Home > Archive > Cobol > February 2008 > Re: compile+link Fujitsu Linux (by charles.goodman@bell.ca)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: compile+link Fujitsu Linux (by charles.goodman@bell.ca)
|
|
| Robert 2008-02-10, 3:55 am |
| On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 20:02:50 -0600, "SeaSideSam" <SeaSideSam@TheBeach> wrote:
>i am not a fan of linux, and i cuss microsucks with every keystroke. my past relationship with big blue was mixed (they created all the dirty tricks that microsucks is now using),
>but they did make one decent operating system: vm. i just wish they had ported it to run on pcs.
You sound like you're 17 years old.
Check out VMWare, which is free and does run on PCs.
| |
| William M. Klein 2008-02-11, 3:55 am |
| Speaking totally from ignorance,
Does "VMWare" have anything to do with IBM's VM operating system? Other than
the letters in the name, I didn't think so (and a quick online search didn't
seem to show any relationship).
***
FYI,
IBM actually did port "VM" to PC's - and sold it (and a COBOL for it) for
several years. To give you an idea of when this happened, it ran on "PC AT/370"
and "PC XT/370" machines. (Some references are still available online).
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
news:ms6tq3p2jejspmek6t639dqsmjfce17dnp@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 20:02:50 -0600, "SeaSideSam" <SeaSideSam@TheBeach> wrote:
>
>
> You sound like you're 17 years old.
>
> Check out VMWare, which is free and does run on PCs.
| |
| Richard 2008-02-11, 3:55 am |
| On Feb 11, 5:56 pm, "William M. Klein" <wmkl...@nospam.netcom.com>
wrote:
> Speaking totally from ignorance,
> Does "VMWare" have anything to do with IBM's VM operating system? Other than
> the letters in the name, I didn't think so (and a quick online search didn't
> seem to show any relationship).
>
> ***
>
> FYI,
> IBM actually did port "VM" to PC's - and sold it (and a COBOL for it) for
> several years. To give you an idea of when this happened, it ran on "PC AT/370"
> and "PC XT/370" machines. (Some references are still available online).
The Byte Guide to the IBM PC of 'Fall 1984' contained details of the
IBM XT/370.
It had an additional 3 plug in cards. The first, the processor card,
had 2 68000 and an 8087 to run the System/370 instruction set. The 2nd
card has 512Kb RAM, the 3rd is a 3277 emulator with a coax connector
to a mainframe. It runs VM/PC, a 'skinny' version of CM/CMS. It will
also run some actual 370 programs at 0.2 MIPS (approx 4331-1 speed).
| |
| Robert 2008-02-11, 3:55 am |
| On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:56:02 GMT, "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>Speaking totally from ignorance,
> Does "VMWare" have anything to do with IBM's VM operating system? Other than
>the letters in the name, I didn't think so (and a quick online search didn't
>seem to show any relationship).
There is no connection between IBM's VM and VMWare, except both create vitrual machines.
There are quite a few other virtualization products, as shown in this comparison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...irtual_machines
>FYI,
> IBM actually did port "VM" to PC's - and sold it (and a COBOL for it) for
>several years. To give you an idea of when this happened, it ran on "PC AT/370"
>and "PC XT/370" machines. (Some references are still available online).
Hosting Windows is more difficult than hosting MS-DOS.
| |
| William M. Klein 2008-02-11, 7:58 am |
| OK,
Now you have me totally  . It was you , Robert, (in a previous note)
who said
"Check out VMWare, which is free and does run on PCs."
to someone who said
"my past relationship with big blue was mixed ..., but they did make one
decent operating system: vm"
so was your note just an unrelated comment?
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
news:r2svq35u5vh8pu2591oc0qghepg0d39jat@
4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:56:02 GMT, "William M. Klein"
> <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
> There is no connection between IBM's VM and VMWare, except both create vitrual
> machines.
> There are quite a few other virtualization products, as shown in this
> comparison:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...irtual_machines
>
>
> Hosting Windows is more difficult than hosting MS-DOS.
| |
| Robert 2008-02-11, 9:55 pm |
| On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:51:14 GMT, "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>OK,
> Now you have me totally . It was you , Robert, (in a previous note)
>who said
> "Check out VMWare, which is free and does run on PCs."
>
>to someone who said
> "my past relationship with big blue was mixed ..., but they did make one
>decent operating system: vm"
>
>so was your note just an unrelated comment?
z/VM and VMWare both create virtual machines. Neither is an operating system in the usual
sense, because they run operating systems rather than application programs.
z/VM runs on IBM mainframes, where it hosts IBM branded operating systems. VMWare runs on
Intel, Apple and most servers, where it hosts Windows and most Unixes.
VMWare is actually several products. The free one runs on top of Windows; the paid ones
run on bare metal, use hardware assists (Intel changed its instruction set for VMWare),
and have low overhead. They 'cross compile' machine language in the OS they're hosting.
z/VM doesn't do that.
>--
>Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
>"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
> news:r2svq35u5vh8pu2591oc0qghepg0d39jat@
4ax.com...
>
| |
| William M. Klein 2008-02-12, 3:55 am |
| z/VM can (and does) quite happily run "native"? is the same true for VMware.
Even if this weren't true for VM on IBM mainframes, I still don't understand how
your original post was responsive to the actual text that it was responding to.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
news:ogt1r398ij6v1uuop5pq1rf4jqi5q4jj9e@
4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:51:14 GMT, "William M. Klein"
> <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
> z/VM and VMWare both create virtual machines. Neither is an operating system
> in the usual
> sense, because they run operating systems rather than application programs.
>
> z/VM runs on IBM mainframes, where it hosts IBM branded operating systems.
> VMWare runs on
> Intel, Apple and most servers, where it hosts Windows and most Unixes.
>
> VMWare is actually several products. The free one runs on top of Windows; the
> paid ones
> run on bare metal, use hardware assists (Intel changed its instruction set for
> VMWare),
> and have low overhead. They 'cross compile' machine language in the OS they're
> hosting.
> z/VM doesn't do that.
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Robert 2008-02-12, 6:55 pm |
| On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 05:40:03 GMT, "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>z/VM can (and does) quite happily run "native"? is the same true for VMware.
I said VMWare runs on bare metal. If that's not what you mean by "native", please
clariify.
>Even if this weren't true for VM on IBM mainframes, I still don't understand how
>your original post was responsive to the actual text that it was responding to.
I was responding to, "vm. i just wish they had ported it to run on pcs."
VMWare runs on PCs.
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
>"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
> news:ogt1r398ij6v1uuop5pq1rf4jqi5q4jj9e@
4ax.com...
>
| |
| Richard 2008-02-12, 6:55 pm |
| On Feb 13, 3:03 am, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 05:40:03 GMT, "William M. Klein" <wmkl...@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
> I said VMWare runs on bare metal. If that's not what you mean by "native", please
> clariify.
>
>
> I was responding to, "vm. i just wish they had ported it to run on pcs."
>
> VMWare runs on PCs.
VMWare is not IBM's VM ported to PCs.
IBM's VM runs CMS, VMWare does not.
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-12, 6:55 pm |
| On 10 Feb, 06:40, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 20:02:50 -0600, "SeaSideSam" <SeaSideSam@TheBeach> wrot=
e:
y past relationship with big blue was mixed (they created all the dirty tric=
ks that microsucks is now using),[color=darkred]
had ported it to run on pcs.[color=darkred]
>
> You sound like you're 17 years old.
>
> Check out VMWare, which is free and does run on PCs.
You can run VM on a pc. Look for the HERCULES project on Google and
follow the links where people detail how they have loaded VM, MVS,
Cobol, etc., on to their pcs.
| |
| Robert 2008-02-13, 3:55 am |
| On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:07:05 -0800 (PST), Richard <riplin@azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>On Feb 13, 3:03 am, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>
>
>VMWare is not IBM's VM ported to PCs.
>
>IBM's VM runs CMS, VMWare does not.
He didn't say he wished they had ported CMS to PCs.
If they had, VMWare could run it.
| |
| William M. Klein 2008-02-13, 6:55 pm |
| Robert,
It is times like this that it would be RALLY nice if you just admitted that
your original post was totally irrelevant to the comment to which you were
replying, rather than continually trying to justify what could have been
accepted as an "honest mistake".
Other than the letters "VM" and the fact that they each may "host" other things,
there really is nothing similar between these topics and if one is replying to a
specific comment about IBM's operating system of "VM", any mention of VMWare in
the reply may be nice to do but is simply not relevant.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
news:n135r3diiacuigd8vfrj4jbk4uhhk2jbku@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:07:05 -0800 (PST), Richard <riplin@azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> He didn't say he wished they had ported CMS to PCs.
>
> If they had, VMWare could run it.
|
|
|
|
|