This gun has been pointing in the same direction forever, but it *is* a fact that with 64-bit CP the bullets are a lot bigger.
I am sure folks in Edicott are as creative as most of us (or worse, take a look at ... ;-) but we know that any safety that CP adds will annoy people because they forgot to disable it when they still had the option to do so, or because they drive with the safety off all day anyway (how many are not using highly privileged CP userid for things that don't need it - and really, it *is* dangerous) The problem with the suggested check is that it is stronger than what most people need. Also, the check is likely to be unfair (aiming at the wrong victim) and potentially cause a Denial of Service. Would you want MAINT unable to logon because that 5th Linux guest now logged on (and you could only add the page pack if you could logon...) So we need an option for some users to override it, or an option to enforce the check only for some users. One means that you may forget the option, and the other means that within weeks people will ask "why can't I logon my Linux guest" and the word will spread that you need to issue a SET SRM OVERCOMM 9999. Linux has a similar check in that a process can't allocate more virtual memory than you have available (in main and on swap, or you get out-of-memory). This ensures that this process could eventually get all it asks for. But when it does not immediately reference that memory, it appears to be still available when the next process allocates memory. So the check is pretty useless and does not protect you at all. I don't do operational work these days, so feel on the peanut gallery. Maybe I grew up in a rather unique shop (or maybe staff reductions have gotten rid of that luxury there too) but we had pretty strict rules to minimize mistakes. Most configuration changes would be checked by another pair of eyes or some code. Configuration files to be replaced ran through XDIFF to inspect the changes. The nucleus map was scanned for text decks picked up from the A-disk, etc. Various health checks ran to compare RACF and the directory, check for certain disks filling up, and many more. With CMS Pipelines it is often easy to get an extra pair of eyes oversee your actions. Rob
