John Ford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 1:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: An update to the little script I post the other day... I doubt that it would be possible to FIND a working System/7! :-)
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
Don't forget uphill both ways... and in the snow... On Friday 01 August 2003 12:39 pm, you wrote: You young whipper-snappers don't know how good you got it. Why, when I was young, all we had was wood-burning computers! We had to go out in the snow every morning and chop kindling so we could boot up! Some tell me they even had to walk 20 miles to get the wood. Man that must've sucked with no shoes and all! Leland -- Rich Smrcina Sr. Systems Engineer Sytek Services, A Division of DSG Milwaukee, WI rsmrcina at wi.rr.com rsmrcina at dsgroup.com Catch the WAVV! Stay for Requirements and the Free for All! Update your S/390 skills in 4 days for a very reasonable price. WAVV 2004 in Chattanooga, TN April 30-May 4, 2004 For details see http://www.wavv.org
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
Don't forget uphill both ways... and in the snow... This is starting to sound like our Linux project here. ;-) Leland
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
And it was UPHILL in both directions and 3 feet of snow all year round. /Thomas Kern /301-903-2211 -Original Message- From: Lucius, Leland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 13:40 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: An update to the little script I post the other day... You young whipper-snappers don't know how good you got it. Why, when I was young, all we had was wood-burning computers! We had to go out in the snow every morning and chop kindling so we could boot up! Some tell me they even had to walk 20 miles to get the wood. Man that must've sucked with no shoes and all! Leland
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
Yeah, I don't know which came first, the coding form or the symbol table = design. And since everything had to fit into the first 72 columns of an = 80 column card, real estate was precious. For FORTRAN, wasn't the first column reserved to designate a Comment card? (I'm sure that the C had to go in col. 1, but I don't remember if anything else could go there.) --henry schaffer
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
HAHAHAHA. There's not much you can do with 8 bytes. You meant 8 BITS, didn't you? Sure, there was a lot of stuff we had to stuff into 8 bits! Additional bytes were a luxury... ;-) = Jim Sibley Implementor of Linux on zSeries in the beautiful Silicon Valley Computer are useless.They can only give answers. Pablo Picasso __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
I doubt that it would be possible to port Linux. I don't think GCC works on 16-bit systems. Someone said that once. And due to an unfortunate incident involving alcohol, engineers and the phrase it can't be .. it was. Linux8086 doesn't use gcc and can be found at elks.sourceforge.net
OT: History (was An update to the little script I post the other day...)
FORTRAN... depending on how old you are, meaning which version you used... mine was a number of versions of ForTran IV... comments began with a C in column 1 continued lines had a character in column 6 (aside: it is widely believed that you needed 1,2,3 etc. for the appropriately numbered line but this wasn't the case on the ICL 1903 version that I used circa 1978) label numbers were allowed in cols 1-5, all numeric (aside: it is widely believed that you had to put labels in cols 2-5 but this wasn't the case on the ICL 1903 version that I used circa 1978) characters per word depended on the word length - 4 on the ICL machine, 5 or was it 6 on the hmmm... I think it was a Honeywell although it may have been an early DEC. I could go on (implicit integers for vars beginning I-N, computed GOTOs (my favourite)) but we're getting off topic. Mind you, since we are, it's amazing to see in the musings on this list just how much was being thought about in real world labs that we were actually working on as mere examples on my degree course. Shame that nothing seems to have come about from them in the last 20+ years and that we're still reduced to running timer loops on certain systems due to the architecture... Ah well, regrets over... we now return you to your regularly scheduled You had 1s? We were doing this with only 0s! BYTE8406(1) reminiscences. Rod (1) http://www.212.net/business/jargonb.htm
Re: History (was An update to the little script I post the other day...)
Ah well, regrets over... we now return you to your regularly scheduled You had 1s? We were doing this with only 0s! BYTE8406(1) reminiscences. Got tears on this closure HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
Hello from Gregg C Levine I'll say. It's royal pain in the backside to build, and it boots funny. But it works, reluctantly. And Alan? I thought it was constructed because someone insisted that it can't be done. --- Gregg C Levine [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Force will be with you...Always. Obi-Wan Kenobi Use the Force, Luke. Obi-Wan Kenobi (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi ) (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda ) -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Cox Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 3:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] An update to the little script I post the other day... I doubt that it would be possible to port Linux. I don't think GCC works on 16-bit systems. Someone said that once. And due to an unfortunate incident involving alcohol, engineers and the phrase it can't be .. it was. Linux8086 doesn't use gcc and can be found at elks.sourceforge.net
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
Hello from Gregg C Levine For which architecture? I'll bet donuts, that you've not looked at the SIMH emulator. It emulates the architecture that UNIX was created on perfectly. Perfectly strangely that is. --- Gregg C Levine [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Force will be with you...Always. Obi-Wan Kenobi Use the Force, Luke. Obi-Wan Kenobi (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi ) (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda ) -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Ford Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 1:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] An update to the little script I post the other day... I doubt that it would be possible to FIND a working System/7! :-) - Original Message - From: Fargusson.Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 12:26 PM Subject: Re: An update to the little script I post the other day... I doubt that it would be possible to port Linux. I don't think GCC works on 16-bit systems. -Original Message- From: John Ford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 10:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: An update to the little script I post the other day... - Original Message - From: Fargusson.Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 10:56 AM Subject: Re: An update to the little script I post the other day... Now that you mention it, I worked with an IBM assembler on a System3 that had a similar limit. This was due to the fact that the mnemonics were in a fixed position on the card, I think in position 10, which left 8 characters for the definition of symbols. I would bet that there was something similar on the System360 assembler. I think the System7 had a similar limit as well, for the same reason. System/7 !?!?!?! I haven't heard mention of that in decades. Is there a Linux port for it? I would guess that snip2eof -- jcf
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
System/7 !?!?!?! I haven't heard mention of that in decades. Is there a Linux port for it? I would guess that snip2eof No, but there was a internal MS version of Xenix that ran on the Series/1. Almost as antique and weird as the System/7...8-) -- db
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
I doubt that it would be possible to FIND a working System/7! :-) I'm pretty sure the Boston Computer Museum has one. Unknown if it's functional, but I think they at least have the shell. Scarily enough, I had a conversation with someone today who actually has virgin Multics boot tapes for the last production release. If I ever finish my Honeywell 660 emulator, those tapes have the entire Multics source on them -- db
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
Hello from Gregg C Levine David, did you catch the reference I made to the SIMH emulator?!?!? They are working with stuff like that. I think he's interested in that family of machines. --- Gregg C Levine [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Force will be with you...Always. Obi-Wan Kenobi Use the Force, Luke. Obi-Wan Kenobi (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi ) (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda ) -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Boyes Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 10:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] An update to the little script I post the other day... I doubt that it would be possible to FIND a working System/7! :-) I'm pretty sure the Boston Computer Museum has one. Unknown if it's functional, but I think they at least have the shell. Scarily enough, I had a conversation with someone today who actually has virgin Multics boot tapes for the last production release. If I ever finish my Honeywell 660 emulator, those tapes have the entire Multics source on them -- db
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
David, did you catch the reference I made to the SIMH emulator?!?!? They are working with stuff like that. I think he's interested in that family of machines. SIMH emulates a PDP-7 (among other things). The IBM System/7 is a different animal. (and yes, SIMH will load my paper tape of Spacewar).
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
Can you post the updated script, Please. Thanks, Samy Rengasamy. -Original Message- From: Lucius, Leland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 5:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: An update to the little script I post the other day... If anyone is interested, I've updated that script I posted the other day that allows you to edit MVS PDSes from Linux. It now supports z/VM as well and provides improved handling of large directory lists. (The first one basically sucked for large lists.) Unfortunately, it requires a patch to the dialog package to get around command line length limitations. I won't be posting it unless there's interest. Leland
Re: An update to the little script I post the other day...
Here ya go. It is a tarball since it includes the required patch to the dialog package. Glad you asked for it...Enjoy! Leland -Original Message- From: Samy Rengasamy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: An update to the little script I post the other day... Can you post the updated script, Please. Thanks, Samy Rengasamy. -Original Message- From: Lucius, Leland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 5:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: An update to the little script I post the other day... If anyone is interested, I've updated that script I posted the other day that allows you to edit MVS PDSes from Linux. It now supports z/VM as well and provides improved handling of large directory lists. (The first one basically sucked for large lists.) Unfortunately, it requires a patch to the dialog package to get around command line length limitations. I won't be posting it unless there's interest. Leland em-0.2.tar.gz Description: Binary data
An update to the little script I post the other day...
If anyone is interested, I've updated that script I posted the other day that allows you to edit MVS PDSes from Linux. It now supports z/VM as well and provides improved handling of large directory lists. (The first one basically sucked for large lists.) Unfortunately, it requires a patch to the dialog package to get around command line length limitations. I won't be posting it unless there's interest. Leland
