Re: Now is time for banks to replace core system according to Accenture
R.S. wrote: And Andersen Consulting is (was) not Arthur Andersen. According to the Accenture item in Wikipedia, It was once part of Arthur Andersen. See the article for more information as to how the name became Accenture. KG -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: IBMLink SEV1 Ticket 32927263 ETA 12:20PM
Ed Gould wrote: On Aug 27, 2007, at 12:38 PM, Ed Finnell wrote: tergiversates OK Ed... That is the first time I have heard of that word. Looked it up in the dictionary and still don't understand it, Please enlighten. TIA. Ed Beats around the bush, waffles, straddles the fence, etc. -- Kim Goldenberg Systems Programmer I State of NJ - OIT 609-777-3722 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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: Non - ECC, non-parity memory was Re: Risks (Was Re: Decoding the encryption puzzle)
Steve Flynn wrote: On 06/02/07, Kim Goldenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (I guess this is to Shane?) I'd try swapping out the memory, and/or swapping the memory sticks in the machine and see if it gets past that point. Usually, if memtest86 shops for some reason, there is a memory problem; probably it's in the location it parked itself to run. Swapping memory within the box will tell you if the problem moves, putting new memory in (from another, known good, system) will also tell you that there is a problem. As an aside, my Windows machine at home - rock solid, no problems at all. No errors when testing with Memtest95 and Prime95 My friends machine, flaky as hell, random crashes, lock ups, reboots, etc. Errors when testing with Memtest96 and Prime95 We swapped memory sticks. My machine, still rock solid. His machine, NOW rock solid. We can only put this down to timing issues with the motherboards - they are from different manufacturers. Moral of the story - Bad Ram is not always Bad Ram - sometimes it's Bad driver circuitry/motherbaord design. Only way to tell is to swap some kit around. It is also well known (and Crucial, among others, will tell you at great lengths) that all memory is not created equal, There is variation between brands, and sometimes even processing runs of the same brand. I've had that before as well, brought the memory back to the seller, exchanged it for new sticks, and it just works. Sometimes it feels like a phase-of-the-moon sort of thing. So now we have two different things to try. Kim -- 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: Non - ECC, non-parity memory was Re: Risks (Was Re: Decoding the encryption puzzle)
Binyamin Dissen wrote: On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 06:07:29 +1000 Shane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :>On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 14:48 -0500, Knutson, Sam wrote: :>> I like http://www.memtest86.com/ FREE, GPL, bootable ISO you can :>> download. :>Ditto - and is an option on every boot menu on every one of my systems. :>And it's usually on any Linux liveCD - and I've truckloads of them :>laying around. :>And (to me) the important thing is it's "stand alone" - as we understand :>the term. Just like stand alone dump. Burned it and tried it on my Pentium-4 - it seems to always hang at the start of step 3. Any thoughts? (I guess this is to Shane?) I'd try swapping out the memory, and/or swapping the memory sticks in the machine and see if it gets past that point. Usually, if memtest86 shops for some reason, there is a memory problem; probably it's in the location it parked itself to run. Swapping memory within the box will tell you if the problem moves, putting new memory in (from another, known good, system) will also tell you that there is a problem. Have you made sure the memory has not come unseated by taking it out and putting it back in? That can cause you problems as well. Kim -- 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: Forbidding Special characters in passwords
Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: At 12:19 -0500 on 01/10/2007, Kim Goldenberg wrote about Re: Forbidding Special characters in passwords: Because they don't exist on ATMs. If you have a debit/credit card tied to your account and go to an ATM, you can't enter the special characters (perhaps except # and *). ATMs also limit the password lengths, so that the software inside doesn't have to have more buffer space than absolutely necessary. That also probably eliminated upper/lower case differences as well. Quite possibly folds the letters into the appropriate numbers as on the phone. What requires that the password for the Credit/Debit card be the same as that of the Online Account that is is controlled by? My Online banking accounts have totally different passwords from the ones I use at the ATM when I present the card. The ATM wants a NUMERIC PIN while the Online Banking takes an Alphanumeric Password (even if your selected ATM PIN is just the Telephone Pad translation of the Alphanumeric Password for the Online Banking). The bank I use (a nationally known bank) has decided (? by PHBs? ) that you have one pin for everything. That's their choice, not mine. Now, however, you now have a passkey of a picture and a description the you provide and you are required to confirm they match when you log on; kind of like saying are you really __? Not *MY* choice, but theirs. Kim -- 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: z New Application License Charges (zNALC) Announced
Chase, John wrote: -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Jim Marshall But z/VM costs "real money". LPAR is "free". -jc- Indeed both above are true statements. z/VM will cost about $21K to give you many, many more Virtual Servers than the available number of LPARs. IBM is almost giving away z/VM these days. Is that $21K per "engine"? Periodic recurring or one-time charge? -jc- $22.5K per engine OTC and ~$7500/ S&S. KG -- 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: Forbidding Special characters in passwords
John Mattson wrote: I am constantly amazed at the number of sites which FORBID the use of special characters in passwords and userid's. And by the sites which LIMIT the length of passwords and userid's. Since the number of possible combinations increases exponentially with the possibe values for each character and the number of characters, I cannot fathom why they impose such limits. But they do on such financial sites as Vanguard Mutual Funds, Scottrade, and World Savings. I eMail them regularly and complain, but I have seen no changes so far. There may be a case for forbidding certain special characters, and I think that requiring special characters might be counter productive, but I cannot see any logical reason for completely forbidding them. Because they don't exist on ATMs. If you have a debit/credit card tied to your account and go to an ATM, you can't enter the special characters (perhaps except # and *). ATMs also limit the password lengths, so that the software inside doesn't have to have more buffer space than absolutely necessary. That also probably eliminated upper/lower case differences as well. Quite possibly folds the letters into the appropriate numbers as on the phone. Kim Goldenberg -- 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: Withdrawal of VM ServiceLink
Tony Harminc wrote: Chase, John wrote: "You can't win. You can't break even. You can't even quit the game." Isaac Newton Theodore Sturgeon - SF writer from the 30s(?)-50s. It's one of Sturgeon's Laws. Kim Goldenberg -- 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: Plurals and language confusion
Paul Gilmartin wrote: In a recent note, McKown, John said: Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:53:38 -0600 Yes. And it likely will. A judge has ordered the US Treasury to make it easier for blind people to determine the denomination of paper money (which is good since there are SOBs who would cheat their own family out of a penny, given the chance). Many have said that this may result in the various bill being different sizes. Now, that is going to be a royal pain. And I have saved an announcement from the Colorado Talking Book Library of the availability of the Colorado Drivers' License Manual on audio cassette. -- gil Probably for dyslexics who have more trouble when they read something than when they hear it. Kim -- 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: WLM using default service classes.....?
Dave Thorn wrote: We have begun setting up a new customer's LPARs, etc, and since we're bringing them into our sysplex I'm integrating their WLM specs into our existing one. I activated it last week on the customer system. To my surprise, started tasks all seemed to go to the default STC service class. This sems to be happening across the board. I activated the same policy on our sandbox LPAR and everything seemed to go to the right place. They were at OS/390 2.10, and were in Goal Mode, but the systems we're building here are z/OS 1.4. I asked the sysprogs if the software levels are identical to our existing ones yet , and was told not completely, but that still doesn't seem to click with me. This is (I think) fairly basic. This customer does EVERYTHING with automation but I can't see that entering into it either. A 'D WLM' command on their system shows a functionality level of 008, while we are at 011. And when I flip them to our policy, the 011 shows up as expected. Anyone have any ideas? Never saw this before. Is there something in the classification that takes advantage of functionality levels 009-011 that would cause the classifications for STC to be ignored? I can't see anything off hand on our 1.4 system, but that's the only thing that comes to mind. Of couse we were just migrating from level to level, and I was careful not to mix levels as it was, inevitably, a production system that was the last to move. Don't know if this helps. Kim NJ Office of Information Technology (OIT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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
