Talk:CP/CMS

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by Early computers task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by e.w.bullock, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 29 May 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

CP/CMS[edit]

This article has been created to record information about CP/CMS as distinct from VM, IBM's successor system. VM/370 was a reimplementation of CP/CMS, and for a period both systems had their own independent existence. The historical importance of CP/CMS would seem to justify its separate coverage here. There is a good deal of detail, on the premise that it is better to have too much and pare it down, than to have gaps. This is especially true since much of this material is not easily available on-line.

Additional related articles have been created for CP-40, History of CP/CMS, and some related topics referenced in the text.

The author will shortly tackle the VM and VM/CMS articles, combining their content and citing the CP/CMS article for historical material. Please feel free to contact the author with any questions or comments. And naturally, feel free to whack away at anything you disagree with or think should be handled differently. Trevor Hanson 21:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1978 vs. 1989 copyright issues[edit]

The Berne Convention Implementation Act, 1989, is important for many aspects of copyright law but it is not the only relevant date. A quick Google search turns up this nice summary by Rob Kasunic (Adjunct, University of Baltimore School of Law) at legalminds.lp.findlaw.com. Quoting at length:

...[another writer] indicated that until March 1, 1989 a work needed a copyright notice or there would be no US copyright. That is not correct. The important date is January 1, 1978 - since that date the existence of US copyright in a work has not required publication with notice....[though] notice requirements were further liberalized as of March 1, 1989. Section 405(a) of the present Act...has been substantively unchanged since January 1, 1978...[and thus] copyright notice on publicly distributed copies or phonorecords of a work was not required for an US copyright in the work to come into existence.... The ability to cure a defect in copyright validity due to lack of notice under section 405 is certainly not the same as stating that copyright
notice was not required.... Copyright notice was required on published works until the Berne Convention
Implementation Act was effective on 3/1/89. Granted, the curing provisions of Section 405 lessened the severe consequences of publication without notice under the 1909 Act, yet it is important that the distinctions of these dates not be blurred.

This seems clear though of course IANAA. Trevor Hanson 07:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure of articles about IBM mainframe operating systems[edit]

After a big edit of MVS I concluded that the whole set of articles about IBM mainframe operating systems from System/360 onwards needed to be re-structured to minimise overlap and to make clearer the evolutionary relationships between these operating systems (notably in memory management, which is historically a major distinguishing feature). There is already some support for this proposal. Please add comments at Talk: MVS. Philcha 23:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REXX / XEDIT[edit]

I think there ought to be at least a passing mention of REXX and a link to the REXX page. Not sure about XEDIT or maybe "System Product Editor". Martin Packer (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, though I don't think either of these existed before VM/370. CP/CMS was a LONG time ago. Spinality (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting of terms of art[edit]

The article frames several terms of art, e.g., problem state, supervisor state, in quotation marks. I believe that scare quotes are not appropriate for terms of arts, although possibly the first use of each should be in italics or wikilinked. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Cambridge Analytics a problem[edit]

If they are not using the CMS the reporting module could be out of sequence and reports not generated in Wholesale customers at the bank. Not sure why this was decided not to use. 66.171.8.236 (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about that Cambridge. RossPatterson (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]