From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754254AbYATNnQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Jan 2008 08:43:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753231AbYATNnB (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Jan 2008 08:43:01 -0500 Received: from hawking.rebel.net.au ([203.20.69.83]:42205 "EHLO hawking.rebel.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752973AbYATNnA (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Jan 2008 08:43:00 -0500 Message-ID: <47934FF5.4010904@davidnewall.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:13:17 +1030 From: David Newall User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan Cox CC: Andi Kleen , akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH for mm] Remove iBCS support References: <20080119045918.GA12215@basil.nowhere.org> <4792B191.2060801@davidnewall.com> <20080120031153.GB6275@one.firstfloor.org> <4792D221.1010704@davidnewall.com> <20080120051822.GB19784@one.firstfloor.org> <4792DD22.4070902@davidnewall.com> <20080120130633.76c16d67@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20080120130633.76c16d67@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox wrote: >> It's not necessarily that simple. It might be for KFC and Dominoes, but >> for others, SCO is not the complete story. Many legacy systems are >> written in COBOL, and must pay a per-seat licence for that on top of the >> per-seat licence for UNIX. It is these systems that are most attracted >> towards SCO compatibility. >> > > And they mostly use microfocus cobol which is available on Linux Or RM Cobol, which is also available on Linux. Both of these require significant expense in new licences. > or they do a quick port to the fujitsu cobol->java vm translator. > I don't know of this thing, but I have looked, on behalf of a colleague, for tools that can compile his existing COBOL source, and found only partial solutions (i.e. found nothing.) > There are people in this community who deal day in and day out with > migrations. I don't hear a whisper of concern from those I deal with > about losing iBCS. Well, I'm whispering: The cost is that something desirable but incomplete would be removed. While it's there it's a constant source of irritation to those in the know. Once removed it can be forgotten. So the cost is really that iBCS2 compatibility becomes less likely. What's the benefit in removing it? Up to 20 cycles per exec? That's nothing.