Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibmtcp-l
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:54:00 PST
From:         Leonard D Woren <LDW@USCMVSA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: IBM TCP/IP inadequacies ...

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
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU