> should I assume that prefixing is not performed for STC or for UNIX System > Services (USS)?
Can't speculate about yew-ess-ess (that should be safe) but thinking about this problem some more I found some code of mine that typically runs as an STC and I see the apostrophe insertion. Don't know if that is necessary for an STC or if I decided incorrectly that it was necessary after testing in batch. I *suspect* STC behaves like batch, but only a test would tell for sure. > Anti-trust? When was the last time DoJ threatened IBM with anti-trust? No threat, but architecturally, some time ago IBM separated RACF the licensed product from SAF the MVS interface (AFAIR due to anti-trust type considerations). I was just wondering whether the write-up really meant RACF or was using the acronym imprecisely when SAF would have been correct. Perhaps an ACF2 or TSS user will speak up. I know that a CA technical rep hangs out here. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 9:55 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: C and LE -- when prepend userid on file names? On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 08:53:47 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: >I also wonder about their references to RACF (specifically). What do users of >ACF2 and TSS see? Is the behavior truly RACF-specific, or is it SAF-specific? >If truly RACF-specific, what about the anti-trust issues? > And the statement that the behavior is specific to batch, TSO, and IMS. should I assume that prefixing is not performed for STC or for UNIX System Services (USS)? Ahti-trust? When was the last time DoJ threatened IBM with anti-trust? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
