Well if you guys use Linux you can always download open source "gnucobol" to experiment with. Ken On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 7:02 PM Clem Cole wrote: > Yes. Thank you. > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 5:41 PM Kenneth Goodwin < > kennethgoodwin56@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Would your S database perhaps be Sybase?? >> >> It is that era of time. >> >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 4:35 PM Clem Cole wrote: >> >>> Matt - I never had direct (user) experience with it. I saw a demo of >>> LPI's product at a trade show. It might have run on Ultrix, but if it did, >>> I have no memory of it being in the test suite we used for releases. Also, >>> I do not remember if LPI-Colbol was attached to a specific DB >>> implementation or not. In those days, there were a number of them besides >>> Ingres - Informix, IBM's DB2, and one that started with an S - which later >>> was sold to Microsoft to become SQL-server to name a few, and that may have >>> been part of it. But there were bundled applications for different markets >>> (running a dentist's office, car dealership, store, restaurant, *etc*..) >>> that ran on small UNIX boxes and used those DBs. >>> >>> What I remember was that only a few firms were offering Cobol for UNIX >>> (I think that IBM, DEC, DG, and maybe NCR had them from previous OSses), >>> but the new generation of UNIX boxes did not - although 3rd parties like >>> LPI sometimes offered them. Since it looks like AT&T is naming it/offering >>> it with their product, that is another example of AT&T management missing >>> the market. AT&T's management (Charlie Brown) was interested in going >>> after IBM and probably thought that Cobol was important if they sold to IBM >>> shops. >>> >>> The problem was that except for some really large 'Big Blue' places that >>> never bothered tossing out Cobol (like Wall Street and some insurance >>> companies --* i.e.* early IBM computer users), I always thought that >>> writing *new code in Cobol or trying to port old code *was not done >>> that often because the firms that were switching from Mainframes to UNIX >>> were generally tossing out their homegrown applications at the same time >>> and replacing the entire suite with something like SAP, BAAN, or Oracle >>> APS that were networked, well integrated into things like PCs, used ASCII, >>> *etc*. - *i.e*. using the replacement as the time to really upgrade >>> their entire back office and possibly moving away from Big Blue based - >>> which was not cost-effective (particularly for smaller firms). Another >>> point was the Big 8 accounting firms started offering services that used >>> the minis and UNIX boxes with SAP/BAAN/Oracle APS). Finally, I may miss >>> remembering WRT to LPR-Cobol, but it was similar to today's Java in that it >>> compiled into an interpreter. Plus, the impression I always had was that >>> it was not designed for practical large-scale use or performance. >>> >>> BTW: this is a different behavior from the scientific world. From mini >>> to supercomputers, in most cases, scientific users could not toss out their >>> scientific computing tools and replace them with COTS alternatives ( >>> *i.e*., no firm like SAP, BAAN or Oracle providing "packaged" solutions >>> for a bank or business). But since most of the production apps being used >>> came with sources or the few that were commercial (Cadum, CATIA, Ansys >>> *etc*..), it was possible to recompile and move things - so people did >>> or the IVSs did. Even today, as one of my former colleagues put it, any sr >>> computer system manager that ignores Fortran will eventually get fired for >>> incompetence as it is still #1. >>> ᐧ >>> ᐧ >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 3:02 PM segaloco via TUHS wrote: >>> >>>> Reading through [1], there are documents offered by AT&T for the "Level >>>> II COBOL" system, which some further research indicates is a product from >>>> Convergent (same folks as the UNIX PC.) There's also the LPI-COBOL which >>>> appears to be a Language Processor Inc. product. >>>> >>>> Are these the earliest AT&T endorsed COBOL solutions for UNIX or were >>>> there other efforts either promoted by Bell or even perhaps developed >>>> locally that were in any use before this version? Or otherwise is there >>>> any other family of ubiquitous UNIX COBOL tools that was in use in the 70s >>>> and early 80s, before the timeframe of this document? >>>> >>>> Additionally is anyone aware of any surviving code or binaries of >>>> either of these or other, earlier efforts at COBOL on UNIX? I have no goal >>>> for this information in mind yet, but just gathering details at this >>>> point. Thanks all! >>>> >>>> - Matt G. >>>> >>>> [1] - >>>> http://bitsavers.org/pdf/att/000-111_ATT_Documentation_Guide_Nov87.pdf >>>> >>> -- > Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual > -- End of line JOB TERMINATED -->> Okey Dokey, OK Boss