other cpcms history

re:

Names love'ed to protect the guilty

............

To: Lynn Wheeler Yeah, you should!!!!! Some facts about SPM. Original version was written by lovexx of IBM Pisa Scientific center for CP-67. I installed his code in Poughkeepsie and, when TDC converted to VM-370 Release 2, I re-wrote the entire function, using the CP-67 code as a guide. Some stuff I kept the same, others I redesigned.

I then gave this code to you, as lovex was the one who had given me some good feedback in the design. (In fact, it was through SPM that I got to meet you originally.) It was at this time that lovexx and lovexx added SPM support to the internal version of RSCS (which eventually was released as the VNET PRPQ). In fact, the VNET PRPQ had, as shipped to customers, all the SPM support. They just didn't get the documentation and the CP updates to support it. While VM development was still in Burlington, Mbutt., I shipped a copy of the documentation for SPM (and possibly the code, but I don't remember) to lovexx, who tried to interest the product group in it. At that time, the product group saw no value to the function in CP. Virtual machines could communicate through virtual CTCAs and-or the spool file system! Also, although the product group has at least once that I'm aware of disclaimed any knowledge of such a function, I did publish a Poughkeepsie Lab Technical Report (TR 00.2701) in 1975 documenting this facility. My first "release of SPM was on 8-12-75 to the following people: 1. Lynn Wheeler, Cambridge Scientific Center, Cambridge, Mbutt. 2. lovex, RTP, Raleigh, North Carolina 3. lovex, Palo Alto, California 4. lovex, Washington Ed Center, Washington, DC. 5. lovexx, GPD, Westlake, California Subsequent releases were as follows: 08-21-75 6. lovexx, RTP, Raleigh, North Carolina 09-18-75 7. lovexx, Kingston, New York 09-26-75 8. lovexx, Boulder, Colorado 10-27-75 9. lovexx, Lyngby, Denmark 10-xx-75 10. lovexx, Sindelfingen, Germany 11-xx-75 11. lovexx, WTSC, Poughkeepsie, New York 11-xx-75 12. lovexx, Boeblingen, Germany 03-15-76 13. lovexx, Tel Aviv, Israel 03-17-76 14. lovexx, Kingston, New York (Common System) 03-17-76 15. lovexx, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 03-17-76 16. lovexx, Paris, France 04-21-76 17. lovexx, Uithoorn, Netherlands 05-10-76 18. lovexx, Zurich, Switzerland 04-30-76 19. lovexx, Los Angeles Scientific Center, Los Angeles, Ca. 03-xx-77 20. lovexx, WTSC, Poughkeepsie, New York 03-xx-77 21. lovexx, TOROLAB. 07-xx-77 22. lovexx, Syndey, NSW, Australia 07-xx-77 23. lovexx, Chicago, Illinois 02-22-78 24. lovexx, San Francisco, California 02-23-78 25. lovexx, Los Angeles, California 04-05-78 26. lovexx, Sudbury, United Kingdom 05-24-79 27. lovexx, Toronto, Ontario, Canada The last distribution I did was for VM-370 Release 6 and there were about 25 people on the distribution list. This was sometime in 1980. SPM was mentioned in the second VM Newsletter published by lovexx. The combination of VMCF, SMSG, and extended diagnose code 8 provide all functions of SPM EXCEPT the implicit message capability (this was the ability to trap a CP message as a special message). Although the initial version of IUCV did NOT supply this facility, IUCV was enhanced (VM-SP R2 I think) to add this capability, giving the product, after about 8 years, the functional equivalent of the SPM facility to which they saw no value in the CP product. Ever since the introduction of VM-SP, lovexx of the Cambridge Scientific Center, Cambridge, Mbuttachusetts has supported these modifications for a vanilla system. Kingston Common has also continued to supply SPM with their system. Since the product now finally offers the equivalent function, I have recommended that SPM be removed. lovelove has no plans to convert this function to SP-R4, Kingston Common plans to remove it when they go to SP-R4, and I am in the process of removing it from the HONE systems. I still think that the SPM concept is far superior to the approach used by VMCF and IUCV in that the hypervisor has no business being involved with the protocol of inter-virtual machine communication. All the hypervisor should do is deliver the requested data to a receiver who has informed the hypervisor that he is willing to receive this type of communication. I am glad that so many people have been able to profitably use code which I helped to create, but I really doubt if I will ever make such an effort again. The bitterness left after dealing with *************** REDACTED ********************** *************************** REDACTED ******************************* *************** REDACTED ******************* absolutely stomach turning. If people hadn't had the courage to take a chance on something new in the past, we wouldn't have 1-10 the stuff we have today in VM. ------------------------ Lynn - feel free to use anything you wish from this note. I didn't think I cared any more, but I find as I write this that all the bitterness I've felt over the years has come back. I'd appreciate it if you would clean up a little on anything you decide to excerpt from this note, as I doubt that all of it is appropriate for a general forum. You probably more than anyone else in IBM can understand why I feel the way I do. If you think more elaboration is needed in any area, let me know and I'll dig out what I can for you. lovexx

--