Alexander Huemer wrote:
>I am new to this list and would like to discuss an idea and ask several
>questions.
>* Did anybody ever attempt to 'talk' to 3270 terminals with something
> different than an IBM mainframe?
Yes, here are some examples of entities that did exactly that:
Amdahl
Fujitsu
> Hi,
> SDSF allocates two SYSOUT files named HSFLOG and HSFTRACE.
> How do I change the SYSOUT Class these files use?
> I am running z/OS v2.3
> Gadi
SYSOUT class for SDSF trace can be set in ISFPRMxx
OPTION TRCLASS(output class)
Defaults to class A.
I don't see an ISFPRMxx parameter for
I believe it's SDSFAUX that allocates these files.
Check proclib for this member and just change the DD statements.
Dan
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu
Hi,
SDSF allocates two SYSOUT files named HSFLOG and HSFTRACE.
How do I change the SYSOUT Class these files use?
I am running z/OS v2.3
Gadi
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to
22L was Escon and supported SNA and non-SNA. All in the wrist...
In a message dated 1/14/2020 10:21:25 PM Central Standard Time,
cfmt...@uniserve.com writes:
There were both bus and tag 3174 terminals which could be used for
consoles and local SNA terminals which only worked with VTAM.
[Default] On 14 Jan 2020 17:07:32 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
023065957af1-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu (Grant Taylor) wrote:
>On 1/14/20 2:52 AM, Alexander Huemer wrote:
>> Hi
There were both bus and tag 3174 terminals which could be used for
consoles and local SNA terminals which only
On 1/14/20 2:52 AM, Alexander Huemer wrote:
Hi
Hi,
I am new to this list and would like to discuss an idea and ask several
questions.
Welcome.
* Did anybody ever attempt to 'talk' to 3270 terminals with something
different than an IBM mainframe?
Yes*
* because it's highly dependent on
[Default] On 14 Jan 2020 13:58:34 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
frank.swarbr...@outlook.com (Frank Swarbrick) wrote:
>I disagree with that. A new version may simply be new features, none
>affecting any features the old version supported.
The 6.3 compiler supports a new ARCH level for the z15
Thanks a lot, Charles! That's going to occupy a lot of the team's time next
week trying to answer that question! So far, I know of at least one that is
having a very hard time.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive
I think we are getting into "how many compiler developers can dance on the
head of a pin?" territory here. I stand by my original answer:
- Yes, be prudent. There are old sysprogs and there are bold sysprogs but
there are no old, bold sysprogs.
- I would be surprised if there were any reasons why
I disagree with that. A new version may simply be new features, none affecting
any features the old version supported.
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Charles Mills
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 2:09 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 13:09:29 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:
>> My question has to do with the (probably slight) possibility that the code
>generated by one compiler would be different, for the same statement, for
>another.
>
>It certainly would. If the code generated for every statement was the same
I would say you do talk TN3270 to the emulator:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1576
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Seymour J Metz
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 11:47 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> My question has to do with the (probably slight) possibility that the code
generated by one compiler would be different, for the same statement, for
another.
It certainly would. If the code generated for every statement was the same
for both compilers, then there would be no difference between
Thanks Allan, that eases my mind quite a bit.
No z15 for us yet.
And use of any new features of course will require testing and implementation
with the latest compiler version.
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Allan Kielstra
Sent: Tuesday,
Hi Frank
There are a few relatively minor differences in code generated but these tend
to be mostly focused on taking advantage of z15. I assume you're not compiling
for z15 (yet)? Other than z15 exploitation, this is like a really big
continuous delivery PTF. There is always the
An interface to 3270 displays would be useful only if you had software that
supported 3270 on your platform. Further, is there a real 3270 that is less
expensive than running, e.g., TN3270, on a desktop?
RS-232-C is just a protocol between a serial adapter and a modem; it doesn't
specify,
You don't talk TN3270 to an emulator; all of the 3270 simulation is in the
TN3270 client. Tn3270 just encapsulates 3270 data streams and associated
housekeeping.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion
V6.3 introduced 64-bit (batch) support.
We don't intend to take advantage of this yet, if ever. Especially with the
requirement to support two sets of "shared" subroutines if we were to do so.
Honestly, it seems like that wouldn't be that difficult; just compile the
program twice in to two
I understand that the runtime is part of LE, and is generally shared between
versions (at least V5 and V6 seem to share the same runtime for many/most
functions). Conceivably it's still possible that the code generated by a
certain version of a compiler may have defects. Probably less likely
z.sch...@gmail.com (z/OS scheduler) writes:
> IMHO TCP/ip is part and parcel of this new "Open Source / Written by
> Hackers" we are living in.
> I cannot believe that C.C.I.T.T.would have recommended to IBM to make their
> product more hack-able - unless Microsoft or SUN had big influence on
>
Did you try percussive maintenance?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
zMan
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:26 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Talking to 3270
zMan me to and the less than aware users
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 1:27 PM zMan wrote:
> I used to swear at mine on a regular basis. To no apparent effect.
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:45 PM Mike Schwab
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
>
I used to swear at mine on a regular basis. To no apparent effect.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:45 PM Mike Schwab
wrote:
>
> https://turnkey-mvs.yahoogroups.narkive.com/YoMvjj8Q/turnkey-mvs-under-vm-and-3270-w-3174
> 3174 with ethernet and token ring. Hercules on PC connected to
> ethernet.
Seems like some problem with the data then, is opening a PMR an option? If not,
can you run it without a date or you don't want to lose everything?
You can also write a small assembler program to issue an IXGDELET against the
logstream, I've done that in the past and wouldn't mind sharing it.
https://turnkey-mvs.yahoogroups.narkive.com/YoMvjj8Q/turnkey-mvs-under-vm-and-3270-w-3174
3174 with ethernet and token ring. Hercules on PC connected to
ethernet. Apple II with token ring as console.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 9:24 AM Charles Mills wrote:
>
> Would talking the TN3270 protocol to
Would talking the TN3270 protocol to a 3270 emulator do the job for you?
That solves all of the hardware issues: it is simply TCP out of your
implementation and into the emulator.
You could then if you wished "graduate" to a real 3270 terminal. If I were
doing it I would go SNA but that is
On 1/13/2020 8:48 AM, Barbara Nitz wrote:
GIM58901E ** APPLY PROCESSING FAILED FOR SYSMOD HCKR240. SYSMOD HCKR240 WOULD
HAVE CAUSED A CHANGE TO THE MVST ZONE THAT CAN NOT BE PROCESSED
COMPLETELY BY PRIOR LEVELS OF SMP/E. USE THE UPGRADE COMMAND TO
ALLOW
>Have done a number of CBPDO installation sunder z/OS 2.2 last year that all
>required using the UPGRADE command. If you are using a new SMPE environment
>then go with the UPGRADE. Had no issues doing this. But it is confusing as it
>implies that the zones you create with the version of SMPE
Have done a number of CBPDO installation sunder z/OS 2.2 last year that all
required using the UPGRADE command. If you are using a new SMPE environment
then go with the UPGRADE. Had no issues doing this. But it is confusing as it
implies that the zones you create with the version of SMPE you
IMHO TCP/ip is part and parcel of this new "Open Source / Written by
Hackers" we are living in.
I cannot believe that C.C.I.T.T.would have recommended to IBM to make their
product more hack-able - unless Microsoft or SUN had big influence on
C.C.I.T.T.
Op di 14 jan. 2020 om 09:51 schreef Dave
Hi
I am new to this list and would like to discuss an idea and ask several
questions.
* Did anybody ever attempt to 'talk' to 3270 terminals with something
different than an IBM mainframe?
This might sound like a strange idea, though I find it intriguing to be
able to display content on
Folks,
Its easy to target TCPIP but IMHO the issues are to do with its universal use,
and the libraries used to implement it.
So I will just remind you all that what I think was one of the first nasty
programs, the "CHRISTMA EXEC" worm, was actually spread over BITNET and VNET
which at the
but file 708 will. I made some modifications, but for a basic use it works
very well.
ITschak
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:34 AM Michael Knigge
wrote:
> IIRC, sadly AUTOMAN won't run anymore because of an internal "expiration
> date" check
>
>
>
> Bye,
> Michael
>
>
> SET GmbH
> Lister
IIRC, sadly AUTOMAN won't run anymore because of an internal "expiration date"
check
Bye,
Michael
SET GmbH
Lister Straße 15
30163 Hannover
Telefon: +49 511 330 998 23
Fax: +49 511 330 998 65
michael.kni...@set.de
www.set.de
Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Hannover HRB 52778
TSSO will likely do what you want.
I think it's on file 403, but I could be wrong.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
36 matches
Mail list logo
