Did we just trade Bill Johnson for Jon Perryman? Are you two related? We
are back to backbiting and insults.
Can we just stop?
Doug Fuerst
------ Original Message ------
From "Jon Perryman" <[email protected]>
To [email protected]
Date 10/31/2023 17:34:02 PM
Subject Re: SCHEDIRB Jon Perryman is correct re-linked as AC=1 no ABEND
ON SVC 8
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 14:35:45 +0000, Peter Relson <[email protected]> wrote:
As this related to a purported need to link with AC=1,
I was perfectly sure that that was not correct. And I remain so.
Is it truly a coincidence that this group failed in 1 week to solve a simple
SCHEDIRB and LOAD failing when shortly after my first attempt, the op solved
his problem? The OP sent his source and the op said it failed on LOAD.
If this were not TSO involving LOAD, Peter might be correct. TSO does not
follow conventional wisdom and rules. As a product developer, we had a LOAD
fail in our product where (if I remember correctly) the solution was to link
the module AC=1. Our product address space included multi-tasking TSO
(concurrent TSO commands). Most people don't experience the quirks of TSO and
would be surprised to learn that TSO changes many of the rules. For instance, I
am painfully aware of JSCBAUTH because there are times it must be restored in
TSO. Unix dubbing is also a problem.
I bring this up because clueless Crayford is now saying "you're confused AGAIN"
which I find offensive. Clearly I was not confused in my response to his comments.
Clearly I'm not confused here although it's possible I'm wrong about TSO AC=1. When
exactly am I repeatedly confused? I have a different life experience than most. Just
because I don't respond does not mean I'm wrong. It's very rare for anyone to experience
TSO quirks when there are only a couple of products running multi-tasking TSO in their
product address space. There are few people with vast experience in a single diverse
address space where many products are executing concurrently. Why should I continue a
discussion that is irrelevant for most people and not beneficial to me?
Why do people consider me confused when I make completely relevant
recommendations that many do not understand. This is my style of problem
solving and it clearly works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
