A month or so ago I applied Service Pack 3 to Windowns XP home from a
download and started getting a message that Automatic Updates was
turned off. I tried to change the Automatic Updates setting but it
was locked (all of the choice button were greyed out). I think I got
the message that I
Is there a way I can tell if http://bahn.hafas.de is Linux on z. If
it is that says interesting things about whether z series might be
able to handle google. The site does timetable lookup, trip planning,
etc. and apparently is among the best for planning European trips.
I am getting postings rejected because I am not authorized (I get
bounced e-mail message) yet they are accepted when I resend them
without change. Is anyone else seeing this problem?
Clark Morris
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe /
Note the application and the fact it is running on z series assuming
Hans (who normally has a good track record) is correct. I kept the
whole posting so that you get a flavor of the type of application and
the cpu requirements.
Clark Morris
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 02:32:56 + (UTC), in
On Fri, 02 May 2008 22:01:10 +0200, Thomas Zierer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JZOS has become part of Unix System Services in z/OS. Handling is very
easy, especially if combined with other Java tools like ANT. There is an
interesting sample shiped with JZOS: Installing an running a Apache
Tomcat
The following discussion on comp.lang.cobol may prove interesting. I
would be curious to read if any of the major claims such as American
Airlines Sabre moving totally to Unix are wrong.
Clark Morris
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:38:36 -0500, in comp.lang.cobol Robert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed,
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:41:29 -0700 (PDT), in bit.listserv.ibm-main you
wrote:
Pete Dashwood wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.zdnet.com/projectfailures/?p=666
(Not from where I'm standing - but I might not be standing the right
place)
I
This probably was cross-posted to both comp.lang.cobol and
bit.listserv.ibm-main. Pete Dashwood is a long time consultant who
has CICS and COBOL experience. I don't necessarily agree with him but
he does have many good insights.
Clark Morris
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:54:55 +1300, in
On 14 Mar 2008 09:25:06 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On 14 Mar 2008 06:28:28 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Russell) wrote:
Is there a way to restrict jobs from running it a
particular job class?
Is
there
more than one way
On 7 Feb 2008 14:51:15 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Hi,
AOS works fine instead of RSVF for us.
You can open a PMR or better just ask Level-2 to test this with you the
next time you have a PMR active for something else. The IBM folks may
enjoy the practice too some don't use it too
On 31 Jan 2008 11:10:53 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
I have seen several shops get or try to get off the mainframe. The biggest
reason the upper management gives for trying to get off the mainframe is
no one coming out of college knows anything about the mainframe. When I
was
On 8 Jan 2008 05:12:03 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
I thought the same thing. What exactly *do* PDSEs bring to the table that
PDSs didn't have or doesn't do?
They do bring a number of good things like large load modules, the
theoretical ability for longer than 8 character names and
The following on comp.lang.cobol should give us some food for thought
although the mainframe is now being used as a web server.
Clark Morris
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 11:22:26 -0600, in comp.lang.cobol Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Howard Brazee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Pete Dashwood who is the author of most of this posting, has coded for
the mainframe and CICS. Unfortunately, based on the actual actions of
the COBOL standards committee, the lack of 64 bit support or support
for even parts of the 2002 COBOL standard that were in specific SHARE
requirements, and
On 3 Dec 2007 05:54:20 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
You are absolutely right, but this issue keeps coming up because the
behaviour of the compiler in this instance isn't exactly 'intuitive'. I'll
bet that 9 out of 10 programmers who read the manual come away with the
impression
On 30 Nov 2007 06:46:35 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
I can only dimly remember planned outages.
In my capacity as Customer Services Marketing Manager in Amdahl UK, one of the
metrics I had
to deal with was MTBUI - Mean Time Between Unscheduled Interruptions. It was
essentially
On 24 Oct 2007 05:34:12 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Thanks to all who have responded. per request from others, please respond to
the list so all can see, I didn't think many folks would be interested in this
topic.
the JES3 side is currently using a product called OMC-Flash for
On 31 Oct 2007 17:58:09 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Sure they are trivial - until we move into an environment where there
are multiple DASD sizes with different optimal BLKSIZE needs.The
programmer shouldn't care what disk his files are in - the systems
people should have
On 30 Oct 2007 13:46:07 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:29:54 -0500, Dave Kopischke wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:46:36 -0600, Howard Brazee wrote:
But why should a program care about block size?
Funny you should ask this; We had a major project implement a
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:10:33 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main bwstorts
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are planning a full file test environment to better test our
applications. Currently, our testing happens on our production lpar
with very small vsam and DB2 files. We plan on mirroring our
On 5 Sep 2007 05:46:05 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
I fully agree with the sentiment that you should not take it upon yourself
to free common storage that someone else obtained unless you (somehow) are
able to know 100% that it is not used. And I fully agree that unowned
does not
On 20 Aug 2007 05:38:39 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
I'd like to use CA-7 to automate jobs, but in our shop it takes literally
2+ months of 1970's paperwork to get a job start approved, and there are no
guarantees that it will be accepted. One only has to attempt this once to
never
On 2 Aug 2007 02:24:21 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Ron Hawkins wrote:
Clark,
Could this really be a true story? The few boxes that attach to mainframes
would have triggered a SIM the moment someone unlatched and pulled the drive
- a highlighted, non-scrolling error message on
On 31 Jul 2007 09:39:32 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Steve
How about if someone on the list who has a web site set up a standard e-mail
to send to the illustrious Mr. Palmisano. The e-mail could consist of the
eloquence we so often find in these posts regarding how vital a tool
On 20 Jul 2007 23:35:18 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Timothy Sipples [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe
On 10 May 2007 08:54:33 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of John Eells
The IBM Jargon Dictionary confirms my recollection that it
came from Change Label Information Program.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:44:20 -0300, in bit.listserv.ibm-main_dummy
Clark Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24 Apr 2007 04:42:48 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Knutson, Sam)
wrote:
I have never IPLed SAD off anything but disk. For the other things you
can IPL from a tape unit like FDR, DFDSS, ZZSA
The following posting is a comment on an article about mainframe
skills shortage with the article and comments by Pete Dashwood who
believes both COBOL and mainframes are on life support and that there
are far more cost effective platforms than the mainframe.
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:28:57 +1200,
, in comp.lang.cobol P. Raulerson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clark F Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 18:54:55 -0600, P. Raulerson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your guess would be partly right - I support Mainframe (z/OS, z/VM,
zLinux),
AIX, Linux, iSeries
On 12 Oct 2006 05:30:38 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
In
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 10/10/2006
at 10:26 PM, Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I moved from my Bell BlackBerry account to a YAHOO using POP3, in
June, because RIM re-engineered their support making a REPLYTO
mandatory
On 5 Oct 2006 20:28:34 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 10/05/2006
at 07:58 AM, McKown, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
4K physical and logical. Like VSAM LINEAR. Or a PAGESPACE.
Do you know for a fact that those use a 4 KiB block size?
rantI sure wish that
On 25 Sep 2006 03:41:05 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
See landmines in http://www.isham-research.co.uk/dd.html
The German adjective - not very politically correct - is getürkt.
I frequently mention my dear old HP41CV in the footnotes to the MIPS tables.
That's because
one of the
On 18 Sep 2006 11:33:20 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
ISPF Service LMMList can do it.
Or you could write a little REXX to LISTDSI the dataset and pick up the
unit and volser. Then you could build your IEHLIST control card
dynamically and get the same output you are familiar with.
On 16 Sep 2006 21:25:02 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
I'm believe that for consistency with the same (irrational) choice made
for JCL allocation, KB and MB in IDCAMS defines are interpreted to
mean KiB and MiB (i.e., 2**10 and 2**20 Bytes).
I usually allocate in RECORDS instead of
On 15 Sep 2006 06:24:39 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Hi List,
we are planning to go from static linking under IMS to dynamic linking,
COBOL transactions with DB2 access. The main reason for us is to avoid
relinking in case of modules are changed.
Are there any pitfalls, pros and
On 12 Sep 2006 19:04:24 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 09/11/2006
at 02:36 PM, Patrick O'Keefe [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The B5500 had similar structure and set of capabilities.
There were major changes in architecture from the B5x00 to the
B6x0/B7x0 line.
On 11 Sep 2006 09:01:16 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 09/10/2006
at 09:09 AM, Clark F Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
What models and was it other than just data and instruction?
Burroughs: B6500, B6700, B7500, B7800, etc. The tag bits constrained
how
On 9 Sep 2006 22:02:52 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 09/08/2006
at 06:11 PM, Bernd Oppolzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
BTW, on older machines (not IBM) there were concepts like storage
tags, which allowed to detect the use of uninitialized variables
even
On 6 Sep 2006 14:02:35 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Kopischke, David G. wrote:
Greetings,
Another interesting story today on SearchDataCenter. This is the
biggest
one I've read about so far.
Now comes the wait for the first hacker to break in and steal countless
millions
On 7 Sep 2006 10:13:38 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
I hope that in their evaluation they considered the cost of feeding
20,000 chickens vs the cost of a few good mainframe sysprogs... La
sombra sabe!
The release said the replacement was only 2 HP Superdomes or whatever
their high
On 7 Sep 2006 06:43:00 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 10:20:21 -0300, Clark F Morris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reliability is based on the
least reliable component. COBOL is required to generate code that
correctly (if slowly) handles decimal
what
On 5 Sep 2006 18:30:31 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
let's see LE/COBOL has been available for what 15 years now, it's time to
bite the bullet and get off of
cobol II and vs cobol
period. end of comment.
So! You're ready to come out to my shop.
Ready to re-compile everything.
Test
On 30 Aug 2006 00:49:08 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Hello John,
One thing which happened to our CICS transactions after we increased our
ECSA size were random wild branches.
Not every instance of a transaction would break.but many did.
Why?
Increasing our ECSA size moved
On 18 Aug 2006 05:16:53 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 08/15/2006
at 09:18 PM, Clark F Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
While I like the idea, plan on major effort to convert JES exits,
IEFUJI and IEFUJV among other things. I would prefer we start
looking
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:55:02 -0600, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you
wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 08:28:34 -0700, Mickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Moving to a PC based platform is the best way I know of to engage in
empire building. I oft times suspect that some managers do it for just
that reason. Managing
On 16 Aug 2006 06:15:07 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Greetings,
For those of you that are members of SHARE, I submitted a SHARE
requirement regarding this.
One of the problems is that the user-id is still only 8 characters.
This is more and more of a limitation since most other
On 15 Aug 2006 06:44:58 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
I'll second the motion to allow lower case in JCL. In fact, I'd like to
see an option to allow user friendly JCL:
While I like the idea, plan on major effort to convert JES exits,
IEFUJI and IEFUJV among other things. I would
On 13 Aug 2006 15:51:35 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
At 01:57 -0400 on 08/12/2006, Arthur T. wrote about Re: Vendor JCL
(was: WHY IS JCL ALLERGIC ... ):
On 11 Aug 2006 21:02:35 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert A. Rosenberg)
On 10 Aug 2006 17:30:49 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 08/09/2006
at 04:24 PM, Clark Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
As I understood Chuck Stevens who was the Unisys COBOL representative
to ANSI X3J4 and a member of the technical support team for their
On 9 Aug 2006 20:49:25 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
I guess that means that you think they can't install MVS. In all the
years
I've been in this business, people have been telling me that this
group or
that is full if idiots. People who were incapable of learning, or
worse,
On 10 Aug 2006 09:18:20 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Knutson, Sam
Hi,
We had one associate today that took 2.5 hours to get through
security in Atlanta today.
Oh, joy. I just can't wait to see
On 9 Aug 2006 04:49:34 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
SNIP
Yep yep yep. We're looking to move from z900s to z9s, with a small MSU
increase, big increase in real, and, IBM-wise, we'll save $600k. Bloody
brilliant. I'm in love. Add in SoftwareAG, and the savings is gone, and
On 8 Aug 2006 15:41:36 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
To be honest, I dislike all those autocust things.
I never found that it made the install any easier. Same
with the rest of them. Mostly front ends to SMP/E, to cover up for
the
fact that the vendor doesn't have a clue how
53 matches
Mail list logo
