Re: ShopZ order response

> On Oct 14, 2017, at 2:45 PM, Tom Brennan wrote: > > David W Noon wrote: > >> I find it a little surprising that reel-to-reel tape was still being >> used in 2004 but, given that the HST alternative was really no better, I >> guess we should not be really

Re: ShopZ order response

Ed Gould wrote: >I was never in the loop about Sterling Forest, but didn't they have a fire >that ruined pretty much all of their tapes? >This had to be in the 1980's (Think). I actually ordered the source from them >one time and I think it was a renumber subcommand of basic. No idea, sorry!

Re: ShopZ order response

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 20:46:36 -0400, Tony Harminc (t...@harminc.net) wrote about "Re: ShopZ order response" (in <caarmm9s8ygkewkfedrrdtaz+81e28_ej2uolygc24c0jv2b...@mail.gmail.com>): > On 13 October 2017 at 18:47, Phil Smith III <li...@akphs.com> wrote: > >> An

Re: ShopZ order response

Tony Harminc wrote: >Also in 2004 I was surprised to see a short string of 3420 drives, all >powered up and lights on, at one of our UK banking customers. I asked, >and it seems they were used only for data exchange. A nightly courier >would arrive from each of the other big banks with tapes, and

Re: ShopZ order response

> On Oct 13, 2017, at 5:47 PM, Phil Smith III wrote: > > ——SNIP > > Anyone know if Sterling Forest still has 3420s? Last time I was there > (2004?) they did, and even a 7-track drive IIRC. > > Phil: I was never in the loop

Re: ShopZ order response

> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:03 PM, Paul Gilmartin > <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > >>> >>> "I got lots of great software that way!" >> >> *facepalm* >> >> Since it's Friday and we're swapping tape stories, back in the day, I had a >> couple of red 3480 cartridges that

Re: ShopZ order response

Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 7:04 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] ShopZ order response On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 18:47:21 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote: > >>"I got lots of great sof

Re: ShopZ order response

On 13 October 2017 at 18:47, Phil Smith III wrote: > Anyone know if Sterling Forest still has 3420s? Last time I was there > (2004?) they did, and even a 7-track drive IIRC. Also in 2004 I was surprised to see a short string of 3420 drives, all powered up and lights on, at one

Re: ShopZ order response

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 18:47:21 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote: > >>"I got lots of great software that way!" > >*facepalm* > >Since it's Friday and we're swapping tape stories, back in the day, I had a >couple of red 3480 cartridges that I'd picked up somewhere. I'd take 'em to >customer sites, because

Re: ShopZ order response

Paul Gilmartin wrote: >Decades ago a rogue co-worker told me that in his previous position he >sometimes distributed shareware. He always asked recipients to supply >a tape to which he could copy. >But each such tape he first copied to one of his tapes. >"I got lots of great software

Re: ShopZ order response

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 08:38:22 -0400, John Eells wrote: > >> ".. might it be permissible to return used tapes to IBM for re-use?" >> >> "No." > >And I stand by that answer for a number of reasons, practical, >technical, and legal. > Decades ago a rogue co-worker told me that in his previous

Re: ShopZ order response

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 08:38:22 -0400, John Eells wrote: > >Nobody makes either of those any more. Further, 3420 is far past >end-of-life because the oxides and binding agents deteriorate rapidly in >comparison to 3480 and later tape. > Alan Altmark had things to say about this on a day before

Re: ShopZ order response

> On Oct 12, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Paul Gilmartin > <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu > > wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:52:12 -0500, Edward Gould wrote: >>> IOW we are going to be majorly hurt if IBM decided to drop

Re: ShopZ order response

John Eells wrote: Tape orders are dwindling fast. To clarify what I meant, in case anyone didn't get it from context, orders *for software* on tape are dwindling fast. I do not mean to imply that we're not selling tape drives! Nothing could be further from the truth. -- John Eells IBM

Re: ShopZ order response

Exactly! There is more than one use case here. Tape as a backup medium is certainly not dead. It's the cheapest (or among the cheapest) of alternatives for long-term offline storage. And for verifiable archives, WORM tape is a great solution. As an *interchange* media, it's problematic

Re: ShopZ order response

Paul Gilmartin wrote: On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:52:12 -0500, Edward Gould wrote: I have asked the auditor and he seems happy with a plastic sealed envelope that is handled by signatures. "signatures"? Do you mean you expect Ginni to pick up a Sharpie and sign the plastic sleeve? I believe

Re: ShopZ order response

[Default] On 12 Oct 2017 13:57:48 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main 000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu (Paul Gilmartin) wrote: >On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:52:12 -0500, Edward Gould wrote: >>> IOW we are going to be majorly hurt if IBM decided to drop tape. >>> I'd be inclined to

Re: ShopZ order response

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:52:12 -0500, Edward Gould wrote: >> >>> IOW we are going to be majorly hurt if IBM decided to drop tape. >>> >> I'd be inclined to trust the SHA-1 checksum transmitted via an independent >> verifiable conduit more than a heat-sealed polyethylene sleeve on a 3480 >>

Re: ShopZ order response

> On Oct 10, 2017, at 9:23 AM, Paul Gilmartin > <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 23:56:47 -0500, Edward Gould wrote: >> >> Our auditors would hop all over me and my management if we ever did >> something like what you are talking about. One time I

Re: ShopZ order response

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 23:56:47 -0500, Edward Gould wrote: > >Our auditors would hop all over me and my management if we ever did something >like what you are talking about. One time I got a fix for one of our MF >products and I had to get the Presidents personal OK for me to upload it to >the MF.

Re: ShopZ order response

> On Oct 9, 2017, at 6:36 AM, John Eells wrote: > > In addition to what I wrote above, we, like everyone else, are driven by > client behaviors and available technologies. So let's talk about numbers for > a minute. > > As of this March, 86% of our orders are being

Re: ShopZ order response

I can see this is turning into one of "those" discussions; ask a simple question, go off on seventeen different tangents. Anyway, some comments interspersed below. Paul Gilmartin wrote: In a future without tape, if you do not have optical drives and cannot connect to the Internet, you will

Re: ShopZ order response

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 07:36:53 -0400, John Eells wrote: >> >> How are you going to handle the orders for Tapes? Our installation does not >> have *ANY* internet connection from the M/F. AFAIK that will never change. >> The place is hyper about security. I think its overblown, but the current >>

ShopZ order response

I was expecting some licensing questions, which is why I wanted a response from them. Fortunately it seems that there were none, and notice of the ready order appeared in my mailbox. Still, it seems odd to get zero response from calls to ShopZ.

Re: ShopZ order response

Edward Gould wrote: On Oct 6, 2017, at 8:57 AM, John Eells wrote: Bob, I am asking specifically about order turnaround time for ServerPac orders that contain z/OS. It's interesting to understand the RFN and RECEIVE ORDER expectations and needs as well, but I am feeling

Re: ShopZ order response

> On Oct 6, 2017, at 6:21 AM, John Eells wrote: > > More for ServerPac than for CBPDO, but ServerPac is how most people get z/OS, > at least. > > What kind of ServerPac turnaround time do people: > > - Expect? > - Really need? > > ...for z/OS orders? > John, Hands down

Re: ShopZ order response

> On Oct 6, 2017, at 8:57 AM, John Eells wrote: > > Bob, > > I am asking specifically about order turnaround time for ServerPac orders > that contain z/OS. > > It's interesting to understand the RFN and RECEIVE ORDER expectations and > needs as well, but I am feeling lazy

Re: ShopZ order response

On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 07:21:59 -0400, John Eells wrote: >More for ServerPac than for CBPDO, but ServerPac is how most people get >z/OS, at least. > >What kind of ServerPac turnaround time do people: > >- Expect? >- Really need? > >...for z/OS orders? > My expectations are based

Re: ShopZ order response

- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of John Eells Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 9:57 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ShopZ order response **CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL** **DO NOT open attachments or click on links from unknown senders

Re: ShopZ order response

- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of John Eells Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 7:22 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ShopZ order response More for ServerPac than for CBPDO, but ServerPac is how most people get z/OS, at least. What kind

Re: ShopZ order response

- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Richards, Robert B. Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 9:33 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ShopZ order response John, I am spoiled. I expect it to be ready for download within minutes or a few hours

Re: ShopZ order response

-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of John Eells Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 7:22 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ShopZ order response More for ServerPac than for CBPDO, but ServerPac is how most people get z/OS, at least. What kind of ServerPac turnaround time do people: - Expect

Re: ShopZ order response

To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ShopZ order response **CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL** **DO NOT open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails** More for ServerPac than for CBPDO, but ServerPac is how most people get z/OS, at least. What kind of ServerPac

Re: ShopZ order response

: ShopZ order response Good question. However, I did not hear last Friday (original delivery date) about anyone talking about z/OS 2.3. Perhaps shipment has been delayed. If it has been, that might explain why the status has remained "Manufacturing". Otherwise, you may want to try emailing

Re: ShopZ order response

SW ShopCat L2 Support shopc...@dk.ibm.com Bob -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Nightwatch RenBand Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2017 12:18 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: ShopZ order response On 2017-09-2

ShopZ order response

On 2017-09-28 I placed my order for a new version of zOS online. I received an eMail back from ShopZ the next day and online shows "Manufacturing" . Unfortunately the person who sent the original eMail has not returned eMail or phone calls, Attempts to call ShopZ have resulted in my leaving