I do, but only for fun.... Dave G4UGM
> -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard > Sent: 01 October 2009 00:11 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: LOGOFF/FORCE PENDING > > > Are you still using a system that has the DMK prefix? > > Regards, > Richard Schuh > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of P S > > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 3:58 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: LOGOFF/FORCE PENDING > > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Rich Greenberg > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 03:22:49PM -0700,Wandschneider, > > Scott Wrote: > > > > > > } Please keep the list posted with any updates to this > subject. I, > > > for } one, am *very* interested in your PMR. As I recall > this has > > > been a } nagging problem since the VM/370 days. As I > update our VM > > > systems I am } taking the FORCE command away by changing > > its privilege > > > class, but in } the process have upset operations and > > others as their > > > procedures } actually call for forcing users off, instead > > of logging > > > on, then logging } them off. > > > > > > Scott et al, > > > Have the operators do a: > > > > > > CP SEND CP target LOGOFF > > > > > > BEFORE doing a FORCE. Much safer. > > > > Doubtful. Since DMK, a FORCE has consisted of "Set the logoff > > bit and stack a CPEBK to go to the dispatcher". So no real > difference. > > > > Now, in DMK-time... > > =
