No no ... SCP is way better than FTP. It's more secure and more reliable
and more automation-friendly.
On 09/11/16 21:58, John McKown wrote:
I would avoid "scp" on z/OS because it is "funky" compared to other UNIX
scp implementations. I haven't tried doing a z/OS UNIX to z/OS UNIX, on a
"real" UNIX scp does a straight binary transfer. But IBM has made their scp
translate from ASCII to/from EBCDIC. ...
That could be a bad thing, if it weren't such a good thing.
Gotta confess my own past sins:
When I was first introduced to "Open Edition", I expected that crossing
that line between byte oriented files and traditional data sets would
also mean crossing a line between ASCII and EBCDIC. I was dismayed. I
was /angry/ for several months. Nick Gimbrone even called me down about
it. So I cooled off. Then the light dawned (like the ability to lose NAT
in IPV6, another mind bender). I realized it _had to be_ the way it is,
and now see the beauty, even elegance of USS.
It's SSH under the covers which is doing the A/E translation.
On 09/11/16 22:24, Jack J. Woehr wrote:
IBM's recommendation is to use SFTP which is the same technology and
does binary xfers.
You'da thunk IBM would have just added a charset translation flag to
scp for them what wanted it, but no-o-o ...
IBM should confess their own past sins. (Mumble mumble ... vague
reference to the ASCII bit in S/360 which never saw traction and the
fact that IBM was a _/backer/ of ASCII_ when it was ratified. But you
didn't hear that from /me/.)
Charset translations are madness. Don't go there. Keep it simple.
Base64 it and be done with it. Keep it simple.
-- R; <><
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
