[fpc-devel] Re: fpc-devel Digest, Vol 112, Issue 32
stevie at collector.org
Sat Aug 24 20:35:04 CEST 2013
On 23/08/13 21:12, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> Quite frankly, from what I've seen most Windows users would find Linux
> simpler than one of the *freely* *available* IBM OSes (i.e. MVS, VM/360
> "sixpack" and so on).
Yes, but the difference isn't that wide. You keep saying that Linux is the
answer and I keep agreeing with you. It's not the issue.
The thought of VM having a "six-pack" has my mind wandering into some very
unpleasant areas :-) (JOKE ALERT)
>> The alternative, is to leave them to C, a fate I wouldn't wish on anyone.
>> We can agree on that at least, although I must say that C has improved a
>> lot since K&R days.
I'm afraid I can't agree on that one.
>> I can't speak for all the clone assemblers, some of them, I know are
>> freely available with no restrictions or licenses involved. All of IBM's
>> assemblers are 'licensed' programs with no restrictions AT ALL on the
>> works developed by them. The Assemblers I am suggesting for older OSes
>> have freely available, no charge, no contract licenses. Download and go!
> OK, that's fair comment. But can you suggest a free (as in both beer and
> speech) assembler that is available for the various platforms that FPC
> developers use (Linux on x86, x86-64, PPC, SPARC, ARM; BSD; Windows)?
Tachyon produce a free HLA compatible assembler. z390 is a sort of emulator
that runs on Windows and Linux, it's written in Java (!), IBM produce one
that may be, but probably isn't, free. There may be others too.
>> It seems to me that the people who are volunteering to do the work run
>> these non-viable environments. I wonder what they think? And, if you keep
>> implying that z/OS is antique and non-viable, IBM's lawyers may be on
>> your rear-end because it is neither.
> I prefer to keep things friendly, but if you are going to issue vicarious
> threats of legal action then I'd much prefer it if you didn't try to put
> words into my mouth or distort my meaning. I very clearly referred to
> "freely-available versions of MVS, VM/CMS and so on", I really don't see
> how you manage to mangle that into a derogatory statement about z/OS or
> any current product.
Whoa there, calm down. I threatened no-one. I apologise if that's how it
came across.. I have no links with, or knowledge of, the thoughts and
practices of the IBM legal department. However they be perceived. It was a
way of observing, humorously I thought, that IBM wouldn't be happy to see
their flagship OS or it's hardware, used, still, by huge mega-corporations
throughout the known universe to run economy critical applications referred
1) "antique" (Tue Aug 20 16:54:44 CEST 2013)
2) a dinosaur (Tue Feb 7 09:12:53 CET 2012)
3) broken (Fri Jan 20 11:00:38 CET 2012)
4) contemporaneous "micro mainframes" are woefully underpowered (same date)
OK no 2 wasn't by you, but the others were. And they are not isolated cases.
Don't misinterpret me again, I am not saying you cannot have these views or
that they are necessarily invalid, I just reserve the right to point out
that I consider them invalid :-)
By the way referring to 1). MVS was first released in 1974, what year do
you think Unix was first licensed to someone outside Bell Labs? No cheating
now, don't go slipping off to WikiPedia (like I did). Yes... Pound of
bananas to the man in the back, 1974. And yes, I am aware of the fact that
Linux is very different from Unix from 1974. Just as z/OS is very different
from MVS from 1974.
Regards in a very friendly non-threatening way
More information about the fpc-devel