14 Jul
2023
14 Jul
'23
4:35 a.m.
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> 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> 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.