On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:53:38 -0600, Ed Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>I didn't mean to exclude netview, the lister just posted two options.
>... . As everyone knows I
>am not a fan of CA but the ops/MVS product is an OK product. ...
>... Personally just for the
>syslog part of the
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:43:52 -0500, Scott Ford
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>Everytime I have implemented Netview including 1.0 thru
>the latest greatest, we used MPF to either pass or suppress
>Messages. Netview's message automation table can also do this
>If you pass all messages through MPF.
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:41:44 -0500, Scott Ford
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>... You can suppress or
>pass messages into the Netview Subsystem Interface if you want
to...or just
>use MPF vanilla
>...
The NetView "suppression" is actually a completely different
technique. If you define NetVi
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:02:53 +, Ted MacNEIL
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>I was under one for pre-planning of MVS/ESA and it was called an
NDA at that time.
>...
Could be there are 2 different flavors, then. Maybe with different
rules.
Pat O'Keefe
-
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:58:41 -0500, Binyamin Dissen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>Well, if you are not under an NDA you certainly can deny the
existence of an
>NDA.
>
>So, if you ask X if he is under an NDA:
>
> Response: No - No NDA
> No response: - NDA
>...
I don't believe any NDA morall
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:55:40 -0500, Don Leahy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Something interesting appeared in my Inbox yesterday. It's from the
>Royal Bank of Canada
>...
The COBOL requirement seems a bit odd for a system programming
position. It's not a bad idea in a COBOL shop, but it limits th
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:26:55 -0500, Peter Relson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>I disagree. Especially when the thread gets into pointing out the
>deficiencies of wait/post as a serialization mechanism. Not surprising.
It
>really isn't one.
>...
What? Not for serialization? And not for queu
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:11:23 -0600, McKown, John
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>And you just came up with a bit of a methodology that could be used
>(with some difficulty) in our own application programs. In a step which
>wants a PARM value > 100 characters, use something like: //
PARM='abcd '
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:10:57 -0500, Craddock, Chris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>Yes because leaving aside the "quirks" with the current wait/post
>mechanism, the wait/post logic is at best, half of the problem in any
>true multitasking code. ...
Sorry to be falling way behind in my pedanta
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:36:02 -0500, Craddock, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>...
>I've been using it a little while myself :-) and so I do agree that when
>used entirely within it's most tightly constrained boundaries "it
>works". But as I pointed out earlier there are many unobvious traps for
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:00:07 -0600, Paul Gilmartin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>Whenever the queue is empty, the queue emptier WAITs. But if the
>queue is storage constrained, it can fill up. What does the
>queue filler do then?
>...
I don't think there can be a general answer to that ques
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:29:39 -0600, Darren Evans-Young
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>It's amazing how a post degenerates into
>a wild rumour. (not your post Shmuel)
>...
Actually, this thread started in a pretty degenerate state - asking
about rehosting IBM-Main. Our own FUD added "UA dro
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:55:24 -0800, Edward Jaffe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>Why? Isn't bama doing a good enough job?
>...
I'll take Ed's question a step further.
I'd say that bama is doing a good job and I'd hate to see
this turned over to a bunch amateurs, not matter how well
intent
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:01:40 -0800, Frank Yaeger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>>as a replacement for IEBGENER & SYSUT1 DD DUMMY combination
>
>That's SYSIN DD DUMMY, not SYSUT1 DD DUMMY.
>...
Actually, "SYSUT1 DD DUMMY" simplifies things a bit.
It really speeds up the processing time. :-)
P
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:34:34 -0600, Andy Wood
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>The question of where to stash something arose in this thread when
it was
>suggested that storage could be acquired once, and not every time
the
>function was called. ...
This may be of no use, but remember that the
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:12:35 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>>I assume there are some shops with policies that forbid transfers
across
>>the web
>
>I doubt it; such a policy would accomplish nothing. I suspect that a lot
>of shops have policies that restrict all
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:48:19 -0600, Aaron Walker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>If you are sending data to ECuRep, it supports HTTP, HTTPS, FTP,
FTPS,
>SFTP, and email.
>...
Is there an HTTP or HTTPS download equivalent to
http://www.ecurep.ibm.com/app/upload ? An equivalent to
the /fromibm
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:48:19 -0600, Aaron Walker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>If you are sending data to ECuRep, it supports HTTP, HTTPS, FTP,
FTPS,
>SFTP, and email.
>...
Hoo boy! I sure missed that (and so did everyone else at my
shop). I'll spread the word. ECuRep and emea are the s
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:28:49 -0500, Havelock, Glenn A
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>With CA-XCOM, Pat, we transfer between mainframes using SNA or
TCP/IP
>and encrypt using 'OPEN SSL'
>...
But I suspect I wouldn't have much luck requesting IBM or Sterling
Commerce (for instance) to install C
2nd attempt to send a posting that went into the bit bucket.
I assume there are some shops with policies that forbid transfers
across the web between z/OS mainframes and external sites unless
the data is encrypted. How do such shops send data to/from MVS
(and other vendors)?
I know IBMs Boulder
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:45:59 -0700, Howard Brazee
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>It depends on what the craft of the programming is supposed to be.
The
>reason for making efficient code is to save the company money. If the
>programmer turned some of his attention towards understanding the
>use
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:08:51 EST, Ed Finnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>...
>> good test for CS students. I picture a blank stare on the student's
>> faces, but I would love to be shown wrong.
>...
>
>>>
>Usually what we'd do is get Knuth's book and translate from MIX to
whatever
>was requir
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:13:53 -0500, Jon Brock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>...
>http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/08/01/08/0348239.shtml
>
>http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/CrossTalk/2008/01/0801DewarSchonberg.ht
ml
>...
Since the other thread on this topic went off in a seriously OT
directio
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:06:41 +0900, Timothy Sipples
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>For the record, Session Manager for z/OS supports TN3270E. It's the much
>older Tivoli Netview Access Services ("NVAS") product that doesn't.
>...
I'll take your word on the Tn3270E support, but I think your com
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:33:41 EST, Ira Broussard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I think you are confusing "complementary" (serving to fill out or
complete)
>with "complimentary" (given free).
>...
And being the world's worst speller, I would have made the same
mistake. If I were cynical I migh
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 07:36:26 -0600, Paul Gilmartin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>The conspicuous naivete exhibited in most of the postings to a recent
>ASSEMBLER-LIST thread concerning coding the exponential function
sugests
>that assembler programmers are hardly better than Java
programmers
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 14:49:54 -0600, Paul Gilmartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>...
>There are complications. It's a BAD limitation of SMP/E's RESTORE
>that it can restore to no level earlier than the last ACCEPT (and
>often to no level later than that). The otherwise generally inferior
>VMFMERGE
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 22:58:33 -0800, shai hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>Imagine how easy it to return to your old load library in case of error and
>not pray that SMP/E with the APPLY/RESTORE/ACCEPT/RECEIVE/REJECT will work
>fine for you.
>...
That is a hollow argument. If backing out the
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 02:00:29 -0800, shai hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>...
>have the MVS load library and two PC files (PC Server and PC Tool).
>...
If you don't use SMP to manage your maintenance it does not make
much sense to package the maintenance in SMP. But the conclusion
does not make
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 12:23:57 -0800, John Mattson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>I would like to request the following FIXes to Doc AND Message
>1) Make the DOC read
>Rule: If the RESOLVER_PROC statement is not present or is specified
with a
>procedure name of DEFAULT, the procname valu
>
>My rather poor memory says it was DOS only. I don't recall it being
>available at MFTII rel 18.6 (?).
>Somebody pipe up if I am wrong, please.
>...
I think it must not be just DOS because a B37-08 abend has as one
of its explanations:
o A split cylinder data set was located on cylinder z
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:50:26 +0100, R.S.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>The answer is quite similar ;-)
>"Empty" PKDS contains 1 record. KSDS key is all-zeroes.
>
>Caution: the above is true on z9 and CEX2C. Number of records can
vary
>depending on crypto HW and ICSF level.
>You can create emp
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:21:33 -0600, Anthony Fletcher
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>My question is why the default for this option if NO and not YES, and,
for
>that matter why would you ever not want the recovery to happen
automatically?
>...
If the function had been available from the begin
Oops. I asked the wrong question.
Swap PKDS and CKDS. I had the datasets reversed in my mind.
(Hey, I admited I didn't know what I was asking.)
Is there a way to tell if the PKDS is logically empty?
The encrypted one.
Pat O'Keefe
---
Thanks to all that resonded.
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:43:21 -0600, Bohn, Dale
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>You may also want to check out Ernie Nachtigall's "Sample Key Record
List
>Application for ICSF CKDS" it can be found on the IBM TECHDOCS
>Website: //www-03.ibm.com/support/techdocs/
>..
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:19:36 -0600, Mark Zelden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>better response times with MIM, VTAM and XCF CTCs ...
>...
However, be aware that there has been a recovery issue in VTAM's
support of FICON CTCs - APAR OA22059. INOP rather than PENDING
after 1st activation. (Fi
Our main crypto system programmer has a couple questions.
I'm just the scribe. If the following questions don't make much
sense, blame it on my lack of knowledge of the subject.
We did our initial ICSF work bassed on passphrases. We are
now going to switch to using real master keys. We have n
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:31:19 -0600, Richard Peurifoy wrote:
>...
>You an dynamically allocate and use SYSOUT (SPOOL) files
>after a successful REQUEST JOBID. We do this all the time
>in NETVIEW to send e-mails.
>...
I hadn't really thought that through. I guess you could also free
and dynamical
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:57:33 -0500, Craddock, Chris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>You can still get all the diagnostic data you need. STCs that run
>SUB=MSTR don't have a JCT or any nice tidy spool dataset like jobs
that
>run under the JES, but all of their messages go to the syslog and SVC
>
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:21:28 +0100, Barbara Nitz wrote:
>...
>While there are probably enough programmers around who know
how to 'throw together' (if there is such an expression in English) a
Java application - how many really do know the required architecture?
>...
We definitely have that exp
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:27:08 +, Michael Poil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mike,
As Eric has recently implied, you are not he first, nor will likely be the
last to get frustrated trying to explain something to Ed. Even when
he has valid points (e.g., agrees with me :-) ) the discussion often
deg
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:09:08 +, Michael Poil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>One of the big problems was that the Java design required it to support
>"lazy" programming whereby the programmer did not have to clean up
>dynamically-allocated data areas ...
>...
>... resulting in the JIT which c
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:32:18 -0500, Wayne Driscoll
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob (and Pat O'Keefe)
>While I agree that there have been issues with runaway storage in IBM
>and vendor code, how often do these outages occur when compared to
>having to rerun huge database reorg jobs that ran for 8 h
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 06:36:07 -0500, Bob Rutledge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>I can't read Chris' mind (there isn't enough beer) but the thing that has
>happened to me both in IBM and ISV code is "runaway" allocations in
>the high private subpools.
>...
And IMO, good products have knobs that
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:49:28 -0500, Craddock, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>...
>I don't mind that you disagree with me Rick, but if you're expecting
>vendors (or anyone else) to provide reliable and detailed storage
>estimates you're going to be permanently disappointed.
I've been disappoin
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:32:09 -0600, Rick Fochtman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>---
>We know the speed of light; what's the speed of dark?
>
A bit slower than it was. Terry Pratchett has been diagnosed with
early onset Alzheimer's. All 8 shades of black are about to get a
lot slower.
Pa
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:56:33 -0500, Pinnacle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>The Rexx Alternate Library is not SMP/E installable. It has no maintenance,
>having been functionally stabilized for many years. If there are any bugs,
>IBM would create a new Web deliverable.
>...
This seems very odd
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:51:14 +, Martin Packer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One suggestion we came up with was to do something with some
>RACF segment or other.
>...
Umm, that doesn't sound like a good idea to me. In our shop, and
several others I know of, that would mean our security p
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:33:19 -0500, Peter Relson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It is certain that PDS's will exist for the entire life of z/OS (or
>whatever name it might have down the road, if that ever changes
again).
>
>It is almost certain that PDSEs will never be allowed in the LPALST
>...
B
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:23:46 -0600, Thomas Conley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>... It is designed for REXX developers who want to distribute
>REXX compiled products. IBM grants you to package the Alternate
>Library to your REXX compiled products. ...
It doesn't matter how I would interpret that
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:14:50 +, Michael Poil
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>1. Customer restricts the region size and it works
>2. Due to application or other perhaps minor changes, the normal JVM
usage
>now exceeds the region size gets 878-10, OOM etc
>...
I'm afraid you aren't convincin
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:00:33 -0800, Edward Jaffe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>Making this into a discussion of abend vs runaway storage allocation
is
>really a non sequitur. Setting a specific storage limit is really the
>same as not setting a specific storage limit. There is a limit either
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:15:17 +, Michael Poil
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>The problem is the variability of (2) through (4) which cannot be
>calculated due to its complexity. Also there is the ever present issue of
>defects which cause some memory leaks.
>...
>I am not sure why customers
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:45:32 +0100, Barbara Nitz wrote:
>...
>If you need a certain amount of storage, document it clearly, but do
NOT misuse APF authorization to store values that the installation
doesn't know anything about!
>...
.set rant on
And for vendors of those products that use and UN
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:35:08 -0600, Cynthia Davis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>... When I look at the Maximum in backlog I show
>many different numbers other than the 1500. Last week a DB2
application
>which is showing maximum in Backlog of 50, exceeded this by 2 so
those 2
>connections were
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 16:12:13 -0800, Edward Jaffe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>IEF196I IGD103I SMS ALLOCATED TO DDNAME SYS00110
>ICH408I JOB(AXR04 ) STEP(AXR04 ) CL(PROCESS )
> OMVS SEGMENT NOT DEFINED
>
>Anyone got this to work?
>...
From
z/OS 1.9 MVS Programming: Authorized Assembler Service
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 08:05:36 +1000, Shane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>...
>Hit the archives John - this has been discussed.
>You may feel like swearing some more when you get the answer.
>...
I didn't find the archives much of a help.
There are a lot of hits on both "System REXX" and "SYSREXX"
b
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 09:16:24 -0600, Ed Gould
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>Furthermore, no one even reported the disappearance of
>20 cars.
>...
Maybe they were not willing to admit why they had 20 car-loads
of cards in the first place. That's a LOT of cards to write notes on.
Pat O'Keefe
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 08:34:43 -0600, Rick Fochtman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>Looks a little like the old 2302 fixed disk drive.
>...
I've never seen either in real life, but the sfuff to the left of the
platters in the picture look to me like verticle movement stuff for
the head. I think
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 08:23:58 -0600, Chase, John
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>> ICH408I JOB(AXR04 ) STEP(AXR04 ) CL(PROCESS )
>> OMVS SEGMENT NOT DEFINED
>>
>> Anyone got this to work?
>
>Looks like your job (started task?) needs a userID with an OMVS
segment.
>...
I could be way off ba
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:46:59 -0600, Ernest Nachtigall
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thank you very much for joining the discussion. I'm afaid you're
going to be swamped with questions for a while.
>... Fo CPACF, is is a single OP code so beats
>software routines thousands to one (TDES ASM routine h
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 19:07:07 +, Ted MacNEIL
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>IIRC, VTAM only uses CTC's and not XCF.
>...
VTAM dynamic XCF support went in about 2.7 or 2.8.
(I could be thinking TCP/IP support. VTAM's support may have
been earlier.) If you already had APPN support you autom
Is there any doc comparing performance of crypto functions using
the encryption hardware vs the same functions using software?
I've seen a paper showing the performance of both CPACF and CEX2
based on block sizes (very big differences) but not compared to
with software-only. I've also seen a z/L
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 10:56:55 -0600, Mark Zelden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>What's up with all these crypto related posts? :-) Seriously... any
reason
>why suddenly so many IBM-MAINers are working on it at the same
time?
>...
Judging from the responses so far, this is must be coincidence
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:07:06 -0600, Joel C. Ewing
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>..
>I notice your table doesn't mention the "¬" encoding differences
between
>IBM-1140 and IBM-1047, but perhaps that character wasn't relevant
in the
>context of that discussion.
>...
Once again, the character seen i
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 22:21:55 +, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Add to that IODF changes requiring PORs
>
>There aren't many of those left, these days.
>...
We seem to have run into them, though. We've gone through a series
of datacenter moves and processor reconfigurations. We had
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 23:42:11 -0600, Bruce Hewson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>...
>In a Parallel Sysplex VTAM and TCPIP are always UP!
Uh huh. Sure.
>So there is ALWAYS an
>available SMCS console when you IPL.
>...
FSVO "always".
We've gone with ICC OSAs (plus a console-sharing server) becaus
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 10:24:07 -0600, Chase, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>ICSF cannot be active if CPACF is disabled, according to ICSF doco. I'm
>also led to believe that CPACF is a prerequisite to enabling CEX2.
>...
John, and Radoslaw,
Thanks for your responses. I recently had someone
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 07:18:17 -0700, Steve Comstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>...
>There are 13 EBCDIC characters that vary across EBCDIC character map
>codepages but that must always be defined when using locale settings;
>here are some sample mappings:
>
>character string: [ ] { } ! \ ^
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 10:40:34 -0800, Edward Jaffe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>The CP Assist for Cryptographic Function (CPACF), is an optional,
>no-charge feature of System z9 EC, z9 BC, z990, and z890 servers.
>
>Sounds like you're running some old hardware!
>...
Not old. z9s. The person a
Cross-posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A 3rd Listserver is probably more appropriate, but I can't think of one.
Somebody here has asked if we disabled CPACF (to save money)
would we still have hardware encryption support to do encryption?
He added "since both do DES".
My first reaction was "No!".
>From MVS in the '80s, maybe? I thought it was an official IBM term
but I can find no references to it so maybe it was a local term where
I was working. Damage assentment Routine Dump? If it was an
official term, what was it? An SVC dump?
This is just idle curiosity mostly.
Pat O'Keefe
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:38:56 -0600, Ed Gould
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>That (to me) is a reason that is slightly on the paranoid side. If
>that were the case (and I am not agreeing that it is) then you
>(SHARE) should not let any vendor attend *ANY* SHARE sessions that
>pertains to require
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:12:07 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote:
>...
>Perhaps you mean that when you submit a requirement that you
should
>explicitly authorize IBM to publish it in any manner that they see fit.
>...
IBM *does* publish it as it sees fit. It sees fit to keep it secret.
But what IBM publ
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:57:41 -0600, Darren Evans-Young
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>P.S. - One more "official" day left!
>...
You're obviously looking forward to this more than we are.
Good luck and have fun.
Hopefully we won't trash this place too much while you aren't
looking. Try not t
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:28:02 -0600, Ed Gould
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>Also reasonable means (to me) *ANY* SHARE member not just project
>type people. We are *NOT* suggesting alter authority (of any kind)
>just read for the average user.
>...
There is still the issue, taken very seriously
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:37:02 -0600, Ed Gould
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>Well that is good news. But it is essentially worthless to the masses
>(us). I still am vaguely suspicious of the idea that requirements are
>the "property" of IBM. I don't remember signing anything (I do mean
>*ANYTHI
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:05:51 -0600, Ed Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>The only way to prove that a req has been submitted if you have the #
>and since the database is not available you cannot respond.
Not true. The database IS available. Requirements submitted using
the new, good onli
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:50:21 -0600, Kirk Wolf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>I thought it might be nice to write an OMVS replacement as an ISPF
dialog,
>but it is not obvious to me that it is very easy to do...
>
>What you would like is a multithreaded (multiple TCBs under z/OS)
ISPF
>applica
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:22:48 -0600, Chase, John
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>Thanks to all who have replied so far. I'll reiterate that we DO NOT
>have any of the optional crypto hardware installed (yet); we have
ONLY
>the CPACF DES/TDES (feature code 3863) enabled at present. The
optiona
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:52:20 -0600, Ed Gould
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>I concur with your opinion. HOWEVER since IBM (last time I tried)
>does not make the requirements data base public ...
As far asI know, that is still true. I don't IBM's official stand on this,
but in the past SHARE'
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:01:34 +, Ted MacNEIL
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>This forum is not for making requests to IBM.
>IBM has formal procedures for making a request.
>You want something done?
>Use them!
>NOT IBM-Main!
>...
I am a firm beleiver in making formal requests - SHARE's Requir
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:22:30 EST, Ed Finnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>... look down the left hand side for Xmit manager?
>...
XmitManager is a great little tool, but has one small restriction: it
doesn't handle XMITed PDSEs very well. For the members it can read
it tacks on a couple extra l
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:41:57 -0500, Craddock, Chris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
>> This is correct if you "legally" got disabled. If you got disabled
>> using the nonsupported way using STNSM, your FRR will be entered
>> enabled. ...
>Yes, I got that. The point is that the fine manual makes
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:22:36 -0600, Darren Evans-Young
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>... What years do you guys want to remain on IBM-MAIN? ...
I often search starting 2004 since that goes back to the last 6
months of my previous job. (That's a pretty feeble reason.)
BTW, I bet you'll a bunc
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:44:46 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>>And one also wonders
>>whether it would have been so easy for the large EBCDIC installed
base
>
>What latge EBCDIC install base? EBCDIC was new on the S/360.
>...
I wondered about that, too, but assum
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:00:10 -0600, Hal Merritt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Interesting question. My understanding is that this a feature of the
>adapters. Therefore I ass-u-me that the data actually flows from the
>host to the adapter back to the host.
>...
I don't think that is the case. The
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:52:37 -0600, Richard Pinion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...Can anyone tell
>me the DCB attributes for the data set that would accept an NCP Dump.
>...
Ours, allocated in 1997, is RECFM=FBS,LRECL=2048,BLKSIZE=2048.
That is obviously a pretty poor blocksize. I don't know if
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:29:47 -0600, Mark Zelden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>I'm just curious, what sorts of things can a Rexx program can do that
>>doesn't interact with TSO or ISPF (or...)?
>>...
The key is in that "(or...)". It may not have TSO or ISPF, but it has
some "or" that provides a f
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:07:02 -0600, Paul Gilmartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>... "Everything is prohibited unless it's compulsory."
>...
Unless you work for a bank.
Then it's : "Everything is prohibited even if it's compulsory."
Pat O'Keefe
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:27:49 -0700, Mark Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>I listen to everybody, until I'm shown they're not worth listening to, so
that's not a problem for me. I'm just a lowly Deputy Project Manager for
SHARE, so I haven't run into Mike in that arena. Given his long term
i
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 13:10:04 -0600, Glenn Miller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My experience has shown that most ATM's are 'connected' to
>HP/Tandem NonStop systems. ... The 'driving' of the ATM's is
>defined as loading/managing the ATM machine's software,
>receiving/transmitting messages to/fr
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:11:13 -0500, Hall, Ken (GTI)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Had to go back to deleted to find the original here..
>
>The version of Arbiter I used did the opposite of this. It allowed PC
>users to see mainframe DASD space as drives on their PC's. There
were
>utilities that a
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:51:39 -0600, Rick Fochtman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>The Tech staffs of the various ISV's that I've worked with have been
>helpful, highly competent, responsive and easy to deal with. The fact
>that we may find marketting and pricing policies truly reprehensible
has
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 14:59:48 -0700, Edward Jaffe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>In our business, there is most certainly only one, true Scott Fagen!
>And, his charming wife, Nicole, is a regular SHARE presenter!
>...
Well, a little Googling tells me I'm only a couple months out of
date. That'
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 12:33:22 -0700, Edward Jaffe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>AFAIK, Computer Associates (Scott Fagen's employer) does not use
PL/X.
>It is strictly for use inside IBM.
>...
Oops. Are there 2 Scott Fagens, or did I miss a job change
in the last couple years? In either ca
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:20:36 -0500, Scott Fagen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>Ok, let's not let the train go too far off the tracks. This thread
diverged
>on the discussion of PL/(S, AS, X) vs. Metal C.
>...
>Then, what good is PL/...? System level programming, ...
>... This is role that Me
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:38:32 -0500, Kammer, Charles
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I could differ with your statement "...and Windows is better than
OS/2".
>...
Oh, my. and you think _I_ don't difffer with that statement?
If you thought I meant that Windows is better than OS/2
then you missed th
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 17:45:26 -0500, Scott Fagen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>Recently, IBM has made something better available:
>http://www-
306.ibm.com/software/awdtools/czos/features/czosv1r9.html
>
>Look for "METAL option".
>...
FSVO "better", I guess. I assume XL C/C++ is better than PL/
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 09:32:57 -0500, Bruce Richardson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...How do I trace the message to figure out which
>subsystem deleted the message?
>...
I think the official answer is that you open a PMR or Tech Question
with IBM ad they will give you a trap to run a SLIP trace. T
401 - 500 of 918 matches
Mail list logo
