Kirk The change of subject is to try to respect your perceived intentions with this thread.
Your - at first glance - rather ridiculous and inaccurate new thread I will deal with if I am saved. Meantime I'll get off what I have noted already. - I'm finally paying attention to this thread, apparently interesting for those more familiar with the territory. The reason is that I think I noticed some rather sneaky behaviour going on which will need to be exposed along with the imposter practising it! We'll see! Otherwise: - > FWIW, IBM publications now use the current terminology: "z/OS UNIX System Services (z/OS UNIX)". This is not a discussion of the commonly used yet disputed TLA. Please. What's that "now" supposed to mean? If the IBM products follow correct guidelines and the publications follow correct guidelines, the dread three letter initialism will always apply only to what you can do with certain VTAM macros. It's not as if other IBM products - whichever they were - used the dread three letters but were required to change them! - > ... who despise z/OS Unix, ... I think you'd better find some way of defining who these people are. Just because I rail against misuse of the dread three letters says nothing whatsoever about my feelings for z/OS UNIX. Once I'd got over the cultural shock, I got quite fond of AIX - even ran classes on the AIX NetView and SNA products and, out of the latter having defined myself as a rare resource, got a trip which included a walk on the Great Wall[1]. Although I've not really needed to transfer my AIX skills to the z/OS flavour, I appreciate that I'm some way there already if I ever need to work with z/OS UNIX - or zUNIX. - Note that when providing URLs for the purposes of accessing on-line manuals, it is sufficient to quote everything up to the "?". More is pointless and causes possibly confusing "wraps". We don't need to know *how* you got to that URL which is what I think all the garbage after the "?" indicates. In addition, if you are indicating only the Contents" page, you can drop the "CCONTENTS". - What the <expletive deleted> is the so-called "Penalty box". An exasperated guess might be the "Commands" window. If so, <expletive deleted> say so! If *I* don't know, supposedly part of the prevalent English-speaking culture inhabiting the list, I fear for all those other poor folk trying to keep up with this clique! - [1] From someone who can claim an affinity only with Hadrian's run-down equivalent! - Chris Mason On Tue, 3 May 2011 08:29:53 -0500, Kirk Wolf <[email protected]> wrote: >FWIW, IBM publications now use the current terminology: "z/OS UNIX >System Services (z/OS UNIX)". This is not a discussion of the >commonly used yet disputed TLA. Please. > >I've been thinking about this for some time, and what I would like to >discuss - and in some areas clear up my own technical assumptions - is >this: > >What is z/OS Unix, and what do people mean when they say "under USS" >(or the more proper: "under z/OS Unix") ? > >Of course, the phrase itself is not the problem. It is the common >misconceptions of "z/OS Unix" that I would like to discuss. I >realize that there are some here who despise z/OS Unix, and "Under >z/OS Unix" / "Under USS" is good enough granularity to describe all >the crap that they can't stand. If this is you, please go back to >discussing the TLA ;-) > >z/OS Unix is somewhat difficult to define, but here is an overview by IBM: >(See: http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi- bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/bpxzb2b0/1.0? SHELF=EZ2ZBK0K&DT=20100625104049 >) > >My own conception model (perhaps flawed) is that there are a bunch of >related things: > >1) POSIX / XPG4 APIs > XPLINK and non-XPLINK LE C libraries > >2) Lower level APIs (assembler or other HLLs) > http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi- bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/bpxzb1b0/CCONTENTS? SHELF=EZ2ZBK0K&DN=SA22-7803-13&DT=20100701130653 > These are used to implement (1). > Just about any program / job can call these or (1), and the first >time it does it gets "dubbed" (8) with a z/OS Unix PID and can use the >kernel (below) > >3) The "Kernel" Address space (BPXOINIT?) > Common services for (1), (2) > >4) The zFS filesystem (including its address space, APIs, storage >container, etc). > This is POSIX / UNIX compliant, and can be used by any "dubbed" job. > "HFS" was the previous version, which is still available but "stabilized". > APIs in (1) and (2) allow you to use these, but also >QSAM/BSAM/BPAM front-ends. > >5) z/OS Unix "command" binaries > Program binder objects that are stored in (or linked to by) a file >in the zFS or HFS filesystem (4). > Unix command binaries can be invoked by BPXBATCH/COZBATCH (see >10), or via fork()/spawn() APIs in (1) or (2), or more commonly by a >shell (see 6). > >6) The Unix "shell" program (/bin/sh, and example of (5) > Also part of the POSIX / XPG specs. Closest legacy z/OS analog >would be IKJEFT01 + CLISTS + REXX, but this is kind of a stretch :-) > There are other shells, like tcsh, bash, etc, that can be used. >IBM supplies /bin/sh and /bin/tcsh with z/OS Unix. > The shell can be run interactively, under TSO OMVS (see 10), via a >TTY-style telnet connection (see 9), or in batch via BPXBATCH/COZBATCH >(see 10). > >7) BPXAS initiator and its "forked" / (non locally) "spawned" address spaces. > Typically associated with the z/OS Unix shell (6) and Unix >"commands" (5), but not necessarily so. > Check out the fork() and spawn() services in (2) for some good information. > >8) A z/OS job that is "dubbed" (has issued a service (1) or (2) and >has a Unix PID. > This doesn't preclude it from accessing other resources, like >traditional z/OS Datasets, etc. > A regular batch job (EXEC PGM=) loaded from a regular PDS, pick >your favorite language, can be dubbed and use (1) and/or (2) and get >services from (3), use (4), (5), (7) > >9) A TCP/IP connection to z/OS to TTY-style telnet (non-3270) / rlogin >/ or sshd Unix login which runs the user's default login shell. (For >example, using PuTTY on Windows) > >10) TSO commands, ISPF dialogs, and batch utilities and other stuff >that can work with all of the above. > - For example, BPXBATCH is a program that allows you to run a Unix >command alone or under the shell under TSO or batch. IMO it has >stifling limitations, is difficult to use, and contributes to the >notion that "z/OS Unix" is difficult to use. Our free COZBATCH >utility is an improved alternative. > > - The "OMVS" TSO command is also contributory to the "Under z/OS >UNIX" problem - it allows you to run a shell under TSO, but it is not >integrated well with ISPF (IMO). > > - TSO/REXX has a ton of facilities for using z/OS UNIX. These >include a Host Command Environment for the shell, for many APIs in >(1), and the ability to put a REXX exec in the UNIX file system and to >treat it like a command (5) in a shell (6). There is also the >bpxwunix() function, which is a REXX wrapper for fork()/exec(). > >So, when people say "Under z/OS UNIX" ( or "Under USS"), which of >these do they mean? > > - Running a Unix shell (6) ? > - Under BPXBATCH / COZBATCH (10) ? > - Under the TSO OMVS command (10) ? > - Under (9) ? > - Using a zFS / HFS filesystem (4) ? > - "Dubbed" (has a Unix PID) (8) ? > >To me, "Under USS" is as almost nondescript as saying "Under TSO" to >refer to: TN3270+ISPF or IKJEFT01 in batch or a TSO/REXX exec. I >believe that some people have a conception model of z/OS Unix that is >similar to the old OS/2 Windows so called "Penalty Box". Again, I >believe that the TSO OMVS command and BPXBATCH have fostered this >incorrect notion. > >Kirk Wolf ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
