[fpc-devel] Re: fpc-devel Digest, Vol 112, Issue 32

[Mark Morgan Lloyd]

Steve wrote:

>  > 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 to as:
> 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 :-)

Oh for crying out loud! First, when I've used epithets like "antique" 
I've specifically been referring to the versions of (loose terminology) 
OS, DOS and VM that are described as being in the public domain and are 
run (with or without the /380 hack) by a significant part of the 
Hercules crowd. These date back to around 1980: if they aren't antique 
(in computer terms) then what is?

As far as (4) goes, I remember that: I was specifically referring to the 
"mainframes" that IBM integrated onto MCA cards and sold with OS/2 
drivers. These might have had marginally acceptable performance in the 
late 80s (or whenever) but by today's standards and in particular when 
compared with Hercules (or IBM's equivalent) on a well-specified system 
I don't think that my description is uncharitable.

> 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.

I thought that MVS was basically OS, in which case I'd have thought that 
the significant date was around 1965. And I'd not knock it for that, 
since I'm older...

> Regards in a very friendly non-threatening way
> Steve

And I got through that without being rude about EBCDIC even once :-)

-- 
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]