It's been a lot longer than that for warnings about "magic SVCs", and they persist.
The issue isn't configuring core system functions correctly; the issue is how installations configure general users. And, yes, they've had far more than enough time, but that doesn't mean that they paid attention. Would you prefer that installations that have failed to deploy appropriate RACF definitions fall flat on their faces instead of warning them to check? Is their negligence a reason to punish them? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Andrew Rowley [and...@blackhillsoftware.com] Sent: Monday, July 4, 2022 7:43 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Java? On 4/07/2022 9:17 pm, Seymour J Metz wrote: > And you guaranty that every installation is using BPX.UNIQUE.USER? > > If you believe that every z/OS installation is correctly configured then I > have a bridge that I'd like to sell you. It was just the other day that Bill Schoen was saying that MVS OpenEdition was GA 30 years ago. It's used for core system functions like TCP/IP. If it's not configured... no-one can say they haven't had enough time. We need to stop pretending its the 1990s. There are plenty of things that don't work if e.g. RACF definitions are not set up properly. Is that a reason not to use them? Andrew Rowley ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
