Exactly. Thank you.
Charles
Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>I'm assuming you saw my reply as to why it is valid.
>
>But I would agree that a simple "RTFM" is not valid here. Yes, it is
>documented. But it is not at all obvious, even though once you know the
>actual reason you can retroactively
Shmuel's point is well taken.
Justice Holmes said that rules are for clerks.
Here as elsewhere there is no substitute for experience and judgment.
The gratuitously split infinitive is problematic, but "to only bypass
an error hold if there is a sound reason to do so for a specific PTF"
is very go
Try displaying the panel via the ISPF dialogs (usually option 7 from the
ISPF primary panel, then option 2): type in the panel name and hit
. If the now empty panel is displayed immediately, it's whatever
is being loaded into the DYNAREA that is causing the delay (e.g. a
table). Otherwise it's
I'm assuming you saw my reply as to why it is valid.
But I would agree that a simple "RTFM" is not valid here. Yes, it is
documented. But it is not at all obvious, even though once you know the actual
reason you can retroactively go back to the documentation and say "ah hah!".
>___
> Is CHM willing to scan donations for bittsavers? I've got hundreds of
> manuals that I'm willing to donate if someone will, pick them up, scan
> them and do the OCR.
CHM and bitsavers are sort of joined at the hip. Al Kossow's hip, specifically.
Yes, we would love to have the scans - it is just
In <1344012753.76726.yahoomail...@web122103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, on
08/03/2012
at 09:52 AM, Frank Swarbrick said:
>The program was written in pre-COBOL II (COBOL 85) syntax.
>At that time the REMARKS paragraph valid (I'm guessing as an IBM
>extension),
No.
>and everything following it (un
In
,
on 08/03/2012
at 02:21 PM, Ken Porowski said:
>See if you can get the auditors to agree that you will apply all
>applicable (to your environment) PTFs flagged as a "Red Alert"
>within 30-60 days of availability.
All? Do you really want to apply a PTF even if it has a HIPER APAR
against
In
,
on 08/03/2012
at 01:52 PM, John Gilmore said:
>Auditors are, legitimately, preoccupied with computer security,
>and some PTFs address security issues.
Some PTF's introduce security vulnerabilities. Anybody recommending a
blind mass apply iis not qualified to be an auditor.
--
Shm
In
,
on 08/03/2012
at 02:51 PM, William Donzelli said:
>CHM and bitsavers can accept interesting old software, and just
>keep it in the protected archive until some deal is worked out.
Is CHM willing to scan donations for bittsavers? I've got hundreds of
manuals that I'm willing to donate if
If Paul Gilmartin's contention were correct auditors would be
dispensable, replaceable by a program. In fact they are retained to
exercise professional judgment, and the standard language in which
they sign off on financial results reflects this unambiguously.
They are not automata and cannot be
>.Copyright applies to any creative work (creative in a fairly broad sense
of
> the word).
> The listing is undoubtedly licensed material of IBM, and would undoubtedly
> be subject to copyright.
No one is disputing the copyright, nor the copyright holder. There's no
attempt here to capitalize on
Don't blame the auditors.
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 15:21:06 +, Chicklon, Thomas wrote:
>... I have seen responses that ended up in a management request that a given
>auditor not return because of his incompetence. This finding rates right up
>there
>with the one we discussed here a while ago wh
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 06:42:54 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
>
>Are you referring to the OS rules or to the OS simulation in CMS? NOTE
>has always been valid in OS after a checked write.
>
I stand corrected. READ or WRITE. But IIRC, the OP said he did NOTE
before either I/O operation.
--
On 3 Aug 2012 10:09:02 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>Ah! It is part of the "DATE-COMPILED." paragraph! . Let me test ... . It does
>compile! Why? Let's look at the LRM.
>http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/igy3lr50/3.1.6
>
> The comment-entry in any of the opt
On 3 Aug 2012 11:51:50 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>> Pehaps he could send it to the Computer History Museum, on the
>> condition that it not be used until the copyrights expire?
>
>As one of Al Kossow's little minions, I say yes, please.
>
>CHM works with IBM and the other computer
On 3 Aug 2012 13:18:31 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>In <4408005834035058.wa.gdornerwpsic@listserv.ua.edu>, on
>08/02/2012
> at 02:11 PM, zOSdude said:
>
>>Our auditors (Feds) say we need to apply all new PTF's within 30 days
>>of availability.
>
>Ask them for documentation o
Copyright applies to any creative work (creative in a fairly broad sense of
the word).
The listing is undoubtedly licensed material of IBM, and would undoubtedly
be subject to copyright.
Correct, the copyright of the movie "Spiderman" would not apply to the
script, but the script would nonetheles
In <501aea52.7000...@dignus.com>, on 08/02/2012
at 05:00 PM, Thomas David Rivers said:
>Then - reading the file to the end (with regular
>BSAM READ+CHECK)
Does your code work in z/OS? What DCB bits are you resetting after
EOF?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
In <501b04e7.7040...@aim.com>, on 08/02/2012
at 04:53 PM, Paul Gilmartin said:
>I believe that NOTE is specified to work only after a
>READ has been issued (but I haven't RTFM lately),
Are you referring to the OS rules or to the OS simulation in CMS? NOTE
has always been valid in OS after a c
In <4408005834035058.wa.gdornerwpsic@listserv.ua.edu>, on
08/02/2012
at 02:11 PM, zOSdude said:
>Our auditors (Feds) say we need to apply all new PTF's within 30 days
>of availability.
Ask them for documentation of the requirement, explaining the probable
impact on system security and st
John Gilmore wrote:
Auditors are, legitimately, preoccupied with computer security, and
some PTFs address security issues. In the current climate a formal
procedure for recording a decision not to apply a PTF (and noting a
supporting reason code for this decision) should be in place.
Moreover,
> Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't a licensed and copyrighted program
a
> licensed and copyrighted program -- either in part or as a whole? If I
> print that licensed program on paper, does it stop being a licensed
> program?
It seems that that would be covered by a non-disclosure agreement
> Pehaps he could send it to the Computer History Museum, on the
> condition that it not be used until the copyrights expire?
As one of Al Kossow's little minions, I say yes, please.
CHM works with IBM and the other computer companies, and they do get
commercial software out into the public, usua
Pehaps he could send it to the Computer History Museum, on the
condition that it not be used until the copyrights expire?
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
> There is a copyright doctrine called "first sale" that basically says that
> when you buy a legal copy of something you
See if you can get the auditors to agree that you will apply all
applicable (to your environment) PTFs flagged as a "Red Alert" within
30-60 days of availability.
"Red Alerts" appear to be the closest the Mainframe has to "Patch
Tuesday"
This should limit your action to one PTF every couple of ye
In this and other matters there is a historic distinction between
leading- and trailing-edge mainframe shops.
Leading-edge mainframe shops are now much less common than they once
were, probably because many mainframe shops have been marked for
replacement.
What can be said is that the reflexive,
ISO/IEC 1989:2002(E), the "COBOL 2002" standard (yes, I did pay for it), says
the following:
F.1 Substantive changes potentially affecting existing programs
1) Obsolete elements. The following features that were classified as obsolete
in the previous COBOL standard,
have been removed from th
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
What does the vendor recommend?
Does IBM recommend that customers age PTFs before APPLYing? For
how long? What would be the effect if no customer applied any PTF
until (e.g.) 60 days after availability in order that bugs would be
discovered by other customers?
I bel
Frank (and also now John M.) -
You've got it. When John M. said his compiler was generating an error I
started running some experiments. It took about twenty experiments, but here
is the answer.
The following program compiles cleanly (except for a sequence error), but if
you remove the DATE-COMPI
Ah! It is part of the "DATE-COMPILED." paragraph! . Let me test ... . It does
compile! Why? Let's look at the LRM.
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/igy3lr50/3.1.6
The comment-entry in any of the optional paragraphs can be any combination of
characters from the characte
No, Lizette, I'm sorry, perhaps usually questions of this sort can be looked up
easily but if this particular question is so darned easy, why does nearly
everyone here say it's invalid, but the compiler does not?
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM
Here is what happened.
The program was written in pre-COBOL II (COBOL 85) syntax. At that time the
REMARKS paragraph valid (I'm guessing as an IBM extension), and everything
following it (until the next valid phrase) was treated as, well, remarks
(a.k.a. comments). So it used to look something
Charles,
Usually questions like these can be easily looked up in the Programming
Langauge Reference Guides.
If you go to the IBM website to the cobol webpage you can find the Library with
this and other helpful manuals for COBOL
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/cobol/zos/
Lizette
--
Charles,
I believe Anthony is correct here, that these are "Comment entries" instead of
"comment lines". The line with *REMARKS is simply a comment line. The way I
read the COBOL reference manual, since these lines are in the IDENTIFICATION
DIVISION, they are considered comment entries, and a
On 3 Aug 2012 08:41:24 -0700, charl...@mcn.org (Charles Mills) wrote:
>Is anyone a COBOL syntax expert? Is the following valid? (It's not a trick
>question: there are no obscure PARM= options and nothing remarkable precedes
>the fragment below.) It's not an academic question. The code is accepted
On 08/03/2012 10:40 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
Is anyone a COBOL syntax expert? Is the following valid? (It's not a trick
question: there are no obscure PARM= options and nothing remarkable precedes
the fragment below.) It's not an academic question. The code is accepted
without error by the IBM En
On 8/3/2012 10:03 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
Hmmm. Not seeing errors from EC at the customer. I wonder if that REMARKS
line is somehow significant. (And Yes, I can test that and no I have not
yet.)
I will repost here the preceding lines, and also the lines I posted before
as Outlook+Listserve garb
Not an error on 4.2, could these be considered IDENTIFICATION DIVISION comment
entries?
>>-+-IDENTIFICATION-+--DIVISION.--PROGRAM-ID.--->
|(1) |
'-ID-'
>--+-program-name-+->
| (1) |
'-litera
But usually software developers don't sell copies of the software, they sell
licenses to use the software, and these are not normally transferable.
Rex
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Charles Mills
Sent: Friday, Augus
Charles Mills wrote:
>Is anyone a COBOL syntax expert?
I'm only a programmer who occassionally write COBOL programs and giving advice
in case of more serious compiling problems.
So, I'm NOT an expert. Trust me on this one! ;-)
>The code is accepted without error by the IBM Enterprise COBOL co
Hmmm. Not seeing errors from EC at the customer. I wonder if that REMARKS
line is somehow significant. (And Yes, I can test that and no I have not
yet.)
I will repost here the preceding lines, and also the lines I posted before
as Outlook+Listserve garbled it a bit.
1 2 3
There is a copyright doctrine called "first sale" that basically says that
when you buy a legal copy of something you can re-sell it as you wish. I
would be violating copyright law if I made copies of a Spiderman movie and
sold them, but I can legally sell the copy that I bought down at the video
s
A fast test with Enterprise COBOL 3.4.1 got an error message:
1PP 5655-G53 IBM Enterprise COBOL for z/OS 3.4.1 ABEND0C7 Date
08/03/2012 Time 10:48:07 Page 5
LineID PL SL
+-*A-1-B--+2+3+4+5+6+7-|--+8
Map and Cross Re
What does the vendor recommend?
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 14:11:03 -0500, zOSdude wrote:
>Our auditors (Feds) say we need to apply all new PTF's within 30 days of
>availability. I'm speechless. Does anyone have the patience to form a cogent
>argument without laughing, crying, or tying one on?
>
>I tol
Is anyone a COBOL syntax expert? Is the following valid? (It's not a trick
question: there are no obscure PARM= options and nothing remarkable precedes
the fragment below.) It's not an academic question. The code is accepted
without error by the IBM Enterprise COBOL compiler V4.1, but not by a
prop
The panel is executed in ISPF from the ISPF Primary option menu.
John Norgauer
Senior Systems Programmer
Mainframe Technical Support Services
University of California Davis Medical Center
2315 Stockton Blvd
ASB 1300
Sacramento, Ca 95817
916-734-0536
SYSTEMS PROGRAMMING.. Guilty, until pro
I never got into the inner workings of panels or dialogs so I do know
about the process that populates the DYNAREA
Any suggestion about how I can learn about this?
Thanks
John Norgauer
Senior Systems Programmer
Mainframe Technical Support Services
University of California Davis Medical Cente
Allan Staller has put you on the right track - gather information from experts
on what *is* considered best practices. This will be needed for the management
response to this finding.
If you can, ask the auditor where this recommendation came from. Who is it that
claims this is a best practice?
how you invoking it, i mean TSo , ISPF env... have you tried a batch and a
systrap for logs?
the clist doesnt look suspicious... unless the Area and/or the user space
allocations for buffers.
thanks,
Amit
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:32 PM, John Norgauer <
john.norga...@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> W
Is it possible that the process that populates the DYNAREA variable is the
culprit? Or have you already ruled that out?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu wit
Try using a process of elimination to see if it helps determine what's causing
the problem. For example, try removing the WIDTH and EXPAND statements, try
removing some of the data types, try removing statements from the INIT and PROC
sections (etc.), until you eventually find the statement(s) t
I would not assume that a license holder has the ability to transfer his
license on his own.
You should check with the vendor to be sure you are in compliance with the
T&C of that license.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of
What would cause a panel to take 10 seconds to display. when the system is
running at 20%.
Here is the panel that is giving the problem
)ATTR
# AREA(DYNAMIC) EXTEND(ON) SCROLL(ON) DATAMOD(01)
14 TYPE(DATAIN) INTENS(LOW)
15 TYPE(DATAIN) INTENS(LOW)
16 TYPE(DATAIN) INTENS(LOW)
17 TYPE(DA
Art Gutowski wrote:
>McKown, John wrote:
>>What is the most secure computer? The one that is powered off and locked in a
>>vault!
>...cast in concrete and scuttled to the ocean floor. And even then, I'm not
>certain.
Of course, you are NOT certain! You forgot to do the same for ALL media (ta
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:49:55 -0500, McKown, John
wrote:
>What is the most secure computer? The one that is powered off and locked in a
>vault!
...cast in concrete and scuttled to the ocean floor. And even then, I'm not
certain.
Art
--
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:16:16 -0500, Mark Zelden wrote:
>Yes... as of about 10 a.m. central time it has been working.
The web interface was working fine for me yesterday. Today,
it is back to acting like it was for a week or so before it seemed
to be down altogether for a couple of days. I see
On 8/2/12, Clark Morris wrote:
> On 2 Aug 2012 16:24:06 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>
>>My initial reaction is that this might be just an application (design)
>>problem. Someone thought it would never grow to get this big.
>>
>>If it were vsam, you might consider the DB2 VSAM trans
>From where I am sitting (Belgium) neither the archives nor the web version
of the list itself are reachable.
The browser does make a connection to the website, but then just stalls
trying to retrieve any information from it. Has been so consistently for
the last three days.
Darren, time to s
58 matches
Mail list logo
