Re: Hands up! (Was: CPP (C++) file on z/OS)
Right you are, Chris, Ted's last post to IBM-MAIN was indeed Dec 30. However, when I tried to locate it in the Google Groups version of the list, Ted's "profile" did not include it. > Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 13:38:02 -0500 > From: jayare...@hotmail.com > Subject: Re: Hands up! (Was: CPP (C++) file on z/OS) > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > > No, the post I had in mind was > > > http://groups.google.com/group/bit.listserv.ibm-main/tree/browse_frm/thread/37b96e67a712a429/fa36e99827151c83?rnum=21&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fbit.listserv.ibm-main%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F37b96e67a712a429%3Fscoring%3Dd%26&scoring=d#doc_99ee584950b96736 > (mind the rap) > > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main > From: > eamacn...@yahoo.ca (Ted MacNEIL) > Date: > 2 Dec 2011 02:23:28 -0800 > Local: > Fri, Dec 2 2011 5:23 am > Subject: > Re: Last use date of a PDS member > "Mea culpa., I must be having major memory problems. I was totally wrong on > finding the PROC name in type 30. > yet snother senior moment, and I know a retrsction is not > necessaruly good enough. > I'm gone from this list due to my failing memory " > > And, yes, "last post" would be appropriate. > > Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:36:53 -0600 > > From: chrisma...@belgacom.net > > Subject: Re: Hands up! (Was: CPP (C++) file on z/OS) > > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > > > > jayrelim > > > > > Based on ... (2) not having seen him post lately, > > > > Last post - appropriate? - on IBM-MAIN is dated 30 Dec last year: > > > > Subject: Re: IBM Manuals > > From: Ted MacNEIL > > Reply-To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > > Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:59:26 + > > > > But I have evidence that he posted in the RACF-L list today!: > > > > Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 01:23:42 + > > Reply-To: eamacn...@yahoo.ca > > Sender: RACF Discussion List > > From: Ted MacNeil > > Subject: Re: IRRUT200 performance question. > > > > - > > > > > Based on (1) a comment I seem to recall him making a while ago ... > > > > Is this the post you have in mind?: > > > > Subject: Re: z/OS UNIX file can't be deleted. (Was confusing and confused) > > From: Ted MacNEIL > > Reply-To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > > Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:34:27 + > > > > It contains a self-denying ordinance: > > > > > > > > But, I shall not be responding to any more bump on USS. > > > > > > > > He probably meant "bumpf" but I guess the spittle obscured his screen - or > > made his keyboard a bit slippery in places! > > > > This post is actually worth reading in full in order to see why the brigade > > deserves its name. > > > > Incidentally, just like the original self-denying ordinance of 1644/1645, > > it became famous for not being observed! > > > > Subject: USS > > From: Ted MacNEIL > > Reply-To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > > Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 02:44:06 + > > > > To add insult to his self-inflicted injury, he even *initiated* this thread. > > > > Probably some post provoked him but he was trembling so much with rage he > > forgot to indicate what it was! > > > > Finally, the foundations upon which he bases his brigade headquarters, > > namely that I have no authority to make my claims, are very easily > > demolished with the following reference, one of many obviously: > > > > > > > > As part of the name change of OS/390 OpenEdition to OS/390 UNIX System > > Services, occurrences of OS/390 OpenEdition have been changed to OS/390 > > UNIX System Services or its abbreviated name, OS/390 UNIX. > > > > > > > > http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/IEA1E211/CHANGES > > > > and search for "OpenEdition". > > > > Naturally "OS/390" can be understood to be replaced with "z/OS" today. I > > don't suppose even the brigadier would be so stupid as to argue with that. > > > > Chris Mason > > > > On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:06:46 -0500, J R wrote: > > > > >"Brig. MacNeil" > > > > > >Based on (1) a comment I seem to recall him making a while ago and (2) not > > >having seen him post lately, > > >maybe that should be "Brig. MacNeil (Ret.)" -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Hands up! (Was: CPP (C++) file on z/OS)
No, the post I had in mind was http://groups.google.com/group/bit.listserv.ibm-main/tree/browse_frm/thread/37b96e67a712a429/fa36e99827151c83?rnum=21&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fbit.listserv.ibm-main%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F37b96e67a712a429%3Fscoring%3Dd%26&scoring=d#doc_99ee584950b96736 (mind the rap) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main From: eamacn...@yahoo.ca (Ted MacNEIL) Date: 2 Dec 2011 02:23:28 -0800 Local: Fri, Dec 2 2011 5:23 am Subject: Re: Last use date of a PDS member "Mea culpa., I must be having major memory problems. I was totally wrong on finding the PROC name in type 30. yet snother senior moment, and I know a retrsction is not necessaruly good enough. I'm gone from this list due to my failing memory " And, yes, "last post" would be appropriate. > Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:36:53 -0600 > From: chrisma...@belgacom.net > Subject: Re: Hands up! (Was: CPP (C++) file on z/OS) > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > > jayrelim > > > Based on ... (2) not having seen him post lately, > > Last post - appropriate? - on IBM-MAIN is dated 30 Dec last year: > > Subject: Re: IBM Manuals > From: Ted MacNEIL > Reply-To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:59:26 + > > But I have evidence that he posted in the RACF-L list today!: > > Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 01:23:42 + > Reply-To: eamacn...@yahoo.ca > Sender: RACF Discussion List > From: Ted MacNeil > Subject: Re: IRRUT200 performance question. > > - > > > Based on (1) a comment I seem to recall him making a while ago ... > > Is this the post you have in mind?: > > Subject: Re: z/OS UNIX file can't be deleted. (Was confusing and confused) > From: Ted MacNEIL > Reply-To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:34:27 + > > It contains a self-denying ordinance: > > > > But, I shall not be responding to any more bump on USS. > > > > He probably meant "bumpf" but I guess the spittle obscured his screen - or > made his keyboard a bit slippery in places! > > This post is actually worth reading in full in order to see why the brigade > deserves its name. > > Incidentally, just like the original self-denying ordinance of 1644/1645, it > became famous for not being observed! > > Subject: USS > From: Ted MacNEIL > Reply-To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 02:44:06 + > > To add insult to his self-inflicted injury, he even *initiated* this thread. > > Probably some post provoked him but he was trembling so much with rage he > forgot to indicate what it was! > > Finally, the foundations upon which he bases his brigade headquarters, namely > that I have no authority to make my claims, are very easily demolished with > the following reference, one of many obviously: > > > > As part of the name change of OS/390 OpenEdition to OS/390 UNIX System > Services, occurrences of OS/390 OpenEdition have been changed to OS/390 UNIX > System Services or its abbreviated name, OS/390 UNIX. > > > > http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/IEA1E211/CHANGES > > and search for "OpenEdition". > > Naturally "OS/390" can be understood to be replaced with "z/OS" today. I > don't suppose even the brigadier would be so stupid as to argue with that. > > Chris Mason > > On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:06:46 -0500, J R wrote: > > >"Brig. MacNeil" > > > >Based on (1) a comment I seem to recall him making a while ago and (2) not > >having seen him post lately, > >maybe that should be "Brig. MacNeil (Ret.)" > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Hands up! (Was: CPP (C++) file on z/OS)
I relish Chris Mason's posts. There are an unconscionable number of [to the rest of the world obscure] Americanisms used here without thought, and Chris gets his own back by using what are to many Americans equally obscure Briticisms. How many of the Americans here can recite on the curate's egg or the Agincourt salute without googling one or both of them first? John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Hands up! (Was: CPP (C++) file on z/OS)
jayrelim > Based on ... (2) not having seen him post lately, Last post - appropriate? - on IBM-MAIN is dated 30 Dec last year: Subject: Re: IBM Manuals From: Ted MacNEIL Reply-To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:59:26 + But I have evidence that he posted in the RACF-L list today!: Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 01:23:42 + Reply-To: eamacn...@yahoo.ca Sender: RACF Discussion List From: Ted MacNeil Subject: Re: IRRUT200 performance question. - > Based on (1) a comment I seem to recall him making a while ago ... Is this the post you have in mind?: Subject: Re: z/OS UNIX file can't be deleted. (Was confusing and confused) From: Ted MacNEIL Reply-To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:34:27 + It contains a self-denying ordinance: But, I shall not be responding to any more bump on USS. He probably meant "bumpf" but I guess the spittle obscured his screen - or made his keyboard a bit slippery in places! This post is actually worth reading in full in order to see why the brigade deserves its name. Incidentally, just like the original self-denying ordinance of 1644/1645, it became famous for not being observed! Subject: USS From: Ted MacNEIL Reply-To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 02:44:06 + To add insult to his self-inflicted injury, he even *initiated* this thread. Probably some post provoked him but he was trembling so much with rage he forgot to indicate what it was! Finally, the foundations upon which he bases his brigade headquarters, namely that I have no authority to make my claims, are very easily demolished with the following reference, one of many obviously: As part of the name change of OS/390 OpenEdition to OS/390 UNIX System Services, occurrences of OS/390 OpenEdition have been changed to OS/390 UNIX System Services or its abbreviated name, OS/390 UNIX. http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/IEA1E211/CHANGES and search for "OpenEdition". Naturally "OS/390" can be understood to be replaced with "z/OS" today. I don't suppose even the brigadier would be so stupid as to argue with that. Chris Mason On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:06:46 -0500, J R wrote: >"Brig. MacNeil" > >Based on (1) a comment I seem to recall him making a while ago and (2) not >having seen him post lately, >maybe that should be "Brig. MacNeil (Ret.)" -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Hands up! (Was: CPP (C++) file on z/OS)
Aaargh! Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Mason Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 7:29 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Hands up! (Was: CPP (C++) file on z/OS) Charles Haven't you noticed that, in recent years, bull-fighting has been deprecated in its heartlands? > ... (don't shoot me, Chris) ... Why not - when you put yourself in my sights? > ... an entire USS ... path ... The following are the principal - if not the "entire" - paths: 5.11, "Unformatted system services tables" in z/OS V1R13 Communications Server SNA Resource Definition Reference -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Hands up! (Was: CPP (C++) file on z/OS)
"Brig. MacNeil" Based on (1) a comment I seem to recall him making a while ago and (2) not having seen him post lately, maybe that should be "Brig. MacNeil (Ret.)" > Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 09:28:40 -0600 > From: chrisma...@belgacom.net > Subject: Hands up! (Was: CPP (C++) file on z/OS) > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > > Charles > > Haven't you noticed that, in recent years, bull-fighting has been deprecated > in its heartlands? > > > ... (don't shoot me, Chris) ... > > Why not - when you put yourself in my sights? > > > ... an entire USS ... path ... > > The following are the principal - if not the "entire" - paths: > > 5.11, "Unformatted system services tables" in z/OS V1R13 Communications > Server SNA Resource Definition Reference > > http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/f1a1b6c0/5.11 > > 12.8, "Logon and logoff requests from dependent logical units" in z/OS V1R13 > Communications Server SNA Network Implementation Guide > > http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/f1a1b5b0/12.8 > > (Please accept my apologies in advance if any mention of "SNA" brings on a > cold sweat - or raised blood pressure - whatever!) > > 16.3.29, "USSTCP statement" in z/OS V1R13 Communications Server IP > Configuration Reference > > http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/f1a1b4b0/16.3.29 > > 16.4, "Telnet USS table setup" in z/OS V1R13 Communications Server IP > Configuration Reference > > 2.2.1.4.15, "Using the Telnet solicitor or USS logon screen" in z/OS > Communications Server IP Configuration Guide > > http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/f1a1b3b0/2.2.1.4.15 > > Incidentally, I did a smidgen of checking in the "development" manuals and I > discovered that if - as appears to be the case from the context - and the > plea! - you mean to refer to something other than the "Unformatted System > Services" function present in both of the two components, SNA (VTAM) and IP > (in the shape of the SNA-oriented TELNET server), of Communications Server, > you could simply have keyed "UNIX" - as in the JCL Reference - or probably > more generally "z/OS UNIX" - and your fingertips would not have suffered > irretrievable damage - and you would enjoy the warm glow which comes from > "doing the right thing"! > > Yet another incidentally: Failure to abjure the attempted hijacking leads to > the following sort of nonsense where orthodoxy can be found in close > proximity to heresy: > > http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/f1a1d1b0/6.23 > > And there are some members of the spittle-flecked brigade - CO Brig. MacNeil > - who claim there is no ambiguity. Moreover they also deliberately - alright, > let's try to be charitable - clumsily ignore the confusion they impose upon > novices who, having "enjoyed" a z/OS general education, find themselves > working with the TN3270E server or, quite possibly, the OSA-Express feature > configured as an ICC.[1] > > A final incidentally - for now: Has anyone else noticed a not so subtle > addition in the z/OS Version 1 Release xx Implementation redbooks between > xx=12 and xx=13, SG24-7853 and SG24-7946? This demonstrates once again the > curate's egg nature of the redbook collection. This sort of aberration can be > expected when, rather than being development authors who are supposed to be > disciplined[2], the authors are amateurs, folk like you and me, and review is > supposed to be performed by an ITSO "resident" - in former times an assignee > from an IBM field post but there's less evidence of that recently - and an > ITSO editor - who also may have "off" days! > > - > > [1] See "Subject: VTAM USSTAB QUESTION". "From: Howard Rifkind > ", "Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 14:48:11 -0500" > > http://www.mail-archive.com/ibm-main@bama.ua.edu/msg89840.html > > and see "Subject: Re: Mainframe hacking", From: Howard Rifkind > ", "Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 05:36:28 -0700" > > http://www.mail-archive.com/ibm-main@bama.ua.edu/msg98995.html > > for evidence that one of your poor fellow subscribers can be so bemused that, > even after having had a little tutorial on the abbreviation used in its > correct - originally 1970s - context - courtesy of one C.J. Mason, after a > mere 7 months the fact that the correct use was quite different from the > incorrect use had been forgotten, so pernicious is the influence of so much > misuse.
Hands up! (Was: CPP (C++) file on z/OS)
Charles Haven't you noticed that, in recent years, bull-fighting has been deprecated in its heartlands? > ... (don't shoot me, Chris) ... Why not - when you put yourself in my sights? > ... an entire USS ... path ... The following are the principal - if not the "entire" - paths: 5.11, "Unformatted system services tables" in z/OS V1R13 Communications Server SNA Resource Definition Reference http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/f1a1b6c0/5.11 12.8, "Logon and logoff requests from dependent logical units" in z/OS V1R13 Communications Server SNA Network Implementation Guide http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/f1a1b5b0/12.8 (Please accept my apologies in advance if any mention of "SNA" brings on a cold sweat - or raised blood pressure - whatever!) 16.3.29, "USSTCP statement" in z/OS V1R13 Communications Server IP Configuration Reference http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/f1a1b4b0/16.3.29 16.4, "Telnet USS table setup" in z/OS V1R13 Communications Server IP Configuration Reference 2.2.1.4.15, "Using the Telnet solicitor or USS logon screen" in z/OS Communications Server IP Configuration Guide http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/f1a1b3b0/2.2.1.4.15 Incidentally, I did a smidgen of checking in the "development" manuals and I discovered that if - as appears to be the case from the context - and the plea! - you mean to refer to something other than the "Unformatted System Services" function present in both of the two components, SNA (VTAM) and IP (in the shape of the SNA-oriented TELNET server), of Communications Server, you could simply have keyed "UNIX" - as in the JCL Reference - or probably more generally "z/OS UNIX" - and your fingertips would not have suffered irretrievable damage - and you would enjoy the warm glow which comes from "doing the right thing"! Yet another incidentally: Failure to abjure the attempted hijacking leads to the following sort of nonsense where orthodoxy can be found in close proximity to heresy: http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/f1a1d1b0/6.23 And there are some members of the spittle-flecked brigade - CO Brig. MacNeil - who claim there is no ambiguity. Moreover they also deliberately - alright, let's try to be charitable - clumsily ignore the confusion they impose upon novices who, having "enjoyed" a z/OS general education, find themselves working with the TN3270E server or, quite possibly, the OSA-Express feature configured as an ICC.[1] A final incidentally - for now: Has anyone else noticed a not so subtle addition in the z/OS Version 1 Release xx Implementation redbooks between xx=12 and xx=13, SG24-7853 and SG24-7946? This demonstrates once again the curate's egg nature of the redbook collection. This sort of aberration can be expected when, rather than being development authors who are supposed to be disciplined[2], the authors are amateurs, folk like you and me, and review is supposed to be performed by an ITSO "resident" - in former times an assignee from an IBM field post but there's less evidence of that recently - and an ITSO editor - who also may have "off" days! - [1] See "Subject: VTAM USSTAB QUESTION". "From: Howard Rifkind ", "Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 14:48:11 -0500" http://www.mail-archive.com/ibm-main@bama.ua.edu/msg89840.html and see "Subject: Re: Mainframe hacking", From: Howard Rifkind ", "Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 05:36:28 -0700" http://www.mail-archive.com/ibm-main@bama.ua.edu/msg98995.html for evidence that one of your poor fellow subscribers can be so bemused that, even after having had a little tutorial on the abbreviation used in its correct - originally 1970s - context - courtesy of one C.J. Mason, after a mere 7 months the fact that the correct use was quite different from the incorrect use had been forgotten, so pernicious is the influence of so much misuse. And the members of the brigade pretend it doesn't matter! Note that an URL direct from the IBM-MAIN archive is unsuitable since it incorporates my e-mail address. [2] Although there are far too many careless lapses upon which the spittle-flecked leap in order to justify their untenable position. Nevertheless their vaunting triumphalism can easily be pricked by pointing out that, if someone has taken the trouble to point out the "lapse", it gets corrected. The following, the first instance of the misuse (checked because Brig. MacNeil claimed he had fist seen the misuse 15 years ago - and has been delighting in the misuse ever since) illustrates my point: OS/390 UNIX System Services Parallel Environment: MPI Programming and Subroutine Reference For V2R4, V2R5 and V2R6, SC33-6696-00, the misuse is present: http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/IPEPRE01/ For V2R7, SC33-6696-01, the misuse has been purged: http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/ASSPRE00/ Intriguingly enough, - thi
