On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) < [email protected]> wrote:
> In <[email protected]>, on > 11/24/2013 > at 11:43 AM, "Ze'ev Atlas" <[email protected]> said: > > >I do not care so much about the actual implementation of the idea > >and its limitations. Surely, with two antiquated OSes like z/OS > >and Unix (form the nineteen sixties and seventies) there are > >limitations which both OS publishers dare or dare not (as it may > >be) correct. The issue is the concept, which, in my opinion, is > >better in the z/OS world. And the concept is that the computer should > >know where the file is, not the user. > > I don't see a conceptual difference between /foo/bar/baz and > DSN=FOO.BAR.BAZ. There is a conceptual difference in the working > directory, and that is that the TSO prefix is limited to 7 characters. > Dealing with a file in an unmounted file system in *ix is analogous to > dealing with an uncataloged data set, or one cataloged in an > unconnected user catalog. > I don't understand this. In general in UNIX, you cannot access any of the entities in an "unmounted file system" (other than some special utilities when running "root"). But, ignoring some SMS related stuff, you can "easily" access an uncataloged data set in z/OS. Closer to "accessing a file in an unmounted filesystem" would be accessing a data set on an off-line volume. Not an easy trick in z/OS. > > >And the concept is that the computer should know where the file is, > >not the user. > > That's the *ix philosophy more than the MVS philosophy. > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT > ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html> > -- This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough hunchbacks. Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
