Sounds like a variant of the SPE (Small Program Enhancement) of a few decades ago :),m and Selectable Units.
Alan Field Systems Engineer Principal Blue Cross Blue Shield of MN 651.662.3546 -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Jesse 1 Robinson Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 4:08 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Windows 10 auto update was Re: Eliminating the systems programmer was Re: IBM cuts contractor billing by 15 percent (our else) CAUTION: This email originated outside of the organization. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ______________________________________________________________________ After our So Cal z User Group meeting last week, I feel that 'continuous update' has been misunderstood. We had a presentation on DB2 latest-greatest-and-beyond. I'm not a DB2 guy, but having lived in the copter-wash of DB2 version upgrades several times in the last few years, I see hope in the new paradigm. DB2 will not dump changes on us unexpectedly. On the contrary, it's version upgrades that enforce wholesale changes in huge chunks that hit us all at once. A troublesome version change has to be dealt with even if it's irrelevant to the installation. Continuous update allows a shop to pick and choose feature and function and schedule the timing independent of other changes. If it works as intended, continuous update will be a huge step forward. . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW robin...@sce.com -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Clark Morris Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 12:54 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Windows 10 auto update was Re: Eliminating the systems programmer was Re: IBM cuts contractor billing by 15 percent (our else) [Default] On 23 Jun 2017 06:14:21 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main pacemainl...@gmail.com (Mark Pace) wrote: >I am afraid this new "Continuous Update" may lead to the same thing. As I understand it the continuous update is to be done by applying updates at times determined by the installation. While there is the problem of function enhancement and change being inter-mixed with corrective code including integrity APARs, the disruption time is chosen by the installation. I have Windows 10 Home on the three computers at home and this version will reboot my computer to apply fixes outside of normal working hours. The normal working hours can not be set to effectively be the full 24 hours in a day. Thus I have had unattended uploads trashed and my wife and I have both been lucky that we have not lost any data due to this careless implementation of update. Further the irresponsible people at Microsoft have decided to make it impossible to shutdown without update. This of course could be disastrous in a power outage or imminent loss situation. Of course it would be nice to be able to apply updates the way the Tandem systems do without bringing down the system. Unfortunately connection to the Internet on any platform means that integrity APARs or their equivalent must be applied as soon as feasible. My disagreement with Microsoft is forced update under all circumstances. I can accept the annoyance of constant reminders to update. Clark Morris > >On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Bill Wilkie <billwil...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> As I am reading this, all I can think of is Windows 10 and Automatic >> updates. Since accidentally going to Windows 10, I have crashed my >> laptop at least 10 times and spent many days and a lot of money trying to >> recover. >> Be careful what you wish for. >> >> >> Bill >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on >> behalf of Edward Gould <edgould1...@comcast.net> >> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 3:12 AM >> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >> Subject: Re: Eliminating the systems programmer was Re: IBM cuts >> contractor billing by 15 percent (our else) >> >> > On Jun 22, 2017, at 6:50 PM, Clark Morris >> > <cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca> >> wrote: >> >> ————————————__SNIP------------------------------------------ >> ------------ >> > >> > If the goal was to eliminate the need for highly technical people >> > who understand the platform and the tradeoffs, that is a futile >> > goal for any operating system. If the goal is to eliminate the >> > need for assembler coded exits, this is more doable but >> > customization will always be with us. While there can be plenty of >> > obscurity in assembler, how well documented are the SYS1.PARMLIB >> > members and JES initialization decks that control how the systems >> > operate? These are just weird programming interfaces that can be every >> > bit as cryptic. >> > >> > As someone who did his last systems programming in the 1990s, I >> > would hope that systems maintenance and upgrade has become a lot >> > easier (and if IBM made the Knowledge Center and Shopz 24/365.24 >> > available) and that less custom code is required because of all the >> > new concerns that I didn't have to deal with. The environment has >> > become more complex for all of the operating systems so anything >> > that can be eliminated is to the good. There is enough to do so >> > that automation of some of the grunt work is a good thing. >> > >> > Clark Morris >> >> Clark, >> >> The instructor just said systems programmers. I will agree with you >> on the exits and assembler though. >> Having said that I just cannot see a non assembler person going >> through system dumps. The needed CB structure and to decode machine >> language and understand what each instruction is attempting to do is >> just impossible (to me)to expect of an average COBOL programmer. Also >> having said that as long as IBM is as cryptic as some of their >> messages can be *AND* trying to understand in context what the return >> code is sort of indicating would be daunting to and programmer type, >> IMO. AT least they got rid of “call your local system programmer” >> explanations in the M&C. >> As long as I semi brought up SERVPAC, IBM needlessly (IMO) >> complicated the install process. In my opinion CBIPO and CBPDO were >> pretty much as good as it is going to get. IBM should have kept the >> level of the base better up to date, was the only issue I had. It would have >> cut down on the Apply’s. >> Yes there are pluses for sevrpac but you stilll need to know a bit >> about SMPE. Given that SMPE is the standard for installation of >> maintenance I really don’t see SERVPAC being all that helpful. I know >> when I tried a couple of SERVPACs they were ugly and could be screwed >> up easily. The German support was less than typical IBM support. >> I got the feeling that (at least according to IBM) that customers >> complained about the cost of system programmers. >> Ed ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the named addressee you must not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
