Fortune Systems sold COBOL-74 along with a bunch of business applications. Don't
recall who we got it from. There was also SIBOL (from an Irish company) that could run
thousands DIBOL programs under Unix (DIBOL was DEC's own business oriented
language).
Speaking of Fortune, I recently stumbled upon this short clip where Stanley Kubrick (in
1983) says he wants a Fortune Computer for Christmas because it runs the most advanced
operating system: Unix!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54hrLTpsO5g
On Jul 13, 2023, at 4:20 PM, Warner Losh
<imp(a)bsdimp.com> wrote:
Yes. And the need for COBOL also was mirrored in the micro world of the time (at least
the early 80s). Every micro with enough power seemed to have a COBOL, but all of the
offerings dried up before long because although COBOL was a 'no brainer must
have' for business, selling it into this new market proved to be too hard. At least
that's the impression I was left with at the time, and also what the professors that
taught my 'language survey' course said about it... You can take the raw code,
but the underlying environment and services just weren't there, so the raw code
turned out to be useless most of the time (I also got some $ re-writing a few hundred
lines of COBOL business logic for a local business that found that easier for a company
that had, as luck would have it, a PDP-11 database written in FORTRAN running on RT-11 or
RSTS/E).
Warner
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 4:36 PM segaloco via TUHS <tuhs(a)tuhs.org
<mailto:tuhs@tuhs.org>> wrote:
> The conclusion I'm coming to from what has been said thus far is that people who
were moving from COBOL and the mainframe world to UNIX didn't have as much of a need
for COBOL. Since that transition often involved change in enough other aspects of an
operation, moving to UNIX with the same COBOL applications just wasn't the path to
success for most folks, as opposed to folks deeply invested in FORTRAN. Would that be a
fair characterization?
>
> Thanks for the feedback by the way, one of the matters I'm trying to suss out is
what a typical COBOL environment on UNIX would've looked like back when, and what it
sounds like is a COBOL environment on UNIX was anything but typical.
>
> - Matt G.
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Thursday, July 13th, 2023 at 2:42 PM, Jon Forrest <nobozo(a)gmail.com
<mailto:nobozo@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> You’re thinking of Sybase. That’s where the name “SqlServer” came from. Sybase
sold a source code license to Microsoft that included the right to use the name.
>>
>> (I was a developer at Sybase in the VMS group in the late 1980s and early 1990s)
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Jul 13, 2023, at 1:35 PM, Clem Cole <clemc(a)ccc.com
<mailto:clemc@ccc.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt - I never had direct (user) experience with it. Ireleases. Also, I do
not remember if LPI-Colbol was attached to a specific DB implementation or not. In those
days, there were a number of them besides Ingres - Informix, IBM's DB2, and one that
started with an S - which later was sold to Microsoft to become SQL-server to name a few,
and that may have been part of it.
>