Xref: utzoo comp.arch:7792 comp.os.misc:715
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ingr!garth!smryan
From: smryan@garth.UUCP (s m ryan)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: Cobol Data Corporation Cyber 180 (was Re: 64 bits)
Message-ID: <2371@garth.UUCP>
Date: 7 Jan 89 23:07:49 GMT
References: <28200249@mcdurb> <451@babbage.acc.virginia.edu> <1951@scolex> <2618@ficc.uu.net> <1128@raspail.UUCP>
Reply-To: smryan@garth.UUCP (s m ryan)
Followup-To: comp.os.misc
Organization: intergraph/apd in sunny california
Lines: 27

>Wildcards make make some things easier, but the lack of them doesn't prevent 
>one from getting the job done.  I'm curious, though, about 'present-day
>standards'.  Does VMS have wildcard file names?  How about MVS or other IBM,
>Unisys, etc., mainframe operating systems?

The person you're arguing with has a sad case of Unix-on-the-brain: if it
ain't done exactly like in Unix, it ain't worth squat.

Think of all the wonderful things Unix offers that NOS/VE doesn't:
- only two segments, static+heap and stack.
- no shared codes except libraries staticly assigned to segments.
- no unified command processing.
- no concept of subsystem which permit a layerring of commands.
- no segment=file concept so all disc io gets an extra transfer through
  system buffers between the user space and discs.
- no ability for file and system security.

Given all these features, I can certainly see why Unix is the way of the
future.

By the way, while NOS does not have a `standard error file,' it does have
dayfiles. Lordy, lordy, I wish I had dayfiles on Unix.
-- 
The tears of Hreithmar quickly dried.                               -- s m ryan
He claimed his proce: to fill the hide
with scarlet gold and cover well                               -- Andwari's Gem
and thus avoid a vengeance fell.                                         -- 1/8