[Default] On 16 Apr 2021 15:55:46 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
sme...@gmu.edu (Seymour J Metz) wrote:
>If it;s needed to IPL then it must be PDS. AFAIK, anything that you
>dynamically add after PDSE support is active can be PDSE.
This answer shows why I believe someone should have had their
That's it! Thanks
On 4/16/2021 5:19 PM, Lloyd Fuller wrote:
1 connection 4 addresses on 3274 according to the data sheet. So three LPARs
plus VTAM screen would be possible.
Lloyd
Sent from AT Yahoo Mail for iPad
On Friday, April 16, 2021, 7:53 PM, Tom Brennan
wrote:
Interesting! So
1 connection 4 addresses on 3274 according to the data sheet. So three LPARs
plus VTAM screen would be possible.
Lloyd
Sent from AT Yahoo Mail for iPad
On Friday, April 16, 2021, 7:53 PM, Tom Brennan
wrote:
Interesting! So now I'm wondering how consoles from 3 different LPARs
appeared
Interesting! So now I'm wondering how consoles from 3 different LPARs
appeared on the same screen, plus a spare with a VTAM welcome message.
At the time I thought all our consoles were direct connections (defined
as unit addresses).
It was a long time ago so this could have been a dream or
Only 1 coax cable to a 3290. It was a DFT device (distributed function
terminal). They were more of an SNA device and not sure they functioned as
non-sna from what I remember
Kenneth A. Bloom
Avenir Technologies Inc
/d/b/a Visara International
203-984-2235
I'm note aware of any browser support for SFTP, but there are a lot of command
line and GUI clients.
There's always IBM's port of openSSH.
I have no idea how many shops allow, e.g., Co:Z SFTP.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
We had one 3290 where I worked, and my guess it was an IBM promotion or
perhaps ordered by someone who found they didn't like it. So it ended
up in the tape room where it saved desk space by combining consoles for
3 LPARs with a single TSO session. I'm pretty sure it had 4 coax
cables, so in
That's likely to lead to a backlash. Why not give them a special sysout class
and migrate after a specified time?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Jesse
That's true, but it does not make a massive printed dump usable. Even for a
24-bit address space a full dump is massive. Even were AMDPRDMP still
supported, SYSMDUP would not be viable without IPCS.
If your shop does not allow IPCS, then the best option is to use a different
type of dump.
--
If it;s needed to IPL then it must be PDS. AFAIK, anything that you dynamically
add after PDSE support is active can be PDSE.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on
DFT is Distributed Function Terminal, meaning that the controller does less of
the logic than for Control Unit Terminal (CUT) devices. Not all DFT devices
support explicit partitions.
ISPF uses explicit partitions for both SPLIT and SPLITV when 3290 support is
enabled. It only defines 4
ISPF SPLITV only works on 3290s.
Joe
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:43 PM Bob Bridges wrote:
> Somewhere in the dim reaches of my past I think I saw mention of the
> ability to split an ISPF screen vertically rather than horizontally. I've
> never tried it, and I'm not sure I didn't just
The 3290 added what I think was called "DFT", or "partitioned mode" to the
3270 protocol, and allowed a smart application (afaik, ISPF is the only
application that smart) to divide up the screen into several logical
screens. The ISPF SPLITV command implemented that. Maybe some TN3270 apps
can
Maybe you're thinking XEDIT?
On 2021-04-16 16:43, Bob Bridges wrote:
Somewhere in the dim reaches of my past I think I saw mention of the ability to
split an ISPF screen vertically rather than horizontally. I've never tried it,
and I'm not sure I didn't just imagine the capability.
But
My understanding is anything used at NIP has to be a PDS. After SMS Address
Space is up, they can be PDS/e
Does that help?
This is unless IBM has lifted the restrictions at IPL
Lizette
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Richards, Robert B. (CTR)
SYSMDUMP to SYSOUT can be either really smart or pretty dumb. If your
intent is to use SDSF XDC (or some XWTR-like device) to capture them to
real DASD datasets when needed; and your spool is adequately sized to
handle them, it's a fairly clever way to avoid all the space allocation
hassle. This
It has been 8-9 years since my last ServerPac install. (sounds like the opening
line the person speaks when sharing at an AA meeting, doesn't it. At least
that's how TV portrays it).
I'm working on the Modify System Layout section and I have been requested to
make all PDSs into PDSEs. Now I
I certainly do not have one. Inertia perhaps, don't rock the boat is another
possibility. I never did get an answer why not: ". . . that's just the way
it's always been", so someone in the past made that decision and it has never
been revisited.
I fight a lot of battles for our application
W dniu 16.04.2021 o 17:15, Mike Wawiorko pisze:
How many of us have patiently had to explain to a naïve user why an sftp client
connecting to an FTPS server does not work?
To be honest I had to patiently explain that FTPS is not sftp. Sometimes
they were upset, especially because I use "some
On 4/16/2021 1:52 PM, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:
PMFJI here, but let me repeat what I have said before on this list - not every
shop permits application programmers to use IPCS. I had to apply for special
permission to use it for a complex production error a long time ago, but it is
not
PMFJI here, but let me repeat what I have said before on this list - not every
shop permits application programmers to use IPCS. I had to apply for special
permission to use it for a complex production error a long time ago, but it is
not allowed to be accessed by default.
All you sysprogs
On 4/16/2021 1:43 PM, Bob Bridges wrote:
Somewhere in the dim reaches of my past I think I saw mention of the ability to
split an ISPF screen vertically rather than horizontally. I've never tried it,
and I'm not sure I didn't just imagine the capability.
I used to have a 3290 "gas" panel
Somewhere in the dim reaches of my past I think I saw mention of the ability to
split an ISPF screen vertically rather than horizontally. I've never tried it,
and I'm not sure I didn't just imagine the capability.
But today someone asked me how to split the screen more than once, and in the
On 4/16/2021 1:37 PM, Ed Jaffe wrote:
I consider //SYSMDUMP DD SYSOUT=* to be the best way to manage batch
job dumps. We've done this for years with excellent results.
Actually, we use //SYSMDUMP DD SYSOUT=D
Class "D" here is specifically for dumps and we make it spin-off so if
it needs to
On 4/16/2021 1:04 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
I take the same approach to SYSMDUMP and to SYSABEND: tell people not to direct
them to sysout. If you find one, trash it. Be prepared to fight this up the
food chain. Make sure you have allies in the right places. It could get nasty.
I consider
I take the same approach to SYSMDUMP and to SYSABEND: tell people not to direct
them to sysout. If you find one, trash it. Be prepared to fight this up the
food chain. Make sure you have allies in the right places. It could get nasty.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Some of ours do too, and after a couple warnings we just start whacking their
jobs from the spool because they're filling it up.
Rex
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Mark Jacobs
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 11:37 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
I had never heard of simple FTP either. I'm with you, Frank, plug SFTP into a
search engine and you're going to get secure FTP - running over SSH.
Rex
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Frank Swarbrick
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 11:37 AM
To:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:02:38 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>Wouldn't it make more sense to ask IBM to provide SFTP-SSH servers rather than
>FTP servers, given the concern with security?
>
Are browsers and other utilities that are ending support for FTP extending
support for FTPS or SFTP?
(Are
That's fine, but why would you want to print thousands of pages instead of just
searching, formatting and viewing the data you need?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
Slap them
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On
> Behalf Of Mark Jacobs
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 9:37 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Print a SYSMDUMP
>
> Some of our new developers have //SYSMDUMP DD SYSOUT=* in their JCL.
>
> Mark
Some of our new developers have //SYSMDUMP DD SYSOUT=* in their JCL.
Mark Jacobs
Sent from ProtonMail, Swiss-based encrypted email.
GPG Public Key -
https://api.protonmail.ch/pks/lookup?op=get=markjac...@protonmail.com
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, April 16th, 2021 at 12:30 PM,
I've never heard of Simple File Transfer Protocol. My guess is most others
have not either. SFTP pretty much de facto stands for SSH File Transfer
Protocol, which is secure.
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Seymour J Metz
Sent: Friday, April
Well, back when AMDPRDMP was a thing, you could print a SYSMDUMP, but why would
you want to? Searching a large dump on SPOOL is a RPITA, and doing it on paper
is worse. Yes, IPCS has its faults, but it's so much nicer than the older
alternatives.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
My answer, being nit-picky, is: no, you cannot print a SYSMDUMP, aside
from printing the dump records themselves such as in hex but you can
direct IPCS to write its output to a data set that you could then print,
after doing whatever IPCS commands you have chosen to do.
For example, from some
Little bit of a derail but another reason for IBM to change from FTP to HTTPS:
https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/16/firefox-88-to-disable-ftp-protocol/
- KB
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, April 16, 2021 5:29 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> You don't need browser support, although it
How many of us have patiently had to explain to a naïve user why an sftp client
connecting to an FTPS server does not work?
Mike Wawiorko
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the
addressee and may also be privileged or exempt from disclosure under
Are you referring to raw SFTP or to SFTP running under SSH?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Ron
Wells [02ebc63ff5ef-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu]
No; Simple File Transfer Protocol (SFTP) is RFC 913 while Trivial File
Transfer Protocol (TFTP) is RFC 1350 . Neither is the same as SSH File
Transfer Protocol (SFTP), which is normally used in SSH although it can be used
outside of it.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
hi,
Long time ago I learned: If you remove one parameter, you divide the possibilities of errors by at
least 3.
apply this to the number of "similar" protocols.
We need the unified standard to get rid of n file transfer protocols, ok, now
you have n+1
Pigeons can easily carry some
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 12:31:10 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>I don't know the details, just that SFTP (over SSH) is considered more secures
>than FTPS. Raw SFTP is not secure. SFTP is another overloaded acronym; there
>is a simple FTP that, I hope, nobody is advocating.
>
Are you thinking of
SFTP more secure??? Think not
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Seymour J Metz
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 7:31 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FTP-Links in IBM Websites and PTFs
** EXTERNAL EMAIL - USE CAUTION **
I don't know the
W dniu 15.04.2021 o 15:51, Paul Gilmartin pisze:
[...]
> Might a site remove cmd.exe?
[...]
>> And of course there are plenty of graphical ftp clients (anyone here is
> Some sites forbid installing such software.
[...]
Yes, some sites may block/deny many things despite of the reason and
user
I don't know the details, just that SFTP (over SSH) is considered more secures
than FTPS. Raw SFTP is not secure. SFTP is another overloaded acronym; there is
a simple FTP that, I hope, nobody is advocating.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
Thank you, Attila.
Yes, it is Planning for Installation.
It says z/OS can use up to 190 processor in single LPAR (machine limit).
However PR/SM Planning Guide says the limit is 100 processors per LPAR.
There are contradictory informations in the manual - one is 100
processors per LPAR, but
You don't need browser support, although it is convenient. What you do need is
a network definition that permits it. The reason that browsers dropped support
is that there are security issues. I don't know what the status of SFTP (over
SSH) is.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:03:38 +0200, Radoslaw Skorupka
wrote:
>While I agree ftp links should be changed to https, I would remind a
>browser is not necessary to use ftp, it's really easy to circumvent it.
>
No, it is not. Not when the corporate firewall blocks FTP traffic. :-(
Jantje.
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:12:40 +, Billy Ashton wrote:
>cases. The file is pretty large, and the support tech said I have to
>copy it to OMVS to use SFTP for uploading it. I am not sure I have that
>space available on the other side, so I was wondering if anyone here has
>a BPX batch job
Dave Gibney wrote:
>Really, what is the security risk of FTPS? I know it
>seems to be increasingly considered a problem, but why?
FTPS (FTP over TLS) is quite good when properly implemented, with both the
command and data channels secured. The common, classic criticism is that
FTP requires a
49 matches
Mail list logo
