Cobol - OT - Top-Posting (was: How to make IBM COBOL send in text in Telnet mode?

Author

OT - Top-Posting (was: How to make IBM COBOL send in text in Telnet mode?

William M. Klein

2005-05-04, 3:55 am

Please DO continue using TOP-POSTING.

- Many (not all - I don't know about most) of us in C.L.C. are used to it (and
some - like me - prefer it)
- Interspersing replies works if you have one or 2 levels of replies, but
after that it becomes difficult to read
- bottom-posting is quite annoying (to some of us with "thread" newsgroup
readers for length threads

P.S. I can deal with any of the 3 types, although I *usually* top-post.
However, It is one of *my* pet peeves when one person asks another to change
THEIR preferred posting style.

NOTE:
You don't have to read the following note (to which I am replying) to get a
pretty good idea of what I am replying to - and if you have a newsgroup thread
reader, you probably have already read it once. <G>

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Michael Wojcik" <mwojcik@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:d52q4h01mdf@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> In article <1114789034.177346.280990@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> dave@pixieware.com writes:
>
> Please don't top-post. Intersperse new text in your reply with concise
> quoted material relevant to it:
>
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
> -- David Bonde
>
> [I've also reformatted wrapped lines in the following quoted material.]
>
>
> AIX has a Telnet server, like every Unix implementation for the past
> 20 years or so. AIX itself does not "act as a Telnet server" -
> either something is a Telnet server or it isn't, and with AIX as with
> most OSes it's implemented separately from the kernel. I want to be
> precise here because with distributed applications it's vital to have
> an accurate understanding of how they work.
>
> In the case of AIX (at least with 4.2; I haven't bothered checking a
> more recent version), the telnet server is /usr/sbin/telnetd, and it's
> usually run under the auspices of inetd. This is typical for Unix
> systems.
>
> Running a COBOL program under a Telnet server is easy. Normally you'd
> just log in through Telnet and then execute it under your login shell.
> That's the whole point of Telnet, after all.
>
> If you want to cut out the middleman - the shell - then just do so.
> telnetd runs /usr/sbin/login, which requests a username and (optionally)
> a password and then runs whatever's listed as the initial program for
> that username in /etc/passwd. Normally that's a shell, but it could
> be your COBOL program. (Note that you need superuser permission to
> assign a program not listed in /etc/shells as the initial program for
> an account.)
>
> For example, you create an entry in /etc/passwd that looks like this:
>
> myapp::500:100:COBOL application:/home/myapp:/path/to/myapp
>
> (adjusting all of those fields as appropriate for your installation)
> and have your Telnet client log in as "myapp". (In this case, no
> password is required, because the second field above is empty.)
> login will run /path/to/myapp automatically, and its console I/O will
> be through the pty which is attached to the Telnet connection, just
> as if it were a shell.
>
> That would still require that your Telnet client - the IIS extension -
> pass a username to login when prompted for it. If it's not capable of
> doing that, I think you'll have to find another Telnet server (there
> are open-source ones available), as I don't believe AIX telnetd has an
> option to invoke anything other than /usr/sbin/login once Telnet nego-
> tiation has finished.
>
> The best references for implementing Telnet in Unix are W. Richard
> Stevens' classic _Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment_ and
> _UNIX Network Programming_, but you shouldn't need that level of detail.
> A book on Unix system administration should explain the relationships
> among telnetd, login, and the shell or other initial program in more
> detail if this is unclear.
>
>
> Unless you're writing your own Telnet server you don't need to.
>
> Now, things will be trickier on the AS/400, because OS/400 and
> applications written for it are designed to be used with block-mode
> 5250 terminals, and with the TN5250 Telnet variant which emulates
> them. OS/400 does have support for "classic" Telnet for terminal
> types that it recognizes such as VT100 (they have to provide adequate
> support for things like cursor positioning so that it can emulate
> full-screen mode by drawing each screenful of data). Since COBOL
> applications on OS/400 typically want to do block-mode screen-by-
> screen displays, it may be difficult to get streaming console I/O
> from a COBOL program. The various OS/400 C implementations have a
> special stream-I/O mode, to support the vast code base of C programs
> that expect to do console I/O that way, but I'm not sure it's
> available to COBOL programs.
>
> Out of curiousity I just tried a little COBOL program on OS/400 that
> did a couple of displays, and it displayed a screen with a "job
> started" line and the first line of output; I had to hit Enter to get
> the next line, and it looked like it was positioning the cursor for
> it. Not simply streaming console output, in other words.
>
> I'd suggest taking up the AS/400 issues on comp.sys.ibm.as400.misc.
> If there's a FAQ for that group, it may already be addressed there.
>
> Personally, a Telnet connection would not be my choice for this
> application anyway. Telnet is not designed for tunnelling applica-
> tion to application data. (The RFCs mention that possibility, and
> NVT is used for some connections that are typically app-to-app like
> FTP and SMTP, but it was a secondary consideration.) There's a
> reason why HTTP was invented: to transmit HTML and related data. It'd
> be much cleaner to just run your COBOL applications as CGI programs
> under an HTTP server.
>
> --
> Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com
>
> I will shoue the world one of the grate Wonders of the world in 15
> months if Now man mourders me in Dors or out Dors
> -- "Lord" Timothy Dexter, _A Pickle for the Knowing Ones_

William M. Klein

2005-05-04, 3:55 am

I usually do NOT trip - as those reading "individual" notes (via Google for
example) sometimes DO want to see the whole "sordid" history. I know that some
people used to have "band width" or "per month" character counts, but when you
DO top-post, I do not (personally) see the problem in leaving old text in.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1114974845.755761.5040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> replying)
>
> Exactly, so why did you leave the whole bloody thing in your reply
> message ?
>
> _and_ included all the bits to which you were not replying to at all.
>

Richard

2005-05-04, 3:55 am

> (via Google for example) sometimes DO want to see the whole "sordid"
history.

Often, and especially in Google, there will be a link to 'see this
message in context', and/or to the original message.

But why do you include several screenfulls of bits that are
_irrelevant_ to your reply, or to the new topic you have changed to ?
Don't you have a 'delete' key on your keyboard ? Is it just lazyness ?

> I do not (personally) see the problem in leaving old text in.

No. I know _you_ don't see the problem. When you post the message you
_know_ that there is nothing beyond your top-post reply, you _know_ it
is pointless to scroll down through the quote. You seem to expect
readers to just know that too so they needn't bother.

Of course top-posters and bottom-posters expect the readers to just
'know' which bits of the quote they are responding to and where to not
bother scrolling through, there is no need at all to link relevence.

Pete Dashwood

2005-05-04, 8:55 am

I agree with your position on posting styles, Bill.

For many of us top posting makes sense (especially if you are using Outlook
as your mailer).

Like you, I can deal with any of them without getting unwrapped.

It isn't so important as long as the message is clear.

Pete.

(TOP POST nothing more below)

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:ES7de.6111189$Zm5.926975@news.easynews.com...
> Please DO continue using TOP-POSTING.
>
> - Many (not all - I don't know about most) of us in C.L.C. are used to it
(and
> some - like me - prefer it)
> - Interspersing replies works if you have one or 2 levels of replies,
but
> after that it becomes difficult to read
> - bottom-posting is quite annoying (to some of us with "thread" newsgroup
> readers for length threads
>
> P.S. I can deal with any of the 3 types, although I *usually* top-post.
> However, It is one of *my* pet peeves when one person asks another to
change
> THEIR preferred posting style.
>
> NOTE:
> You don't have to read the following note (to which I am replying) to
get a
> pretty good idea of what I am replying to - and if you have a newsgroup
thread
> reader, you probably have already read it once. <G>
>
> --
> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
> "Michael Wojcik" <mwojcik@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:d52q4h01mdf@news4.newsguy.com...
>
>
>

Michael Wojcik

2005-05-06, 8:55 am

In article <ES7de.6111189$Zm5.926975@news.easynews.com>, "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> writes:
> Please DO continue using TOP-POSTING.

Please don't. (I can play the religious-war game just as well as
anyone else.)

> P.S. I can deal with any of the 3 types, although I *usually* top-post.
> However, It is one of *my* pet peeves when one person asks another to change
> THEIR preferred posting style.

Sure. And I find it annoying when people top-post replies to my
messages, and I'll continue to ask them not to do so. The world is
full of delightful variation.

If you don't want to read my admonitions against top-posting, don't
read my messages. Simple as that. I frequently skip over top-posted
messages - it's not worth my time to find out whether there's any-
thing new under the top-posted material, and if top-posters want to
waste my time and bandwidth I certainly don't feel any obligation to
read their messages. And that cuts both ways.

--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com

I do not care to listen; obloquy injures my self-esteem and I am
skeptical of praise. -- Jack Vance

Sponsored Links