Discussion:
Tech: we didn't mean for it to turn out like this
Add Reply
RS Wood
2017-10-30 19:54:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Written in 2014, still valid. By the author of "technology is
heroin" (an agile/scrum guy).

http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2014/05/we-didnt-mean-for-it-to-turn-out-like-this.php

//--clip
Looking at the net today, I can’t help but reflect on how it’s turning
out so differently than we imagined:

We wanted to exchange information, not play games.

We wanted expected open conversation and idea exchange, not constant
drama, anger, and angst.

We wanted insight into the world outside ourselves, not have the world
know everything there is to know about us.

We wanted freedom from oppressive governments, not the creation of a
new security state.

We expected the web to either be free or paid, not monetized based on
how long it could hold our attention.

Browsers were just one way of accessing the net. We expected there to
be lots more.

We expected technology to empower us as individuals, not create some
kind of hive supermind.

We expected human, face-to-face relationships to be augmented and
thrive based on new silicon helpers. We’re finding people staying
online and disconnected for most of their lives, texting somebody
sitting 10 feet away instead of attempting a conversation.

Man is a social animal evolved to operate semi-autonomously as
hunter-gatherers in small tribes. What we are creating is a
technological system that is adapting to, emphasizing, and taking
advantage all of the weaknesses of the species while not emphasizing
our strengths. Another way of saying this is: we’re not getting what we
expected, we’re getting what we wanted.

They say that kids growing up in a new system automatically think that
system is just the way things are supposed to be. It’s really important
to tell this to whoever will listen.

I was there with some of the first commercial users on the net. (Heck,
I was on before that, but as a college student I had no idea of what
the net was). I was there as developers and content creators started
piecing together the future. I was there when Google figured out the ad
model, when the average MMORPG gamer was spending 35-hours online each
week, when the NSA revelations came out, when Farmville took Facebook
by storm. I was there before that. I remember where we were headed.

It wasn’t supposed to turn out like this.
//--clip
--
RS Wood <***@therandymon.com>
Johnny B Good
2017-10-30 22:01:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Written in 2014, still valid. By the author of "technology is heroin"
(an agile/scrum guy).
http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2014/05/we-didnt-mean-for-it-to-
turn-out-like-this.php
====snivelling naive whingeing nostalgia trip snipped====
It wasn’t supposed to turn out like this.
Jeez! all that drivel just to come to the inevitable conclusion that, at
the end of the day, *all* "Technology is A Double Edged Sword"(tm).
--
Johnny B Good
Charles Richmond
2017-10-30 23:06:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RS Wood
Written in 2014, still valid. By the author of "technology is heroin"
(an agile/scrum guy).
http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2014/05/we-didnt-mean-for-it-to-
turn-out-like-this.php
====snivelling naive whingeing nostalgia trip snipped====
It wasn’t supposed to turn out like this.
Jeez! all that drivel just to come to the inevitable conclusion that, at
the end of the day, *all* "Technology is A Double Edged Sword"(tm).
Every scientific disco very can be used for good and for evil. Evil
folks seem to be quick to pick up on new ways of stealing and cheating
incorporating the tech. And many wonderful technological things are
"wasted" on the general public. Think of "smart phones" and the trivial
things that most people do with them. IMHO.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
Huge
2017-10-31 09:31:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RS Wood
Written in 2014, still valid. By the author of "technology is heroin"
(an agile/scrum guy).
http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2014/05/we-didnt-mean-for-it-to-
turn-out-like-this.php
====snivelling naive whingeing nostalgia trip snipped====
It wasn’t supposed to turn out like this.
Jeez! all that drivel
Oh, the irony.
--
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 12th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3183
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
Batchman
2017-10-30 21:59:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RS Wood
Written in 2014, still valid. By the author of "technology is
heroin" (an agile/scrum guy).
http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2014/05/we-didnt-mean-for-it-to
-turn-out-like-this.php
A case of `be careful what you wish for' perhaps?

Once again you have added to my enjoyment of this newsgroup, thanks!
Questor
2017-10-31 07:23:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:59:20 +1100, Batchman <***@dosville.foo> wrote:

Are you *the* Batchman, of "Batchman and Login" renown?
Batchman
2017-10-31 22:41:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Are you *the* Batchman, of "Batchman and Login" renown?
NAFAIK
Been using the tag for yonks because of some ability with that form of code.
Greets from Oz!
Questor
2017-11-01 19:11:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
Are you *the* Batchman, of "Batchman and Login" renown?
NAFAIK
Been using the tag for yonks because of some ability with that form of code.
Greets from Oz!
Ah... no, you're not.

The nicknames were for a pair of people at a specific institution some years
ago. "Batchman" was a vocal advocate of using batch jobs over timesharing
whenever possible. His associate, "Login," would purportedly logout and then
login again in order to circumvent terminal room time limits.
Batchman
2017-11-02 22:07:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
The nicknames were for a pair of people at a specific institution some years
ago. "Batchman" was a vocal advocate of using batch jobs over timesharing
whenever possible. His associate, "Login," would purportedly logout and
then login again in order to circumvent terminal room time limits.
Whereas my handle refers to my abilities in being able to code clever batch
files (intended to run under Command.Com) and originates back in BBS echo
mail days!
jmfbahciv
2017-11-03 12:24:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
The nicknames were for a pair of people at a specific institution some years
ago. "Batchman" was a vocal advocate of using batch jobs over timesharing
whenever possible. His associate, "Login," would purportedly logout and
then login again in order to circumvent terminal room time limits.
Whereas my handle refers to my abilities in being able to code clever batch
files (intended to run under Command.Com) and originates back in BBS echo
mail days!
TOPS-10's batch is a tad different. However, my neatest hack was to
ensure that a certain batch file ran only on Tuesday on the -10's
monitor development system. The batch job collected all the FACT.*
files, which contained that system's computer usage data. So I
opened the batch job's log file, read-only, with TECO. Did a
search for <TAB>Tue with a .ERROR ? on the line after the search.
If there was an error, it wasn't Tuesday, so the last line of
the batch file was to SUBMIT the file /AFTER:+1 day. If there
was no error, the next lines of the file renamed SYS:FACT.* to
another area.

/BAH
Batchman
2017-11-04 22:39:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jmfbahciv
TOPS-10's batch is a tad different. However, my neatest hack was to
I'm aware that dos `batch' isn't an original creation of M$! (possible whole
new thread there?)
Post by jmfbahciv
the batch file was to SUBMIT the file /AFTER:+1 day. If there
was no error, the next lines of the file renamed SYS:FACT.* to
another area.
Similarly I enjoyed finding methods by which a seemingly impossible task
might be achieved through only the use of dos batch commands and perhaps by
cheating just a little ;)
Questor
2017-11-05 08:37:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Batchman
Post by jmfbahciv
TOPS-10's batch is a tad different. However, my neatest hack was to
I'm aware that dos `batch' isn't an original creation of M$! (possible whole
new thread there?)
Batch was the original method for using computers... access via interactive
timesharing is the newer development. The idea of executing commands taken from
a file predates Microsoft by years, if not decades.
Post by Batchman
Similarly I enjoyed finding methods by which a seemingly impossible task
might be achieved through only the use of dos batch commands and perhaps by
cheating just a little ;)
In the early '90s there was a U.S. magazine called DOS World. It had articles
about every aspect of DOS and lots of .BAT file tips and tricks.
jmfbahciv
2017-11-05 16:05:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Batchman
Post by jmfbahciv
TOPS-10's batch is a tad different. However, my neatest hack was to
I'm aware that dos `batch' isn't an original creation of M$! (possible whole
new thread there?)
Batch was the original method for using computers... access via interactive
timesharing is the newer development. The idea of executing commands taken from
a file predates Microsoft by years, if not decades.
TOPS-10's batch systems were canned interactive timesharing files. IBM's
batch was different.

/BAH
Bob Eager
2017-11-05 16:35:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Questor
Post by Batchman
Post by jmfbahciv
TOPS-10's batch is a tad different. However, my neatest hack was to
I'm aware that dos `batch' isn't an original creation of M$! (possible
whole new thread there?)
Batch was the original method for using computers... access via
interactive timesharing is the newer development. The idea of
executing commands taken
from
Post by Questor
a file predates Microsoft by years, if not decades.
TOPS-10's batch systems were canned interactive timesharing files.
IBM's batch was different.
It was one of the weaknesses of TOPS-10, I thought. A separate batch
language would have been better.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Thomas Koenig
2017-11-05 17:40:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Eager
Post by jmfbahciv
TOPS-10's batch systems were canned interactive timesharing files.
IBM's batch was different.
It was one of the weaknesses of TOPS-10, I thought. A separate batch
language would have been better.
I don't know TOPS-10, but I suspect that that batch language was
better than JCL...
Bob Eager
2017-11-05 18:47:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Eager
Post by jmfbahciv
TOPS-10's batch systems were canned interactive timesharing files.
IBM's batch was different.
It was one of the weaknesses of TOPS-10, I thought. A separate batch
language would have been better.
I don't know TOPS-10, but I suspect that that batch language was better
than JCL...
It wasn't really a batch language, that was the problem.

I agree about JCL, though.

Somewhere I have a simple UNIX shell that accepts JCL...
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2017-11-05 19:16:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 5 Nov 2017 18:47:01 GMT
Post by Bob Eager
Somewhere I have a simple UNIX shell that accepts JCL...
That's like an inverse to gilding a lily.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Questor
2017-11-06 19:06:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Bob Eager
Post by jmfbahciv
TOPS-10's batch systems were canned interactive timesharing files.
IBM's batch was different.
It was one of the weaknesses of TOPS-10, I thought. A separate batch
language would have been better.
I don't know TOPS-10, but I suspect that that batch language was
better than JCL...
TOPS-10 didn't have much of a batch language as such. The same command
processing, with a little added error handling and flow control, was used for
both batch and timesharing sessions.

TOPS-10 included virtual terminals, which were called psuedo-terminals, or PTYs
("pee tee whys"). To run a job, the batch system opens a PTY to start a
terminal session, logs in with your PPN (project programmer number) and feeds it
lines one at a time from the batch control (.CTL) file. The resulting output is
sent to the log file (.LOG). Well-behaved TOPS-10 programs are supposed to
follow certain conventions for error messages, and this, along with some
system-reserved labels, allows for some flexible error handling.

One could make the argument for adding more advanced features to the batch
processing, but the TOPS-10/20 mindset would be to add such capabilities to the
operating system's command processing code instead, which would make them
available to both batch and timesharing jobs.
Peter Flass
2017-11-07 11:06:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Bob Eager
Post by jmfbahciv
TOPS-10's batch systems were canned interactive timesharing files.
IBM's batch was different.
It was one of the weaknesses of TOPS-10, I thought. A separate batch
language would have been better.
I don't know TOPS-10, but I suspect that that batch language was
better than JCL...
TOPS-10 didn't have much of a batch language as such. The same command
processing, with a little added error handling and flow control, was used for
both batch and timesharing sessions.
TOPS-10 included virtual terminals, which were called psuedo-terminals, or PTYs
("pee tee whys"). To run a job, the batch system opens a PTY to start a
terminal session, logs in with your PPN (project programmer number) and feeds it
lines one at a time from the batch control (.CTL) file. The resulting output is
sent to the log file (.LOG). Well-behaved TOPS-10 programs are supposed to
follow certain conventions for error messages, and this, along with some
system-reserved labels, allows for some flexible error handling.
One could make the argument for adding more advanced features to the batch
processing, but the TOPS-10/20 mindset would be to add such capabilities to the
operating system's command processing code instead, which would make them
available to both batch and timesharing jobs.
A number of systems had (have) decent batch capabilities that use a common
command language between batch and timesharing. I'm thinking specifically
of XDS UTS OS, but I think Univac and maybe Burroughs. IBM VM had
facilities that sound similar to what I'm reading about TOPS-10: pretty
limited and one step below DOS .bat files.
--
Pete
Bob Eager
2017-11-07 11:58:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Flass
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 17:40:27 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Bob Eager
Post by jmfbahciv
TOPS-10's batch systems were canned interactive timesharing files.
IBM's batch was different.
It was one of the weaknesses of TOPS-10, I thought. A separate batch
language would have been better.
I don't know TOPS-10, but I suspect that that batch language was
better than JCL...
TOPS-10 didn't have much of a batch language as such. The same command
processing, with a little added error handling and flow control, was
used for both batch and timesharing sessions.
TOPS-10 included virtual terminals, which were called psuedo-terminals,
or PTYs ("pee tee whys"). To run a job, the batch system opens a PTY
to start a terminal session, logs in with your PPN (project programmer
number) and feeds it lines one at a time from the batch control (.CTL)
file. The resulting output is sent to the log file (.LOG).
Well-behaved TOPS-10 programs are supposed to follow certain
conventions for error messages, and this, along with some
system-reserved labels, allows for some flexible error handling.
One could make the argument for adding more advanced features to the
batch processing, but the TOPS-10/20 mindset would be to add such
capabilities to the operating system's command processing code instead,
which would make them available to both batch and timesharing jobs.
A number of systems had (have) decent batch capabilities that use a
common command language between batch and timesharing. I'm thinking
specifically of XDS UTS OS, but I think Univac and maybe Burroughs. IBM
pretty limited and one step below DOS .bat files.
I seem to remember that scripts in the 'original' UNIX shell were quite
challenging. I have some memory of various kludges when I started using
it in 1975.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Scott Lurndal
2017-11-07 13:23:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Questor
One could make the argument for adding more advanced features to the batch
processing, but the TOPS-10/20 mindset would be to add such capabilities to the
operating system's command processing code instead, which would make them
available to both batch and timesharing jobs.
A number of systems had (have) decent batch capabilities that use a common
command language between batch and timesharing. I'm thinking specifically
of XDS UTS OS, but I think Univac and maybe Burroughs.
Burroughs had a common command language, for most intents and purposes.

CANDE (Command AND Edit) timesharing (aka batch with a patch) had its
own set of commands for editing, but one could issue standard MCP commands
as well (governed by the privilege level of the user), including most of those
used in batch jobs.

Burroughs also had a special language called WFL (Work Flow Language) that
was used when higher-level constructs (e.g. loops) were required. This was
a compiled language. Consider it similar to shell scripts.
jmfbahciv
2017-11-07 13:47:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Flass
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 17:40:27 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Bob Eager
Post by jmfbahciv
TOPS-10's batch systems were canned interactive timesharing files.
IBM's batch was different.
It was one of the weaknesses of TOPS-10, I thought. A separate batch
language would have been better.
I don't know TOPS-10, but I suspect that that batch language was
better than JCL...
TOPS-10 didn't have much of a batch language as such. The same command
processing, with a little added error handling and flow control, was used for
both batch and timesharing sessions.
TOPS-10 included virtual terminals, which were called psuedo-terminals, or PTYs
("pee tee whys"). To run a job, the batch system opens a PTY to start a
terminal session, logs in with your PPN (project programmer number) and feeds it
lines one at a time from the batch control (.CTL) file. The resulting output is
sent to the log file (.LOG). Well-behaved TOPS-10 programs are supposed to
follow certain conventions for error messages, and this, along with some
system-reserved labels, allows for some flexible error handling.
One could make the argument for adding more advanced features to the batch
processing, but the TOPS-10/20 mindset would be to add such capabilities to the
operating system's command processing code instead, which would make them
available to both batch and timesharing jobs.
A number of systems had (have) decent batch capabilities that use a common
command language between batch and timesharing. I'm thinking specifically
of XDS UTS OS, but I think Univac and maybe Burroughs. IBM VM had
facilities that sound similar to what I'm reading about TOPS-10: pretty
limited and one step below DOS .bat files.
I suspect GALAXY was one step above ;-). Customers were free to develop
their own if they wanted. We didn't have any pressure from customers
to do more.

/BAH
Questor
2017-11-08 09:20:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 17:40:27 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Bob Eager
Post by jmfbahciv
TOPS-10's batch systems were canned interactive timesharing files.
IBM's batch was different.
It was one of the weaknesses of TOPS-10, I thought. A separate batch
language would have been better.
I don't know TOPS-10, but I suspect that that batch language was
better than JCL...
TOPS-10 didn't have much of a batch language as such. The same command
processing, with a little added error handling and flow control, was used
for
Post by Peter Flass
both batch and timesharing sessions.
TOPS-10 included virtual terminals, which were called psuedo-terminals, or
PTYs
Post by Peter Flass
("pee tee whys"). To run a job, the batch system opens a PTY to start a
terminal session, logs in with your PPN (project programmer number) and
feeds it
Post by Peter Flass
lines one at a time from the batch control (.CTL) file. The resulting
output is
Post by Peter Flass
sent to the log file (.LOG). Well-behaved TOPS-10 programs are supposed to
follow certain conventions for error messages, and this, along with some
system-reserved labels, allows for some flexible error handling.
One could make the argument for adding more advanced features to the batch
processing, but the TOPS-10/20 mindset would be to add such capabilities to
the
Post by Peter Flass
operating system's command processing code instead, which would make them
available to both batch and timesharing jobs.
A number of systems had (have) decent batch capabilities that use a common
command language between batch and timesharing. I'm thinking specifically
of XDS UTS OS, but I think Univac and maybe Burroughs. IBM VM had
facilities that sound similar to what I'm reading about TOPS-10: pretty
limited and one step below DOS .bat files.
I suspect GALAXY was one step above ;-). Customers were free to develop
their own if they wanted. We didn't have any pressure from customers
to do more.
Yeah, right. No customer in their right mind is going to write a batch system
from scratch, including operating system hooks. What did happen frequently in
the real world is that customers would simply add their own features and changes
to the existing software. Eventually merging such modifications into successive
version updates from DEC gets to be a real horrorshow.
jmfbahciv
2017-11-08 13:59:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 17:40:27 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Bob Eager
Post by jmfbahciv
TOPS-10's batch systems were canned interactive timesharing files.
IBM's batch was different.
It was one of the weaknesses of TOPS-10, I thought. A separate batch
language would have been better.
I don't know TOPS-10, but I suspect that that batch language was
better than JCL...
TOPS-10 didn't have much of a batch language as such. The same command
processing, with a little added error handling and flow control, was used
for
Post by Peter Flass
both batch and timesharing sessions.
TOPS-10 included virtual terminals, which were called psuedo-terminals, or
PTYs
Post by Peter Flass
("pee tee whys"). To run a job, the batch system opens a PTY to start a
terminal session, logs in with your PPN (project programmer number) and
feeds it
Post by Peter Flass
lines one at a time from the batch control (.CTL) file. The resulting
output is
Post by Peter Flass
sent to the log file (.LOG). Well-behaved TOPS-10 programs are supposed to
follow certain conventions for error messages, and this, along with some
system-reserved labels, allows for some flexible error handling.
One could make the argument for adding more advanced features to the batch
processing, but the TOPS-10/20 mindset would be to add such capabilities to
the
Post by Peter Flass
operating system's command processing code instead, which would make them
available to both batch and timesharing jobs.
A number of systems had (have) decent batch capabilities that use a common
command language between batch and timesharing. I'm thinking specifically
of XDS UTS OS, but I think Univac and maybe Burroughs. IBM VM had
facilities that sound similar to what I'm reading about TOPS-10: pretty
limited and one step below DOS .bat files.
I suspect GALAXY was one step above ;-). Customers were free to develop
their own if they wanted. We didn't have any pressure from customers
to do more.
Yeah, right. No customer in their right mind is going to write a batch system
from scratch, including operating system hooks. What did happen frequently in
the real world is that customers would simply add their own features and changes
to the existing software. Eventually merging such modifications into successive
version updates from DEC gets to be a real horrorshow.
Our customers frequently wrote their own stuff. Our job was to
tell them what we were changing in the next release so that they
had time to adjust their changes. You've never been to a DECUS,
have you?

/BAH
Questor
2017-11-09 09:27:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RS Wood
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 17:40:27 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Bob Eager
Post by jmfbahciv
TOPS-10's batch systems were canned interactive timesharing files.
IBM's batch was different.
It was one of the weaknesses of TOPS-10, I thought. A separate batch
language would have been better.
I don't know TOPS-10, but I suspect that that batch language was
better than JCL...
TOPS-10 didn't have much of a batch language as such. The same command
processing, with a little added error handling and flow control, was used
for
Post by Peter Flass
both batch and timesharing sessions.
TOPS-10 included virtual terminals, which were called psuedo-terminals,
or
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
PTYs
Post by Peter Flass
("pee tee whys"). To run a job, the batch system opens a PTY to start a
terminal session, logs in with your PPN (project programmer number) and
feeds it
Post by Peter Flass
lines one at a time from the batch control (.CTL) file. The resulting
output is
Post by Peter Flass
sent to the log file (.LOG). Well-behaved TOPS-10 programs are supposed
to
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
follow certain conventions for error messages, and this, along with some
system-reserved labels, allows for some flexible error handling.
One could make the argument for adding more advanced features to the
batch
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
processing, but the TOPS-10/20 mindset would be to add such capabilities
to
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
the
Post by Peter Flass
operating system's command processing code instead, which would make them
available to both batch and timesharing jobs.
A number of systems had (have) decent batch capabilities that use a common
command language between batch and timesharing. I'm thinking specifically
of XDS UTS OS, but I think Univac and maybe Burroughs. IBM VM had
facilities that sound similar to what I'm reading about TOPS-10: pretty
limited and one step below DOS .bat files.
I suspect GALAXY was one step above ;-). Customers were free to develop
their own if they wanted. We didn't have any pressure from customers
to do more.
Yeah, right. No customer in their right mind is going to write a batch
system
Post by Questor
from scratch, including operating system hooks. What did happen frequently
in
Post by Questor
the real world is that customers would simply add their own features and
changes
Post by Questor
to the existing software. Eventually merging such modifications into
successive
Post by Questor
version updates from DEC gets to be a real horrorshow.
Our customers frequently wrote their own stuff. Our job was to
tell them what we were changing in the next release so that they
had time to adjust their changes. You've never been to a DECUS,
have you?
Once again, your answer is irrelevant and demonstrates you have no clue.

Telling customers that a feature is going to be added or changed does little to
help them prepare for actually merging the code for their custom features into
the new code released by DEC. If a customer's feature involves making lots of
changes to the XYZ module, they can't know how much work will be involved until
they actually get the new XYZ source and see what changes DEC had made.

As an extreme example, consider when DEC superceded MPB with the GALAXY system.
A customer will still want to add the custom features they had with MPB, but the
code base is *completely* different. You can attend all the DECUS symposiums in
the world, but you still won't know how much work is needed until the actual
code can be examined.
jmfbahciv
2017-11-09 13:59:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by RS Wood
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 17:40:27 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Bob Eager
Post by jmfbahciv
TOPS-10's batch systems were canned interactive timesharing files.
IBM's batch was different.
It was one of the weaknesses of TOPS-10, I thought. A separate batch
language would have been better.
I don't know TOPS-10, but I suspect that that batch language was
better than JCL...
TOPS-10 didn't have much of a batch language as such. The same command
processing, with a little added error handling and flow control, was used
for
Post by Peter Flass
both batch and timesharing sessions.
TOPS-10 included virtual terminals, which were called psuedo-terminals,
or
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
PTYs
Post by Peter Flass
("pee tee whys"). To run a job, the batch system opens a PTY to start a
terminal session, logs in with your PPN (project programmer number) and
feeds it
Post by Peter Flass
lines one at a time from the batch control (.CTL) file. The resulting
output is
Post by Peter Flass
sent to the log file (.LOG). Well-behaved TOPS-10 programs are supposed
to
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
follow certain conventions for error messages, and this, along with some
system-reserved labels, allows for some flexible error handling.
One could make the argument for adding more advanced features to the
batch
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
processing, but the TOPS-10/20 mindset would be to add such capabilities
to
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
the
Post by Peter Flass
operating system's command processing code instead, which would make them
available to both batch and timesharing jobs.
A number of systems had (have) decent batch capabilities that use a common
command language between batch and timesharing. I'm thinking specifically
of XDS UTS OS, but I think Univac and maybe Burroughs. IBM VM had
facilities that sound similar to what I'm reading about TOPS-10: pretty
limited and one step below DOS .bat files.
I suspect GALAXY was one step above ;-). Customers were free to develop
their own if they wanted. We didn't have any pressure from customers
to do more.
Yeah, right. No customer in their right mind is going to write a batch
system
Post by Questor
from scratch, including operating system hooks. What did happen frequently
in
Post by Questor
the real world is that customers would simply add their own features and
changes
Post by Questor
to the existing software. Eventually merging such modifications into
successive
Post by Questor
version updates from DEC gets to be a real horrorshow.
Our customers frequently wrote their own stuff. Our job was to
tell them what we were changing in the next release so that they
had time to adjust their changes. You've never been to a DECUS,
have you?
Once again, your answer is irrelevant and demonstrates you have no clue.
Telling customers that a feature is going to be added or changed does little to
help them prepare for actually merging the code for their custom features into
the new code released by DEC. If a customer's feature involves making lots of
changes to the XYZ module, they can't know how much work will be involved until
they actually get the new XYZ source and see what changes DEC had made.
As an extreme example, consider when DEC superceded MPB with the GALAXY system.
A customer will still want to add the custom features they had with MPB, but the
code base is *completely* different. You can attend all the DECUS symposiums in
the world, but you still won't know how much work is needed until the actual
code can be examined.
And your reply shows that you have no idea how DEC did its business.

/BAH
Questor
2017-11-11 07:01:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jmfbahciv
And your reply shows that you have no idea how DEC did its business.
And there it is! Your classic line. Arrogance combined with ignorance.

There must be some kind of offshoot of Godwin's Law that applies when
you use the phrase "you have no idea how DEC did its business."

As usual, what won't be forthcoming is any evidence supporting your claim,
nor a cogent explanation of how you think DEC did its business.
jmfbahciv
2017-11-11 15:40:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
And your reply shows that you have no idea how DEC did its business.
And there it is! Your classic line. Arrogance combined with ignorance.
There must be some kind of offshoot of Godwin's Law that applies when
you use the phrase "you have no idea how DEC did its business."
As usual, what won't be forthcoming is any evidence supporting your claim,
nor a cogent explanation of how you think DEC did its business.
I have tried to tell you how DEC did its business but all you did is
call me ignorant, aggorant, a liar and other denigrating terms to
"prove" I'm wrong. There isn't any point of describing anything about
DEC to you.

/BAH
Peter Flass
2017-11-12 12:07:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
And your reply shows that you have no idea how DEC did its business.
And there it is! Your classic line. Arrogance combined with ignorance.
There must be some kind of offshoot of Godwin's Law that applies when
you use the phrase "you have no idea how DEC did its business."
As usual, what won't be forthcoming is any evidence supporting your claim,
nor a cogent explanation of how you think DEC did its business.
I have tried to tell you how DEC did its business but all you did is
call me ignorant, aggorant, a liar and other denigrating terms to
"prove" I'm wrong. There isn't any point of describing anything about
DEC to you.
It's the "blind men and the elephant." You know your part of the elephant
well, but while you may be remembering the trunk others may be recalling
the tail or the tusks.
--
Pete
jmfbahciv
2017-11-12 14:03:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Flass
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
And your reply shows that you have no idea how DEC did its business.
And there it is! Your classic line. Arrogance combined with ignorance.
There must be some kind of offshoot of Godwin's Law that applies when
you use the phrase "you have no idea how DEC did its business."
As usual, what won't be forthcoming is any evidence supporting your claim,
nor a cogent explanation of how you think DEC did its business.
I have tried to tell you how DEC did its business but all you did is
call me ignorant, aggorant, a liar and other denigrating terms to
"prove" I'm wrong. There isn't any point of describing anything about
DEC to you.
It's the "blind men and the elephant." You know your part of the elephant
well, but while you may be remembering the trunk others may be recalling
the tail or the tusks.
Customers only saw the external stuff and none of the internal stuff. It took
a lot of work to produce it. while working for Tape Prep, I watched and read
about all product lines. When I moved to Marlboro, the business was (mostly)
about PDP-10 products.

/BAH
Peter Flass
2017-11-12 17:28:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Peter Flass
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
And your reply shows that you have no idea how DEC did its business.
And there it is! Your classic line. Arrogance combined with ignorance.
There must be some kind of offshoot of Godwin's Law that applies when
you use the phrase "you have no idea how DEC did its business."
As usual, what won't be forthcoming is any evidence supporting your claim,
nor a cogent explanation of how you think DEC did its business.
I have tried to tell you how DEC did its business but all you did is
call me ignorant, aggorant, a liar and other denigrating terms to
"prove" I'm wrong. There isn't any point of describing anything about
DEC to you.
It's the "blind men and the elephant." You know your part of the elephant
well, but while you may be remembering the trunk others may be recalling
the tail or the tusks.
Customers only saw the external stuff and none of the internal stuff. It took
a lot of work to produce it. while working for Tape Prep, I watched and read
about all product lines. When I moved to Marlboro, the business was (mostly)
about PDP-10 products.
I think several people here are old-time DECies, but none (AFAIK) in
Marlboro or in the PDP-10 group.
--
Pete
jmfbahciv
2017-11-13 14:13:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Flass
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Peter Flass
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
And your reply shows that you have no idea how DEC did its business.
And there it is! Your classic line. Arrogance combined with ignorance.
There must be some kind of offshoot of Godwin's Law that applies when
you use the phrase "you have no idea how DEC did its business."
As usual, what won't be forthcoming is any evidence supporting your claim,
nor a cogent explanation of how you think DEC did its business.
I have tried to tell you how DEC did its business but all you did is
call me ignorant, aggorant, a liar and other denigrating terms to
"prove" I'm wrong. There isn't any point of describing anything about
DEC to you.
It's the "blind men and the elephant." You know your part of the elephant
well, but while you may be remembering the trunk others may be recalling
the tail or the tusks.
Customers only saw the external stuff and none of the internal stuff. It took
a lot of work to produce it. while working for Tape Prep, I watched and read
about all product lines. When I moved to Marlboro, the business was (mostly)
about PDP-10 products.
I think several people here are old-time DECies, but none (AFAIK) in
Marlboro or in the PDP-10 group.
<grin> Well, then there was out-house and in-house. It's rare for
another DEC in-house person to post here.

/BAH
Questor
2017-11-14 07:59:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Flass
I think several people here are old-time DECies, but none (AFAIK) in
Marlboro or in the PDP-10 group.
Yes there are.
Questor
2017-11-08 09:20:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Questor
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Bob Eager
Post by jmfbahciv
TOPS-10's batch systems were canned interactive timesharing files.
IBM's batch was different.
It was one of the weaknesses of TOPS-10, I thought. A separate batch
language would have been better.
I don't know TOPS-10, but I suspect that that batch language was
better than JCL...
TOPS-10 didn't have much of a batch language as such. The same command
processing, with a little added error handling and flow control, was used for
both batch and timesharing sessions.
TOPS-10 included virtual terminals, which were called psuedo-terminals, or PTYs
("pee tee whys"). To run a job, the batch system opens a PTY to start a
terminal session, logs in with your PPN (project programmer number) and feeds it
lines one at a time from the batch control (.CTL) file. The resulting output is
sent to the log file (.LOG). Well-behaved TOPS-10 programs are supposed to
follow certain conventions for error messages, and this, along with some
system-reserved labels, allows for some flexible error handling.
One could make the argument for adding more advanced features to the batch
processing, but the TOPS-10/20 mindset would be to add such capabilities to the
operating system's command processing code instead, which would make them
available to both batch and timesharing jobs.
A number of systems had (have) decent batch capabilities that use a common
command language between batch and timesharing. I'm thinking specifically
of XDS UTS OS, but I think Univac and maybe Burroughs. IBM VM had
facilities that sound similar to what I'm reading about TOPS-10: pretty
limited and one step below DOS .bat files.
DOS doesn't have batch processing. DOS .BAT files are scripts. TOPS-10 had an
add-on called MIC (Macro Interpretated Commands, if memory serves) that
implemented script files. TOPS-20 had PCL (Programmable Command Language),
a modification to the command processor (EXEC) written at CMU that was widely
used, even inside DEC, but never became part of the officially supported
product.
J. Clarke
2017-11-08 11:46:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Questor
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Bob Eager
Post by jmfbahciv
TOPS-10's batch systems were canned interactive timesharing files.
IBM's batch was different.
It was one of the weaknesses of TOPS-10, I thought. A separate batch
language would have been better.
I don't know TOPS-10, but I suspect that that batch language was
better than JCL...
TOPS-10 didn't have much of a batch language as such. The same command
processing, with a little added error handling and flow control, was used for
both batch and timesharing sessions.
TOPS-10 included virtual terminals, which were called psuedo-terminals, or PTYs
("pee tee whys"). To run a job, the batch system opens a PTY to start a
terminal session, logs in with your PPN (project programmer number) and feeds it
lines one at a time from the batch control (.CTL) file. The resulting output is
sent to the log file (.LOG). Well-behaved TOPS-10 programs are supposed to
follow certain conventions for error messages, and this, along with some
system-reserved labels, allows for some flexible error handling.
One could make the argument for adding more advanced features to the batch
processing, but the TOPS-10/20 mindset would be to add such capabilities to the
operating system's command processing code instead, which would make them
available to both batch and timesharing jobs.
A number of systems had (have) decent batch capabilities that use a common
command language between batch and timesharing. I'm thinking specifically
of XDS UTS OS, but I think Univac and maybe Burroughs. IBM VM had
facilities that sound similar to what I'm reading about TOPS-10: pretty
limited and one step below DOS .bat files.
DOS doesn't have batch processing. DOS .BAT files are scripts.
Which can queue a stack of jobs to be run so how is that not batch?
Post by Questor
TOPS-10 had an
add-on called MIC (Macro Interpretated Commands, if memory serves) that
implemented script files. TOPS-20 had PCL (Programmable Command Language),
a modification to the command processor (EXEC) written at CMU that was widely
used, even inside DEC, but never became part of the officially supported
product.
Larry Sheldon
2017-11-08 20:44:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
DOS doesn't have batch processing. DOS .BAT files are scripts.
Which can queue a stack of jobs to be run so how is that not batch?
It was obvious to me some time ago that the definition of the word
"batch" in use here did not relate in any meaningful way to the way we
used the word 50 years and more ago, so I pretty much lost interest in
the discussion. This caught my in a spot check for relevance.
--
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-- Juvenal
jmfbahciv
2017-11-09 13:59:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
DOS doesn't have batch processing. DOS .BAT files are scripts.
Which can queue a stack of jobs to be run so how is that not batch?
It was obvious to me some time ago that the definition of the word
"batch" in use here did not relate in any meaningful way to the way we
used the word 50 years and more ago, so I pretty much lost interest in
the discussion. This caught my in a spot check for relevance.
How did you define it? I know IBM's and DEC's idea of the term are
different.

/BAH
Peter Flass
2017-11-09 17:23:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
DOS doesn't have batch processing. DOS .BAT files are scripts.
Which can queue a stack of jobs to be run so how is that not batch?
It was obvious to me some time ago that the definition of the word
"batch" in use here did not relate in any meaningful way to the way we
used the word 50 years and more ago, so I pretty much lost interest in
the discussion. This caught my in a spot check for relevance.
How did you define it? I know IBM's and DEC's idea of the term are
different.
Batch is the facility that allows the computer to run a series of jobs
"unattended" (with apologies to the computer operator). Almost everything
else is bells and whistles. The system _does_ have to have the ability to
avoid deadlocks. PC-DOS "batch" works because the system is single-threaded
and has no devices with mountable volumes, and hence can run unattended as
long as the jobs don't require the user to enter data..

I don't know if there's a batch monitor for DOS, but I can envision one
that extends the facilities of .bat files.
--
Pete
Questor
2017-11-11 07:01:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Flass
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
DOS doesn't have batch processing. DOS .BAT files are scripts.
Which can queue a stack of jobs to be run so how is that not batch?
It was obvious to me some time ago that the definition of the word
"batch" in use here did not relate in any meaningful way to the way we
used the word 50 years and more ago, so I pretty much lost interest in
the discussion. This caught my in a spot check for relevance.
How did you define it? I know IBM's and DEC's idea of the term are
different.
Batch is the facility that allows the computer to run a series of jobs
"unattended" (with apologies to the computer operator). Almost everything
else is bells and whistles. The system _does_ have to have the ability to
avoid deadlocks. PC-DOS "batch" works because the system is single-threaded
and has no devices with mountable volumes, and hence can run unattended as
long as the jobs don't require the user to enter data..
Again, MS-DOS/DR-DOS/PC-DOS does not have batch processing; .BAT files are
scripts.
Post by Peter Flass
I don't know if there's a batch monitor for DOS, but I can envision one
that extends the facilities of .bat files.
Writing such a thing would require implementing a multi-tasking DOS emulator
that runs on top of DOS. A couple of companies succeeding in doing this
(including Microsoft -- they called their product "Windows"), but as far as I
know none of them included a batch processing feature.
J. Clarke
2017-11-11 11:44:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
DOS doesn't have batch processing. DOS .BAT files are scripts.
Which can queue a stack of jobs to be run so how is that not batch?
It was obvious to me some time ago that the definition of the word
"batch" in use here did not relate in any meaningful way to the way we
used the word 50 years and more ago, so I pretty much lost interest in
the discussion. This caught my in a spot check for relevance.
How did you define it? I know IBM's and DEC's idea of the term are
different.
Batch is the facility that allows the computer to run a series of jobs
"unattended" (with apologies to the computer operator). Almost everything
else is bells and whistles. The system _does_ have to have the ability to
avoid deadlocks. PC-DOS "batch" works because the system is single-threaded
and has no devices with mountable volumes, and hence can run unattended as
long as the jobs don't require the user to enter data..
Again, MS-DOS/DR-DOS/PC-DOS does not have batch processing; .BAT files are
scripts.
So are JCL files. What of it?
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
I don't know if there's a batch monitor for DOS, but I can envision one
that extends the facilities of .bat files.
Writing such a thing would require implementing a multi-tasking DOS emulator
that runs on top of DOS. A couple of companies succeeding in doing this
(including Microsoft -- they called their product "Windows"), but as far as I
know none of them included a batch processing feature.
DOS/360 was not multitasking at its original release. Are you
asserting that it did not support batch?
Questor
2017-11-14 07:58:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
DOS doesn't have batch processing. DOS .BAT files are scripts.
Which can queue a stack of jobs to be run so how is that not batch?
It was obvious to me some time ago that the definition of the word
"batch" in use here did not relate in any meaningful way to the way we
used the word 50 years and more ago, so I pretty much lost interest in
the discussion. This caught my in a spot check for relevance.
How did you define it? I know IBM's and DEC's idea of the term are
different.
Batch is the facility that allows the computer to run a series of jobs
"unattended" (with apologies to the computer operator). Almost everything
else is bells and whistles. The system _does_ have to have the ability to
avoid deadlocks. PC-DOS "batch" works because the system is single-threaded
and has no devices with mountable volumes, and hence can run unattended as
long as the jobs don't require the user to enter data..
Again, MS-DOS/DR-DOS/PC-DOS does not have batch processing; .BAT files are
scripts.
So are JCL files. What of it?
I have said nothing about JCL files. MS-DOS doesn't have JCL files.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
I don't know if there's a batch monitor for DOS, but I can envision one
that extends the facilities of .bat files.
Writing such a thing would require implementing a multi-tasking DOS emulator
that runs on top of DOS. A couple of companies succeeding in doing this
(including Microsoft -- they called their product "Windows"), but as far as I
know none of them included a batch processing feature.
DOS/360 was not multitasking at its original release. Are you
asserting that it did not support batch?
No. I have not made any assertions about DOS/360.
Peter Flass
2017-11-14 14:32:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
DOS doesn't have batch processing. DOS .BAT files are scripts.
Which can queue a stack of jobs to be run so how is that not batch?
It was obvious to me some time ago that the definition of the word
"batch" in use here did not relate in any meaningful way to the way we
used the word 50 years and more ago, so I pretty much lost interest in
the discussion. This caught my in a spot check for relevance.
How did you define it? I know IBM's and DEC's idea of the term are
different.
Batch is the facility that allows the computer to run a series of jobs
"unattended" (with apologies to the computer operator). Almost everything
else is bells and whistles. The system _does_ have to have the ability to
avoid deadlocks. PC-DOS "batch" works because the system is single-threaded
and has no devices with mountable volumes, and hence can run unattended as
long as the jobs don't require the user to enter data..
Again, MS-DOS/DR-DOS/PC-DOS does not have batch processing; .BAT files are
scripts.
So are JCL files. What of it?
I have said nothing about JCL files. MS-DOS doesn't have JCL files.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
I don't know if there's a batch monitor for DOS, but I can envision one
that extends the facilities of .bat files.
Writing such a thing would require implementing a multi-tasking DOS emulator
that runs on top of DOS. A couple of companies succeeding in doing this
(including Microsoft -- they called their product "Windows"), but as far as I
know none of them included a batch processing feature.
DOS/360 was not multitasking at its original release. Are you
asserting that it did not support batch?
No. I have not made any assertions about DOS/360.
70xx systems ran batch just fine on a non-multitasking OS. You just need a
resident monitor stub to get control at the end of a job. The problems come
in when a job runs wild or clobbers the mobitor.
--
Pete
Questor
2017-11-15 03:26:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Questor
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
DOS doesn't have batch processing. DOS .BAT files are scripts.
Which can queue a stack of jobs to be run so how is that not batch?
It was obvious to me some time ago that the definition of the word
"batch" in use here did not relate in any meaningful way to the way we
used the word 50 years and more ago, so I pretty much lost interest in
the discussion. This caught my in a spot check for relevance.
How did you define it? I know IBM's and DEC's idea of the term are
different.
Batch is the facility that allows the computer to run a series of jobs
"unattended" (with apologies to the computer operator). Almost everything
else is bells and whistles. The system _does_ have to have the ability to
avoid deadlocks. PC-DOS "batch" works because the system is single-threaded
and has no devices with mountable volumes, and hence can run unattended as
long as the jobs don't require the user to enter data..
Again, MS-DOS/DR-DOS/PC-DOS does not have batch processing; .BAT files are
scripts.
So are JCL files. What of it?
I have said nothing about JCL files. MS-DOS doesn't have JCL files.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
I don't know if there's a batch monitor for DOS, but I can envision one
that extends the facilities of .bat files.
Writing such a thing would require implementing a multi-tasking DOS emulator
that runs on top of DOS. A couple of companies succeeding in doing this
(including Microsoft -- they called their product "Windows"), but as far as I
know none of them included a batch processing feature.
DOS/360 was not multitasking at its original release. Are you
asserting that it did not support batch?
No. I have not made any assertions about DOS/360.
70xx systems ran batch just fine on a non-multitasking OS. You just need a
resident monitor stub to get control at the end of a job.
Exactly, and AFAIK MS-DOS has no such mechanism. It might be possible with a
TSR, but I haven't gotten far enough into the weeds to learn if program
termination is one of the events they can trap. In any event, no such item was
ever included in MS-DOS, hence my statement that MS-DOS does not have batch
processing.
Post by Peter Flass
The problems come
in when a job runs wild or clobbers the mobitor.
Dave Garland
2017-11-15 07:01:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Questor
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
DOS doesn't have batch processing. DOS .BAT files are scripts.
Which can queue a stack of jobs to be run so how is that not batch?
It was obvious to me some time ago that the definition of the word
"batch" in use here did not relate in any meaningful way to the way we
used the word 50 years and more ago, so I pretty much lost interest in
the discussion. This caught my in a spot check for relevance.
How did you define it? I know IBM's and DEC's idea of the term are
different.
Batch is the facility that allows the computer to run a series of jobs
"unattended" (with apologies to the computer operator). Almost everything
else is bells and whistles. The system _does_ have to have the ability to
avoid deadlocks. PC-DOS "batch" works because the system is single-threaded
and has no devices with mountable volumes, and hence can run unattended as
long as the jobs don't require the user to enter data..
Again, MS-DOS/DR-DOS/PC-DOS does not have batch processing; .BAT files are
scripts.
So are JCL files. What of it?
I have said nothing about JCL files. MS-DOS doesn't have JCL files.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
I don't know if there's a batch monitor for DOS, but I can envision one
that extends the facilities of .bat files.
Writing such a thing would require implementing a multi-tasking DOS emulator
that runs on top of DOS. A couple of companies succeeding in doing this
(including Microsoft -- they called their product "Windows"), but as far as I
know none of them included a batch processing feature.
DOS/360 was not multitasking at its original release. Are you
asserting that it did not support batch?
No. I have not made any assertions about DOS/360.
70xx systems ran batch just fine on a non-multitasking OS. You just need a
resident monitor stub to get control at the end of a job.
Exactly, and AFAIK MS-DOS has no such mechanism. It might be possible with a
TSR, but I haven't gotten far enough into the weeds to learn if program
termination is one of the events they can trap. In any event, no such item was
ever included in MS-DOS, hence my statement that MS-DOS does not have batch
processing.
Maybe I don't understand what you're saying, but a MSDOS .BAT file
could identify program termination and (if the program set an
%ERRORLEVEL%) branch depending on why it terminated. That's the sort
of thing BBS setups used all the time. After the program terminated,
control returned to the BAT file.
Questor
2017-11-16 16:24:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Questor
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
DOS doesn't have batch processing. DOS .BAT files are scripts.
Which can queue a stack of jobs to be run so how is that not batch?
It was obvious to me some time ago that the definition of the word
"batch" in use here did not relate in any meaningful way to the way we
used the word 50 years and more ago, so I pretty much lost interest in
the discussion. This caught my in a spot check for relevance.
How did you define it? I know IBM's and DEC's idea of the term are
different.
Batch is the facility that allows the computer to run a series of jobs
"unattended" (with apologies to the computer operator). Almost everything
else is bells and whistles. The system _does_ have to have the ability to
avoid deadlocks. PC-DOS "batch" works because the system is single-threaded
and has no devices with mountable volumes, and hence can run unattended as
long as the jobs don't require the user to enter data..
Again, MS-DOS/DR-DOS/PC-DOS does not have batch processing; .BAT files are
scripts.
So are JCL files. What of it?
I have said nothing about JCL files. MS-DOS doesn't have JCL files.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
I don't know if there's a batch monitor for DOS, but I can envision one
that extends the facilities of .bat files.
Writing such a thing would require implementing a multi-tasking DOS emulator
that runs on top of DOS. A couple of companies succeeding in doing this
(including Microsoft -- they called their product "Windows"), but as far as I
know none of them included a batch processing feature.
DOS/360 was not multitasking at its original release. Are you
asserting that it did not support batch?
No. I have not made any assertions about DOS/360.
70xx systems ran batch just fine on a non-multitasking OS. You just need a
resident monitor stub to get control at the end of a job.
Exactly, and AFAIK MS-DOS has no such mechanism. It might be possible with a
TSR, but I haven't gotten far enough into the weeds to learn if program
termination is one of the events they can trap. In any event, no such item was
ever included in MS-DOS, hence my statement that MS-DOS does not have batch
processing.
Maybe I don't understand what you're saying, but a MSDOS .BAT file
could identify program termination and (if the program set an
%ERRORLEVEL%) branch depending on why it terminated. That's the sort
of thing BBS setups used all the time. After the program terminated,
control returned to the BAT file.
No, I mean returning control to a batch processing program after a .BAT file
terminates.
Dave Garland
2017-11-16 17:26:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Questor
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
DOS doesn't have batch processing. DOS .BAT files are scripts.
Which can queue a stack of jobs to be run so how is that not batch?
It was obvious to me some time ago that the definition of the word
"batch" in use here did not relate in any meaningful way to the way we
used the word 50 years and more ago, so I pretty much lost interest in
the discussion. This caught my in a spot check for relevance.
How did you define it? I know IBM's and DEC's idea of the term are
different.
Batch is the facility that allows the computer to run a series of jobs
"unattended" (with apologies to the computer operator). Almost everything
else is bells and whistles. The system _does_ have to have the ability to
avoid deadlocks. PC-DOS "batch" works because the system is single-threaded
and has no devices with mountable volumes, and hence can run unattended as
long as the jobs don't require the user to enter data..
Again, MS-DOS/DR-DOS/PC-DOS does not have batch processing; .BAT files are
scripts.
So are JCL files. What of it?
I have said nothing about JCL files. MS-DOS doesn't have JCL files.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
I don't know if there's a batch monitor for DOS, but I can envision one
that extends the facilities of .bat files.
Writing such a thing would require implementing a multi-tasking DOS emulator
that runs on top of DOS. A couple of companies succeeding in doing this
(including Microsoft -- they called their product "Windows"), but as far as I
know none of them included a batch processing feature.
DOS/360 was not multitasking at its original release. Are you
asserting that it did not support batch?
No. I have not made any assertions about DOS/360.
70xx systems ran batch just fine on a non-multitasking OS. You just need a
resident monitor stub to get control at the end of a job.
Exactly, and AFAIK MS-DOS has no such mechanism. It might be possible with a
TSR, but I haven't gotten far enough into the weeds to learn if program
termination is one of the events they can trap. In any event, no such item was
ever included in MS-DOS, hence my statement that MS-DOS does not have batch
processing.
Maybe I don't understand what you're saying, but a MSDOS .BAT file
could identify program termination and (if the program set an
%ERRORLEVEL%) branch depending on why it terminated. That's the sort
of thing BBS setups used all the time. After the program terminated,
control returned to the BAT file.
No, I mean returning control to a batch processing program after a .BAT file
terminates.
IME usually exchanges like this mean that are communications aren't
working as intended.

"Batch processing program"? Depending on precisely what that means, in
MSDOS that would be the BAT file (program/script) itself, unless you
mean the OS command interpreter (which is invoked for each line of the
BAT program/script). In the context of a BBS, the BAT file isn't
intended to terminate.until either an error occurs that it can't
handle (e.g. "disk full"), or the operator intervenes. Otherwise, it
loops forever.
Questor
2017-11-17 09:54:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Questor
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Questor
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
DOS doesn't have batch processing. DOS .BAT files are scripts.
Which can queue a stack of jobs to be run so how is that not batch?
It was obvious to me some time ago that the definition of the word
"batch" in use here did not relate in any meaningful way to the way we
used the word 50 years and more ago, so I pretty much lost interest in
the discussion. This caught my in a spot check for relevance.
How did you define it? I know IBM's and DEC's idea of the term are
different.
Batch is the facility that allows the computer to run a series of jobs
"unattended" (with apologies to the computer operator). Almost everything
else is bells and whistles. The system _does_ have to have the ability to
avoid deadlocks. PC-DOS "batch" works because the system is single-threaded
and has no devices with mountable volumes, and hence can run unattended as
long as the jobs don't require the user to enter data..
Again, MS-DOS/DR-DOS/PC-DOS does not have batch processing; .BAT files are
scripts.
So are JCL files. What of it?
I have said nothing about JCL files. MS-DOS doesn't have JCL files.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
I don't know if there's a batch monitor for DOS, but I can envision one
that extends the facilities of .bat files.
Writing such a thing would require implementing a multi-tasking DOS emulator
that runs on top of DOS. A couple of companies succeeding in doing this
(including Microsoft -- they called their product "Windows"), but as far as I
know none of them included a batch processing feature.
DOS/360 was not multitasking at its original release. Are you
asserting that it did not support batch?
No. I have not made any assertions about DOS/360.
70xx systems ran batch just fine on a non-multitasking OS. You just need a
resident monitor stub to get control at the end of a job.
Exactly, and AFAIK MS-DOS has no such mechanism. It might be possible with a
TSR, but I haven't gotten far enough into the weeds to learn if program
termination is one of the events they can trap. In any event, no such item was
ever included in MS-DOS, hence my statement that MS-DOS does not have batch
processing.
Maybe I don't understand what you're saying, but a MSDOS .BAT file
could identify program termination and (if the program set an
%ERRORLEVEL%) branch depending on why it terminated. That's the sort
of thing BBS setups used all the time. After the program terminated,
control returned to the BAT file.
No, I mean returning control to a batch processing program after a .BAT file
terminates.
IME usually exchanges like this mean that are communications aren't
working as intended.
I get the impression that you've never used a full-featured batch system on a
multi-user IBM or DEC machine, for example.
Post by Dave Garland
"Batch processing program"? Depending on precisely what that means, in
MSDOS that would be the BAT file (program/script) itself, unless you
mean the OS command interpreter (which is invoked for each line of the
BAT program/script).
No, COMMAND.COM is the script interpreter; it is not a batch processing program.

Say I have two .BAT files: ONE.BAT and TWO.BAT. I want to run ONE.BAT at 10pm.
I'll probably still be awake then, but I might forget about it. I want TWO.BAT
to be executed at 2am. I'll be asleep then. How can this be accomplished in
MS-DOS?

A batch processing program would be another meta-level above COMMAND.COM. It
would keep a list, called the batch queue, of .BAT files that are scheduled to
be interpreted. Each .BAT filed entered into the queue is considered a batch
job. Batch jobs can be scheduled for execution immediately or at specific
times, or pending resource availability, or based on priorities. The batch
queue can be viewed, and items therein modified or removed.

MS-DOS has no such facility.
Post by Dave Garland
In the context of a BBS, the BAT file isn't
intended to terminate.until either an error occurs that it can't
handle (e.g. "disk full"), or the operator intervenes. Otherwise, it
loops forever.
That's a dedicated, unattended computer system running a script. It is not
doing batch processing.
Peter Flass
2017-11-17 13:29:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Questor
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Questor
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
DOS doesn't have batch processing. DOS .BAT files are scripts.
Which can queue a stack of jobs to be run so how is that not batch?
It was obvious to me some time ago that the definition of the word
"batch" in use here did not relate in any meaningful way to the way we
used the word 50 years and more ago, so I pretty much lost interest in
the discussion. This caught my in a spot check for relevance.
How did you define it? I know IBM's and DEC's idea of the term are
different.
Batch is the facility that allows the computer to run a series of jobs
"unattended" (with apologies to the computer operator). Almost everything
else is bells and whistles. The system _does_ have to have the ability to
avoid deadlocks. PC-DOS "batch" works because the system is single-threaded
and has no devices with mountable volumes, and hence can run unattended as
long as the jobs don't require the user to enter data..
Again, MS-DOS/DR-DOS/PC-DOS does not have batch processing; .BAT files are
scripts.
So are JCL files. What of it?
I have said nothing about JCL files. MS-DOS doesn't have JCL files.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
I don't know if there's a batch monitor for DOS, but I can envision one
that extends the facilities of .bat files.
Writing such a thing would require implementing a multi-tasking DOS emulator
that runs on top of DOS. A couple of companies succeeding in doing this
(including Microsoft -- they called their product "Windows"), but as far as I
know none of them included a batch processing feature.
DOS/360 was not multitasking at its original release. Are you
asserting that it did not support batch?
No. I have not made any assertions about DOS/360.
70xx systems ran batch just fine on a non-multitasking OS. You just need a
resident monitor stub to get control at the end of a job.
Exactly, and AFAIK MS-DOS has no such mechanism. It might be possible with a
TSR, but I haven't gotten far enough into the weeds to learn if program
termination is one of the events they can trap. In any event, no such item was
ever included in MS-DOS, hence my statement that MS-DOS does not have batch
processing.
Maybe I don't understand what you're saying, but a MSDOS .BAT file
could identify program termination and (if the program set an
%ERRORLEVEL%) branch depending on why it terminated. That's the sort
of thing BBS setups used all the time. After the program terminated,
control returned to the BAT file.
No, I mean returning control to a batch processing program after a .BAT file
terminates.
IME usually exchanges like this mean that are communications aren't
working as intended.
I get the impression that you've never used a full-featured batch system on a
multi-user IBM or DEC machine, for example.
Post by Dave Garland
"Batch processing program"? Depending on precisely what that means, in
MSDOS that would be the BAT file (program/script) itself, unless you
mean the OS command interpreter (which is invoked for each line of the
BAT program/script).
No, COMMAND.COM is the script interpreter; it is not a batch processing program.
Say I have two .BAT files: ONE.BAT and TWO.BAT. I want to run ONE.BAT at 10pm.
I'll probably still be awake then, but I might forget about it. I want TWO.BAT
to be executed at 2am. I'll be asleep then. How can this be accomplished in
MS-DOS?
A batch processing program would be another meta-level above COMMAND.COM. It
would keep a list, called the batch queue, of .BAT files that are scheduled to
be interpreted. Each .BAT filed entered into the queue is considered a batch
job. Batch jobs can be scheduled for execution immediately or at specific
times, or pending resource availability, or based on priorities. The batch
queue can be viewed, and items therein modified or removed.
MS-DOS has no such facility.
Post by Dave Garland
In the context of a BBS, the BAT file isn't
intended to terminate.until either an error occurs that it can't
handle (e.g. "disk full"), or the operator intervenes. Otherwise, it
loops forever.
That's a dedicated, unattended computer system running a script. It is not
doing batch processing.
From my limited knowledge of DOS, I'd do it via a TSR that would kick thing
off at the specified time, or run things from a queue.
--
Pete
Questor
2017-11-18 20:46:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Questor
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Questor
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Questor
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
DOS doesn't have batch processing. DOS .BAT files are scripts.
Which can queue a stack of jobs to be run so how is that not batch?
It was obvious to me some time ago that the definition of the word
"batch" in use here did not relate in any meaningful way to the way we
used the word 50 years and more ago, so I pretty much lost interest in
the discussion. This caught my in a spot check for relevance.
How did you define it? I know IBM's and DEC's idea of the term are
different.
Batch is the facility that allows the computer to run a series of jobs
"unattended" (with apologies to the computer operator). Almost everything
else is bells and whistles. The system _does_ have to have the ability to
avoid deadlocks. PC-DOS "batch" works because the system is single-threaded
and has no devices with mountable volumes, and hence can run unattended as
long as the jobs don't require the user to enter data..
Again, MS-DOS/DR-DOS/PC-DOS does not have batch processing; .BAT files are
scripts.
So are JCL files. What of it?
I have said nothing about JCL files. MS-DOS doesn't have JCL files.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
I don't know if there's a batch monitor for DOS, but I can envision one
that extends the facilities of .bat files.
Writing such a thing would require implementing a multi-tasking DOS emulator
that runs on top of DOS. A couple of companies succeeding in doing this
(including Microsoft -- they called their product "Windows"), but as far as I
know none of them included a batch processing feature.
DOS/360 was not multitasking at its original release. Are you
asserting that it did not support batch?
No. I have not made any assertions about DOS/360.
70xx systems ran batch just fine on a non-multitasking OS. You just need a
resident monitor stub to get control at the end of a job.
Exactly, and AFAIK MS-DOS has no such mechanism. It might be possible with a
TSR, but I haven't gotten far enough into the weeds to learn if program
termination is one of the events they can trap. In any event, no such item was
ever included in MS-DOS, hence my statement that MS-DOS does not have batch
processing.
Maybe I don't understand what you're saying, but a MSDOS .BAT file
could identify program termination and (if the program set an
%ERRORLEVEL%) branch depending on why it terminated. That's the sort
of thing BBS setups used all the time. After the program terminated,
control returned to the BAT file.
No, I mean returning control to a batch processing program after a .BAT file
terminates.
IME usually exchanges like this mean that are communications aren't
working as intended.
I get the impression that you've never used a full-featured batch system on a
multi-user IBM or DEC machine, for example.
Post by Dave Garland
"Batch processing program"? Depending on precisely what that means, in
MSDOS that would be the BAT file (program/script) itself, unless you
mean the OS command interpreter (which is invoked for each line of the
BAT program/script).
No, COMMAND.COM is the script interpreter; it is not a batch processing program.
Say I have two .BAT files: ONE.BAT and TWO.BAT. I want to run ONE.BAT at 10pm.
I'll probably still be awake then, but I might forget about it. I want TWO.BAT
to be executed at 2am. I'll be asleep then. How can this be accomplished in
MS-DOS?
A batch processing program would be another meta-level above COMMAND.COM. It
would keep a list, called the batch queue, of .BAT files that are scheduled to
be interpreted. Each .BAT filed entered into the queue is considered a batch
job. Batch jobs can be scheduled for execution immediately or at specific
times, or pending resource availability, or based on priorities. The batch
queue can be viewed, and items therein modified or removed.
MS-DOS has no such facility.
Post by Dave Garland
In the context of a BBS, the BAT file isn't
intended to terminate.until either an error occurs that it can't
handle (e.g. "disk full"), or the operator intervenes. Otherwise, it
loops forever.
That's a dedicated, unattended computer system running a script. It is not
doing batch processing.
From my limited knowledge of DOS, I'd do it via a TSR that would kick thing
off at the specified time, or run things from a queue.
I would look into a TSR as well; as I stated elsewhere in this thread, I don't
know for certain if there is a way to have control returned to a TSR after .BAT
files complete execution.
Larry Sheldon
2017-11-18 21:12:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
I would look into a TSR as well; as I stated elsewhere in this thread, I don't
know for certain if there is a way to have control returned to a TSR after .BAT
files complete execution.
There has to be a way. Since I don't speak little computer with any
fluency (so I don't know all of the service calls the OS offers), I
would probably have the TSR create a signal file just before it starts
the .BAT, and then let it hang trying to delete it after the start. The
last thing the .bat file would do is delete the file.
--
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-- Juvenal
J. Clarke
2017-11-18 22:28:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:12:07 -0600, Larry Sheldon
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by Questor
I would look into a TSR as well; as I stated elsewhere in this thread, I don't
know for certain if there is a way to have control returned to a TSR after .BAT
files complete execution.
There has to be a way. Since I don't speak little computer with any
fluency (so I don't know all of the service calls the OS offers), I
would probably have the TSR create a signal file just before it starts
the .BAT, and then let it hang trying to delete it after the start. The
last thing the .bat file would do is delete the file.
If you're doing anything for pay today, just assume that MS-DOS is
dead, because it is. "TSR" programs were worthwile once, but with a
preemptively multitasking virtualizable OS they no longer make even
the slightest bit of sense.

However in the DOS world, control does return to the command processor
after completion of a .BAT file (unless something goes horribly wrong
and the machine locks up). The operator then has to do something to
add more stuff to the queue. If the last step in the batch file is to
load another batch file from the other diskette drive then one can
pretty much keep a continuous process going, but that requires using a
different machine to write the new job list to the diskette--the
process would be to start the bat file on diskette a, insert diskette
b, when b access starts, swap a out for the new task queue, when a
accesses then swap b out and so on. Not much different conceptually
from punching decks of cards and keeping the reader full.

Nobody used a PC that way that I know of but the capability was
present once the diskette became auxiliary storage.
Questor
2017-11-20 07:34:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:12:07 -0600, Larry Sheldon
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by Questor
I would look into a TSR as well; as I stated elsewhere in this thread, I don't
know for certain if there is a way to have control returned to a TSR after .BAT
files complete execution.
There has to be a way. Since I don't speak little computer with any
fluency (so I don't know all of the service calls the OS offers), I
would probably have the TSR create a signal file just before it starts
the .BAT, and then let it hang trying to delete it after the start. The
last thing the .bat file would do is delete the file.
If you're doing anything for pay today, just assume that MS-DOS is
dead, because it is. "TSR" programs were worthwile once, but with a
preemptively multitasking virtualizable OS they no longer make even
the slightest bit of sense.
I would think it is obvious this is an academic exercise. Certainly
alt.folklore.computers is the place to discuss 35+ y.o. software.
Peter Flass
2017-11-20 19:40:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:12:07 -0600, Larry Sheldon
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by Questor
I would look into a TSR as well; as I stated elsewhere in this thread, I don't
know for certain if there is a way to have control returned to a TSR after .BAT
files complete execution.
There has to be a way. Since I don't speak little computer with any
fluency (so I don't know all of the service calls the OS offers), I
would probably have the TSR create a signal file just before it starts
the .BAT, and then let it hang trying to delete it after the start. The
last thing the .bat file would do is delete the file.
If you're doing anything for pay today, just assume that MS-DOS is
dead, because it is. "TSR" programs were worthwile once, but with a
preemptively multitasking virtualizable OS they no longer make even
the slightest bit of sense.
I would think it is obvious this is an academic exercise. Certainly
alt.folklore.computers is the place to discuss 35+ y.o. software.
Right-o. It's obviously trivial on a modern OS, but the thought exercise of
how to do it on DOS is the interesting part.
--
Pete
Bob Eager
2017-11-20 19:56:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Flass
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:28:52 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:12:07 -0600, Larry Sheldon
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by Questor
I would look into a TSR as well; as I stated elsewhere in this
thread, I don't know for certain if there is a way to have control
returned to a TSR after .BAT files complete execution.
There has to be a way. Since I don't speak little computer with any
fluency (so I don't know all of the service calls the OS offers), I
would probably have the TSR create a signal file just before it
starts the .BAT, and then let it hang trying to delete it after the
start. The last thing the .bat file would do is delete the file.
If you're doing anything for pay today, just assume that MS-DOS is
dead, because it is. "TSR" programs were worthwile once, but with a
preemptively multitasking virtualizable OS they no longer make even
the slightest bit of sense.
I would think it is obvious this is an academic exercise. Certainly
alt.folklore.computers is the place to discuss 35+ y.o. software.
Right-o. It's obviously trivial on a modern OS, but the thought exercise
of how to do it on DOS is the interesting part.
The obvious thing would have been to build it into COMMAND.COM. Then it
wouldn't encroach on program memory.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Charles Richmond
2017-11-20 20:54:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Eager
Post by Peter Flass
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:28:52 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:12:07 -0600, Larry Sheldon
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by Questor
I would look into a TSR as well; as I stated elsewhere in this
thread, I don't know for certain if there is a way to have control
returned to a TSR after .BAT files complete execution.
There has to be a way. Since I don't speak little computer with any
fluency (so I don't know all of the service calls the OS offers), I
would probably have the TSR create a signal file just before it
starts the .BAT, and then let it hang trying to delete it after the
start. The last thing the .bat file would do is delete the file.
If you're doing anything for pay today, just assume that MS-DOS is
dead, because it is. "TSR" programs were worthwile once, but with a
preemptively multitasking virtualizable OS they no longer make even
the slightest bit of sense.
I would think it is obvious this is an academic exercise. Certainly
alt.folklore.computers is the place to discuss 35+ y.o. software.
Right-o. It's obviously trivial on a modern OS, but the thought exercise
of how to do it on DOS is the interesting part.
The obvious thing would have been to build it into COMMAND.COM. Then it
wouldn't encroach on program memory.
SomWwhere around here, I have a magazine article describing the steps in
writing a TSR for Mess DOS...
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
Bob Eager
2017-11-20 22:07:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Richmond
Post by Bob Eager
Post by Peter Flass
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:28:52 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:12:07 -0600, Larry Sheldon
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by Questor
I would look into a TSR as well; as I stated elsewhere in this
thread, I don't know for certain if there is a way to have control
returned to a TSR after .BAT files complete execution.
There has to be a way. Since I don't speak little computer with
any fluency (so I don't know all of the service calls the OS
offers), I would probably have the TSR create a signal file just
before it starts the .BAT, and then let it hang trying to delete it
after the start. The last thing the .bat file would do is delete
the file.
If you're doing anything for pay today, just assume that MS-DOS is
dead, because it is. "TSR" programs were worthwile once, but with a
preemptively multitasking virtualizable OS they no longer make even
the slightest bit of sense.
I would think it is obvious this is an academic exercise. Certainly
alt.folklore.computers is the place to discuss 35+ y.o. software.
Right-o. It's obviously trivial on a modern OS, but the thought
exercise of how to do it on DOS is the interesting part.
The obvious thing would have been to build it into COMMAND.COM. Then it
wouldn't encroach on program memory.
SomWwhere around here, I have a magazine article describing the steps in
writing a TSR for Mess DOS...
I wrote a few. The most useful one was making NumLock work so that it
could be used as a Gold key in Kermit.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Charles Richmond
2017-11-21 00:13:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Eager
Post by Charles Richmond
Post by Bob Eager
Post by Peter Flass
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:28:52 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:12:07 -0600, Larry Sheldon
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by Questor
I would look into a TSR as well; as I stated elsewhere in this
thread, I don't know for certain if there is a way to have control
returned to a TSR after .BAT files complete execution.
There has to be a way. Since I don't speak little computer with
any fluency (so I don't know all of the service calls the OS
offers), I would probably have the TSR create a signal file just
before it starts the .BAT, and then let it hang trying to delete it
after the start. The last thing the .bat file would do is delete
the file.
If you're doing anything for pay today, just assume that MS-DOS is
dead, because it is. "TSR" programs were worthwile once, but with a
preemptively multitasking virtualizable OS they no longer make even
the slightest bit of sense.
I would think it is obvious this is an academic exercise. Certainly
alt.folklore.computers is the place to discuss 35+ y.o. software.
Right-o. It's obviously trivial on a modern OS, but the thought
exercise of how to do it on DOS is the interesting part.
The obvious thing would have been to build it into COMMAND.COM. Then it
wouldn't encroach on program memory.
SomWwhere around here, I have a magazine article describing the steps in
writing a TSR for Mess DOS...
I wrote a few. The most useful one was making NumLock work so that it
could be used as a Gold key in Kermit.
You should be able to do that now by making changes to the registry. I
disabled my caps lock key because I accidentally hit it too often.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
Peter Flass
2017-11-20 21:58:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Eager
Post by Peter Flass
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:28:52 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:12:07 -0600, Larry Sheldon
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by Questor
I would look into a TSR as well; as I stated elsewhere in this
thread, I don't know for certain if there is a way to have control
returned to a TSR after .BAT files complete execution.
There has to be a way. Since I don't speak little computer with any
fluency (so I don't know all of the service calls the OS offers), I
would probably have the TSR create a signal file just before it
starts the .BAT, and then let it hang trying to delete it after the
start. The last thing the .bat file would do is delete the file.
If you're doing anything for pay today, just assume that MS-DOS is
dead, because it is. "TSR" programs were worthwile once, but with a
preemptively multitasking virtualizable OS they no longer make even
the slightest bit of sense.
I would think it is obvious this is an academic exercise. Certainly
alt.folklore.computers is the place to discuss 35+ y.o. software.
Right-o. It's obviously trivial on a modern OS, but the thought exercise
of how to do it on DOS is the interesting part.
The obvious thing would have been to build it into COMMAND.COM. Then it
wouldn't encroach on program memory.
That's right, I forgot Command.com wasn't swappable. I was thinking of
something that would run on top of command.com, overwrite it when necessary
and reload it later.
--
Pete
Bob Eager
2017-11-20 22:08:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Bob Eager
Post by Peter Flass
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:28:52 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:12:07 -0600, Larry Sheldon
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by Questor
I would look into a TSR as well; as I stated elsewhere in this
thread, I don't know for certain if there is a way to have control
returned to a TSR after .BAT files complete execution.
There has to be a way. Since I don't speak little computer with
any fluency (so I don't know all of the service calls the OS
offers), I would probably have the TSR create a signal file just
before it starts the .BAT, and then let it hang trying to delete it
after the start. The last thing the .bat file would do is delete
the file.
If you're doing anything for pay today, just assume that MS-DOS is
dead, because it is. "TSR" programs were worthwile once, but with a
preemptively multitasking virtualizable OS they no longer make even
the slightest bit of sense.
I would think it is obvious this is an academic exercise. Certainly
alt.folklore.computers is the place to discuss 35+ y.o. software.
Right-o. It's obviously trivial on a modern OS, but the thought
exercise of how to do it on DOS is the interesting part.
The obvious thing would have been to build it into COMMAND.COM. Then it
wouldn't encroach on program memory.
That's right, I forgot Command.com wasn't swappable. I was thinking of
something that would run on top of command.com, overwrite it when
necessary and reload it later.
Command.com *was* swappable - of sorts. If it got overwritten, the
resident part of DOS noticed that on program exit, and reloaded it.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Dave Garland
2017-11-17 17:10:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
I get the impression that you've never used a full-featured batch system on a
multi-user IBM or DEC machine, for example.
That would be true. Most of my experience is with minis and PCs.
Post by Questor
Post by Dave Garland
"Batch processing program"? Depending on precisely what that means, in
MSDOS that would be the BAT file (program/script) itself, unless you
mean the OS command interpreter (which is invoked for each line of the
BAT program/script).
No, COMMAND.COM is the script interpreter; it is not a batch processing program.
This is true.
Post by Questor
Say I have two .BAT files: ONE.BAT and TWO.BAT. I want to run ONE.BAT at 10pm.
I'll probably still be awake then, but I might forget about it. I want TWO.BAT
to be executed at 2am. I'll be asleep then. How can this be accomplished in
MS-DOS?
It's been 30 years since I've done this, and I've tossed a lot of the
documentation. But if I'm running MSDOS with the 4DOS command
interpreter, by running ZERO.BAT, containing something like:

:WAITONE
REM _TIME is the system time
REM @TIME is the number of seconds after midnight that a time string
represents
IFF @TIME _TIME == 79200
GOSUB ONE.BAT
ELSE GOTO WAITONE

:WAITTWO
IFF @TIME _TIME == 7200
GOSUB TWO.BAT
ELSE GOTO WAITTWO

END
Post by Questor
A batch processing program would be another meta-level above COMMAND.COM. It
would keep a list, called the batch queue, of .BAT files that are scheduled to
be interpreted. Each .BAT filed entered into the queue is considered a batch
job. Batch jobs can be scheduled for execution immediately or at specific
times, or pending resource availability, or based on priorities. The batch
queue can be viewed, and items therein modified or removed.
MS-DOS has no such facility.
Post by Dave Garland
In the context of a BBS, the BAT file isn't
intended to terminate.until either an error occurs that it can't
handle (e.g. "disk full"), or the operator intervenes. Otherwise, it
loops forever.
That's a dedicated, unattended computer system running a script. It is not
doing batch processing.
As I have said several times, "batch" means something different with
mainframes than it does with MSDOS. This is alt.folklore.computers,
not alt.folklore.mainframes. It's a script, sure.
Questor
2017-11-18 20:47:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Questor
I get the impression that you've never used a full-featured batch system on a
multi-user IBM or DEC machine, for example.
That would be true. Most of my experience is with minis and PCs.
Post by Questor
Post by Dave Garland
"Batch processing program"? Depending on precisely what that means, in
MSDOS that would be the BAT file (program/script) itself, unless you
mean the OS command interpreter (which is invoked for each line of the
BAT program/script).
No, COMMAND.COM is the script interpreter; it is not a batch processing program.
This is true.
Post by Questor
Say I have two .BAT files: ONE.BAT and TWO.BAT. I want to run ONE.BAT at 10pm.
I'll probably still be awake then, but I might forget about it. I want TWO.BAT
to be executed at 2am. I'll be asleep then. How can this be accomplished in
MS-DOS?
It's been 30 years since I've done this, and I've tossed a lot of the
documentation. But if I'm running MSDOS with the 4DOS command
:WAITONE
REM _TIME is the system time
represents
GOSUB ONE.BAT
ELSE GOTO WAITONE
:WAITTWO
GOSUB TWO.BAT
ELSE GOTO WAITTWO
END
Two things: first, your solution is a one-off; any change in the number, names,
or times requires you write a new ZERO.BAT. Second, your solution is
essentially to make one bigger .BAT file from the two others. You've solved my
specific case, but not the general problem. That general solution is a batch
processing system. Hopefully you can get a sense of how that might have worked.
Admittedly it can be hard to see that on a single-user, single-tasking system
like MS-DOS, but on multi-user, multi-tasking systems it is an enormously useful
service.
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Questor
A batch processing program would be another meta-level above COMMAND.COM. It
would keep a list, called the batch queue, of .BAT files that are scheduled to
be interpreted. Each .BAT filed entered into the queue is considered a batch
job. Batch jobs can be scheduled for execution immediately or at specific
times, or pending resource availability, or based on priorities. The batch
queue can be viewed, and items therein modified or removed.
MS-DOS has no such facility.
Post by Dave Garland
In the context of a BBS, the BAT file isn't
intended to terminate.until either an error occurs that it can't
handle (e.g. "disk full"), or the operator intervenes. Otherwise, it
loops forever.
That's a dedicated, unattended computer system running a script. It is not
doing batch processing.
As I have said several times, "batch" means something different with
mainframes than it does with MSDOS. This is alt.folklore.computers,
not alt.folklore.mainframes. It's a script, sure.
Humpty Dumpty's admonishment aside, things are what they are, and words are
supposed to have a meaning that accurately reflects that.. I can call a
Volkswagon a Ferrari, but that doesn't mean it will be able to go 160mph.
Using the word "batch" in this context was a mistake that has subsequently
contributed to ignorance and confusion about what batch really was or is.
Dave Garland
2017-11-20 23:43:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Questor
I get the impression that you've never used a full-featured batch system on a
multi-user IBM or DEC machine, for example.
That would be true. Most of my experience is with minis and PCs.
Post by Questor
Post by Dave Garland
"Batch processing program"? Depending on precisely what that means, in
MSDOS that would be the BAT file (program/script) itself, unless you
mean the OS command interpreter (which is invoked for each line of the
BAT program/script).
No, COMMAND.COM is the script interpreter; it is not a batch processing program.
This is true.
Post by Questor
Say I have two .BAT files: ONE.BAT and TWO.BAT. I want to run ONE.BAT at 10pm.
I'll probably still be awake then, but I might forget about it. I want TWO.BAT
to be executed at 2am. I'll be asleep then. How can this be accomplished in
MS-DOS?
It's been 30 years since I've done this, and I've tossed a lot of the
documentation. But if I'm running MSDOS with the 4DOS command
:WAITONE
REM _TIME is the system time
represents
GOSUB ONE.BAT
ELSE GOTO WAITONE
:WAITTWO
GOSUB TWO.BAT
ELSE GOTO WAITTWO
END
Two things: first, your solution is a one-off; any change in the number, names,
or times requires you write a new ZERO.BAT.
True, but you didn't ask for a general solution, just if it was
possible. I could probably come up with a general solution (not saying
it would be the equivalent of what you could do with a mainframe), but
I'd need to set up a DOS machine and spend time reacquainting myself
with 4DOS. Suffice it to say that a DOS BBS ran a number of programs,
with programs calling other programs, certain events happening at
particular clock times, some interacting with other computers either
local or over the phone or Internet. It could be multi-user, though
not in a "general purpose" way.

Second, your solution is
Post by Questor
essentially to make one bigger .BAT file from the two others. You've solved my
specific case, but not the general problem. That general solution is a batch
processing system. Hopefully you can get a sense of how that might have worked.
Sure, I didn't claim that a general solution came (or could be
created) with DOS.
Post by Questor
Post by Dave Garland
As I have said several times, "batch" means something different with
mainframes than it does with MSDOS. This is alt.folklore.computers,
not alt.folklore.mainframes. It's a script, sure.
Humpty Dumpty's admonishment aside, things are what they are, and words are
supposed to have a meaning that accurately reflects that.. I can call a
Volkswagon a Ferrari, but that doesn't mean it will be able to go 160mph.
Using the word "batch" in this context was a mistake that has subsequently
contributed to ignorance and confusion about what batch really was or is.
Indeed. BillG can be blamed for a lot of things. And a "hacker" is
still a term of high praise, and "the internet" isn't a synonym for
"world wide web". (That last one bugs me the most, since there doesn't
seem to be any term available to replace the original concept).
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
2017-11-11 17:45:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Again, MS-DOS/DR-DOS/PC-DOS does not have batch processing; .BAT files are
scripts.
i would differentiate that online/interactive tended to have basic
assumption that user was present running program ... while batch tended
to assume that user wasn't present. batch processing tended to
heuristically evolve more and more automation support over the years.

I got into this doing (unix) IBM's HA/CMP product and later with
(unix-based) webservers when brought in as consultant at small
client/server startup that wanted to do payment transactions on their
server (they had also invented this technology they called "SSL", the
result is now frequently called "electronic commerce"). There was all
sorts of things that needed automation that had been part of IBM batch
systems for years.

recent reference to my wife having done stint responsible for
loosely-coupled architecture (mainframe for cluster) but didn't stay
long ... in part because of little uptake (except for IMS hot-standby
... until sysplex & parallel sysplex years later).
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017j.html#28 Db2! was: NODE.js for z/OS
past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#shareddata

The guy responsible for one of the financial networks clearing large
amounts of financial would like us to come by periodically to talk
technology. He had attributed 100% availability for more than a decade
to

1) replicated IMS hot-standby (at multiple geographically separated
locations
2) automated operator

IMS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Information_Management_System
mentions large financial customer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Information_Management_System#Application

above also references pros/cons IMS versus DB2 ... which originated
by the STL IMS group in the 70s criticizing the original sql/relational
implementation System/R ... some posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#systemr

had also run into this earlier when we were doing IBM's HA/CMP product
some past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp

... when out doing marketing ... I had coined "disaster survivability"
(to differentiate from disaster recovery) and geographic survivability.
I had also been asked to write a section for the corporate continuous
availability strategy document ... however it got pulled when both
the rochester as/400 group and the POK mainframe group complained
that they couldn't (then) meet the requirements. some posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#available

trivia: this is reference to Jan1992 meeting in Ellison's conference
room on cluster scaleup.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#13

two of the people mentioned in the meeting, later left Oracle and were
at small client/server startup responsible for something called
"commerce" server when we were brought in as consultants because they
wanted to do payment transactions on the server.

other triva: around turn of the century there was joint project between
m'soft and financial processing company to do online banking services
outsourcing. When it was figured out that NT wouldn't handle the load
and SUN servers would have to be used ... I got tagged to explain the
matter to Microsoft chairman. The day before I was scheduled to go in,
some of the business people decided that (instead) online load would be
managed to what could be handled by NT ... and then scaled up as NT was
enhanced to handle increasing load (so they wouldn't have to raise the
issue with the microsoft chairman).

posts in thread:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017j.html#26 Tech: we didn't mean for it to turn out like this
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017j.html#30 Tech: we didn't mean for it to turn out like this
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017j.html#31 Tech: we didn't mean for it to turn out like this
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017j.html#32 Tech: we didn't mean for it to turn out like this
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017j.html#34 Tech: we didn't mean for it to turn out like this
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017j.html#35 Tech: we didn't mean for it to turn out like this
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017j.html#36 Tech: we didn't mean for it to turn out like this
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017j.html#37 Tech: we didn't mean for it to turn out like this
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017j.html#38 Tech: we didn't mean for it to turn out like this
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
Dave Garland
2017-11-11 19:38:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Post by Questor
Again, MS-DOS/DR-DOS/PC-DOS does not have batch processing; .BAT files are
scripts.
i would differentiate that online/interactive tended to have basic
assumption that user was present running program ... while batch tended
to assume that user wasn't present. batch processing tended to
heuristically evolve more and more automation support over the years.
And while it is true that PC "batch processing" is a different critter
than with mainframes, .BAT files could certainly be used for "user not
present". PC BBS systems typically involved dozens of single-threaded
programs controlled by long (many hundred lines of code) batch files
that glued everything together. Often the stock MS command.com was
replaced by 4DOS, which had more extensive logic controls and improved
utilities. In my area, one BBS sysop died, but it was several weeks
before online users noticed, because her BBS kept chugging right along
answering calls and sending/receiving mail.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
2017-11-11 20:03:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dave Garland
And while it is true that PC "batch processing" is a different critter
than with mainframes, .BAT files could certainly be used for "user not
present". PC BBS systems typically involved dozens of single-threaded
programs controlled by long (many hundred lines of code) batch files
that glued everything together. Often the stock MS command.com was
replaced by 4DOS, which had more extensive logic controls and improved
utilities. In my area, one BBS sysop died, but it was several weeks
before online users noticed, because her BBS kept chugging right along
answering calls and sending/receiving mail.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017j.html#40 Tech: we didn't mean for it to turn out like this

part of old thread from 20yrs ago ... involved running some operations
at small/client server started that wanted to do payment transactions
on their server ... shell script ran sort where filled disk which
didn't reflect error and eventually resulted in loss of data
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/96.html#7 Why Do Mainframes Exist ???

in the commercial mainframe environment there is a lot of 7x24
procedural and automation infrastructure that has somewhat grown up thru
trial and error over the past 30 years ... only some of it represented
by hardware technology.

there is also a fundamental difference in a basicly "interactive"
environment design point (where default tends to be having a person
handle situations) and "batch" environment design point (where default
tends to be automated applications handling situations and the
corresponding instrumented infrastructure to support it).

a trivial example of infrastructure/design-point is what happens when a
sort program runs out of temp space ... current os/mvs (as well as
os/mft circa 1968) generates a specific error code for just about every
condition ... and frequently there is an automated infrastructure that
can handle each of the return codes and can take corrective/recovery
action.

for how many of the newer operating systems is it possible to create a
batch-procedure that based on sort utility return code ... recognize out
of space condition and take automated corrective action?

there are some number of current commercial situations where the cost of
a daily application failing once a year to not complete on schedule
exceeds the cost of the hardware. more common is where the delta people
costs that are involved in attempting to utilize an "interactive"
operating system for a "batch" environment exceeds the cost of the
hardware.

... snip ...

posts mentioning availability
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#available
posts mentioning assurance
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subintegrity.html#assurance

also my pontification about internet isn't business criticl
dataprocessing (RFC Editor Postel, before he passed, used to let me help
with periodic STD1 also sponsored my talk on internet isn't business
critical dataprocessing at ISI & also invited USC computer graduate
students) and turning well designed & tested application can take 4-10
times the effort to turn into business critical "service".

past posts mentioning the 4-10 times effort to turn well designed/tested
application into business critical "service":
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#75 Test and Set (TS) vs Compare and Swap (CS)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#91 Buffer overflow
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#93 Buffer overflow
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002n.html#11 Wanted: the SOUNDS of classic computing
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003g.html#62 IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003j.html#15 A Dark Day
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003p.html#37 The BASIC Variations
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004b.html#8 Mars Rover Not Responding
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004b.html#48 Automating secure transactions
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004k.html#20 Vintage computers are better than modern crap !
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004l.html#49 "Perfect" or "Provable" security both crypto and non-crypto?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004p.html#23 Systems software versus applications software definitions
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004p.html#63 Systems software versus applications software definitions
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004p.html#64 Systems software versus applications software definitions
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005b.html#40 [Lit.] Buffer overruns
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005i.html#42 Development as Configuration
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005n.html#26 Data communications over telegraph circuits
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006n.html#20 The System/360 Model 20 Wasn't As Bad As All That
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#37 Is computer history taught now?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007g.html#51 IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is falling!!)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007h.html#78 John W. Backus, 82, Fortran developer, dies
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007n.html#10 The top 10 dead (or dying) computer skills
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007n.html#76 PSI MIPS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007n.html#77 PSI MIPS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007o.html#23 Outsourcing loosing steam?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007p.html#54 Industry Standard Time To Analyze A Line Of Code
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007v.html#53 folklore indeed
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008e.html#41 IBM announced z10 ..why so fast...any problem on z 9
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008e.html#50 fraying infrastructure
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008e.html#53 Why Is Less Than 99.9% Uptime Acceptable?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008i.html#33 Mainframe Project management
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008n.html#20 Michigan industry
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008n.html#35 Builders V. Breakers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008p.html#48 How much knowledge should a software architect have regarding software security?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009.html#0 Is SUN going to become x86'ed ??
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010g.html#16 Far and near pointers on the 80286 and later
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010g.html#60 Far and near pointers on the 80286 and later
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011i.html#27 PDCA vs. OODA
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011k.html#67 Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012d.html#44 Faster, Better, Cheaper: Why Not Pick All Three?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013i.html#31 DRAM is the new Bulk Core
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014f.html#13 Before the Internet: The golden age of online services
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014m.html#86 Economic Failures of HTTPS Encryption
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014m.html#117 Are we programmed to stop at the 'first' right answer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014m.html#146 LEO
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015e.html#10 The real story of how the Internet became so vulnerable
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015e.html#16 The real story of how the Internet became so vulnerable
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017.html#27 History of Mainframe Cloud
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017f.html#23 MVS vs HASP vs JES (was 2821)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017i.html#18 progress in e-mail, such as AOL

other posts mentioning working with Postel:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011d.html#65 IBM100 - Rise of the Internet
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015e.html#10 The real story of how the Internet became so vulnerable
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016h.html#4 OODA in IT Security
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017d.html#92 Old hardware
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017e.html#11 The Geniuses that Anticipated the Idea of the Internet
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017e.html#14 The Geniuses that Anticipated the Idea of the Internet
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017e.html#70 Domain Name System
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017e.html#75 11May1992 (25 years ago) press on cluster scaleup
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017f.html#100 Jean Sammet, Co-Designer of a Pioneering Computer Language, Dies at 89
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017g.html#14 Mainframe Networking problems
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017j.html#31 Tech: we didn't mean for it to turn out like this
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
Andreas Kohlbach
2017-11-12 22:26:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Post by Questor
Again, MS-DOS/DR-DOS/PC-DOS does not have batch processing; .BAT files are
scripts.
i would differentiate that online/interactive tended to have basic
assumption that user was present running program ... while batch tended
to assume that user wasn't present. batch processing tended to
heuristically evolve more and more automation support over the years.
And while it is true that PC "batch processing" is a different critter
than with mainframes, .BAT files could certainly be used for "user not
present".
Let's not forget CP/M, the *true* IBM-PC OS. :-)

There you were writing a test file with commands, which also could
substitute variables, and call that file with SUBMIT.

I don't know if it was as powerful as batch processing files for MS-DOS,
probably not.
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
it's easier to spray weed killer on your lawn than mow it.
Questor
2017-11-14 07:59:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Post by Questor
Again, MS-DOS/DR-DOS/PC-DOS does not have batch processing; .BAT files are
scripts.
i would differentiate that online/interactive tended to have basic
assumption that user was present running program ... while batch tended
to assume that user wasn't present. batch processing tended to
heuristically evolve more and more automation support over the years.
And while it is true that PC "batch processing" is a different critter
than with mainframes, .BAT files could certainly be used for "user not
present". PC BBS systems typically involved dozens of single-threaded
programs controlled by long (many hundred lines of code) batch files
that glued everything together. Often the stock MS command.com was
replaced by 4DOS, which had more extensive logic controls and improved
utilities. In my area, one BBS sysop died, but it was several weeks
before online users noticed, because her BBS kept chugging right along
answering calls and sending/receiving mail.
While the attended vs. unattended distinction may be part of the definition
of "batch processing," it is not sufficient. There are many examples of
computers systems with unattended operation, like that BBS, that are not
performing batch processing.
Dave Garland
2017-11-14 20:51:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Post by Questor
Again, MS-DOS/DR-DOS/PC-DOS does not have batch processing; .BAT files are
scripts.
i would differentiate that online/interactive tended to have basic
assumption that user was present running program ... while batch tended
to assume that user wasn't present. batch processing tended to
heuristically evolve more and more automation support over the years.
And while it is true that PC "batch processing" is a different critter
than with mainframes, .BAT files could certainly be used for "user not
present". PC BBS systems typically involved dozens of single-threaded
programs controlled by long (many hundred lines of code) batch files
that glued everything together. Often the stock MS command.com was
replaced by 4DOS, which had more extensive logic controls and improved
utilities. In my area, one BBS sysop died, but it was several weeks
before online users noticed, because her BBS kept chugging right along
answering calls and sending/receiving mail.
While the attended vs. unattended distinction may be part of the definition
of "batch processing," it is not sufficient. There are many examples of
computers systems with unattended operation, like that BBS, that are not
performing batch processing.
I have acknowledged that PC/MSDOS is a different critter, "batch"
there is not a definition of workflow as it is with mainframes. And
it's certainly scripting. Which is no doubt why the command files are
called "batch files" and tagged ".BAT". I was mostly addressing the
"unattended operation" aspect.
Questor
2017-11-15 05:13:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Questor
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Post by Questor
Again, MS-DOS/DR-DOS/PC-DOS does not have batch processing; .BAT files are
scripts.
i would differentiate that online/interactive tended to have basic
assumption that user was present running program ... while batch tended
to assume that user wasn't present. batch processing tended to
heuristically evolve more and more automation support over the years.
And while it is true that PC "batch processing" is a different critter
than with mainframes, .BAT files could certainly be used for "user not
present". PC BBS systems typically involved dozens of single-threaded
programs controlled by long (many hundred lines of code) batch files
that glued everything together. Often the stock MS command.com was
replaced by 4DOS, which had more extensive logic controls and improved
utilities. In my area, one BBS sysop died, but it was several weeks
before online users noticed, because her BBS kept chugging right along
answering calls and sending/receiving mail.
While the attended vs. unattended distinction may be part of the definition
of "batch processing," it is not sufficient. There are many examples of
computers systems with unattended operation, like that BBS, that are not
performing batch processing.
I have acknowledged that PC/MSDOS is a different critter, "batch"
there is not a definition of workflow as it is with mainframes. And
it's certainly scripting. Which is no doubt why the command files are
called "batch files" and tagged ".BAT". I was mostly addressing the
"unattended operation" aspect.
"Batchman" kicked off this subthread about two weeks ago with a comment about
Microsoft not inventing batch... soon afterwards I pointed out that .BAT files
are not a batch system as the term has been understood for over fifty years...
and here we are.

It's kind of a silly thing to be haggling about simply because of someone's poor
choice of name over thirty-five years ago. If instead of "batch" files, they
had been called command files or automated files then no one would think to
make the comparison.
Charles Richmond
2017-11-15 17:48:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Questor
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Post by Questor
Again, MS-DOS/DR-DOS/PC-DOS does not have batch processing; .BAT files are
scripts.
i would differentiate that online/interactive tended to have basic
assumption that user was present running program ... while batch tended
to assume that user wasn't present. batch processing tended to
heuristically evolve more and more automation support over the years.
And while it is true that PC "batch processing" is a different critter
than with mainframes, .BAT files could certainly be used for "user not
present". PC BBS systems typically involved dozens of single-threaded
programs controlled by long (many hundred lines of code) batch files
that glued everything together. Often the stock MS command.com was
replaced by 4DOS, which had more extensive logic controls and improved
utilities. In my area, one BBS sysop died, but it was several weeks
before online users noticed, because her BBS kept chugging right along
answering calls and sending/receiving mail.
While the attended vs. unattended distinction may be part of the definition
of "batch processing," it is not sufficient. There are many examples of
computers systems with unattended operation, like that BBS, that are not
performing batch processing.
I have acknowledged that PC/MSDOS is a different critter, "batch"
there is not a definition of workflow as it is with mainframes. And
it's certainly scripting. Which is no doubt why the command files are
called "batch files" and tagged ".BAT". I was mostly addressing the
"unattended operation" aspect.
"Batchman" kicked off this subthread about two weeks ago with a comment about
Microsoft not inventing batch... soon afterwards I pointed out that .BAT files
are not a batch system as the term has been understood for over fifty years...
and here we are.
It's kind of a silly thing to be haggling about simply because of someone's poor
choice of name over thirty-five years ago. If instead of "batch" files, they
had been called command files or automated files then no one would think to
make the comparison.
ISTM that perhaps the *original* use of bath processing began in the
1950's. Computer operators would collect jobs on punch cards and use a
dedicated small machine to read the cards onto a mag tape. The mag tape
would be mounted for the main computer and main computer would execute
one job at a time from the tach of jobs and write the output files to
another tape. The output tape would be read by a dedicated smaller
machine and the results printed on a line printer.

With the coming of the early operating systems and the promulgation of
disk storage, the batching of jobs to tape was superseded by new ways of
working.

So ISTM that the word "batch" has taken on many different meanings and
twisted ideas since then. In different times and different places, batch
has taken on many meanings. IMHO.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
Questor
2017-11-16 16:24:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Richmond
Post by Questor
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Questor
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Post by Questor
Again, MS-DOS/DR-DOS/PC-DOS does not have batch processing; .BAT files are
scripts.
i would differentiate that online/interactive tended to have basic
assumption that user was present running program ... while batch tended
to assume that user wasn't present. batch processing tended to
heuristically evolve more and more automation support over the years.
And while it is true that PC "batch processing" is a different critter
than with mainframes, .BAT files could certainly be used for "user not
present". PC BBS systems typically involved dozens of single-threaded
programs controlled by long (many hundred lines of code) batch files
that glued everything together. Often the stock MS command.com was
replaced by 4DOS, which had more extensive logic controls and improved
utilities. In my area, one BBS sysop died, but it was several weeks
before online users noticed, because her BBS kept chugging right along
answering calls and sending/receiving mail.
While the attended vs. unattended distinction may be part of the definition
of "batch processing," it is not sufficient. There are many examples of
computers systems with unattended operation, like that BBS, that are not
performing batch processing.
I have acknowledged that PC/MSDOS is a different critter, "batch"
there is not a definition of workflow as it is with mainframes. And
it's certainly scripting. Which is no doubt why the command files are
called "batch files" and tagged ".BAT". I was mostly addressing the
"unattended operation" aspect.
"Batchman" kicked off this subthread about two weeks ago with a comment about
Microsoft not inventing batch... soon afterwards I pointed out that .BAT files
are not a batch system as the term has been understood for over fifty years...
and here we are.
It's kind of a silly thing to be haggling about simply because of someone's poor
choice of name over thirty-five years ago. If instead of "batch" files, they
had been called command files or automated files then no one would think to
make the comparison.
ISTM that perhaps the *original* use of bath processing began in the
1950's. Computer operators would collect jobs on punch cards and use a
dedicated small machine to read the cards onto a mag tape. The mag tape
would be mounted for the main computer and main computer would execute
one job at a time from the tach of jobs and write the output files to
another tape. The output tape would be read by a dedicated smaller
machine and the results printed on a line printer.
With the coming of the early operating systems and the promulgation of
disk storage, the batching of jobs to tape was superseded by new ways of
working.
So ISTM that the word "batch" has taken on many different meanings and
twisted ideas since then. In different times and different places, batch
has taken on many meanings. IMHO.
For better or worse, the Wikipedia page on .BAT files agrees with my
interpretation that they are scripts. The best one might say is that .BAT files
implement batch jobs, but MS-DOS has no batch processing system to schedule
or run them.
Larry Sheldon
2017-11-10 05:05:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
DOS doesn't have batch processing. DOS .BAT files are scripts.
Which can queue a stack of jobs to be run so how is that not batch?
It was obvious to me some time ago that the definition of the word
"batch" in use here did not relate in any meaningful way to the way we
used the word 50 years and more ago, so I pretty much lost interest in
the discussion. This caught my in a spot check for relevance.
How did you define it? I know IBM's and DEC's idea of the term are
different.
I first encountered the term in non-computer environments, where a lathe
operator might spent the morning making a batch of some particular
widget, or a bake might produce a batch of a particular kind of cookie.

In a machine data processing environment a batch might be a tray of
punched-payment cards (or a cart full of such trays) where the first
card (or several cards) identified the source of the cards (unit number,
office number, time period) and the last card said how many cards were
in the batch, what the total dollar value was, probably a cross-foot total).

With computers entering the seen, a batch was the execution of a program
to process a unit of such work with a program that was not aware of any
other programs.

Eventually it came to identify an operating mode for jobs that were
entered as a unit, perhaps from a card- or tape-reader, or an RJE
station, or invoked from the console from a script file, and
differentiated from "real time jobs" (interactions with other computers
without human involvement) and "demand" (jobs supporting humans enting
work from a remote TTY- or TRY-imulating-terminal
--
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-- Juvenal
Questor
2017-11-09 09:28:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Questor
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Bob Eager
Post by jmfbahciv
TOPS-10's batch systems were canned interactive timesharing files.
IBM's batch was different.
It was one of the weaknesses of TOPS-10, I thought. A separate batch
language would have been better.
I don't know TOPS-10, but I suspect that that batch language was
better than JCL...
TOPS-10 didn't have much of a batch language as such. The same command
processing, with a little added error handling and flow control, was used for
both batch and timesharing sessions.
TOPS-10 included virtual terminals, which were called psuedo-terminals, or PTYs
("pee tee whys"). To run a job, the batch system opens a PTY to start a
terminal session, logs in with your PPN (project programmer number) and feeds it
lines one at a time from the batch control (.CTL) file. The resulting output is
sent to the log file (.LOG). Well-behaved TOPS-10 programs are supposed to
follow certain conventions for error messages, and this, along with some
system-reserved labels, allows for some flexible error handling.
One could make the argument for adding more advanced features to the batch
processing, but the TOPS-10/20 mindset would be to add such capabilities to the
operating system's command processing code instead, which would make them
available to both batch and timesharing jobs.
A number of systems had (have) decent batch capabilities that use a common
command language between batch and timesharing. I'm thinking specifically
of XDS UTS OS, but I think Univac and maybe Burroughs. IBM VM had
facilities that sound similar to what I'm reading about TOPS-10: pretty
limited and one step below DOS .bat files.
DOS doesn't have batch processing. DOS .BAT files are scripts.
Which can queue a stack of jobs to be run so how is that not batch?
To be clear, the discussion is not about IBM's mainframe DOS, but DOS for PCs.
Post by J. Clarke
I'm aware that dos 'batch' isn't an original creation of M$! (possible whole
new thread there?)
jmfbahciv
2017-11-06 13:23:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Eager
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Questor
Post by Batchman
Post by jmfbahciv
TOPS-10's batch is a tad different. However, my neatest hack was to
I'm aware that dos `batch' isn't an original creation of M$! (possible
whole new thread there?)
Batch was the original method for using computers... access via
interactive timesharing is the newer development. The idea of
executing commands taken
from
Post by Questor
a file predates Microsoft by years, if not decades.
TOPS-10's batch systems were canned interactive timesharing files.
IBM's batch was different.
It was one of the weaknesses of TOPS-10, I thought. A separate batch
language would have been better.
Possibly. Having a canned method of commands which would never be
changed was very useful. Putting the boring tasks in a control file
left the user time to do more interactive tasks.

GALAXY was huge improvement over MPB with expanded error handling
and switches.

/BAH
Kerr-Mudd,John
2017-11-05 11:13:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Batchman
Post by jmfbahciv
TOPS-10's batch is a tad different. However, my neatest hack was to
I'm aware that dos `batch' isn't an original creation of M$! (possible
whole new thread there?)
Post by jmfbahciv
the batch file was to SUBMIT the file /AFTER:+1 day. If there
was no error, the next lines of the file renamed SYS:FACT.* to
another area.
Similarly I enjoyed finding methods by which a seemingly impossible
task might be achieved through only the use of dos batch commands and
perhaps by cheating just a little ;)
I used edlin for some stuff (adding a directory to PATH)
and some small DIY assembler programs.

both groups replied to
FU set to nul
from Choose,an,appropriate,group,to,redirect,replies...
jmfbahciv
2017-11-05 16:04:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Batchman
Post by jmfbahciv
TOPS-10's batch is a tad different. However, my neatest hack was to
I'm aware that dos `batch' isn't an original creation of M$! (possible
whole new thread there?)
Post by jmfbahciv
the batch file was to SUBMIT the file /AFTER:+1 day. If there
was no error, the next lines of the file renamed SYS:FACT.* to
another area.
Similarly I enjoyed finding methods by which a seemingly impossible
task might be achieved through only the use of dos batch commands and
perhaps by cheating just a little ;)
I used edlin for some stuff (adding a directory to PATH)
and some small DIY assembler programs.
the important thing was to open the log file for read-only. The
job would have gotten a fatal error if the file had been opened to
read/write because it was already open for the batch system.

/BAH
Questor
2017-11-05 08:36:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
The nicknames were for a pair of people at a specific institution some years
ago. "Batchman" was a vocal advocate of using batch jobs over timesharing
whenever possible. His associate, "Login," would purportedly logout and
then login again in order to circumvent terminal room time limits.
Whereas my handle refers to my abilities in being able to code clever batch
files (intended to run under Command.Com) and originates back in BBS echo
mail days!
TOPS-10's batch is a tad different. However, my neatest hack was to
ensure that a certain batch file ran only on Tuesday on the -10's
monitor development system. The batch job collected all the FACT.*
files, which contained that system's computer usage data. So I
opened the batch job's log file, read-only, with TECO. Did a
search for <TAB>Tue with a .ERROR ? on the line after the search.
If there was an error, it wasn't Tuesday, so the last line of
the batch file was to SUBMIT the file /AFTER:+1 day. If there
was no error, the next lines of the file renamed SYS:FACT.* to
another area.
Gah. What a kludge.

SUBMIT the job for the first time on a Tuesday, then have it re-submit itself
with /AFTER:+7D. Or use /AFTER:TUES.

If there isn't a GETTAB that returns day of the week, it would be simple to
write a little program to do the same thing.
jmfbahciv
2017-11-05 16:05:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
The nicknames were for a pair of people at a specific institution some years
ago. "Batchman" was a vocal advocate of using batch jobs over timesharing
whenever possible. His associate, "Login," would purportedly logout and
then login again in order to circumvent terminal room time limits.
Whereas my handle refers to my abilities in being able to code clever batch
files (intended to run under Command.Com) and originates back in BBS echo
mail days!
TOPS-10's batch is a tad different. However, my neatest hack was to
ensure that a certain batch file ran only on Tuesday on the -10's
monitor development system. The batch job collected all the FACT.*
files, which contained that system's computer usage data. So I
opened the batch job's log file, read-only, with TECO. Did a
search for <TAB>Tue with a .ERROR ? on the line after the search.
If there was an error, it wasn't Tuesday, so the last line of
the batch file was to SUBMIT the file /AFTER:+1 day. If there
was no error, the next lines of the file renamed SYS:FACT.* to
another area.
Gah. What a kludge.
SUBMIT the job for the first time on a Tuesday, then have it re-submit itself
with /AFTER:+7D. Or use /AFTER:TUES.
If there isn't a GETTAB that returns day of the week, it would be simple to
write a little program to do the same thing.
That would work if the batch system had been GALAXY _and_ if the system
wasn't the development system.

/BAH
Questor
2017-11-06 19:06:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
The nicknames were for a pair of people at a specific institution some years
ago. "Batchman" was a vocal advocate of using batch jobs over
timesharing
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
whenever possible. His associate, "Login," would purportedly logout and
then login again in order to circumvent terminal room time limits.
Whereas my handle refers to my abilities in being able to code clever
batch
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
files (intended to run under Command.Com) and originates back in BBS echo
mail days!
TOPS-10's batch is a tad different. However, my neatest hack was to
ensure that a certain batch file ran only on Tuesday on the -10's
monitor development system. The batch job collected all the FACT.*
files, which contained that system's computer usage data. So I
opened the batch job's log file, read-only, with TECO. Did a
search for <TAB>Tue with a .ERROR ? on the line after the search.
If there was an error, it wasn't Tuesday, so the last line of
the batch file was to SUBMIT the file /AFTER:+1 day. If there
was no error, the next lines of the file renamed SYS:FACT.* to
another area.
Gah. What a kludge.
SUBMIT the job for the first time on a Tuesday, then have it re-submit
itself
Post by Questor
with /AFTER:+7D. Or use /AFTER:TUES.
If there isn't a GETTAB that returns day of the week, it would be simple to
write a little program to do the same thing.
That would work if the batch system had been GALAXY _and_ if the system
wasn't the development system.
MPB may not have had day-of-the-week key words, but if you can use /AFTER:+1D
then you can use /AFTER:+7D.

The fact that it was the development system appears irrelevant.

Your solution fails the first time the MotD mentions an event on Tuesday, and
the word "Tuesday" happens to be indented on a separate line.
jmfbahciv
2017-11-07 13:47:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
The nicknames were for a pair of people at a specific institution some years
ago. "Batchman" was a vocal advocate of using batch jobs over
timesharing
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
whenever possible. His associate, "Login," would purportedly logout and
then login again in order to circumvent terminal room time limits.
Whereas my handle refers to my abilities in being able to code clever
batch
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
files (intended to run under Command.Com) and originates back in BBS echo
mail days!
TOPS-10's batch is a tad different. However, my neatest hack was to
ensure that a certain batch file ran only on Tuesday on the -10's
monitor development system. The batch job collected all the FACT.*
files, which contained that system's computer usage data. So I
opened the batch job's log file, read-only, with TECO. Did a
search for <TAB>Tue with a .ERROR ? on the line after the search.
If there was an error, it wasn't Tuesday, so the last line of
the batch file was to SUBMIT the file /AFTER:+1 day. If there
was no error, the next lines of the file renamed SYS:FACT.* to
another area.
Gah. What a kludge.
SUBMIT the job for the first time on a Tuesday, then have it re-submit
itself
Post by Questor
with /AFTER:+7D. Or use /AFTER:TUES.
If there isn't a GETTAB that returns day of the week, it would be simple to
write a little program to do the same thing.
That would work if the batch system had been GALAXY _and_ if the system
wasn't the development system.
MPB may not have had day-of-the-week key words, but if you can use /AFTER:+1D
then you can use /AFTER:+7D.
The job had to run every day but something different had to be done on
Tuesday.
Post by Questor
The fact that it was the development system appears irrelevant.
To you, it appears irrelevant. It was not. You don't know how
things had to work within DEC but you do keep telling me that I
don't know and seem to have to ignore the fact that I really did
the work there.
Post by Questor
Your solution fails the first time the MotD mentions an event on Tuesday, and
the word "Tuesday" happens to be indented on a separate line.
It was the log file! There wouldn't be any other occurrence since the
log file was just created and the day of the week is on the first few
lines.

/BAH
Questor
2017-11-08 09:22:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
The nicknames were for a pair of people at a specific institution some years
ago. "Batchman" was a vocal advocate of using batch jobs over
timesharing
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
whenever possible. His associate, "Login," would purportedly logout
and
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
then login again in order to circumvent terminal room time limits.
Whereas my handle refers to my abilities in being able to code clever
batch
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
files (intended to run under Command.Com) and originates back in BBS
echo
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
mail days!
TOPS-10's batch is a tad different. However, my neatest hack was to
ensure that a certain batch file ran only on Tuesday on the -10's
monitor development system. The batch job collected all the FACT.*
files, which contained that system's computer usage data. So I
opened the batch job's log file, read-only, with TECO. Did a
search for <TAB>Tue with a .ERROR ? on the line after the search.
If there was an error, it wasn't Tuesday, so the last line of
the batch file was to SUBMIT the file /AFTER:+1 day. If there
was no error, the next lines of the file renamed SYS:FACT.* to
another area.
Gah. What a kludge.
SUBMIT the job for the first time on a Tuesday, then have it re-submit
itself
Post by Questor
with /AFTER:+7D. Or use /AFTER:TUES.
If there isn't a GETTAB that returns day of the week, it would be simple
to
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
write a little program to do the same thing.
That would work if the batch system had been GALAXY _and_ if the system
wasn't the development system.
MPB may not have had day-of-the-week key words, but if you can use
/AFTER:+1D
Post by Questor
then you can use /AFTER:+7D.
The job had to run every day but something different had to be done on
Tuesday.
You did not explain that.

Your words: "to ensure that a certain batch file ran only on Tuesday."
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
The fact that it was the development system appears irrelevant.
To you, it appears irrelevant. It was not.
You have yet to explain the relevance. How is the problem of doing something
in a batch job only on Tuesdays different on the development system?
Post by Questor
You don't know how
things had to work within DEC
Why do you say that? Hundreds of thousands of people worked at DEC, and
hundreds of people worked in LCG. Are you claiming to be the only person at
DEC who knew how things had to work? There's a very obvious fact you're
missing; I suspect some onlookers to our exchanges have already figured it out.
Post by Questor
but you do keep telling me that I
don't know and seem to have to ignore the fact that I really did
the work there.
"The work" that you did was primarily administrative, not technical. There's no
shame in that. The problem is when you conflate the work done by dozens of
engineers, each of whom had more technical ability in their pinky than you,
with what you did. It's very insulting.
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Your solution fails the first time the MotD mentions an event on Tuesday,
and
Post by Questor
the word "Tuesday" happens to be indented on a separate line.
It was the log file! There wouldn't be any other occurrence since the
log file was just created and the day of the week is on the first few
lines.
As usual, you've missed the point. A message of the day with "Tuesday" indented
on a separate line will produce a false positive; i.e., the batch job will run
even if it's not a Tuesday. It's a small but real possibility. If enough
people on TOPS-10 systems used your method, eventually someone would probably
stumble into it.
Post by Questor
Important Notice: There will be a meeting about the new corporate strategy on
Tuesday at 10:00am in the cafeteria. All employees should plan on attending.
J. Clarke
2017-11-08 11:51:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
The nicknames were for a pair of people at a specific institution some years
ago. "Batchman" was a vocal advocate of using batch jobs over
timesharing
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
whenever possible. His associate, "Login," would purportedly logout
and
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
then login again in order to circumvent terminal room time limits.
Whereas my handle refers to my abilities in being able to code clever
batch
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
files (intended to run under Command.Com) and originates back in BBS
echo
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
mail days!
TOPS-10's batch is a tad different. However, my neatest hack was to
ensure that a certain batch file ran only on Tuesday on the -10's
monitor development system. The batch job collected all the FACT.*
files, which contained that system's computer usage data. So I
opened the batch job's log file, read-only, with TECO. Did a
search for <TAB>Tue with a .ERROR ? on the line after the search.
If there was an error, it wasn't Tuesday, so the last line of
the batch file was to SUBMIT the file /AFTER:+1 day. If there
was no error, the next lines of the file renamed SYS:FACT.* to
another area.
Gah. What a kludge.
SUBMIT the job for the first time on a Tuesday, then have it re-submit
itself
Post by Questor
with /AFTER:+7D. Or use /AFTER:TUES.
If there isn't a GETTAB that returns day of the week, it would be simple
to
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
write a little program to do the same thing.
That would work if the batch system had been GALAXY _and_ if the system
wasn't the development system.
MPB may not have had day-of-the-week key words, but if you can use
/AFTER:+1D
Post by Questor
then you can use /AFTER:+7D.
The job had to run every day but something different had to be done on
Tuesday.
You did not explain that.
Your words: "to ensure that a certain batch file ran only on Tuesday."
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
The fact that it was the development system appears irrelevant.
To you, it appears irrelevant. It was not.
You have yet to explain the relevance. How is the problem of doing something
in a batch job only on Tuesdays different on the development system?
Post by Questor
You don't know how
things had to work within DEC
Why do you say that? Hundreds of thousands of people worked at DEC, and
hundreds of people worked in LCG. Are you claiming to be the only person at
DEC who knew how things had to work? There's a very obvious fact you're
missing; I suspect some onlookers to our exchanges have already figured it out.
Post by Questor
but you do keep telling me that I
don't know and seem to have to ignore the fact that I really did
the work there.
"The work" that you did was primarily administrative, not technical. There's no
shame in that. The problem is when you conflate the work done by dozens of
engineers, each of whom had more technical ability in their pinky than you,
with what you did. It's very insulting.
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Your solution fails the first time the MotD mentions an event on Tuesday,
and
Post by Questor
the word "Tuesday" happens to be indented on a separate line.
It was the log file! There wouldn't be any other occurrence since the
log file was just created and the day of the week is on the first few
lines.
As usual, you've missed the point. A message of the day with "Tuesday" indented
on a separate line will produce a false positive; i.e., the batch job will run
even if it's not a Tuesday. It's a small but real possibility. If enough
people on TOPS-10 systems used your method, eventually someone would probably
stumble into it.
Post by Questor
Important Notice: There will be a meeting about the new corporate strategy on
Tuesday at 10:00am in the cafeteria. All employees should plan on attending.
OK, so what was your badge number at DEC?
jmfbahciv
2017-11-08 13:59:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
The nicknames were for a pair of people at a specific institution
some
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
years
ago. "Batchman" was a vocal advocate of using batch jobs over
timesharing
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
whenever possible. His associate, "Login," would purportedly logout
and
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
then login again in order to circumvent terminal room time limits.
Whereas my handle refers to my abilities in being able to code clever
batch
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
files (intended to run under Command.Com) and originates back in BBS
echo
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
mail days!
TOPS-10's batch is a tad different. However, my neatest hack was to
ensure that a certain batch file ran only on Tuesday on the -10's
monitor development system. The batch job collected all the FACT.*
files, which contained that system's computer usage data. So I
opened the batch job's log file, read-only, with TECO. Did a
search for <TAB>Tue with a .ERROR ? on the line after the search.
If there was an error, it wasn't Tuesday, so the last line of
the batch file was to SUBMIT the file /AFTER:+1 day. If there
was no error, the next lines of the file renamed SYS:FACT.* to
another area.
Gah. What a kludge.
SUBMIT the job for the first time on a Tuesday, then have it re-submit
itself
Post by Questor
with /AFTER:+7D. Or use /AFTER:TUES.
If there isn't a GETTAB that returns day of the week, it would be simple
to
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
write a little program to do the same thing.
That would work if the batch system had been GALAXY _and_ if the system
wasn't the development system.
MPB may not have had day-of-the-week key words, but if you can use
/AFTER:+1D
Post by Questor
then you can use /AFTER:+7D.
The job had to run every day but something different had to be done on
Tuesday.
You did not explain that.
Your words: "to ensure that a certain batch file ran only on Tuesday."
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
The fact that it was the development system appears irrelevant.
To you, it appears irrelevant. It was not.
You have yet to explain the relevance. How is the problem of doing something
in a batch job only on Tuesdays different on the development system?
Post by Questor
You don't know how
things had to work within DEC
Why do you say that? Hundreds of thousands of people worked at DEC, and
hundreds of people worked in LCG. Are you claiming to be the only person at
DEC who knew how things had to work? There's a very obvious fact you're
missing; I suspect some onlookers to our exchanges have already figured it out.
Post by Questor
but you do keep telling me that I
don't know and seem to have to ignore the fact that I really did
the work there.
"The work" that you did was primarily administrative, not technical.
There's no
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
shame in that. The problem is when you conflate the work done by dozens of
engineers, each of whom had more technical ability in their pinky than you,
with what you did. It's very insulting.
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Your solution fails the first time the MotD mentions an event on Tuesday,
and
Post by Questor
the word "Tuesday" happens to be indented on a separate line.
It was the log file! There wouldn't be any other occurrence since the
log file was just created and the day of the week is on the first few
lines.
As usual, you've missed the point. A message of the day with "Tuesday" indented
on a separate line will produce a false positive; i.e., the batch job will run
even if it's not a Tuesday. It's a small but real possibility. If enough
people on TOPS-10 systems used your method, eventually someone would probably
stumble into it.
Post by Questor
Important Notice: There will be a meeting about the new corporate strategy on
Tuesday at 10:00am in the cafeteria. All employees should plan on attending.
OK, so what was your badge number at DEC?
ROTFLMAO. thanks.

/BAH
Questor
2017-11-09 09:28:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
The nicknames were for a pair of people at a specific institution some
years
ago. "Batchman" was a vocal advocate of using batch jobs over
timesharing
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
whenever possible. His associate, "Login," would purportedly logout
and
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
then login again in order to circumvent terminal room time limits.
Whereas my handle refers to my abilities in being able to code clever
batch
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
files (intended to run under Command.Com) and originates back in BBS
echo
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
mail days!
TOPS-10's batch is a tad different. However, my neatest hack was to
ensure that a certain batch file ran only on Tuesday on the -10's
monitor development system. The batch job collected all the FACT.*
files, which contained that system's computer usage data. So I
opened the batch job's log file, read-only, with TECO. Did a
search for <TAB>Tue with a .ERROR ? on the line after the search.
If there was an error, it wasn't Tuesday, so the last line of
the batch file was to SUBMIT the file /AFTER:+1 day. If there
was no error, the next lines of the file renamed SYS:FACT.* to
another area.
Gah. What a kludge.
SUBMIT the job for the first time on a Tuesday, then have it re-submit
itself
Post by Questor
with /AFTER:+7D. Or use /AFTER:TUES.
If there isn't a GETTAB that returns day of the week, it would be simple
to
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
write a little program to do the same thing.
That would work if the batch system had been GALAXY _and_ if the system
wasn't the development system.
MPB may not have had day-of-the-week key words, but if you can use
/AFTER:+1D
Post by Questor
then you can use /AFTER:+7D.
The job had to run every day but something different had to be done on
Tuesday.
You did not explain that.
Your words: "to ensure that a certain batch file ran only on Tuesday."
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
The fact that it was the development system appears irrelevant.
To you, it appears irrelevant. It was not.
You have yet to explain the relevance. How is the problem of doing something
in a batch job only on Tuesdays different on the development system?
Post by Questor
You don't know how
things had to work within DEC
Why do you say that? Hundreds of thousands of people worked at DEC, and
hundreds of people worked in LCG. Are you claiming to be the only person at
DEC who knew how things had to work? There's a very obvious fact you're
missing; I suspect some onlookers to our exchanges have already figured it out.
Post by Questor
but you do keep telling me that I
don't know and seem to have to ignore the fact that I really did
the work there.
"The work" that you did was primarily administrative, not technical. There's no
shame in that. The problem is when you conflate the work done by dozens of
engineers, each of whom had more technical ability in their pinky than you,
with what you did. It's very insulting.
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Your solution fails the first time the MotD mentions an event on Tuesday,
and
Post by Questor
the word "Tuesday" happens to be indented on a separate line.
It was the log file! There wouldn't be any other occurrence since the
log file was just created and the day of the week is on the first few
lines.
As usual, you've missed the point. A message of the day with "Tuesday" indented
on a separate line will produce a false positive; i.e., the batch job will run
even if it's not a Tuesday. It's a small but real possibility. If enough
people on TOPS-10 systems used your method, eventually someone would probably
stumble into it.
Post by Questor
Important Notice: There will be a meeting about the new corporate strategy on
Tuesday at 10:00am in the cafeteria. All employees should plan on attending.
OK, so what was your badge number at DEC?
That would be telling.
jmfbahciv
2017-11-08 13:59:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
The nicknames were for a pair of people at a specific institution
some
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
years
ago. "Batchman" was a vocal advocate of using batch jobs over
timesharing
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
whenever possible. His associate, "Login," would purportedly logout
and
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
then login again in order to circumvent terminal room time limits.
Whereas my handle refers to my abilities in being able to code clever
batch
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
files (intended to run under Command.Com) and originates back in BBS
echo
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
mail days!
TOPS-10's batch is a tad different. However, my neatest hack was to
ensure that a certain batch file ran only on Tuesday on the -10's
monitor development system. The batch job collected all the FACT.*
files, which contained that system's computer usage data. So I
opened the batch job's log file, read-only, with TECO. Did a
search for <TAB>Tue with a .ERROR ? on the line after the search.
If there was an error, it wasn't Tuesday, so the last line of
the batch file was to SUBMIT the file /AFTER:+1 day. If there
was no error, the next lines of the file renamed SYS:FACT.* to
another area.
Gah. What a kludge.
SUBMIT the job for the first time on a Tuesday, then have it re-submit
itself
Post by Questor
with /AFTER:+7D. Or use /AFTER:TUES.
If there isn't a GETTAB that returns day of the week, it would be simple
to
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
write a little program to do the same thing.
That would work if the batch system had been GALAXY _and_ if the system
wasn't the development system.
MPB may not have had day-of-the-week key words, but if you can use
/AFTER:+1D
Post by Questor
then you can use /AFTER:+7D.
The job had to run every day but something different had to be done on
Tuesday.
You did not explain that.
Your words: "to ensure that a certain batch file ran only on Tuesday."
Sigh! Stuff had to be done daily and extra stuff had to be only on
Tuesday.
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
The fact that it was the development system appears irrelevant.
To you, it appears irrelevant. It was not.
You have yet to explain the relevance. How is the problem of doing something
in a batch job only on Tuesdays different on the development system?
Your suggested hacks could not be done on the development systems. I
had to work with what was going to be shipped to the customer. I also
had to use the software customers would use to deal with the FACT files.
In addition, hacks could not be done unless it was part of the
development; this required project plans, functional and design specs,
all the documentation planning, field testing, and customer training.
I finally was able to do all that with my USAGE project.
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
You don't know how
things had to work within DEC
Why do you say that? Hundreds of thousands of people worked at DEC, and
hundreds of people worked in LCG. Are you claiming to be the only person at
DEC who knew how things had to work? There's a very obvious fact you're
missing; I suspect some onlookers to our exchanges have already figured it out.
Most people did only their jobs and were not interested in the work
flows surrounding their particular tasks. I figured out work flows
and did what was necessary to ensure that everything was done on time.
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
but you do keep telling me that I
don't know and seem to have to ignore the fact that I really did
the work there.
"The work" that you did was primarily administrative, not technical.
No,, it was not. This is something that you have a blind spot about.
Post by Questor
There's no
shame in that. The problem is when you conflate the work done by dozens of
engineers, each of whom had more technical ability in their pinky than you,
with what you did. It's very insulting.
Sorry that you're insulted.
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Your solution fails the first time the MotD mentions an event on Tuesday,
and
Post by Questor
the word "Tuesday" happens to be indented on a separate line.
It was the log file! There wouldn't be any other occurrence since the
log file was just created and the day of the week is on the first few
lines.
As usual, you've missed the point. A message of the day with "Tuesday" indented
on a separate line will produce a false positive; i.e., the batch job will run
even if it's not a Tuesday. It's a small but real possibility. If enough
people on TOPS-10 systems used your method, eventually someone would probably
stumble into it.
Post by Questor
Important Notice: There will be a meeting about the new corporate strategy on
Tuesday at 10:00am in the cafeteria. All employees should plan on attending.
None of that is displayed until after the LOGIN banner.

/BAH
Questor
2017-11-09 09:28:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
The nicknames were for a pair of people at a specific institution
some
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
years
ago. "Batchman" was a vocal advocate of using batch jobs over
timesharing
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
whenever possible. His associate, "Login," would purportedly logout
and
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
Post by Questor
then login again in order to circumvent terminal room time limits.
Whereas my handle refers to my abilities in being able to code clever
batch
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
files (intended to run under Command.Com) and originates back in BBS
echo
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Batchman
mail days!
TOPS-10's batch is a tad different. However, my neatest hack was to
ensure that a certain batch file ran only on Tuesday on the -10's
monitor development system. The batch job collected all the FACT.*
files, which contained that system's computer usage data. So I
opened the batch job's log file, read-only, with TECO. Did a
search for <TAB>Tue with a .ERROR ? on the line after the search.
If there was an error, it wasn't Tuesday, so the last line of
the batch file was to SUBMIT the file /AFTER:+1 day. If there
was no error, the next lines of the file renamed SYS:FACT.* to
another area.
Gah. What a kludge.
SUBMIT the job for the first time on a Tuesday, then have it re-submit
itself
Post by Questor
with /AFTER:+7D. Or use /AFTER:TUES.
If there isn't a GETTAB that returns day of the week, it would be simple
to
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
write a little program to do the same thing.
That would work if the batch system had been GALAXY _and_ if the system
wasn't the development system.
MPB may not have had day-of-the-week key words, but if you can use
/AFTER:+1D
Post by Questor
then you can use /AFTER:+7D.
The job had to run every day but something different had to be done on
Tuesday.
You did not explain that.
Your words: "to ensure that a certain batch file ran only on Tuesday."
Sigh! Stuff had to be done daily and extra stuff had to be only on
Tuesday.
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
The fact that it was the development system appears irrelevant.
To you, it appears irrelevant. It was not.
You have yet to explain the relevance. How is the problem of doing
something
Post by Questor
in a batch job only on Tuesdays different on the development system?
Your suggested hacks could not be done on the development systems.
They're not hacks, they're documented features.

/AFTER:+7D -- feature -- doesn't work for your case as you finally explained
/AFTER: Tues -- feature -- not available in MPB; you could have used it later
Use GETTAB -- feature -- and calculate day of week in a little program

BEGIN
[get day-of-week or calculate if necessary]
IF D-o-W is Tuesday
THEN PRINT "It's Tuesday!"
ELSE PRINT "?It's not Tuesday"
END

Run the program and use standard batch error processing to skip the Tuesday
tasks unless it is Tuesday.
Post by jmfbahciv
I had to work with what was going to be shipped to the customer. I also
had to use the software customers would use to deal with the FACT files.
In addition, hacks could not be done unless it was part of the
development; this required project plans, functional and design specs,
all the documentation planning, field testing, and customer training.
I finally was able to do all that with my USAGE project.
A spew of irrelevant garbage that has nothing to do with the problem to be
solved: how to perform certain tasks in a batch job only on Tuesday.

And you STILL haven't explained why that is any different on a development
system; in fact your arguments all point to it being the same.
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Your solution fails the first time the MotD mentions an event on Tuesday,
and
Post by Questor
the word "Tuesday" happens to be indented on a separate line.
It was the log file! There wouldn't be any other occurrence since the
log file was just created and the day of the week is on the first few
lines.
As usual, you've missed the point. A message of the day with "Tuesday"
indented
Post by Questor
on a separate line will produce a false positive; i.e., the batch job will
run
Post by Questor
even if it's not a Tuesday. It's a small but real possibility. If enough
people on TOPS-10 systems used your method, eventually someone would
probably
Post by Questor
stumble into it.
Post by Questor
Important Notice: There will be a meeting about the new corporate
strategy on
Post by Questor
Post by Questor
Tuesday at 10:00am in the cafeteria. All employees should plan on
attending.
None of that is displayed until after the LOGIN banner.
So? You can't run TECO in your batch job and read the log file until after
the LOGIN banner is displayed either. The TECO search succeeds in finding
"<tab>Tues" in the message of the day text, and the Tuesday tasks are
performed, even if it isn't Tuesday.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
2017-10-30 22:13:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RS Wood
Written in 2014, still valid. By the author of "technology is
heroin" (an agile/scrum guy).
http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2014/05/we-didnt-mean-for-it-to-turn-out-like-this.php
//--clip
Looking at the net today, I can’t help but reflect on how it’s turning
We wanted to exchange information, not play games.
something similar was claimed for tv, information distribution, not
entertainment. Later claims that majority of video tape industry revenue
comes from porn.

in the 60s, there were a few virtual machine spin-offs of CP/67 from
the science center ... some past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech

for commercial online use ... that quickly moved up the value
stream to providing information to the financial industry ... some
past virtual machine based commercial online services
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#online

In the early 70s, Tymshare started offering virtual machine based vm370
(cp/67 followon) commercial services. Aug 1976, Tymshare started
offering their vm370/cms based online computer conferencing free to the
IBM mainframe user group ... archived here:
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/

After moving to silicon valley in the 70s, i would go around to various
customers periodically, including Tymshare ... and/or see them at the
monthly Baybunch meetings hosted at SLAC. I also arranged with Tymshare
to make me a full dump of all vmshare files so that I could make them
available internally in IBM. some old related email
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#vmshare

On one of the visits to Tymshare, I was introduced to Adventure game ...
they had got it from Stanford SAIL PDP10 and ported it to vm370/cms.
They told the story of informing head of Tymshare that users were
playing games on their service. The head of Tymshare said their system
was only for business uses and all games had to be removed. He was then
told that 1/3rd of Tymshare revenue was then coming from game playing
... and he changes his mind (I also get copy of Adventure for
distribution internally inside IBM).

I was blamed for online computer conferencing (precursor to social
media) on the internal network (larger than arpanet/internet from just
about the beginning until sometime mid-80s). Folklore is that when the
corporate executive committee was told about online computer
conferencing (and the internal network), 5of6 wanted to fire me.
some past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#cmc

In early 80s, I was doing some networking in project I called HSDT (in
part funded out of the office of the 6th corporate executive) some past
posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt

we were also working with the director of NSF and were suppose to get
$20M to interconnect the NSF supercomputer centers. Then congress cuts
the budget, some other things happened and eventually a RFP is released.
Internal politics prevent us from bidding. The director of NSF tries to
help by writting the company a letter (with support from other
agencies), copying the CEO ... but that just makes the internal politics
worse (as does comments that what we already have running is at least
5yrs ahead of all RFP responses). As regional networks connect into the
centers it becomes NSFNET backbone, precursor to modern internet. ref
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/401444/grid-computing/
some old email
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#nsfnet

Last project we did at IBM was HA/CMP ... and working with commercial
cluster scaleup with Oracle and scientific cluster scaleup with national
labs. Then cluster scaleup is transferred and announced as supercomputer
for scientific/technical only and we are told we can't work on anything
with more than four processors. we decide to leave IBM
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp

Later two of the oracle people are at a small client/server startup
responsible for something called commerce server and we are brought in
as consultants because they want to do payment transactions on the
server. The startup has also invented this technology they call "SSL"
and the results is now frequently called ecommerce.

Over next few years involved in some number of financial and ecommerce
activities. One visit to large datacenter providing ecommerce hosting
services ... they talk about the internet popularity contests and
regular statistics about webservers with the highest hits per
month. They point out that they host five different ecommerce PORN
services ... all individually having higher activity per month than the
#1 webserver listed in the public popularity contests. They observe that
it isn't that different than porn dominating the video tape business.
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
jmfbahciv
2017-10-31 15:03:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RS Wood
Written in 2014, still valid. By the author of "technology is
heroin" (an agile/scrum guy).
http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2014/05/we-didnt-mean-for-it-to-turn-
out-like-this.php
Post by RS Wood
//--clip
Looking at the net today, I can’t help but reflect on how it’s turning
We wanted to exchange information, not play games.
<snip>

Read the Science News article about Lena Pernas, October 14, 2017, page
16.

I wanted to make knowledge available to the young so that they became
aware of science, math, technology, and other kinds of knowledge
which never gets into elhi school books.

/BAH
Scott Lurndal
2017-10-31 15:29:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RS Wood
Post by RS Wood
Written in 2014, still valid. By the author of "technology is
heroin" (an agile/scrum guy).
http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2014/05/we-didnt-mean-for-it-to-turn-
out-like-this.php
Post by RS Wood
//--clip
Looking at the net today, I can’t help but reflect on how it’s turning
We wanted to exchange information, not play games.
<snip>
Read the Science News article about Lena Pernas, October 14, 2017, page
16.
Not sure how that bears on the OP.
Post by RS Wood
I wanted to make knowledge available to the young so that they became
aware of science, math, technology, and other kinds of knowledge
which never gets into elhi school books.
C'est What? Schools don't teach math, science and technology
in michigan? That's news, I'm sure.
jmfbahciv
2017-11-01 13:53:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by RS Wood
Post by RS Wood
Written in 2014, still valid. By the author of "technology is
heroin" (an agile/scrum guy).
http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2014/05/we-didnt-mean-for-it-to-turn-
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by RS Wood
out-like-this.php
Post by RS Wood
//--clip
Looking at the net today, I can’t help but reflect on how it’s turning
We wanted to exchange information, not play games.
<snip>
Read the Science News article about Lena Pernas, October 14, 2017, page
16.
Not sure how that bears on the OP.
She got interested in the critters which carry malaria while playing
games when she was 9 years old. Playing those games helped her
make the choices when deciding what to study.
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by RS Wood
I wanted to make knowledge available to the young so that they became
aware of science, math, technology, and other kinds of knowledge
which never gets into elhi school books.
C'est What? Schools don't teach math, science and technology
in michigan? That's news, I'm sure.
In elhi, they teach baby stuff and only the pap which is "approved"
by religion, politics, and current social mores. There exists
a school district here which doesn't allow anything having to do
with dinosaurs, including cartoons, because of religious beliefs.

If any kid with a potential towards palentology went there, s/he
would have been squelched. I was told not to take algebra by a
teacher because it would be "too hard" for me. this was in 8th
grade when I was signing up for 9th grade classes. I never heard
the word calculus in high school.

/BAH
Charles Richmond
2017-11-01 15:58:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RS Wood
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by RS Wood
Post by RS Wood
Written in 2014, still valid. By the author of "technology is
heroin" (an agile/scrum guy).
http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2014/05/we-didnt-mean-for-it-to-turn-
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by RS Wood
out-like-this.php
Post by RS Wood
//--clip
Looking at the net today, I can’t help but reflect on how it’s turning
We wanted to exchange information, not play games.
<snip>
Read the Science News article about Lena Pernas, October 14, 2017, page
16.
Not sure how that bears on the OP.
She got interested in the critters which carry malaria while playing
games when she was 9 years old. Playing those games helped her
make the choices when deciding what to study.
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by RS Wood
I wanted to make knowledge available to the young so that they became
aware of science, math, technology, and other kinds of knowledge
which never gets into elhi school books.
C'est What? Schools don't teach math, science and technology
in michigan? That's news, I'm sure.
In elhi, they teach baby stuff and only the pap which is "approved"
by religion, politics, and current social mores. There exists
a school district here which doesn't allow anything having to do
with dinosaurs, including cartoons, because of religious beliefs.
If any kid with a potential towards palentology went there, s/he
would have been squelched. I was told not to take algebra by a
teacher because it would be "too hard" for me. this was in 8th
grade when I was signing up for 9th grade classes. I never heard
the word calculus in high school.
Play can be a good thing if you keep your brain going simultaneously.
The Ampex company was trying to develop a simpler VCR that did *not*
require two-inch wide magnetic tape. One of the engineers was at home
on a weekend playing with his pet chihuahua. The man took a five foot
or so strip of toilet paper and was swirling it around the dog... and
the dog was twisting around trying to grab the paper. A fun game!

Then the insight popped into the engineers mind! Record the video data
in steep angles across a one-half inch tape using a helical tape head!!!
The swirling spiral of paper suggested the idea. That's how the
consumer VCR was invented! Of course, Ampex could *not* see a future
for consumer VCR's and sold the patents to a Japanese company.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
Roger Blake
2017-11-02 02:10:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Richmond
Then the insight popped into the engineers mind! Record the video data
in steep angles across a one-half inch tape using a helical tape head!!!
The swirling spiral of paper suggested the idea. That's how the
consumer VCR was invented! Of course, Ampex could *not* see a future
for consumer VCR's and sold the patents to a Japanese company.
Helical-scan recording was not invented for consumer VCRs, it was
introduced in the 1950s for professional TV production. (Of course
it did take nearly 20 years for tape width to be reduced to a half inch.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helical_scan#History

I have read that Philo Farnsworth came up with the idea of scanning
a picture line-by-line for electronic television while watching farm
fields being plowed back and forth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth#Electronic_television
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Richmond
2017-11-02 03:05:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Blake
Post by Charles Richmond
Then the insight popped into the engineers mind! Record the video data
in steep angles across a one-half inch tape using a helical tape head!!!
The swirling spiral of paper suggested the idea. That's how the
consumer VCR was invented! Of course, Ampex could *not* see a future
for consumer VCR's and sold the patents to a Japanese company.
Helical-scan recording was not invented for consumer VCRs, it was
introduced in the 1950s for professional TV production. (Of course
it did take nearly 20 years for tape width to be reduced to a half inch.)
The source for my anecdote was te "Understanding" series of
documentaries that aired on the Discovery channel a few decades back.

Ampex does have a history with helical scan video recording.
Post by Roger Blake
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helical_scan#History
I have read that Philo Farnsworth came up with the idea of scanning
a picture line-by-line for electronic television while watching farm
fields being plowed back and forth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth#Electronic_television
Farnsworth may have had the idea of creating a tv picture from scan
lines while he himself was plowing on their farm in Utah. David Sarnoff
was able to cheat Farnsworth out of making any money on his invention...
most of what Farnsworth did make was spent in the court battle with
Sarnoff over the rights to electronic tv.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
Peter Flass
2017-11-02 11:30:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RS Wood
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by RS Wood
Post by RS Wood
Written in 2014, still valid. By the author of "technology is
heroin" (an agile/scrum guy).
http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2014/05/we-didnt-mean-for-it-to-turn-
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by RS Wood
out-like-this.php
Post by RS Wood
//--clip
Looking at the net today, I can’t help but reflect on how it’s turning
We wanted to exchange information, not play games.
<snip>
Read the Science News article about Lena Pernas, October 14, 2017, page
16.
Not sure how that bears on the OP.
She got interested in the critters which carry malaria while playing
games when she was 9 years old. Playing those games helped her
make the choices when deciding what to study.
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by RS Wood
I wanted to make knowledge available to the young so that they became
aware of science, math, technology, and other kinds of knowledge
which never gets into elhi school books.
C'est What? Schools don't teach math, science and technology
in michigan? That's news, I'm sure.
In elhi, they teach baby stuff and only the pap which is "approved"
by religion, politics, and current social mores. There exists
a school district here which doesn't allow anything having to do
with dinosaurs, including cartoons, because of religious beliefs.
If any kid with a potential towards palentology went there, s/he
would have been squelched. I was told not to take algebra by a
teacher because it would be "too hard" for me. this was in 8th
grade when I was signing up for 9th grade classes. I never heard
the word calculus in high school.
I wish I'd never heard it at all!
--
Pete
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
2017-11-02 12:00:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Flass
I wish I'd never heard it at all!
In a Brit grammar school, we touched on calculus
in the 3rd year; the year before starting the
2-year 'O' Level course.

Calculus is quite straightforward, you merely have
to adopt an integrated mind that can differentiate
the infinite from the infinitesimal. :-)
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2017-11-02 15:06:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 12:00:02 +0000
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Post by Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Post by Peter Flass
I wish I'd never heard it at all!
In a Brit grammar school, we touched on calculus
in the 3rd year; the year before starting the
2-year 'O' Level course.
Calculus is quite straightforward, you merely have
to adopt an integrated mind that can differentiate
the infinite from the infinitesimal. :-)
Indeed, although I can still recall the wonderful moment of clarity
when it finally became obvious to me why differentiation and integration
were inverses of each other.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Charles Richmond
2017-11-02 19:27:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 12:00:02 +0000
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Post by Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Post by Peter Flass
I wish I'd never heard it at all!
In a Brit grammar school, we touched on calculus
in the 3rd year; the year before starting the
2-year 'O' Level course.
Calculus is quite straightforward, you merely have
to adopt an integrated mind that can differentiate
the infinite from the infinitesimal. :-)
Indeed, although I can still recall the wonderful moment of clarity
when it finally became obvious to me why differentiation and integration
were inverses of each other.
ISTM that this is the essence of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_calculus
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2017-11-03 09:16:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 14:27:01 -0500
Post by Charles Richmond
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 12:00:02 +0000
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Post by Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Post by Peter Flass
I wish I'd never heard it at all!
In a Brit grammar school, we touched on calculus
in the 3rd year; the year before starting the
2-year 'O' Level course.
Calculus is quite straightforward, you merely have
to adopt an integrated mind that can differentiate
the infinite from the infinitesimal. :-)
Indeed, although I can still recall the wonderful moment of
clarity when it finally became obvious to me why differentiation and
integration were inverses of each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_calculus
Yes it is, but the moment it became obvious was a truly memorable
insight.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Joy Beeson
2017-11-05 18:07:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 15:06:54 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Indeed, although I can still recall the wonderful moment of clarity
when it finally became obvious to me why differentiation and integration
were inverses of each other.
I never figured it out. I made good grades in both semesters, but all
I got by way of instruction in the fundamental theorem was two
apparently unrelated definitions of integration.

Geometry was much more fun. We proved thoroughly that saying that
there is exactly one parallel through a point is saying that the
angles of a triangle add up to a straight angle.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
jmfbahciv
2017-11-02 15:46:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Flass
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by RS Wood
Post by RS Wood
Written in 2014, still valid. By the author of "technology is
heroin" (an agile/scrum guy).
http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2014/05/we-didnt-mean-for-it-to-turn-
Post by Peter Flass
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by RS Wood
out-like-this.php
Post by RS Wood
//--clip
Looking at the net today, I can’t help but reflect on how it’s turning
We wanted to exchange information, not play games.
<snip>
Read the Science News article about Lena Pernas, October 14, 2017, page
16.
Not sure how that bears on the OP.
She got interested in the critters which carry malaria while playing
games when she was 9 years old. Playing those games helped her
make the choices when deciding what to study.
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by RS Wood
I wanted to make knowledge available to the young so that they became
aware of science, math, technology, and other kinds of knowledge
which never gets into elhi school books.
C'est What? Schools don't teach math, science and technology
in michigan? That's news, I'm sure.
In elhi, they teach baby stuff and only the pap which is "approved"
by religion, politics, and current social mores. There exists
a school district here which doesn't allow anything having to do
with dinosaurs, including cartoons, because of religious beliefs.
If any kid with a potential towards palentology went there, s/he
would have been squelched. I was told not to take algebra by a
teacher because it would be "too hard" for me. this was in 8th
grade when I was signing up for 9th grade classes. I never heard
the word calculus in high school.
I wish I'd never heard it at all!
<grin> I get goosebumps and a rift along my spine whenever I think
of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

/BAH
Loading...