And we have a winner in the 15-20 year range.. *UGH* Really takes the wind out of my "rant filled sails".
I guess I should really expect such things... mainframes.. like the old Timex commercials "takes a licking, and keeps on ticking" Rob Schramm On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 9:35 PM CM Poncelet <ponce...@bcs.org.uk> wrote: > I still used a locally attached terminal in 1998 <grin>. CP > > On 06/06/2018 20:40, Rob Schramm wrote: > > <devilsadvocate> > > Do they really need to lock their TSO screen? Isn't having a windows > > locktime sufficient? > > > > While this setting was certainly important during the golden age of > > terminals... how many of us actually use a terminal anymore? In the last > > 10 years? In the last 20 years? > > > > How many have a corporate defined windows screen lock? (I can't comment > on > > Linux.. maybe some others can chime in) > > > > What actual security is enhanced by locking a 3270 terminal that is not > > addressed by locking the medium used to access the 3270 session? > > (this may be turning into a rant) > > > > I haven't actually given this much thought or examined my own reasoning > for > > demanding locked sessions and auto-logoff for 3270.. but is the practice > > actually providing the security benefit so many time espoused and > demanded? > > > > </devilsadvocate> > > > > Rob Schramm > > > > p.s. If I have gone too far afield in this thread.. I can start another > > one. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 3:23 PM Clark Morris <cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca> > > wrote: > > > >> [Default] On 6 Jun 2018 04:53:49 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main > >> john.archie.mck...@gmail.com (John McKown) wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:02 PM Barry Merrill <ba...@mxg.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I left z/OS as a development platform, going to Windows in 1996 > >>>> for MXG Software totally because of the loss of everything under > >>>> TSO if I didn't hit enter every 45 minutes. > >>>> > >>> ?The programmers here had the same complaint. We now have an IEFUTL > exit, > >>> implemented in CA-OPS/MVS REXX, which will extend their wait time > between > >>> 06:00 and 18:00 on weekdays. That way they can go to meetings, lunch, > and > >>> bull sessions without losing their place.? > >>> > >> They need to be able to lock their screens for this to be viable from > >> a security point of view. > >> > >> Clark Morris > >>>> However, it is still the primary QA test platform, but using > >>>> batch instead of TSO. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Herbert W. "Barry" Merrill, PhD > >>>> President-Programmer > >>>> Merrill Consultants > >>>> MXG Software > >>>> 10717 Cromwell Drive > >>>> Dallas, TX 75229 > >>>> www.mxg.com > >>>> ba...@mxg.com > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > >> On > >>>> Behalf Of Charles Mills > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 3:40 PM > >>>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > >>>> Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement > >>>> > >>>> Thanks. I will give that sort of thing a try. > >>>> > >>>> I *still* like John's weird thought. I work from a home office. I tend > >> to > >>>> be > >>>> a little loose with the demarcation between work and not work. > >> Sometimes I > >>>> get up from my PC. Sometimes I come back in 20 minutes. Sometimes I do > >> not. > >>>> I like that whether I am gone for ten seconds or ten hours, I find > >> Windows > >>>> right where I left it. It would be nice if ISPF were right where I > left > >> it. > >>>> (I understand the resource and security advantages of a forced logoff. > >>>> John's weird thought would make that logoff more transparent.) > >>>> > >>>> Charles > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > >> On > >>>> Behalf Of Jerry Whitteridge > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 1:04 PM > >>>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > >>>> Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement > >>>> > >>>> I use a rexx exec to "script" all my sessions every time I logon. > >>>> > >>>> /* REXX */ > >>>> /* TRACE I */ > >>>> ADDRESS ISPEXEC > >>>> "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME SDSF2 PERM; =SDSF; SWAP LAST) " > >>>> "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME EDIT1 PERM; =2; SWAP LAST)" > >>>> /*ELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME EDIT2 PERM; =2; SWAP LAST)" */ > "SELECT > >>>> PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME MYDS PERM; REFOPEND; SWAP LAST)" > >>>> "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME BROWSE1 PERM; =1; SWAP LAST)" > >>>> "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME TSO PERM; =6; SWAP LAST)" > >>>> "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME DSLIST PERM; =3.4; SWAP LAST)" > >>>> "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(TSO WORKPL)" > >>>> EXIT(0) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I call this SESSTART and simply do a TSO SESSTART as soon as I am at > the > >>>> Primary option menu after logging on. (In 2.2 or above I believe this > >> can > >>>> be > >>>> done automagically). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Jerry Whitteridge > >>>> Delivery Manager / Mainframe Architect > >>>> GTS - Safeway Account > >>>> 602 527 4871 <(602)%20527-4871> <(602)%20527-4871> Mobile > >>>> jerry.whitteri...@ibm.com > >>>> > >>>> IBM Services > >>>> > >>>> IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> wrote on > >>>> 06/05/2018 12:33:59 PM: > >>>> > >>>>> From: Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> > >>>>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > >>>>> Date: 06/05/2018 12:34 PM > >>>>> Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement Sent by: IBM > Mainframe > >>>>> Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> > >>>>> > >>>>> I really like it. I have an associate who sets up some elaborate > >>>>> configuration of SPLITs. He is always selling me on the benefits. I > >>>>> see the benefits, but one of the reasons I do not follow suit is > >>>>> because of the need to re-do it on every logon. If I could just have > >>>>> ISPF automatically restore my previous setup it would be great. > >>>>> > >>>>> Charles > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > >> ] > >>>>> On Behalf Of John McKown > >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 11:51 AM > >>>>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > >>>>> Subject: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm short of sleep ... again. When I came to work this morning, my > >>>>> Chrome browser was "dead". When I restarted it, it prompted me with a > >>>>> message asking if I wanted to restore all the pages I had been on. > >>>>> > >>>>> So, what occurred to me was, "Wouldn't it be nice if ISPF could do > >>>>> something like that." Now, ISPF doesn't really die often. But I think > >>>>> it would be a nice feature if there were a new ISPF command, perhaps > >>>>> called something like "SAVELEAVE" or HIBERNATE or whatever. This > >>>>> facility would let you logoff for the day, optionally SAVEing any > >>>>> changes if you're in EDIT or one or more screens. When you come in > the > >>>>> next day, ISPF would > >>>> give > >>>>> you an option to restore all your screens. Yes, there are problems > >>>>> about restarting an ISPF application, but basically you could only > >>>>> issue the above command at certain times, just like you can only SWAP > >>>>> or SPLIT, > >>>> when > >>>>> you're in an DISPLAY verb. What I envision for an ISPF application is > >>>> that > >>>>> it would get a special RC from the ISPF DISPLAY verb which would > >>>>> indicate "user wants to leave, checkpoint or abandon your > processing". > >>>>> The application could then only do something like ISPF CHECKPOINT > >>>>> which would basically return to ISPF and ISPF would terminate the > >>>>> application. The application would need to save its non-ISPF > >>>>> environment (close files, > >>>> etc) > >>>>> before it issued the CHECKPOINT. When the user gets back into ISPF, > >>>>> the application is restarted at the next instruction after the > >>>>> CHECKPOINT. At this point, the application would be responsible to > >>>>> restore its internal, non-ISPF maintained, status (open files, reload > >>>> important variable, etc). > >>>>> This would occur for each active screen which did the ISPF > CHECKPOINT. > >>>>> Well, that's likely getting too detailed for a general, initial, > >>>> discussion. > >>>>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> 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 > >>>> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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 > -- Rob Schramm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
