On 05/13/2018 04:26 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote:
1. m$ started with QDOS, not CP/M
I wish I still had the documents -- but a long story quite short: I was told CP/M, and the very first copy of MS/DOS that I got, had the same commands and lack of sub-folders that CP/M I had been using had. Granted, I was not a power user of that system, I was experimenting with it. So I didn't have any reason to question what had been said back then.
I don't remember QDOS itself -- I have a hazy memory of the name.
2. CP/M was influence by RT-11
Thank you for this. I Couldn't remember the precise system, but I knew it was involved with a *nix type OS.
Regards, Steve Thompson
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Steve Thompson <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:48 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: CONTROVERSY! z/OS UNIX: is it an enhancement or a tool of the Devil? I've got an observation you and your boss probably won't like. Windows is based on CP/M (that is what Microsoft started with). Guess what CP/M was based on. Now, here we are 30+ years from M/S and Windows (~ 1983 for first release), and they have a lower RAS than does Linux which started after them (~1991). So, perhaps your boss should consider going to Linux Desktops and get away from the problems of Windows? As more and more people go to Linux Desktops, Adobe (and others) would have to change their position and go back to supporting their products for Linux distros. And then the *nix file structure being case sensitive would stop being a problem, because one would get use to it from working with it on a daily basis. My biggest problem with *nix (POSIX) on z/OS is the goofy way we have to define the files for it. Perhaps the MVS side of z/OS needs to learn to get along with FBA and we can stop emulating ECKD with FBA, that then emulate FBA to allow POSIX (Unix System Services and related file systems) to work on/with z/OS (what overhead). [FBA boxes seem to be cheaper than the ones that emulate ECKD devices -- well at least from where I sit.] Just my 2 cents. Regards, Steve Thompson On 05/11/2018 09:03 AM, John McKown wrote:OK, I bet I got your attention on that {grin}. But, seriously, I am wondering what the "person in the trenches" thinks about the increasing use of UNIX files and commands becoming more prevalent on z/OS. I am basically asking because my manager absolutely despises UNIX files. And hates the current maintenance processes from IBM and CA which force him to use it. One of his reasons is the case sensitivity of the UNIX file names. Of course, like most people in the world, his mind has been corrupted by the case insensitivity of Windows. As well as the very prevalent use of space characters in Windows file and directory names. This case sensitivity of names may be another reason why new people, likewise corrupted by Windows, will take an instant dislike for z/OS. OTOH, Linux might find it minimally interesting. And maybe even quite interesting, if IBM would adopt and maintain a port of the GNU infrastructure software. What I think, and I am likely stupid on this, is that the Apple HFS+ approach might work. Just like, at present, when you create a zFS filesystem, the default for filenames on an HFS+ filesystem are, like Windows, case _in_sensitive. However, when an HFS+ filesystem is initialized, it can be set as "case sensitive". This is done on a filesystem-by-filesystem basis. What might be nice is to enhance(?) zFS so that it can be made case _in_sensitive (reverse default of HFS+). This might be very helpful for "naive" z/OS UNIX users. Put the ${HOME} directory (usually /u) under automount and set the parameters so that when automount creates & initializes a ${HOME} directory, it is case-insensitive. And, of course, they should be a way to "flip the switch" back an forth between case sensitivity and case insensitivity. Of course, the "make insensitive" conversion will need to check & abort if there two names in the same directory which are equivalent when case is ignored. I would think this would be simple; check for possible problems and if none, just flip the switch in some sort of "header" data area. Regardless of case sensitivity or insensitivity, it should be case preserving, like Windows. I know the response from both IBM and CA is/will be basically "suck it up, maggot!" (to quote a not-so-favorite D.I.) Oh, well, it is Friday. And, for me, this is almost a reasonable thought.---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
