On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:50 AM, David Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
> Oh, my. Given the fact that many of our users cannot remember a single >> RACF logon id, assigning them multiple would cause chaos. >> > > Seriously???? Well ok... Perhaps if you numbered the UIDs, things would be > easier. Mine are DBCOLE1 thru 9. I may be 67 years old now, but I don't yet > have trouble remembering this. > > > Doesn't fit out naming conventions. But I guess we could possibly suffix with an alphabetic A..Z character. Did I mention that _many_ of our users are off-shore via a contracting company? Basically data entry clerks. Who share ids at times, despite being told not to. > > > And is against company policy. >> > > Your company should consider changing its policy. There is no significant > per-userid overhead, especially when you stop to consider that for the most > part, even though a user might have nine sessions up and running, he still > generally does only one thing at a time... That leaves 8 sessions mostly > idle at any given point in time. > The reason is not technical, but political. It is too difficult for the auditors to grasp that one person could have multiple ids, so they would need to "somehow" merge all the data for the multiple ids into a single line item. Or some such thing as that. In 20+ years here, I have yet to understand H.R. > > Of course, there may be other reasons for such a company policy, but for > me, having multiple sessions improves my productivity. Are policies against > multiple userids really worth the productivity limitations they create? > Might work for the programmers. Of which we have _very few_ left. > Dave > > -- Wasn't there something about a PASCAL programmer knowing the value of everything and the Wirth of nothing? Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
