[Discussion] [Linux] Starting the move to MAC

[Bob Wonderly]

Carl

I'll interline my responses below:

Carl Gehr wrote:
> Bob, 
> 
> Thanks for the comments!  Great intro to have on this subject.
You're welcome.
> 
> My current leaning is toward Linux for the reasons you will see below. 
> I can also use existing hardware and a free Linux to keep the
> transition costs down.  [Ubuntu is what I've started playing with. At
> this point, I don't even know enough to be dangerous, though.]
> 
> I do have a couple of specific questions, based on my own personal
> usage, that you may or may not have had to deal with.  Because of my
> business:
> 
> *  I need to be able to access an IBM Mainframe [a.k.a., 
>    System z] via the TSO interface.  [If you are familiar
>    with this environment, then you also understand the
>    term/tool ISPF.]  I've been told that IBM's PCConnection
>    [PCom] has a Linux version.  I don't think there is a
>    MAC version.
> 
I worked as a consultant in this environment. I had C, COBOL and PL/I 
code developed and tested under OS/2 (using IBM's compilers) then run on 
the mainframe MVS/OS390/Z etc. I would log onto the client's mainframe 
from OS/2 and upload and download files and code etc. I had an ISPF 
version (SPF/PC?) running on OS/2 and confess that I miss some of its 
editing features.

I used OS/2's classic REXX and had a 7000+ line program that would use 
15 minutes of CPU time on the mainframe and run all night or more on 
OS/2. Now at a few points this code had to know which environment it was 
running on for reasons IIRC (that was a decade+ ago) that had to do with 
file systems (PDS vs. no PDS was I think one of the issues). [The REXX 
code was generating half a million lines of MVS JCL and utility control 
files said items destined to become PDS members.]

I installed and use Regina REXX on the Mac. Surely your REXX code has to 
be aware of its running environment?? Or do you use two different 
versions? I think Regina REXX is very much compatible with OS/2 REXX but 
can't guarantee 100% compatibility. It's not all that hard to install 
Regina. Why don't you put it on one of your boxes and experiment with 
it. Truthfully I have not investigated what other REXX's are available 
for the Mac.

As you know MVS REXX would/will get very intimate with MVS in terms of 
job control. OS/2 REXX can do some things along that line too.

> *  I must be able to run a COBOL and a PL/I compiler that
>    has compatibility with the IBM mainframe compilers.
>    I know I can get a COBOL compiler that meets this
>    requirement.  Worst case, I believe that I can install
>    the IBM PL/I for Windoze using WINE on Linux, but I've
>    not tried it yet.

PL/I on OS/2 would take BigEndian data from MVS and work with it 
natively. Of course it would also work with the pesky Intel LittleEndian 
data. I have never tried the PL/I on M$Win because I don't want to run 
the compiled code there (this code being for personal use).

> 
> *  I have a large number of REXX scripts that I use to build
>    parts of our product.  I'm sure file references will all
>    need to be modified, at least to some extent.  But, how
>    compatible is the rest of the REXX language on Linux?
>    Are there 'system functions' similar to what is available
>    in OS/2 to manipulate directories and file structures?

Linux/Unix directory structure is at the interface level pretty much 
like OS/2 but use "/" instead of "\". Doesn't OS/2 have an option for 
that? I think you would be hard pressed to find incompatibilities in the 
rest of the language. Do you have some REXX code I could test for you 
that doesn't require a hugely complicated environment?

I ran Regina REXX on Linux. So far have not found any compatibility 
issues other than trivial things needed to get the scripts invoked.

Take a look at the Regina doc PDF file: Cf.
<http://regina-rexx.sourceforge.net/doc/index.html>

> 
> *  We have four rather complex documents created and maintained
>    using WordPerfect V7.  [That was the last Win 3.1 compatible
>    level, so it works quite well under WinOS2.]  I know I can
>    at least read them into Open Office, but the formatting is
>    quite trashed.  I don't know what document processor(s) you
>    have used, or if you have any idea how WP works.  [I consider
>    WP to be the best and easiest to use word/document processor
>    around.  But, I'm the first to admit my experience with other
>    packages is limited. Giving up WP will be almost traumatic.]
>    No specific question, I guess; just looking for comments.
>    I've been told that WP will install under WINE reasonably
>    well.  [WP 2002 appears to be an exception, but others are
>    supposed to do OK.]

I do not did not use WordPerfect. Probably should have. But I don't do 
much word processing. Google is your friend: google "wordperfect mac". 
You will understand better than I do what you find there.
> 
> Sorry for the length of this.  But maybe it will get some discussion
> going.  [I hope the POSSI list owner(s) don't mind that we've just
> jumped into this.  If so, we can try to find an alternative host,
> because I think there is an audience for the topic(s).
> 
> Carl
> 
Band width is not as big an issue as it used to be and the List 
Administrator seems to not mind. My response was rather long too...

Bob

> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at lists.possi.org
> http://lists.possi.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>