Re: dynamic zAAP

[Timothy Sipples]

If you're curious, there's also an option switch when you start the JVM
that determines whether the JVM will or will not dispatch to zAAP.  The
default is to use the zAAP if it's found, thence according to whatever
crossover policy you have set.  This switch is per-JVM, so on the same
system you can have different JVMs, some dispatching to zAAP and some not.
There aren't too many reasons that I can think of to shut off dispatching
to zAAP, but there it is.

I don't have the docs handy at this instant, but if you look in the Java
docs it'll provide this info about what switch it is.

- - - - -
Timothy Sipples
IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect
Specializing in Software Architectures Related to System z
Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan and IBM Asia-Pacific
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is falling!!)

[Timothy Sipples]

Shmuel Metz writes:
>It was dereliction of duty to not report prices on, e.g., the P390,
>MP2000, MP3000.

Duty?  I'm just a guy with ibm.com in my e-mail address.  Nothing in my job
description requires me to hang out here.  It's just for fun.  And I
definitely speak my own personal opinions.

I Googled the Multiprise 3000 and found a press article from 1999
concerning the price of a Multiprise 3000.  Within the context of a
developer offering (ADS), not full commercial terms, the MP3000 was listed
as $170,000 for the H30 model, U.S. 1999 dollars.  Now, that had a very
little bit of internal storage it's worth noting, so that's something to
take into consideration.  But external storage is a lot lower priced now.
So it looks like a new z9 BC has a much lower price net, and it's certainly
a fantastically better machine.

I haven't found a price for the Multiprise 2000 on Google, but I have found
statements that say the MP3000 both improved the price/performance and
carried the same price for the H30 as the smallest MP2000.  Except I don't
think the MP2000 had internal storage.  Anyway, it appears the hardware was
more expensive (on net), plus more expensive dollars, than the MP3000.
Somebody please check me on that.

I haven't found P390 (System/390 Integrated Server) prices, so somebody
will have to help us on that.  The P390 had some shortcomings even as a
software development platform, though.  I wish it had more memory
expansion, in particular, because there was development stuff you just
couldn't do in 128 or, later, 256 MB physical memory.  Lack of
z/Architecture aside, would DB2 V8 or V9 load?  (Anybody tried V8 or V9 on
a teeny LPAR like that?)

For comparison, according to a recent post on IBM-MAIN a z800 at ~40 MIPS
hardware capacity is priced at about $30,000 on the secondary market, U.S.
2007 dollars.  That's without storage, it's fair to point out.  I detailed
the total acquisition and licensing prices of a commercial z800
installation, with z/OS.e, WAS, and C/C++, on a recent Mainframe Blog post
and estimated about $50,000 U.S. all-in/1st year for the smallest
configuration.  z/OS.e is well under $200 per month by my calculation.  The
zNALC offering is even more attractive and would clear the way to COBOL or
PL/I in many circumstances, and certainly developer software licensing is
possible if you qualify.  DB2 z/OS is a major commitment: I think it's
about $4,500 per month at 3 MSUs for commercial licensing.  I didn't check
CICS or IMS.

Your mileage may vary.  There are lots of permutations here depending on
what you want.  I wanted a Java plus C/C++ environment with WAS as my
transaction manager and VSAM as my data store, so that's what I configured.

Somebody might have a business opportunity here for developers, especially
if the Dallas offerings have a problem.  The z800 supports, what, 15 LPARs?
z/VM is also an option of course (at $22,500 U.S. 2007 price for a one CP
license last I checked).  I've been half joking for a while now that I
could go into the mainframe hosting business without much money.

I don't mean to be flip, but really, honestly, there's a lot of mythology
circulating.  I agree with the sentiment that I think Bob expressed: if
IBM's doing something wrong, go get the facts and then work the problem.
But claiming a z9 BC has a higher price and doesn't scale down as well as a
MP3000 isn't the place to start, because I'm not going to be the only one
who pulls out the prices and capacities and says, "Huh?"

IBM has taken at least 20 actions in the past few years to address better
the small scale mainframe customer's needs.  Lord knows IBM is not perfect,
and I totally agree there's more to be done.  However, let's start with
what has been improved and build on that.  For example, could IBM do a
better job organizing and offering "developer consortium" pricing?  Is that
something that would help?  Is the cute little DS6000 enough, or should IBM
have a model with internal storage?

One possible problem with internal storage is that it could put the storage
on the same technology refresh cycle as the CPU.  And that hasn't worked
very well in the past because spindle technology has moved too fast, so it
could taint the whole CPU box and shorten its useful life, especially for
software developers.  Lately there's some evidence that spindles may be
going away.  Samsung just announced a 64 GB flash memory "hard drive," I
believe, which fits into a notebook computer in a 2.5 inch form factor.  It
might be a little while before flash achieves the rewrite cycles needed for
enterprise storage, but that's a possible future.

- - - - -
Timothy Sipples
IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect
Specializing in Software Architectures Related to System z
Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan and IBM Asia-Pacific
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL

DFSMSdss Data Loss Exposure (Was Re: DFSMSdss DOC APAR OA20117)

[Joel C. Ewing]

After four days of experimenting with DSS and thinking about the 
implications of DOC APAR OA20117 I felt it time to share some additional 
results and thoughts on this with IBM-MAIN.


First of all, let me re-iterate the basic exposure implied by OA20117:
If you are using DFSMSdss "DUMP FULL" without the "RESET" option -- 
which is the default usage, indicating the dump is not intended as a 
replacement for individual dataset dumps -- to save the image of a DASD 
volume and expecting at some point to use this dump with a "RESTORE 
FULL" to move the volume to another DASD drive, as part of a Data Center 
move or migration to new equipment, or for Data Center recovery at a 
remote site, THEN MOST LIKELY YOU ARE CURRENTLY EXPOSED TO SOME FORM OF 
DATA-LOSS!


This is true if you are using DFSMShsm with auto-backup enabled (many 
sites), if you have DFSMShsm FSM (Fast Subsequent Migration) enabled 
(fewer sites), if you have applications using DFSMSdss that use 
"BY((DSCHA,EQ,YES))" as part of the selection criteria for data set 
manipulation, or if you have any other vendor products or home-grown 
applications in house that manage datasets or process datasets based on 
the "Changed" bit in the VTOC.  If any of these apply to your 
installation, YOU ARE EXPOSED.


The crux of the problem is that the only practical way to make a 
physical copy of a volume with DFSMSdss for moving the volume or 
recovering it elsewhere is with "DUMP FULL" physical dump, and if this 
is recovered to another device with the obvious counterpart "RESTORE 
FULL", the result is currently not an identical volume, but a volume 
with all the VTOC "changed" bits on the volume reset.


This means that future decisions on the recovered system or moved volume 
that are based on the changed bit will be in error. The effects range 
from failure to take a required auto-backup (exposing users to data loss 
when a dataset recovery point they expect to be there is not), to DFHSM 
erroneously assuming a down-level ML2 version of a dataset is current 
and scratching the most current version on primary DASD (exposing  those 
using DFSMShsm Fast Subsequent Migration to unpredictable data loss), or 
failure at some unknown time in the future to select for processing some 
datasets that should be selected by either 3rd-party vendor products or 
in-house applications that rely on the "changed" bit.  These effects are 
subtle.  Unless some user notices and reports a problem, they can easily 
be over looked; and if they aren't noticed until six months after the 
RESTORE, there is little likelihood that DFSMSdss would have been 
suspected over the more common possibility of "fuzzy user memory" of 
some kind.


There are two pending requests for a change to this behavior:  SHARE 
request SSMVSS07002, which asks for changing the RESTORE default to not 
clear the "changed" bits; and Marketing Request MR0302074136, requesting 
an option on "RESTORE FULL" to control the handling of the "changed" 
bit.  After considerable thought I don't believe either of these is the 
cleanest or most correct solution.  The most consistent solution should 
be based on the principle that at the completion of a physical volume 
dump, if you immediately restore that physical dump onto the same device 
or onto a different device, the default behavior should be that all 
in-use tracks on the target device, including the VTOC, should be 
identical with those left on the source device.  In other words, an 
immediate restore on top of the device used to generate the dump 
shouldn't change anything.  This means that the treatment given the 
"changed" bits should depend on whether "RESET" (which resets all 
"changed" bits at the end of creating the dump) was specified on the 
"DUMP FULL".  If the dump was created with "DUMP FULL ... RESET", then 
"RESTORE FULL" should clear all "changed" bits in the VTOC.  If the dump 
was created with "DUMP FULL" without the reset option, then by default 
"RESTORE FULL" should leave all "changed" bits in the VTOC unaltered. 
This does not preclude the possibility of also adding a RESTORE option 
to change this behavior, but my point is that for "least astonishment" 
the default behavior should be based on whether the DUMP was with or 
without "RESET".


I have opened an PMR with IBM arguing these points with IBM.  The 
initial response (as one might suspect) is that since the current 
behavior has been present in DFSMSdss for a l-o-n-g time (despite the 
fact that no one knew about it until the March 26 DOCS APAR, the end 
result of John Chase's data-loss PMR), that IBM is disinclined to change 
it unless there is a clear consensus within the DFSMSdss customer base 
for a specific "design change" or "enhancement request".  Our 
installation's position is that since our management now knows we have a 
data-integrity hole from using DFSMSdss in our Disaster Recovery design, 
they aren't going to be willing to accept as a solution a program 
enhancement pr

Re: FW: Hipersockets VM Only?

[Miran Cotic]

In the redbook  Hipersockets Implementation Guide on page 46 you can find
the statement (for the BEGINROUTE):
>>Since we are using static routes in our environment, we have to
define a Route statement. If you are using
  dynamic routing (RIP or OSPF), omit this statement.
<<
So you either don't  need to code the BEGINROUTES ?
I have another question:  how can I code/use  EE (Enterprise Extenter)
over Hipersockets ?

Miran Cotic

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: FW: Hipersockets VM Only?

[Dave Jones]

Hipersockets are not unique to z/VM...they can be used to connect z/VM (and
all it's guests, e.g. Linux), running in one LPAR to a z/OS system, running
in another LPAR on the same physical box. It works really well, too.

DJ



On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 16:25:01 -0500, Steven Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Easy to use, too...
>
>DEVICE IUTIQDF6  MPCIPA
>LINK   HIPERLF6  IPAQIDIO IUTIQDF6
>; The F6 above is the CHPIP where device is defined in HCD
>
>HOME
>   .
>   .
>  192.168.0.243  HIPERLF6
>   .
>  BEGINROUTES
>   .
>  ROUTE 192.168.0.0/24 = HIPERLF6 MTU 8192
>   .
>  ENDROUTES
>
>START IUTIQDF6
>
>
>Chase, John wrote:
>
>>Forwarded on behalf of a colleague
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  John
>>
>>  I was looking at Hipersockets for our z890, and found this
>>paragraph:
>>
>>  zSeries HiperSockets is a technology that provides high-speed
>>TCP/IP connectivity between
>>
>>  virtual machines (under z/VM) within System z servers. It
>>eliminates the need for any physical
>>
>>  cabling or external networking connection between these virtual
>>machines.
>>
>>  in the following Redbook:
>>
>>  http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg246990.pdf
>>
>>  Can you confirm that Hipersockets work only with VM?  I though
>>z/OS TCPIP could use them as well.
>>
>>  Thanks.
>>
>>
>
>--
>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Hipersockets VM Only?

[Russell Witt]

As others have stated, it works well under z/OS. The only "catch" is that it
will only work when the connection is between two systems running on the
same physical box (LPAR, partitions, VM guests; whatever). Within the
storage area of CA we use Hipersockets quite nicely to allow BAB (Arcserve
renamed) running on z/Linux to "write" its data to a Hipersocket connected
to an application on z/OS that then really writes the data to physical
tapes. So you have a distributed backup system whose server is running on
z/Linux backing up lots of distributed toy-computers but have the data
actually written to good old reliable z/OS cartridges that are tracked by a
real tape management system (preferably CA-1 of course) that knows how to
insure that a tape is not re-used before its time (novel concept for the
toy-computers).

Russell Witt
CA-1 Level-2 Support Manager

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Chase, John
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 3:53 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: FW: Hipersockets VM Only?


Forwarded on behalf of a colleague




John
 
I was looking at Hipersockets for our z890, and found this
paragraph:
 
zSeries HiperSockets is a technology that provides high-speed
TCP/IP connectivity between

virtual machines (under z/VM) within System z servers. It
eliminates the need for any physical

cabling or external networking connection between these virtual
machines.

in the following Redbook:

http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg246990.pdf

Can you confirm that Hipersockets work only with VM?  I though
z/OS TCPIP could use them as well.

Thanks.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is falling!!)

[Schramm, Rob]

All very fine points.

Although I didn't know about the FLEX-ES partnering with PSI (which
sheds a bit of light there .. I think)

as to 6 .. I have found the discussion interesting.  

I think I am going to wait until the announcements that are coming up
are made in April.  Then decide what kind of things should be said to
IBM.

On a side note, I attended a presentation of Nationwide's Linux running
on z9.  It was a very strong presentation.

-Rob Schramm
Fifth Third Bank

This e-mail transmission contains information that is confidential and may be 
privileged.   It is intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If you 
receive this e-mail in error, please do not read, copy or disseminate it in any 
manner. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, 
distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. Please 
reply to the message immediately by informing the sender that the message was 
misdirected. After replying, please erase it from your computer system. Your 
assistance in correcting this error is appreciated.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is falling!!)

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thompson, Steve) writes:
> First, the driver of the train is the Operating System. Since no one
> writes a seriously competing O/S to IBM (that I'm currently aware of)
> for the 390 architecture or Z, IBM is still firmly in the driver's seat.
> [Don't start with Linux, it just doesn't stack up against VM, VSE, TPF,
> or z/OS]
>
> Which is why the "undocumented" instructions were licensed to AMDAHL
> under what was then called TIDA (Technical Information Disclosure
> Agreement). 
>
> AND, in the EU, as I recall, IBM had to disclose their interfaces at an
> office (location I can't remember) where competing companies with an
> office in the EU could view those documents.
>
> And so IBM was still driving the train, because all those PCMs had to
> make their hardware such that it behaved as IBM's SCPs (System Control
> Programs, or Operating Systems) expected. 
>
> And in AMDAHL's case, there was COMET maintenance (I think that's how it
> was spelled) that was put on "MVS" so that it would not have a problem
> with AMDAHL's CPUIDs, and certain instruction speeds.
>
> But in any case, the PCMs had come up with certain ways of doing things
> that IBM needed to license from them, and obviously vice versa.
>
> Unlike the USofA, the EU may take a very dim view of IBM's current
> behaviors, and we may be right back where we were, which may allow
> certain companies to move their HQs to the EU. And then, PCMs may be
> making z/ARCH machines to compete with IBM again.
>
> But it is my contention that the new PCMs will be bottom to mid-level
> competitors. It will be a bit difficult to get to the top end where
> AMDAHL, HDS, and the others were in the mid-90s.

unrelated past posts in this thread:
http://www.garlic.com/2007g.html#50 IBM to the PCM market
http://www.garlic.com/2007g.html#51 IBM to the PCM market

however, a recent post in totally different thread
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007g.html#54 The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?

mentioning all the dynamic adaptive code that I had done in the resource
manager ... originally for cp67 ... but was dropped in the initial morph
of cp67 to vm370 ... which opened up the opportunity that allowed me to
ship it as a completely separate kernel (add-on) product.

In any case, the (base) vm370 product had table of processor cpuids ...
however I was able to eliminate that table with the dynamic adaptive
code in the resource manager.

Another recent post mentioning the resource manager and dynamic adaptive
code
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007g.html#44 1960s: IBM mgmt mistrust of SLT for 
ICs?

one of the issues for the resource manager ... was with the litigation
leading up to the 23jun69 unbundling announcement ... numerous past
posts:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#unbundle

the case was made that charging for software applied to application
software, but that kernel software should still be free (since it was
required for operation of the hardware). later, somewhat as
circumstances were changing ... the release of my resource manager was
selected to be the (initial) guinea pig for charging for kernel
software.

part of the reason that Amdahl was able to (initially) move into the
highend (in the mid to late 70s) was that the company had taken a
side-trip into Future System project (which was going to replace all
370s ... and be as radically different from 370 ... as 360 had been
different from the machines that had gone before it). Misc. past
posts mentioning FS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#futuresys

When FS was canceled ... there was quite a bit of scrambling to
repopulate the 370 product pipeline. some recent posts also mentioning
the period:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007g.html#13 The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007g.html#17 The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?

i've even claimed that scrambling was at least partially responsible for
POK being able to convince corporate to kill off vm370 product and move
all the vm370 development people to POK to work on mvs/xa (additional
resources required to meet the schedule after FS was killed).  Endicott
did manage to pickup part of the mission and "save" a very small number
of the original development people (from going to pok) to continue to
work on vm370.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is falling!!)

[Thompson, Steve]

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Day
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 5:32 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is
falling!!)


Where will IBM get the $$$ to fund the hardware and software development
in 
your scenario?


At its peak, AMDAHL was getting 50% of the PCM market share. That
represented 7+% of the total mainframe share. And I think that included
the times when there were 43xx PCM manufacturers.

So, if IBM had 85% of the market, do you think they would really be
hurt? And if IBM had 100% of the top 2/3rds, I think they would be
crying all the way to the bank.

And if, in the end, it resulted in MF installs climbing back above
30,000, just how badly hurt would IBM be? (30,000 figure came from IBM
circa 1995, POK Vendor Disclosure Meetings). 

I can see it now, IBM Annual Report:

"We have seen the number of licenses for z/OS increase for the second
straight year, eclipsing the 30,000 from the early 1990s. We believe
that this strong growth has been fueled by our "

Regards,
Steve Thompson

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is falling!!)

[David Day]

Allowing your software to run on other peoples hardware / emulators does not
mean giving up control. IBM could still come up with hardware ( and 
software )

enhancements for their own hardware. Others will be forced to follow suit of
be left out while the users who do need that functionality will get it from 
those

who are offering it. On the other hand all the hardware improvements in the
world can't compensate for loss of talent and innovation caused by high 
dollar
availability barrier. Why do you think so much is happening on the Linux 
scene ?

Mohammad


Where will IBM get the $$$ to fund the hardware and software development in 
your scenario?


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: FW: Hipersockets VM Only?

[Steven Arnett]

Easy to use, too...

DEVICE IUTIQDF6  MPCIPA  
LINK   HIPERLF6  IPAQIDIO IUTIQDF6   
; The F6 above is the CHPIP where device is defined in HCD


HOME   
  .
  .
 192.168.0.243  HIPERLF6  
  .
 BEGINROUTES  
  .
 ROUTE 192.168.0.0/24 = HIPERLF6 MTU 8192 
  .
 ENDROUTES


START IUTIQDF6


Chase, John wrote:


Forwarded on behalf of a colleague




John
	 
	I was looking at Hipersockets for our z890, and found this

paragraph:
	 
	zSeries HiperSockets is a technology that provides high-speed

TCP/IP connectivity between

virtual machines (under z/VM) within System z servers. It
eliminates the need for any physical

cabling or external networking connection between these virtual
machines.

in the following Redbook:

http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg246990.pdf

Can you confirm that Hipersockets work only with VM?  I though
z/OS TCPIP could use them as well.

Thanks.
 



--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: FW: Hipersockets VM Only?

[Rich Smrcina]

All current zSeries operating systems can take advantage of Hipersockets 
(except maybe TPF).  I think since z/OS 1.3?  1.4?  Not sure...


Chase, John wrote:

Forwarded on behalf of a colleague




John
	 
	I was looking at Hipersockets for our z890, and found this

paragraph:
	 
	zSeries HiperSockets is a technology that provides high-speed

TCP/IP connectivity between

virtual machines (under z/VM) within System z servers. It
eliminates the need for any physical

cabling or external networking connection between these virtual
machines.

in the following Redbook:

http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg246990.pdf

Can you confirm that Hipersockets work only with VM?  I though
z/OS TCPIP could use them as well.

Thanks.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html



--
Rich Smrcina
VM Assist, Inc.
Phone: 414-491-6001
Ans Service:  360-715-2467
rich.smrcina at vmassist.com

Catch the WAVV!  http://www.wavv.org
WAVV 2007 - Green Bay, WI - May 18-22, 2007

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

FW: Hipersockets VM Only?

[Chase, John]

Forwarded on behalf of a colleague




John
 
I was looking at Hipersockets for our z890, and found this
paragraph:
 
zSeries HiperSockets is a technology that provides high-speed
TCP/IP connectivity between

virtual machines (under z/VM) within System z servers. It
eliminates the need for any physical

cabling or external networking connection between these virtual
machines.

in the following Redbook:

http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg246990.pdf

Can you confirm that Hipersockets work only with VM?  I though
z/OS TCPIP could use them as well.

Thanks.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is falling!!)

[Bob Shannon]

My two cents:

1. Amdahl and TIDA is AFH.
2. Phil Payne has thoroughly explained why PSI does not have a viable
economic model.
3. FLEX-ES is alleged to have violated its agreement with IBM. No one
will ever know what action IBM would have taken had FLEX-ES not
partnered with PSI.
4. IBM introduced the P390, the MP3000s, and then the FLEX-ES machines.
That doesn't sound like they're trying to kill off ISVs. There are
however, significant issues trying to find a viable, small,
zArchitecture environment.
5. Personally I wish IBM would allow developers to use Hercules. 
6. Although this may be an interesting, albeit tedious topic, all
interested parties should work with IBM through the vendor partnership
instead of making noise on IBM-MAIN. Nothing will get resolved here.

Bob Shannon
Rocket Software

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Dynamic LPAR Re-configuration

[Ted MacNEIL]

>I'm guessing this is routinely performed by others,
but since it is our first time, wanted to check with the experts.

I've been doing it since 3090-E's.
Never had a problem.
(That's over 18 years)

Just make sure you tell the HMC that you want it to happen 'NOW'.

I think that's an option, but I haven't looked at an HMC, since 1999.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!  

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is falling!!)

[Mohammad Khan]

Allowing your software to run on other peoples hardware / emulators does not 
mean giving up control. IBM could still come up with hardware ( and software ) 
enhancements for their own hardware. Others will be forced to follow suit of 
be left out while the users who do need that functionality will get it from 
those 
who are offering it. On the other hand all the hardware improvements in the 
world can't compensate for loss of talent and innovation caused by high dollar 
availability barrier. Why do you think so much is happening on the Linux scene ?
Mohammad


On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 12:03:11 -0600, David Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

>Go back and look at your pops manuals for the last 10 years or so.  Note the
>new instructions from one release to another.  Those instructions were added
>to facilitate functionality that was incorporated into one or more pieces of
>software that IBM markets.  If IBM is in control of the hardware that it's
>software runs on, than it is in IBM's own interest to continue to enhance
>the functionality of that hardware.  If IBM's software executes on non-IBM
>hardware, then it is subject to the limitations of that hardware.  Someone
>else is driving the train.
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Delta takes back outsourcing from IBM

[Ed Gould]

Delta Takes Back BPO Work From IBM
ComputerWire via Yahoo!7 News Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:44 PM PDT
Delta Air Lines is taking back the business process operations it had  
outsourced to IBM Daksh, Big Blues Indian BPO business, according to  
a report in the Indian Economic Times.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

IBM Opens Up System Z Mainframe To SOAs

[Ed Gould]

IBM Opens Up System Z Mainframe To SOAs
InformationWeek Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:52 AM PDT
IBM is expanding the server's capabilities by allowing it to process  
XML documents and their attachments, such as graphic files, that are  
traveling in a SOAP packet.





--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is falling!!)

[Thompson, Steve]

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Day
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 1:03 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is
falling!!)

Go back and look at your pops manuals for the last 10 years or so.  Note
the 
new instructions from one release to another.  Those instructions were
added 
to facilitate functionality that was incorporated into one or more
pieces of 
software that IBM markets.  If IBM is in control of the hardware that
it's 
software runs on, than it is in IBM's own interest to continue to
enhance 
the functionality of that hardware.  If IBM's software executes on
non-IBM 
hardware, then it is subject to the limitations of that hardware.
Someone 
else is driving the train.


First, the driver of the train is the Operating System. Since no one
writes a seriously competing O/S to IBM (that I'm currently aware of)
for the 390 architecture or Z, IBM is still firmly in the driver's seat.
[Don't start with Linux, it just doesn't stack up against VM, VSE, TPF,
or z/OS]

Which is why the "undocumented" instructions were licensed to AMDAHL
under what was then called TIDA (Technical Information Disclosure
Agreement). 

AND, in the EU, as I recall, IBM had to disclose their interfaces at an
office (location I can't remember) where competing companies with an
office in the EU could view those documents.

And so IBM was still driving the train, because all those PCMs had to
make their hardware such that it behaved as IBM's SCPs (System Control
Programs, or Operating Systems) expected. 

And in AMDAHL's case, there was COMET maintenance (I think that's how it
was spelled) that was put on "MVS" so that it would not have a problem
with AMDAHL's CPUIDs, and certain instruction speeds.

But in any case, the PCMs had come up with certain ways of doing things
that IBM needed to license from them, and obviously vice versa.

Unlike the USofA, the EU may take a very dim view of IBM's current
behaviors, and we may be right back where we were, which may allow
certain companies to move their HQs to the EU. And then, PCMs may be
making z/ARCH machines to compete with IBM again.

But it is my contention that the new PCMs will be bottom to mid-level
competitors. It will be a bit difficult to get to the top end where
AMDAHL, HDS, and the others were in the mid-90s.

Later,
Steve Thompson

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: RACF and Member Level Protection

[Ted MacNEIL]

>PDSE code is newer and probably less costly and lower risk for IBM to insert 
>new function into.

I wouldn't think so.
PDSE is so buggy right now.
I wouldn't want anybody adding new function into it until the old function is 
fixed.

I do have a question, though:

Why do YOU want member-level security.
Just move the members to another (protected) library.

-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!  

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Contract Rates

[IBMsysProg]

Eric,
I for one read the digest version of the list so my ability to reply can be
delayed over 24 hours.

RealRates seems to be an interesting site, dealing only with computer
professionals and all.  I would recommend avoiding it as a source of your
information for several reasons.
   1.  Its information is from surveys which alone is very unreliable
   2.  It is a collection of reports from job seekers to job seekers and
bound to be very biased.
   3.  The samples are quite small

I would suggest a site that caters to both HR departments and job seekers.
HR departments want to pay the least and job seekers want to be paid the
most.  In particular I like salary.com

Salary.com deals mostly with full time w2 people so here is what you do.
Use the fully rated compensation numbers (including benefits, vacation, soc
sec, etc)
Divide by the number of WORK HOURS per year
  This IS NOT 52*40   but
 (52*40)-(holidays+vacation+sick+etc)
   1800 is a good start

This is the 1099 compensation rate.
At one time contractors got a premium, this is no longer as true but add it
in if you like.
Travel and Lodging for an assignment greater than 6 months
   Don't think of adding this in unless you are the only candidate for
thousands of miles.

Concerning Per Deim,  if you are a 1099 you are not entitled to per deim but
only actual and reasonable expenses and they are usually less.   Most
contracts are owned by other than the contractor.  The contract firm / head
hunter can pay you per deim, you cannot pay your self ... need to go with
actual and reasonable.

What I suggest is going through a contractors pay roll agency
  The most popular right now  mybizoffice.com
  I personally use Solution Specialists  724-266-6170

I have been through a lot of combinations of this process, contact me if you
want other options or more detail

Avram Friedman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: RACF and Member Level Protection

[Binyamin Dissen]

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:54:24 -0500 Walt Farrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

:>On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:50:12 -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
:><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

:>>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 04/04/2007
:>>   at 10:03 PM, "R.S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

:>>>RACF does not support member-level protection. It was widely
:>>>discussed  several times on RACF-L. IBM claims such protection can be
:>>>circumvented  (which I agree), however it's not easy

:>>Nonsense! It would be trivial to circumvent it, at least for PDS. 

:>I can envision implementations that would make circumvention non-trivial,
:>Shmuel.

:>However, they would involve changes in EXCP processing for all channel
:>programs addressed to any member-protected PDS.  The change would examine
:>all CCWs to make sure the channel program was going to process a member the
:>user was allowed to use.  

:>I can also see that approach as having some (large?) performance impact. 
:>But I don't see a simple way to circumvent it.

If done properly, there is no way to circumvent.

The CCWs would be examined to make sure that they do not modify themselves and
the CCHHRs verified to make sure that they are in the accessible members.

It can be done more cheaply by not allowing a single CCW chain to access
multiple members.

The real performance impact would be to programs that do multiple member
processing, i.e., IEBCOPY, which one could legitimately argue should not be
done by a user that does not have full access to the PDS. 

If the product requires explicit DSNAME(MEMBER) and not allow access out of
the member the processing cost is not too bad.

--
Binyamin Dissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel


Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Dynamic LPAR Re-configuration

[Brown, Larry J.]

Thanks John and Mark.  Sounds like we are good to go!  Larry B. 

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of McKown, John
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 12:54 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Dynamic LPAR Re-configuration

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brown, Larry J.
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 12:46 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Dynamic LPAR Re-configuration
> 
> 
> Hello, we need to make some changes to our LPARs, taking some weight 
> from one to add to another.  This is the 1st time we will have done 
> this, as the original config was set up by someone else long gone from 
> the organization.
> Looks like this can be done dynamically w/o IPL or POR obviously, but 
> we were wondering if there was anything we need to be aware of, or if 
> anybody had run into problems doing this (dynamically), or would we be 
> better off IPL'ing after making the change?  I'm guessing this is 
> routinely performed by others, but since it is our first time, wanted 
> to check with the experts.
> 
> Machine is a z800, 2066-0A2, z/OS 1.4 on one LPAR, z/Ose 1.4 on the 
> other.
>  
> Thanks,
> 
> Larry Brown

I've done it in the past when we had 2 prod LPARs, a test LPAR, and our
"sandbox" LPAR. No problems. And it was even on the same box as yours: a
z800.

--
John McKown
Senior Systems Programmer
HealthMarkets
Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group
Information Technology

The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and/or
confidential.  It is for intended addressee(s) only.  If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly
prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offense.  If
you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply and
delete this message without copying or disclosing it. 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Dynamic LPAR Re-configuration

[McKown, John]

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brown, Larry J.
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 12:46 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Dynamic LPAR Re-configuration
> 
> 
> Hello, we need to make some changes to our LPARs, taking some 
> weight from one
> to add to another.  This is the 1st time we will have done 
> this, as the
> original config was set up by someone else long gone from the 
> organization.
> Looks like this can be done dynamically w/o IPL or POR 
> obviously, but we were
> wondering if there was anything we need to be aware of, or if 
> anybody had run
> into problems doing this (dynamically), or would we be better 
> off IPL'ing
> after making the change?  I'm guessing this is routinely 
> performed by others,
> but since it is our first time, wanted to check with the experts.
> 
> Machine is a z800, 2066-0A2, z/OS 1.4 on one LPAR, z/Ose 1.4 
> on the other.  
>  
> Thanks,
> 
> Larry Brown

I've done it in the past when we had 2 prod LPARs, a test LPAR, and our
"sandbox" LPAR. No problems. And it was even on the same box as yours: a
z800.

--
John McKown
Senior Systems Programmer
HealthMarkets
Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage
Administrative Services Group
Information Technology

The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged
and/or confidential.  It is for intended addressee(s) only.  If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is
strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal
offense.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing
it. 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: dynamic zAAP

[Mark Zelden]

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 12:48:59 -0500, Aaron Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Is one able to switch dynamically between IFACROSSOVER=NO and =YES?  Or
>does that require an IPL?  Can you just pull in the new IEAOPTxx member?
>
>Thanks,
>Aaron
>

Yes, you can change the options dynamically with a SET OPT=xx operator 
command.

Mark
--
Mark Zelden
Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead
Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group:  G-ITO
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
z/OS and OS390 expert at http://searchDataCenter.com/ateExperts/
Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/
Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Dynamic LPAR Re-configuration

[Mark Zelden]

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 12:45:51 -0500, Brown, Larry J. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>Hello, we need to make some changes to our LPARs, taking some weight from one
>to add to another.  This is the 1st time we will have done this, as the
>original config was set up by someone else long gone from the organization.
>Looks like this can be done dynamically w/o IPL or POR obviously, but we were
>wondering if there was anything we need to be aware of, or if anybody had run
>into problems doing this (dynamically), or would we be better off IPL'ing
>after making the change?  I'm guessing this is routinely performed by others,
>but since it is our first time, wanted to check with the experts.
>
>Machine is a z800, 2066-0A2, z/OS 1.4 on one LPAR, z/Ose 1.4 on the other.
>
>Thanks,

"Just do it".   You'll probably want to "change the running system and save to
the profile" so the change will be picked up if you ever do a POR or ACTIVATE
of the LPAR(s).

Mark
--
Mark Zelden
Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead
Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group:  G-ITO
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
z/OS and OS390 expert at http://searchDataCenter.com/ateExperts/
Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/
Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

dynamic zAAP

[Aaron Walker]

Is one able to switch dynamically between IFACROSSOVER=NO and =YES?  Or 
does that require an IPL?  Can you just pull in the new IEAOPTxx member?

Thanks,
Aaron

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Dynamic LPAR Re-configuration

[Brown, Larry J.]

Hello, we need to make some changes to our LPARs, taking some weight from one
to add to another.  This is the 1st time we will have done this, as the
original config was set up by someone else long gone from the organization.
Looks like this can be done dynamically w/o IPL or POR obviously, but we were
wondering if there was anything we need to be aware of, or if anybody had run
into problems doing this (dynamically), or would we be better off IPL'ing
after making the change?  I'm guessing this is routinely performed by others,
but since it is our first time, wanted to check with the experts.

Machine is a z800, 2066-0A2, z/OS 1.4 on one LPAR, z/Ose 1.4 on the other.  
 
Thanks,

Larry Brown
USMEPCOM MIT/J-6
System Support Branch
Enterprise Server Support
847-688-3680 x7275
DSN 792-3680 x7275
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is falling!!)

[David Day]

Go back and look at your pops manuals for the last 10 years or so.  Note the 
new instructions from one release to another.  Those instructions were added 
to facilitate functionality that was incorporated into one or more pieces of 
software that IBM markets.  If IBM is in control of the hardware that it's 
software runs on, than it is in IBM's own interest to continue to enhance 
the functionality of that hardware.  If IBM's software executes on non-IBM 
hardware, then it is subject to the limitations of that hardware.  Someone 
else is driving the train.


- Original Message - 
From: "Mohammad Khan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: 
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is 
falling!!)



Just like the availability of Linux free of charge on commodity hardware 
has

killed Linux.
Just trying to understand your logic.
Mohammad


On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 11:45:37 -0600, David Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:


In my opinion, what will kill the mainframe is if the market becomes a

commodities market where anyone can buy a $500 pc and get a license to run
z/OS.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is falling!!)

[Mohammad Khan]

Just like the availability of Linux free of charge on commodity hardware has 
killed Linux.
Just trying to understand your logic.
Mohammad


On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 11:45:37 -0600, David Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> In my opinion, what will kill the mainframe is if the market becomes a 
commodities market where anyone can buy a $500 pc and get a license to run 
z/OS. 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is falling!!)

[Ray Mullins]

I second Rob's comment.

Timothy, in general I find your posts informative and your commentary is not
100% rah-rah IBM when necessary.  And I hope you never get into trouble for
expressing your opinion where IBM has stumbled.

However, both you and Marcia continue to ignore the context of the current
discussion here on IBM-MAIN in your posts.  Many of us are or work for ISVs
- especially small ones that can't afford the $100K for a basic kneecapped
z9 BC, but could afford the FLEX-ES offering.  These ISVs have supported IBM
System z and its predecessors for over 40 years.  There are many ISVs
represented on this list, and the small ISVs have been griping over the
perceived lack (and remember, perception is reality here) of a proper IBM
response to the FLEX-ES situation for almost a year.  

Another perception, and it's not just mine.  This is not an accusation, but
a legitimate conclusion based on IBM's recent public actions - is that IBM
is trying to strangle the ISV business.  IBM has bought out a significant
number of companies in the past several years.  And some observations I've
made over the past couple of years make me believe that IBM is not only
trying to make small ISVs disappear, but also large ISVs.  (Under NDA, so I
can't talk about these actions, even though the product I'm dealing with is
GA.)  IBM got into significant anti-trust trouble in the past.  IBM Legal
has to go blow off the dust off the archive boxes and study those DoJ
actions.  (This is in no way a statement of support for PSI's position -
there are some serious legal issues there, but I hope that things can be
resolved quickly and without much gnashing of teeth.)

Now I like IBM.  I've been working with IBM computers since 1979, in
college, on a 370/158 running OS/VS2.  I've always wanted to work for IBM,
and I've come close a couple of times.  But I'd hate to have to work for IBM
because they're the only game in town, and there are no more ISVs.  I really
hope that IBM will announce something soon to help ISVs.

A point to ponder:  Software AG today put the latest release of
almost-full-function versions of ADABAS and NATURAL for Windows on its
developer community, for personal use only, ohne Preis, as they say in
Germany.  I use Microsoft Visual C++ Express for prototyping (and I've
downloaded all the other Microsoft Visual Express packages), and I use Don
Higgins' open-source z390 system for basic development.  (He is the author
of the original PC370 product that became part of the base of MicroFocus'
mainframe replacement products.)  Note the cost of all of these systems -
free.  And note their audience - developers, especially hobbyists, who will
play with the technology and hopefully build applications for those
platforms.  HP has continued the OpenVMS hobbyist program that DEC had years
ago (there are conditions).  Now IBM does have developerWorks, but that is
geared almost entirely to the *n*x and open-source worlds.  What is out
there for System z is very miniscule in number.

I think we all want to hear very soon from IBM on what it's doing to help
the small ISV - or if the small ISV even has a future with System z.

Best regards,
Ray


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Schramm, Rob
Sent: Thursday April 05 2007 04:58
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is
falling!!)

Thanks Timothy.

A fine point indeed.

However, you neglected to put a price on the smallest z9 BC machine...
maybe just the machine .. since the developers would hopefully be part
of the PWD.

Is it competitive with the development platform that is offered by
Flex-es? 

If so .. I recind my earlier "nay saying".

If not.. please address "the point" raised and address the needs of the
small developer.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: RACF and Member Level Protection

[Knutson, Sam]

Hi,

It seems like marketing or SHARE requirements to IBM for DFSMSdfp to
support member level protection in just PDSE data sets might be in
order.   PDSE code is newer and probably less costly and lower risk for
IBM to insert new function into.  PDSE internal structure is not known
or used by customers and vendors so lower level access should be less of
an issue.  PDSE access is only through known interfaces.   PDSE is
actively being enhanced.  If we want to get this funded as a line item
for a z/OS release then we need to start asking.  If IBM satisfied
existing requirements only for DSORG PDSE it seems like that would be a
reasonable response.

My .02  

Best Regards, 

Sam Knutson, GEICO 
Performance and Availability Management 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
(office)  301.986.3574 

"Think big, act bold, start simple, grow fast..."

-Original Message-
Subject: Re: RACF and Member Level Protection

Rob Scott of the IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
wrote on 04/05/2007 08:26:52 AM:

>>I went to an ACF2 presentation in the late 1990's about member level  
>>protection, and IIRC, ACF2 checks the CCHHR address somewhere in the  
>>EXCP process.

> I imagine those developers had some "fun" when PDS-Es were 
> introduced




O  PDS/E data sets are not under member-level controls.

http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: RACF and Member Level Protection

[Rick Fochtman]

I agree there are just too many ways around it. You *might* be able  to 
do via "normal" (BLDL SCRATCH etc) but after that there are a few  ways 
around it.

---
If a user has UPDATE authority to a PDS, he can scratch a member using 
STOW, with the DELETE operand. Member-level protection won't exist until 
there are mechanisms in the BSAM/BPAM access code, as well as STOW, BLDL 
and FIND. And EXCP/XDAP access brings up a whole new set of issues.


I'm not holding my breath; the overhead would be staggering.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Adrdssu Reorg of KSDS files

[George Rodriguez]

Giovanni said..."The easiest way to Reorg VSAM FIles is to use HSM," but
doesn't HSM use ADRDSSU under the covers? The last time I looked ADRDSSU
doesn't REORG...Please let me know...

George 

 Original-Nachricht 
Datum: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:02:01 -0700
Von: Carl Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Betreff: Adrdssu  Reorg of KSDS files

> I have a client that wants to move from Faver to
> ADRDSSU. A question arose re the reorging of VSAM
> files. The question is. Using ADRDSSU for Backup and
> Restore, will the files be reorged on the Retore?
> The manual states fairly clearly that using ADRDSSU to
> COPY files will reult in a reorg, could not find same
> thing for a Restore.
> 
> TIA
> Carl
> 
> 
>  
>


> Bored stiff? Loosen up... 
> Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
> http://games.yahoo.com/games/front
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
> Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

-- 
M f G.

Giovanni Santuz

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
-
Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do
not want your e-mail address released in response to a public
records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity.
Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Time Change at IPL

[Mark Zelden]

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:21:33 -0500, Herring, Bobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>We didn't know about the CICS P RESET command.
>
>How do you deal with DB2 subsystems? Do you bounce them?
>
>Thanks,
>Bobby Herring
>Texas Farm Bureau Insurance Companies

Bobby,

Why don't you try search the archives / google.  This has been discussed
plenty of times - usually twice a year.  :-)   You'll also find a reference
to an old Redbook on the 9037 sysplex timer that discusses the CICS
considerations as well as other IBM software.  Hopefully you can still
get that Redbook or at least an update. 

Mark
--
Mark Zelden
Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead
Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group:  G-ITO
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
z/OS and OS390 expert at http://searchDataCenter.com/ateExperts/
Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/
Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Wylbur and Paging

[Rick Fochtman]

---
Perhaps you are thinking of the fixed-head disk, which was a dumb 
product for Burroughs to introduce until IBM invented it for the 2305.


My memory may be pretty hazy here, but wasn't the 2302 a fixed-head 
design ??


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Seeking FTP Spanish conversion tables.

[Clark, Kevin]

Just an update for the archives. 

Turns out my tables were fine. It was my Telnet and Windows sessions
that needed to switched to the 1145 code page and Spanish keyboard. 

Problem solved...

Kevin 

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Clark, Kevin
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 1:41 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Seeking FTP Spanish conversion tables.

Hello or Buena Dias, 

 

MY Spanish and eSpanish tables in SEZATCPX are incorrect. 

 

Does any one have a updated and complete table of translation for all
characters. ( EBCDIC to ASCII) and back.  

 

 

Kevin 

 

 


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: RACF and Member Level Protection

[Walt Farrell]

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:50:12 -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 04/04/2007
>   at 10:03 PM, "R.S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>RACF does not support member-level protection. It was widely
>>discussed  several times on RACF-L. IBM claims such protection can be
>>circumvented  (which I agree), however it's not easy
>
>Nonsense! It would be trivial to circumvent it, at least for PDS. 

I can envision implementations that would make circumvention non-trivial,
Shmuel.

However, they would involve changes in EXCP processing for all channel
programs addressed to any member-protected PDS.  The change would examine
all CCWs to make sure the channel program was going to process a member the
user was allowed to use.  

I can also see that approach as having some (large?) performance impact. 
But I don't see a simple way to circumvent it.

   Walt Farrell, CISSP
   z/OS Security Design

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: RACF and Member Level Protection

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 04/04/2007
   at 10:03 PM, "R.S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>RACF does not support member-level protection. It was widely
>discussed  several times on RACF-L. IBM claims such protection can be
>circumvented  (which I agree), however it's not easy

Nonsense! It would be trivial to circumvent it, at least for PDS. PDSE
might be more secure.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Question about SuperWylbur

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 04/04/2007
   at 09:30 PM, "(IBM Mainframe Discussion List)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:

>In a message dated 4/4/2007 7:42:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>Online Software International is not the same company as  Optimum
>Systems Inc. They had nothing to do with SuperWylbur®.
> 
>Where "they" means Online Software International.

Correct; neither Online Software International nor Online Business
Systems had anything to do with SuperWylbur®. 
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: RACF and Member Level Protection

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 04/04/2007
   at 03:32 PM, Steven Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>CA Top Secret supports member level security in a PDS or PDSE,
>allowing a  variance of access authority to users of the dataset
>versus an individual  member.  We have that plugged in.  A few months
>ago, there was a problem  that led me to open an issue with Top
>Secret to verify what they do, and  with another vendor to determine
>why their program hung on failed access  at the member level.

The first question is what they mean by "supports member level
security in a PDS or PDSE." Are they talking about checking access
only on OPEN, or also on FIND and STOW? It would be trivial to
circumvent controls on FIND for PDS.

>The other vendor runs RACF, and today told me his RACF Admin says
>RACF does not support member level protection.

Correct; if you want to submit a requirement for that facility, spell
out in detail what you want protected.

-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is falling!!)

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 04/04/2007
   at 04:50 PM, "Thompson, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>US Courts have held that what a sales person tells you and what the
>contract says means nothing.

Those same courts, in the 1970's, held IBM to terms that a salesman
allegedly told a customer, despite explicit language in the contract
that IBM was only obligated to fulfill what was in the contract.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is falling!!)

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 04/05/2007
   at 02:43 PM, Timothy Sipples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>Myth buster reporting for duty. :-) 

It was dereliction of duty to not report prices on, e.g., the P390,
MP2000, MP3000.

>I should also point out that the "press release price" for the
>hardware has fallen at least with each successive z/Architecture
>system.

K3wl, since that was never the issue. The issue was entry-level
systems, priced well below the z boxen.

>Your mileage may vary, but let's try to stick to the facts, OK? 

That's a good idea. Start with the fact's on the prices for the entry
level systems that are no longer options. What you have written, by
skipping critical data, was just spin control.

>Let's look at the 2 CPU minimum configurations since you asked:

Let's look at *PRICES*, not just capacity.

>Apparently IBM understands this,

That depends on what "this" is. They certainly don't understand, or
don't care about, the needs of the customer in the P/390, FLEX, MPx000
range.

>so all the above is good news, yes?

No, it is *NOT* good news for the *SMALL* customer.

-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is falling!!)

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 04/04/2007
   at 02:59 PM, "Thompson, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>Many years ago it was a royal pain to migrate from one box to the
>next, even if made by the same company. IBM came up with a
>revolutionary idea, the System 360.

How hard was it to migrate from a 7070 to a 7074? From a 7090 to a
7094? From a Burroughs B5000 to a B5500? From a CDC 1604 to a 1604A to
a 3600 to a 3800? From a GE 625 to a 635? From a UNIVAC 1107 to an
1108? What was new in the S/360 was that it was aimed at both the
business and the scientific users.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is falling!!)

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 04/04/2007
   at 01:46 PM, Marcia Harelik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>May I posit this theory? In the market today are 3 kinds of
>computers:  Intel-based, Unix-based, and the MF.

There's no such thing as a Unix-based computer. Unix runs on multiple
types of computers, including Intel and mainframes. Similarly, *bsd
and Linux run on multiple types of machines.

>Getting back to Steve's point that IBM MF is running from low-end 
>customers, I don't think that is the case

Then identify a viable option for low-end customers.

>but IBM does understand that the MF is not for every company, and 
>usually the smaller the company, the less true need there is for 
>the MF.

That's not at all obvious; what is obvious is that IBM has created
artificial barriers that drive away potential small customers.

-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: ADR793E -PDSE indicators in the VTOC and VVDS do not match

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 04/04/2007
   at 10:57 AM, "Alvaro Quintupray B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>Subject: Re: ADR793E -PDSE indicators in the VTOC and VVDS do not
>match

I'd check with IBM before modifying the DSCB1.

>Can I modify the VTOC to change the attributes of a file? .. how?

Get the PDS command from the CBT.

I believe that's 
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Time Change at IPL

[McKown, John]

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Herring, Bobby
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 10:22 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Time Change at IPL
> 
> 
> We didn't know about the CICS P RESET command.
> 
> How do you deal with DB2 subsystems? Do you bounce them? 
> 
> Thanks, 
> Bobby Herring
> Texas Farm Bureau Insurance Companies

We don't have DB2. From what little I know of DB2, all of its logs are
kept in GMT, so nothing is required. There is a discussion about
TIMESTAMPs and other date and time functions in the DB2 manuals. They
indicate that they start from the TOD clock value and then somehow look
at the TIMEZONE or CLOCKnn parameter to determine the local time. I
didn't really understand exactly how they are doing this.

UNIX programs that honor the TZ variable also handle the localtime
correctly, assuming that you have the TZ variable set correctly and the
LE ptfs installed for the new DST.

--
John McKown
Senior Systems Programmer
HealthMarkets
Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage
Administrative Services Group
Information Technology

The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged
and/or confidential.  It is for intended addressee(s) only.  If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is
strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal
offense.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing
it. 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Time Change at IPL

[Herring, Bobby]

We didn't know about the CICS P RESET command.

How do you deal with DB2 subsystems? Do you bounce them? 

Thanks, 
Bobby Herring
Texas Farm Bureau Insurance Companies


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of McKown, John
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 1:17 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Time Change at IPL

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas Raskin
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:41 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Time Change at IPL
> 
> 
> Am interested in knowing if most people still IPL for time 
> change - spring and 
> fall - and if anyone does not, how they handle this.
> 
> Thanks, Tom

We don't. Our TOD clock is set to GMT. At time change, we issue a T
CLOCK=03.00.00 (or whatever). We then either recycle the CICS regions
that are up or issue the CEMT command to sync the CICS time to the z/OS
local time. We also change PARMLIB to set the CLOCKnn member correctly
for any future IPLs.

--
John McKown

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: T.J. Maxx data theft worse than first reported

[Pommier, Rex R.]

No, you haven't missed anything.  There has been no disclosure of what
platform or platforms were hacked that I'm aware of.

Rex

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Carol Srna
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 10:09 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: T.J. Maxx data theft worse than first reported

Were they using the MF platform?  Has this been established?  Did I miss
something?

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: T.J. Maxx data theft worse than first reported

[Carol Srna]

Were they using the MF platform?  Has this been established?  Did I miss 
something?




Ed Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
04/04/2007 08:32 PM
Please respond to
IBM Mainframe Discussion List 


To
IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
cc

Subject
Re: T.J. Maxx data theft worse than first reported






On Apr 4, 2007, at 4:20 PM, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:

> The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
> that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm- 
> main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
 
--


I looked for this article online but apparently its not there yet. 
According to Network World (4/2/2007) .. Part of the "problem" is:

"older legacy systems are difficult. because  the industry just 
doesn't have the tools (to encrypt data)", "There are other controls 
you can put in place place around those."

Talk about MF bashing.

Ed




--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: NETSRV confusion

[Mark Pace]

You have higher maintenance on your production system than on your test
system??



It's a "new" test system. :-)

--
Mark Pace
Mainline Information Systems

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Question about SuperWylbur

[Thompson, Steve]

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Andrews
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 7:37 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Question about SuperWylbur

On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 20:23 -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
> ACS inherited OBS Wylbur

Not mentioned so far in the discussion is the fact that OBS acquired
Cullinet's Interact in the late 80s.  Tom Anderson's crew at OBS spent
quite a bit of time integrating the unique features of Interact into OBS
Wylbur (due in part to our tireless haranguing) including the IDMS IDD
interface.


I didn't know enough about this to speak to it, because I came along at
the mid-life of 9.0. I just knew we had some type of interface into
IDMS, but we didn't have it to test with.

And I take exception to Shmuel's assertion: "ACS inherited OBS Wylbur,
which was more primitive than either NIH Wylbur or SuperWylbur(r)"

First, WYLBUR is a Registered TM of Stanford (last I checked) -- think I
even mentioned this in an earlier post. And ACS bought OBS, it wasn't
inherited, but it was certainly killed by upper management.

And wasn't it NIH that killed their system for, what was it, six weeks?
because they didn't have their JES2 interface right for a single
release? Meanwhile, OBS/ACS WYLBUR was supporting JES2 XA through OS/390
V1.2 with SSI and SRB, plus JES3 SSI. And then we had full 3270 support
with full screen across MOD2-5, and extended attributes. SMP/E install,
SMS support...

Tell me again what your experience is to know all this?

Regards,
Steve Thompson

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: NETSRV confusion

[Staller, Allan]

>From my experience, NETSRV SOCKET= must point to a valid SOCKET
statement.
Your syntax seems to be correct.

HTH,


I've manually made TCPIP NJE connection to my z/VM system.  Now I wanted
to add it to my JES2 parameters,. but am running into an error I don't
understand.
To manually start netserv I enter
$ADD NSV(001)

So in JES2PARMS I added
NSV(001) SOCKET=LOCAL


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: NETSRV confusion

[Greg Keuken]

No worries... at least you weren't trying to test a purge command or
something!

I was going to ask if you had the proper maintenance, however, since you
indicated that the manual commands worked, it appeared that indeed you
had!

You have higher maintenance on your production system than on your test
system?? 

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Pace
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 10:38 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: NETSRV confusion

I'm a moron.  I've made the connection in my production system, and was
testing the parameters in my test system, which..
hasn't had the JES maintenance to allow TCPIP connections. DOH!   Sorry.

-- 
Mark Pace
Mainline Information Systems

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: NETSRV confusion

[Mark Pace]

I'm a moron.  I've made the connection in my production system, and was
testing the parameters in my test system, which..
hasn't had the JES maintenance to allow TCPIP connections. DOH!   Sorry.

--
Mark Pace
Mainline Information Systems

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: NETSRV confusion

[Greg Keuken]

I've got 

NETSRV1 SOCKET=LOCAL in my Jes2 parms... no errors. 

 


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Pace
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 10:21 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: NETSRV confusion

I've manually made TCPIP NJE connection to my z/VM system.  Now I wanted
to
add it to my JES2 parameters,. but am running into an error I don't
understand.
To manually start netserv I enter
$ADD NSV(001)

So in JES2PARMS I added
NSV(001) SOCKET=LOCAL

But during startup I am getting
$HASP003 RC=(03),NSV(001)  - INVALID PARAMETER

I've tried replying with every combination I can thing of.
NSV(1)
NETSRV(001)
NETSRV(1)
NETSRV1

All return the same error.  The manual does not mention if the parameter
has
to follow some other parameter.

-- 
Mark Pace
Mainline Information Systems

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

NETSRV confusion

[Mark Pace]

I've manually made TCPIP NJE connection to my z/VM system.  Now I wanted to
add it to my JES2 parameters,. but am running into an error I don't
understand.
To manually start netserv I enter
$ADD NSV(001)

So in JES2PARMS I added
NSV(001) SOCKET=LOCAL

But during startup I am getting
$HASP003 RC=(03),NSV(001)  - INVALID PARAMETER

I've tried replying with every combination I can thing of.
NSV(1)
NETSRV(001)
NETSRV(1)
NETSRV1

All return the same error.  The manual does not mention if the parameter has
to follow some other parameter.

--
Mark Pace
Mainline Information Systems

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: RACF and Member Level Protection

[Shane]

On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 18:15 -0400, Walter Farrell wrote:

> If you would like member level protection supported natively in z/OS, 
> please submit a requirement ... and ask DFSMS for that support.

Says it all really.
Get it done at the "lowest" component, not the highest - no doubt gil is
quietly cheering the concept.

Shane ...

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Adrdssu Reorg of KSDS files

[Norbert Friemel]

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:02:01 -0700, Carl Edwards wrote: 
   
>I have a client that wants to move from Faver to  
>ADRDSSU. A question arose re the reorging of VSAM 
>files. The question is. Using ADRDSSU for Backup and  
>Restore, will the files be reorged on the Retore? 
>The manual states fairly clearly that using ADRDSSU to
>COPY files will reult in a reorg, could not find same 
>thing for a Restore.

1. The answer to your question is: it depends! If you use the VALIDATE
keyword on the DUMP (it's the default), indexed VSAM files are reorganized
during RESTORE processing. The manual is "very clear"  : "3. When a data
set is restored, the free space in the control areas and control intervals
are reset to the values in the catalog entry." (Stg Admin Ref: "VALIDATE"
Note 3).  
2. DSS COPY does NOT reorganize the files in most cases (IMHO). This is
especially true when "fast replication methods" (FastCopy/Snapshot) are
used. IDCAMS is only used if some target attributes are different from the
source. 

Norbert Friemel

   

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: RACF and Member Level Protection

[Rob Scott]

>PDS/E data sets are not under member-level controls.

Surely that is a very good reason *not* to have member level controls -
regardless of the vendor software having its (as CC would put it) "hands
down the pants" of EXCP, BLDL and STOW.   


Rob Scott
Rocket Software, Inc
275 Grove Street
Newton, MA 02466
617-614-2305
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.rs.com/portfolio/mxi_g2

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John P Kalinich
Sent: 05 April 2007 09:32
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: RACF and Member Level Protection

Rob Scott of the IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
wrote on 04/05/2007 08:26:52 AM:

>>I went to an ACF2 presentation in the late 1990's about member level  
>>protection, and IIRC, ACF2 checks the CCHHR address somewhere in the  
>>EXCP process.

> I imagine those developers had some "fun" when PDS-Es were 
> introduced




O  PDS/E data sets are not under member-level controls.

http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: RACF and Member Level Protection

[John P Kalinich]

Rob Scott of the IBM Mainframe Discussion List  wrote
on 04/05/2007 08:26:52 AM:

>>I went to an ACF2 presentation in the late 1990's about member level
>> protection, and IIRC, ACF2 checks the CCHHR address somewhere in the
>> EXCP process.

> I imagine those developers had some "fun" when PDS-Es were
> introduced




O  PDS/E data sets are not under member-level controls.

http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: RACF and Member Level Protection

[Rob Scott]

>I went to an ACF2 presentation in the late 1990's about member level
protection, and IIRC, ACF2 checks the CCHHR address somewhere in the
EXCP process.
I imagine those developers had some "fun" when PDS-Es were
introduced

IMHO - this sounds like too much "brave and clever" code. 


Rob Scott
Rocket Software, Inc
275 Grove Street
Newton, MA 02466
617-614-2305
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.rs.com/portfolio/mxi_g2

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John P Kalinich
Sent: 05 April 2007 08:11
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: RACF and Member Level Protection

Tim Hare of the IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
wrote on 04/04/2007 02:48:09 PM:

> RACF does not protect individual members - and I don't see how Top 
> Secret

> does either.   SAF is called from OPEN, which is a dataset-level, not
> member-level function.  Top Secret could of course intercept BLDL and
STOW
> to provide some sort of member security - but I think those intercepts

> would have a performance penalty given all of the PDS searches in an 
> MVS shop, and of course there are always programs which don't bother 
> with
BLDL
> to worry about.
>
> I am not a RACF "expert" (I'll leave that to Walt and Russ and others)
but
> reasoning tells me member protection can't be 100% - too many ways 
> around

> it.

I went to an ACF2 presentation in the late 1990's about member level
protection, and IIRC, ACF2 checks the CCHHR address somewhere in the
EXCP process.

Regards,
John Kalinich
Computer Sciences Corp

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is falling!!)

[Thompson, Steve]

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Timothy Sipples
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 12:43 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is
falling!!)

Steve Thompson writes:
>Meanwhile, IBM is RUNNING from the low end customers. They aren't out
>there marketing to the bottom end companies. Each system that comes ou=
t,
>the CPUs are how much faster than before?


Apparently IBM understands this, so all the above is good news, yes?

Where do these rumors start?


H. What happened to the Tier 2 z/Series Partners? That was where my
market was because we were ONLY allowed the M/P boxes unless we got
special approval from IBM. 

Speaking of the MP boxes, tell me again the offering from IBM that has
DASD inside the box so that there is a single foot print for processor
and its needed DASD and price.

Sure, sell me a z9 with small a small CPU. Now sell me all the channels
(ESCON or FICON) and RAID that I need. How much for that RAID box? And
how many I/O connections do I need to it?

Compare and contrast to a FLEX-ES box or a Multiprize Box. 

Now add the long MF sales cycle and tell me again how many of these
Mainline, T3, Cornerstone, Berbe, etc. sell in a year vs larger systems
(do not count ISVs).

When the world was very knowledgeable about what the competition was
doing, IBM came out with the S/360. The rest is history. All one had to
do was migrate their data once, and migrate their programming language
once, and moving up the line was relatively easy (yes, we can get into
VS, and XA if you wanna).

Migrate from a Windows environment. The machine had better be pretty
much turnkey. And the cost of the migration of systems software (data
base, web service, etc.) had better be pretty cheap.

That's the bottom end you are talking to today. Not a company that has
outgrown tabulators. 

In 1995, at the POK disclosure meetings we were told that the MVS
license base was growing. And the reason for that growth was the P390,
and as I recall, it wasn't just ISVs buying them.

And so with all that IBM has done, is the MVS license base getting
larger or smaller?

Regards,
Steve Thompson

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Contract Rates

[Chase, John]

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Eric Bielefeld
> 
> Clark,
> 
> Thanks for the information.  I'll check it out.  You were the 
> only one who replied on the list.  About 5 others sent me 
> emails offlist so far that are helpful.
> 
> Is there a listserve that deals with contracting?

This isn't a listserv, but looks like it might be a resource:

http://www.scguild.com/sites.html

At one time there was the "Independent Contractor Exchange", sort of
"affiliated" with NaSPA, but Google does not return it on the first
page.

-jc-

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Question about SuperWylbur

[David Andrews]

On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 20:23 -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
> ACS inherited OBS Wylbur

Not mentioned so far in the discussion is the fact that OBS acquired
Cullinet's Interact in the late 80s.  Tom Anderson's crew at OBS spent
quite a bit of time integrating the unique features of Interact into OBS
Wylbur (due in part to our tireless haranguing) including the IDMS IDD
interface.

Interact itself began life as "Mentext", from - I believe - Mencom.

-- 
David Andrews
A. Duda and Sons, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: RACF and Member Level Protection

[John P Kalinich]

Tim Hare of the IBM Mainframe Discussion List  wrote
on 04/04/2007 02:48:09 PM:

> RACF does not protect individual members - and I don't see how Top Secret

> does either.   SAF is called from OPEN, which is a dataset-level, not
> member-level function.  Top Secret could of course intercept BLDL and
STOW
> to provide some sort of member security - but I think those intercepts
> would have a performance penalty given all of the PDS searches in an MVS
> shop, and of course there are always programs which don't bother with
BLDL
> to worry about.
>
> I am not a RACF "expert" (I'll leave that to Walt and Russ and others)
but
> reasoning tells me member protection can't be 100% - too many ways around

> it.

I went to an ACF2 presentation in the late 1990's about member level
protection, and IIRC, ACF2 checks the CCHHR address somewhere in the EXCP
process.

Regards,
John Kalinich
Computer Sciences Corp

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: PL/I Relocatables

[Steve Comstock]

Chris Phinicarides wrote:

Hello!

We use relocatable routines which are called from within our programs.

The routines' compilation produce object (not load module), which, as I
know, is used during the programs' link-edit.

As far as I understand, when a relocatable changes (and is recompiled for
the production of a new OBJ), the programs using it have to be re-compiled
for "attaching" its object to their load module (during link-edit).


Not at all. You can not run without linking (although the Linkage
Editor is dead; long live the program binder).

For some reason, PL/I shops have tended to keep object code
and they do a lot of re-linking (excuse me, re-binding). But
the need for working this way is long gone. You have two
major choices:

1. If you call your routines statically, then when you
   change a subroutine its source must be recompiled
   and bound; then you can do a re-bind of the caller
   and your back together; no need to do a recompile

2. If you call your routines dynamically, then when
   you change a subroutine its source must be recompiled
   and bound; that's it. The caller always gets the
   one and only most current version automatically,
   so no need to touch the calling program at all.

Although there are times when static calls may be
required, generally speaking dynamic calls are the
way to go.





The first question is whether my understanding is right.


No. see above.



My second question regards DB2 relocatables used within DB2 programs: How
should they correctly be treated for having their DB2 BIND in sync with the
programs' corresponding load module?


When you have a DB2 program that has embedded SQL, you must
pre-compile; this produces a DBRM and a modified version of
your source; the DBRM must be [DB2] bound to produce a plan
or a package that is part of a plan; the modified source
must be compiled and [program] bound (link edited; too bad
about using the word "bind" for both processes).

When you run a DB2 program, you specify the program name
and the plan name, directly or indirectly, and DB2 checks
they are in sync. Again, if a subroutine has SQL calls in
it, but its caller does not, it is only important that
the subroutine be kept in sync with its plan; the caller
does not matter.

Hope this helps.

Kind regards,



Any explanation and/or reference is welcome.

Thank you.

Chris.


--
-Steve Comstock
The Trainer's Friend, Inc.

303-393-8716
http://www.trainersfriend.com


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is falling!!)

[Tom Marchant]

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:43:17 +0900, Timothy Sipples 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Steve Thompson writes:
>>Meanwhile, IBM is RUNNING from the low end customers. They aren't out
>>there marketing to the bottom end companies. Each system that comes out,
>>the CPUs are how much faster than before?
>
>Myth buster reporting for duty. 



>
>Where do these rumors start?
>

Software costs.

Obviously you don't believe it, but many z/OS customers are leaving the 
platform because of software costs.  Even big shops.  You mentioned that 
people buy far too much capacity and use sub-capacity pricing to reduce the 
software costs way down.  I'm sure there are some of those, but *many* 
others run at the ragged edge, upgrading in the smallest increments only when 
absolutely necessary.  Often not until after significant amounts of work stop 
getting done.  And often some of that work has been moved to other 
platforms because the business requires that it be done.  Do you think those 
application owners would consider moving back to the mainframe that they 
were pushed off of?

Tom Marchant

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is falling!!)

[Schramm, Rob]

Thanks Timothy.

A fine point indeed.

However, you neglected to put a price on the smallest z9 BC machine...
maybe just the machine .. since the developers would hopefully be part
of the PWD.

Is it competitive with the development platform that is offered by
Flex-es? 

If so .. I recind my earlier "nay saying".

If not.. please address "the point" raised and address the needs of the
small developer.

-Rob Schramm



This e-mail transmission contains information that is confidential and may be 
privileged.   It is intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If you 
receive this e-mail in error, please do not read, copy or disseminate it in any 
manner. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, 
distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. Please 
reply to the message immediately by informing the sender that the message was 
misdirected. After replying, please erase it from your computer system. Your 
assistance in correcting this error is appreciated.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: GDPS and EMC DMX question

[Jim Marshall]

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 07:33:55 -0400, Jousma, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

>What does your EMC Sales Rep say about this? I believe that EMC has
>their own "GDPS" offering called GDDR.  I know that the EMC disk ss
>supposed to be able to do PPRC, but everytime I ask that here, all I get
>is that it is "Flakey", and the issue goes no further.  If you have
>already made the jump into GDPS, you better make sure your contract
>people put language in any new contracts with EMC that what they are
>selling you will continue to support your GDPS infrustructure or they
>pull the DASD out at no cost to you.
>
EMC's GDDR is a bit different from GDPS. Right now EMC's product, SRDF, is a 
DASD controller to DASD controller based operation. The controllers are 
commanded from EMC's Host software running in an LPAR. You control the DR 
controller from the host system. People asked for a way to control the DR 
controller from the DR site. EMC's solution is to have you run a z/OS LPAR at 
the DR site which runs EMC's Host software component. Then you somehow 
get access to z/OS in the DR site and do commanding locally. So GDDR gives 
you the facility to do all this. 

The advantage of the DASD controller to DASD controller operations is the 
lack software licensing fees. Running GDDR would mean paying EMC for the 
remote Host software not to mention IBM for the z/OS software of the LPAR. 
My question to EMC is could it be z/OSe or its follow-on which I think is eWLC 
pricing. Then we have the ISV's who will most certainly claim you are running 
images at the DR site and want you to license all their products because they 
are installed on the machine and you are running z/OS all the time. Last time I 
checked all the majors and many minors, they want money.

The implication from EMC is GDDR was meant for SRDF. I never asked about 
PPRC. 

Jim 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Wylbur and Paging

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 04/01/2007
   at 03:24 PM, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>Another infrastructure that essentially had a similar kind of
>"canned" environment (running under os/360) was CPS

You can get a big RUSH from that. Developed by Allen-Babcock.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is falling!!)

[Ted MacNEIL]

>Where do these rumors start?

It's all well and good to tell us this.
But, management believes these rumours.
AND, IBM is doing a cr*p job of selling the mainframe to the people holding the 
purse strings.

I cannot convince the powers that be to even consider z/LINUX under z/VM and an 
IFL (or three).

The savings are there, but IBM won't even try!

Myth-buster my rear-end!

-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!  

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html