On 13 Jan 2006 04:28:04 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Relson) wrote:
Anyone found a way round the limit of 8 concurrent TSO
users when
running under z/OS.e.
I am surprised to see this in a public forum because my
recollection is
On 9 Jan 2006 10:23:40 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know that conventional wisdom says to use IEFUSI instead
of IEALIMIT.
However, I have a somewhat special circumstance in that we
have a
third-party package already using IEFUSI.
On 27 Dec 2005 18:38:07 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henry Law wrote:
I found a strange plastic device in a colleague's
cupboard at IBM some
years ago; I've had one attempt at identifying it within
the company and
On 12 Dec 2005 08:29:57 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Howard Rifkind) wrote:
Lets say I have worked for an organization for a few
years and then decide to leaveon good terms for the most
part but you didn't feel that the management was
On 29 Nov 2005 07:18:33 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (john gilmore) wrote:
Tony said that he used a REXX function to 'build the
table' of 360 integer-degree sine x values (90 would of
course have been enough). He did not say that he used
On 2 Nov 2005 06:04:01 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craddock, Chris) wrote:
Based on direct personal experience of both sides of this,
I would argue
that removing artificial limits that -will- bite you at
bad times and
striving to manage
On 24 Oct 2005 07:45:49 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (McKown, John) wrote:
the order of queuing on the execution queue is no longer
necessarily the
same as the submission order. This ordering in the past
was never
guaranteed, just assumed
On 19 Oct 2005 09:34:23 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Walt Farrell) wrote:
Suppose the modal application were ATTACHEd (or spawn()ed) and
control were returned to the TMP without doint a WAIT (or
waitpid),
but leaving a communication
On 12 Oct 2005 11:39:20 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Black) wrote:
From the OI help page:
Browsers - supported, recommended
OI supports the following browsers:
* Netscape Version 4.5 or later for Windows
* Microsoft
On 12 Oct 2005 09:46:50 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www-306.ibm.com/common/ssi/OIAccess.wss
Apprently it was recently updated, the format has changed (more
user-friendly?) since I was last there a few weeks ago
user-friendly?
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 17:41:35 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Skip Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip and paraphrase:
Comparing the merits of
CLC =C'IOLQ',3(R6)
vs.
CLC 3(4,R6),=C'IOLQ'
I don't think this is about natural language influence.
It's just
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 17:54:33 GMT, in comp.lang.rexx
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
jerry chapman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to pause the execution of my REXX program if
the user hits the
enter key, and start it again where it was iterrupted when
another enter key
is hit. Is there
On 6 Aug 2005 16:09:55 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Harper) wrote:
Us peons can't access the colesoft web site
www.colesoft.com/utilities.:
You are not authorized to view this page You might not
have permission to view this directory
On 4 Aug 2005 06:52:53 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (McKown, John) wrote:
My impression is that a dumbed down interface is the
one the other guy uses.
My concept of a dumbed down interface is really an
interface which
can be used by
On 21 Jul 2005 21:07:48 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
two collections of identically named PDSes, the first set
is cataloged
and the second obviously isn't; for the sake of
discussion, call these
HLQ1.PDSx and HLQ2.PDSx, respectively,
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:13:45 +0200, in comp.lang.asm370
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Michel Castelein
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I'm wondering why the expansion of the SAVE macro
begins with a DS 0H.
That's redundant, isn't it?
Most macros start with an optional label. Rather
On 13 Jul 2005 16:01:06 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edward E. Jaffe) wrote:
In open code, people often coded
LABEL EQU *
but, if there was an odd-length constant prior to it, it
would not be halfword aligned, so people started
On 8 Jul 2005 16:17:19 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.) wrote:
In
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 07/08/2005
at 05:27 PM, Max Scarpa [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I know there's a way (I did it many years ago) to add a
exec
Michel Castelein replied with the offer of a for
dummies paper. However the message was sent to the
newsgroup, so those of you who read via the Listserv will
not receive it. When I pointed this out, Michel said,
Please echo my offer via the listserv. So here it is:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:59:52 GMT, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) gerard46
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| another question :
| a=1555666
| is there any way to display it as 1.555.666 ( easier to read)
| I don't know a really good way, but the following should work:
|
| b=
On 29 Jun 2005 17:21:35 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adrian H Auer-Hudson) wrote:
Anyone have any thoughts on this: I have a large
sequential file. I need to drop duplicate records from
said file. Sort would work fine if I knew the
On 19 Jun 2005 14:53:01 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Gould) wrote:
On Jun 19, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Edward E. Jaffe wrote:
Gil Peleg wrote:
... anyone who worked at the same shop for a long time
knows how to become APF-authorized ...
On 14 Jun 2005 07:42:28 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Giovanni Cerquone) wrote:
Sometime ago I asked if FDRABR can work in plex mode (ala
HSM) where you
can have Master Address Space and Promote Address Space
and one will take
over the
On 26 May 2005 12:09:13 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Baraniecki, Ray) wrote:
If year 1900 Then year = year - 1
day = (year + (year / 4) + jday) // 7 in the hope of
receiving an
answer ranging from 1 through 7. When the year = 2004 and
On Fri, 27 May 2005 01:07:27 GMT, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
gerard46 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is a REXX subroutine that calculates the day-of-week
from amm/dd/date (year must be four digits):
Again, if he has mm/dd/, why not use the
On 23 May 2005 19:34:42 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As ungainly as .csv seems it's easy enough to do.
---CSV Follows:---
That looked even uglier than I expected. I thought
for sure that
201 - 226 of 226 matches
Mail list logo
