On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Paul Gilmartin < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jun 2015 09:34:04 -0400, Thomas Conley wrote: > > > >>>> An example of how IBM hardware design outpaces its software design. > >>>> A couple decades after an IBM terminal supported multiple sessions, > >>>> ISPF doesn't support a user's having multiple sessions. > >> > >> IKJ56425I LOGON rejected, UserId USER already logged on to system > MVS > > > >You need to bit...er, raise this issue with TSO. Don't be dogging ISPF. > > The function is there, it's up to the various other components to > >support it. > > > As the end user, I care little about the technical details of the > blockage; only > that the facility is unavailable. > > And I might reverse the analysis and fault ISPF for relying on an > inadequate > service. An alternative approach might be to liberate ISPF from dependency > on TSO. That might politically be the more practical approach, given that > TSO appears to be functionally stabilized while ISPF is actively maintained > and enhanced. > > I can easily start multiple UNIX System Services sessions until I grow > tired, > with no need for administrative gyrations such as John M. discusses. Why > shouldn't TSO/ISPF be raised to that level of quality? > I wish that I knew what the interface is between zOSMF and ISPF. If I did, I could look at perverting it in such as way as to get an ISPF session running from a UNIX shell prompt. <drool/> > > -- gil > > -- My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells down by the seashore. If someone tell you that nothing is impossible: Ask him to dribble a football. He's about as useful as a wax frying pan. 10 to the 12th power microphones = 1 Megaphone Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
