I propose this move, since it's really about MVS not mainframe as hardware. I am not sure about the correct procedure for templates, though (there is no article about it linked from Wikipedia:Requested moves. Samohyl Jan 17:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- OK, but the question is: are/were those methods a standard in other systems - non-MVS or even non-IBM systems? VM? If this is the case I think we should stick to "mainframe" qualificator. Confirmation needed from an expert... --Kubanczyk 21:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Take VSAM for example - citing from the IBM Redbook [1], section 1.3:
- "VSAM is one of several access methods in z/OS. It only applies to data stored in DASD devices. An access method is re-entrant code contained in DFSMSdfp, a component of the DFSMS z/OS product. This access method makes it easier for an application to execute an I/O operation (moving data between an I/O device and memory)."
- While I believe you can use similar API in VM, according to this Redbook, it originated with OS/VS1, predecessor of MVS. Also, if you run Linux on mainframe, you will have no access to this API. So these are an OS thing, not hardware thing (with the exception of EXCP). But you're right, since they are protocols or file systems, they can be implemented in other OSes. But if there was a template about Windows protocols, you would also call it "Windows protocols", not "Personal Computer protocols", even if they could have implementations on other systems. Samohyl Jan 09:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- If they actually originated specifically in MVS line, then I agree to move proposition. They are still pretty prominent there, so I don't really care they were used by a bunch of other extinct mainframe systems (and I'm not talking about Linux, but the old ones). --Kubanczyk 15:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)