Re: it was 20 years ago today

[Wayne Bickerdike]

In 1979, I Ieft IBM for a speculative venture developing software on the
"new" Z80 and 8080 machines.

One of the first applications we developed was a whisky stock control
system that could calculate accruals on whisky casks stored in bonded
warehouses. The company in question received invoices for casks when they
were fully drawn from bond.

For many years they had just paid up, because it was too hard to verify.

The first question was "how many days was it in bond". The solution we used
was to always store a date as a relative day number (relative to 1 Jan
1900).

Once the date was stored that way, the calculations were fairly simple. We
had a to/from subroutine that would calculate the day number or date.

On 1 Jan 2000, I was in the board room of a major mutual insurance company
in Melbourne. About 6 of us watched the fireworks and of course, nothing
happened. We had done a lot of work to prepare, so it paid off. In the
following days a few things broke but they weren't mission critical.


On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 11:52 AM Joel C. Ewing  wrote:

> Around 1990 it became clear that our installation needed some
> alternative to a universally-used, in-house date subroutine -- one which
> supported all sorts of date calculations, conversion between several
> different formats, offsets from dates, day of week adjustments, etc.  It
> had been extended and modified many times, and depending on the type of
> request the same field in a complex structured parameter block might be
> used as  input, output, or just ignored.   In other words, it was next
> to impossible to be sure there weren't some unintended behaviors that
> someone had learned to exploit, and it was equally certain there was no
> way to verify the unstructured code was even 100% accurate for pre-2000
> dates.  Since it used two-digit years and base-1900  windowing, the old
> date routine would clearly fail for dates or date calculations crossing
> the year 2000 boundary.
>
> Before 1990, I had encountered the B.G. Ohms article "Computer
> Processing of Dates Outside the Twentieth Century" in the IBM Systems
> Journal,  (Vol 25, No 2, 1986, pp 244), which suggested use of what the
> author called "Lilian date format" (days from Oct 15, 1582) to simplify
> date computations.  I used that as the base internal date format for a
> new structured date routine, which handled all sorts of date format
> conversions, date calculations, relative and absolute date windowing to
> convert two-digit to four-digit years, etc. and we started phasing out
> use of the old date routine to eliminate the most obvious common point
> of failure.
>
>  From 1997-1999 various tools and significant person-hours were used to
> locate two-digit year date usage in over 10,000 in-house application
> programs, which were then remediated with four-digit years and tested on
> a test system running with future dates.  There were some cases, mostly
> involving data entry, where it made sense to allow
> relative-to-current-year windowing to convert two-digit years to four
> digits, but absolute windowing was strongly discouraged and dates
> retained in external files were converted to four-digit years.
>
> As others have noted, solving the immediate Y2K problem by merely
> changing two-digit years to use a different absolute-base windowing
> scheme was a questionable temporary solution, creating yet another,
> potentially more-costly problem in the future.
>
> Our Y2K remediation efforts found and fixed many potential problems that
> would otherwise have made the first several months of 2000 chaotic.  As
> a result, the transition from 1999 to 2000 was uneventful with no
> significant problems.
>
> There were no "hacks" of which I was aware from IBM to ease the
> transition, unless you count changing the definition of year values in
> SMF records from "00YY" to "01YY" for dates past 1999.   There were of
> course various PTFs to fix any issues with four-digit years in MVS and
> in IBM applications. I recall one notable PTF to fix an erroneous
> leap-year determination in ISPF that even turned up pre-Y2K in the early
> 1990's -- a good example of why date calculation code should avoid
> clever efficiency over obvious and verifiable algorithms.   There were
> some offerings from 3rd party vendors.  There were also a steady stream
> of "crackpot" easy-fix suggestions on newsgroups in the late 1990's from
> people not understanding the issues, and in 1999 from alarmists
> predicting failures of computer-based control devices that that had no
> logical reason to be using dates in any significant way.
>
> The problem for us was not "how" to fix a single instance of the
> problem, but finding "where" to fix an unknown number of instances of
> the problem in 1000's of lines of in-house code and in associated data
> sets.
>  JC Ewing
>
> On 1/2/20 3:06 PM, Pommier, Rex wrote:
> > Hi Ron,
> >
> > I think the rolling century was implemented at a lot of places.  IIRC,
> didn't DFSort have 

Re: FW: Re: it was 20 years ago today ....

[Joel C. Ewing]

Y2K concerns for a 3174 make no sense to anyone who has ever  customized 
one.    There is no place while configuring a 3174 where you tell it 
local date-time and no hardware support to sync it with any external 
time source.   So if it does have any kind of internal time awareness, 
there is zero reason to expect it to be synced with anything related to 
actual date-time and no reason it would choose to fail at a real world 
1999/2000 year boundary it can't possibly know is happening.

    Joel C Ewing

On 1/2/20 8:16 PM, Bill Dodge wrote:

We had users who were dependent on a 3174's connectivity that wanted us to verify that it 
 was Y2K compatibe.  Totally in panic mode so several of us assembled around the 3174s 
and shouted "Happy New Year".  They never blinked.

  


---
Bill Dodge






On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 00:07:18 +, "Schuffenhauer, Mark"  
wrote:

I remember all the hype, it really freaked people out. I know people who quit 
work, liquidated everything and went off grid. Many non-technical people were 
very concerned it was the end. Minor non-y2k issues during the first few days 
were blown out of proportion. Probably because of the scare tactics and 
uncertainty the contracting companies used to get y2k work.

One wonders how much companies paid for y2k work that wasn't needed.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Dodge
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 5:55 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW: Re: it was 20 years ago today 

External Email

I was consulting at Arlington County, Virginia County Government. My whole 
family was at a friend's house as was our tradition but I had to report to the 
IT Department by 11:30 PM even though I had been running a virtual machine 
whose date had been set to cross the threshold at least 10 times. We were gone 
by 12:15.



---
Bill Dodge






On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 15:19:52 -0800, Tom Brennan wrote:

My oldest was just hitting 5 and couldn't reach the breaker box. But I was at work 
anyway. I'm pretty sure everybody showed up, including the IT dept head. There was 
basically nothing to do. Maybe about 15 minutes after midnight I was looking at a console 
with a couple of managers behind me and I said "Uh oh", and wow... they were 
all over me looking for any kind of problem, probably just to have something to report. I 
think it was a date formatted wrong in a WTO or similar - nothing more. That might have 
been the extent of the Y2K problems I remember seeing.

On 1/2/2020 2:52 PM, Phil Smith III wrote:

Hmm. I sent the post below, doesn't appear to have ever showed up, so retrying!



From: Phil Smith III
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2019 9:27 PM
To: ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today 




Has it been 20 years since Y2K?? sometimes it seems like last year, other times 
seems like another lifetime .



How many of us had smartass kids hanging out in the basement who, at 12:00:01, 
threw the main breaker? I know I did!



Like many of you, I was on call that night, took the 2AM-10AM shift (at 
Sterling Software). Around 5AM when it was clear nothing was happening, we got 
sent home. I did get a nice sweatshirt out of it.



...

--
Joel C. Ewing

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: RMM report for only expired tapes

[Roger Lowe]

On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 12:09:07 +0400, Peter  wrote:

>Hello
>
>Is there a report to pull only expired tape list ?
>
Peter,
   Have you looked at the DFSMSrmm Report Generator in ISMF?

Roger

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: FW: Re: it was 20 years ago today ....

[Bill Dodge]

We had users who were dependent on a 3174's connectivity that wanted us to 
verify that it  was Y2K compatibe.  Totally in panic mode so several of us 
assembled around the 3174s and shouted "Happy New Year".  They never blinked.

 

---
Bill Dodge






On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 00:07:18 +, "Schuffenhauer, Mark"  
wrote:

I remember all the hype, it really freaked people out. I know people who quit 
work, liquidated everything and went off grid. Many non-technical people were 
very concerned it was the end. Minor non-y2k issues during the first few days 
were blown out of proportion. Probably because of the scare tactics and 
uncertainty the contracting companies used to get y2k work.

One wonders how much companies paid for y2k work that wasn't needed.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Dodge
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 5:55 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW: Re: it was 20 years ago today 

External Email

I was consulting at Arlington County, Virginia County Government. My whole 
family was at a friend's house as was our tradition but I had to report to the 
IT Department by 11:30 PM even though I had been running a virtual machine 
whose date had been set to cross the threshold at least 10 times. We were gone 
by 12:15.



---
Bill Dodge






On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 15:19:52 -0800, Tom Brennan wrote:

My oldest was just hitting 5 and couldn't reach the breaker box. But I was at 
work anyway. I'm pretty sure everybody showed up, including the IT dept head. 
There was basically nothing to do. Maybe about 15 minutes after midnight I was 
looking at a console with a couple of managers behind me and I said "Uh oh", 
and wow... they were all over me looking for any kind of problem, probably just 
to have something to report. I think it was a date formatted wrong in a WTO or 
similar - nothing more. That might have been the extent of the Y2K problems I 
remember seeing.

On 1/2/2020 2:52 PM, Phil Smith III wrote:
> Hmm. I sent the post below, doesn't appear to have ever showed up, so 
> retrying!
>
>
>
> From: Phil Smith III
> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2019 9:27 PM
> To: ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today 
>
>
>
>> Has it been 20 years since Y2K?? sometimes it seems like last year, other 
>> times seems like another lifetime .
>
>
>
> How many of us had smartass kids hanging out in the basement who, at 
> 12:00:01, threw the main breaker? I know I did!
>
>
>
> Like many of you, I was on call that night, took the 2AM-10AM shift (at 
> Sterling Software). Around 5AM when it was clear nothing was happening, we 
> got sent home. I did get a nice sweatshirt out of it.
>
>
>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
DISCLAIMER: This email and any attachments may contain confidential information 
that is intended solely for use by the intended recipient(s). If you are not 
the intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, 
distributing or using any of the information contained in the communication. If 
you received this email in error, please contact the sender by reply email and 
immediately delete the communication.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: it was 20 years ago today ....

[Tom Brennan]

> In the 90s Stewart Alsop famously predicted the end of the world.

I just checked my old book collection and found "Time Bomb 2000" by 
Edward and Jennifer Yourdon.  On the back it has questions like, Will 
your car run?, Will there be food?, Will your PC work? ...  Yep, I fell 
for it.  Marked $19.99 - I hope I got a really good discount.


On 1/2/2020 4:18 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:

I heard a 'Y2K person' interviewed on NPR recently. Her point was that if the 
IT industry had done nothing in advance to remediate, we would have had utter 
chaos on 1/1/2000. But we did prepare. We undoubtedly overprepared, but by how 
much will forever remain a mystery.

In the 90s Stewart Alsop famously predicted the end of the world. He retreated 
well before the event itself. We all buy insurance that we're thrilled not to 
utilize. That doesn't make it a waste.

.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW
robin...@sce.com


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Spool Data Set Browse with secondary JES2

[John Szura]

I have a SDSB that works when JES2 is the primary subsystem but gets an 
S99ERROR=X'0478' when JES2 is the secondary and JES3 is the primary.  In 
both instances I have a DALUASSR text unit pointing to the appropriate 
JES2 name (which is JES2 in both cases).  I have not been able to figure 
out what the difference may be.  Both instances are on R2.3.  Any 
ideas?  Thanks.

j


-- 
John Szura
Lead Mainframe Product Developer
Tone Software Corp.
+1(714)507-2354

  IMPORTANT NOTICE:

This is a private message. The information in this email (including any 
attachments) is confidential and proprietary to Tone Software
Corporation, and is provided solely for the use of the individual or entity to 
which it is addressed. Any review, reliance upon, printing,
distribution, or forwarding without express permission of its sender is 
strictly prohibited. If you are not its intended recipient, please
immediately delete this email without copying and kindly advise me by email of 
the mistaken delivery.

  


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: it was 20 years ago today ....

[Schuffenhauer, Mark]

I don't think it was a complete waste, code was changed that did not need to be.

With code changes came tools we paid for that were never used again.

The number of high severity issues due to bad code changes was punitive,  as 
was the cost of missing SLA's.  The cost of physical resources to cover all the 
really slow statically linked programs to manage date stuff, whether it was 
needed or not.

No plan for managing all the data and inventory created so it could be 
leveraged on future projects.

It started out as a Shriek joke many years ago, but computer systems are like 
onions, if you don't peel through the layers and be concerned about all the 
layers, something will bite you in the face.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Jesse 1 Robinson
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 6:18 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today 

External Email

I heard a 'Y2K person' interviewed on NPR recently. Her point was that if the 
IT industry had done nothing in advance to remediate, we would have had utter 
chaos on 1/1/2000. But we did prepare. We undoubtedly overprepared, but by how 
much will forever remain a mystery.

In the 90s Stewart Alsop famously predicted the end of the world. He retreated 
well before the event itself. We all buy insurance that we're thrilled not to 
utilize. That doesn't make it a waste.

.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW
robin...@sce.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Schuffenhauer, Mark
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 4:07 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: FW: Re: it was 20 years ago today 

I remember all the hype, it really freaked people out.  I know people who quit 
work, liquidated everything and went off grid.  Many non-technical people were 
very concerned it was the end.  Minor non-y2k issues during the first few days 
were blown out of proportion.  Probably because of the scare tactics and 
uncertainty the contracting companies used to get y2k work.

One wonders how much companies paid for y2k work that wasn't needed.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Bill Dodge
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 5:55 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW: Re: it was 20 years ago today 

External Email

I was consulting at Arlington County, Virginia County Government.  My whole 
family was at a friend's house as was our tradition but I had to report to the 
IT Department by 11:30 PM even though I had been running a virtual machine 
whose date had been set to cross the threshold at least 10 times.  We were gone 
by 12:15.



---
Bill Dodge






On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 15:19:52 -0800, Tom Brennan  
wrote:

My oldest was just hitting 5 and couldn't reach the breaker box. But I was at 
work anyway. I'm pretty sure everybody showed up, including the IT dept head. 
There was basically nothing to do. Maybe about 15 minutes after midnight I was 
looking at a console with a couple of managers behind me and I said "Uh oh", 
and wow... they were all over me looking for any kind of problem, probably just 
to have something to report. I think it was a date formatted wrong in a WTO or 
similar - nothing more. That might have been the extent of the Y2K problems I 
remember seeing.

On 1/2/2020 2:52 PM, Phil Smith III wrote:
> Hmm. I sent the post below, doesn't appear to have ever showed up, so 
> retrying!
>
>
>
> From: Phil Smith III
> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2019 9:27 PM
> To: ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today 
>
>
>
>> Has it been 20 years since Y2K?? sometimes it seems like last year, other 
>> times seems like another lifetime .
>
>
>
> How many of us had smartass kids hanging out in the basement who, at 
> 12:00:01, threw the main breaker? I know I did!
>
>
>
> Like many of you, I was on call that night, took the 2AM-10AM shift (at 
> Sterling Software). Around 5AM when it was clear nothing was happening, we 
> got sent home. I did get a nice sweatshirt out of it.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
DISCLAIMER: This email and any attachments may contain confidential information 
that is intended solely for use by the intended recipient(s). If you are not 
the intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, 
distributing or using any of the information contained in the communication. If 
you received this email in error, please contact the sender by reply email and 
immediately delete the communication.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,

Re: FW: Re: it was 20 years ago today ....

[Mike Schwab]

We had people come in on the 1st to test everything.  Nothing happen.
A few websites didn't add 1900 to the year, they put a 19 in front of
the  year, resulting in 19100.

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 5:20 PM Tom Brennan  wrote:
>
> My oldest was just hitting 5 and couldn't reach the breaker box.  But I
> was at work anyway.  I'm pretty sure everybody showed up, including the
> IT dept head.  There was basically nothing to do.  Maybe about 15
> minutes after midnight I was looking at a console with a couple of
> managers behind me and I said "Uh oh", and wow... they were all over me
> looking for any kind of problem, probably just to have something to
> report.  I think it was a date formatted wrong in a WTO or similar -
> nothing more.  That might have been the extent of the Y2K problems I
> remember seeing.
>
> On 1/2/2020 2:52 PM, Phil Smith III wrote:
> > Hmm. I sent the post below, doesn't appear to have ever showed up, so 
> > retrying!
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Phil Smith III
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2019 9:27 PM
> > To: ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu 
> > Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today 
> >
> >
> >
> >> Has it been 20 years since Y2K?? sometimes it seems like last year, other 
> >> times seems like another lifetime .
> >
> >
> >
> > How many of us had smartass kids hanging out in the basement who, at 
> > 12:00:01, threw the main breaker? I know I did!
> >
> >
> >
> > Like many of you, I was on call that night, took the 2AM-10AM shift (at 
> > Sterling Software). Around 5AM when it was clear nothing was happening, we 
> > got sent home. I did get a nice sweatshirt out of it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> >
> >
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN



-- 
Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA
Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all?

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: it was 20 years ago today

[Joel C. Ewing]

Around 1990 it became clear that our installation needed some 
alternative to a universally-used, in-house date subroutine -- one which 
supported all sorts of date calculations, conversion between several 
different formats, offsets from dates, day of week adjustments, etc.  It 
had been extended and modified many times, and depending on the type of 
request the same field in a complex structured parameter block might be 
used as  input, output, or just ignored.   In other words, it was next 
to impossible to be sure there weren't some unintended behaviors that 
someone had learned to exploit, and it was equally certain there was no 
way to verify the unstructured code was even 100% accurate for pre-2000 
dates.  Since it used two-digit years and base-1900  windowing, the old 
date routine would clearly fail for dates or date calculations crossing 
the year 2000 boundary.


Before 1990, I had encountered the B.G. Ohms article "Computer 
Processing of Dates Outside the Twentieth Century" in the IBM Systems 
Journal,  (Vol 25, No 2, 1986, pp 244), which suggested use of what the 
author called "Lilian date format" (days from Oct 15, 1582) to simplify 
date computations.  I used that as the base internal date format for a 
new structured date routine, which handled all sorts of date format 
conversions, date calculations, relative and absolute date windowing to 
convert two-digit to four-digit years, etc. and we started phasing out 
use of the old date routine to eliminate the most obvious common point 
of failure.


From 1997-1999 various tools and significant person-hours were used to 
locate two-digit year date usage in over 10,000 in-house application 
programs, which were then remediated with four-digit years and tested on 
a test system running with future dates.  There were some cases, mostly 
involving data entry, where it made sense to allow 
relative-to-current-year windowing to convert two-digit years to four 
digits, but absolute windowing was strongly discouraged and dates 
retained in external files were converted to four-digit years.


As others have noted, solving the immediate Y2K problem by merely 
changing two-digit years to use a different absolute-base windowing 
scheme was a questionable temporary solution, creating yet another, 
potentially more-costly problem in the future.


Our Y2K remediation efforts found and fixed many potential problems that 
would otherwise have made the first several months of 2000 chaotic.  As 
a result, the transition from 1999 to 2000 was uneventful with no 
significant problems.


There were no "hacks" of which I was aware from IBM to ease the 
transition, unless you count changing the definition of year values in 
SMF records from "00YY" to "01YY" for dates past 1999.   There were of 
course various PTFs to fix any issues with four-digit years in MVS and 
in IBM applications. I recall one notable PTF to fix an erroneous 
leap-year determination in ISPF that even turned up pre-Y2K in the early 
1990's -- a good example of why date calculation code should avoid 
clever efficiency over obvious and verifiable algorithms.   There were 
some offerings from 3rd party vendors.  There were also a steady stream 
of "crackpot" easy-fix suggestions on newsgroups in the late 1990's from 
people not understanding the issues, and in 1999 from alarmists 
predicting failures of computer-based control devices that that had no 
logical reason to be using dates in any significant way.


The problem for us was not "how" to fix a single instance of the 
problem, but finding "where" to fix an unknown number of instances of 
the problem in 1000's of lines of in-house code and in associated data sets.

    JC Ewing

On 1/2/20 3:06 PM, Pommier, Rex wrote:

Hi Ron,

I think the rolling century was implemented at a lot of places.  IIRC, didn't 
DFSort have something like that as well as SAS?  The company I was at over Y2K 
went through and converted everything to 4 digit years.  I believe the one I'm 
with now did the same thing.

Rex

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
McCabe, Ron
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 2:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [External] Re: it was 20 years ago today

Question about how the year 2000 was handled as we just got hit by a major date 
problem.  I remember that one way to handle the date comparisons was to have 
all the years from 00-19 (or something greater than 19) have a high value so it 
would be greater than the 1990's.  Does anyone remember that?  Was it something 
IBM did although I don't recall putting on any patches for something like that 
so I'm thinking it was something we did.

Thanks,
Ron McCabe
Manager of Mainframe/Midrange Systems
Mutual of Enumclaw


...

--
Joel C. Ewing

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: it was 20 years ago today ....

[Jesse 1 Robinson]

I heard a 'Y2K person' interviewed on NPR recently. Her point was that if the 
IT industry had done nothing in advance to remediate, we would have had utter 
chaos on 1/1/2000. But we did prepare. We undoubtedly overprepared, but by how 
much will forever remain a mystery. 

In the 90s Stewart Alsop famously predicted the end of the world. He retreated 
well before the event itself. We all buy insurance that we're thrilled not to 
utilize. That doesn't make it a waste. 

.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW
robin...@sce.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Schuffenhauer, Mark
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 4:07 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: FW: Re: it was 20 years ago today 

I remember all the hype, it really freaked people out.  I know people who quit 
work, liquidated everything and went off grid.  Many non-technical people were 
very concerned it was the end.  Minor non-y2k issues during the first few days 
were blown out of proportion.  Probably because of the scare tactics and 
uncertainty the contracting companies used to get y2k work.

One wonders how much companies paid for y2k work that wasn't needed.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Bill Dodge
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 5:55 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW: Re: it was 20 years ago today 

External Email

I was consulting at Arlington County, Virginia County Government.  My whole 
family was at a friend's house as was our tradition but I had to report to the 
IT Department by 11:30 PM even though I had been running a virtual machine 
whose date had been set to cross the threshold at least 10 times.  We were gone 
by 12:15.



---
Bill Dodge






On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 15:19:52 -0800, Tom Brennan  
wrote:

My oldest was just hitting 5 and couldn't reach the breaker box. But I was at 
work anyway. I'm pretty sure everybody showed up, including the IT dept head. 
There was basically nothing to do. Maybe about 15 minutes after midnight I was 
looking at a console with a couple of managers behind me and I said "Uh oh", 
and wow... they were all over me looking for any kind of problem, probably just 
to have something to report. I think it was a date formatted wrong in a WTO or 
similar - nothing more. That might have been the extent of the Y2K problems I 
remember seeing.

On 1/2/2020 2:52 PM, Phil Smith III wrote:
> Hmm. I sent the post below, doesn't appear to have ever showed up, so 
> retrying!
>
>
>
> From: Phil Smith III
> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2019 9:27 PM
> To: ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today 
>
>
>
>> Has it been 20 years since Y2K?? sometimes it seems like last year, other 
>> times seems like another lifetime .
>
>
>
> How many of us had smartass kids hanging out in the basement who, at 
> 12:00:01, threw the main breaker? I know I did!
>
>
>
> Like many of you, I was on call that night, took the 2AM-10AM shift (at 
> Sterling Software). Around 5AM when it was clear nothing was happening, we 
> got sent home. I did get a nice sweatshirt out of it.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: FW: Re: it was 20 years ago today ....

[Schuffenhauer, Mark]

I remember all the hype, it really freaked people out.  I know people who quit 
work, liquidated everything and went off grid.  Many non-technical people were 
very concerned it was the end.  Minor non-y2k issues during the first few days 
were blown out of proportion.  Probably because of the scare tactics and 
uncertainty the contracting companies used to get y2k work.

One wonders how much companies paid for y2k work that wasn't needed.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Bill Dodge
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 5:55 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW: Re: it was 20 years ago today 

External Email

I was consulting at Arlington County, Virginia County Government.  My whole 
family was at a friend's house as was our tradition but I had to report to the 
IT Department by 11:30 PM even though I had been running a virtual machine 
whose date had been set to cross the threshold at least 10 times.  We were gone 
by 12:15.



---
Bill Dodge






On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 15:19:52 -0800, Tom Brennan  
wrote:

My oldest was just hitting 5 and couldn't reach the breaker box. But I was at 
work anyway. I'm pretty sure everybody showed up, including the IT dept head. 
There was basically nothing to do. Maybe about 15 minutes after midnight I was 
looking at a console with a couple of managers behind me and I said "Uh oh", 
and wow... they were all over me looking for any kind of problem, probably just 
to have something to report. I think it was a date formatted wrong in a WTO or 
similar - nothing more. That might have been the extent of the Y2K problems I 
remember seeing.

On 1/2/2020 2:52 PM, Phil Smith III wrote:
> Hmm. I sent the post below, doesn't appear to have ever showed up, so 
> retrying!
>
>
>
> From: Phil Smith III
> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2019 9:27 PM
> To: ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today 
>
>
>
>> Has it been 20 years since Y2K?? sometimes it seems like last year, other 
>> times seems like another lifetime .
>
>
>
> How many of us had smartass kids hanging out in the basement who, at 
> 12:00:01, threw the main breaker? I know I did!
>
>
>
> Like many of you, I was on call that night, took the 2AM-10AM shift (at 
> Sterling Software). Around 5AM when it was clear nothing was happening, we 
> got sent home. I did get a nice sweatshirt out of it.
>
>
>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
DISCLAIMER: This email and any attachments may contain confidential information 
that is intended solely for use by the intended recipient(s). If you are not 
the intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, 
distributing or using any of the information contained in the communication. If 
you received this email in error, please contact the sender by reply email and 
immediately delete the communication.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: FW: Re: it was 20 years ago today ....

[Bill Dodge]

I was consulting at Arlington County, Virginia County Government.  My whole 
family was at a friend's house as was our tradition but I had to report to the 
IT Department by 11:30 PM even though I had been running a virtual machine 
whose date had been set to cross the threshold at least 10 times.  We were gone 
by 12:15. 

 

---
Bill Dodge






On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 15:19:52 -0800, Tom Brennan  
wrote:

My oldest was just hitting 5 and couldn't reach the breaker box. But I
was at work anyway. I'm pretty sure everybody showed up, including the
IT dept head. There was basically nothing to do. Maybe about 15
minutes after midnight I was looking at a console with a couple of
managers behind me and I said "Uh oh", and wow... they were all over me
looking for any kind of problem, probably just to have something to
report. I think it was a date formatted wrong in a WTO or similar -
nothing more. That might have been the extent of the Y2K problems I
remember seeing.

On 1/2/2020 2:52 PM, Phil Smith III wrote:
> Hmm. I sent the post below, doesn't appear to have ever showed up, so 
> retrying!
>
>
>
> From: Phil Smith III
> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2019 9:27 PM
> To: ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today 
>
>
>
>> Has it been 20 years since Y2K?? sometimes it seems like last year, other 
>> times seems like another lifetime .
>
>
>
> How many of us had smartass kids hanging out in the basement who, at 
> 12:00:01, threw the main breaker? I know I did!
>
>
>
> Like many of you, I was on call that night, took the 2AM-10AM shift (at 
> Sterling Software). Around 5AM when it was clear nothing was happening, we 
> got sent home. I did get a nice sweatshirt out of it.
>
>
>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: FW: Re: it was 20 years ago today ....

[Tom Brennan]

My oldest was just hitting 5 and couldn't reach the breaker box.  But I 
was at work anyway.  I'm pretty sure everybody showed up, including the 
IT dept head.  There was basically nothing to do.  Maybe about 15 
minutes after midnight I was looking at a console with a couple of 
managers behind me and I said "Uh oh", and wow... they were all over me 
looking for any kind of problem, probably just to have something to 
report.  I think it was a date formatted wrong in a WTO or similar - 
nothing more.  That might have been the extent of the Y2K problems I 
remember seeing.


On 1/2/2020 2:52 PM, Phil Smith III wrote:

Hmm. I sent the post below, doesn't appear to have ever showed up, so retrying!

  


From: Phil Smith III
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2019 9:27 PM
To: ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu 
Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today 

  


Has it been 20 years since Y2K?? sometimes it seems like last year, other times 
seems like another lifetime .


  


How many of us had smartass kids hanging out in the basement who, at 12:00:01, 
threw the main breaker? I know I did!

  


Like many of you, I was on call that night, took the 2AM-10AM shift (at 
Sterling Software). Around 5AM when it was clear nothing was happening, we got 
sent home. I did get a nice sweatshirt out of it.

  



--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN




--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: it was 20 years ago today

[Jesse 1 Robinson]

I would say that windowing was the nearly universal remediation for Y2K. How 
that window was defined and implemented varied by shop. But yes, the problem of 
handling windowing in the future is real. I think that most shops 'decided' 
somewhere up the line that windowing was a temporary workaround pending a 
permanent fix. Temporary workarounds live forever, especially this one because 
Y2K funding has long since disappeared from everyone's budget.  But the window 
has to get moved along from time to time. 

Two things.

1. Creating and maintaining windowing is almost entirely an application issue. 
I never heard of a single system-level windowing fix. Each shop had to decide 
for itself on the appropriate window boundaries and how to handle in-window and 
out-window cases.

2. Until a permanent fix is implemented--changing all dates to fully 
qualified--it's incumbent on the survivors to document the windowing process 
remaining in place. I honestly don't know what our apps folx did, but we do 
have an ancient universal date routine that most apps call for any date-related 
issue. That may have been used.  

.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW
robin...@sce.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
McCabe, Ron
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:14 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: it was 20 years ago today

From what I'm finding in our shop the date century window was 20 and it just 
got bumped up to 30...so in ten years we will have to go through this again and 
no will remember about it.

Thanks,
Ron McCabe
Manager of Mainframe/Midrange Systems
Mutual of Enumclaw


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Chris Hoelscher
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:04 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today

In our shop it was 69 for date century windowing .

Thank You,
Chris Hoelscher| Lead Database Administrator | IBM Global Technical Services| T 
502.476.2538  or 502.407.7266

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
McCabe, Ron
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 3:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] it was 20 years ago today

Question about how the year 2000 was handled as we just got hit by a major date 
problem.  I remember that one way to handle the date comparisons was to have 
all the years from 00-19 (or something greater than 19) have a high value so it 
would be greater than the 1990's.  Does anyone remember that?  Was it something 
IBM did although I don't recall putting on any patches for something like that 
so I'm thinking it was something we did.

Thanks,
Ron McCabe
Manager of Mainframe/Midrange Systems
Mutual of Enumclaw


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Wayne Bickerdike
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 11:14 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today

The tale has many variations. Unlikely to have been Bessie Braddock. WC died in 
1965 and was out of politics. It was reputed to be Lady Astor.

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 05:03 Seymour J Metz  wrote:

> To put it in context, WC called her ugly *before* she called him drunk.
>
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on 
> behalf of Nightwatch RenBand 
> Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 11:06 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today
>
> Hey, Rupert!
> Winston Churchill and the British politician Bessie Braddock.
> Braddock encountered an intoxicated Churchill and said “Sir, you are 
> drunk.”
> He replied:And you, Bessie, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the 
> morning, and you will still be ugly.
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

FW: Re: it was 20 years ago today ....

[Phil Smith III]

Hmm. I sent the post below, doesn't appear to have ever showed up, so retrying!

 

From: Phil Smith III 
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2019 9:27 PM
To: ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu  
Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today 

 

> Has it been 20 years since Y2K?? sometimes it seems like last year, other 
> times seems like another lifetime .

 

How many of us had smartass kids hanging out in the basement who, at 12:00:01, 
threw the main breaker? I know I did!

 

Like many of you, I was on call that night, took the 2AM-10AM shift (at 
Sterling Software). Around 5AM when it was clear nothing was happening, we got 
sent home. I did get a nice sweatshirt out of it.

 


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: it was 20 years ago today

[Seymour J Metz]

IBM provided PTFs for IBM's code, not for customer-written applications. Of 
course, you could contract with IBM to help, but the updates would not come in 
the form of PTFs.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3



From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
McCabe, Ron 
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 4:10 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today

Several "hacks"?  Were any of these "hacks" provided by IBM in the form of a 
PTF?

Thanks,
Ron McCabe
Manager of Mainframe/Midrange Systems
Mutual of Enumclaw


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Seymour J Metz
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:00 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today

There were several hacks; one was to change the interpretation of a binary  XL1 
or H, or a decimal, PL2 field from "last two digits" to "offset from 1900".


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=02%7C01%7Crmccabe%40MUTUALOFENUMCLAW.COM%7Cc50e14882b7540a38c9408d78fc6c604%7C5a381f7dcc3d4a93b2cbd2fd072e535a%7C1%7C0%7C637135956219215589sdata=2IKGguhb6ElhN9ofIVvZrpYfwFhQXzQyLRZ3sCVTVMg%3Dreserved=0



From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
McCabe, Ron 
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 3:49 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today

Question about how the year 2000 was handled as we just got hit by a major date 
problem.  I remember that one way to handle the date comparisons was to have 
all the years from 00-19 (or something greater than 19) have a high value so it 
would be greater than the 1990's.  Does anyone remember that?  Was it something 
IBM did although I don't recall putting on any patches for something like that 
so I'm thinking it was something we did.

Thanks,
Ron McCabe
Manager of Mainframe/Midrange Systems
Mutual of Enumclaw


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Wayne Bickerdike
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 11:14 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today

The tale has many variations. Unlikely to have been Bessie Braddock. WC died in 
1965 and was out of politics. It was reputed to be Lady Astor.

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 05:03 Seymour J Metz  wrote:

> To put it in context, WC called her ugly *before* she called him drunk.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.g
> mu.edu%2F~smetz3data=02%7C01%7Crmccabe%40MUTUALOFENUMCLAW.COM%7Ca
> 5aa0fd43f984a353e7908d78fb7f167%7C5a381f7dcc3d4a93b2cbd2fd072e535a%7C1
> %7C0%7C637135892512149457sdata=XQ0p8EtwOY8eQKAZZ5mVHuyWkk0PVQOAYC
> nk55KHbWA%3Dreserved=0
>
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on
> behalf of Nightwatch RenBand 
> Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 11:06 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today
>
> Hey, Rupert!
> Winston Churchill and the British politician Bessie Braddock.
> Braddock encountered an intoxicated Churchill and said "Sir, you are
> drunk."
> He replied:And you, Bessie, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the
> morning, and you will still be ugly.
>
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsecu
> re-web.cisco.com%2F1OFrGwpGH70rWFs-EMrAUGN6jEySb0De7a6s2QRo2CooV41jBvU
> wt2DA-wvlsUv6Vkl8hQLFeQp838B2YxYNm3bXQYrUEDUbqL6uv0OdtAPbTmK3ntDdPqErj
> -pFyEwMc2ikZQl6Ec00T3S33_smVePsYfwcTRaZY7iKJQBPR83YKqmrpH11xvZ0VdPiqzb
> 3aKAvwkdBC8VF9tCr_ZuzEqFowOpI4HBGUkOfwka_WOra-l-jpRsX-4P_wDQHNN-kLvdk0
> 9SuCPE8frNDO6BQ3sW0IbNQsCgfD2pbyw8VT0Mc5Y8qSciQg7vVLkK0XeqjFG8PIL9f9yu
> gazObaPkSXhjVMJOP75CzEZ9UaneUrfag2vOvmBVI6JVU9ITlkvA3V%2Fhttps%253A%25
> 2F%252Fquoteinvestigator.com%252F2011%252F08%252F17%252Fsober-tomorrow
> %252Fdata=02%7C01%7Crmccabe%40MUTUALOFENUMCLAW.COM%7Ca5aa0fd43f98
> 4a353e7908d78fb7f167%7C5a381f7dcc3d4a93b2cbd2fd072e535a%7C1%7C0%7C6371
> 35892512149457sdata=w0kMpv2c7bqfh1LXpaS30lU9BQMTS%2B69tIbENs1tA9U
> %3Dreserved=0
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN Confidentiality 
Notice: This e- mail and all attachments may contain CONFIDENTIAL information 
and are meant solely for the intended recipient. It may contain controlled, 
privileged, or 

Re: Dynamic and static linked COBOL programs

[Allan Kielstra]

Actually, you can still do DYNAMic call with call literal.  CALL 'ABC" can 
still be DYNAM.

Mostly good news:  If you look around page 405 of the Version 6.3 PG (and there 
is a corresponding page for previous versions of the compiler) you will find a 
description of INFO BYTES.  Offset 8, bit 5 tells you if DYNAM was specified.  
(Also offset 43 bit 2 tells you if DLL was specified.)

Slightly bad news:  a few releases ago, we added the >>CALLINTERFACE directive. 
 That means that even if you compile with NODYNAM (i.e., static link) 
individual calls can be DYNAM calls.  The INFO BYTES settings record only the 
global compile options and not the compiler directive overrides.  (But for many 
users -- maybe including you -- it won't really matter.)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: it was 20 years ago today

[Schuffenhauer, Mark]

For my y2k night, we were expected to be onsite, at the place I worked then.  
We had made lists, checked everything twice.  Lot's of hours to prepare, it 
felt like a marathon with the finish line in sight.

That morning, I started to feel tired and run down, I took a nap in the 
afternoon and woke up super sick, running a fever and other assorted unpleasant 
things.  I dragged myself to work,   Very little happened, had to look at one 
unrelated thing and test a few things out.   Mostly I slept.

We had a program that was called to handle dates. most dates were 3 or 4 char, 
so it didn't matter, but the program was called any way.  Our pivot year was 
further out, but I was told:  "it didn't matter because the mainframe was going 
away."  It's still going.

The program pivot year could have been changed.  The problem was solved over 
time and the date fields were expanded, or the work went to something newer.  
It was nice it was an opportunity to get things off OS/VS COBOL and COBOL II.

Mark

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 3:28 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today

External Email

On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 21:14:23 +, McCabe, Ron wrote:

>From what I'm finding in our shop the date century window was 20 and it just 
>got bumped up to 30...so in ten years we will have to go through this again 
>and no will remember about it.
>
Dumbness is expanding: in 1965 there was a 30-year window.  In 1999 designers 
settled for 20.

Some places had the foresight to implement a sliding window,
e.g.: (Today-69,Today+30).  There were probably problems when archival data 
unexpectedly slid off the left end.

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
DISCLAIMER: This email and any attachments may contain confidential information 
that is intended solely for use by the intended recipient(s). If you are not 
the intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, 
distributing or using any of the information contained in the communication. If 
you received this email in error, please contact the sender by reply email and 
immediately delete the communication.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Dynamic and static linked COBOL programs

[Savor, Thomas (Alpharetta)]

Look at the code:
If it says:  CALL  'program' using anything  this is a static call.  That 
program is expected to be in CALLers load module.
If it says:  CALL my-program using anything  this is a dynamic call.  That 
program is not in CALLers load module.
Then look for field my-programit has the name of program to be called. 

Thanks,

Tom Savor
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
McCabe, Ron
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 4:23 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Dynamic and static linked COBOL programs

  ⚠ EXTERNAL MESSAGE – Think Before You Click



Hello List,

Is there a way I can tell if a COBOL program was compiled and linked 
dynamically or statically?  Most of our programmers can't tell and there are 
times when they compile and link and static program as dynamic and it causes 
issues when the program is executed.

Thanks,
Ron McCabe
Manager of Mainframe/Midrange Systems
Mutual of Enumclaw


Confidentiality Notice: This e- mail and all attachments may contain 
CONFIDENTIAL information and are meant solely for the intended recipient. It 
may contain controlled, privileged, or proprietary information that is 
protected under applicable law and shall not be disclosed to any unauthorized 
third party. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified 
that any unauthorized review, action, disclosure, distribution, or reproduction 
of any information contained in this e- mail and any attachments is strictly 
PROHIBITED. If you received this e- mail in error, please reply to the sender 
immediately stating that this transmission was misdirected, and delete or 
destroy all electronic and paper copies of this e-mail and attachments without 
disclosing the contents. This e- mail does not grant or assign rights of 
ownership in the proprietary subject matter herein, nor shall it be construed 
as a joint venture, partnership, teaming agreement, or any other formal 
business relationship.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: it was 20 years ago today

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 21:14:23 +, McCabe, Ron wrote:

>From what I'm finding in our shop the date century window was 20 and it just 
>got bumped up to 30...so in ten years we will have to go through this again 
>and no will remember about it.
>
Dumbness is expanding: in 1965 there was a 30-year window.  In 1999
designers settled for 20.

Some places had the foresight to implement a sliding window,
e.g.: (Today-69,Today+30).  There were probably problems
when archival data unexpectedly slid off the left end.

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Dynamic and static linked COBOL programs

[McCabe, Ron]

Hello List,

Is there a way I can tell if a COBOL program was compiled and linked 
dynamically or statically?  Most of our programmers can't tell and there are 
times when they compile and link and static program as dynamic and it causes 
issues when the program is executed.

Thanks,
Ron McCabe
Manager of Mainframe/Midrange Systems
Mutual of Enumclaw


Confidentiality Notice: This e- mail and all attachments may contain 
CONFIDENTIAL information and are meant solely for the intended recipient. It 
may contain controlled, privileged, or proprietary information that is 
protected under applicable law and shall not be disclosed to any unauthorized 
third party. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified 
that any unauthorized review, action, disclosure, distribution, or reproduction 
of any information contained in this e- mail and any attachments is strictly 
PROHIBITED. If you received this e- mail in error, please reply to the sender 
immediately stating that this transmission was misdirected, and delete or 
destroy all electronic and paper copies of this e-mail and attachments without 
disclosing the contents. This e- mail does not grant or assign rights of 
ownership in the proprietary subject matter herein, nor shall it be construed 
as a joint venture, partnership, teaming agreement, or any other formal 
business relationship.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: it was 20 years ago today

[McCabe, Ron]

From what I'm finding in our shop the date century window was 20 and it just 
got bumped up to 30...so in ten years we will have to go through this again and 
no will remember about it.

Thanks,
Ron McCabe
Manager of Mainframe/Midrange Systems
Mutual of Enumclaw


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Chris Hoelscher
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:04 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today

In our shop it was 69 for date century windowing .

Thank You,
Chris Hoelscher| Lead Database Administrator | IBM Global Technical Services| T 
502.476.2538  or 502.407.7266

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
McCabe, Ron
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 3:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] it was 20 years ago today

Question about how the year 2000 was handled as we just got hit by a major date 
problem.  I remember that one way to handle the date comparisons was to have 
all the years from 00-19 (or something greater than 19) have a high value so it 
would be greater than the 1990's.  Does anyone remember that?  Was it something 
IBM did although I don't recall putting on any patches for something like that 
so I'm thinking it was something we did.

Thanks,
Ron McCabe
Manager of Mainframe/Midrange Systems
Mutual of Enumclaw


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Wayne Bickerdike
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 11:14 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today

The tale has many variations. Unlikely to have been Bessie Braddock. WC died in 
1965 and was out of politics. It was reputed to be Lady Astor.

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 05:03 Seymour J Metz  wrote:

> To put it in context, WC called her ugly *before* she called him drunk.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.g
> mu.edu%2F~smetz3data=02%7C01%7Crmccabe%40MUTUALOFENUMCLAW.COM%7Ca
> 5aa0fd43f984a353e7908d78fb7f167%7C5a381f7dcc3d4a93b2cbd2fd072e535a%7C1
> %7C0%7C637135892512149457sdata=XQ0p8EtwOY8eQKAZZ5mVHuyWkk0PVQOAYC
> nk55KHbWA%3Dreserved=0
>
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on
> behalf of Nightwatch RenBand 
> Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 11:06 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today
>
> Hey, Rupert!
> Winston Churchill and the British politician Bessie Braddock.
> Braddock encountered an intoxicated Churchill and said “Sir, you are
> drunk.”
> He replied:And you, Bessie, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the
> morning, and you will still be ugly.
>
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsecu
> re-web.cisco.com%2F1OFrGwpGH70rWFs-EMrAUGN6jEySb0De7a6s2QRo2CooV41jBvU
> wt2DA-wvlsUv6Vkl8hQLFeQp838B2YxYNm3bXQYrUEDUbqL6uv0OdtAPbTmK3ntDdPqErj
> -pFyEwMc2ikZQl6Ec00T3S33_smVePsYfwcTRaZY7iKJQBPR83YKqmrpH11xvZ0VdPiqzb
> 3aKAvwkdBC8VF9tCr_ZuzEqFowOpI4HBGUkOfwka_WOra-l-jpRsX-4P_wDQHNN-kLvdk0
> 9SuCPE8frNDO6BQ3sW0IbNQsCgfD2pbyw8VT0Mc5Y8qSciQg7vVLkK0XeqjFG8PIL9f9yu
> gazObaPkSXhjVMJOP75CzEZ9UaneUrfag2vOvmBVI6JVU9ITlkvA3V%2Fhttps%253A%25
> 2F%252Fquoteinvestigator.com%252F2011%252F08%252F17%252Fsober-tomorrow
> %252Fdata=02%7C01%7Crmccabe%40MUTUALOFENUMCLAW.COM%7Ca5aa0fd43f98
> 4a353e7908d78fb7f167%7C5a381f7dcc3d4a93b2cbd2fd072e535a%7C1%7C0%7C6371
> 35892512149457sdata=w0kMpv2c7bqfh1LXpaS30lU9BQMTS%2B69tIbENs1tA9U
> %3Dreserved=0
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN Confidentiality 
Notice: This e- mail and all attachments may contain CONFIDENTIAL information 
and are meant solely for the intended recipient. It may contain controlled, 
privileged, or proprietary information that is protected under applicable law 
and shall not be disclosed to any unauthorized third party. If you are not the 
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, 
action, disclosure, distribution, or reproduction of any information contained 
in this e- mail and any attachments is strictly PROHIBITED. If you received 
this e- mail in error, please reply to the sender immediately stating that this 
transmission was misdirected, and delete or destroy all electronic and paper 
copies of this e-mail and attachments without disclosing the contents. This e- 
mail does not grant or assign rights of 

Re: it was 20 years ago today

[McCabe, Ron]

Several "hacks"?  Were any of these "hacks" provided by IBM in the form of a 
PTF?

Thanks,
Ron McCabe
Manager of Mainframe/Midrange Systems
Mutual of Enumclaw


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Seymour J Metz
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:00 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today

There were several hacks; one was to change the interpretation of a binary  XL1 
or H, or a decimal, PL2 field from "last two digits" to "offset from 1900".


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=02%7C01%7Crmccabe%40MUTUALOFENUMCLAW.COM%7Cc50e14882b7540a38c9408d78fc6c604%7C5a381f7dcc3d4a93b2cbd2fd072e535a%7C1%7C0%7C637135956219215589sdata=2IKGguhb6ElhN9ofIVvZrpYfwFhQXzQyLRZ3sCVTVMg%3Dreserved=0



From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
McCabe, Ron 
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 3:49 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today

Question about how the year 2000 was handled as we just got hit by a major date 
problem.  I remember that one way to handle the date comparisons was to have 
all the years from 00-19 (or something greater than 19) have a high value so it 
would be greater than the 1990's.  Does anyone remember that?  Was it something 
IBM did although I don't recall putting on any patches for something like that 
so I'm thinking it was something we did.

Thanks,
Ron McCabe
Manager of Mainframe/Midrange Systems
Mutual of Enumclaw


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Wayne Bickerdike
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 11:14 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today

The tale has many variations. Unlikely to have been Bessie Braddock. WC died in 
1965 and was out of politics. It was reputed to be Lady Astor.

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 05:03 Seymour J Metz  wrote:

> To put it in context, WC called her ugly *before* she called him drunk.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.g
> mu.edu%2F~smetz3data=02%7C01%7Crmccabe%40MUTUALOFENUMCLAW.COM%7Ca
> 5aa0fd43f984a353e7908d78fb7f167%7C5a381f7dcc3d4a93b2cbd2fd072e535a%7C1
> %7C0%7C637135892512149457sdata=XQ0p8EtwOY8eQKAZZ5mVHuyWkk0PVQOAYC
> nk55KHbWA%3Dreserved=0
>
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on
> behalf of Nightwatch RenBand 
> Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 11:06 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today
>
> Hey, Rupert!
> Winston Churchill and the British politician Bessie Braddock.
> Braddock encountered an intoxicated Churchill and said "Sir, you are
> drunk."
> He replied:And you, Bessie, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the
> morning, and you will still be ugly.
>
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsecu
> re-web.cisco.com%2F1OFrGwpGH70rWFs-EMrAUGN6jEySb0De7a6s2QRo2CooV41jBvU
> wt2DA-wvlsUv6Vkl8hQLFeQp838B2YxYNm3bXQYrUEDUbqL6uv0OdtAPbTmK3ntDdPqErj
> -pFyEwMc2ikZQl6Ec00T3S33_smVePsYfwcTRaZY7iKJQBPR83YKqmrpH11xvZ0VdPiqzb
> 3aKAvwkdBC8VF9tCr_ZuzEqFowOpI4HBGUkOfwka_WOra-l-jpRsX-4P_wDQHNN-kLvdk0
> 9SuCPE8frNDO6BQ3sW0IbNQsCgfD2pbyw8VT0Mc5Y8qSciQg7vVLkK0XeqjFG8PIL9f9yu
> gazObaPkSXhjVMJOP75CzEZ9UaneUrfag2vOvmBVI6JVU9ITlkvA3V%2Fhttps%253A%25
> 2F%252Fquoteinvestigator.com%252F2011%252F08%252F17%252Fsober-tomorrow
> %252Fdata=02%7C01%7Crmccabe%40MUTUALOFENUMCLAW.COM%7Ca5aa0fd43f98
> 4a353e7908d78fb7f167%7C5a381f7dcc3d4a93b2cbd2fd072e535a%7C1%7C0%7C6371
> 35892512149457sdata=w0kMpv2c7bqfh1LXpaS30lU9BQMTS%2B69tIbENs1tA9U
> %3Dreserved=0
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN Confidentiality 
Notice: This e- mail and all attachments may contain CONFIDENTIAL information 
and are meant solely for the intended recipient. It may contain controlled, 
privileged, or proprietary information that is protected under applicable law 
and shall not be disclosed to any unauthorized third party. If you are not the 
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, 
action, disclosure, distribution, or reproduction of any information contained 
in this e- mail and any attachments is strictly PROHIBITED. If you received 
this e- mail in error, please reply to the sender immediately stating that this 

Re: it was 20 years ago today

[Pommier, Rex]

Hi Ron,

I think the rolling century was implemented at a lot of places.  IIRC, didn't 
DFSort have something like that as well as SAS?  The company I was at over Y2K 
went through and converted everything to 4 digit years.  I believe the one I'm 
with now did the same thing.

Rex

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
McCabe, Ron
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 2:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [External] Re: it was 20 years ago today

Question about how the year 2000 was handled as we just got hit by a major date 
problem.  I remember that one way to handle the date comparisons was to have 
all the years from 00-19 (or something greater than 19) have a high value so it 
would be greater than the 1990's.  Does anyone remember that?  Was it something 
IBM did although I don't recall putting on any patches for something like that 
so I'm thinking it was something we did.

Thanks,
Ron McCabe
Manager of Mainframe/Midrange Systems
Mutual of Enumclaw


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Wayne Bickerdike
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 11:14 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today

The tale has many variations. Unlikely to have been Bessie Braddock. WC died in 
1965 and was out of politics. It was reputed to be Lady Astor.

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 05:03 Seymour J Metz  wrote:

> To put it in context, WC called her ugly *before* she called him drunk.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.g
> mu.edu%2F~smetz3data=02%7C01%7Crmccabe%40MUTUALOFENUMCLAW.COM%7Ca
> 5aa0fd43f984a353e7908d78fb7f167%7C5a381f7dcc3d4a93b2cbd2fd072e535a%7C1
> %7C0%7C637135892512149457sdata=XQ0p8EtwOY8eQKAZZ5mVHuyWkk0PVQOAYC
> nk55KHbWA%3Dreserved=0
>
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on 
> behalf of Nightwatch RenBand 
> Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 11:06 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today
>
> Hey, Rupert!
> Winston Churchill and the British politician Bessie Braddock.
> Braddock encountered an intoxicated Churchill and said “Sir, you are 
> drunk.”
> He replied:And you, Bessie, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the 
> morning, and you will still be ugly.
>
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsecu
> re-web.cisco.com%2F1OFrGwpGH70rWFs-EMrAUGN6jEySb0De7a6s2QRo2CooV41jBvU
> wt2DA-wvlsUv6Vkl8hQLFeQp838B2YxYNm3bXQYrUEDUbqL6uv0OdtAPbTmK3ntDdPqErj
> -pFyEwMc2ikZQl6Ec00T3S33_smVePsYfwcTRaZY7iKJQBPR83YKqmrpH11xvZ0VdPiqzb
> 3aKAvwkdBC8VF9tCr_ZuzEqFowOpI4HBGUkOfwka_WOra-l-jpRsX-4P_wDQHNN-kLvdk0
> 9SuCPE8frNDO6BQ3sW0IbNQsCgfD2pbyw8VT0Mc5Y8qSciQg7vVLkK0XeqjFG8PIL9f9yu
> gazObaPkSXhjVMJOP75CzEZ9UaneUrfag2vOvmBVI6JVU9ITlkvA3V%2Fhttps%253A%25
> 2F%252Fquoteinvestigator.com%252F2011%252F08%252F17%252Fsober-tomorrow
> %252Fdata=02%7C01%7Crmccabe%40MUTUALOFENUMCLAW.COM%7Ca5aa0fd43f98
> 4a353e7908d78fb7f167%7C5a381f7dcc3d4a93b2cbd2fd072e535a%7C1%7C0%7C6371
> 35892512149457sdata=w0kMpv2c7bqfh1LXpaS30lU9BQMTS%2B69tIbENs1tA9U
> %3Dreserved=0
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send 
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send 
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN Confidentiality 
Notice: This e- mail and all attachments may contain CONFIDENTIAL information 
and are meant solely for the intended recipient. It may contain controlled, 
privileged, or proprietary information that is protected under applicable law 
and shall not be disclosed to any unauthorized third party. If you are not the 
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, 
action, disclosure, distribution, or reproduction of any information contained 
in this e- mail and any attachments is strictly PROHIBITED. If you received 
this e- mail in error, please reply to the sender immediately stating that this 
transmission was misdirected, and delete or destroy all electronic and paper 
copies of this e-mail and attachments without disclosing the contents. This e- 
mail does not grant or assign rights of ownership in the proprietary subject 
matter herein, nor shall it be construed as a joint venture, partnership, 
teaming agreement, or any other formal business relationship.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the 

Re: it was 20 years ago today

[Chris Hoelscher]

In our shop it was 69 for date century windowing .

Thank You,
Chris Hoelscher| Lead Database Administrator | IBM Global Technical Services| T 
502.476.2538  or 502.407.7266

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
McCabe, Ron
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 3:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] it was 20 years ago today

Question about how the year 2000 was handled as we just got hit by a major date 
problem.  I remember that one way to handle the date comparisons was to have 
all the years from 00-19 (or something greater than 19) have a high value so it 
would be greater than the 1990's.  Does anyone remember that?  Was it something 
IBM did although I don't recall putting on any patches for something like that 
so I'm thinking it was something we did.

Thanks,
Ron McCabe
Manager of Mainframe/Midrange Systems
Mutual of Enumclaw


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Wayne Bickerdike
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 11:14 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today

The tale has many variations. Unlikely to have been Bessie Braddock. WC died in 
1965 and was out of politics. It was reputed to be Lady Astor.

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 05:03 Seymour J Metz  wrote:

> To put it in context, WC called her ugly *before* she called him drunk.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.g
> mu.edu%2F~smetz3data=02%7C01%7Crmccabe%40MUTUALOFENUMCLAW.COM%7Ca
> 5aa0fd43f984a353e7908d78fb7f167%7C5a381f7dcc3d4a93b2cbd2fd072e535a%7C1
> %7C0%7C637135892512149457sdata=XQ0p8EtwOY8eQKAZZ5mVHuyWkk0PVQOAYC
> nk55KHbWA%3Dreserved=0
>
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on 
> behalf of Nightwatch RenBand 
> Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 11:06 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today
>
> Hey, Rupert!
> Winston Churchill and the British politician Bessie Braddock.
> Braddock encountered an intoxicated Churchill and said “Sir, you are 
> drunk.”
> He replied:And you, Bessie, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the 
> morning, and you will still be ugly.
>
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsecu
> re-web.cisco.com%2F1OFrGwpGH70rWFs-EMrAUGN6jEySb0De7a6s2QRo2CooV41jBvU
> wt2DA-wvlsUv6Vkl8hQLFeQp838B2YxYNm3bXQYrUEDUbqL6uv0OdtAPbTmK3ntDdPqErj
> -pFyEwMc2ikZQl6Ec00T3S33_smVePsYfwcTRaZY7iKJQBPR83YKqmrpH11xvZ0VdPiqzb
> 3aKAvwkdBC8VF9tCr_ZuzEqFowOpI4HBGUkOfwka_WOra-l-jpRsX-4P_wDQHNN-kLvdk0
> 9SuCPE8frNDO6BQ3sW0IbNQsCgfD2pbyw8VT0Mc5Y8qSciQg7vVLkK0XeqjFG8PIL9f9yu
> gazObaPkSXhjVMJOP75CzEZ9UaneUrfag2vOvmBVI6JVU9ITlkvA3V%2Fhttps%253A%25
> 2F%252Fquoteinvestigator.com%252F2011%252F08%252F17%252Fsober-tomorrow
> %252Fdata=02%7C01%7Crmccabe%40MUTUALOFENUMCLAW.COM%7Ca5aa0fd43f98
> 4a353e7908d78fb7f167%7C5a381f7dcc3d4a93b2cbd2fd072e535a%7C1%7C0%7C6371
> 35892512149457sdata=w0kMpv2c7bqfh1LXpaS30lU9BQMTS%2B69tIbENs1tA9U
> %3Dreserved=0
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send 
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send 
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN Confidentiality 
Notice: This e- mail and all attachments may contain CONFIDENTIAL information 
and are meant solely for the intended recipient. It may contain controlled, 
privileged, or proprietary information that is protected under applicable law 
and shall not be disclosed to any unauthorized third party. If you are not the 
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, 
action, disclosure, distribution, or reproduction of any information contained 
in this e- mail and any attachments is strictly PROHIBITED. If you received 
this e- mail in error, please reply to the sender immediately stating that this 
transmission was misdirected, and delete or destroy all electronic and paper 
copies of this e-mail and attachments without disclosing the contents. This e- 
mail does not grant or assign rights of ownership in the proprietary subject 
matter herein, nor shall it be construed as a joint venture, partnership, 
teaming agreement, or any other formal business relationship.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which 
it 

Re: it was 20 years ago today

[Seymour J Metz]

There were several hacks; one was to change the interpretation of a binary  XL1 
or H, or a decimal, PL2 field from "last two digits" to "offset from 1900". 


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3



From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
McCabe, Ron 
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 3:49 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today

Question about how the year 2000 was handled as we just got hit by a major date 
problem.  I remember that one way to handle the date comparisons was to have 
all the years from 00-19 (or something greater than 19) have a high value so it 
would be greater than the 1990's.  Does anyone remember that?  Was it something 
IBM did although I don't recall putting on any patches for something like that 
so I'm thinking it was something we did.

Thanks,
Ron McCabe
Manager of Mainframe/Midrange Systems
Mutual of Enumclaw


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Wayne Bickerdike
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 11:14 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today

The tale has many variations. Unlikely to have been Bessie Braddock. WC died in 
1965 and was out of politics. It was reputed to be Lady Astor.

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 05:03 Seymour J Metz  wrote:

> To put it in context, WC called her ugly *before* she called him drunk.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.g
> mu.edu%2F~smetz3data=02%7C01%7Crmccabe%40MUTUALOFENUMCLAW.COM%7Ca
> 5aa0fd43f984a353e7908d78fb7f167%7C5a381f7dcc3d4a93b2cbd2fd072e535a%7C1
> %7C0%7C637135892512149457sdata=XQ0p8EtwOY8eQKAZZ5mVHuyWkk0PVQOAYC
> nk55KHbWA%3Dreserved=0
>
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on
> behalf of Nightwatch RenBand 
> Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 11:06 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today
>
> Hey, Rupert!
> Winston Churchill and the British politician Bessie Braddock.
> Braddock encountered an intoxicated Churchill and said “Sir, you are
> drunk.”
> He replied:And you, Bessie, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the
> morning, and you will still be ugly.
>
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsecu
> re-web.cisco.com%2F1OFrGwpGH70rWFs-EMrAUGN6jEySb0De7a6s2QRo2CooV41jBvU
> wt2DA-wvlsUv6Vkl8hQLFeQp838B2YxYNm3bXQYrUEDUbqL6uv0OdtAPbTmK3ntDdPqErj
> -pFyEwMc2ikZQl6Ec00T3S33_smVePsYfwcTRaZY7iKJQBPR83YKqmrpH11xvZ0VdPiqzb
> 3aKAvwkdBC8VF9tCr_ZuzEqFowOpI4HBGUkOfwka_WOra-l-jpRsX-4P_wDQHNN-kLvdk0
> 9SuCPE8frNDO6BQ3sW0IbNQsCgfD2pbyw8VT0Mc5Y8qSciQg7vVLkK0XeqjFG8PIL9f9yu
> gazObaPkSXhjVMJOP75CzEZ9UaneUrfag2vOvmBVI6JVU9ITlkvA3V%2Fhttps%253A%25
> 2F%252Fquoteinvestigator.com%252F2011%252F08%252F17%252Fsober-tomorrow
> %252Fdata=02%7C01%7Crmccabe%40MUTUALOFENUMCLAW.COM%7Ca5aa0fd43f98
> 4a353e7908d78fb7f167%7C5a381f7dcc3d4a93b2cbd2fd072e535a%7C1%7C0%7C6371
> 35892512149457sdata=w0kMpv2c7bqfh1LXpaS30lU9BQMTS%2B69tIbENs1tA9U
> %3Dreserved=0
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Confidentiality Notice: This e- mail and all attachments may contain 
CONFIDENTIAL information and are meant solely for the intended recipient. It 
may contain controlled, privileged, or proprietary information that is 
protected under applicable law and shall not be disclosed to any unauthorized 
third party. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified 
that any unauthorized review, action, disclosure, distribution, or reproduction 
of any information contained in this e- mail and any attachments is strictly 
PROHIBITED. If you received this e- mail in error, please reply to the sender 
immediately stating that this transmission was misdirected, and delete or 
destroy all electronic and paper copies of this e-mail and attachments without 
disclosing the contents. This e- mail does not grant or assign rights of 
ownership in the proprietary subject matter herein, nor shall it be construed 
as a joint venture, partnership, teaming agreement, or any other formal 
business relationship.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: it was 20 years ago today

[McCabe, Ron]

Question about how the year 2000 was handled as we just got hit by a major date 
problem.  I remember that one way to handle the date comparisons was to have 
all the years from 00-19 (or something greater than 19) have a high value so it 
would be greater than the 1990's.  Does anyone remember that?  Was it something 
IBM did although I don't recall putting on any patches for something like that 
so I'm thinking it was something we did.

Thanks,
Ron McCabe
Manager of Mainframe/Midrange Systems
Mutual of Enumclaw


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Wayne Bickerdike
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 11:14 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today

The tale has many variations. Unlikely to have been Bessie Braddock. WC died in 
1965 and was out of politics. It was reputed to be Lady Astor.

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 05:03 Seymour J Metz  wrote:

> To put it in context, WC called her ugly *before* she called him drunk.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.g
> mu.edu%2F~smetz3data=02%7C01%7Crmccabe%40MUTUALOFENUMCLAW.COM%7Ca
> 5aa0fd43f984a353e7908d78fb7f167%7C5a381f7dcc3d4a93b2cbd2fd072e535a%7C1
> %7C0%7C637135892512149457sdata=XQ0p8EtwOY8eQKAZZ5mVHuyWkk0PVQOAYC
> nk55KHbWA%3Dreserved=0
>
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on
> behalf of Nightwatch RenBand 
> Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 11:06 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today
>
> Hey, Rupert!
> Winston Churchill and the British politician Bessie Braddock.
> Braddock encountered an intoxicated Churchill and said “Sir, you are
> drunk.”
> He replied:And you, Bessie, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the
> morning, and you will still be ugly.
>
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsecu
> re-web.cisco.com%2F1OFrGwpGH70rWFs-EMrAUGN6jEySb0De7a6s2QRo2CooV41jBvU
> wt2DA-wvlsUv6Vkl8hQLFeQp838B2YxYNm3bXQYrUEDUbqL6uv0OdtAPbTmK3ntDdPqErj
> -pFyEwMc2ikZQl6Ec00T3S33_smVePsYfwcTRaZY7iKJQBPR83YKqmrpH11xvZ0VdPiqzb
> 3aKAvwkdBC8VF9tCr_ZuzEqFowOpI4HBGUkOfwka_WOra-l-jpRsX-4P_wDQHNN-kLvdk0
> 9SuCPE8frNDO6BQ3sW0IbNQsCgfD2pbyw8VT0Mc5Y8qSciQg7vVLkK0XeqjFG8PIL9f9yu
> gazObaPkSXhjVMJOP75CzEZ9UaneUrfag2vOvmBVI6JVU9ITlkvA3V%2Fhttps%253A%25
> 2F%252Fquoteinvestigator.com%252F2011%252F08%252F17%252Fsober-tomorrow
> %252Fdata=02%7C01%7Crmccabe%40MUTUALOFENUMCLAW.COM%7Ca5aa0fd43f98
> 4a353e7908d78fb7f167%7C5a381f7dcc3d4a93b2cbd2fd072e535a%7C1%7C0%7C6371
> 35892512149457sdata=w0kMpv2c7bqfh1LXpaS30lU9BQMTS%2B69tIbENs1tA9U
> %3Dreserved=0
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Confidentiality Notice: This e- mail and all attachments may contain 
CONFIDENTIAL information and are meant solely for the intended recipient. It 
may contain controlled, privileged, or proprietary information that is 
protected under applicable law and shall not be disclosed to any unauthorized 
third party. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified 
that any unauthorized review, action, disclosure, distribution, or reproduction 
of any information contained in this e- mail and any attachments is strictly 
PROHIBITED. If you received this e- mail in error, please reply to the sender 
immediately stating that this transmission was misdirected, and delete or 
destroy all electronic and paper copies of this e-mail and attachments without 
disclosing the contents. This e- mail does not grant or assign rights of 
ownership in the proprietary subject matter herein, nor shall it be construed 
as a joint venture, partnership, teaming agreement, or any other formal 
business relationship.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: it was 20 years ago today

[Wayne Bickerdike]

The tale has many variations. Unlikely to have been Bessie Braddock. WC
died in 1965 and was out of politics. It was reputed to be Lady Astor.

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 05:03 Seymour J Metz  wrote:

> To put it in context, WC called her ugly *before* she called him drunk.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf
> of Nightwatch RenBand 
> Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 11:06 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today
>
> Hey, Rupert!
> Winston Churchill and the British politician Bessie Braddock.
> Braddock encountered an intoxicated Churchill and said “Sir, you are
> drunk.”
> He replied:And you, Bessie, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the morning,
> and you will still be ugly.
>
> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1OFrGwpGH70rWFs-EMrAUGN6jEySb0De7a6s2QRo2CooV41jBvUwt2DA-wvlsUv6Vkl8hQLFeQp838B2YxYNm3bXQYrUEDUbqL6uv0OdtAPbTmK3ntDdPqErj-pFyEwMc2ikZQl6Ec00T3S33_smVePsYfwcTRaZY7iKJQBPR83YKqmrpH11xvZ0VdPiqzb3aKAvwkdBC8VF9tCr_ZuzEqFowOpI4HBGUkOfwka_WOra-l-jpRsX-4P_wDQHNN-kLvdk09SuCPE8frNDO6BQ3sW0IbNQsCgfD2pbyw8VT0Mc5Y8qSciQg7vVLkK0XeqjFG8PIL9f9yugazObaPkSXhjVMJOP75CzEZ9UaneUrfag2vOvmBVI6JVU9ITlkvA3V/https%3A%2F%2Fquoteinvestigator.com%2F2011%2F08%2F17%2Fsober-tomorrow%2F
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Chaning time zone for Unix based tasks

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:23:29 -0600, Kirk Wolf wrote:
>See this five year old RFE (where requirements go to die):
>https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe_ID=59716
>
A couple further thoughts (it's probably discourteous to amend an RFE ex post 
facto):
POSIX says:  
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/tzset.html#tag_16_629_03
DESCRIPTION  ... If TZ is absent from the environment, 
implementation-defined
default timezone information shall be used..

It might be less disruptive to blind-dubbed processes not to set TZ but to
use "implementation-defined default timezone information".  A couple OSes
I know do this as follows:

528 $ uname -a; ls -l /etc/localtime
Darwin PaulGilm.wifi.belezacoffeebar.com 18.7.0 Darwin Kernel Version 
18.7.0: Tue Aug 20 16:57:14 PDT 2019; root:xnu-4903.271.2~2/RELEASE_X86_64 
x86_64
lrwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  40 Nov 23 11:46 /etc/localtime -> 
/var/db/timezone/zoneinfo/America/Denver

1064 $ uname -a; ls -l /etc/localtime
Linux Bunsen5-PG 4.9.0-11-686-pae #1 SMP Debian 4.9.189-3+deb9u2 
(2019-11-11) i686 GNU/Linux
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 34 Sep 18 18:35 /etc/localtime -> 
/usr/share/zoneinfo/America/Denver

z/OS might just use the value in BPXPRMxx but not set TZ.

And:  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8536#section-3.3
3.3.  TZif Footer
   The TZif footer is structured as follows (the lengths of multi-octet
   fields are shown in parentheses):

  +---++---+
  | NL|  TZ string (0...)  |NL |
  +---++---+
TZif Footer
   The elements of the footer are defined as follows:
   TZ string:  ... e as defined in Section 8.3 of the "Base
  Definitions" volume of [POSIX] with ASCII encoding

Elsewhere I found suggestions that an implementation might rely only
on the  TZif Footer (with reduced function) to avoid greater code
changes or performance impacts, or install only the footers to save
storage.

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Enterprise COBOL 6.3 and IBM Programmer Tools

[Frank Swarbrick]

I believe this is more of a limitation of CICS itself and not COBOL.  Neither 
C/C++ nor PL/I 64-bit applications are supported under CICS.  Even for 
assembler only non-LE programs are allowed to use AMODE(64).


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Savor, Thomas (Alpharetta) 
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:39 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: Enterprise COBOL 6.3 and IBM Programmer Tools

If I read the Manual correctly, only Batch is 64-bit supported.  CICS is not 
64-bit supported.
I have many DB2 programs that run Batch and Online, so I guess they will have 
to be forced to run as 31-bit.

Thanks,

Tom Savor
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Charles Mills
Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2019 2:57 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Enterprise COBOL 6.3 and IBM Programmer Tools

  ⚠ EXTERNAL MESSAGE – Think Before You Click



A wild guess is that a debugger will need significant upgrades to support 
64-bit storage, a key feature of COBOL 6.3 as I understand things.

Charles


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: it was 20 years ago today

[Seymour J Metz]

To put it in context, WC called her ugly *before* she called him drunk.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3



From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Nightwatch RenBand 
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 11:06 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today

Hey, Rupert!
Winston Churchill and the British politician Bessie Braddock.
Braddock encountered an intoxicated Churchill and said “Sir, you are
drunk.”
He replied:And you, Bessie, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the morning,
and you will still be ugly.
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1OFrGwpGH70rWFs-EMrAUGN6jEySb0De7a6s2QRo2CooV41jBvUwt2DA-wvlsUv6Vkl8hQLFeQp838B2YxYNm3bXQYrUEDUbqL6uv0OdtAPbTmK3ntDdPqErj-pFyEwMc2ikZQl6Ec00T3S33_smVePsYfwcTRaZY7iKJQBPR83YKqmrpH11xvZ0VdPiqzb3aKAvwkdBC8VF9tCr_ZuzEqFowOpI4HBGUkOfwka_WOra-l-jpRsX-4P_wDQHNN-kLvdk09SuCPE8frNDO6BQ3sW0IbNQsCgfD2pbyw8VT0Mc5Y8qSciQg7vVLkK0XeqjFG8PIL9f9yugazObaPkSXhjVMJOP75CzEZ9UaneUrfag2vOvmBVI6JVU9ITlkvA3V/https%3A%2F%2Fquoteinvestigator.com%2F2011%2F08%2F17%2Fsober-tomorrow%2F

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Enterprise COBOL 6.3 and IBM Programmer Tools

[Tom Marchant]

Yes, only batch applications can run AMODE 64, CICS applications 
cannot. AMODE 64 is an option with Cobol 6.3, and it must be 
specifically requested. 

AMODE 64 Cobol applications cannot be mixed with AMODE 31 
Cobol applications. You cannot call between AMODE 64 and 
AMODE 31 Cobol programs, either with a static or a dynamic call. 
The reason is that LE only supports AMODE 64 using XPLINK-64 
linkage, rather than using the standard 64-bit save area formats 
that are described in detail in 
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_2.3.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r3.ieaa600/chap2.htm

XPLINK was designed for C, which is notorious for creating small 
subroutines and requiring a more efficient linkage between 
routines. A major disadvantage of XPLINK is that, while the 
linkage from one XPLINK program to another is slightly more 
efficient than standard linkage, a call from XPLINK to a program 
using standard linkage is considerably less efficient. This includes 
calls to system services, such as GET and PUT.

In LE, this is compounded by the fact that major LE control 
blocks, including the CAA, have different and incompatible 
formats for programs using standard linkage, XPLINK (31-bit) 
and XPLINK-64.

LE and Cobol development stubbornly insist on using XPLINK 
for 64-bit applications rather than use the 64-bit save area 
formats that were designed for interoperability between programs 
that use standard 72-byte save areas and programs that use the 
newer save area formats to support saving and restoring 64-bit 
registers.

The bottom line is that you can't use 64-bit Cobol unless your 
entire application is compiled as a 64-bit application. That includes 
any common routines that you might normally call. And if you 
convert those common routines to 64-bit Cobol, you cannot call 
them from 31-bit Cobol, so you need to maintain two versions.

-- 
Tom Marchant

On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 07:39:48 +, Savor, Thomas (Alpharetta) 
 wrote:

>If I read the Manual correctly, only Batch is 64-bit supported.  CICS is not 
>64-bit supported.
>I have many DB2 programs that run Batch and Online, so I guess they will have 
>to be forced to run as 31-bit. 
>
>Thanks,
>
>Tom Sovor
>-Original Message-
>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
>Charles Mills
>Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2019 2:57 PM
>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Subject: Re: Enterprise COBOL 6.3 and IBM Programmer Tools
>
>  ⚠ EXTERNAL MESSAGE – Think Before You Click
>
>
>
>A wild guess is that a debugger will need significant upgrades to support 
>64-bit storage, a key feature of COBOL 6.3 as I understand things.
>
>Charles
>
>
>--
>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

[SUSPECTED SPAM] any CL/SuperSession client here?

[ITschak Mugzach]

I need to get some information about the product that is not documented.
Will be happy if a CL/SuperSession client may collect this info for me.

ITschak

-- 
ITschak Mugzach
*|** IronSphere Platform* *|* *Information Security Contiguous Monitoring
for Legacy **|  *

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: it was 20 years ago today

[Nightwatch RenBand]

Hey, Rupert!
Winston Churchill and the British politician Bessie Braddock.
Braddock encountered an intoxicated Churchill and said “Sir, you are
drunk.”
He replied:And you, Bessie, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the morning,
and you will still be ugly.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/08/17/sober-tomorrow/

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Product usage metric question: is SMF89UZT meant to be a cumulative field?

[Nick Varley]

Happy New Year to all.



I'm looking at product usage data in SMF 89 subtype 1 records, and I see that 
TCB and SRB values go up and down, and look like reasonable interval values.



The SMF89UZT field for offloaded CPU time, however, only seems to go up and 
makes it look suspiciously like it is just a snapshot of the counter reading, 
not the true interval (delta) value for that interval.



The snippet below is for z/OSMF, but I can also see the same happens for IBM 
products like DB2, MQ, Websphere and IBM Integration Bus (IB).



 SMF DATE/TIME SRBTCBOFFLOAD

30 DEC 2019 00:00:00.00 0:00:00.01 0:00:00.33 1:31:58.37

30 DEC 2019 00:05:00.00 0:00:00.01 0:00:00.29 1:31:59.12

30 DEC 2019 00:10:00.00 0:00:00.01 0:00:00.32 1:31:59.86

30 DEC 2019 00:15:00.00 0:00:00.01 0:00:00.36 1:32:00.57

30 DEC 2019 00:20:00.00 0:00:00.00 0:00:00.30 1:32:01.30

30 DEC 2019 00:25:00.00 0:00:00.00 0:00:00.30 1:32:02.05

30 DEC 2019 00:30:00.00 0:00:00.01 0:00:00.34 1:32:02.79



I don't have any non-IBM product data with offload engine usage to check, so if 
anyone who does have would be prepared to have a look at their data and report 
back, that would be very useful. Whatever the results, I think there are some 
questions to pose to IBM:



Is the SMF89UZT field cumulative for all products?  If so, please can you 
document that in the SMF record description.

Is the SMF89UZT field cumulative only for IBM products?   If so, please can you 
document that in the SMF record description.

Is the SMF89UZT field meant to be an interval value?  If so, please can you fix 
the z/OS code so it is.



Any additional thoughts or comments are most welcome.



Best wishes

Nick

Nick Varley
Director, Customer Support
p +44 (0) 1823 226012 | m +44 (0) 7766 806780
nick.var...@syncsort.com
  
We organise data everywhere,
to keep the world working
Syncsort Limited
2 Tangier Central
Castle Street
Taunton
TA1 4AS
UK
www.syncsort.com--
ATTENTION: --
Syncsort Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. 
Registered number: 01373158. Registered office: 3rd Floor, The Pinnacle, 20 
Tudor Road, Reading, RG1 1NH. VAT: GB295525177
The information contained in this message (including any files transmitted with 
this message) may contain proprietary, trade secret or other confidential 
and/or legally privileged information. Any pricing information contained in 
this message or in any files transmitted with this message is always 
confidential and cannot be shared with any third parties without prior written 
approval from Syncsort. This message is intended to be read only by the 
individual or entity to whom it is addressed or by their designee. If the 
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are on notice that 
any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this message, in any form, is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please 
immediately notify the sender and/or Syncsort and destroy all copies of this 
message in your possession, custody or control.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN