For anybody who is interested, there has been a SHARE requirement to increase TSO Ids to 8 characters for 20 years. Because IBM responded and assigned it to 'Long Range Consideration', it's been sitting there neglected. The SHARE MVSE Requirements Committee has recently determined that it should be re-opened, and I'll do that within a week. When it was voted on in 1990, it received a vote of 2.5 out of a range of +5 to -5. A negative number means that the change would either harm your installation or that you want developers to spend their time on other things. So do you want this bad enough to vote for it, or do you want developers working on other things? Your choice.
You can vote if your company is a SHARE member, and I put together a paper on how to participate in requirements at http://www.watsonwalker.com/PR100317.pdf. Here's the requirement that will be opened for discussion soon: Requirement#: SSSHARE014155 Status: Provider Responded Priority: 2.5 Vote Distribution: N/A Submitted: 1990-08-01 Title: TSO/E - Allow 8 Character USERIDs Description: Change TSO/E to allow USERIDs to be 8 characters in length. Benefit: We would like to have common USERIDs across all IBM systems. RACF, VM, and CICS all allow for 8 character USERIDs; TSO/E should also. The rest of the computing world (AIX, Unix, VAX/VMS) allow 8 character USERIDs. There should be no problem with jobnames for jobs submitted from TSO/E as there is already a mechanism for removing the IBM default job ownership rules (jobname = userid + suffix) -- reference GUIDE Requirement GD124088013. Best regards, Cheryl Watson MVSE Requirements Coordinator ====================== Cheryl Watson Watson & Walker, Inc. www.watsonwalker.com 941-266-6609 ====================== On Nov 5, 2010, at 6:45 PM, John McKown wrote: On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 16:54 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: > In <a6b9336cdb62bb46b9f8708e686a7ea005d5e05...@nrhmms8p02.uicnrh.dom>, > on 11/05/2010 > at 10:48 AM, "McKown, John" <john.mck...@healthmarkets.com> said: > >> Nope. I definately ran TSO on MVT. It was a SYSGEN option. I shudder >> to remember it. But it was with local 3277 terminals. > > Hey, you were using 3277 instead of 2260; be grateful. The 2260s in the one shop that I was at were dedicated to the ACP system. That was with Braniff Airways, back in the early 1980s. We had an RYO VTAM based 3720 interactive OLTP system there. I had to write an interface which allows 2260 data streams to be sent to and from 3720s. Weird. I loved the shutdown command: F OLTP,SAY GOODNIGHT, DICK! > -- John McKown Maranatha! <>< ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
