Re: it was 20 years ago today

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

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

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

Re: RMM report for only expired tapes

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 /

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

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 +,

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

> 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

Spool Data Set Browse with secondary JES2

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

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

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

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

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

Re: it was 20 years ago today

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

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

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

Re: it was 20 years ago today

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

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

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

Re: it was 20 years ago today

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

Re: Dynamic and static linked COBOL programs

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

Re: it was 20 years ago today

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

Re: Dynamic and static linked COBOL programs

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

Re: it was 20 years ago today

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

Dynamic and static linked COBOL programs

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

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:

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:

Re: it was 20 years ago today

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

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,

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 http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List

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

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

Re: Chaning time zone for Unix based tasks

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:

Re: Enterprise COBOL 6.3 and IBM Programmer Tools

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

Re: it was 20 years ago today

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:

Re: Enterprise COBOL 6.3 and IBM Programmer Tools

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,

[SUSPECTED SPAM] any CL/SuperSession client here?

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 **| *

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.

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

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