. The
small client/server startup had also invented this technology called
SSL which they wanted to use ... in any case, that work is now
frequently called electronic commerce.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009i.html#23 Why are z/OS people reluctant to use
z/OS UNIX? (Are settlements a good
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:43:38 -0400, Anne Lynn Wheeler
l...@garlic.com wrote:
--
40+yrs virtualization exerience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. (Or something
like that.)
Thank you for sharing - once again I learned
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Arthur Gutowskiaguto...@ford.com wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:43:38 -0400, Anne Lynn Wheeler
l...@garlic.com wrote:
--
40+yrs virtualization exerience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. (Or
Shane writes:
...Should have been zLinux from the start.
I completely disagree. z/OS UNIX System Services and Linux on System z are
very different, and both are extremely useful. It would be pretty much
impossible to have Java for z/OS, for example, without z/OS UNIX System
Services. (That's a
On Sat, 2009-06-06 at 16:26 +0900, Timothy Sipples wrote:
Most people don't use z/OS USS. That's not the right question. They use
the many things that use z/OS USS.
And when customers ask:
If z/OS USS is a strategic direction why are vendors like
(*especially*) Tivoli with TSM server
For my 2 cents worth, I totally agree with Barbara. We don't have any
use for Unix at our installation. The only real reason we have to keep
up with and maintain UNIX is for TCP/IP. We don't have any substantial
use for UNIX. Okay, ServerPac, but, I could just as easily use the
tapes.
By
I always enjoys Arts posts - well worth the read.
But on this one, I'll have to demur.
OMVS on initial launch was an unmitigated disaster. Plenty of us
(customers) tried it, way before IBM even thought of the New Workload
sales pitch.
It was a crock - pure and simple.
It's usable now, but the
I consider there are 2 reasons why the implementation of Unix into MVS has
been BAD.
1. EBCDICall UNIX files should have been ASCII from day 1. WebSphere
Application Services for z/O(S has got it correct now by having all files in
ASCII format.
2. The price of the IBM C
Shane wrote:
OMVS on initial launch was an unmitigated disaster. Plenty of us
(customers) tried it, way before IBM even thought of the New Workload
sales pitch.
It was a crock - pure and simple.
Show me piece of IBM mainframe software that wasn't a crock when it
first started. Remember the
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 4:04 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Why are z/OS people reluctant to use z/OS UNIX?
Considering the number of times
Generally agreed. But for any one off, be sure to not over optimize!
Beware of the mythical one off!
Rarely, is it only one.
And, I meant general production.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe /
McKown, John wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 4:04 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Why are z/OS people reluctant to use z/OS UNIX?
Considering the number of times
I agree for hand optimized code. Leave it to the compiler, it knows best.
Not always.
I've seen optimisation introduce bugs.
But, I don't think it's that common, any more.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 16:32:51 +1000, Shane ibm-m...@tpg.com.au wrote:
I always enjoys Arts posts - well worth the read.
But on this one, I'll have to demur.
OMVS on initial launch was an unmitigated disaster. Plenty of us
(customers) tried it, way before IBM even thought of the New Workload
sales
Still drifting around, but it's Friday, so...
On the ride in this morning, whilst realizing it was a bloody good thing I
washed my feet before I hit send yesterday, my comment about software
development hit me square in the forehead, and I see a couple of similar
comments in this morning's
reluctant to use
z/OS UNIX?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009i.html#21 Why are z/OS people reluctant to use
z/OS UNIX?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009i.html#23 Why are z/OS people reluctant to use
z/OS UNIX? (Are settlements a good argument for overnight batch COBOL ?)
previously mentioned, long
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 00:43 -0500, Barbara Nitz wrote:
c) Don't even get me started on Java applications running on z/OS.
In fairness, it should be noted that java is a pox in _all_
environments.
And now that Larry E has added it as another (no doubt) nice little
future revenue earner, things
Barbara Nitz wrote:
I am one of those who hate UNIX on z/OS. Here's why:
2. A pain with regard to system controls.
a) USS is expected to be exempt from all controls MVS has - look at iefusi and
the huge warnings surrounding it if you *DON'T* give a USS address space
what it wants! Same
I can understand the reason for those IEFUSI warnings. Java!
Well, the warnings for IEFUSI were there long before Java came along. And it
was only the precursor for things to come.
Also those of us who compile using the C/C++ compiler in USS need a lot of
memory because the compiler is a memory
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Barbara Nitz
I can understand the reason for those IEFUSI warnings. Java!
Well, the warnings for IEFUSI were there long before Java came along.
And it
was only the precursor for things to come.
Also those of us
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main as well.
nitz-...@gmx.net (Barbara Nitz) writes:
My point of contention is that most of the 'programmers' (That's why I called
that 'clicking') don't care that their code is poor. My neighbour
Barbara Nitz wrote:
Also those of us who compile using the C/C++ compiler in USS need a lot of
memory because the compiler is a memory hog when optimizing. It's no
different when compiling using batch.
Not to mention a cpu hog.
That's why we suggest doing those compiles with our C/C++
Barbara Nitz's masterful rant snipped
Barbara, you are my hero. You are a goddess. I want to be you when (if)
I grow up.
Well said, madam, well said.
Cheers,,,Steve
Steve Conway
Lead Systems Programmer
Information Systems Services Division
Computer Network Operations
Phone: (703)
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Barbara Nitz
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:43 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Why are z/OS people reluctant to use z/OS UNIX?
I am one of those who hate UNIX on z/OS
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas David Rivers
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:18 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Why are z/OS people reluctant to use z/OS UNIX?
Barbara Nitz wrote:
Also those
McKown, John wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas David Rivers
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:18 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Why are z/OS people reluctant to use z/OS UNIX?
Barbara Nitz wrote
and will
usually allow for major reuse of legacy COBOL code. XML can be used as a common
format to transfer data between platforms.
Cheers,
Brendan
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 08:27:43 -0400
From: l...@garlic.com
Subject: Re: Why are z/OS people reluctant to use z/OS UNIX?
To: IBM-MAIN
updates at night' model. (There are still
tons of apps that are using this model successfully because it
supports their business functions).
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009i.html#21 Why are z/OS people reluctant to use
z/OS UNIX?
in the 90s period, the overnight batch window
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Anne Lynn Wheeler
[ snip ]
somewhat as a result of the electronic commerce and x9.59 work, we
were
invited into NSCC (since merged with DTC for DTCC) to look at doing
something similar for all trading
Services
Washington State University
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Steven Conway
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:41 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Why are z/OS people reluctant to use z/OS UNIX?
Barbara
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:18:11 -0400, Thomas David Rivers
riv...@dignus.com wrote:
...
That's why we suggest doing those compiles with our C/C++ compiler
running in IBM compatibility mode on a local workstation... saves
a lot of memory CPU.. and, if you are being billed for those,
it can save a
Also those of us who compile using the C/C++ compiler in USS need a lot
of
memory because the compiler is a memory hog when optimizing. It's no
different when compiling using batch.
Not to mention a cpu hog.
It's true, our compiler can take up a lot of memory and cpu. We provide
several
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Kelly Arrey
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:07 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Why are z/OS people reluctant to use z/OS UNIX?
Also those of us who compile using the C/C++ compiler
Considering the number of times the application code will be executed in
production, the cpu time invested in optimizing it can be time well spent.
YES! 100%
As a capacity analyst since 1981, I've fought the battle of the compiler vs the
execution.
Run the compiler steps in a low priority
Apologies in advance, this is going all over the map... and, I don't intend to
offend anyone's sensibilities (I'm an avid mainframe guy, but I am tempered by
an effort to understand how things came to be). Hopefully this will spark more
thought and questions than religious railing.
DB2 was
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main as well.
st...@trainersfriend.com (Steve Comstock) writes:
That's the other windmill I'm tilting at these days:
the benefits of insourcing - using local people for
local work. Working to once
When I grew up in the mainframe world, UNIX was
considered to be the enemy. But I was working for
IBM, and UNIX products were competitors, so that's
kind of an expected perspective.
Today, z/OS provides a rich set of UNIX services,
including HFS/zFS files, a shell, a UNIX kernel,
and more, to
Of Steve Comstock
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:42 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Why are z/OS people reluctant to use z/OS UNIX?
When I grew up in the mainframe world, UNIX was considered to be the
enemy. But I was working for IBM, and UNIX products were competitors, so
that's kind
I asked this question to an IBM'er who does z/OS release level stress
testing this past weekend in at a family party in Orange County NY. He
works in the Poughkeepsie Labs and he admitted customer adoption of
Unix systems services is slow, although he said they use it
internally! Seems your point
On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 06:41 -0600, Steve Comstock wrote:
So what's the hangup about z/OS UNIX?
Maybe the fact that for so much of its existence it was such a POS ?.
The initial iterations were bloody abysmal - poorly conceived, poorly
implemented and bloody near useless.
This have improved
Michael Sullivan wrote:
I asked this question to an IBM'er who does z/OS release level stress
testing this past weekend in at a family party in Orange County NY. He
works in the Poughkeepsie Labs and he admitted customer adoption of
Unix systems services is slow, although he said they use it
06/03/2009 09:47 AM
Please respond to
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
To
IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
cc
Subject
Re: Why are z/OS people reluctant to use z/OS UNIX?
On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 06:41 -0600, Steve Comstock wrote:
So what's the hangup about z/OS UNIX?
Maybe
IMO, there are two sides to z/OS Unix adoption story:
1) I think that z/OS Unix literacy amongst z/OS sysprogs is actually
improving. Between 06 and 08 we taught a SHARE lab z/OS Tomcat in an
hour and there was a big improvement in the attendees' comfort with z/OS
Unix in that time.
2)
: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 7:42 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Why are z/OS people reluctant to use z/OS UNIX?
..snip
So what's the hangup about z/OS UNIX?
Kind regards,
-Steve Comstock
The Trainer's Friend, Inc.
303-393-8716
http://www.trainersfriend.com
z/OS Application development
There's always some people afraid of change. Nothing can be done to fix
that.
I've been happily using IBM's mainframe Unix (for a lack of a better term)
since OE first came out. Ignorant of so-called true Unix, I was eager
to learn all I could about IBM's offering. Good stuff that keeps
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 06:41:53 -0600, Steve Comstock st...@trainersfriend.com
wrote:
...They seem to regard UNIX on z/OS as an abomination.)
I'd like to understand this visceral reaction, with an
eye to seeing what can be done to moderate it down to at
least a level of skepticism (OK, what can this
I am one of those who hate UNIX on z/OS. Here's why:
1. A pain (as Shane had indicated) to install products. We're running WAS, and
my colleague is complaining all the time. I remember when WAS was called
Component Broken (ups, Broker), and those that introduced the 'concept' of it
came from
47 matches
Mail list logo
