[U2] RE: U2 Users Digest V1 #573
Sometime this afternoon. Hey... 112.8 Kilos today.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: U2 Users Digest V1 #573 U2 Users DigestThursday, March 17 2005Volume 01 : Number 573 In this issue: RE: [U2]: Epicor RE: [U2]: Epicor RE: [U2]: Epicor Re: [U2]: Epicor RE: [U2] UD: ODBC/OleDB access to selected records in a file Re: [U2] UniObjects and LDAP user authentication. Re: [U2]: Epicor RE: [U2]: Epicor RE: [U2]: Epicor -- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:11:17 + From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [U2]: Epicor Now who ever said you were allowed to export, massage, and then reimport with no validation? H...sounds like something I would like to have DONE to me.. - -- Debster - -- Original message -- Now here's something that I can give an opinion on without obvious bias. I fail to see the benefit of a feature that allows you to easily circumvent you ERP systems data input process. To easily allow users to export ERP data to a spreadsheet...massage the data...then re-import that data back into the database has at least two obvious problems to me. First, data integrity becomes marginal at best. Second, what is wrong with the ERP input process that requires the data to be changed by another outside process? Epicor does have apps that integrate back to the ERP database, but the data is run through the input processes as part of that integration. Users are advised that doing updates outside of these processes are done so at their own peril. I don't know about ISO compliance, but easy outside input to the database is frowned upon by the FDA, SEC, and SOX auditors. David Litzau Epicor Technical Support J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill H. Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:59 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2]: Epicor Marc: It is possible that this sort of data movement is precisely the reason financial information, at numerous companies, is difficult to attest to, let alone use for analysis. :-) When I see this benefit (capability), red flags go up all over the place. It's like giving a gun to children...most will be ok but someone __WILL__ get hurt. Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc Harbeson Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 8:41 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2]: Epicor Being a Manage-2000 client, and having been an Oracle client in the past (10.x) and having seen a JD demo I must say of the t1 suppliers, they did put on a nice show. (They could export directly to excel, change data, and re import the data back into the erp) :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lettau, Jeff Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 10:55 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2]: Epicor So maybe Advante, Dataflo, infoflo, M2K and the like are not tier 1 multi-million dollar installs. But for ease of use and the ability to tweak the system to meet your needs. I'll take the tier 2 any day. Not intending to start an argument, but what can SAP or JD Edwards do that the smaller Epicor products can't do? What makes them worth the added cost? I don't' buy into that they can handle more users. That is mostly a matter of database management, hardware and infrastructure. You also have to consider who is buying what system and what their intensions are. What do you really get out of a standard SAP or JD Edwards install that you can't get from any system provided by Epicor or similar smaller priced package? I'm not being rhetorical.(again spell checker saves the day, I didn't know a word could start with rh.) P.s. you can get the Monitor Series at a Circuit city store or other high end audio stores near you! You can't seriously expect me to send you something for free! I can't get stuff for free. Jeffrey Lettau ERP Systems Manager polkaudio -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Debster Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 12:50 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2]: Epicor Yes...and I was privy to M2K back when it went through ADP doors and was sold back out again -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Allen E. Elwood Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 4:27 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2]: Epicor I believe that Jeff was speaking about Manage-2000. Polk audio, in addition to making great speakers, is a Manage-2000 user. Now if I could just get them to send a couple of studio monitors my
SV: [U2] RE: U2 Users Digest V1 #573
THANKS FOR POSTING THE DIGEST TO ALL ON THE LIST :-))) please try to reduce the postings when making a reply :-) -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Christopher Edwards Sendt: 17. marts 2005 10:21 Til: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Emne: [U2] RE: U2 Users Digest V1 #573 Sometime this afternoon. Hey... 112.8 Kilos today.. snipping 112.8 kb junk out -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: U2 Users Digest V1 #573 U2 Users DigestThursday, March 17 2005Volume 01 : Number 573 snipping 112.8 kb junk out Frie Funktionfrer - faglig organisation og tvfrfaglig a-kasse - www.f-f.dk *** Denne email og alle filer vedlagt som bilag kan indeholde fortroligt materiale, der kun er beregnet for adressaten, og maa ikke udleveres eller kopieres til uvedkommende. Har De ved en fejltagelse modtaget denne email, bedes De venligst omgaaende meddele os dette pr. telefon : 6313 8550. Paa forhaand tak. *** This email and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information intended for the addressee(s) only. The information is not to be surrendered or copied to unauthorised persons. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone: +45 6313 8550. Thank you. *** --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [OT] Financial fraud (was the thread: Epicor)
Allen, This is a fantastic story. I am warning IT folks about just such a scenario ALL THE TIME. I've found that in these SOX audits the IT folk seem to think along two (deadly) lines. First, they tend to be just tell me what you want / give me a list (e.g. don't make me think) and secondly yeah, yeah, we'll make sure you can't use vi on the data wink, wink : good thing they don't know about ed! What folks don't realize about SOX is that now that an executive could be held responsible even if he didn't know (not that I think anyone on the jury believed Bernie Ebbers really didn't know (Worldcom)) those executives will be frantic to SHOW they didn't know. If they can point to a control that demonstrates a reasonable expectation that certain controls are in place (a signed off report that says data cannot be edited on live, for example) then the person who withheld certain editors from the control will actually end up being accountable. And this whole thing about exporting and importing data (soapbox is fully out and positioned center stage now): SOX is not there to PREVENT technology, flexibility, business realities! Some folks are getting so caught up that they are just lost in it. Excel is a great tool for presenting data. Users should be able to download it and play with it all day for internal decision making. But if those excel reports need to be used for consolidating multiple systems and actually reporting at an SEC level then they need controls. A control can be technological -- some reports import into read-only directories, maybe. Or a control can be human -- this report is consolidated every day, but on Thursday Sam spot checks the sales figures against the cash register reports and Sally signs off on the proofs. Or a combination ... the data is imported, the reports are created and the figures that go to the report are re-summarized, re-hashed in alternate reports that are stored on the system. [Here's an idea that has been misunderstood, too -- one company I know has an electronic report of certain activities e.mailed to an individual every day. This individual must check a box, digitally signing that he's reviewed them. He laughs and thinks everyone is stupid because he just checks the box and doesn't really review them. But what I'm trying to get him to understand is that whether or not he bothers to look, by signing off he has ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY for them. So if there were a problem, he'd get the 'do not pass GO, do not collect $200' card! SOX is really -- at its most bare-bones and fundamental level -- about justifying finger pointing. Think like Allen. collapsing portable soapbox that I seem to carry everywhere these days SJ Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:47:56 -0800 From: Allen E. Elwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [U2]: Epicor The system that I had setup, allowed accountants to change any field on an invoice. Believe it or not, that was the request. What they didn't know was that I kept a simple before change/change request/after change snapshot of the data along with date/time/logon as I had been warned about by a wise professor back in my school days (daze?). What I didn't know, was that they were changing the dates and invoice numbers on the invoices to make them look as if they were only 30-60 days old. This was to make the receivables look current, and therefore the company could leverage that to borrow money from Wells Fargo for purchase of more product to sell. The auditors from AA were very savvy and spotted the same invoice amount with different dates and different invoice numbers on printed aging reports kept for historical purposes. When they asked me about how that could happen, I produced the audit report. The accountants were charged with FRAUD at Wells Fargo's request and were tried and sent to jail! This was in the 80's. Way way before SOX. The first thing the accountants did was point the finger at me. That's why the auditors came to me along with the CEO with the intention of nailing me. Had I not been a paranoid programmer, I might have ended up in jail. The accountants thought I was a patsy, and got lots of time to think about that for 5 years. At the time, I worked for the accounting department. So I literally was protecting my career from my boss who was a fool of the highest magnitude and whom had drastically underestimated my abilities as a business analyst and programmer. Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you! --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2]: Epicor
What if I make a change to the code in the system according to what the CFO wants and then I get implicated as being an accomplice to fraud. Can I pull my college credits where I failed accounting as being my defense? Is it getting to the point where every change to the system requires a call to a lawyer to check to see if it is ok? Jeffrey Lettau ERP Systems Manager polkaudio -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Jordan Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 12:15 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2]: Epicor We have seen a couple of cases where the CFO has gone to jail for carrying out an illegal action. The CFO gained no financial advantage, whilst the CEO who gained the financial advantage actually never went to jail. In the UK a programmer got into serious trouble when programming who got university places. After exhausting a variety of priority issues such as marks to decide who would get a position, he then made a decision based on skin colour. Programmers are regarded as professional/educated people by the courts and the courts view is that a programmer should no better when programming improper code. (Ignorance is no excuse) If a programmer modifies the code so the CFO does not pay the correct tax, then the court regards the programmer as an accomplice to the crime. The court's view is that a threat of sacking is not an excuse to commit a crime. Bill is right some IT people will be in for a horrific shock as they could be caught up in fraud, privacy issues, spam and other areas and most have not considered their legal implications. Regards David Jordan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill H. Sent: Thursday, 17 March 2005 5:00 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2]: Epicor Don: There are a number or current laws and regulations that attempt to rid public corporations of this kind of mismanagement. The result of these new regulations may not so much be the reduction of corporate financial and IT mismanagement, but the transfer of responsibility to lower level staff. :-( It may come to pass that you'll be held personally liable for someone else's indiscriminate business requirements. For those of us who think it is our role to provide others with the ability to trash the integrity of the organization's financial information; a rude awakening awaits! Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Kibbey Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:15 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2]: Epicor Our resident Bean Counters have asked for and received several tools from me that will allow them to do the same thing to our system. It's our job to provide the sharp knives, the CPA types have to be carefull not to remove appendages with said tools. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UniObjects and LDAP user authentication.
Gordon, I didn't read your first posting. So this email may not make a sense. Sorry. We just converted UNIX traditional authentication method to use Active Directory. As you may know, AD is Microsoft's LDAP solution. Our current production UNIX platforms are: OS: HP-UX 11.11 64-bit UniData 5.2.8 We decided to purchase Vintella Authentication Service (VAS) to integrate AD and UNIX user password synchronization. In order to use VAS, PAM (Pluggable Authentication Modules) had to be installed in all HP-UX boxes. So applications that are aware of PAM (using libpam.a), like sshd, worked fine without changing. However, UniData we are using is not built with libpam.a (ie. UniRpcD, udapi_server, and udapi_slave. How did I find it? I used ldd command against a binary file.). That broke our UniObject for Java sessions; connect() method stopped working. Yicks! Enough about Ferguson stuff... Getting bored, eh? Anyway, if I were you, I would try this: Option 1: I think it's using LDAP, but maybe not... Let's find out. Create a tiny C or Perl program to find what password field returns when calling getpwnam() function. If password field contains *, then most likely you are using a shadow password file. Use getspnam() for that and execute the little program being root. If a crypted password string returned, make sure that UniData (maybe Universe?) daemon processes owned by root. Shadow password can be read only by root or applications with root juice. :) Then I would try your UniObject application. Option 2: Oh, darn...Option 1 didn't work. And we cannot ditch LDAP authentication. Create a local special UNIX user in your server side (meaning, the user's password stored in traditional UNIX password file with crypted password in password field) 1. In your client application, authenticate connecting users using JNDI if your application is written in JAVA or ADSI if your application is written in Visual Basic (System.Directoryservices for .NET) before calling UniObject routines. 2. Use that special UNIX user to open a UniObject session. Bad (?) thing about the above implementation is that the special user will be an owner of a file, not actual user, when writing a record. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig Bennett Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 6:25 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] UniObjects and LDAP user authentication. Gordon, Our system admin department just changed our Sun servers from using NIS (Network Information Name Service) to LDAP Directory Service. It was said that this user authentication is more secure than NIS. Unfortunately, our UniObjects quit working. When I try to open a session within a VBA program or with the UniDebugger it fails due to Invalid User Name or Password. doesn't the UniDebugger login using telnet? (I haven't used it for a while). Maybe the username/password you are using is not in LDAP? I would think that LDAP vs NIS should be transparent to the application (unless its SASL, maybe you need to associate a service tag with an authentication method in your SASL config?). Craig --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Financial Fraud
Jeff, That one is easy. Requests for mods to the software must be documented and their justification is part of the request. Every SOX auditor I've come across has made this mandate. So in IT we have a methodology where we are responding to written requests that have been through authorization channels before coming to us. So -- without (necessarily) understanding the accounting or legal implications of the task at hand, you can verify that the request came through proper channels. Everyone has their job definition -- you don't have to have knowledge or expertise or fear outside of your realm of responsibility. BUT BOY-GOLLY make sure you are taking your own steps. If it turns out you did something that you can't point to the audit of the request and justification for WHY you did it -- well, then you may need your lawyer. Help put good procedures in place -- in the first place -- that make sense and then don't let people bypass the rules (emergencies are part of the rules, not an exception to them -- have established emergency-justification-criteria and then established emergency procedures!) whoosh-clap sound of collapsible soapbox folding up Susan Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:08:46 -0500 From: Lettau, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [U2]: Epicor What if I make a change to the code in the system according to what the CFO wants and then I get implicated as being an accomplice to fraud. Can I pull my college credits where I failed accounting as being my defense? Is it getting to the point where every change to the system requires a call to a lawyer to check to see if it is ok? Jeffrey Lettau ERP Systems Manager polkaudio --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2]: Epicor
Is it getting to the point where every change to the system requires a call to a lawyer to check to see if it is ok? Yes ! or atleast it seems that way here. We've gone from complete freedom to no changes without the appropriate documentation and approval overnight. All changes must be user requested. Even if I know there is a bug, I can't just go quick fix it. I have to actually go out to a user and ask them to request it to their boss who makes the entry in PRC. The helpdesk elevates it to IT/Development director, then it can be fixed. In turn if it's a major issue where the AR is getting botched up daily, it could take a while to get to it, in turn making the problem worse. Then prove that the changes were made and approved before making it into production. On top of it all auditing every other month to make sure this protocal is followed to the T. And it's just starting here. It all comes down to placing the blame and covering each ones bum from a law suit. The whole process stinks, but is for our own good in the long run. Especially in the world where people will cook the books and point there finger at you. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UniObjects and LDAP user authentication.
Craig, You are correct, UniDebugger does use a telnet session. But if it also utilizes UniObjects to read in the program you want to work on. I can connect using my login and password for the telnet session but when I try to open a program to edit with UniObjects is when I get the error. I can verify that it's the UniObjects not connecting by using a small VBA application in an Excel spreadsheet. I'm not real sure what SASL is but I'll pass it on to the admin types. Thanks for the response, Gordon Gordon J. Glorfield Sr. Applications Developer MAMSI (A UnitedHealth Company) 301-360-8839 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/16/2005 06:25:23 PM: Gordon, Our system admin department just changed our Sun servers from using NIS (Network Information Name Service) to LDAP Directory Service. It was said that this user authentication is more secure than NIS. Unfortunately, our UniObjects quit working. When I try to open a session within a VBA program or with the UniDebugger it fails due to Invalid User Name or Password. doesn't the UniDebugger login using telnet? (I haven't used it for a while). Maybe the username/password you are using is not in LDAP? I would think that LDAP vs NIS should be transparent to the application (unless its SASL, maybe you need to associate a service tag with an authentication method in your SASL config?). Craig --- This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UD: ODBC/OleDB access to selected records in a file
Funny you should mention it. We just started experimenting with XML yesterday. CR comes with an ODBC driver for XML files. UD's LISTTOXML seems to work as advertised. Many details remain to be investigated, but it looks promising so far. Jim --- John Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I seem to remember there is a link into ADO for CR ... maybe you could link into RBOs? XML might be another possible methodology - but I don't have a copy of CR to play with... Anyone got any inside information on these features in CR? Regards JayJay We have racked our brains and have been unable to come up with a workaround for this gaping hole in the ODBC/OleDB interface to UniData. Before we give up entirely and resign ourselves to putting out paper reports with UniQuery, I thought I would ask this group if anyone has solved this problem. Anyone? Thanks in advance, Jim --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ...a livable wage is a moral value. Affordable health care is a moral value. A decent education is a moral value. A common sense foreign policy is a moral value. A healthy environment is a moral value. The feeling of community that comes from full participation in our democracy is a moral value. It is a moral value to make sure that we do not saddle our children and grandchildren with our debt. -Howard Dean __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] [OT] Financial fraud (was the thread: Epicor)
Comments embedded in the message below. Susan Joslyn wrote: Allen, This is a fantastic story. I am warning IT folks about just such a scenario ALL THE TIME. I've found that in these SOX audits the IT folk seem to think along two (deadly) lines. First, they tend to be just tell me what you want / give me a list (e.g. don't make me think) and secondly yeah, yeah, we'll make sure you can't use vi on the data wink, wink : good thing they don't know about ed! I occasionally run into a third scenario, what I call the passive-aggressive manager. Fine. We'll do EVERYTHING *exactly* the way they ask, and then more so. We'll pay so much attention to analyzing requests and going back for more and more details and authorizations, *nothing* will get done. When the company business grinds to a halt, THEN they'll be sorry they messed with the IT department! (It amuses me that this type never seems to realize how obvious this will be and how likely it is to lead to terminatus abruptus.) collapsing portable soapbox that I seem to carry everywhere these days SJ As IT governance becomes more and more mandated, you, me, and the other controls advocates won't need to carry soapboxes around with us anymore, Susan. There will be plenty of corpses of IT managers around to stand on. -- Regards, Clif ~~~ W. Clifton Oliver, CCP CLIFTON OLIVER ASSOCIATES Tel: +1 619 460 5678Web: www.oliver.com ~~~ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2]: Epicor
Let's move this to U2-Community. You may subscribe to U2-Community, send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]. Place the following line by itself in the body of the mail: subscribe u2-community More info: http://u2ug.org/index.php?module=ContentExpressfunc=displaybtitle=CEmid=ceid=12 - Charles Barouch, Moderator --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [OT] Financial fraud (was the thread: Epicor)
Hi Susan, I see we are on the same page on this one! :-) Hey, I hope you're wearing green. It's Saint Patrick's day!!! http://www.st-patricks-day.com/index.asp Allen (wearing his lucky green pants) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Susan Joslyn Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 04:17 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] [OT] Financial fraud (was the thread: Epicor) Allen, This is a fantastic story. I am warning IT folks about just such a scenario ALL THE TIME. I've found that in these SOX audits the IT folk seem to think along two (deadly) lines. First, they tend to be just tell me what you want / give me a list (e.g. don't make me think) and secondly yeah, yeah, we'll make sure you can't use vi on the data wink, wink : good thing they don't know about ed! What folks don't realize about SOX is that now that an executive could be held responsible even if he didn't know (not that I think anyone on the jury believed Bernie Ebbers really didn't know (Worldcom)) those executives will be frantic to SHOW they didn't know. If they can point to a control that demonstrates a reasonable expectation that certain controls are in place (a signed off report that says data cannot be edited on live, for example) then the person who withheld certain editors from the control will actually end up being accountable. And this whole thing about exporting and importing data (soapbox is fully out and positioned center stage now): SOX is not there to PREVENT technology, flexibility, business realities! Some folks are getting so caught up that they are just lost in it. Excel is a great tool for presenting data. Users should be able to download it and play with it all day for internal decision making. But if those excel reports need to be used for consolidating multiple systems and actually reporting at an SEC level then they need controls. A control can be technological -- some reports import into read-only directories, maybe. Or a control can be human -- this report is consolidated every day, but on Thursday Sam spot checks the sales figures against the cash register reports and Sally signs off on the proofs. Or a combination ... the data is imported, the reports are created and the figures that go to the report are re-summarized, re-hashed in alternate reports that are stored on the system. [Here's an idea that has been misunderstood, too -- one company I know has an electronic report of certain activities e.mailed to an individual every day. This individual must check a box, digitally signing that he's reviewed them. He laughs and thinks everyone is stupid because he just checks the box and doesn't really review them. But what I'm trying to get him to understand is that whether or not he bothers to look, by signing off he has ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY for them. So if there were a problem, he'd get the 'do not pass GO, do not collect $200' card! SOX is really -- at its most bare-bones and fundamental level -- about justifying finger pointing. Think like Allen. collapsing portable soapbox that I seem to carry everywhere these days SJ Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:47:56 -0800 From: Allen E. Elwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [U2]: Epicor The system that I had setup, allowed accountants to change any field on an invoice. Believe it or not, that was the request. What they didn't know was that I kept a simple before change/change request/after change snapshot of the data along with date/time/logon as I had been warned about by a wise professor back in my school days (daze?). What I didn't know, was that they were changing the dates and invoice numbers on the invoices to make them look as if they were only 30-60 days old. This was to make the receivables look current, and therefore the company could leverage that to borrow money from Wells Fargo for purchase of more product to sell. The auditors from AA were very savvy and spotted the same invoice amount with different dates and different invoice numbers on printed aging reports kept for historical purposes. When they asked me about how that could happen, I produced the audit report. The accountants were charged with FRAUD at Wells Fargo's request and were tried and sent to jail! This was in the 80's. Way way before SOX. The first thing the accountants did was point the finger at me. That's why the auditors came to me along with the CEO with the intention of nailing me. Had I not been a paranoid programmer, I might have ended up in jail. The accountants thought I was a patsy, and got lots of time to think about that for 5 years. At the time, I worked for the accounting department. So I literally was protecting my career from my boss who was a fool of the highest magnitude and whom had drastically underestimated my abilities as a business analyst and programmer. Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you! --- u2-users mailing list
RE: [U2] UD: ODBC/OleDB access to selected records in a file
Jim Bullock wrote: Funny you should mention it. We just started experimenting with XML yesterday. CR comes with an ODBC driver for XML files. UD's LISTTOXML seems to work as advertised. Many details remain to be investigated, but it looks promising so far. If LIST...TOXML doesn't do exactly what you need, try Cedarville's DOWNLOAD utility. -- Wendy Smoak --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
[U2] Multiprocessor IBM server
Universe 9.6.2.5 IBM H50 server with 4 CPU's AIX 4.3.3 Does anyone know how I can tell that this server is running multiple CPU's? In addition, how does Universe handle multiple CPU's? I know that there's been discussion about multi-threading in universe, but at a more basic level, shouldn't universe or AIX distribute processes among the available processors? How do I know that this is happening? Thanks, Michael Pflugfelder Systems Integrator Keystone Information Systems 1000 Lenola Rd, Maple Shade NJ 08052 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 856.722.0700 ext 238 fax: 856.234.5871 web: www.keyinfosys.com http://www.keyinfosys.com/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] UDT dynamic files
If you're adding a lot of records to the archives at once and it was undersized, you're going to pay a hit while the system resizes on the fly. If you're dramatically increasing the record count, it would be better to resize before copying. Just as it's better to turn off indexing when copying records and rebuilding the index. Roger Chuck Mongiovi wrote: Does anyone know what kind of a perfomance hit you take for using dynamic files? .. I had thought that it was pretty minimal, since splitting shouldn't occur too much, and merging almost never happens .. Anyway, I was archiving data off of a dynamic file today and noticed that a COPY command was taking a really long time .. I re-wrote the copy in BASIC so I could put in display counters and got the same results .. I did some testing and found that doing the same process (READ/COPY/DELETE) using a STATIC file is faster by a factor of about 10 .. Any ideas? -Chuck --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [UV] make sure pgm exists before calling it.
!EXISTS (or similar) was definitely there in PI, I also thought it was around in UV but I seem to remember looking for it a while back and also drawing a blank Piers --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2]: Epicor
Again this message does not say *how* to move the discussion to u2-community. Can not we have a standard message that describes how to do this? I feel like a broken record. Will -Original Message- From: Moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:23:25 -0500 Subject: Re: [U2]: Epicor Let's move this to U2-Community. You may subscribe to U2-Community, send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]. Place the following line by itself in the body of the mail: subscribe u2-community More info: http://u2ug.org/index.php?module=ContentExpressfunc=displaybtitle=CEmid=ceid=12 - Charles Barouch, Moderator --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] Financial Fraud
In order to post TO the u2-community list, put [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the To: field Will -Original Message- From: Moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:24:24 -0500 Subject: Re: [U2] Financial Fraud Let's move this to U2-Community. You may subscribe to U2-Community, send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]. Place the following line by itself in the body of the mail: subscribe u2-community More info: http://u2ug.org/index.php?module=ContentExpressfunc=displaybtitle=CEmid=ceid=12 - Charles Barouch, Moderator --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [UV] make sure pgm exists before calling it. (Unclassified)
Nearly right! I think it's ITS.THERE = @FALSE CALL !EXIST(SUBRNAME, ITS.THERE) IF ITS.THERE THEN CALL @SUBRNAME( arg1, arg2, . . . ) etc. END ELSE * It doesn't exist END -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stevenson, Charles Sent: Friday, 18 March 2005 10:11 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] [UV] make sure pgm exists before calling it. Maybe I'm thinking of some other MV player, but isn't there a UV-defined function that can be called to see if a subroutine exists so one can check instead of calling and getting a runtime error? I don't see it in the pdfs. Something like: SUBRNAME = something IF !EXISTS( SUBRNAME, number of args and other stuff ) THEN CALL @SUBRNAME( arg1, arg2, . . . ) ELSE forget about it I'd swear I've done this sort of thing in the past, but I'm drawing a blank. Maybe I rolled my own, or I' m thinking of PI or AP or or . . . TIA, cds --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [UV] make sure pgm exists before calling it.
As others have pointed out the routine is !EXIST - look in APP.PROGS, the code is there. All it does is open GLOBAL.CATDIR and attempts to read a record keyed on the subroutine.name. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stevenson, Charles Sent: Friday, 18 March 2005 5:11 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] [UV] make sure pgm exists before calling it. Maybe I'm thinking of some other MV player, but isn't there a UV-defined function that can be called to see if a subroutine exists so one can check instead of calling and getting a runtime error? I don't see it in the pdfs. Something like: SUBRNAME = something IF !EXISTS( SUBRNAME, number of args and other stuff ) THEN CALL @SUBRNAME( arg1, arg2, . . . ) ELSE forget about it I'd swear I've done this sort of thing in the past, but I'm drawing a blank. Maybe I rolled my own, or I' m thinking of PI or AP or or . . . TIA, cds --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ DISCLAIMER: Disclaimer. This e-mail is private and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise us by return e-mail immediately, and delete the e-mail and any attachments without using or disclosing the contents in any way. The views expressed in this e-mail are those of the author, and do not represent those of this company unless this is clearly indicated. You should scan this e-mail and any attachments for viruses. This company accepts no liability for any direct or indirect damage or loss resulting from the use of any attachments to this e-mail. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [UV] make sure pgm exists before calling it. (Unclassified)
Thanks, Mike. Now I remember why I forgot about it. I'm in Pick-flavor and this thing seems to just check to see if the routine is in uv/catdir. We have pick-style cataloguing. I was thinking !EXIST() would resolve the question following the same rules as CALL does for finding a subroutine: looking in catdir, or looking in VOC; if not in VOC look in the bp.O that the calling routine is in. Nope. I still don't see !EXIST() anywhere in the documentation, by the way. Thanks again, cds -Original Message- From: HENDERSON MIKE, MR Nearly right! I think it's ITS.THERE = @FALSE CALL !EXIST(SUBRNAME, ITS.THERE) IF ITS.THERE THEN CALL @SUBRNAME( arg1, arg2, . . . ) etc. END ELSE * It doesn't exist END --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
