(snip regarding packed decimal)
(someone wrote)
It isn't. Only specific values are allowed as a sign.
X'A' through X'F'
Suffice to say that it was once proposed that the Add Register
instruction code, X'1A', could be used as a positive packed
decimal 1
I suppose that could be done to save one
I was just reading the Share Website and came across this entry. Does any
one have any additional information on this process yet?
The Sysplex Timer is Dead!
--
Since the beginning of Parallel Sysplex, our installations have depended
upon the IBM 9037-001 and 9037-002
On 28 Oct 2006 11:42:59 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
== Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) == wrote2006-10-25 23:46:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 10/23/2006
at 06:02 PM, Thomas Berg [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think it's funny that this thread that started
from details in
On Saturday, 11/04/2006 at 04:46ZE10, Shane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before making any assumptions, a customer with questions about IBM
software may want to contact IBM.
Pity customer(s) are perceived to be so bloody stupid that this even
needs to be stated.
I not necessarily disagreeing
On 3 Nov 2006 05:13:57 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Hi Ed,
To answer your question nothing has been found despite an exhaustive search.
I hope to find something because it is scary. Maybe, some member of this
board had a similar experience and could share it with us. In
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
I prevailed on our sysprog to add GIMSMP to AUTHPGM.
This helped lots of things when I run SMP/E from an EXEC:
(...)
I suppose I could try to SYSCALL spawn SMP/E into a separate address
space -- the DCB's should be closed at end-of-memory, shouldn't they?
But this
Neither is the IBM 8668 which is the system used to run an ESL 8 mips FLEX
based system.
Hi, Seb. Still working for Cornerstone? I think it would only be polite to
the list to
acknowledge that, if true.
Then again perhaps CSI has terminated as many people as T3. I know Aled has
gone from
Fierce but fair?
An offline comment (it's Friday) and I think it's pertinent.
I fought IBM tooth and nail from 1978 to 1992. Throughout that time I found
IBM and all other
competitors - at management levels - to be fair and honest people. Some might
find it amazing,
but I think I can claim
In a recent note, Gilbert Saint-Flour said:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 4 08:12:22 2006
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 09:16:44 -0500
Reply-To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sender: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
From: Gilbert
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 07:52:18 -0500, Lizette Koehler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was just reading the Share Website and came across this entry. Does any
one have any additional information on this process yet?
Hi Lizette,
On the IBM Redbooks website, there is a draft of Server Time
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 11/03/2006
at 09:44 AM, Rick Fochtman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Anyone who has spent a significant time looking at dumps of
application code will verify: quite often, instruction streams can
be confused with data areas,
Not
Rats! New terminal emulator -- I keep fumbling things into
the list.
In a recent note, Gilbert Saint-Flour said:
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 09:16:44 -0500
The system closes DCBs at end-of-task.
I had been unaware of such task ownership of DCBs. I bow to
your expertise. But I suspect
Shane wrote:
On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 08:33 -0500, Knutson, Sam wrote:
More news from PSI on the state of their commercial emulation solution.
The next few months seem to hold the potential for interesting
developments in this area.
Saw this first thing this morning, and thought -
One thing I find interesting in the PSI letter is that there
is no mention of z/VM support, correctly licensed or not. :-) Given that a
significant portion of new workloads being moved to the mainframe are zLinux
and z/VM based, this is surprising, imho, at least. Perhaps PSI believes
that being
---snip-
Stupid? Hardly. I've just observed that there's just a ... blind spot
... when it comes to licensing agreements. Perhaps it's because sysprogs
aren't the people who see and must agree to the TsCs contained therein?
In prehistoric times,
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 18:46:47 -0800, Charles Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, you might, if you were debugging a S0C7.
No data exception will occur.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Not in this
I'm sure that I don't know much about this topic.
Let me just ask then how it is that IBM can ALLOW z/OS to run on a PSI
machine. If PSI totally on its own writes firmware loaded at IPL time to
allow z/OS to run on an Itanium 2 dual core processor, then why couldn't the
customer buy z/OS and run
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 10:32:48 -0600, Tom Moulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sure that I don't know much about this topic.
Let me just ask then how it is that IBM can ALLOW z/OS to run on a PSI
machine. If PSI totally on its own writes firmware loaded at IPL time to
allow z/OS to run on an
The Sysplex Timer has been the bedrock technology for Parallel Sysplex since
the 9037-001 Sysplex Timer was introduced in September 1990, and enhanced by
9037-002 Sysplex Timer introduced in November 1996. This technology served
our needs well for more than a decade, but as systems became faster
On 4/11/06 16:46, Tom Marchant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When Amdahl started selling processors, the operating system was free.
When IBM started to charge for it, they knew how much power an Amdahl
processor had and where it fit in the pricing structure.
ISTR there was a perception at that
One could also wonder why IBM bundling software and hardware got it
slapped with a consent decree, and today Apple does this normally,
and Microsoft does it with software (IE anyone?). Windows also can
run on a bigger processor without additional license fees, z/OS does
not. And let us not
On Nov 3, 2006, at 10:41 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
Peter
John McKown and Matthew Stitt have almost certainly provided the
explanation
of what has happened.
It's always worth taking a good close look at the explanation of
the message
which is puzzling you before panicking.
Since this is a
Begin Quoted E-mail --
then why couldn't the
customer buy z/OS and run the software on the machine.
You don't buy z/OS. You license it to run on a particular machne.
Of course the
customer would be taking some risk because the support would
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 18:11:08 -0600, George D Dranes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've noticed IBM's default CTIx parmlib members have TRACEOPTS On. Should
I be going into these members and turning traceopts to off? I doubt I need all
of the tracing overhead. What do others do? Thanks for any
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 11/02/2006
at 04:18 PM, Edward Jaffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm not uncomfortable with the static IP network we have now.
One factor to keep in mind is DNS, both for hosts and for IP
addresses.
If you have servers that you want visible form the outside world, then
One thing I find interesting in the PSI letter is that there is no mention
of z/VM
support, correctly licensed or not. :-)
That's what happens when you hire ex Top Gun mentalities.
When they snuck in sometime in early 2005 they were obsessed with Top Gun and
went for z/OS.
By the time IBM
I'm going to disagree slightly, respectfully.
In my experience IBM recommends purchasing Novell or Red Hat support at
some level (or will price that into a support agreement). Not much
disagreement there. IBM thinks it's a good idea that Linux distributors
get revenue in return for the good
Jim,
Your comments are well founded in fact! IBM support knowns what you need.
Novell is still a PC oriented vendor. It's borke, I'm sorry wait for the
next release.
Doug
- Original Message -
From: Jim Marshall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 15:44:14 -, Phil Payne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
vast snip
I was sceptical about Hercules. I got slimed for it, but I was right.
Can't let you get away with that, Phil - you were dead wrong. You repeatedly
stated that IBM would shut Hercules down, harped on about
Phil
Lufthansa is still around. The airline with - in my experience - the best
re-interpretation of its initials was SABENA. Officially Societe Autonyme
Belge d'Exploitation de la Navigation Aerienne it was much better known as
Such a Bl**dy Experience Never Again which, to be fair, has not so
Lindy
You may be right. It depends on the installation.
Normally an installation is set up in such a way that a particular port
number corresponds to a particular server application but it doesn't have
to be.
Normally TELNET can be found when you connect to port 23 (not 25[1]) from
your TELNET
31 matches
Mail list logo
