Natural for zOS
in [Cobol]
|
From: Anonymous on 17 May 2010 12:06 In article <85ckpoF45fU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: [snip] >Your sacrcasm is unwarranted and my response was not intended to insult your >intelligence. By other sets of criteria, Mr Dashwood, what I brought forward was not sarcasm and a most sincere and heartfelt expression of gratitude... from the King of England, no less. > >You CHOSE to interpret "maybe" as supporting only the affirmation of your >statement: " It might be reasonably concluded that the above given answer >readily translates to 'I did not do this legally'." Mr Dashwood, most people I know whose familiarity with the English language includes the word 'might' would find that choosing it to support a single ('only the', notice the definite article) as a contradiction in terms. > >As I responded with "maybe" I did not wish to have my response construed as >either supporting your statement or disagreeing with it. > >I therefore pointed out it can mean either. And for doing such you earned an expresssion of heartfelt and sincere gratitutde from no less a personage as the King of England... which you then labelled as 'sarcasm'. Perhaps a request for Author's Intent might have alleviated some of the distress all this has caused. DD
From: Anonymous on 17 May 2010 12:11 In article <KHP9J0MI40315.7221875(a)reece.net.au>, Kulin Remailer <remailer(a)reece.net.au> wrote: [snip] >Everybody knows there is no legal way to run z/OS on anything but IBM >hardware. But there has been no enforcement. That there has been no enforcement in no wise diminishes the illegal status of the act. 'Nobody is chasing me!' is not the same as 'I am not guilty of a criminal action'. DD
From: Clark F Morris on 17 May 2010 14:53 On Mon, 17 May 2010 07:05:44 -0700 (PDT), Anthony Aquino <anthonyjefferson(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> much snipped > >*** > >And for all, regarding the long discussion my question generated... > >I'm a cobol programmer since 2003 (openvms vax, unix, z0S) and now I >got a chance to have zOS on my laptop, so I can study it in my home or >whatever place I want, its about comfort, I'm not selling systems or >whatever and I will not join your discussion on this, I was on a job >where I used Natural and now I would like to use Natural with cobol >again, for training "on-line programming", nothing more... > >Now you can continue your discussion and I expect you all are buying >your mp3s and not downloading them ilegally... >Thanks for your attention, everybody... >:) Your answer is exactly why there has been MUCH VIGOROUS discussion on bit.listserv.ibm-main. For those of us who are out of work or semi-retired, we would like a way to keep up with current practice. I suspect that my new Intel quad core computer with hyperthreading and a mere terabyte of disk would be rather nice to host an emulated environment which might be adequate for developing some software. Whether I am willing to invest the not insignificant amount of time to keep a z/OS environment current is another question. This is not a task for someone used to the ease of keeping Windows up to date. The security takes more effort. Unlike many of my fellow systems programmers, I have a great deal of respect for what Microsoft has done given the skill level of people on the installing and updating end. I shudder to think of the results of having a small business proprietor maintaining a z/OS system in addition to running the business. It is time consuming and requires that someone knows what they are doing.
From: Fritz Wuehler on 17 May 2010 22:31 > >Everybody knows there is no legal way to run z/OS on anything but IBM > >hardware. But there has been no enforcement. > > That there has been no enforcement in no wise diminishes the illegal > status of the act. That's debatable. The world has gotten to the point pretty much everything is illegal. I doubt even the best intentioned individual can make it through a few hours without breaking a law here and there. Violating the terms of a contract you haven't even signed or read is not a concern that's very high on most people's lists. Right or wrong, how likely you are to have to pay for doing something someone else has declared as illegal, wrong, immoral, whatever does factor in to the decision of most people whether to do it or not. > 'Nobody is chasing me!' is not the same as 'I am not guilty of a criminal > action'. See above. Anyway this is not the place for bored lawyers or policemen and if any are about, I say out, out, damn spot! I imagine answering the question from a technical aspect is most useful for the audience here and save the dirty looks and cries of outrage for the morality patrol.
From: Anonymous on 18 May 2010 09:18
In article <5c3c69f58750984d6f3770cfd69153e5(a)msgid.frell.theremailer.net>, Fritz Wuehler <fritz(a)spamexpire-201005.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: >> >Everybody knows there is no legal way to run z/OS on anything but IBM >> >hardware. But there has been no enforcement. >> >> That there has been no enforcement in no wise diminishes the illegal >> status of the act. > >That's debatable. The world has gotten to the point pretty much everything >is illegal. How very brave of you to publicaly violate the law in such a manner! What you posit is a world where there are only two kinds of actions, 'illegal' and 'illegal without enforcement'. DD |