home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
- Path: sparky!uunet!uvaarpa!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!USCMVSA.BITNET!LDW
- Message-ID: <IBMTCP-L%93012704531777@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU>
- Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibmtcp-l
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:54:00 PST
- Sender: IBM TCP/IP List <IBMTCP-L@PUCC.BITNET>
- From: Leonard D Woren <LDW@USCMVSA.BITNET>
- Subject: Re: IBM TCP/IP inadequacies ...
- Lines: 74
-
- On Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:09:34 CST,
- Rick Troth <TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> re-opened a can of worms:
- ( ">>" stuff is from Denis DeLaRoca before he went into hiding. ;-) )
- > ...
- > Now you know. Now you know from experience how we (VMers)
- > feel, how we've felt for the last twenty years.
-
- > > ... application in one split of my ISPF session and then start another
- > >tcp/ip app (whether it be from IBM or not) in a second split... I can't
- > >have that same tcp/ip app multitask and use tcp/ip services without the
- > >risk of losing access to IUCV from within my address space.
- >
- > Note that this doesn't happen in CMS. (well ... maybe it does,
- > but it doesn't have to; depends on how well the app was written)
-
- If I understand what you're saying, and if you're right, then the MVS
- implementation is more broken than we thought. On the other hand, can
- you run, say, FTP and TELNET at the same time in a single CMS V.M.?
-
- > Denis, what I think you want to ask for is a higher-level tool
- > for IBM Mainframe TCP/IP to be built on. Under the covers, this would
- > use IUCV on VM, but use (sorry I don't know what you've got) whatever
- > is native to MVS inter-process comm when running on MVS.
-
- Well, there really isn't one, so every product has to invent their own.
- This is one of the most glaring deficiencies in MVS.
-
- > It really smarts, doesn't it. Shout it; scream it.
- > On the VM side, we don't like it either, but we've been getting it
- > for, like I said, most of twenty years now.
-
- > And, you're gonna get sick of this, we've had to put up with
- > a badly engineered (and buggy) OS emulator platform for twenty years.
-
- Well, in heavily editing the quoted material, notice that I left in
- all three places where you said that. The fact that IBM has
- historically screwed CMS users by taking MVS things like compilers and
- stuffing them into VM with the bare minimum of changes does NOT make
- it reasonable to do the reverse with a product that originated on VM.
- You know -- "Two wrongs don't make a right."
-
- > (sorry, I just hope that IBM will get the word that emulation ain't
- > as good as virtualization and that hacking MVS onto CMS or hacking C
-
- Don't hold your breath... I'm not.
-
- > onto either is stupid (C compiler; another thread that doesn't belong
- > on IBMTCP-L, though IBM TCP/IP hurts from it))
-
- Something that I consider worse is having a critical product written
- in PASCAL. Yes, I know the history, but it's still not reasonable.
-
- > You mentioned good engineering and modern operating systems.
- > Do you mean modular design and "micro kernel" concepts like found in CP?
- > That would argue for continued, though certainly with some improvement,
- > use of the VM emulation you don't want. Unless you're telling me that
- > MVS is now a micro kernel and no longer a monolith. (no offense;
- > I really don't know; been away from MVS for too long)
-
- I'm not sure I know what micro kernel is, and this is the wrong list
- anyway, but if you want to guess at what MVS looks like now, figure
- that it doubled in size every few years in the time that you were
- away. Can you say "collapsing under its own weight"?
-
- > Which makes me ask, when will we get OSI?
-
- NEVER ASK A QUESTION THAT YOU DON'T REALLY WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO.
-
- > Stop BASIC before it stops you. -- Dijkstra
- > Stop UNIX before it stops you. -- Troth
-
- Cute. On the other hand, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
-
- /Leonard
-