* [TUHS] Bell COBOL Environment? @ 2023-07-13 19:02 segaloco via TUHS 2023-07-13 20:34 ` [TUHS] " Clem Cole 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: segaloco via TUHS @ 2023-07-13 19:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Re: Bell COBOL Environment? 2023-07-13 19:02 [TUHS] Bell COBOL Environment? segaloco via TUHS @ 2023-07-13 20:34 ` Clem Cole 2023-07-13 20:50 ` Arrigo Triulzi via TUHS ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Clem Cole @ 2023-07-13 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: segaloco; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4192 bytes --] 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 <tuhs@tuhs.org> 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 > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5836 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Re: Bell COBOL Environment? 2023-07-13 20:34 ` [TUHS] " Clem Cole @ 2023-07-13 20:50 ` Arrigo Triulzi via TUHS 2023-07-13 21:41 ` Kenneth Goodwin 2023-07-13 21:42 ` Jon Forrest 2 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Arrigo Triulzi via TUHS @ 2023-07-13 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Clem Cole; +Cc: segaloco, The Eunuchs Hysterical Society I have a bizarre memory of running COBOL on Microsoft/SCO Xenix System V porting and translating an application for petrol pumps, of all things, from English to Italian. The license for the software was photocopied and not from either Microsoft nor SCO (not that those licenses were original either… Italy in the ‘80s…). Having said this I might have been using the Xenix box as a terminal into something else although I doubt it as my UUCP node and my terminal were not that PC. It was ages ago and I was traumatised by both COBOL and the application. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Re: Bell COBOL Environment? 2023-07-13 20:34 ` [TUHS] " Clem Cole 2023-07-13 20:50 ` Arrigo Triulzi via TUHS @ 2023-07-13 21:41 ` Kenneth Goodwin 2023-07-13 23:02 ` Clem Cole 2023-07-13 21:42 ` Jon Forrest 2 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Kenneth Goodwin @ 2023-07-13 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Clem Cole; +Cc: segaloco, The Eunuchs Hysterical Society [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4451 bytes --] Would your S database perhaps be Sybase?? It is that era of time. On Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 4:35 PM Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> 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 <tuhs@tuhs.org> 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 >> > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6297 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Re: Bell COBOL Environment? 2023-07-13 21:41 ` Kenneth Goodwin @ 2023-07-13 23:02 ` Clem Cole 2023-07-13 23:19 ` KenUnix 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Clem Cole @ 2023-07-13 23:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kenneth Goodwin; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society, segaloco [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4695 bytes --] 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 <clemc@ccc.com> 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 <tuhs@tuhs.org> 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 [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6874 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Re: Bell COBOL Environment? 2023-07-13 23:02 ` Clem Cole @ 2023-07-13 23:19 ` KenUnix 0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: KenUnix @ 2023-07-13 23:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Clem Cole; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society, segaloco [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5035 bytes --] 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 <clemc@ccc.com> 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 <clemc@ccc.com> 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 <tuhs@tuhs.org> 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 [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7672 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Re: Bell COBOL Environment? 2023-07-13 20:34 ` [TUHS] " Clem Cole 2023-07-13 20:50 ` Arrigo Triulzi via TUHS 2023-07-13 21:41 ` Kenneth Goodwin @ 2023-07-13 21:42 ` Jon Forrest 2023-07-13 22:35 ` segaloco via TUHS 2 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Jon Forrest @ 2023-07-13 21:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Clem Cole; +Cc: segaloco, The Eunuchs Hysterical Society [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 742 bytes --] You’re thinking of Sybase. That’s where the name “SqlServer” came from. Sybase sold a source code license to Microsoft that included the right to use the name. (I was a developer at Sybase in the VMS group in the late 1980s and early 1990s) Jon Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 13, 2023, at 1:35 PM, Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote: > > > Matt - I never had direct (user) experience with it. Ireleases. 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. [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1170 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Re: Bell COBOL Environment? 2023-07-13 21:42 ` Jon Forrest @ 2023-07-13 22:35 ` segaloco via TUHS 2023-07-13 23:20 ` Warner Losh ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: segaloco via TUHS @ 2023-07-13 22:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jon Forrest; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1544 bytes --] The conclusion I'm coming to from what has been said thus far is that people who were moving from COBOL and the mainframe world to UNIX didn't have as much of a need for COBOL. Since that transition often involved change in enough other aspects of an operation, moving to UNIX with the same COBOL applications just wasn't the path to success for most folks, as opposed to folks deeply invested in FORTRAN. Would that be a fair characterization? Thanks for the feedback by the way, one of the matters I'm trying to suss out is what a typical COBOL environment on UNIX would've looked like back when, and what it sounds like is a COBOL environment on UNIX was anything but typical. - Matt G. ------- Original Message ------- On Thursday, July 13th, 2023 at 2:42 PM, Jon Forrest <nobozo@gmail.com> wrote: > You’re thinking of Sybase. That’s where the name “SqlServer” came from. Sybase sold a source code license to Microsoft that included the right to use the name. > > (I was a developer at Sybase in the VMS group in the late 1980s and early 1990s) > > Jon > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 13, 2023, at 1:35 PM, Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote: > >> >> Matt - I never had direct (user) experience with it. Ireleases. 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. [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2445 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Re: Bell COBOL Environment? 2023-07-13 22:35 ` segaloco via TUHS @ 2023-07-13 23:20 ` Warner Losh 2023-07-14 0:20 ` Bakul Shah 2023-07-14 1:05 ` David Arnold ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Warner Losh @ 2023-07-13 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: segaloco; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2595 bytes --] Yes. And the need for COBOL also was mirrored in the micro world of the time (at least the early 80s). Every micro with enough power seemed to have a COBOL, but all of the offerings dried up before long because although COBOL was a 'no brainer must have' for business, selling it into this new market proved to be too hard. At least that's the impression I was left with at the time, and also what the professors that taught my 'language survey' course said about it... You can take the raw code, but the underlying environment and services just weren't there, so the raw code turned out to be useless most of the time (I also got some $ re-writing a few hundred lines of COBOL business logic for a local business that found that easier for a company that had, as luck would have it, a PDP-11 database written in FORTRAN running on RT-11 or RSTS/E). Warner On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 4:36 PM segaloco via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote: > The conclusion I'm coming to from what has been said thus far is that > people who were moving from COBOL and the mainframe world to UNIX didn't > have as much of a need for COBOL. Since that transition often involved > change in enough other aspects of an operation, moving to UNIX with the > same COBOL applications just wasn't the path to success for most folks, as > opposed to folks deeply invested in FORTRAN. Would that be a fair > characterization? > > Thanks for the feedback by the way, one of the matters I'm trying to suss > out is what a typical COBOL environment on UNIX would've looked like back > when, and what it sounds like is a COBOL environment on UNIX was anything > but typical. > > - Matt G. > ------- Original Message ------- > On Thursday, July 13th, 2023 at 2:42 PM, Jon Forrest <nobozo@gmail.com> > wrote: > > You’re thinking of Sybase. That’s where the name “SqlServer” came from. > Sybase sold a source code license to Microsoft that included the right to > use the name. > > (I was a developer at Sybase in the VMS group in the late 1980s and early > 1990s) > > Jon > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 13, 2023, at 1:35 PM, Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote: > > > Matt - I never had direct (user) experience with it. Ireleases. 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. > > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3707 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Re: Bell COBOL Environment? 2023-07-13 23:20 ` Warner Losh @ 2023-07-14 0:20 ` Bakul Shah 2023-07-14 1:16 ` Alan D. Salewski 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Bakul Shah @ 2023-07-14 0:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3234 bytes --] Fortune Systems sold COBOL-74 along with a bunch of business applications. Don't recall who we got it from. There was also SIBOL (from an Irish company) that could run thousands DIBOL programs under Unix (DIBOL was DEC's own business oriented language). Speaking of Fortune, I recently stumbled upon this short clip where Stanley Kubrick (in 1983) says he wants a Fortune Computer for Christmas because it runs the most advanced operating system: Unix! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54hrLTpsO5g > On Jul 13, 2023, at 4:20 PM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > Yes. And the need for COBOL also was mirrored in the micro world of the time (at least the early 80s). Every micro with enough power seemed to have a COBOL, but all of the offerings dried up before long because although COBOL was a 'no brainer must have' for business, selling it into this new market proved to be too hard. At least that's the impression I was left with at the time, and also what the professors that taught my 'language survey' course said about it... You can take the raw code, but the underlying environment and services just weren't there, so the raw code turned out to be useless most of the time (I also got some $ re-writing a few hundred lines of COBOL business logic for a local business that found that easier for a company that had, as luck would have it, a PDP-11 database written in FORTRAN running on RT-11 or RSTS/E). > > Warner > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 4:36 PM segaloco via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org <mailto:tuhs@tuhs.org>> wrote: >> The conclusion I'm coming to from what has been said thus far is that people who were moving from COBOL and the mainframe world to UNIX didn't have as much of a need for COBOL. Since that transition often involved change in enough other aspects of an operation, moving to UNIX with the same COBOL applications just wasn't the path to success for most folks, as opposed to folks deeply invested in FORTRAN. Would that be a fair characterization? >> >> Thanks for the feedback by the way, one of the matters I'm trying to suss out is what a typical COBOL environment on UNIX would've looked like back when, and what it sounds like is a COBOL environment on UNIX was anything but typical. >> >> - Matt G. >> ------- Original Message ------- >> On Thursday, July 13th, 2023 at 2:42 PM, Jon Forrest <nobozo@gmail.com <mailto:nobozo@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>> You’re thinking of Sybase. That’s where the name “SqlServer” came from. Sybase sold a source code license to Microsoft that included the right to use the name. >>> >>> (I was a developer at Sybase in the VMS group in the late 1980s and early 1990s) >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Jul 13, 2023, at 1:35 PM, Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com <mailto:clemc@ccc.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Matt - I never had direct (user) experience with it. Ireleases. 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. >> [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4828 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Re: Bell COBOL Environment? 2023-07-14 0:20 ` Bakul Shah @ 2023-07-14 1:16 ` Alan D. Salewski 0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Alan D. Salewski @ 2023-07-14 1:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: TUHS (The Unix Heritage Society) On Thu, Jul 13, 2023, at 20:20, Bakul Shah wrote: [...] > > Speaking of Fortune, I recently stumbled upon this short clip where > Stanley Kubrick (in 1983) says he wants a Fortune Computer for > Christmas because it runs the most advanced operating system: Unix! > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54hrLTpsO5g That's a great clip, Bakul; thanks for sharing it. -Al -- a l a n d. s a l e w s k i ads@salewski.email salewski@att.net https://github.com/salewski ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Re: Bell COBOL Environment? 2023-07-13 22:35 ` segaloco via TUHS 2023-07-13 23:20 ` Warner Losh @ 2023-07-14 1:05 ` David Arnold 2023-07-14 1:45 ` Clem Cole 2023-07-14 2:14 ` Dan Cross 3 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: David Arnold @ 2023-07-14 1:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: segaloco; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society > On 14 Jul 2023, at 08:36, segaloco via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote: … > Since that transition often involved change in enough other aspects of an operation, moving to UNIX with the same COBOL applications just wasn't the path to success for most folks, I think that’s fair, and certainly true of the COBOL system I knew (late 80s). For us, a move to Unix would have been a complete re-architect, re-code, and replacement of basically all hardware. 3270 terminals, LU6.2 networking, CICS transaction monitor, ISAM datasets, all the batch jobs and their JCL, to say nothing of the two (redundant) 3090’s and the sea of DASD, monster printers, etc. The retraining or replacement of staff would have been overwhelming as well. The closest I could get was writing some CICS transactions in C, but it wasn’t worth the uphill battle. The only solution was to be acquired by a more modern company and throw the lot out! d ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Re: Bell COBOL Environment? 2023-07-13 22:35 ` segaloco via TUHS 2023-07-13 23:20 ` Warner Losh 2023-07-14 1:05 ` David Arnold @ 2023-07-14 1:45 ` Clem Cole 2023-07-14 2:14 ` Dan Cross 3 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Clem Cole @ 2023-07-14 1:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: segaloco; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2357 bytes --] Below On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 6:36 PM segaloco <segaloco@protonmail.com> wrote: > The conclusion I'm coming to from what has been said thus far is that > people who were moving from COBOL and the mainframe world to UNIX didn't > have as much of a need for COBOL. Since that transition often involved > change in enough other aspects of an operation, moving to UNIX with the > same COBOL applications just wasn't the path to success for most folks, as > opposed to folks deeply invested in FORTRAN. Would that be a fair > characterization? > Yes. That was certainly my experience. > > Thanks for the feedback by the way, one of the matters I'm trying to suss > out is what a typical COBOL environment on UNIX would've looked like back > when, and what it sounds like is a COBOL environment on UNIX was anything > but typical. > I think that is fair. There were likely multiple reasons why that path started must likely because Unix was rooted in the CS research and the engineering communities which was pretty far from what traditional production Business/COBOL shops did at the time. By the time business folks started to notice Unix other economic changes had appeared also such as firms like SAP/BAAN/Oracle, plus Im not sure the big8 in those days could spell Unix so business folks didn’t have a reason to pay attention. Clem > > - Matt G. > ------- Original Message ------- > > On Thursday, July 13th, 2023 at 2:42 PM, Jon Forrest <nobozo@gmail.com> > wrote: > > You’re thinking of Sybase. That’s where the name “SqlServer” came from. > Sybase sold a source code license to Microsoft that included the right to > use the name. > > (I was a developer at Sybase in the VMS group in the late 1980s and early > 1990s) > > Jon > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 13, 2023, at 1:35 PM, Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote: > > > Matt - I never had direct (user) experience with it. Ireleases. 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. > > > -- Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4042 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Re: Bell COBOL Environment? 2023-07-13 22:35 ` segaloco via TUHS ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2023-07-14 1:45 ` Clem Cole @ 2023-07-14 2:14 ` Dan Cross 3 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Dan Cross @ 2023-07-14 2:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: segaloco; +Cc: TUHS On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 6:36 PM segaloco via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote: > The conclusion I'm coming to from what has been said thus far is that people who were moving from COBOL and the mainframe world to UNIX didn't have as much of a need for COBOL. Since that transition often involved change in enough other aspects of an operation, moving to UNIX with the same COBOL applications just wasn't the path to success for most folks, as opposed to folks deeply invested in FORTRAN. Would that be a fair characterization? Echoing what others have said, that seems reasonable to me. Don't tell the mainframe infosec folks about this; they get really touchy about defending COBOL's honor for some reason I don't quite understand. > Thanks for the feedback by the way, one of the matters I'm trying to suss out is what a typical COBOL environment on UNIX would've looked like back when, and what it sounds like is a COBOL environment on UNIX was anything but typical. A way to think about COBOL is that it's like a DSL for business transaction processing, but is itself a small part of the overall offering. In the mainframe world, it's often intimately tied to things like CICS, ISAM, VTAM and 3270 access methods, SNA, and so on, and in that sense the language itself is a rather small part of the ecosystem. Transferring everything into a new environment (e.g., on Unix) raises a lot of questions about the surrounding technologies and their non-availability, and ultimately just having the language by itself isn't terribly useful if you don't have all the other stuff as well. Also, COBOL is just a terrible language. - Dan C. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-07-14 2:15 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2023-07-13 19:02 [TUHS] Bell COBOL Environment? segaloco via TUHS 2023-07-13 20:34 ` [TUHS] " Clem Cole 2023-07-13 20:50 ` Arrigo Triulzi via TUHS 2023-07-13 21:41 ` Kenneth Goodwin 2023-07-13 23:02 ` Clem Cole 2023-07-13 23:19 ` KenUnix 2023-07-13 21:42 ` Jon Forrest 2023-07-13 22:35 ` segaloco via TUHS 2023-07-13 23:20 ` Warner Losh 2023-07-14 0:20 ` Bakul Shah 2023-07-14 1:16 ` Alan D. Salewski 2023-07-14 1:05 ` David Arnold 2023-07-14 1:45 ` Clem Cole 2023-07-14 2:14 ` Dan Cross
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).