Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

hum my reply to this post via email is not gettingposted ? trying again.. Totally agree ! very frustrating, what's more frustrating is I spent a good amount of time setting up a KC server on my local system and still the search engine is a JOKE. I have 2.2 KC and CICS (that's all I can

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

Peter, Others have made useful recommendations for the general situation. For the specific disappearing doc that you encountered, I wonder whether it may have been an error rather than intentionally removed. In either case, it may be useful to cite the specific doc that has become

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

On 6/14/2018 8:16 AM, Ralph Robison wrote: Peter, Others have made useful recommendations for the general situation. For the specific disappearing doc that you encountered, I wonder whether it may have been an error rather than intentionally removed. In either case, it may be useful to cite

Re: Cl/Supersession and CA-Top Secret

Responded offline. UGH.. the Top Secret section of the CL Supersession manual.. is just needlessly complicated!! No wonder there are problems. I am going to lay down the gauntlet. Is anyone running Top Secret 4.2? It has only been out of service for what ... 26 or 27 years!??!? It is a bit

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

I don't think it's actually the case that it was all removed, even though I will agree that it is more difficult to find. I thought someone posted this link a few days ago, but it has been working fine for me:

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

From: “https://www-304.ibm.com/servers/resourcelink/svc00100.nsf/pages/zosInternetLibrary” Search using IBM Knowledge Center | V2R3 |

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

Even if you have a z/OS 2.1 manual, some PTFs do add features or command or document changes to older versions, and they only update the newest manual. Sometimes it is best to get the newer manual then check the document changes so you aren't referencing a feature only in the newest release. On

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

Hi Tom and Ed, I agree! This is one of the biggest mistakes IBM has ever made. I'm very outraged. Someone else on the MXG list was looking for the LPAR Design tool and I ended up posting this: -Original Message- From: MXG Software LIST [mailto:mx...@peach.ease.lsoft.com] On Behalf

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

It works for me but for me and I think others that is not the point, a google, bing or even an IBM site search brings up 2.1 links to pages that no longer exist and I didn't search for 2.1 content, no other hits come back for 2.2 or 2.3, all searches link you to 2.1 KC that not there. I'll

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

On 6/14/2018 9:27 AM, Mike Schwab wrote: Even if you have a z/OS 2.1 manual, some PTFs do add features or command or document changes to older versions, and they only update the newest manual. Sometimes it is best to get the newer manual then check the document changes so you aren't referencing

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

I’m afraid I agree, every link that had z/OS 2.1 ended up with “No Longer Available”. The searches all ended in frustration. The real question is “has IBM removed all of its z/OS documentation?” Will this be repaired or are we all going to have to go back to paper? PHIL CARLYLE Information

Cl/Supersession and CA-Top Secret

Listers: I am installing CL/Supersession for the first time (currently we are IBM Session Manager). I am having difficulty understanding how to use dynamic application lists with Top Secret security. The documentation is extremely lacking in clarity on how to code the Top Secret statements. I

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

That's not what most of us are complaining about. It's when doing a Google search, and Google returns hits that are referencing the 2.1 manuals, which are not there. And for whatever reason, Google is only returning hits on 2.1. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

Ok, let’s try this simple search – “VSAM DATA SET TYPES” Results: About this result Selection of VSAM Data Set Types -

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

On 6/14/2018 12:01 PM, John Eells wrote: Does this link not work for everyone? https://www-304.ibm.com/servers/resourcelink/svc00100.nsf/pages/zosv2r1-pdf-download?OpenDocument I fully recognize that this is not the full complement of what was available before, but my (only) point is that

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

On 6/14/2018 6:05 AM, Tom Conley wrote: > > ALL z/OS V2R1 CONTENT WAS REMOVED FROM THE INTERNET BY IBM!!  DO A > GOOGLE SEARCH, AND NONE OF THE LINKS WORK!! > > Peter's anger is justified.  IBM has screwed up royally here, and as > far as I can tell, they're not lifting a finger to fix the

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

On 6/14/2018 6:05 AM, Tom Conley wrote: ALL z/OS V2R1 CONTENT WAS REMOVED FROM THE INTERNET BY IBM!!  DO A GOOGLE SEARCH, AND NONE OF THE LINKS WORK!! Peter's anger is justified.  IBM has screwed up royally here, and as far as I can tell, they're not lifting a finger to fix the situation.

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

On 6/14/2018 8:53 AM, Ed Jaffe wrote: ALL z/OS V2R1 CONTENT WAS REMOVED FROM THE INTERNET BY IBM!!  DO A GOOGLE SEARCH, AND NONE OF THE LINKS WORK!! Stop whining and buy a used Power8 and install IBM i 7.3, "What z/OS should have been and never was" :) -- Jack J. Woehr # Science is

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 9:54 AM Ed Jaffe wrote: > On 6/14/2018 6:05 AM, Tom Conley wrote: > > > > ALL z/OS V2R1 CONTENT WAS REMOVED FROM THE INTERNET BY IBM!! DO A > > GOOGLE SEARCH, AND NONE OF THE LINKS WORK!! > > > > Peter's anger is justified. IBM has screwed up royally here, and as > >

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

Does this link not work for everyone? https://www-304.ibm.com/servers/resourcelink/svc00100.nsf/pages/zosv2r1-pdf-download?OpenDocument I fully recognize that this is not the full complement of what was available before, but my (only) point is that the 2.1 documentation seems to be available.

AW: Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

>Does this link not work for everyone? > >https://www-304.ibm.com/servers/resourcelink/svc00100.nsf/pages/zosv2r1-pdf-download?OpenDocument I can't tell if it is working for everyone, but I can confirm that is for me. -- Peter Hunkeler

AW: Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

>Even if you have a z/OS 2.1 manual, some PTFs do add features or command or document changes to older versions, and they only update the newest manual. Very good point! I strongly prefer to read PDFs over KC web pages when I need to read more than a few paragraphs. However, with the change to

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

This may have been said before, but if IBM wanted to remove stuff, the appropriate way is to: 1) use robots.txt or equivalent to exclude the to-be-deleted documents from search indexes 2) wait some period of time for crawlers to re-index 3) Remove the pages Google in particular I believe has

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:33:03 -0700, Ed Jaffe wrote: >On 6/14/2018 9:27 AM, Mike Schwab wrote: >> Even if you have a z/OS 2.1 manual, some PTFs do add features or >> command or document changes to older versions, and they only update >> the newest manual. Sometimes it is best to get the newer

Re: z/OS V2R1 content in KC (and Google)

"IBM wide effort to right-size content" - really? Personally I don't see the issue with having multiple versions of content available. That should at least cover the supported versions, but there is also value in having old versions. For example, maybe you have a SYS1.PARMLIB member last

Re: z/OS V2R1 content in KC (and Google)

On 6/14/2018 6:45 PM, Susan Shumway wrote: Hi all. We've been following all the comments here and elsewhere about the removal of the z/OS V2R1 content from KC and have been assessing the situation. -- IBM recognizes the need to improve our client's experience to find relevant content

z/OS V2R1 content in KC (and Google)

Hi all. We've been following all the comments here and elsewhere about the removal of the z/OS V2R1 content from KC and have been assessing the situation. -- IBM recognizes the need to improve our client's experience to find relevant content associated with your IBM products and services. To

Re: REXX calling bpxwunix when SIGNAL NOVALUE active

Hello Hobart, here are my NOVALUE and SYNTAX handlers:- Signal on Novalue/* Clean diagnostics */ Signal on Syntax /* for unexpected results. */ /*===*/ Syntax:

Re: REXX calling bpxwunix when SIGNAL NOVALUE active

Hi, Well, of course, as soon as I posted I then spotted that I had not corrected quoted the stderr. stem varname. Actually, the sample code did not come from IBM but from:- https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/blogs/MartinPacker/entry/bpxwunix_z_os_best_kept_secret10?lang=en A very