Re: COBOL Transactions? - VMS

This is a discussion on Re: COBOL Transactions? - VMS ; In article , david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: > In article , bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >>In article , >> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: >>> In article , bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >>>> >>>> And don't say "you don't pay for it because it is ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 44 of 44

Thread: Re: COBOL Transactions?

  1. Re: COBOL Transactions?

    In article , david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
    > In article <5jgi9hF3td690U1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >>In article ,
    >> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
    >>> In article <5j8kvsF3sj2ffU2@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >>>>
    >>>> And don't say "you don't pay for it because it is
    >>>>bundled in" because you pay for everything that comes with the system
    >>>>wether it is listed on the invoice or not.
    >>>>
    >>> By that argument Unix should not come bundled with a TCPIP stack or Sendmail
    >>> etc etc

    >>
    >>I assume your refering to my comment "because you pay for everything that
    >>comes with the system". But that was in relation to VMS and not Unix.
    >>TCPIP has been a part of the kernel and not "bundled" at all in every
    >>unix other than very old SYSV systems (at least since networking became
    >>common). And Sendmail is not really a part of Unix and has been free
    >>since it was written. I usually do not even install it. Of course,
    >>depending on how you look at it, TCPIP and Sendmail cost at least as
    >>much as the OS for me. :-)
    >>

    > But you "pay for everything that comes with the system". VMS shows that you do
    > not necessarily have to bundle the TCPIP stack in the OS (or build it into the
    > kernel). Hence since it is not strictly necessary to include it and some few
    > users may not want to use it - by your logic Unix should not include a TCPIP
    > stack with the OS.
    > Your comment "But that was in relation to VMS and not Unix" seems to imply that
    > Unix has some special privilege in this regard so that you can criticise VMS
    > for including facilities but that similar criticisms of Unix regarding it's
    > facilities are out of bounds.



    Included as part of the Operating System

    Record Management TCP/IP Security

    VMS X - X

    MVS X ? -

    Unix - X X

    In the case of VMS TCP/IP and MVS Security there are multiple
    competing implementations, adhering to a common programming interface.

  2. Re: COBOL Transactions?

    In article ,
    Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote:

    > Included as part of the Operating System
    >
    > Record Management TCP/IP Security
    >
    > VMS X - X
    >
    > MVS X ? -
    >
    > Unix - X X
    >
    > In the case of VMS TCP/IP and MVS Security there are multiple
    > competing implementations, adhering to a common programming interface.


    My recollection of IBM's DOS/VSE pricing model (nearly 30 years ago) was
    that it was split into many components, each of which were itemized on
    the monthly software rental invoice (IIRC, IBM didn't sell software
    licenses for their mainframes, but offered them for rent instead).

    Our software item list was quite long, (BTAM, VTAM, POWER, VSAM etc.),
    before we even got as far as compilers or a database.

    From what I recall, POWER (print/batch spooler and the rough equivalent
    of the VMS Job Controller*) was invoiced as an item costing x per month.

    * your machine was allegedly a boat anchor without POWER, at least in
    our state of being IBM novices.

    --
    Paul Sture

    Sue's OpenVMS bookmarks:
    http://eisner.encompasserve.org/~stu...bookmarks.html

  3. Re: COBOL Transactions?

    On 09/02/07 07:09, P. Sture wrote:
    [snip]
    >
    > Our software item list was quite long, (BTAM, VTAM, POWER, VSAM etc.),
    > before we even got as far as compilers or a database.


    Wow, those are some acronyms I haven't thought about in a while.

    Did you program using VOLLIE?

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  4. Re: COBOL Transactions?

    In article ,
    Ron Johnson wrote:

    > On 09/02/07 07:09, P. Sture wrote:
    > [snip]
    > >
    > > Our software item list was quite long, (BTAM, VTAM, POWER, VSAM etc.),
    > > before we even got as far as compilers or a database.

    >
    > Wow, those are some acronyms I haven't thought about in a while.
    >
    > Did you program using VOLLIE?


    If I did, it was only in the context of one of the many IBM courses I
    did.

    I vaguely remember IPF or IPCF (both?) for system programming. They were
    menu driven but so slow you quickly learnt how to do the same manually.

    Because we adopted and adapted a comprehensive applications package from
    a sister company, we ended up with PL/I, the SHADOW TP system (a
    lean'n'mean competitor of CICS), and the TOTAL database.

    --
    Paul Sture

    Sue's OpenVMS bookmarks:
    http://eisner.encompasserve.org/~stu...bookmarks.html

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3