date:20190822

Wow! You guys and gals are the best! About 25 relevant responses. My
anonymized digest is over ten pages.

If anyone wants a copy of the digest just send me an off-list note. You can
use it for bargaining purposes, or you can check my anonymization work.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Charles Mills
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 1:46 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

I am doing a favor for a friend who is writing a blog article on the above
subject, with an emphasis on the effect of the shrinking mainframe personnel
pool. (This is NOT some disguised headhunter pitch. Reply to the list or to
me personally. I will take full responsibility for "sanitizing" your e-mail
address and so forth out of what I forward to my friend.)

Does your employer allow mainframe sysprogs and developers to work from
home?
Any particular restrictions or qualifications?
Have they changed their policies specifically to address the shrinking
mainframe personnel pool?
Roughly what percentage of your colleagues work from home?

Thanks!

Charles 

--
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: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

2019-08-22 Thread Thomas Kern


They were running MVS and VM with an MVT mentality.

/Tom

On 08/22/2019 19:16, David Spiegel wrote:

Hi Tom,
In 1985, who was running MVT?

Regards,
David

On 2019-08-22 19:05, Thomas Kern wrote:

Thirty-four years ago I taught my Federal customers (MVT sysprogs)
that there were three things I could not do once I had proper
communications.

1) I could not mount tapes
2) I could not tear paper off the printers
3) I could not press the Power button

Now we no longer have mainframe attached tape drives. We no longer
have mainframe attached printers.
And with the improved communications, I CAN power the system up and down.

Managers want me at a desk in a office so they can feel they have some
power over my work. None of them could do my work if they tried.

/Tom Kern
On 08/21/2019 17:15, David Spiegel wrote:

Hi Ron,
For SysProgs in particular, what is gained by having people "at the
office"?
I view this as old school, without justification.
If project milestones are set properly, the employees will have to work
consistently to meet them (and not goof off).
If the managers think that they can see who's working, they are
mistaken.

I can see where development staff might have to work at the office if
the environment is highly collaborative.
(I worked on an online banking project (3 years ago) where this was
necessary.

Charles: I work at 3 jobs (not all busy at once), all remote.

Regards,
David

On 2019-08-21 17:02, McCabe, Ron wrote:

If this is something that should not have been done on the list I
apologize but do have to admit that I would like to see what other
companies are allowing in this area.

Yes our employer does allow for mainframe sysprogs and developers to
work from home.
There are restrictions and the main one is who your manager is.?? Our
developers have a nice manager and allows them to work from home 2
days a week, our sysprogs have a different manager and he only
allows 1 day per week.
No policies have been changed.
About 90% of my colleagues work from home.?? Our developers are also
allowed to work 9 80's and 4 10's, sysprogs and admins do not get to
as they have to work 5 days a week.

Thanks,
Ron McCabe
Manager of Mainframe/Midrange Systems
Mutual of Enumclaw

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
Behalf Of Charles Mills
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 1:46 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

I am doing a favor for a friend who is writing a blog article on the
above subject, with an emphasis on the effect of the shrinking
mainframe personnel pool. (This is NOT some disguised headhunter
pitch. Reply to the list or to me personally. I will take full
responsibility for "sanitizing" your e-mail address and so forth out
of what I forward to my friend.)

Does your employer allow mainframe sysprogs and developers to work
from home?
Any particular restrictions or qualifications?
Have they changed their policies specifically to address the
shrinking mainframe personnel pool?
Roughly what percentage of your colleagues work from home?

Thanks!

Charles

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Confidentiality Notice: This e- mail and all attachments may contain
CONFIDENTIAL information and are meant solely for the intended
recipient. It may contain controlled, privileged, or proprietary
information that is protected under applicable law and shall not be
disclosed to any unauthorized third party. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized
review, action, disclosure, distribution, or reproduction of any
information contained in this e- mail and any attachments is
strictly PROHIBITED. If you received this e- mail in error, please
reply to the sender immediately stating that this transmission was
misdirected, and delete or destroy all electronic and paper copies
of this e-mail and attachments without disclosing the contents. This
e- mail does not grant or assign rights of ownership in the
proprietary subject matter herein, nor shall it be construed as a
joint venture, partnership, teaming agreement, or any other formal
business relationship.

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




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


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

Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

2019-08-22 Thread David Spiegel

Hi Tom,
In 1985, who was running MVT?

Regards,
David

On 2019-08-22 19:05, Thomas Kern wrote:
> Thirty-four years ago I taught my Federal customers (MVT sysprogs) 
> that there were three things I could not do once I had proper 
> communications.
>
> 1) I could not mount tapes
> 2) I could not tear paper off the printers
> 3) I could not press the Power button
>
> Now we no longer have mainframe attached tape drives. We no longer 
> have mainframe attached printers.
> And with the improved communications, I CAN power the system up and down.
>
> Managers want me at a desk in a office so they can feel they have some 
> power over my work. None of them could do my work if they tried.
>
> /Tom Kern
> On 08/21/2019 17:15, David Spiegel wrote:
>> Hi Ron,
>> For SysProgs in particular, what is gained by having people "at the 
>> office"?
>> I view this as old school, without justification.
>> If project milestones are set properly, the employees will have to work
>> consistently to meet them (and not goof off).
>> If the managers think that they can see who's working, they are 
>> mistaken.
>>
>> I can see where development staff might have to work at the office if
>> the environment is highly collaborative.
>> (I worked on an online banking project (3 years ago) where this was
>> necessary.
>>
>> Charles: I work at 3 jobs (not all busy at once), all remote.
>>
>> Regards,
>> David
>>
>> On 2019-08-21 17:02, McCabe, Ron wrote:
>>> If this is something that should not have been done on the list I 
>>> apologize but do have to admit that I would like to see what other 
>>> companies are allowing in this area.
>>>
>>> Yes our employer does allow for mainframe sysprogs and developers to 
>>> work from home.
>>> There are restrictions and the main one is who your manager is.  Our 
>>> developers have a nice manager and allows them to work from home 2 
>>> days a week, our sysprogs have a different manager and he only 
>>> allows 1 day per week.
>>> No policies have been changed.
>>> About 90% of my colleagues work from home.  Our developers are also 
>>> allowed to work 9 80's and 4 10's, sysprogs and admins do not get to 
>>> as they have to work 5 days a week.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ron McCabe
>>> Manager of Mainframe/Midrange Systems
>>> Mutual of Enumclaw
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On 
>>> Behalf Of Charles Mills
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 1:46 PM
>>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>>> Subject: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?
>>>
>>> I am doing a favor for a friend who is writing a blog article on the 
>>> above subject, with an emphasis on the effect of the shrinking 
>>> mainframe personnel pool. (This is NOT some disguised headhunter 
>>> pitch. Reply to the list or to me personally. I will take full 
>>> responsibility for "sanitizing" your e-mail address and so forth out 
>>> of what I forward to my friend.)
>>>
>>> Does your employer allow mainframe sysprogs and developers to work 
>>> from home?
>>> Any particular restrictions or qualifications?
>>> Have they changed their policies specifically to address the 
>>> shrinking mainframe personnel pool?
>>> Roughly what percentage of your colleagues work from home?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Charles
>>>
>>> --
>>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send 
>>> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>>> Confidentiality Notice: This e- mail and all attachments may contain 
>>> CONFIDENTIAL information and are meant solely for the intended 
>>> recipient. It may contain controlled, privileged, or proprietary 
>>> information that is protected under applicable law and shall not be 
>>> disclosed to any unauthorized third party. If you are not the 
>>> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized 
>>> review, action, disclosure, distribution, or reproduction of any 
>>> information contained in this e- mail and any attachments is 
>>> strictly PROHIBITED. If you received this e- mail in error, please 
>>> reply to the sender immediately stating that this transmission was 
>>> misdirected, and delete or destroy all electronic and paper copies 
>>> of this e-mail and attachments without disclosing the contents. This 
>>> e- mail does not grant or assign rights of ownership in the 
>>> proprietary subject matter herein, nor shall it be construed as a 
>>> joint venture, partnership, teaming agreement, or any other formal 
>>> business relationship.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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

Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

2019-08-22 Thread Thomas Kern

Thirty-four years ago I taught my Federal customers (MVT sysprogs) that 
there were three things I could not do once I had proper communications.


1) I could not mount tapes
2) I could not tear paper off the printers
3) I could not press the Power button

Now we no longer have mainframe attached tape drives. We no longer have 
mainframe attached printers.

And with the improved communications, I CAN power the system up and down.

Managers want me at a desk in a office so they can feel they have some 
power over my work. None of them could do my work if they tried.


/Tom Kern
On 08/21/2019 17:15, David Spiegel wrote:

Hi Ron,
For SysProgs in particular, what is gained by having people "at the office"?
I view this as old school, without justification.
If project milestones are set properly, the employees will have to work
consistently to meet them (and not goof off).
If the managers think that they can see who's working, they are mistaken.

I can see where development staff might have to work at the office if
the environment is highly collaborative.
(I worked on an online banking project (3 years ago) where this was
necessary.

Charles: I work at 3 jobs (not all busy at once), all remote.

Regards,
David

On 2019-08-21 17:02, McCabe, Ron wrote:

If this is something that should not have been done on the list I apologize but 
do have to admit that I would like to see what other companies are allowing in 
this area.

Yes our employer does allow for mainframe sysprogs and developers to work from 
home.
There are restrictions and the main one is who your manager is.  Our developers 
have a nice manager and allows them to work from home 2 days a week, our 
sysprogs have a different manager and he only allows 1 day per week.
No policies have been changed.
About 90% of my colleagues work from home.  Our developers are also allowed to 
work 9 80's and 4 10's, sysprogs and admins do not get to as they have to work 
5 days a week.

Thanks,
Ron McCabe
Manager of Mainframe/Midrange Systems
Mutual of Enumclaw

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Charles Mills
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 1:46 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

I am doing a favor for a friend who is writing a blog article on the above subject, with 
an emphasis on the effect of the shrinking mainframe personnel pool. (This is NOT some 
disguised headhunter pitch. Reply to the list or to me personally. I will take full 
responsibility for "sanitizing" your e-mail address and so forth out of what I 
forward to my friend.)

Does your employer allow mainframe sysprogs and developers to work from home?
Any particular restrictions or qualifications?
Have they changed their policies specifically to address the shrinking 
mainframe personnel pool?
Roughly what percentage of your colleagues work from home?

Thanks!

Charles

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Confidentiality Notice: This e- mail and all attachments may contain 
CONFIDENTIAL information and are meant solely for the intended recipient. It 
may contain controlled, privileged, or proprietary information that is 
protected under applicable law and shall not be disclosed to any unauthorized 
third party. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified 
that any unauthorized review, action, disclosure, distribution, or reproduction 
of any information contained in this e- mail and any attachments is strictly 
PROHIBITED. If you received this e- mail in error, please reply to the sender 
immediately stating that this transmission was misdirected, and delete or 
destroy all electronic and paper copies of this e-mail and attachments without 
disclosing the contents. This e- mail does not grant or assign rights of 
ownership in the proprietary subject matter herein, nor shall it be construed 
as a joint venture, partnership, teaming agreement, or any other formal 
business relationship.

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




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


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

Re: 64 bit Assembler DLL app PSECT parm forgot quotes sorry thanks got 0 return code

2019-08-22 Thread Joseph Reichman

d ===>  
   IMPORT CODE64,'SYSADATA','opendata'  
   ENTRY CELQSTRT   
   NAME TESTPRGD(R) 
 /* 
 // 

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Barry Lichtenstein
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 6:11 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: 64 bit Assembler DLL app PSECT parm

The value of R5 on entry to an XPLINK (which include AMODE 64) function is not 
the address of the WSA in its entirety (as R0 was in non-XPLINK), but rather 
the value of the "environment" of that function, which is somewhere within the 
WSA of that module (executable file).  (As implemented I believe it's the same 
for the entire compilation unit, but the specification is that it corresponds 
to the function.)  The environment address comes from the caller loading the 
function descriptor -- the R-con/V-con pair for that function.  Where 
V(function) gives the address of the code, R(function) gives the address of the 
"environment".  That then gives the function the base location for its 
"writable-static area" on entry -- the non-reentrant area containing writable 
data items and static data items.  

Thus when an XPLINK function is to call another function (exception OS 
linkage), it needs a descriptor to do so.  As the address of the environment is 
unique to each instance of the program (LE enclave), the descriptor of a 
RENT-compiled program has to live in the WSA so that it can be updated with the 
environment address of the target program, unlike a V-con which can be 
relocated during load time.  (The V-con in the descriptor also needs to be 
updated in support of DLLs, i.e. if the function being called is not within the 
calling module).

The net of this is that in XPLINK you need the PSECT in concert with the call 
macro (CELQCALL), and that call macro automatically takes care of allocating 
the descriptor.  The manual says only under the CELQCALL usage notes:

  2. This macro requires that a PSECT was defined by the CELQPRLG prolog macro

Though I don't see where there is a similar note, CEEPDDA and CEEPLDA also both 
require a PSECT for XPLINK (perhaps because these macros also work for 
non-XPLINK DLLs).  These allow you to define and reference data items your 
environment (WSA) which are exportable/importable respectively.

On 21 Aug 2019 11:17:24 AM Joseph Reichman  wrote:
> Just looked thru LE book shelf would be nice If they had programming 
> examples Or at the very least documentation on the parameters used for 
> the EDC macros

--
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: 64 bit Assembler DLL app PSECT parm

2019-08-22 Thread Joseph Reichman

Did that my problem now Is that I am getting unresolved in the Assembler 
program which is calling my DLL,   the DLL exported function which is a C 
program

Here is the C function I am trying to export

#pragma export(opendata)  <== 
 void *sysadata_ptr;  
 #pragma export(sysadata_ptr) 
 #pragma csect(CODE,"SYSADATA")   
 extern void __ceetest(void); 
 #pragma map(__ceetest,"CEETEST") 
 #pragma linkage(CEETEST,OS_NOSTACK)  
 #pragma map(opendata,"opendata") 
 void opendata(char *filename)
{

….


}

This is the binder report my question is how come the DLL column for my 
exported function and data opendata and sysada_ptr are blank it should have the 
 name of my DLL SYSADATA DDNAME SYSLMOD 
Below is the JCL I used to compile and link and below that is the binder JCL 
for the Calling Assembler program with the Report 

Thanks  
 

  *** E N D  O F  C R O S S  R E F E R E N 
   
   
   
  ***  I M P O R T E D   A N D   E X P O R T E D   S Y 
  --- SOURC
IMPORT/EXPORT TYPESYMBOL  DLL DDNAME   SEQ 
- --   --- 
   IMPORT CODE64  fopen   CELQV003SYSLIN03 
   IMPORT CODE64  fread   CELQV003SYSLIN03 
   IMPORT CODE64  malloc  CELQV003SYSLIN03 
   
   EXPORT CODE64  opendata 
   EXPORT DATA64  sysadata_ptr 
   
   *** E N D   O F   I M P O R T E D   A N D   E X P O R T E D 
   
   
   
  *ISFPCU4 





   This the JCL I use
Precompile step
//*TEP0100 EXEC PGM=CCNDRVR,REGION=0M,PARM='LONGNAME,RENT,TEST(ALL),LIS 
//*TEP0100 EXEC PGM=CCNDRVR,REGION=0M,PARM='RENT,TEST(ALL),LIST,SOURCE, 
//*LONGNAME,NOOPT'  
//STEP0100 EXEC PGM=CCNDRVR,REGION=0M,PARM=('PP(COMMENTS,NOLINES)') 
//STEPLIB  DD DISP=SHR,DSN=CBC.SCCNCMP  
//SYSLIN   DD DUMMY 
//SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=*  
//SYSOUT   DD SYSOUT=*  
//SYSCPRT  DD  SYSOUT=* 
//SYSLIB   DD  DSN=IBMUSER.DBGR.MACLIB,DISP=SHR 
//SYSUT1   DD  UNIT=SYSDA,SPACE=(32000,(30,30)),
//   DCB=(RECFM=FB,LRECL=80,BLKSIZE=3200)   
//SYSUT5   DD UNIT=SYSALLDA,SPACE=(32000,(30,30)),  
//DCB=(RECFM=FB,LRECL=3200,BLKSIZE=12800)   
  //*LONGNAME,NOOPT'  
 //STEP0100 EXEC PGM=CCNDRVR,REGION=0M,PARM=('PP(COMMENTS,NOLINES)') 
 //STEPLIB  DD DISP=SHR,DSN=CBC.SCCNCMP  
 //SYSLIN   DD DUMMY 
 //SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=*  
 //SYSOUT   DD SYSOUT=*  
 //SYSCPRT  DD  SYSOUT=* 
 //SYSLIB   DD  DSN=IBMUSER.DBGR.MACLIB,DISP=SHR 
 //SYSUT1   DD  UNIT=SYSDA,SPACE=(32000,(30,30)),
 //   DCB=(RECFM=FB,LRECL=80,BLKSIZE=3200)   
 //SYSUT5   DD UNIT=SYSALLDA,SPACE=(32000,(30,30)),  
 //DCB=(RECFM=FB,LRECL=3200,BLKSIZE=12800)   
 //SYSUT6   DD UNIT=SYSALLDA,SPACE=(32000,(30,30)),  
 //DCB=(RECFM=FB,LRECL=3200,BLKSIZE=12800)   
 //SYSUT7   DD UNIT=SYSALLDA,SPACE=(32000,(30,30)),  
 //DCB=(RECFM=FB,LRECL=3200,BLKSIZE=12800)   
 //SYSUT8   DD UNIT=SYSALLDA,SPACE=(32000,(30,30)),  
 //DCB=(RECFM=FB,LRECL=3200,BLKSIZE=12800)   
 //SYSUT9   DD UNIT=SYSALLDA,SPACE=(32000,(30,30)),  
===>

Re: Integrated 3270 Console in HMC 2.12 in web browser

2019-08-22 Thread Paul Gilmartin

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 20:52:35 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:

>I'm referring to the "Integrated 3270 Console"; I wouldn't use it if I could 
>telnet into OSA-ICC.
>
TELNET is deprecated, (perhaps unfairly after Sun let developers' backdoor
escape into the wild).  Ssh?  AT/TLS?

-- gil

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

Re: DFSORT?

2019-08-22 Thread Sri h Kolusu

>>Just never copied them to my running SYSRES volumes.

Dave,

Apart from the above mentioned you will also see

HLQ.SORTLIB
HLQ.SORTLPA

>>I tried to do a Syncsort to DFSORT migration for a former group.  We had
to back it off because they were using some of the "then" specific Syncsort
functions.  It has been so long, I do not remember which ones they were.

Bill,

Do you remember how long back it was? Did you reach out to IBM(specifically
DFSORT team) for help in converting those specific functions?  DFSORT team
actively helps customers with conversion. If you are considering to migrate
to  please
send me an email and we will try to help you out

>>And, I had to update Syncsort to do some of the things DFSORT features
that Sri Kolusu was showing me :)

Thank you.

Kolusu
DFSORT Development
IBM Corporation

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

Re: DFSORT?

2019-08-22 Thread Gibney, Dave

The only one around here doing fancy sort stuff is me. :)
And, I had to update Syncsort to do some of the things DFSORT features that Sri 
Kolusu was showing me :)

Reading the program directory now. And will look at install/cust tomorrow. 
Probably see how the sandbox behaves in the near future

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> Behalf Of Bill Bishop (TMNA)
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 2:59 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: DFSORT?
> 
> If I remember correctly, IBM started providing DFSORT because DB2 uses it,
> regardless of whether you are licensed for it.
> 
> If DFSORT is not activated via IFAPRD00, then no one else besides DB2 can
> use it.
> 
> I tried to do a Syncsort to DFSORT migration for a former group.  We had to
> back it off because they were using some of the "then" specific Syncsort
> functions.  It has been so long, I do not remember which ones they were.
> 
> Migration to DFSORT should be doable if you can account for those unique
> functions and have them converted prior to cutover.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Bill Bishop
> Consultant, Mainframe Engineer
> Mainframe and Scheduling | Infrastructure Technology Services Toyota
> Motor North America  bill.bis...@toyota.com
> Office:  (469) 292-5149
> Cell:  (502) 316-4386
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Gibney, Dave
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 4:45 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: DFSORT?
> 
> I guess I should have looked further. Now, I answer my own question. On my
> SMP/E target volume I have:
> SYS1.SICELINK
> SYS1.SICELPA
> SYS1.SICEPROC
> SYS1.SICESAMP
> SYS1.SICESRCE
> SYS1.SICEUSER
> 
> Just never copied them to my running SYSRES volumes.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> > Behalf Of Gibney, Dave
> > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 2:41 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: DFSORT?
> >
> > We've always had Syncsort. I don't remember DFSORT being an optional
> > feature for my z/OS 2.1 Serverpac. Does DFSORT live entirely in
> > SYS1.LPA and SYS1.LINKLIB(SYS1.SIEALNKE)?
> >
> > We are further on the path of downsizing the z/OS based services. In
> > about a year, they plan is continue to run for static retrieval of old
> > data. DFSORT is included in our MFaaS agreement. Syncsort is extra
> > expense. We'll likely take a "plug compatible" risk jump when our current
> Syncsort contract runs out.
> >
> > Dave Gibney
> > Information Technology Services
> > Washington State University
> >
> >
> > --
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
> > email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to
> lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to
> lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

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

Re: 64 bit Assembler DLL app PSECT parm

2019-08-22 Thread Barry Lichtenstein

The value of R5 on entry to an XPLINK (which include AMODE 64) function is not 
the address of the WSA in its entirety (as R0 was in non-XPLINK), but rather 
the value of the "environment" of that function, which is somewhere within the 
WSA of that module (executable file).  (As implemented I believe it's the same 
for the entire compilation unit, but the specification is that it corresponds 
to the function.)  The environment address comes from the caller loading the 
function descriptor -- the R-con/V-con pair for that function.  Where 
V(function) gives the address of the code, R(function) gives the address of the 
"environment".  That then gives the function the base location for its 
"writable-static area" on entry -- the non-reentrant area containing writable 
data items and static data items.  

Thus when an XPLINK function is to call another function (exception OS 
linkage), it needs a descriptor to do so.  As the address of the environment is 
unique to each instance of the program (LE enclave), the descriptor of a 
RENT-compiled program has to live in the WSA so that it can be updated with the 
environment address of the target program, unlike a V-con which can be 
relocated during load time.  (The V-con in the descriptor also needs to be 
updated in support of DLLs, i.e. if the function being called is not within the 
calling module).

The net of this is that in XPLINK you need the PSECT in concert with the call 
macro (CELQCALL), and that call macro automatically takes care of allocating 
the descriptor.  The manual says only under the CELQCALL usage notes:

  2. This macro requires that a PSECT was defined by the CELQPRLG prolog macro

Though I don't see where there is a similar note, CEEPDDA and CEEPLDA also both 
require a PSECT for XPLINK (perhaps because these macros also work for 
non-XPLINK DLLs).  These allow you to define and reference data items your 
environment (WSA) which are exportable/importable respectively.

On 21 Aug 2019 11:17:24 AM Joseph Reichman  wrote:
> Just looked thru LE book shelf would be nice
> If they had programming examples
> Or at the very least documentation on the parameters used for the EDC macros

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

Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

2019-08-22 Thread Clark Morris

[Default] On 22 Aug 2019 09:30:07 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
012780d99c7b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu (esmie moo) wrote:

> We were able to work from home until last year.  According  to management's 
> explanation "productivity had deteriorated"Now, we all make the trek to the 
> office.  A lot of people were caught in a bind because their homes were about 
> 50 -70 miles away from the city center.  Others had to scramble to find 
> daycare for their toddlers.  An immense strain and hardship was exacted on us 
> because we now have to pay expensive transportation costs etc.  But as we are 
> reminded by management to "count our blessings and we are lucky to have a 
> job".  Amen !
Given the general economy, I suggest checking what the job market in
your area is like.  

Clark Morris
>On Thursday, August 22, 2019, 02:55:34 a.m. GMT-4, Ron Hawkins 
>  wrote:  
> 
> Charles,
>
>It may be a bit different for a test environment, but up until I left
>Hitachi last year, I was the only MF person that split time between home and
>the office.
>
>A year later, the MF itself has moved, and none of the testers works on
>site. When I left they were located in both US states and another country. I
>am doing some contract work for them n and split my time between Australia
>and Philippines.
>
>I liked to have our team to train and work face to face occasionally and had
>regular fly-ins of the team for a week. California killed this off as they
>want to declare you a tax resident if you spend more than 60 calendar days
>in the state. Tell that to someone from Nevada.
>
>
>RON HAWKINS
>Director, Ipsicsopt Pty Ltd (ACN: 627 705 971)
>m+61 400029610| t: +1 4085625415 | f: +1 4087912585
>
>-Original Message-
>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of
>Charles Mills
>Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2019 06:46
>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Subject: [IBM-MAIN] Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from
>home?
>
>I am doing a favor for a friend who is writing a blog article on the above
>subject, with an emphasis on the effect of the shrinking mainframe personnel
>pool. (This is NOT some disguised headhunter pitch. Reply to the list or to
>me personally. I will take full responsibility for "sanitizing" your e-mail
>address and so forth out of what I forward to my friend.)
>
>Does your employer allow mainframe sysprogs and developers to work from
>home?
>Any particular restrictions or qualifications?
>Have they changed their policies specifically to address the shrinking
>mainframe personnel pool?
>Roughly what percentage of your colleagues work from home?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Charles 
>
>--
>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email
>to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
>--
>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN  
>
>--
>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

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

Re: DFSORT?

2019-08-22 Thread Bill Bishop (TMNA)

If I remember correctly, IBM started providing DFSORT because DB2 uses it, 
regardless of whether you are licensed for it.

If DFSORT is not activated via IFAPRD00, then no one else besides DB2 can use 
it.

I tried to do a Syncsort to DFSORT migration for a former group.  We had to 
back it off because they were using some of the "then" specific Syncsort 
functions.  It has been so long, I do not remember which ones they were.

Migration to DFSORT should be doable if you can account for those unique 
functions and have them converted prior to cutover.

Thanks

Bill Bishop
Consultant, Mainframe Engineer
Mainframe and Scheduling | Infrastructure Technology Services 
Toyota Motor North America
 bill.bis...@toyota.com
Office:  (469) 292-5149
Cell:  (502) 316-4386

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Gibney, Dave
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 4:45 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: DFSORT?

I guess I should have looked further. Now, I answer my own question. On my 
SMP/E target volume I have:
SYS1.SICELINK
SYS1.SICELPA
SYS1.SICEPROC
SYS1.SICESAMP
SYS1.SICESRCE
SYS1.SICEUSER

Just never copied them to my running SYSRES volumes.

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On 
> Behalf Of Gibney, Dave
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 2:41 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: DFSORT?
> 
> We've always had Syncsort. I don't remember DFSORT being an optional 
> feature for my z/OS 2.1 Serverpac. Does DFSORT live entirely in 
> SYS1.LPA and SYS1.LINKLIB(SYS1.SIEALNKE)?
> 
> We are further on the path of downsizing the z/OS based services. In 
> about a year, they plan is continue to run for static retrieval of old 
> data. DFSORT is included in our MFaaS agreement. Syncsort is extra 
> expense. We'll likely take a "plug compatible" risk jump when our current 
> Syncsort contract runs out.
> 
> Dave Gibney
> Information Technology Services
> Washington State University
> 
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send 
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

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

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

Re: DFSORT?

2019-08-22 Thread Gibney, Dave

I guess I should have looked further. Now, I answer my own question. On my 
SMP/E target volume I have:
SYS1.SICELINK 
SYS1.SICELPA  
SYS1.SICEPROC 
SYS1.SICESAMP 
SYS1.SICESRCE 
SYS1.SICEUSER

Just never copied them to my running SYSRES volumes.

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> Behalf Of Gibney, Dave
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 2:41 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: DFSORT?
> 
> We've always had Syncsort. I don't remember DFSORT being an optional
> feature for my z/OS 2.1 Serverpac. Does DFSORT live entirely in SYS1.LPA and
> SYS1.LINKLIB(SYS1.SIEALNKE)?
> 
> We are further on the path of downsizing the z/OS based services. In about a
> year, they plan is continue to run for static retrieval of old data. DFSORT is
> included in our MFaaS agreement. Syncsort is extra expense. We'll likely take
> a "plug compatible" risk jump when our current Syncsort contract runs out.
> 
> Dave Gibney
> Information Technology Services
> Washington State University
> 
> 
> --
> 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

DFSORT?

2019-08-22 Thread Gibney, Dave

We've always had Syncsort. I don't remember DFSORT being an optional feature 
for my z/OS 2.1 Serverpac. Does DFSORT live entirely in SYS1.LPA and 
SYS1.LINKLIB(SYS1.SIEALNKE)?

We are further on the path of downsizing the z/OS based services. In about a 
year, they plan is continue to run for static retrieval of old data. DFSORT is 
included in our MFaaS agreement. Syncsort is extra expense. We'll likely take a 
"plug compatible" risk jump when our current Syncsort contract runs out.

Dave Gibney
Information Technology Services
Washington State University


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

ISKLM problems - kind of related to mainframe

2019-08-22 Thread Pommier, Rex

Hello,

Is there somebody on the list who would be willing to give me a hand installing 
ISKLM 3.0.1?  I'm trying to install it on a brand new windows 2016 box and the 
DB2 install is failing with 

SQL30082N  Security processing failed with reason "19" ("USERID DISABLED or 
RESTRICTED").  SQLSTATE=08001

This is at the end of the db2 install log.

The ID sklmdb31 was defined before starting the install and defined as a local 
admin on the machine (not a domain ID at all) and the install added the 
sklmdb31 ID to the DB2ADMINS group as part of the install, but then it dies 
saying some USERID is DISABLED.  What ID are they talking about and how do I 
get past this error?   The messages give me no indication that I've found to 
tell me what ID they're talking about.  

TIA,

Rex

Here's the rest of the log (with blank lines and junk lines removed for size)


User namesklmdb31
Country/region code  000 (System Default)
Account active   Yes
Account expires  Never
Password last set8/22/2019 2:47:54 PM
Password expires Never
Password changeable  8/22/2019 2:47:54 PM
Password requiredYes
User may change password Yes

Local Group Memberships  *Administrators   
Global Group memberships *None 

Alias name DB2ADMNS
CommentThis group and local administrators will have complete access to 
all DB2 objects through the operating system.
Members
---
sklmdb31
The command completed successfully.

System error 1378 has occurred.

The specified account name is already a member of the group.

System error 1377 has occurred.

The specified account name is not a member of the group.

User namesklmdb31
Account active   Yes
Account expires  Never

Local Group Memberships  *Administrators   *DB2ADMNS 
Global Group memberships *None 
The command completed successfully.
Return=0
DB2I  The DB2ICRT command completed successfully.
DB2I  The START DATABASE MANAGER command completed successfully.
DB2I  The CREATE DATABASE command completed successfully.
SQL1026N  The database manager is already active.

SQL30082N  Security processing failed with reason "19" ("USERID DISABLED or 
RESTRICTED").  SQLSTATE=08001

DB2I  The DROP DATABASE command completed successfully.
DB2I  The STOP DATABASE MANAGER command completed successfully.


The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from 
disclosure and may be legally privileged.  If the reader of this message is not 
the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this 
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, 
distribution, copying, or any action taken or action omitted in reliance on it, 
is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this 
message and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard 
copy format.  Thank you.


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

Re: Integrated 3270 Console in HMC 2.12 in web browser

I'm referring to the "Integrated 3270 Console"; I wouldn't use it if I could 
telnet into OSA-ICC.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3



From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Allan Staller 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 4:01 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Integrated 3270 Console in HMC 2.12 in web browser

Are you referring to the "Integrated 3270 Console"  DEVNUM(HMCS) in CONSOLxx  
which requires no reference to JAVA
Or
"Operating System  Messages"  DEVNUM(SYSCONS) in CONSOLxx which is JAVA 
dependent.

This integrated 3270 console is especially useful in early IPL before the SMCS 
consoles have initialized.

I have some issues w/IE and the HMC, but IBM wants FIREFOX (and another couple, 
not including IE).

HTH.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Seymour J Metz
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 2:38 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Integrated 3270 Console in HMC 2.12 in web browser

The HMC is adequate for the master console, but you'll be much happier using 
TN3270 session.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=02%7C01%7Callan.staller%40HCL.COM%7C2acf64d0c64e4c8a635c08d727385886%7C189de737c93a4f5a8b686f4ca9941912%7C0%7C0%7C637020995289157029sdata=Tkp2bpfleubPqr8TVluR5lEH91PG8eAgzeEcJVO%2F3Uk%3Dreserved=0



From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Christian Svensson <022ad63487ef-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 2:56 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Integrated 3270 Console in HMC 2.12 in web browser

Hi,

Thanks - seems my options are limited on the z114 in this regard - OSA
Express4S is marked as z12BC only for copper 1Gbit. I wonder if anyone has
had any success running 4S or even 5S regardless? I'm guessing the models
are not part of the 93G driver.

What are my options? Is the Integrated 3270 console in the HMC sufficient
to run e.g. the master console of z/OS and z/VM?.

Thanks,


On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 8:28 PM Parwez Hamid 
wrote:

> Any PCIe based OSA Express 1000BASE-T feature defined as OSC supports
> OSA-ICC
>
> Regards
>
> Parwez Hamid
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

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


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
::DISCLAIMER::
--
The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended 
for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in transmission. 
The e mail and its contents (with or without referred errors) shall therefore 
not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Views or 
opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of the author and 
may not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any 
form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, 
distribution and / or publication of this message without the prior written 
consent of authorized representative of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender 
immediately. Before opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for 
viruses and other defects.
--

--
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: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

2019-08-22 Thread Farley, Peter x23353

I haven't gotten rid of my land line for that very reason.  When 9/11 happened, 
my land line connection to my employer's office in northern New Jersey from my 
home in Brooklyn was still available even though most land line long distance 
connections out of the lower Manhattan Verizon central office were trashed, 
AT still had long-distance lines stretching to the 201 area code from an 
uptown switching center.  I had phone and dial-up modem access to my employer 
throughout the aftermath.

For office phone calls these days I mostly depend on VOIP on my employer's VPN 
network over my cable internet connection (Cisco Jabber software), but in a 
real emergency they can still reach my office extension that Is routed through 
to my home land line, or call directly to my land line.

Peter

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of Tom 
Brennan
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 4:06 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

After getting rid of the home land line maybe 10 years ago, that didn't even 
cross my mind.  But thanks, I'll remember that as an option in case something 
goes haywire in the future.  Right now I'm in great shape (well, the cell phone 
is - I could use some daily exercise).

On 8/22/2019 12:53 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> I would consider a land line to be far more reasonable than a cell phone if I 
> were telecommuting.
--

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee 
and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader 
of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any 
attachments from your system.

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

Re: vendor distributes their private key

Customers are probably not relying on it. The key has no place in the protocol 
flow. It is gratuitous, superfluous information.

The vendor simply replaces the certificate(s) everywhere, keeping the private 
key of the new certificate(s), well, private.

Then the vendor revokes the compromised certificate(s).

This process must be applied at whatever level the key applies to. If they have 
an in-house CA and are distributing its private key, then they must start over 
with a new CA and revoke every unexpired certificate issued by the old CA. 
Similar logic if the distributed an Intermediate Certificate key.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 12:42 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: vendor distributes their private key

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 14:13:58 -0500, Joel M Ivey wrote:

>Thanks all for the response.   I'm glad I wasn't missing something.   I will 
>discuss further with the vendor, hoping they will recognize the risks.
> 
How can the vendor recover from this without causing great
disruption, even an indefinite time in the future, to existing
customers who are rely on the improperly distributed private key?

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

Re: TSO REXX -- find absolute generation # from relative?

2019-08-22 Thread Kirk Wolf

Al,

1) LOCATE is better than IGGCSI00.  It handles accurate resolutions
including wrap around for you.  Both just use the catalog.   Neither
require allocation.

2) Dynamic allocation of the DSN=MY.GDG(rel)  DISP=SHR   with either
BPXWDYN or SVC99  has the advantage of allowing you to specify GDGNT (or
not) so that you can control whether or not you have a stable "(0)" for
your job if that is desirable.   For me, I sometimes need to choose, and I
was asking if there is a good way without requiring allocation.


On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 4:55 PM Al Ferguson 
wrote:

> Yes, even if there is a NEW Allocation on the GDG (creating a new
> G000V), as it holds an excuse enqueue on the entire GDG (though you
> would be able to allocate the DSN directly, but not relatively).
>
> That is why I started with the CSI (Catalog Search Interface). Possibly
> not 100%, but you can get pretty close with some additional checks & Logic.
> The CSI is not faked out by DSNs that are named like GDGs (assuming you
> specify the correct type, “H") and it is quit quick.
>
>
> ___
>
> Al Ferguson   | mailto:afergu...@neptunescove.org
> Milwaukee, WI USA |   http://www.neptunescove.org
>
> Dulcius ex Asperis
>
> > On 21 August 2019, at 15:47, Paul Gilmartin <
> 000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:17:57 -0500, Al Ferguson wrote:
> >>
> >> My next choice would be BPXWDYN to allocate the relative DSN I am
> looking for and get the INFO. I like this because it works everywhere,
> (MVS, TSO, USS, SystemREXX, ….) and it is part of the Base System. ...
> >>
> > Can this encounter problems because of an ENQ by another job?
> >
> > -- gil
> >
> > --
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> >
>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

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

Re: IBM "opens" OpenPower ISA

> Basically, from what I read, this means that other companies can produce
> competing chips which implement the Power ISA, without requiring a license.

No, it means that they have a license, for free, and don't have to negotiate 
for it.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3



From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
John McKown 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 8:07 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: IBM "opens" OpenPower ISA

https://secure-web.cisco.com/1rcOJvltlmpqPvm2iHf8Q63so9sOPmp3ZU5Cb8FVQbKuVIg7TFGId9MxBYqUBtIRaXVrfcNtNJOwbRklXUh0AAsVIvE1e6WnmNVZw_nN7m3y7hWyfugG5I0G-49BfmoCpZl9QswD0uvsRUF0hKf3R67ZynSjLk0zWg3LexTCJ4UqAGKKoGU4QCYTHDwoVXsoTmdkgC-XRXFTe96inPqGFvnwAAQeoy79FjofITWk5_9kg3wxUF9R964U-FU94cN9dAuh6gzpquE5MbJAgM_VUEIUHHQt8avaaLY9ODinGWb-uODtrfstvamEjCStmMt1SKuc7LHAX8zElLxGVNraHSDaK-onEOLS6ccpqGiSfi7LxHg3f2oOvpqfvtSNbBaxjS7Cq2_nZQX1j39Yfwu7A0hDeeI87bauzQMVx4wIFZ_JBfWUXJkIdGIXSDnYL8Otf/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theregister.co.uk%2F2019%2F08%2F20%2Fibm_openpower_isa%2F

Basically, from what I read, this means that other companies can produce
competing chips which implement the Power ISA, without requiring a license.
It is more likely that the Sun will become a supernova than IBM would
"open" the IBM z ISA.

--
I find television very educational. The minute somebody turns it on, I go
into the library and read a good book
-- Groucho Marx

Maranatha! <><
John McKown

--
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: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

2019-08-22 Thread Tom Brennan

After getting rid of the home land line maybe 10 years ago, that didn't 
even cross my mind.  But thanks, I'll remember that as an option in case 
something goes haywire in the future.  Right now I'm in great shape 
(well, the cell phone is - I could use some daily exercise).


On 8/22/2019 12:53 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote:

I would consider a land line to be far more reasonable than a cell phone if I 
were telecommuting.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3



From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of Tom 
Brennan 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 12:27 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

When I worked on site for many years around some of the best sysprogs in
the business, such as Skip Robinson and Stuart Holland, about the only
technical benefit was the ad-hoc meetings.  I might have a question in
my head and I'd just yell over the cubicle walls.  Or someone would call
me or ask a question at my desk that I couldn't answer, and Skip or
Stuart (or someone else) would hear and pop up and join in the conversation.

So I always envisioned some kind of communication system that would
simulate that environment at home.  Maybe have a mic and speakers always
on, for example.  Or a video of the back of my head that the boss could
check (I think the main reason managers don't want people working from
home is because there's no way to check on what people are doing).
Neither of those are great ideas of course, but you get the picture.

I don't do much real sysprog work anymore but basically everyone I work
with is at home or traveling.  That's because we're spread out across
the USA.  The two offices I could drive to are about 2-3 hours away - no
thank you.

Basically, I'm expected to answer the phone and have a screen up if I'm
home, respond reasonably quickly to emails, attend screen-share
meetings, etc.  The TV is on a lot here, but I just put it on mute when
the phone rings.  And of course there's the dog barking or other home
activity that I have to contend with.  But I have a rule that I never
take my phone or laptop to the bathroom :)

I have a decent cable internet connection which is up at least 99% of
the time, but my cell phone always got 1 bar at home and would often
disconnect multiple times in the middle of meetings.  A few months ago I
bought a cell phone signal amplifier (about $300 so it's not trivial -
antenna on roof, cable to small box about 10 feet from my desk) and
wow... works great and no more disconnects.

On 8/21/2019 1:45 PM, Charles Mills wrote:

I am doing a favor for a friend who is writing a blog article on the above
subject, with an emphasis on the effect of the shrinking mainframe personnel
pool. (This is NOT some disguised headhunter pitch. Reply to the list or to
me personally. I will take full responsibility for "sanitizing" your e-mail
address and so forth out of what I forward to my friend.)

Does your employer allow mainframe sysprogs and developers to work from
home?
Any particular restrictions or qualifications?
Have they changed their policies specifically to address the shrinking
mainframe personnel pool?
Roughly what percentage of your colleagues work from home?

Thanks!

Charles

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




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

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




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

Re: vendor distributes their private key

> what I'm missing as to why any vendor would require me to install their 
> private key on my side 

You don't read Dilbert, do you? If it were me I'd be looking for a different 
vendor.

> their response has essentially been, that's the way we do it.

Run, do not walk, to the nearest exit.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3



From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Joel M Ivey 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 8:57 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: vendor distributes their private key

A vendor has an ftps server for us to connect to from a batch job on zos.  
Similar setups with vendors have required the vendor to provide their server's 
public cert chain for import into RACF.   This vendor insists on providing not 
just their server public cert chain but also their private key.

First, they provided a password-protected p12 file, describing it as containing 
the "root, intermediate, and private certs".  I requested their public 
certificate chain only, they sent me a DER file -- with both the server cert 
and its private key.  I have asked them to elaborate on their need to 
distribute their private key to me, their response has essentially been, that's 
the way we do it.

I'm not comfortable accepting anyone's private key.   There has been no mention 
of "client authentication", and I'm still not sure I'd be comfortable with that 
config, either.

Help me understand two things: 1) what I'm missing as to why any vendor would 
require me to install their private key on my side when installing the public 
cert on my side should suffice as in many other instances, and 2) arguments 
for/against client authentication (not password authentication, but client) in 
case that is why they're sending me their private key.

Joel

--
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: Integrated 3270 Console in HMC 2.12 in web browser

2019-08-22 Thread Allan Staller

Are you referring to the "Integrated 3270 Console"  DEVNUM(HMCS) in CONSOLxx  
which requires no reference to JAVA
Or
"Operating System  Messages"  DEVNUM(SYSCONS) in CONSOLxx which is JAVA 
dependent.

This integrated 3270 console is especially useful in early IPL before the SMCS 
consoles have initialized.

I have some issues w/IE and the HMC, but IBM wants FIREFOX (and another couple, 
not including IE).

HTH.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Seymour J Metz
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 2:38 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Integrated 3270 Console in HMC 2.12 in web browser

The HMC is adequate for the master console, but you'll be much happier using 
TN3270 session.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=02%7C01%7Callan.staller%40HCL.COM%7C2acf64d0c64e4c8a635c08d727385886%7C189de737c93a4f5a8b686f4ca9941912%7C0%7C0%7C637020995289157029sdata=Tkp2bpfleubPqr8TVluR5lEH91PG8eAgzeEcJVO%2F3Uk%3Dreserved=0



From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Christian Svensson <022ad63487ef-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 2:56 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Integrated 3270 Console in HMC 2.12 in web browser

Hi,

Thanks - seems my options are limited on the z114 in this regard - OSA
Express4S is marked as z12BC only for copper 1Gbit. I wonder if anyone has
had any success running 4S or even 5S regardless? I'm guessing the models
are not part of the 93G driver.

What are my options? Is the Integrated 3270 console in the HMC sufficient
to run e.g. the master console of z/OS and z/VM?.

Thanks,


On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 8:28 PM Parwez Hamid 
wrote:

> Any PCIe based OSA Express 1000BASE-T feature defined as OSC supports
> OSA-ICC
>
> Regards
>
> Parwez Hamid
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

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


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
::DISCLAIMER::
--
The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended 
for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in transmission. 
The e mail and its contents (with or without referred errors) shall therefore 
not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Views or 
opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of the author and 
may not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any 
form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, 
distribution and / or publication of this message without the prior written 
consent of authorized representative of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender 
immediately. Before opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for 
viruses and other defects.
--

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

Re: ASCII a stupid question, you get an EBCDIC answer.

2019-08-22 Thread Chris Hoelscher

Outside of a dog - a book is man's best friend
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read

Also Groucho

Thank You,
Chris Hoelscher| Lead Database Administrator | IBM Global Technical Services| T
502.476.2538 or 502.407.7266

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which
it is addressed
and may contain CONFIDENTIAL material. If you receive this
material/information in error,
please contact the sender and delete or destroy the material/information.

Humana Inc. and its subsidiaries comply with applicable Federal civil rights
laws and
do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, age,
disability, sex,
sexual orientation, gender identity, or religion. Humana Inc. and its
subsidiaries do not
exclude people or treat them differently because of race, color, national
origin, age,
disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or religion.

English: ATTENTION: If you do not speak English, language assistance services,
free
of charge, are available to you. Call 1‐877‐320‐1235 (TTY: 711).

Español (Spanish): ATENCIÓN: Si habla español, tiene a su disposición servicios
gratuitos de asistencia lingüística. Llame al 1‐877‐320‐1235 (TTY: 711).

繁體中文(Chinese)：注意：如果您使用繁體中文，您可以免費獲得語言援助
服務。請致電 1‐877‐320‐1235 (TTY: 711)。

Kreyòl Ayisyen (Haitian Creole): ATANSION: Si w pale Kreyòl Ayisyen, gen sèvis
èd
pou lang ki disponib gratis pou ou. Rele 1‐877‐320‐1235 (TTY: 711).

Polski (Polish): UWAGA: Jeżeli mówisz po polsku, możesz skorzystać z bezpłatnej
pomocy językowej. Zadzwoń pod numer 1‐877‐320‐1235 (TTY: 711).

한국어 (Korean): 주의: 한국어를 사용하시는 경우, 언어 지원 서비스를 무료로
이용하실 수 있습니다. 1‐877‐320‐1235 (TTY: 711)번으로 전화해 주십시오.

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

Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

I would consider a land line to be far more reasonable than a cell phone if I 
were telecommuting.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of Tom 
Brennan 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 12:27 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

When I worked on site for many years around some of the best sysprogs in
the business, such as Skip Robinson and Stuart Holland, about the only
technical benefit was the ad-hoc meetings.  I might have a question in
my head and I'd just yell over the cubicle walls.  Or someone would call
me or ask a question at my desk that I couldn't answer, and Skip or
Stuart (or someone else) would hear and pop up and join in the conversation.

So I always envisioned some kind of communication system that would
simulate that environment at home.  Maybe have a mic and speakers always
on, for example.  Or a video of the back of my head that the boss could
check (I think the main reason managers don't want people working from
home is because there's no way to check on what people are doing).
Neither of those are great ideas of course, but you get the picture.

I don't do much real sysprog work anymore but basically everyone I work
with is at home or traveling.  That's because we're spread out across
the USA.  The two offices I could drive to are about 2-3 hours away - no
thank you.

Basically, I'm expected to answer the phone and have a screen up if I'm
home, respond reasonably quickly to emails, attend screen-share
meetings, etc.  The TV is on a lot here, but I just put it on mute when
the phone rings.  And of course there's the dog barking or other home
activity that I have to contend with.  But I have a rule that I never
take my phone or laptop to the bathroom :)

I have a decent cable internet connection which is up at least 99% of
the time, but my cell phone always got 1 bar at home and would often
disconnect multiple times in the middle of meetings.  A few months ago I
bought a cell phone signal amplifier (about $300 so it's not trivial -
antenna on roof, cable to small box about 10 feet from my desk) and
wow... works great and no more disconnects.

On 8/21/2019 1:45 PM, Charles Mills wrote:
> I am doing a favor for a friend who is writing a blog article on the above
> subject, with an emphasis on the effect of the shrinking mainframe personnel
> pool. (This is NOT some disguised headhunter pitch. Reply to the list or to
> me personally. I will take full responsibility for "sanitizing" your e-mail
> address and so forth out of what I forward to my friend.)
>
> Does your employer allow mainframe sysprogs and developers to work from
> home?
> Any particular restrictions or qualifications?
> Have they changed their policies specifically to address the shrinking
> mainframe personnel pool?
> Roughly what percentage of your colleagues work from home?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Charles
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
>

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

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

Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

In this hand there's an outage and I can get the system up from home. In the 
other hand there's an outage and they have to wait an hour for me to drive in. 
Which hand has the M?


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3



From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Chuck Kreiter 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 1:07 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

Do you have to also go into the office for "off-hours" support?  During an 
outage, I would expect that is when you are needed to be most productive so 
being on-site seems logical (according to the management explaination).

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of esmie moo
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 12:30 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

 We were able to work from home until last year.  According  to management's 
explanation "productivity had deteriorated"Now, we all make the trek to the 
office.  A lot of people were caught in a bind because their homes were about 
50 -70 miles away from the city center.  Others had to scramble to find daycare 
for their toddlers.  An immense strain and hardship was exacted on us because 
we now have to pay expensive transportation costs etc.  But as we are reminded 
by management to "count our blessings and we are lucky to have a job".  Amen 
!
On Thursday, August 22, 2019, 02:55:34 a.m. GMT-4, Ron Hawkins 
 wrote:

 Charles,

It may be a bit different for a test environment, but up until I left Hitachi 
last year, I was the only MF person that split time between home and the office.

A year later, the MF itself has moved, and none of the testers works on site. 
When I left they were located in both US states and another country. I am doing 
some contract work for them n and split my time between Australia and 
Philippines.

I liked to have our team to train and work face to face occasionally and had 
regular fly-ins of the team for a week. California killed this off as they want 
to declare you a tax resident if you spend more than 60 calendar days in the 
state. Tell that to someone from Nevada.


RON HAWKINS
Director, Ipsicsopt Pty Ltd (ACN: 627 705 971)
m+61 400029610| t: +1 4085625415 | f: +1 4087912585

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Charles Mills
Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2019 06:46
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [IBM-MAIN] Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

I am doing a favor for a friend who is writing a blog article on the above 
subject, with an emphasis on the effect of the shrinking mainframe personnel 
pool. (This is NOT some disguised headhunter pitch. Reply to the list or to me 
personally. I will take full responsibility for "sanitizing" your e-mail 
address and so forth out of what I forward to my friend.)

Does your employer allow mainframe sysprogs and developers to work from home?
Any particular restrictions or qualifications?
Have they changed their policies specifically to address the shrinking 
mainframe personnel pool?
Roughly what percentage of your colleagues work from home?

Thanks!

Charles

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

Storage space. Access when a router is down. Depending on the work site, you 
may have better physical facilities. Meetings in meatspace (I leave it up to 
you whether that is an advantage or a disadvantage.)


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3



From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Brian Chapman 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 1:22 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

Other than changing (or kicking) the hardware, what can be done on-site
that can't be done off-site? Most sysprog responsibilities are software.

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 1:08 PM Chuck Kreiter 
wrote:

> Do you have to also go into the office for "off-hours" support?  During an
> outage, I would expect that is when you are needed to be most productive so
> being on-site seems logical (according to the management explaination).
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of esmie moo
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 12:30 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?
>
>  We were able to work from home until last year.  According  to
> management's explanation "productivity had deteriorated"Now, we all make
> the trek to the office.  A lot of people were caught in a bind because
> their homes were about 50 -70 miles away from the city center.  Others had
> to scramble to find daycare for their toddlers.  An immense strain and
> hardship was exacted on us because we now have to pay expensive
> transportation costs etc.  But as we are reminded by management to "count
> our blessings and we are lucky to have a job".  Amen !
> On Thursday, August 22, 2019, 02:55:34 a.m. GMT-4, Ron Hawkins <
> ron.hawk...@ipsicsopt.com> wrote:
>
>  Charles,
>
> It may be a bit different for a test environment, but up until I left
> Hitachi last year, I was the only MF person that split time between home
> and the office.
>
> A year later, the MF itself has moved, and none of the testers works on
> site. When I left they were located in both US states and another country.
> I am doing some contract work for them n and split my time between
> Australia and Philippines.
>
> I liked to have our team to train and work face to face occasionally and
> had regular fly-ins of the team for a week. California killed this off as
> they want to declare you a tax resident if you spend more than 60 calendar
> days in the state. Tell that to someone from Nevada.
>
>
> RON HAWKINS
> Director, Ipsicsopt Pty Ltd (ACN: 627 705 971)
> m+61 400029610| t: +1 4085625415 | f: +1 4087912585
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf
> Of Charles Mills
> Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2019 06:46
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: [IBM-MAIN] Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from
> home?
>
> I am doing a favor for a friend who is writing a blog article on the above
> subject, with an emphasis on the effect of the shrinking mainframe
> personnel pool. (This is NOT some disguised headhunter pitch. Reply to the
> list or to me personally. I will take full responsibility for "sanitizing"
> your e-mail address and so forth out of what I forward to my friend.)
>
> Does your employer allow mainframe sysprogs and developers to work from
> home?
> Any particular restrictions or qualifications?
> Have they changed their policies specifically to address the shrinking
> mainframe personnel pool?
> Roughly what percentage of your colleagues work from home?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Charles
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email
> to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email
> to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email
> to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

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

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

Re: vendor distributes their private key

2019-08-22 Thread Paul Gilmartin

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 14:13:58 -0500, Joel M Ivey wrote:

>Thanks all for the response.   I'm glad I wasn't missing something.   I will 
>discuss further with the vendor, hoping they will recognize the risks.
> 
How can the vendor recover from this without causing great
disruption, even an indefinite time in the future, to existing
customers who are rely on the improperly distributed private key?

-- gil

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

Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

I like the idea of telecommuting, but there are advantages to being able to 
work in the office as well. IMHO the best situation is to work at home when I 
can't afford to be distracted and to work at the office when I want to bounce 
ideas off of people or I need to store a lot of, e.g., hard copy.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3



From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Steve Beaver 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 1:52 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

I have worked REMOTE for years.

I have no drive time, I can go down stairs and get a sandwich and a drink and 
be backup stairs in 5 min if I'm being slow about it.  I live in WebEx all day, 
it you really, really need me they can call me cell.

The down side is you have to have the mindset that you are a work and ignore 
all intrusions into your workspace unless it’s a true emergency.

Steve

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Jousma, David
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 12:31 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

I do agree that there is a higher level of responsibility required on the part 
of the remote worker to be "available" during the normal working hours and to 
be diligent about the work hours.   Otherwise a perception may be developed 
that you may be less than productive if you are not responding to 
email/IM/phone calls in a similar fashion to "being in the office".

I for one would embrace the flexible work location with certain ground rules 
set ahead of time for what things may require onsite, etc.   As others have 
mentioned, there really are very few technical reasons anymore why someone 
needs to be onsite.   One can waste time just as easily in the office as they 
can at home.

_
Dave Jousma
AVP | Manager, Systems Engineering

Fifth Third Bank  |  1830 East Paris Ave, SE  |  MD RSCB2H  |  Grand Rapids, MI 
49546
616.653.8429  |  fax: 616.653.2717


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
esmie moo
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 12:30 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

**CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL**

**DO NOT open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected 
emails**

 We were able to work from home until last year.  According  to management's 
explanation "productivity had deteriorated"Now, we all make the trek to the 
office.  A lot of people were caught in a bind because their homes were about 
50 -70 miles away from the city center.  Others had to scramble to find daycare 
for their toddlers.  An immense strain and hardship was exacted on us because 
we now have to pay expensive transportation costs etc.  But as we are reminded 
by management to "count our blessings and we are lucky to have a job".  Amen 
!
On Thursday, August 22, 2019, 02:55:34 a.m. GMT-4, Ron Hawkins 
 wrote:

 Charles,

It may be a bit different for a test environment, but up until I left Hitachi 
last year, I was the only MF person that split time between home and the office.

A year later, the MF itself has moved, and none of the testers works on site. 
When I left they were located in both US states and another country. I am doing 
some contract work for them n and split my time between Australia and 
Philippines.

I liked to have our team to train and work face to face occasionally and had 
regular fly-ins of the team for a week. California killed this off as they want 
to declare you a tax resident if you spend more than 60 calendar days in the 
state. Tell that to someone from Nevada.


RON HAWKINS
Director, Ipsicsopt Pty Ltd (ACN: 627 705 971)
m+61 400029610| t: +1 4085625415 | f: +1 4087912585

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Charles Mills
Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2019 06:46
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [IBM-MAIN] Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

I am doing a favor for a friend who is writing a blog article on the above 
subject, with an emphasis on the effect of the shrinking mainframe personnel 
pool. (This is NOT some disguised headhunter pitch. Reply to the list or to me 
personally. I will take full responsibility for "sanitizing" your e-mail 
address and so forth out of what I forward to my friend.)

Does your employer allow mainframe sysprogs and developers to work from home?
Any particular restrictions or qualifications?
Have they changed their policies specifically to address the shrinking 
mainframe personnel pool?
Roughly what percentage of your colleagues work from home?

Thanks!

Charles

Re: Integrated 3270 Console in HMC 2.12 in web browser

The HMC is adequate for the master console, but you'll be much happier using 
TN3270 session.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Christian Svensson <022ad63487ef-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 2:56 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Integrated 3270 Console in HMC 2.12 in web browser

Hi,

Thanks - seems my options are limited on the z114 in this regard - OSA
Express4S is marked as z12BC only for copper 1Gbit. I wonder if anyone has
had any success running 4S or even 5S regardless? I'm guessing the models
are not part of the 93G driver.

What are my options? Is the Integrated 3270 console in the HMC sufficient
to run e.g. the master console of z/OS and z/VM?.

Thanks,

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 8:28 PM Parwez Hamid 
wrote:

> Any PCIe based OSA Express 1000BASE-T feature defined as OSC supports
> OSA-ICC
>
> Regards
>
> Parwez Hamid
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

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

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

Re: vendor distributes their private key

2019-08-22 Thread Joel M Ivey

Thanks all for the response.   I'm glad I wasn't missing something.   I will 
discuss further with the vendor, hoping they will recognize the risks.

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

Re: Integrated 3270 Console in HMC 2.12 in web browser

2019-08-22 Thread Christian Svensson

Hi,

Thanks - seems my options are limited on the z114 in this regard - OSA
Express4S is marked as z12BC only for copper 1Gbit. I wonder if anyone has
had any success running 4S or even 5S regardless? I'm guessing the models
are not part of the 93G driver.

What are my options? Is the Integrated 3270 console in the HMC sufficient
to run e.g. the master console of z/OS and z/VM?.

Thanks,

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 8:28 PM Parwez Hamid 
wrote:

> Any PCIe based OSA Express 1000BASE-T feature defined as OSC supports
> OSA-ICC
>
> Regards
>
> Parwez Hamid
>
> --
> 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: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

2019-08-22 Thread Jesse 1 Robinson

I'm allowed a combination of home (mostly mornings) and office (I like the 
company food service). I've heard worker bees complain that laboring at home is 
too intense. No socially blessed conversations around the water cooler. No 
visiting with colleagues on topics that may or not be strictly job related. You 
have to work at giving yourself permission to chill. 

.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW
robin...@sce.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Steve Beaver
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:53 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from 
home?

I have worked REMOTE for years.

I have no drive time, I can go down stairs and get a sandwich and a drink and 
be backup stairs in 5 min if I'm being slow about it.  I live in WebEx all day, 
it you really, really need me they can call me cell.

The down side is you have to have the mindset that you are a work and ignore 
all intrusions into your workspace unless it’s a true emergency.

Steve

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Jousma, David
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 12:31 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

I do agree that there is a higher level of responsibility required on the part 
of the remote worker to be "available" during the normal working hours and to 
be diligent about the work hours.   Otherwise a perception may be developed 
that you may be less than productive if you are not responding to 
email/IM/phone calls in a similar fashion to "being in the office".

I for one would embrace the flexible work location with certain ground rules 
set ahead of time for what things may require onsite, etc.   As others have 
mentioned, there really are very few technical reasons anymore why someone 
needs to be onsite.   One can waste time just as easily in the office as they 
can at home.

_
Dave Jousma
AVP | Manager, Systems Engineering  

Fifth Third Bank  |  1830 East Paris Ave, SE  |  MD RSCB2H  |  Grand Rapids, MI 
49546
616.653.8429  |  fax: 616.653.2717


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
esmie moo
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 12:30 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

**CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL**

**DO NOT open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected 
emails**

 We were able to work from home until last year.  According  to management's 
explanation "productivity had deteriorated"Now, we all make the trek to the 
office.  A lot of people were caught in a bind because their homes were about 
50 -70 miles away from the city center.  Others had to scramble to find daycare 
for their toddlers.  An immense strain and hardship was exacted on us because 
we now have to pay expensive transportation costs etc.  But as we are reminded 
by management to "count our blessings and we are lucky to have a job".  Amen 
!
On Thursday, August 22, 2019, 02:55:34 a.m. GMT-4, Ron Hawkins 
 wrote:  
 
 Charles,

It may be a bit different for a test environment, but up until I left Hitachi 
last year, I was the only MF person that split time between home and the office.

A year later, the MF itself has moved, and none of the testers works on site. 
When I left they were located in both US states and another country. I am doing 
some contract work for them n and split my time between Australia and 
Philippines.

I liked to have our team to train and work face to face occasionally and had 
regular fly-ins of the team for a week. California killed this off as they want 
to declare you a tax resident if you spend more than 60 calendar days in the 
state. Tell that to someone from Nevada.


RON HAWKINS
Director, Ipsicsopt Pty Ltd (ACN: 627 705 971)
m+61 400029610| t: +1 4085625415 | f: +1 4087912585

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Charles Mills
Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2019 06:46
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [IBM-MAIN] Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

I am doing a favor for a friend who is writing a blog article on the above 
subject, with an emphasis on the effect of the shrinking mainframe personnel 
pool. (This is NOT some disguised headhunter pitch. Reply to the list or to me 
personally. I will take full responsibility for "sanitizing" your e-mail 
address and so forth out of what I forward to my friend.)

Does your employer allow mainframe sysprogs and developers to work from home?
Any particular restrictions or qualifications?
Have they changed their policies

Re: Integrated 3270 Console in HMC 2.12 in web browser

2019-08-22 Thread Parwez Hamid

Any PCIe based OSA Express 1000BASE-T feature defined as OSC supports OSA-ICC

Regards

Parwez Hamid

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

Re: vendor distributes their private key

> As long as they don't distribute the public key, the data will remain secure.

Technically probably true, but not cryptographically verified.

But if the distribute the certificate as the OP indicated, they DO distribute 
the public key.

Charles


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Jon Perryman
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:19 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: vendor distributes their private key

 Ask yourself if you can trust a vendor that does not understand basic security 
concepts. When you complain, will they simply give you the public key or will 
they request new public / private keys? I personally would be leery because 
they will be make much worse mistakes.
The standard helps with mistakes like this by requiring the use of both keys. 
Data encrypted with the private key can only be decrypted using the public key. 
As long as they don't distribute the public key, the data will remain secure. 
If you move forward, make sure they give you a brand new public key.
Jon.On Thursday, August 22, 2019, 05:57:34 AM PDT, Joel M Ivey 
 wrote:  
 
 A vendor has an ftps server for us to connect to from a batch job on zos.  
Similar setups with vendors have required the vendor to provide their server's 
public cert chain for import into RACF.  This vendor insists on providing not 
just their server public cert chain but also their private key.  

First, they provided a password-protected p12 file, describing it as containing 
the "root, intermediate, and private certs".  I requested their public 
certificate chain only, they sent me a DER file -- with both the server cert 
and its private key.  I have asked them to elaborate on their need to 
distribute their private key to me, their response has essentially been, that's 
the way we do it. 

I'm not comfortable accepting anyone's private key.  There has been no mention 
of "client authentication", and I'm still not sure I'd be comfortable with that 
config, either. 

Help me understand two things: 1) what I'm missing as to why any vendor would 
require me to install their private key on my side when installing the public 
cert on my side should suffice as in many other instances, and 2) arguments 
for/against client authentication (not password authentication, but client) in 
case that is why they're sending me their private key.

Joel

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

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

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

Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

2019-08-22 Thread Steve Beaver

I have worked REMOTE for years.

I have no drive time, I can go down stairs and get a sandwich and a drink and 
be backup stairs in 5 min if I'm being slow about it.  I live in WebEx all day, 
it you really, really need me they can call me cell.

The down side is you have to have the mindset that you are a work and ignore 
all intrusions into your workspace unless it’s a true emergency.

Steve

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Jousma, David
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 12:31 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

I do agree that there is a higher level of responsibility required on the part 
of the remote worker to be "available" during the normal working hours and to 
be diligent about the work hours.   Otherwise a perception may be developed 
that you may be less than productive if you are not responding to 
email/IM/phone calls in a similar fashion to "being in the office".

I for one would embrace the flexible work location with certain ground rules 
set ahead of time for what things may require onsite, etc.   As others have 
mentioned, there really are very few technical reasons anymore why someone 
needs to be onsite.   One can waste time just as easily in the office as they 
can at home.

_
Dave Jousma
AVP | Manager, Systems Engineering  

Fifth Third Bank  |  1830 East Paris Ave, SE  |  MD RSCB2H  |  Grand Rapids, MI 
49546
616.653.8429  |  fax: 616.653.2717


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
esmie moo
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 12:30 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

**CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL**

**DO NOT open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected 
emails**

 We were able to work from home until last year.  According  to management's 
explanation "productivity had deteriorated"Now, we all make the trek to the 
office.  A lot of people were caught in a bind because their homes were about 
50 -70 miles away from the city center.  Others had to scramble to find daycare 
for their toddlers.  An immense strain and hardship was exacted on us because 
we now have to pay expensive transportation costs etc.  But as we are reminded 
by management to "count our blessings and we are lucky to have a job".  Amen 
!
On Thursday, August 22, 2019, 02:55:34 a.m. GMT-4, Ron Hawkins 
 wrote:  
 
 Charles,

It may be a bit different for a test environment, but up until I left Hitachi 
last year, I was the only MF person that split time between home and the office.

A year later, the MF itself has moved, and none of the testers works on site. 
When I left they were located in both US states and another country. I am doing 
some contract work for them n and split my time between Australia and 
Philippines.

I liked to have our team to train and work face to face occasionally and had 
regular fly-ins of the team for a week. California killed this off as they want 
to declare you a tax resident if you spend more than 60 calendar days in the 
state. Tell that to someone from Nevada.


RON HAWKINS
Director, Ipsicsopt Pty Ltd (ACN: 627 705 971)
m+61 400029610| t: +1 4085625415 | f: +1 4087912585

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Charles Mills
Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2019 06:46
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [IBM-MAIN] Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

I am doing a favor for a friend who is writing a blog article on the above 
subject, with an emphasis on the effect of the shrinking mainframe personnel 
pool. (This is NOT some disguised headhunter pitch. Reply to the list or to me 
personally. I will take full responsibility for "sanitizing" your e-mail 
address and so forth out of what I forward to my friend.)

Does your employer allow mainframe sysprogs and developers to work from home?
Any particular restrictions or qualifications?
Have they changed their policies specifically to address the shrinking 
mainframe personnel pool?
Roughly what percentage of your colleagues work from home?

Thanks!

Charles 

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

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

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

Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

2019-08-22 Thread Jousma, David

I do agree that there is a higher level of responsibility required on the part 
of the remote worker to be "available" during the normal working hours and to 
be diligent about the work hours.   Otherwise a perception may be developed 
that you may be less than productive if you are not responding to 
email/IM/phone calls in a similar fashion to "being in the office".

I for one would embrace the flexible work location with certain ground rules 
set ahead of time for what things may require onsite, etc.   As others have 
mentioned, there really are very few technical reasons anymore why someone 
needs to be onsite.   One can waste time just as easily in the office as they 
can at home.

_
Dave Jousma
AVP | Manager, Systems Engineering  

Fifth Third Bank  |  1830 East Paris Ave, SE  |  MD RSCB2H  |  Grand Rapids, MI 
49546
616.653.8429  |  fax: 616.653.2717


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
esmie moo
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 12:30 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

**CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL**

**DO NOT open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected 
emails**

 We were able to work from home until last year.  According  to management's 
explanation "productivity had deteriorated"Now, we all make the trek to the 
office.  A lot of people were caught in a bind because their homes were about 
50 -70 miles away from the city center.  Others had to scramble to find daycare 
for their toddlers.  An immense strain and hardship was exacted on us because 
we now have to pay expensive transportation costs etc.  But as we are reminded 
by management to "count our blessings and we are lucky to have a job".  Amen 
!
On Thursday, August 22, 2019, 02:55:34 a.m. GMT-4, Ron Hawkins 
 wrote:  
 
 Charles,

It may be a bit different for a test environment, but up until I left Hitachi 
last year, I was the only MF person that split time between home and the office.

A year later, the MF itself has moved, and none of the testers works on site. 
When I left they were located in both US states and another country. I am doing 
some contract work for them n and split my time between Australia and 
Philippines.

I liked to have our team to train and work face to face occasionally and had 
regular fly-ins of the team for a week. California killed this off as they want 
to declare you a tax resident if you spend more than 60 calendar days in the 
state. Tell that to someone from Nevada.


RON HAWKINS
Director, Ipsicsopt Pty Ltd (ACN: 627 705 971)
m+61 400029610| t: +1 4085625415 | f: +1 4087912585

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Charles Mills
Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2019 06:46
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [IBM-MAIN] Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

I am doing a favor for a friend who is writing a blog article on the above 
subject, with an emphasis on the effect of the shrinking mainframe personnel 
pool. (This is NOT some disguised headhunter pitch. Reply to the list or to me 
personally. I will take full responsibility for "sanitizing" your e-mail 
address and so forth out of what I forward to my friend.)

Does your employer allow mainframe sysprogs and developers to work from home?
Any particular restrictions or qualifications?
Have they changed their policies specifically to address the shrinking 
mainframe personnel pool?
Roughly what percentage of your colleagues work from home?

Thanks!

Charles 

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

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

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

**DO NOT open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected 
emails**

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

Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

2019-08-22 Thread Brian Chapman

Other than changing (or kicking) the hardware, what can be done on-site
that can't be done off-site? Most sysprog responsibilities are software.

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 1:08 PM Chuck Kreiter 
wrote:

> Do you have to also go into the office for "off-hours" support?  During an
> outage, I would expect that is when you are needed to be most productive so
> being on-site seems logical (according to the management explaination).
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of esmie moo
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 12:30 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?
>
>  We were able to work from home until last year.  According  to
> management's explanation "productivity had deteriorated"Now, we all make
> the trek to the office.  A lot of people were caught in a bind because
> their homes were about 50 -70 miles away from the city center.  Others had
> to scramble to find daycare for their toddlers.  An immense strain and
> hardship was exacted on us because we now have to pay expensive
> transportation costs etc.  But as we are reminded by management to "count
> our blessings and we are lucky to have a job".  Amen !
> On Thursday, August 22, 2019, 02:55:34 a.m. GMT-4, Ron Hawkins <
> ron.hawk...@ipsicsopt.com> wrote:
>
>  Charles,
>
> It may be a bit different for a test environment, but up until I left
> Hitachi last year, I was the only MF person that split time between home
> and the office.
>
> A year later, the MF itself has moved, and none of the testers works on
> site. When I left they were located in both US states and another country.
> I am doing some contract work for them n and split my time between
> Australia and Philippines.
>
> I liked to have our team to train and work face to face occasionally and
> had regular fly-ins of the team for a week. California killed this off as
> they want to declare you a tax resident if you spend more than 60 calendar
> days in the state. Tell that to someone from Nevada.
>
>
> RON HAWKINS
> Director, Ipsicsopt Pty Ltd (ACN: 627 705 971)
> m+61 400029610| t: +1 4085625415 | f: +1 4087912585
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf
> Of Charles Mills
> Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2019 06:46
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: [IBM-MAIN] Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from
> home?
>
> I am doing a favor for a friend who is writing a blog article on the above
> subject, with an emphasis on the effect of the shrinking mainframe
> personnel pool. (This is NOT some disguised headhunter pitch. Reply to the
> list or to me personally. I will take full responsibility for "sanitizing"
> your e-mail address and so forth out of what I forward to my friend.)
>
> Does your employer allow mainframe sysprogs and developers to work from
> home?
> Any particular restrictions or qualifications?
> Have they changed their policies specifically to address the shrinking
> mainframe personnel pool?
> Roughly what percentage of your colleagues work from home?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Charles
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email
> to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email
> to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email
> to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

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

Re: vendor distributes their private key

2019-08-22 Thread Jon Perryman

 Ask yourself if you can trust a vendor that does not understand basic security 
concepts. When you complain, will they simply give you the public key or will 
they request new public / private keys? I personally would be leery because 
they will be make much worse mistakes.
The standard helps with mistakes like this by requiring the use of both keys. 
Data encrypted with the private key can only be decrypted using the public key. 
As long as they don't distribute the public key, the data will remain secure. 
If you move forward, make sure they give you a brand new public key.
Jon.On Thursday, August 22, 2019, 05:57:34 AM PDT, Joel M Ivey 
 wrote:  
 
 A vendor has an ftps server for us to connect to from a batch job on zos.  
Similar setups with vendors have required the vendor to provide their server's 
public cert chain for import into RACF.  This vendor insists on providing not 
just their server public cert chain but also their private key.  

First, they provided a password-protected p12 file, describing it as containing 
the "root, intermediate, and private certs".  I requested their public 
certificate chain only, they sent me a DER file -- with both the server cert 
and its private key.  I have asked them to elaborate on their need to 
distribute their private key to me, their response has essentially been, that's 
the way we do it. 

I'm not comfortable accepting anyone's private key.  There has been no mention 
of "client authentication", and I'm still not sure I'd be comfortable with that 
config, either. 

Help me understand two things: 1) what I'm missing as to why any vendor would 
require me to install their private key on my side when installing the public 
cert on my side should suffice as in many other instances, and 2) arguments 
for/against client authentication (not password authentication, but client) in 
case that is why they're sending me their private key.

Joel

--
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: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

2019-08-22 Thread Chuck Kreiter

Do you have to also go into the office for "off-hours" support?  During an 
outage, I would expect that is when you are needed to be most productive so 
being on-site seems logical (according to the management explaination).

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of esmie moo
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 12:30 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

 We were able to work from home until last year.  According  to management's 
explanation "productivity had deteriorated"Now, we all make the trek to the 
office.  A lot of people were caught in a bind because their homes were about 
50 -70 miles away from the city center.  Others had to scramble to find daycare 
for their toddlers.  An immense strain and hardship was exacted on us because 
we now have to pay expensive transportation costs etc.  But as we are reminded 
by management to "count our blessings and we are lucky to have a job".  Amen 
!
On Thursday, August 22, 2019, 02:55:34 a.m. GMT-4, Ron Hawkins 
 wrote:  

 Charles,

It may be a bit different for a test environment, but up until I left Hitachi 
last year, I was the only MF person that split time between home and the office.

A year later, the MF itself has moved, and none of the testers works on site. 
When I left they were located in both US states and another country. I am doing 
some contract work for them n and split my time between Australia and 
Philippines.

I liked to have our team to train and work face to face occasionally and had 
regular fly-ins of the team for a week. California killed this off as they want 
to declare you a tax resident if you spend more than 60 calendar days in the 
state. Tell that to someone from Nevada.

RON HAWKINS
Director, Ipsicsopt Pty Ltd (ACN: 627 705 971)
m+61 400029610| t: +1 4085625415 | f: +1 4087912585

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Charles Mills
Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2019 06:46
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [IBM-MAIN] Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

I am doing a favor for a friend who is writing a blog article on the above 
subject, with an emphasis on the effect of the shrinking mainframe personnel 
pool. (This is NOT some disguised headhunter pitch. Reply to the list or to me 
personally. I will take full responsibility for "sanitizing" your e-mail 
address and so forth out of what I forward to my friend.)

Does your employer allow mainframe sysprogs and developers to work from home?
Any particular restrictions or qualifications?
Have they changed their policies specifically to address the shrinking 
mainframe personnel pool?
Roughly what percentage of your colleagues work from home?

Thanks!

Charles 

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

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

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

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

Re: IBM "opens" OpenPower ISA

2019-08-22 Thread Allan Staller

I have seen a couple of ZBB [1] analyses. The break even point was generally in 
the range of about 100 servers.

[1] Zero based budgeting.  Pretend nothing is there and the "build" the 
environment from the ground up using the same assumptions on both sides.
This differs from many other analyses I have seen where the raised floor, 
power, AC,... were all allocated to the MF.

HTH,

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
John McKown
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 11:50 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM "opens" OpenPower ISA

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:26 AM Gary Gregory < gary.greg...@dino-software.com> 
wrote:

> I thought the 3rd parties dropped out when the z/Architecture 64-bit
> was announced.
>
> I read somewhere, years ago, it was going to a $1B investment for the
> PCM manufactures to develop and offer a 64-bit processor.
>
> GGG
>

IMO, the _only_ reason that more companies don't desert the z platform is the 
cost to convert the programs & data. I still think that the z is the most 
robust and reliable platform out there. But I am not convinced that a "ground 
zero" analysis would regard it as cost effective. Perhaps I'll put my money on 
the RISC-V processor -- completely open, cost free to use their ISA. None of 
the "hidden" instructions like the z has. Oh, well, I am staring 
retirement/death in the face waiting to see who blinks first.

--
I find television very educational. The minute somebody turns it on, I go into 
the library and read a good book
-- Groucho Marx

Maranatha! <><
John McKown

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
::DISCLAIMER::
--
The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended 
for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in transmission. 
The e mail and its contents (with or without referred errors) shall therefore 
not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Views or 
opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of the author and 
may not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any 
form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, 
distribution and / or publication of this message without the prior written 
consent of authorized representative of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender 
immediately. Before opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for 
viruses and other defects.
--

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

Re: IBM "opens" OpenPower ISA

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:26 AM Gary Gregory <
gary.greg...@dino-software.com> wrote:

> I thought the 3rd parties dropped out when the z/Architecture 64-bit was
> announced.
>
> I read somewhere, years ago, it was going to a $1B investment for the PCM
> manufactures to develop and offer a 64-bit processor.
>
> GGG
>

IMO, the _only_ reason that more companies don't desert the z platform is
the cost to convert the programs & data. I still think that the z is the
most robust and reliable platform out there. But I am not convinced that a
"ground zero" analysis would regard it as cost effective. Perhaps I'll put
my money on the RISC-V processor -- completely open, cost free to use their
ISA. None of the "hidden" instructions like the z has. Oh, well, I am
staring retirement/death in the face waiting to see who blinks first.

-- 
I find television very educational. The minute somebody turns it on, I go
into the library and read a good book
-- Groucho Marx

Maranatha! <><
John McKown

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

Re: Integrated 3270 Console in HMC 2.12 in web browser

2019-08-22 Thread Christian Svensson

Hi,

I see - I tried with Internet Explorer and indeed things seems to be moving
further ahead. Some applets' certificates expired in 2016 so I think that
might one of the problems I'm hitting. I'll see about resigning them.

Regarding OSA-ICC. Is there a way to get that using PCIe cages only? I wish
to decom the ESCON bay in this z114 to conserve power, but I have not found
an OSA Express that has ICC in PCIe.

Thanks,

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:29 AM Cieri, Anthony  wrote:

>
> Weather this is possible may depend upon the level of Java that
> you are using.
>
> I use FireFox to connect to the HMC for an older z10 machine. I
> also keep a Java Version 7 installed specifically for the Integrated 3270
> Console function.  I have colleagues here with similar PC configurations,
> that have Java Version 8 or later installed.  They can access some HMC
> functions via a remote Web Browser, but unfortunately the Integrated 3270
> console is NOT one of them.
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Christian Svensson
> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 2:05 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Integrated 3270 Console in HMC 2.12 in web browser
>
> [[ SEI WARNING *** This email was sent from an external source. Do not
> open attachments or click on links from unknown or suspicious senders. ***
> ]]
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible to launch Integrated 3270 Console in HMC 2.12 when accessing
> the HMC using a web browser?
>
> When I click on the LPAR and choose Integrated 3270 Console nothing happens
> when using a remote web browser. It works locally on the HMC. The Chrome
> network request is:
>
> Request URL: https:///hmc/ui/dnd2/launch
> Request Method: POST
> Status Code: 204 No Content
> Remote Address: 10.114.2.10:443
> Referrer Policy: no-referrer-when-downgrade
> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 06:00:22 GMT
> Server: zSeries management console embedded web server / 2.0
>
> Nothing more. Am I missing something? Some other actions at least say "this
> task cannot be used remotely" which makes me wonder if I'm doing something
> wrong.
>
> Bonus question: Can I connect to the LPAR 3270 console remotely in some
> other fashion?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

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

Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

2019-08-22 Thread esmie moo

 We were able to work from home until last year.  According  to management's 
explanation "productivity had deteriorated"Now, we all make the trek to the 
office.  A lot of people were caught in a bind because their homes were about 
50 -70 miles away from the city center.  Others had to scramble to find daycare 
for their toddlers.  An immense strain and hardship was exacted on us because 
we now have to pay expensive transportation costs etc.  But as we are reminded 
by management to "count our blessings and we are lucky to have a job".  Amen 
!
On Thursday, August 22, 2019, 02:55:34 a.m. GMT-4, Ron Hawkins 
 wrote:  
 
 Charles,

It may be a bit different for a test environment, but up until I left
Hitachi last year, I was the only MF person that split time between home and
the office.

A year later, the MF itself has moved, and none of the testers works on
site. When I left they were located in both US states and another country. I
am doing some contract work for them n and split my time between Australia
and Philippines.

I liked to have our team to train and work face to face occasionally and had
regular fly-ins of the team for a week. California killed this off as they
want to declare you a tax resident if you spend more than 60 calendar days
in the state. Tell that to someone from Nevada.


RON HAWKINS
Director, Ipsicsopt Pty Ltd (ACN: 627 705 971)
m+61 400029610| t: +1 4085625415 | f: +1 4087912585

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of
Charles Mills
Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2019 06:46
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [IBM-MAIN] Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from
home?

I am doing a favor for a friend who is writing a blog article on the above
subject, with an emphasis on the effect of the shrinking mainframe personnel
pool. (This is NOT some disguised headhunter pitch. Reply to the list or to
me personally. I will take full responsibility for "sanitizing" your e-mail
address and so forth out of what I forward to my friend.)

Does your employer allow mainframe sysprogs and developers to work from
home?
Any particular restrictions or qualifications?
Have they changed their policies specifically to address the shrinking
mainframe personnel pool?
Roughly what percentage of your colleagues work from home?

Thanks!

Charles 

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

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

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

Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

2019-08-22 Thread Tom Brennan

When I worked on site for many years around some of the best sysprogs in 
the business, such as Skip Robinson and Stuart Holland, about the only 
technical benefit was the ad-hoc meetings.  I might have a question in 
my head and I'd just yell over the cubicle walls.  Or someone would call 
me or ask a question at my desk that I couldn't answer, and Skip or 
Stuart (or someone else) would hear and pop up and join in the conversation.


So I always envisioned some kind of communication system that would 
simulate that environment at home.  Maybe have a mic and speakers always 
on, for example.  Or a video of the back of my head that the boss could 
check (I think the main reason managers don't want people working from 
home is because there's no way to check on what people are doing). 
Neither of those are great ideas of course, but you get the picture.


I don't do much real sysprog work anymore but basically everyone I work 
with is at home or traveling.  That's because we're spread out across 
the USA.  The two offices I could drive to are about 2-3 hours away - no 
thank you.


Basically, I'm expected to answer the phone and have a screen up if I'm 
home, respond reasonably quickly to emails, attend screen-share 
meetings, etc.  The TV is on a lot here, but I just put it on mute when 
the phone rings.  And of course there's the dog barking or other home 
activity that I have to contend with.  But I have a rule that I never 
take my phone or laptop to the bathroom :)


I have a decent cable internet connection which is up at least 99% of 
the time, but my cell phone always got 1 bar at home and would often 
disconnect multiple times in the middle of meetings.  A few months ago I 
bought a cell phone signal amplifier (about $300 so it's not trivial - 
antenna on roof, cable to small box about 10 feet from my desk) and 
wow... works great and no more disconnects.


On 8/21/2019 1:45 PM, Charles Mills wrote:

I am doing a favor for a friend who is writing a blog article on the above
subject, with an emphasis on the effect of the shrinking mainframe personnel
pool. (This is NOT some disguised headhunter pitch. Reply to the list or to
me personally. I will take full responsibility for "sanitizing" your e-mail
address and so forth out of what I forward to my friend.)

Does your employer allow mainframe sysprogs and developers to work from
home?
Any particular restrictions or qualifications?
Have they changed their policies specifically to address the shrinking
mainframe personnel pool?
Roughly what percentage of your colleagues work from home?

Thanks!

Charles

--
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: IBM "opens" OpenPower ISA

2019-08-22 Thread Gary Gregory

I thought the 3rd parties dropped out when the z/Architecture 64-bit was 
announced.

I read somewhere, years ago, it was going to a $1B investment for the PCM 
manufactures to develop and offer a 64-bit processor.

GGG

Get Outlook for iOS

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Dana Mitchell 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 7:45:22 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: IBM "opens" OpenPower ISA

It was much later than XA, I think they probably couldn't get the license for 
the 64 bit implementation.  We installed a Hitachi Pilot CPU in 1999,  and 
after that they came out with the Skyline series of machines.

Dana

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 07:27:15 -0500, John McKown  
wrote:
>
>Good question. I was told that the 3rd party CPU hardware parties quit when
>XA came out do to some change. But I don't know if it was licensing, or
>maybe some patent, or just too expensive in the R area.

--
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: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

2019-08-22 Thread Gary Gregory

All of the members of our entire company work from home.  I have enjoyed the 
flexibility of working from my home office - I don’t have to deal with 
commutes, rush hour or having to fly back and forth to the office. For me. I 
find I’m more productive. If I think about a way to test a bug or get over some 
hump in development I’m just down the hall from my office

Another example I’m out of the office and I need to connect I have three ways 
to our mainframe:

(1).  If I’m in a development cycle and I’m going to be local, I’ll take my 
smaller HP laptop and connect using local Wi-FI from the building I’m in.

(2). If I’m going to be on the road I can work from one of the passenger seats 
in my pickup. Again, I’ll use my HP mini but this time I use the local Wi-Fi 
(router) access GM has installed with my new Z71 Silverado.  Side Note: since 
this is satellite-based I always seem to have coverage. FYI, Last spring, this 
connection worked very well when we drove from Lubbock, Tx to Minneapolis, Mn 
to attend the NCAA Final Four.

(3).  If I’m out at lunch or dinner, etc. with my family and I need to login, 
I’ll use my iPhone XS Max. It has just enough screen real estate to get work 
accomplished without having to flip-flop PF Keys, Screen Keys, etc.

Of course in all three situations above I use a VPN client for secure access.  
When I’m  using my HP mini I use the Vista TN3270 Emulator (from Tom Brennan 
Software) however I use Attachmate’s  TN3270 for iPhone access

Regards,

Gary Garland Gregory, MS
DINO-Software

Get Outlook for iOS

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Mike Schwab 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:22:43 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

Well, every other month would leave 3 weeks for training.

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 7:09 AM Ron Hawkins  wrote:
>
> Raphael,
>
> Calendar days. Vacations, public holidays, sick days, etc are all calendar 
> days.
>
> Arrive on Wednesday, and leave the next Wednesday is seven days, which is 
> only nine months at a week per month.
>
> Most training, customer briefing, etc also happens in California, so there 
> are 5-10 days a year at least as well.
>
> If for some unforeseen we blow the 60 days, who is going to pay the 
> employee's tax in California? If they were at 50 days and visited the 
> amusement parks in LA for 1.5 weeks they've blown it.
>
> And that's the main reason it was mothballed and made ad hoc.
>
> Ron
>
>
> RON HAWKINS
> Director, Ipsicsopt Pty Ltd (ACN: 627 705 971)
> m+61 400029610| t: +1 4085625415 | f: +1 4087912585
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
> Raphaël Jacquot
> Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2019 17:26
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from 
> home?
>
> Le 22/08/2019 à 08:54, Ron Hawkins a écrit :
>
> > I liked to have our team to train and work face to face occasionally
> > and had regular fly-ins of the team for a week. California killed this
> > off as they want to declare you a tax resident if you spend more than
> > 60 calendar days in the state. Tell that to someone from Nevada.
>
> considering there are 52 weeks in a calendar year, and there are vacations / 
> holidays / out of the country periods, you should be fine with once a week
>
> Raphael
>
> --
> 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

--
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

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

Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

2019-08-22 Thread Mike Schwab

In California.  You said you could do 59 days in California.

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 10:58 AM Ron Hawkins  wrote:
>
> Where?
>
>
> RON HAWKINS
> Director, Ipsicsopt Pty Ltd (ACN: 627 705 971)
> m+61 400029610| t: +1 4085625415 | f: +1 4087912585
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
> Mike Schwab
> Sent: Friday, 23 August 2019 01:23
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from 
> home?
>
> Well, every other month would leave 3 weeks for training.
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 7:09 AM Ron Hawkins  wrote:
> >
> > Raphael,
> >
> > Calendar days. Vacations, public holidays, sick days, etc are all calendar 
> > days.
> >
> > Arrive on Wednesday, and leave the next Wednesday is seven days, which is 
> > only nine months at a week per month.
> >
> > Most training, customer briefing, etc also happens in California, so there 
> > are 5-10 days a year at least as well.
> >
> > If for some unforeseen we blow the 60 days, who is going to pay the 
> > employee's tax in California? If they were at 50 days and visited the 
> > amusement parks in LA for 1.5 weeks they've blown it.
> >
> > And that's the main reason it was mothballed and made ad hoc.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> > RON HAWKINS
> > Director, Ipsicsopt Pty Ltd (ACN: 627 705 971)
> > m+61 400029610| t: +1 4085625415 | f: +1 4087912585
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> > Behalf Of Raphaël Jacquot
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2019 17:26
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Attitude of companies toward mainframers working 
> > from home?
> >
> > Le 22/08/2019 à 08:54, Ron Hawkins a écrit :
> >
> > > I liked to have our team to train and work face to face occasionally
> > > and had regular fly-ins of the team for a week. California killed
> > > this off as they want to declare you a tax resident if you spend
> > > more than
> > > 60 calendar days in the state. Tell that to someone from Nevada.
> >
> > considering there are 52 weeks in a calendar year, and there are
> > vacations / holidays / out of the country periods, you should be fine
> > with once a week
> >
> > Raphael
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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

Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

Where?


RON HAWKINS
Director, Ipsicsopt Pty Ltd (ACN: 627 705 971)
m+61 400029610| t: +1 4085625415 | f: +1 4087912585

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Mike Schwab
Sent: Friday, 23 August 2019 01:23
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from 
home?

Well, every other month would leave 3 weeks for training.

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 7:09 AM Ron Hawkins  wrote:
>
> Raphael,
>
> Calendar days. Vacations, public holidays, sick days, etc are all calendar 
> days.
>
> Arrive on Wednesday, and leave the next Wednesday is seven days, which is 
> only nine months at a week per month.
>
> Most training, customer briefing, etc also happens in California, so there 
> are 5-10 days a year at least as well.
>
> If for some unforeseen we blow the 60 days, who is going to pay the 
> employee's tax in California? If they were at 50 days and visited the 
> amusement parks in LA for 1.5 weeks they've blown it.
>
> And that's the main reason it was mothballed and made ad hoc.
>
> Ron
>
>
> RON HAWKINS
> Director, Ipsicsopt Pty Ltd (ACN: 627 705 971)
> m+61 400029610| t: +1 4085625415 | f: +1 4087912585
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On 
> Behalf Of Raphaël Jacquot
> Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2019 17:26
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from 
> home?
>
> Le 22/08/2019 à 08:54, Ron Hawkins a écrit :
>
> > I liked to have our team to train and work face to face occasionally 
> > and had regular fly-ins of the team for a week. California killed 
> > this off as they want to declare you a tax resident if you spend 
> > more than
> > 60 calendar days in the state. Tell that to someone from Nevada.
>
> considering there are 52 weeks in a calendar year, and there are 
> vacations / holidays / out of the country periods, you should be fine 
> with once a week
>
> Raphael
>
> --
> 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



--
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

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

Re: vendor distributes their private key

> the end-user understanding is the weak point

And often, specifically, key management. 

This, however, takes first prize as a key management fail.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Tony Harminc
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 8:28 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: vendor distributes their private key

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 11:06, Charles Mills  wrote:

> You might ask what part of *private* key they are having trouble 
> understanding.

See "Why Johnny Can't Encrypt" (1999)
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/389f/55c5c376db4ce1c88161dca98c329614faa8.pdf
and "Why Johnny Still Can't Encrypt" (2016)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.08555  Youtube seems to have videos on
these topics, but I haven't looked at any of them.

The above are talking specifically about PGP, but many of the lessons
are common to other cryptosystems. The crypto is fine, but the
end-user understanding is the weak point. Sure, maybe they should be
crypto experts, but not every software developer is.

See also Ross Anderson's "Why Cryptosystems Fail".

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

Re: vendor distributes their private key

Correction: even with Client certificate authentication, there is no 
distribution of any private key to clients; only a client certificate signed 
with a private key held at the server end.

Charles


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Charles Mills
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 8:06 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: vendor distributes their private key

Joel, it's just plain wrong. Others have listed the specifics. It just plain 
shows they have no clue how certificates work. It would be like if you 
installed a nice lock on your front door, and then hung the key on a hook 
outside next to it. 

You might ask what part of *private* key they are having trouble understanding.

Client authentication -- where appropriate -- is goodness. But client 
authentication requires a separate key for each client (more or less). A client 
certificate and key "proves" you are the appropriate client. If the key is 
widely distributed then anyone can "prove" they are you. Client certificates 
are analogous to passwords. Making the key public would be like making 
passwords public.

Charles


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Joel M Ivey
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 5:57 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: vendor distributes their private key

A vendor has an ftps server for us to connect to from a batch job on zos.  
Similar setups with vendors have required the vendor to provide their server's 
public cert chain for import into RACF.   This vendor insists on providing not 
just their server public cert chain but also their private key.  

First, they provided a password-protected p12 file, describing it as containing 
the "root, intermediate, and private certs".  I requested their public 
certificate chain only, they sent me a DER file -- with both the server cert 
and its private key.  I have asked them to elaborate on their need to 
distribute their private key to me, their response has essentially been, that's 
the way we do it. 

I'm not comfortable accepting anyone's private key.   There has been no mention 
of "client authentication", and I'm still not sure I'd be comfortable with that 
config, either. 

Help me understand two things: 1) what I'm missing as to why any vendor would 
require me to install their private key on my side when installing the public 
cert on my side should suffice as in many other instances, and 2) arguments 
for/against client authentication (not password authentication, but client) in 
case that is why they're sending me their private key.

--
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: vendor distributes their private key

2019-08-22 Thread Tony Harminc

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 11:06, Charles Mills  wrote:

> You might ask what part of *private* key they are having trouble 
> understanding.

See "Why Johnny Can't Encrypt" (1999)
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/389f/55c5c376db4ce1c88161dca98c329614faa8.pdf
and "Why Johnny Still Can't Encrypt" (2016)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.08555  Youtube seems to have videos on
these topics, but I haven't looked at any of them.

The above are talking specifically about PGP, but many of the lessons
are common to other cryptosystems. The crypto is fine, but the
end-user understanding is the weak point. Sure, maybe they should be
crypto experts, but not every software developer is.

See also Ross Anderson's "Why Cryptosystems Fail".

Tony H.

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

Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

2019-08-22 Thread Mike Schwab

Well, every other month would leave 3 weeks for training.

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 7:09 AM Ron Hawkins  wrote:
>
> Raphael,
>
> Calendar days. Vacations, public holidays, sick days, etc are all calendar 
> days.
>
> Arrive on Wednesday, and leave the next Wednesday is seven days, which is 
> only nine months at a week per month.
>
> Most training, customer briefing, etc also happens in California, so there 
> are 5-10 days a year at least as well.
>
> If for some unforeseen we blow the 60 days, who is going to pay the 
> employee's tax in California? If they were at 50 days and visited the 
> amusement parks in LA for 1.5 weeks they've blown it.
>
> And that's the main reason it was mothballed and made ad hoc.
>
> Ron
>
>
> RON HAWKINS
> Director, Ipsicsopt Pty Ltd (ACN: 627 705 971)
> m+61 400029610| t: +1 4085625415 | f: +1 4087912585
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
> Raphaël Jacquot
> Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2019 17:26
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from 
> home?
>
> Le 22/08/2019 à 08:54, Ron Hawkins a écrit :
>
> > I liked to have our team to train and work face to face occasionally
> > and had regular fly-ins of the team for a week. California killed this
> > off as they want to declare you a tax resident if you spend more than
> > 60 calendar days in the state. Tell that to someone from Nevada.
>
> considering there are 52 weeks in a calendar year, and there are vacations / 
> holidays / out of the country periods, you should be fine with once a week
>
> Raphael
>
> --
> 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



-- 
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

Re: vendor distributes their private key

Joel, it's just plain wrong. Others have listed the specifics. It just plain 
shows they have no clue how certificates work. It would be like if you 
installed a nice lock on your front door, and then hung the key on a hook 
outside next to it. 

You might ask what part of *private* key they are having trouble understanding.

Client authentication -- where appropriate -- is goodness. But client 
authentication requires a separate key for each client (more or less). A client 
certificate and key "proves" you are the appropriate client. If the key is 
widely distributed then anyone can "prove" they are you. Client certificates 
are analogous to passwords. Making the key public would be like making 
passwords public.

Charles


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Joel M Ivey
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 5:57 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: vendor distributes their private key

A vendor has an ftps server for us to connect to from a batch job on zos.  
Similar setups with vendors have required the vendor to provide their server's 
public cert chain for import into RACF.   This vendor insists on providing not 
just their server public cert chain but also their private key.  

First, they provided a password-protected p12 file, describing it as containing 
the "root, intermediate, and private certs".  I requested their public 
certificate chain only, they sent me a DER file -- with both the server cert 
and its private key.  I have asked them to elaborate on their need to 
distribute their private key to me, their response has essentially been, that's 
the way we do it. 

I'm not comfortable accepting anyone's private key.   There has been no mention 
of "client authentication", and I'm still not sure I'd be comfortable with that 
config, either. 

Help me understand two things: 1) what I'm missing as to why any vendor would 
require me to install their private key on my side when installing the public 
cert on my side should suffice as in many other instances, and 2) arguments 
for/against client authentication (not password authentication, but client) in 
case that is why they're sending me their private key.

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

Re: Omegamon CICS Installation error

2019-08-22 Thread PIETIN Jean-Loup

So i have recreate my RTE and all is ok...

I think it was a problem with my Dataclass SMS and a parameter where I have 
used the volume name .

So all is ok.

Thanks all for your investment !

Best Regards

Jean-Loup PIETIN

-Message d'origine-
De : IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] De la part 
de Doug
Envoyé : mercredi 21 août 2019 18:23
À : IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Objet : Re: Omegamon CICS Installation error

KCIJPALO is probably the simplest of the allocate jobs. My v550 KCIJPALO does 
not allocate that dataset.

Doug Fuerst
Principal Consultant
BK Associates
718.921.2620 (O)
917.572.7364 (C)
d...@bkassociates.net

-- Original Message --
From: "PIETIN Jean-Loup" 
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Sent: 21-Aug-19 10:39:56
Subject: Re: Omegamon CICS Installation error

>The parmgen job failed is
>
>Allocate runtime RO and RW datasets (Yes) KCIJPALO
>
>-Message d'origine-
>De : IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] De 
>la part de Doug Envoyé : mercredi 21 août 2019 16:38 À : 
>IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Objet : Re: Omegamon CICS Installation error
>
>What parmgen job failed?
>
>Doug Fuerst
>Principal Consultant
>BK Associates
>718.921.2620 (O)
>917.572.7364 (C)
>d...@bkassociates.net
>
>-- Original Message --
>From: "Jean-Loup PIETIN" 
>To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
>Sent: 21-Aug-19 5:24:44
>Subject: Omegamon CICS Installation error
>
>>Hi all
>>
>>I have a problem when i run a job from parmgen to install Omegamon CICS.
>>
>>The error is in the C execution but i don't understand and i don't know if it 
>>was a CEE parm to change or not.
>>
>>The PDS create is on a SMS storage Group.
>>
>>Anybody help me?
>>
>>This is the log message where the error appeared
>>
>>+LSCX075 Command line parameter truncated to 1000 bytes.
>>+LSCX042 C runtime storage usage statistics for program ugas:
>>+36864 bytes of stack allocated.
>>+33554432 bytes of heap allocated, 648 used.
>>+3 system allocate requests, 1 system free request.
>>+ Stack: allocated below the line.
>>+ Heap : allocated primarily above the line.
>>+LSCX099 XDAP ERROR (rel) DIAGNOSTIC INFO
>>+,JOB,KC5JPALQ,7959,D,SYS00011,**-
>>   00,EXCP
>>-JOB  KC5JPALQ  4095   2065.00.00.03   7809   0  0
>>
>>   2019/08/21 11:05:11 KPDINDS: Initialization started  for DataStore 
>>file DSN:OMEGAMON.TIVOLI.OMEGCICS.RPDSGRP1
>>0LSCX545  WARNING  ERRNO = EDEVICE
>>   Generated inFOPEN called from line157 of àà680484(FLIO)   
>> , offset 000110
>>   Open failed due to physical I/O error: UNKNOWN COND.
>>   Calling trace:
>>   FunctionLineOffsetContext
>>L$CRPSO(L$CRPOS)   000ADC
>>L$COREL(L$COREL)   00075A
>> AMOPEN(L$CAMOP)   000916Opening file 
>> "DSN:OMEGAMON.TIVOLI.OMEGCICS.RPDSGRP1"
>>   AFREOPEN(L$CFOPN)   0002B2
>>  FOPEN(L$CFOPN)   66
>>   àà680484(FLIO)   157000110
>>   àà636982(INDS)   1460001B4
>>   àà473258(CNFG)   244000330
>>_DYNAMN(MANE)  1021000EFA
>>   MAIN(ARES)   25486
>>   KFAPERR : error 14202
>>   KFAPERR :  Function OffsetLineContext
>>   KFAPERR : àà397395(SUBS)A8  41
>>   KFAPERR : àà680484(FLIO)00013A 162
>>   KFAPERR : àà636982(INDS)0001B4 146
>>   KFAPERR : àà473258(CNFG)000330 244
>>   KFAPERR :  _DYNAMN(MANE)000EFA1021
>>   KFAPERR : MAIN(ARES)86 254
>>   2019/08/21 11:05:11 KPDMANE: Persistent DataStore initialization 
>>failed in KPDCNFG(2), rc = 14202
>>   2019/08/21 11:05:11 KPDMANE: Persistent DataStore facility terminating.
>>
>>Thanks in advance
>>
>>Jean-Loup PIETIN
>>
>>--
>>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send 
>>email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
>--
>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send 
>email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
>--
>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send 
>email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

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

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

Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

2019-08-22 Thread ITschak Mugzach

"Not all boomerangs come back". True, but it look like the mainframe
conversion teams was well trained in boomeraning ;-)  At least it make John
happy, so it make me happy as well.

ITschak


On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 5:45 PM Ron Hawkins 
wrote:

> Not all boomerangs come back.
>
> Not all who throw a boomerang can make it come back.
>
> Take it from an Aussie that has unsuccessfully thrown a few boomerangs.
>
>
> RON HAWKINS
> Director, Ipsicsopt Pty Ltd (ACN: 627 705 971)
> m+61 400029610| t: +1 4085625415 | f: +1 4087912585
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf
> Of ITschak Mugzach
> Sent: Friday, 23 August 2019 00:18
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Attitude of companies toward mainframers working
> from home?
>
>   John, It sounds like the buyer got an ausrellian boomerang, not an
> insurance company. your company migration story reminds me the australian
> that purchased a new boomerang, but was unable to get rid of the old one
> ;-)
>
> ITschak
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 2:36 PM John McKown 
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 3:46 PM Charles Mills  wrote:
> >
> > > I am doing a favor for a friend who is writing a blog article on the
> > above
> > > subject, with an emphasis on the effect of the shrinking mainframe
> > > personnel pool. (This is NOT some disguised headhunter pitch. Reply
> > > to the list or
> > to
> > > me personally. I will take full responsibility for "sanitizing" your
> > e-mail
> > > address and so forth out of what I forward to my friend.)
> > >
> > > Does your employer allow mainframe sysprogs and developers to work
> > > from home?
> > >
> >
> > Yes. The application programmers, both of them, oftern work from home.
> > The sysprogs generally don't. I'm a sysprog. If I were at home, I'd be
> > too tempted to play games.
> >
> >
> > > Any particular restrictions or qualifications?
> > >
> >
> > Restriction: get the job done.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Have they changed their policies specifically to address the
> > > shrinking mainframe personnel pool?
> > >
> >
> > Yes. They have said that we will be eliminated as soon as possible.
> > They've been saying this for over 6 years now with 2 failed attempts.
> > We were just bought out by a multinational who has reiterated that the
> > IBM z mainframes will be elimnated and the ;work moved to a software
> package called Facets.
> > They are also said that this cannot occur quickly because we have so
> > many "customized" policies (health insurance) that Facets cannot
> > handle the thousands of variations. So they are waiting until they can
> > refuse renewal, convince the customer to change policies, or the
> > customer dies (I am guessing this later, management would never say
> > that.)
> >
> >
> >
> > > Roughly what percentage of your colleagues work from home?
> > >
> >
> > Both programmers, about 50% of the time. 3 sysprogs, almost never
> > because we need to be here to do "operations" duties -- like kicking
> > the accursed
> > 3494-B10 when it messes up (a fairly often thing, it being 13 years old).
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Charles
> > >
> >
> > --
> > I find television very educational. The minute somebody turns it on, I
> > go into the library and read a good book
> > -- Groucho Marx
> >
> > Maranatha! <><
> > John McKown
> >
> > --
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
> > email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> >
>
>
> --
> ITschak Mugzach
> *|** IronSphere Platform* *|* *Information Security Contiguous Monitoring
> for Legacy **|  *
>
> --
> 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
>


-- 
ITschak Mugzach
*|** IronSphere Platform* *|* *Information Security Contiguous Monitoring
for Legacy **|  *

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

Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

Not all boomerangs come back.

Not all who throw a boomerang can make it come back.

Take it from an Aussie that has unsuccessfully thrown a few boomerangs.


RON HAWKINS
Director, Ipsicsopt Pty Ltd (ACN: 627 705 971)
m+61 400029610| t: +1 4085625415 | f: +1 4087912585

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
ITschak Mugzach
Sent: Friday, 23 August 2019 00:18
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from 
home?

  John, It sounds like the buyer got an ausrellian boomerang, not an insurance 
company. your company migration story reminds me the australian that purchased 
a new boomerang, but was unable to get rid of the old one
;-)

ITschak

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 2:36 PM John McKown 
wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 3:46 PM Charles Mills  wrote:
>
> > I am doing a favor for a friend who is writing a blog article on the
> above
> > subject, with an emphasis on the effect of the shrinking mainframe 
> > personnel pool. (This is NOT some disguised headhunter pitch. Reply 
> > to the list or
> to
> > me personally. I will take full responsibility for "sanitizing" your
> e-mail
> > address and so forth out of what I forward to my friend.)
> >
> > Does your employer allow mainframe sysprogs and developers to work 
> > from home?
> >
>
> Yes. The application programmers, both of them, oftern work from home. 
> The sysprogs generally don't. I'm a sysprog. If I were at home, I'd be 
> too tempted to play games.
>
>
> > Any particular restrictions or qualifications?
> >
>
> Restriction: get the job done.
>
>
>
> > Have they changed their policies specifically to address the 
> > shrinking mainframe personnel pool?
> >
>
> Yes. They have said that we will be eliminated as soon as possible. 
> They've been saying this for over 6 years now with 2 failed attempts. 
> We were just bought out by a multinational who has reiterated that the 
> IBM z mainframes will be elimnated and the ;work moved to a software package 
> called Facets.
> They are also said that this cannot occur quickly because we have so 
> many "customized" policies (health insurance) that Facets cannot 
> handle the thousands of variations. So they are waiting until they can 
> refuse renewal, convince the customer to change policies, or the 
> customer dies (I am guessing this later, management would never say 
> that.)
>
>
>
> > Roughly what percentage of your colleagues work from home?
> >
>
> Both programmers, about 50% of the time. 3 sysprogs, almost never 
> because we need to be here to do "operations" duties -- like kicking 
> the accursed
> 3494-B10 when it messes up (a fairly often thing, it being 13 years old).
>
>
>
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Charles
> >
>
> --
> I find television very educational. The minute somebody turns it on, I 
> go into the library and read a good book
> -- Groucho Marx
>
> Maranatha! <><
> John McKown
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send 
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>


--
ITschak Mugzach
*|** IronSphere Platform* *|* *Information Security Contiguous Monitoring for 
Legacy **|  *

--
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: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 9:18 AM ITschak Mugzach  wrote:

>   John, It sounds like the buyer got an ausrellian boomerang, not an
> insurance company. your company migration story reminds me the australian
> that purchased a new boomerang, but was unable to get rid of the old one
> ;-)
>


LOL

>
> ITschak
>
>
-- 
I find television very educational. The minute somebody turns it on, I go
into the library and read a good book
-- Groucho Marx

Maranatha! <><
John McKown

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

Re: vendor distributes their private key

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 9:03 AM Mike Wawiorko <
014ab5cdfb21-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

> Private keys should be locked away and treated like the company's crown
> jewels. If you have their private key it is likely many other sites also
> have.
>

I imagine that company also posts all of their employee's social security
numbers, internal memos, and videos of the Christmas parties of years past.
{shudder}



>
> That renders their site completely untrustworthy. I would not send
> anything confidential or, arguably, anything at all to that site.
>
> On the other hand, their public key is exactly what it says, public, and
> no risk.
>
> Mike Wawiorko
>
>
-- 
I find television very educational. The minute somebody turns it on, I go
into the library and read a good book
-- Groucho Marx

Maranatha! <><
John McKown

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

Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

2019-08-22 Thread ITschak Mugzach

  John, It sounds like the buyer got an ausrellian boomerang, not an
insurance company. your company migration story reminds me the australian
that purchased a new boomerang, but was unable to get rid of the old one
;-)

ITschak

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 2:36 PM John McKown 
wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 3:46 PM Charles Mills  wrote:
>
> > I am doing a favor for a friend who is writing a blog article on the
> above
> > subject, with an emphasis on the effect of the shrinking mainframe
> > personnel
> > pool. (This is NOT some disguised headhunter pitch. Reply to the list or
> to
> > me personally. I will take full responsibility for "sanitizing" your
> e-mail
> > address and so forth out of what I forward to my friend.)
> >
> > Does your employer allow mainframe sysprogs and developers to work from
> > home?
> >
>
> Yes. The application programmers, both of them, oftern work from home. The
> sysprogs generally don't. I'm a sysprog. If I were at home, I'd be too
> tempted to play games.
>
>
> > Any particular restrictions or qualifications?
> >
>
> Restriction: get the job done.
>
>
>
> > Have they changed their policies specifically to address the shrinking
> > mainframe personnel pool?
> >
>
> Yes. They have said that we will be eliminated as soon as possible. They've
> been saying this for over 6 years now with 2 failed attempts. We were just
> bought out by a multinational who has reiterated that the IBM z mainframes
> will be elimnated and the ;work moved to a software package called Facets.
> They are also said that this cannot occur quickly because we have so many
> "customized" policies (health insurance) that Facets cannot handle the
> thousands of variations. So they are waiting until they can refuse renewal,
> convince the customer to change policies, or the customer dies (I am
> guessing this later, management would never say that.)
>
>
>
> > Roughly what percentage of your colleagues work from home?
> >
>
> Both programmers, about 50% of the time. 3 sysprogs, almost never because
> we need to be here to do "operations" duties -- like kicking the accursed
> 3494-B10 when it messes up (a fairly often thing, it being 13 years old).
>
>
>
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Charles
> >
>
> --
> I find television very educational. The minute somebody turns it on, I go
> into the library and read a good book
> -- Groucho Marx
>
> Maranatha! <><
> John McKown
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>


-- 
ITschak Mugzach
*|** IronSphere Platform* *|* *Information Security Contiguous Monitoring
for Legacy **|  *

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

Re: vendor distributes their private key

2019-08-22 Thread Mike Wawiorko

Private keys should be locked away and treated like the company's crown jewels. 
If you have their private key it is likely many other sites also have. 

That renders their site completely untrustworthy. I would not send anything 
confidential or, arguably, anything at all to that site.

On the other hand, their public key is exactly what it says, public, and no 
risk.

Mike Wawiorko 

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Joel M Ivey
Sent: 22 August 2019 13:57
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: vendor distributes their private key


This mail originated from outside our organisation - ji...@cio.sc.gov

A vendor has an ftps server for us to connect to from a batch job on zos.  
Similar setups with vendors have required the vendor to provide their server's 
public cert chain for import into RACF.   This vendor insists on providing not 
just their server public cert chain but also their private key.  

First, they provided a password-protected p12 file, describing it as containing 
the "root, intermediate, and private certs".  I requested their public 
certificate chain only, they sent me a DER file -- with both the server cert 
and its private key.  I have asked them to elaborate on their need to 
distribute their private key to me, their response has essentially been, that's 
the way we do it. 

I'm not comfortable accepting anyone's private key.   There has been no mention 
of "client authentication", and I'm still not sure I'd be comfortable with that 
config, either. 

Help me understand two things: 1) what I'm missing as to why any vendor would 
require me to install their private key on my side when installing the public 
cert on my side should suffice as in many other instances, and 2) arguments 
for/against client authentication (not password authentication, but client) in 
case that is why they're sending me their private key.

Joel

--
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: vendor distributes their private key

2019-08-22 Thread ITschak Mugzach

The best argument is impersomating. Anone holding the private ket can
present himself like the vendor. The risk is that if you download code form
this vendor, you might download agresive code form someone pretending to be
the vendor.

ITschak

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 3:57 PM Joel M Ivey  wrote:

> A vendor has an ftps server for us to connect to from a batch job on zos.
> Similar setups with vendors have required the vendor to provide their
> server's public cert chain for import into RACF.   This vendor insists on
> providing not just their server public cert chain but also their private
> key.
>
> First, they provided a password-protected p12 file, describing it as
> containing the "root, intermediate, and private certs".  I requested their
> public certificate chain only, they sent me a DER file -- with both the
> server cert and its private key.  I have asked them to elaborate on their
> need to distribute their private key to me, their response has essentially
> been, that's the way we do it.
>
> I'm not comfortable accepting anyone's private key.   There has been no
> mention of "client authentication", and I'm still not sure I'd be
> comfortable with that config, either.
>
> Help me understand two things: 1) what I'm missing as to why any vendor
> would require me to install their private key on my side when installing
> the public cert on my side should suffice as in many other instances, and
> 2) arguments for/against client authentication (not password
> authentication, but client) in case that is why they're sending me their
> private key.
>
> Joel
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>


-- 
ITschak Mugzach
*|** IronSphere Platform* *|* *Information Security Contiguous Monitoring
for Legacy **|  *

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

vendor distributes their private key

2019-08-22 Thread Joel M Ivey

A vendor has an ftps server for us to connect to from a batch job on zos.  
Similar setups with vendors have required the vendor to provide their server's 
public cert chain for import into RACF.   This vendor insists on providing not 
just their server public cert chain but also their private key.  

First, they provided a password-protected p12 file, describing it as containing 
the "root, intermediate, and private certs".  I requested their public 
certificate chain only, they sent me a DER file -- with both the server cert 
and its private key.  I have asked them to elaborate on their need to 
distribute their private key to me, their response has essentially been, that's 
the way we do it. 

I'm not comfortable accepting anyone's private key.   There has been no mention 
of "client authentication", and I'm still not sure I'd be comfortable with that 
config, either. 

Help me understand two things: 1) what I'm missing as to why any vendor would 
require me to install their private key on my side when installing the public 
cert on my side should suffice as in many other instances, and 2) arguments 
for/against client authentication (not password authentication, but client) in 
case that is why they're sending me their private key.

Joel

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

Re: IBM "opens" OpenPower ISA

2019-08-22 Thread Dana Mitchell

It was much later than XA, I think they probably couldn't get the license for 
the 64 bit implementation.  We installed a Hitachi Pilot CPU in 1999,  and 
after that they came out with the Skyline series of machines. 

Dana

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 07:27:15 -0500, John McKown  
wrote:
>
>Good question. I was told that the 3rd party CPU hardware parties quit when
>XA came out do to some change. But I don't know if it was licensing, or
>maybe some patent, or just too expensive in the R area.

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

Re: IBM "opens" OpenPower ISA

2019-08-22 Thread Tony Thigpen


Yes, is the very short answer.

Tony Thigpen

Raphael Jacquot wrote on 8/22/19 8:18 AM:

On 8/22/19 2:07 PM, John McKown wrote:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/08/20/ibm_openpower_isa/

Basically, from what I read, this means that other companies can produce
competing chips which implement the Power ISA, without requiring a license.
It is more likely that the Sun will become a supernova than IBM would
"open" the IBM z ISA.



did the competition (amdahl & others) had a "license" to produce
mainframes ?

--
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: IBM "opens" OpenPower ISA

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 7:18 AM Raphael Jacquot  wrote:

> On 8/22/19 2:07 PM, John McKown wrote:
> > https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/08/20/ibm_openpower_isa/
> >
> > Basically, from what I read, this means that other companies can produce
> > competing chips which implement the Power ISA, without requiring a
> license.
> > It is more likely that the Sun will become a supernova than IBM would
> > "open" the IBM z ISA.
> >
>
> did the competition (amdahl & others) had a "license" to produce
> mainframes ?
>

Good question. I was told that the 3rd party CPU hardware parties quit when
XA came out do to some change. But I don't know if it was licensing, or
maybe some patent, or just too expensive in the R area. Maybe that is why
IBM doesn't go after Hercules/390.

-- 
I find television very educational. The minute somebody turns it on, I go
into the library and read a good book
-- Groucho Marx

Maranatha! <><
John McKown

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

Re: IBM "opens" OpenPower ISA

2019-08-22 Thread Raphael Jacquot

On 8/22/19 2:07 PM, John McKown wrote:
> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/08/20/ibm_openpower_isa/
> 
> Basically, from what I read, this means that other companies can produce
> competing chips which implement the Power ISA, without requiring a license.
> It is more likely that the Sun will become a supernova than IBM would
> "open" the IBM z ISA.
> 

did the competition (amdahl & others) had a "license" to produce
mainframes ?

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

Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

Raphael,

Calendar days. Vacations, public holidays, sick days, etc are all calendar days.

Arrive on Wednesday, and leave the next Wednesday is seven days, which is only 
nine months at a week per month.

Most training, customer briefing, etc also happens in California, so there are 
5-10 days a year at least as well.

If for some unforeseen we blow the 60 days, who is going to pay the employee's 
tax in California? If they were at 50 days and visited the amusement parks in 
LA for 1.5 weeks they've blown it.

And that's the main reason it was mothballed and made ad hoc.

Ron


RON HAWKINS
Director, Ipsicsopt Pty Ltd (ACN: 627 705 971)
m+61 400029610| t: +1 4085625415 | f: +1 4087912585

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Raphaël Jacquot
Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2019 17:26
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from 
home?

Le 22/08/2019 à 08:54, Ron Hawkins a écrit :

> I liked to have our team to train and work face to face occasionally 
> and had regular fly-ins of the team for a week. California killed this 
> off as they want to declare you a tax resident if you spend more than 
> 60 calendar days in the state. Tell that to someone from Nevada.

considering there are 52 weeks in a calendar year, and there are vacations / 
holidays / out of the country periods, you should be fine with once a week

Raphael

--
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

IBM "opens" OpenPower ISA

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/08/20/ibm_openpower_isa/

Basically, from what I read, this means that other companies can produce
competing chips which implement the Power ISA, without requiring a license.
It is more likely that the Sun will become a supernova than IBM would
"open" the IBM z ISA.

-- 
I find television very educational. The minute somebody turns it on, I go
into the library and read a good book
-- Groucho Marx

Maranatha! <><
John McKown

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

ASCII a stupid question, you get an EBCDIC answer.

I just got that off of https://slashdot.org today.

-- 
I find television very educational. The minute somebody turns it on, I go
into the library and read a good book
-- Groucho Marx

Maranatha! <><
John McKown

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

Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 3:46 PM Charles Mills  wrote:

> I am doing a favor for a friend who is writing a blog article on the above
> subject, with an emphasis on the effect of the shrinking mainframe
> personnel
> pool. (This is NOT some disguised headhunter pitch. Reply to the list or to
> me personally. I will take full responsibility for "sanitizing" your e-mail
> address and so forth out of what I forward to my friend.)
>
> Does your employer allow mainframe sysprogs and developers to work from
> home?
>

Yes. The application programmers, both of them, oftern work from home. The
sysprogs generally don't. I'm a sysprog. If I were at home, I'd be too
tempted to play games.

> Any particular restrictions or qualifications?
>

Restriction: get the job done.

> Have they changed their policies specifically to address the shrinking
> mainframe personnel pool?
>

Yes. They have said that we will be eliminated as soon as possible. They've
been saying this for over 6 years now with 2 failed attempts. We were just
bought out by a multinational who has reiterated that the IBM z mainframes
will be elimnated and the ;work moved to a software package called Facets.
They are also said that this cannot occur quickly because we have so many
"customized" policies (health insurance) that Facets cannot handle the
thousands of variations. So they are waiting until they can refuse renewal,
convince the customer to change policies, or the customer dies (I am
guessing this later, management would never say that.)

> Roughly what percentage of your colleagues work from home?
>

Both programmers, about 50% of the time. 3 sysprogs, almost never because
we need to be here to do "operations" duties -- like kicking the accursed
3494-B10 when it messes up (a fairly often thing, it being 13 years old).

>
> Thanks!
>
> Charles
>

-- 
I find television very educational. The minute somebody turns it on, I go
into the library and read a good book
-- Groucho Marx

Maranatha! <><
John McKown

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

Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

2019-08-22 Thread Raphaël Jacquot


Le 22/08/2019 à 08:54, Ron Hawkins a écrit :


I liked to have our team to train and work face to face occasionally and had
regular fly-ins of the team for a week. California killed this off as they
want to declare you a tax resident if you spend more than 60 calendar days
in the state. Tell that to someone from Nevada.


considering there are 52 weeks in a calendar year, and there are 
vacations / holidays / out of the country periods, you should be fine 
with once a week


Raphael

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

Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?

2019-08-22 Thread Brian Westerman

Hi,

This might not be exactly on the same topic, but of the over 100 mainframe 
sites that we currently support less than 1/2 of them have their systems 
programmers anywhere near enough to the hardware to actually be considered 
on-site.  Once you place the mainframe hardware in a building that is over 100 
miles from where the systems programmers sit, it's not a big stretch to find 
that the systems programmers tend to perform more of their duties from home and 
at some very odd hours and not even think about going in to the site to fix the 
issues.  The sites themselves realize how silly it would be to expect them to 
leave their home, drive into work (remember it's still 100 miles or more from 
the mainframe) and fix the problems when they can do it just as well (sometimes 
better and certainly faster) from home.  

I fully agree with those sites that support their people working off site and 
especially for systems programmers who tend to not be able to do anything 
during the day but be a fireman for the site and really can only get things 
"done" in the "off" hours.  It makes sense to allow them the flexibility and so 
long as it is not abused it appears to work well for all involved.

There are those systems programmers that I have met that sit their butts at 
their desk and work 9to5 and get absolutely nothing done.  

That said, of the sites I have provided support to, and there have been 
hundreds over just the past 7 to 10 years, I have never even visited more than 
maybe 10 of them, and those sites have been a once or twice type of event.  I 
have never had any site complain that they thought I wasn't working for every 
hour they were billed or had any complaints about the work product or my 
availability when they have a problem.  While it's not the same for a 
consultant as it would be for a actual employee, there is no logical reason why 
(at least the systems programmers) could not be just as productive via remote 
as being physically there.

With the advent of many of the video telephony options, there is little reason 
to psychically be sitting at any specific desk when you could be getting actual 
work done.

Hope this helps.

Brian

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

Re: Attitude of companies toward mainframers working from home?