intermittent errors using FTP program Interface EZAFTPKS

[Joe Reichman]

 

Hi

 

I am getting intermittent errors using the FTP program interface

 

The Client Error Code is X'0A' or 10 FTP_SESSION_ERROR

 

This happens when I issue the User Reichman joecool   -- User Id and
password SCMD

 

The INIT works okay so Does the Open 

 

Thing is sometimes it works I am at loss to find out why it doesn't work
when it fails 

 

 

Thanks   

 


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Enterprise COBOL "INITCHECK"

[Bill Woodger]

INITIALIZE OUTPUT-RECORD
(followed by code which MOVEs values to each field in OUTPUT-RECORD)

INITIALIZE PRINT-LINE
MOVE HEADING-LINE TO PRINT-LINE

MOVE SPACE TO SAVE-INPUT-RECORD
MOVE INPUT-RECORD TO SAVE-INPUT-RECORD

INITIALIZE INPUT-RECORD-AREA
READ INPUT-FILE

I think with V5+ the optimizer may take care of some of these types.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: CEEDUMP possible following 'new' failure

[Denis]

Hi Jim,
 
I cannot remember exactly, but what happened was that in IMS the STOP REGION 
command was issued and the address space was not listed anymore in IMS (Display 
active showed it was gone).
It was visible in JES but nothing could be done about it, it did neither accept 
cancel nor force.
 
Fault Analyzer showed that the last thing that happened in the address space 
was trying to load some z/OS routines for termination (if it was not memory 
termination then it must have been task termination) and failed to load those 
routines because of an out of storage condition.
 
So the expectation of everyone for this situation is, task termination should 
be possible regardless if there was an IEFUSI reserving the 512k below or not.
If task termination, which is an operating system function, requires storage in 
an address space with no storage left, it should ensure that there is always 
enough room for task termination.

Thanks.
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Jim Mulder 
To: IBM-MAIN 
Sent: Fri, Oct 7, 2016 8:39 pm
Subject: Re: CEEDUMP possible following 'new' failure

> this reminds me of some hanging IMS jobs that could neither be 
> cancelled nor forced because the routines for memterm could not be 
> loaded because of memory exhausted. Only BMC Tooling allowed to get 
> rid of them.
> The suggestion in the PMR was to code an IEFUSI to reserve 512k 
> below to allow memterm to happen in any case.
> 
> Could you please raise another internal discussion why IEFUSI has to
> be coded at all in order to allow memterm to happen?
> Why can't z/OS just ensure that there is always enough storage 
> available in the address space for memterm?

  Since memterm does not access the storage of the address 
being terminated, there is no connection between IEFUSI and memterm.
There is no requirement for any available storage in the address
space being memtermed.  Task termination, yes. 
Memory termination, no. 


Jim Mulder z/OS Diagnosis, Design, Development, Test  IBM Corp. 
Poughkeepsie NY




--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Enterprise COBOL "INITCHECK"

[Mike Schwab]

Init then target?  That would be a natural use.
Init then source?  That would be an error.

On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 4:00 AM, Bill Woodger  wrote:
> Yes, so far looks good. Need to see documentation.
>
> Waiting for its counterpart, INITSTUPID, for where data is initialised, and 
> then next reference is as a target.
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN



-- 
Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA
Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all?

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

HCD for z/OS 2.2 and RCE

[R.S.]

Two things:
I'm trying to figure out the rules for HCD FUNCTION coding. I learned 
that rules (value range etc) depend on CPC model and z/OS version, but 
I'ms still looking for some clarifications. Yes, I did RTFM, I saw 
"What's new in z/OS 2.1 HCD". Still searching.


2. I found that one of new functions available in z13 GA2 (and z13s) is 
RCE - Regional Crypto Enablement. Googled for it and found unclear 
description saying it is non-IBM card which can be used in IBM CPC, 
available depending on geo-location. And it is available in ...China.

Looks like special crypto with backdoor for their Three Letter Agency.

BTW: It is first card coming from third party. While inside OSA Express 
one can find "regular" PCI(e) Intel Eth card plus IBM "motherboard", the 
equipment was branded and sold by IBM.

Now we have card from other vendor. Seems like PC 30 years ago (and today).

--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland






---
Treść tej wiadomości może zawierać informacje prawnie chronione Banku 
przeznaczone wyłącznie do użytku służbowego adresata. Odbiorcą może być jedynie 
jej adresat z wyłączeniem dostępu osób trzecich. Jeżeli nie jesteś adresatem 
niniejszej wiadomości lub pracownikiem upoważnionym do jej przekazania 
adresatowi, informujemy, że jej rozpowszechnianie, kopiowanie, rozprowadzanie 
lub inne działanie o podobnym charakterze jest prawnie zabronione i może być 
karalne. Jeżeli otrzymałeś tę wiadomość omyłkowo, prosimy niezwłocznie 
zawiadomić nadawcę wysyłając odpowiedź oraz trwale usunąć tę wiadomość 
włączając w to wszelkie jej kopie wydrukowane lub zapisane na dysku.

This e-mail may contain legally privileged information of the Bank and is 
intended solely for business use of the addressee. This e-mail may only be 
received by the addressee and may not be disclosed to any third parties. If you 
are not the intended addressee of this e-mail or the employee authorized to 
forward it to the addressee, be advised that any dissemination, copying, 
distribution or any other similar activity is legally prohibited and may be 
punishable. If you received this e-mail by mistake please advise the sender 
immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software and delete 
permanently this e-mail including any copies of it either printed or saved to 
hard drive.

mBank S.A. z siedzibą w Warszawie, ul. Senatorska 18, 00-950 Warszawa, 
www.mBank.pl, e-mail: kont...@mbank.pl
Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy XII Wydział Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru 
Sądowego, nr rejestru przedsiębiorców KRS 025237, NIP: 526-021-50-88. 
Według stanu na dzień 01.01.2016 r. kapitał zakładowy mBanku S.A. (w całości 
wpłacony) wynosi 168.955.696 złotych.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Software is unpatentable?

[Barry Merrill]

About a decade ago, a person from the US Patent and Trademark Office called me 
to ask if
I could provide a machine readable copy of my 1984 "Merrill's Guide to Computer 
Performance
Evaluation Using the SAS System".  The caller said they had found it their most 
used source 
with which to deny software patent applications that were already state of the 
art in 1984.

Barry


Merrilly yours,

 Herbert W. Barry Merrill, PhD
 President-Programmer
 Merrill Consultants
 MXG Software
 10717 Cromwell Drive  technical questions: supp...@mxg.com
 Dallas, TX 75229
 http://www.mxg.comadmin questions: ad...@mxg.com
 tel: 214 351 1966
 fax: 214 350 3694





-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Brian Westerman
Sent: Saturday, October 8, 2016 4:52 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Software is unpatentable?

I disagree.  Not only because I own several software patents, but because 
Patents are not meant to merely cover the invention of physical objects as you 
stated.  Under U.S. patent law, any person who "invents or discovers any new 
and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new 
and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent." ... The only reservation 
is that the invention must not be obvious.

I agree that some patents are granted for software that should never be 
patented because it fails the obviousness test.  That's simply a problem with 
the patent examiner's inexperience with software and coding techniques.  That 
doesn't mean that all software is non patent-able just because a few patent 
applicants abuse the process.  There is absolutely no textual support for the 
creation of any judicial exceptions to patent eligibility.  There are three 
identified judicial exceptions which are: laws of nature, physical phenomena 
and abstract ideas. If the claim does NOT seek to protect one of those judicial 
exception then the claim is patent eligible. In the case you were referring to, 
the problem with the claims in that trial were that they tended to be very 
abstract and vague and did nothing to further the limits of the patent.  Had 
they specified specifics, the patent probably would never have been granted in 
the first place.  Just because the patent application was vague and 
inconsistent, doesn't make all software patents bad, nor does it reflect badly 
on any other specific software patents. 

For instance, I had an idea several years ago to try to figure out a way to 
send an email (or any number of emails) at the end of every job without any 
system mods or exits (which would make the software too dependent on the 
Operating system code level).  At that original stage of my thinking, as an 
abstract idea, it was not patent-able, but that in itself would not stop a lot 
of companies from patenting it and that is unfortunate.   

It took a while but I eventually figured out a way to create and send the email 
(or even SMS text message) that contains all of the relevant information from 
the job, it's condition codes and the JES and task's SYSOUT if you wish, plus 
any static or user generated text (including hundreds of variable data 
elements) all without any JCL changes, system exit code, mods etc.  It was 
extremely difficult to just figure out a way to do it and then I spent 
literally years working on different ideas (most of which were discarded), and 
finally came up with a repeatable and innovative way to do it.  In fact, after 
I figured it out, I thought of 4 completely separate ways to implement the 
basic code to accomplish the same thing.  No one else thought of how to do it, 
or still does know how to do it.  But... one of the sites that I allowed to 
beta test the working code, (another software company which I had performed 
development work for in the past who I shall not mention), decided to not only 
copy the idea, code and all, but to market it and actually got it into 10 beta 
test sites.  My patent was still pending, but without that protection, the 
other company (which is considerably larger) would have just laughed in my 
face.  In this case, they not only stole the code (which violated my 
copyright), but they even attempted to patent the process.  I found out about 
it directly from the patent office of all places.:)  They contacted me because 
the company actually included one of my drawings in their filing with my patent 
application number at the bottom.  Needless to say, they backed off and agreed 
to not only stop marketing it,and destroy the software copies, but they agreed 
to cease all "development of any similar products" for a period not less than 
10 years.  Plus, all of their developers had to agree to be bound by the terms 
of the agreement.

In the article, the judge was completely missing the patent boat.  Had I not 
already applied for my patent, they would have kept right on with stealing my 
idea and making 

Re: Enterprise COBOL "INITCHECK"

[Windt, W.K.F. van der (Fred)]

On 8 Oct 2016, at 11:01, Bill Woodger 
> wrote:

Yes, so far looks good. Need to see documentation.

Waiting for its counterpart, INITSTUPID, for where data is initialised, and 
then next reference is as a target.

Excellent idea! :) I'll vote for that RFE.

Fred!


ATTENTION:
The information in this e-mail is confidential and only meant for the intended 
recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, don't use or disclose it in 
any way. Please let the sender know and delete the message immediately.
--

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Software is unpatentable?

[Brian Westerman]

I disagree.  Not only because I own several software patents, but because 
Patents are not meant to merely cover the invention of physical objects as you 
stated.  Under U.S. patent law, any person who "invents or discovers any new 
and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new 
and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent." ... The only reservation 
is that the invention must not be obvious.

I agree that some patents are granted for software that should never be 
patented because it fails the obviousness test.  That's simply a problem with 
the patent examiner's inexperience with software and coding techniques.  That 
doesn't mean that all software is non patent-able just because a few patent 
applicants abuse the process.  There is absolutely no textual support for the 
creation of any judicial exceptions to patent eligibility.  There are three 
identified judicial exceptions which are: laws of nature, physical phenomena 
and abstract ideas. If the claim does NOT seek to protect one of those judicial 
exception then the claim is patent eligible. In the case you were referring to, 
the problem with the claims in that trial were that they tended to be very 
abstract and vague and did nothing to further the limits of the patent.  Had 
they specified specifics, the patent probably would never have been granted in 
the first place.  Just because the patent application was vague and 
inconsistent, doesn't make all software patents bad, nor does it reflect badly 
on any other specific software patents. 

For instance, I had an idea several years ago to try to figure out a way to 
send an email (or any number of emails) at the end of every job without any 
system mods or exits (which would make the software too dependent on the 
Operating system code level).  At that original stage of my thinking, as an 
abstract idea, it was not patent-able, but that in itself would not stop a lot 
of companies from patenting it and that is unfortunate.   

It took a while but I eventually figured out a way to create and send the email 
(or even SMS text message) that contains all of the relevant information from 
the job, it's condition codes and the JES and task's SYSOUT if you wish, plus 
any static or user generated text (including hundreds of variable data 
elements) all without any JCL changes, system exit code, mods etc.  It was 
extremely difficult to just figure out a way to do it and then I spent 
literally years working on different ideas (most of which were discarded), and 
finally came up with a repeatable and innovative way to do it.  In fact, after 
I figured it out, I thought of 4 completely separate ways to implement the 
basic code to accomplish the same thing.  No one else thought of how to do it, 
or still does know how to do it.  But... one of the sites that I allowed to 
beta test the working code, (another software company which I had performed 
development work for in the past who I shall not mention), decided to not only 
copy the idea, code and all, but to market it and actually got it into 10 beta 
test sites.  My patent was still pending, but without that protection, the 
other company (which is considerably larger) would have just laughed in my 
face.  In this case, they not only stole the code (which violated my 
copyright), but they even attempted to patent the process.  I found out about 
it directly from the patent office of all places.:)  They contacted me because 
the company actually included one of my drawings in their filing with my patent 
application number at the bottom.  Needless to say, they backed off and agreed 
to not only stop marketing it,and destroy the software copies, but they agreed 
to cease all "development of any similar products" for a period not less than 
10 years.  Plus, all of their developers had to agree to be bound by the terms 
of the agreement.

In the article, the judge was completely missing the patent boat.  Had I not 
already applied for my patent, they would have kept right on with stealing my 
idea and making money from it, and there would have been nothing I could do 
about it.  

I could give many examples of tangible items which would fall under that same 
overly simplistic logic.  By his definition the process of "making" something 
would not be patent-able, only the item which is made.  So that would mean that 
the techniques for making medicine would not be patent-able in any way, only 
the medicine that is the end result.  




On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 09:16:02 -0500, Joel C. Ewing  wrote:

>On 10/07/2016 07:21 AM, John McKown wrote:
>> https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/10/07/0455200/prominent-pro-patent-judge-issues-opinion-declaring-all-software-patents-bad
>>
>> http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1769.Opinion.9-28-2016.1.PDF
>>
>Amazing!  The courts may finally be on the verge of returning patents to
>what they were intended to protect:  the invention of physical 

Re: Enterprise COBOL "INITCHECK"

[Bill Woodger]

Yes, so far looks good. Need to see documentation.

Waiting for its counterpart, INITSTUPID, for where data is initialised, and 
then next reference is as a target.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN