COBOL "non-myth" confirmed - Index and subscripts (MF on Windows)
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Help with Tcal
Next: COBOL Error Handling (was: What MF says about ROUNDED(was:Cobol Myth Busters
From: donald tees on 27 Sep 2007 09:05 Judson McClendon wrote: > "LX-i" <lxi0007(a)netscape.net> wrote: >> My laptop is running Ubuntu Linux, and before that I had Windows Vista 64-bit. Both OS's took about the same time to display a >> login screen (just under a minute, unless it's the 21st time I've booted Linux and it forces a fsck on my main hard drive). >> However, when I enter my user name and password, it's about 10 seconds before I can do something with Ubuntu - with Vista, it was >> 3-4 minutes! > > I've downloaded Ubuntu, but haven't done more than play with it a bit. > Is it really a viable alternative for those currently doing serious work in > Windows? For example, what about my investment in Win32 compilers? > Is the Windows emulation good enough to compile and test using MF > Net Express? I would be very surprised if Visual Studio or MS Office > runs. Though Unix clones of MS Office might be fine for everyday use, > what if you are creating Office applications? For good or ill, the vast > majority of potential clients out there are running Windows and Windows > apps. Any comments? I do all my development on a virtual machine these days. The virtual machine(s) are running on a single Linux box, one machine for each OS of the past. Donald
From: HeyBub on 27 Sep 2007 09:27 Judson McClendon wrote: > "LX-i" <lxi0007(a)netscape.net> wrote: >> >> My laptop is running Ubuntu Linux, and before that I had Windows >> Vista 64-bit. Both OS's took about the same time to display a login >> screen (just under a minute, unless it's the 21st time I've booted >> Linux and it forces a fsck on my main hard drive). However, when I >> enter my user name and password, it's about 10 seconds before I can >> do something with Ubuntu - with Vista, it was 3-4 minutes! > > I've downloaded Ubuntu, but haven't done more than play with it a bit. > Is it really a viable alternative for those currently doing serious > work in Windows? For example, what about my investment in Win32 > compilers? Is the Windows emulation good enough to compile and test using > MF > Net Express? I would be very surprised if Visual Studio or MS Office > runs. Though Unix clones of MS Office might be fine for everyday use, > what if you are creating Office applications? For good or ill, the > vast majority of potential clients out there are running Windows and > Windows apps. Any comments? Linux is a knock-off of a 40-year old operating system originally designed by a money-losing division of the local telephone company. It has been enhanced by designers who truely believe the DOS command-line interface was not arcane enough. There is a rumor that Ubuntu is secretely funded by Microsoft in an effort to entice away the malcontent portion of the computing community thereby allowing those of us remaining to have an enjoyable computing experience, free from hectoring, snarling, and pomposity. Visit the microsoft.public.windows.vista.general or microsoft.public.windowsxp.general newsgroups to get a taste of the invective and spite visited upon Micros~1 by the Ubuntu devotees.
From: Pete Dashwood on 27 Sep 2007 09:59 "Judson McClendon" <judmc(a)sunvaley0.com> wrote in message news:WQMKi.265$z7.85(a)bignews7.bellsouth.net... > "LX-i" <lxi0007(a)netscape.net> wrote: >> >> My laptop is running Ubuntu Linux, and before that I had Windows Vista >> 64-bit. Both OS's took about the same time to display a login screen >> (just under a minute, unless it's the 21st time I've booted Linux and it >> forces a fsck on my main hard drive). However, when I enter my user name >> and password, it's about 10 seconds before I can do something with >> Ubuntu - with Vista, it was 3-4 minutes! > > I've downloaded Ubuntu, but haven't done more than play with it a bit. > Is it really a viable alternative for those currently doing serious work > in > Windows? For example, what about my investment in Win32 compilers? > Is the Windows emulation good enough to compile and test using MF > Net Express? I would be very surprised if Visual Studio or MS Office > runs. Though Unix clones of MS Office might be fine for everyday use, > what if you are creating Office applications? For good or ill, the vast > majority of potential clients out there are running Windows and Windows > apps. Any comments? Yes, this just confirms what I've said here a number of times. The marketplace is Windows. If you are writing software you expect to sell, you'd be crazy not to write it for a Windows environment. Having said that, DotNET and it's Open Source equivalent, Mono, are making quite a difference. I have done one fairly trivial experiment so far, where I wrote C# on a Windows machine and a friend ran it without problem on a Linux box under Mono, WITHOUT REQUIRING A RECOMPILE! This is pretty impressive. So,one compiler that's free (either the C# compiler that comes with Mono or the MS C# that comes with VS 2005) and you have full access to 99% of the PC Marketplace. I can't see why anyone would pay thousands for a COBOL compiler that works on one platform or another. (DotNET COBOLs from both MicroFocus and Fujitsu SHOULD also be platform independent in the same way, but these are not cheap.) And that's before we even consider runtime fees, which only exist in certain COBOL environments. Ironically, my Windows MS environment is now becoming a springboard for Linux as well, all through the power of DotNET and Mono. (The converse is also true; people can develop using Linux/Unix and Mono, and have it run on Windows, no problem.) It's about time :-) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Judson McClendon on 27 Sep 2007 09:59 "donald tees" <donaldtees(a)execulink.com> wrote: > Judson McClendon wrote: >> >> I've downloaded Ubuntu, but haven't done more than play with it a bit. >> Is it really a viable alternative for those currently doing serious work in >> Windows? For example, what about my investment in Win32 compilers? >> Is the Windows emulation good enough to compile and test using MF >> Net Express? I would be very surprised if Visual Studio or MS Office >> runs. Though Unix clones of MS Office might be fine for everyday use, >> what if you are creating Office applications? For good or ill, the vast >> majority of potential clients out there are running Windows and Windows >> apps. Any comments? > > I do all my development on a virtual machine these days. The virtual machine(s) are running on a single Linux box, one machine for > each OS of the past. Interesting. Are there any "gotcha's" in that approach that you would like to share? -- Judson McClendon judmc(a)sunvaley0.com (remove zero) Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
From: donald tees on 27 Sep 2007 11:51
Judson McClendon wrote: > "donald tees" <donaldtees(a)execulink.com> wrote: >> Judson McClendon wrote: >>> I've downloaded Ubuntu, but haven't done more than play with it a bit. >>> Is it really a viable alternative for those currently doing serious work in >>> Windows? For example, what about my investment in Win32 compilers? >>> Is the Windows emulation good enough to compile and test using MF >>> Net Express? I would be very surprised if Visual Studio or MS Office >>> runs. Though Unix clones of MS Office might be fine for everyday use, >>> what if you are creating Office applications? For good or ill, the vast >>> majority of potential clients out there are running Windows and Windows >>> apps. Any comments? >> I do all my development on a virtual machine these days. The virtual machine(s) are running on a single Linux box, one machine for >> each OS of the past. > > Interesting. Are there any "gotcha's" in that approach that you would like > to share? I've not found any yet on a fast machine. Older machines or ones with small memory can be a bit loggy, mouse-wise. Once you create a machine, you can boot it from a DVD or CD, and install the same as you would with a real one. The nice thing about it is that the disk drives are Linux files, so creating a small machine with a 4 gig disk that can be copied becomes trivial. Backup is *much* simpler and more reliable than with real machines, and the entire machine can be copied onto new hardware in a trivial manner. You can even move drives from computer to computer without much grief. Learning how seems to be the biggest gotcha, but that is true with just about anything. I even have customers with old DOS machines preserved intact. I understand you can also run the same machine on an XP, but I have not bothered to try. Donald |