 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> >> Really? Wow. I thought people stopped making and using mainframes
> >> about 20 years ago...
> >
> > Actually, they're suing open source mainframe emulator authors lately.
>
> OK, wow. I had no idea that such things even existed. o_O
Hercules is an open source product that emulates the IBM mainframe instruction
set. You can find it here:
http://www.hercules-390.org/
It will run all of IBM's operating systems from the original DOS and OS/360 to
the
current z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE and zLinux. As I understand it all the OS's up to
MVS 3.8 are in public domain and you can run them without a license.
Everything since requires a license to use. As long as Hercules remained a
essentially a hobbyist program IBM didn't pay much attention to it.
TurboHercules, a commercial firm, started promoting Herules as a way
for companys to offload some work from their mainframe.
http://www.turbohercules.com/
Since this could impact IBM revenues, they are using patent infringement
arguments to stop the use of the Hercules software in a commercial environment.
Isaac
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:27:18 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, the europeans are slapping IBM around with anti-trust suits
>>> for not letting IBM zOS run on anything but the mainframes it was
>>> written for.
>>
>> Wuh? How does *that* work?! o_O
>>
>>
> GIYF.
Is this the thing with the mainframe emulator? Or something else?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>>>> if I was to release some library it would be a matter of seconds to
>>>> generate the documentation file.
>>>
>>> And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we have textbooks about
>>> libraries.
>>
>> That and the fact that, like I said, sometimes you need an overview to
>> describe how the pieces fit together before you can properly
>> understand the nitty gritty of individual function descriptions and so
>> on.
>
> That's exactly what I was referring to. :-)
Oh, right. I thought you meant the ease with which somebody can drop an
1-line comment into a source file, autogenerate some documentation and
claim that the library is now "documented".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Oh, right. I thought you meant the ease with which somebody can drop an
> 1-line comment into a source file, autogenerate some documentation and
> claim that the library is now "documented".
In most cases, you can take out the "one line comment" and have a more
accurate statement.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
