In listserv%201011051531014300.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 11/05/2010
at 03:31 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
Even subject to an 8 or 7 character limitation on user names it would
be valuable to have a longer PREFIX.
I submitted such a requirement decades ago. Maybe it's time for
In 201011061422.59279.ibm...@woodsway.com, on 11/06/2010
at 02:23 PM, Bob Woodside ibm...@woodsway.com said:
On Friday 05 November 2010 16:46, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In b351325f7e2c494a8783b83dbf3d5390145996d...@hdxmspa.us.lmco.com,
on 11/05/2010
at 09:46 AM, Roach, Dennis
In 1e60a9b549a90840947ceda0609404c76eb...@embx-cham4.cdc.gov, on
11/05/2010
at 09:08 PM, Burrell, C. Todd (CDC/OCOO/ITSO) (CTR)
z...@cdc.gov said:
You cannot run a batch job with the same name unless you logoff and
back on to allow the 8 character batch job to run.
Yes you can.
Thus, the 7
In aanlktim-wtqsb0db_mgzg__fvz7dyh+mh7pjchjo7...@mail.gmail.com, on
11/05/2010
at 02:51 PM, Tony Harminc t...@harminc.net said:
Notably, OS/VS1 had an RJE facility run by its JES
RES came along well after TSO, so it made sense to pirate some of the
TSO code.
the DEST keyword of TSO's
In p06240808c8faa08b3...@[192.168.1.11], on 11/06/2010
at 02:13 AM, Robert A. Rosenberg hal9...@panix.com said:
I beg to differ. Originally there was SPF with an optional product
called PDF which ran under it.
Are you a betting man?
You could get only SPF or both.
No; the name had changed
In listserv%201011051632024888.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 11/05/2010
at 04:32 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
Yaaay! They could even assimilate much code from an x3270-type
utility; even preserve the ISPF look-and-feel for those who like it.
The ESA GUI is an interface to ISPF; it
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] För
Frank Swarbrick
Skickat: den 9 november 2010 00:35
Till: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Ämne: Why are TSO IDs limited to 7 characters
On 11/8/2010 at 7:19 AM, in message
e46b4df55a5e8746855078ae31f1b1804957e00...@fspas01ev010.fspa.myn
tet.se,
Thomas Berg
news:e46b4df55a5e8746855078ae31f1b1804957e00...@fspas01ev010.fsp
a.myntet.se...
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] För
Frank Swarbrick
Skickat: den 9 november 2010 00:35
Till: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Ämne: Why are TSO IDs limited to 7 characters
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 09:32, Scott Rowe scott.r...@joann.com wrote:
Flynn is dead. TRON is dead. *LONG LIVE THE MCP!*
I am sure Unisys would be glad to see that sentiment expressed on an IBM
forum. :-)
--
For IBM-MAIN
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] För
Frank Swarbrick
Skickat: den 9 november 2010 00:35
Till: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Ämne: Why are TSO IDs limited to 7 characters
On 11/8/2010 at 7:19 AM, in message
Till: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Ämne: Why are TSO IDs limited to 7 characters
On 11/8/2010 at 7:19 AM, in message
e46b4df55a5e8746855078ae31f1b1804957e00...@fspas01ev010.fspa.myntet.se,
Thomas Berg thomas.b...@swedbank.se wrote:
One maybe possible solution would be having a sort
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] För
Clark Morris
Skickat: den 5 november 2010 20:51
Till: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Ämne: Re: Why are TSO IDs limited to 7 characters
On 5 Nov 2010 07:18:14 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you
On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 15:19:17 +0100, Thomas Berg wrote:
One maybe possible solution would be having a sort of alias for the
longer id's. E g id's constructed as consecutive numbers: #123456.
And automatically substitute with the when needed (jobnames etc.).
z/OS Unix System Services provides such
This thread seems to have switched its attention from lamentations to
circumventions, and these of course abound.
The IBM HLASM supports an alias statement:
begin snippet from HLASM LR
The ALIAS instruction specifies alternate names for the external symbols that
identify control
Yes, the UADS and broadcast dataset required a solution which could be
implemented efficiently using BDAM, BPAM and/or BSAM (pick one) to get a few
hundred bytes off a 2314 disk (7294 bytes / track) too big for full-track
blocking.
In 1968 an IBM 360/50 with 256K (kilobytes) was a mid-range
november 2010 20:51
Till: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Ämne: Re: Why are TSO IDs limited to 7 characters
On 5 Nov 2010 07:18:14 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 08:4...
One maybe possible solution would be having a sort of alias for the
longer id's. E g id's constructed
SWEDBANK
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] För John
McKown
Skickat: den 8 november 2010 21:39
Till: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Ämne: Re: SV: Why are TSO IDs limited to 7 characters
I like that thought. UNIX does this by mapping a user
On 11/8/2010 at 7:19 AM, in message
e46b4df55a5e8746855078ae31f1b1804957e00...@fspas01ev010.fspa.myntet.se,
Thomas Berg thomas.b...@swedbank.se wrote:
One maybe possible solution would be having a sort of alias for the
longer id's. E g id's constructed as consecutive numbers: #123456.
And
On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 16:35 -0700, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
On 11/8/2010 at 7:19 AM, in message
e46b4df55a5e8746855078ae31f1b1804957e00...@fspas01ev010.fspa.myntet.se,
Thomas Berg thomas.b...@swedbank.se wrote:
One maybe possible solution would be having a sort of alias for the
longer
On 11/8/2010 4:35 PM, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
On 11/8/2010 at 7:19 AM, in message
e46b4df55a5e8746855078ae31f1b1804957e00...@fspas01ev010.fspa.myntet.se,
Thomas Bergthomas.b...@swedbank.se wrote:
One maybe possible solution would be having a sort of alias for the
longer id's. E g id's
At 16:46 -0400 on 11/05/2010, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote about
Re: Why are TSO IDs limited to 7 characters:
In b351325f7e2c494a8783b83dbf3d5390145996d...@hdxmspa.us.lmco.com,
on 11/05/2010
at 09:46 AM, Roach, Dennis (N-GHG) dennis.ro...@lmco.com said:
ISPF did not exist. Its
And then there were those of us fortunate enough to have also
experienced the Fujitsu/FACOM equivalents.
One significant contributor to this list has even admitted appreciating
the opportunity.
No accounting for taste ...
Shane ...
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 02:13:23 -0400
Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
---snip---
This is a curiosity question sparked by another thread.
The limitation of 7 characters for TSO IDs has caused us extra work in the
past (we use IDs of 3-8 characters across the institution, but the mainframe
can't use the
snip
I am quite convinced TSO was from a later period, after MVT and with
3270 screens.
-unsnip---
In the distant past, I used TSO on 2741 terminals, as well as 2260
--snip-
I used 2741 with TSO on SVS.
Line mode only.
ISPF did not exist. Its predecessor (SPF/PDF) required 3270.
All working from TSO READY.
Try the TSO EDIT command from ready some time. Make you like vi.
member, defies credibility.
At best, this is a non sequitur. The OP's question was, Why are TSO IDs
limited to 7 characters? The explanation given relies on the fact that the
userid was already defined as less than eight characters.
I used TSO under MVT in the early '70s on 2741s (and SPF
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 11:06:09 -0400, J R wrote:
I'm not sure I buy this highly speculative explanation.
There's a big difference between not allowing multiple blocks per member and
not considering second blocks to be necessary. Furthermore, to solve the
problem by introducing multiple members
On Friday 05 November 2010 16:46, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In b351325f7e2c494a8783b83dbf3d5390145996d...@hdxmspa.us.lmco.com,
on 11/05/2010
at 09:46 AM, Roach, Dennis (N-GHG) dennis.ro...@lmco.com said:
Try the TSO EDIT command from ready some time.
I have.
Make you like vi.
.
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 10:45:08 -0500
From: paulgboul...@aim.com
Subject: Re: Why are TSO IDs limited to 7 characters
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 11:06:09 -0400, J R wrote:
I'm not sure I buy this highly speculative explanation.
There's a big difference between
No. I have no problem with TSO EDIT.
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 14:23:01 -0400
From: ibm...@woodsway.com
Subject: Re: Why are TSO IDs limited to 7 characters
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
On Friday 05 November 2010 16:46, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 14:27:26 -0400, J R wrote:
Good point. However, update-in-place really only *need* be done during the
user's session to record profile changes, etc.
Extending the member should only be necessary when the ACCOUNT command is
adding segments, in which case it shoul be opened
On 11/6/2010 12:17 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 14:27:26 -0400, J R wrote:
Good point. However, update-in-place really only *need* be done during the
user's session to record profile changes, etc.
Extending the member should only be necessary when the ACCOUNT command is
(with 1 exception IIRC).
Ed
--- On Sat, 11/6/10, J R jayare...@hotmail.com wrote:
From: J R jayare...@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Why are TSO IDs limited to 7 characters
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Date: Saturday, November 6, 2010, 1:29 PM
No. I have no problem with TSO EDIT.
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 14
On 5 November 2010 21:58, John McKown joa...@swbell.net wrote:
I really wonder how hard this would be. But I don't know everywhere the
TSO id is stored. In the few places that I have found, it seems that the
ID field is defined as CL7, but there always seems to be a FL1 field
next to it to
This is a curiosity question sparked by another thread.
The limitation of 7 characters for TSO IDs has caused us extra work in the
past (we use IDs of 3-8 characters across the institution, but the mainframe
can't use the institutional IDs in part because of this limitation).
What is the
Robert Birdsall bsqu...@umich.edu wrote in message
news:listserv%201011050707120034.0...@bama.ua.edu...
This is a curiosity question sparked by another thread.
The limitation of 7 characters for TSO IDs has caused us extra work in
the
past (we use IDs of 3-8 characters across the institution,
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Robert Birdsall
Sent: 05 November 2010 12:07
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Why are TSO IDs limited to 7 characters
This is a curiosity question sparked by another thread.
The limitation of 7 characters for TSO IDs has caused us extra work
maybe I'm wrong but I think its something historical. TSO used SYS1.UADS in
the past. Every user has a member in SYS1.UADS named like his userid plus
the character 0. As the length of a member is limited to 8 characters minus
the 0 its only seven characters left for the userid.
But there might
Hi,
In response to Robert's question The limitation of 7 characters for TSO IDs
has caused us extra work in the
past (we use IDs of 3-8 characters across the institution, but the mainframe
can't use the institutional IDs in part because of this limitation)
This is not a mainframe limitation,
Vernooij, CP wrote:
Robert Birdsall bsqu...@umich.edu wrote:
The limitation of 7 characters for TSO IDs ...
What is the underlying technical reason for the restriction?
Because jobnames submitted by users are constructed from the userid plus
1 character.
Perhaps, but the most probable reason
Robert Birdsall wrote:
This is a curiosity question sparked by another thread.
The limitation of 7 characters for TSO IDs has caused us extra work in the
past (we use IDs of 3-8 characters across the institution, but the mainframe
can't use the institutional IDs in part because of this
John Eells wrote:
Originally, TSO/E user IDs were kept in the User Attribute Data Set
(UADS), a PDS. User IDs with few attributes fit in a single member.
User IDs with many attributes overflow into multiple members. The
member naming convention is USERIDn, where n is a digit from 0 (the
Thanks - that was fast.
John Eells and Rob Scott's replies get at the heart of 2 current technical
restrictions (which is what I was looking for).
These could each be potentially overcome in the future, but I'm not sure it
would be worth it. It would probably be more effective to spend the
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 09:03:35 -0400, Lizette Koehler wrote:
what in the PDS structure reduced the pds member name to a maximum
of 8 chars to start with.
A PDS directory has an 8 byte key and the member name in the directory is
found using the Search Key High or Equal channel command. Each block
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 08:42:44 -0500, Tom Marchant wrote:
in a CVOL there were
different some entries were Index entries
That should be in a CVOL there were some entries were Index entries
I should proofread before I hit send.
--
Tom Marchant
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 08:42:45 -0400, John Eells wrote:
Robert Birdsall wrote:
This is a curiosity question sparked by another thread.
The limitation of 7 characters for TSO IDs has caused us extra work in the
past (we use IDs of 3-8 characters across the institution, but the mainframe
can't use
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 07:42:45 -0500, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:
Vernooij, CP wrote:
Because jobnames submitted by users are constructed from the userid plus
1 character.
Not mine. I regularly submit jobs with names containing up to 8
characters, all of which I control.
Perhaps, but the most
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote:
??? Are you suggesting that the design of the ADD subcommand of the
ACCOUNT utility dictated the otherwise design of TSO?
Tsk. Looking at TSO, design isn't a word I'd typically apply...
--
zMan -- I've got a mainframe
Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote in message
news:listserv%201011050924117080.0...@bama.ua.edu...
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 07:42:45 -0500, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:
Vernooij, CP wrote:
Because jobnames submitted by users are constructed from the userid
plus
1 character.
Not mine. I
zMan zedgarhoo...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:aanlktimo-gjxwj_=rz8c+0xc6j-x8rjaqwusg+hpd...@mail.gmail.com...
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote:
??? Are you suggesting that the design of the ADD subcommand of the
ACCOUNT utility dictated the
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Vernooij, CP - SPLXM
kees.verno...@klm.com wrote:
Of course TSO was designed, maybe not the way you would have done it these
days, but times were different then.
Um. That was sarcasm. Do I need tags?
--
zMan -- I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it
In my on-going insanity, I have been trying to comtemplate a method whereby a
UNIX shell user, coming in via Telnet or SSH, could run a complete TSO
environment, including full screen applications such as ISPF. This would
bypass the TSO started task entirely and the TSO/VTAM 3270 stuff.
IBM
McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com wrote in message
news:a6b9336cdb62bb46b9f8708e686a7ea005d5e05...@nrhmms8p02.uicnrh.dom.
..
In my on-going insanity, I have been trying to comtemplate a method
whereby a UNIX shell user, coming in via Telnet or SSH, could run a
complete TSO environment,
Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Vernooij, CP - SPLXM
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 10:41 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Why are TSO IDs limited to 7 characters
McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com wrote in message
Company.SM
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Vernooij, CP - SPLXM
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 10:41 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Why are TSO IDs limited to 7 characters
McKown, John john.mck
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Roach, Dennis (N-GHG)
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 10:47 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Why are TSO IDs limited to 7 characters
I used 2741 with TSO on SVS.
Line mode
On 11/5/2010 9:40 AM, Vernooij, CP - SPLXM wrote:
McKown, Johnjohn.mck...@healthmarkets.com wrote in message
news:a6b9336cdb62bb46b9f8708e686a7ea005d5e05...@nrhmms8p02.uicnrh.dom.
..
In my on-going insanity, I have been trying to comtemplate a method
whereby a UNIX shell user, coming in via
John
I wonder how TSO worked back in the days of the 2741 keyboard/printer. I
think TSO supported that device back in MVT.
Imagine a startled expression!
Well, I'll just take it at face value - although I must be missing what is
behind
this comment:
Back when TSO was invented, start-stop
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 16:40:36 +0100, Vernooij, CP - SPLXM wrote:
I am quite convinced TSO was from a later period, after MVT and with
3270 screens.
See page 49 in this:
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/os/mvt/GC28-6720-4_MVT_Guide_R21_Mar72.pdf
What we don't know is not nearly as much of a
On 11/5/2010 10:52 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
[snip lots of neat stuff]
[7] Another way is to work out how to write TSO Clists as they were written
before REXX support was available not forgetting to include using the EDIT
command!
Actually, we still teach the TSO edit command in our CLIST
On 5 November 2010 08:42, John Eells ee...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Originally, TSO/E user IDs were kept in the User Attribute Data Set (UADS),
a PDS. User IDs with few attributes fit in a single member. User IDs with
many attributes overflow into multiple members. The member naming
convention is
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
From 'TSO/E System Programming Command Reference':
ACCOUNT--ADD subcommand
userid - specifies the user ID for a new entry in the UADS and the broadcast
data set.
value: 1-7 alphanumeric characters, beginning with an alphabetic or special
character
??? Are you
On 5 Nov 2010 07:18:14 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 08:42:45 -0400, John Eells wrote:
Robert Birdsall wrote:
This is a curiosity question sparked by another thread.
The limitation of 7 characters for TSO IDs has caused us extra work in the
past (we use IDs of
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 14:43:49 -0500, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:
It would really be nice to have loong user names, but then you need to
(re-)consider jobnames, PREFIX, dataset names, all those macros in macros
libraries, etc. Then you can look at JES2, for example, to handle that too...
It
In
3310ac9d797ec94db8d89ccabdea47a703115...@kl1221tc.cs.ad.klmcorp.net,
on 11/05/2010
at 04:40 PM, Vernooij, CP - SPLXM kees.verno...@klm.com said:
I am quite convinced TSO was from a later period,
It wasn't. It came with OS/360 Release 20 as an option, hence the
name.
after MVT
No.
and
In aanlktikhzvygbt7v83771ny+c=oyi57eemabgxirh...@mail.gmail.com, on
11/05/2010
at 10:54 AM, zMan zedgarhoo...@gmail.com said:
Um. That was sarcasm. Do I need tags?
Yes, alas. But even with tags sarcasm will go over the heads of some.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
In a6b9336cdb62bb46b9f8708e686a7ea005d5e05...@nrhmms8p02.uicnrh.dom,
on 11/05/2010
at 10:48 AM, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com said:
Nope. I definately ran TSO on MVT. It was a SYSGEN option. I shudder
to remember it. But it was with local 3277 terminals.
Hey, you were using 3277
In a6b9336cdb62bb46b9f8708e686a7ea005d5e05...@nrhmms8p02.uicnrh.dom,
on 11/05/2010
at 10:14 AM, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com said:
In my on-going insanity, I have been trying to comtemplate a method
whereby a UNIX shell user, coming in via Telnet or SSH, could run a
complete TSO
In b351325f7e2c494a8783b83dbf3d5390145996d...@hdxmspa.us.lmco.com,
on 11/05/2010
at 09:46 AM, Roach, Dennis (N-GHG) dennis.ro...@lmco.com said:
ISPF did not exist. Its predecessor (SPF/PDF) required 3270.
There was no SPF/PDF. The predecessor to ISPF was SPF.
Try the TSO EDIT command from
In listserv%201011050917363008.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 11/05/2010
at 09:17 AM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
I believe RACF will allow creating an OMVS segment with an
8-character ID, compatible with prevalent institutional IDs. What
would happen if a user with such an ID submitted a
In listserv%201011050707120034.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 11/05/2010
at 07:07 AM, Robert Birdsall bsqu...@umich.edu said:
What is the underlying technical reason for the restriction?
Shortsightedness. The UADS was designed as a PDS, with member names
containing the userid plus one extension
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 8:07 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Why are TSO IDs limited to 7 characters
This is a curiosity question sparked by another thread.
The limitation of 7 characters for TSO IDs has caused us extra work in the
past (we use IDs of 3-8 characters across
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 3:43 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Why are TSO IDs limited to 7 characters
In listserv%201011050917363008.0
On 11/5/2010 5:42 AM, John Eells wrote:
Originally, TSO/E user IDs were kept in the User Attribute Data Set (UADS), a
PDS. User IDs with few attributes fit in a single member. User IDs with many
attributes overflow into multiple members. The member naming convention is
USERIDn, where n is a
You cannot run a batch job with the same name unless you logoff and back on to
allow the 8 character batch job to run.
Since when?
I tried that as an experiment in 1981.
I submitted a job, through IEBGENER, with the same name as my TSOID.
I was trying to prove what you stated.
I lost a beer
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 21:08:08 +, Burrell, C. Todd (CDC/OCOO/ITSO) (CTR) wrote:
You cannot run a batch job with the same name unless you logoff and back on to
allow the 8 character batch job to run. ...
I can't do that now, with my shorter-than-8-character user ID.
I simply create batch jobs
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 16:51:33 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
Well, if IBM fixed the WSA GUI then that would be the obvious way.
Alternatively, they could write a next generation WSA that was a X
client.
Yaaay! They could even assimilate much code from an x3270-type
utility; even preserve
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 2:27 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Why are TSO IDs limited to 7 characters
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 21:08:08 +, Burrell, C
st...@trainersfriend.com (Steve Comstock) writes:
No. I was working for IBM when TSO was announced. It was then, truly an
Option, and supported any kind of terminal, but it took ISPF to provide
the front end for full screen 3270 type interface we're used to today.
i had hacked hasp on mvt
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 16:54 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In a6b9336cdb62bb46b9f8708e686a7ea005d5e05...@nrhmms8p02.uicnrh.dom,
on 11/05/2010
at 10:48 AM, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com said:
Nope. I definately ran TSO on MVT. It was a SYSGEN option. I shudder
to
For anybody who is interested, there has been a SHARE requirement to increase
TSO Ids to 8 characters for 20 years. Because IBM responded and assigned it to
'Long Range Consideration', it's been sitting there neglected. The SHARE MVSE
Requirements Committee has recently determined that it
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 21:00 -0400, Cheryl Walker wrote:
For anybody who is interested, there has been a SHARE requirement to
increase TSO Ids to 8 characters for 20 years. Because IBM responded
and assigned it to 'Long Range Consideration', it's been sitting there
neglected. The SHARE MVSE
On 11/5/2010 9:00 PM, Cheryl Walker wrote:
For anybody who is interested, there has been a SHARE
requirement to increase TSO Ids to 8 characters for 20 years.
Because IBM responded and assigned it to 'Long Range
Consideration', it's been sitting there neglected. The SHARE
MVSE Requirements
83 matches
Mail list logo
