Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Jay Maynard]

Which is no more than what Tony said. Sounds like you two are in violent
agreement.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 9:15 PM Bill Johnson <
0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

> That’s exactly what I’m saying. Until the appeals process plays out.
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>
>
> On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:12 PM, Gibney, Dave <
> 03b5261cfd78-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> I hate to chime in here, but I believe you both are saying that "ordered"
> is not equivalent to the act of actually distributing the funds
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> > Behalf Of Bill Johnson
> > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2022 7:04 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
> >
> > [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize
> > the sender and know the content is safe.
> >
> > On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson
> > <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating
> IBM will
> > now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the
> headline
> > states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add.
> >
> > Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC".
> >
> >
> > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> >
> >
> > On Friday, June 3, 2022, 9:58 PM, Jay Maynard 
> > wrote:
> >
> > Uhm, Bill...where, exactly, did Tony (I assume you mean Tony Harminc,
> > right?) say that IBM was going to hand over $1.6e+09? Citation, please.
> > With quote.
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 8:54 PM Bill Johnson <
> > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Tony thinks IBM is handing over 1.6 billion. Because the judge ordered
> it.
> > > In the article it states IBM is going to appeal. Which means they
> don’t pay
> > > anything, yet. Once they file a Notice of Appeal, usually within 30
> days,
> > > with documentation of why they think the trial judge was wrong, the
> > appeals
> > > court will decide whether the case gets heard. (Very likely) It gets
> > > scheduled, might be a while, and the appeals court might overturn or
> > uphold
> > > the judgment. If upheld, IBM can appeal further. If overturned, BMC can
> > > appeal. Meanwhile, BMC & IBM can negotiate a settlement while the
> > appeals
> > > play out. It could take years. No money changes hands while it plays
> out.
> > > No matter what the judge said.
> > > I was in law enforcement and was going to be a lawyer about 20 years
> ago.
> > > Took the LSAT, passed with flying colors and was offered seats at a
> number
> > > of law schools nationwide.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> > >
> > >
> > > On Friday, June 3, 2022, 9:34 PM, Bob Bridges 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, look at the history (I saved it below):
> > >
> > > You: the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that [IBM will
> now
> > > hand over 1.6 billion]...
> > >
> > > Tony: ...no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to
> BMC".
> > >
> > > You said (among other things) that the articles headline states that
> IBM
> > > will now hand over the fine.  I don't think you meant that, you were
> > > conflating the headline with the article, while distinguishing between
> the
> > > judgement against IBM and IBM's putative obedience.  Tony pointed out,
> > > correctly, that the headline did not after all say exactly that.  He
> was
> > > picking out just that one part of your words, not the whole thing.
> > >
> > > The discussion kind of went south from there.  I'm guessing you thought
> > > Tony was disagreeing with the entirety of your post, not just that one
> > > part, and the two of you started sliding down the slippery slope
> toward a
> > > flame war.  As usual, it isn't necessary.
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313
> > >
> > > /* The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings.
> > > The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
> > > -Churchill */
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> > Behalf
> > > Of Bill Johnson
> > > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 20:09
> > >
> > > Explain it to me Bob. I gotta hear this.
> > >
> > > --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 8:02 PM, Bob Bridges
> > 
> > > wrote:
> > > No, Bill, you don't, or at least you didn't in this case.  I don’t mind
> > > explaining it to you, if you really missed it.  If you don't care, I'll
> > > leave it.
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> > Behalf
> > > Of Bill Johnson
> > > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 19:03
> > >
> > > I read just fine. There’s more than just the headline.
> > >
> > > --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 6:58 PM, Tony Harminc 
> > > wrote:
> > > Do you not understand how to read?
> > >
> > > --- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 17:11, Bill Johnson <
> > > 0

Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Bill Johnson]

That’s exactly what I’m saying. Until the appeals process plays out.


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:12 PM, Gibney, Dave 
<03b5261cfd78-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

I hate to chime in here, but I believe you both are saying that "ordered" is 
not equivalent to the act of actually distributing the funds

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> Behalf Of Bill Johnson
> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2022 7:04 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
> 
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize
> the sender and know the content is safe.
> 
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson
> <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating IBM 
> > will
> now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the headline
> states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add.
> 
> Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC".
> 
> 
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> 
> 
> On Friday, June 3, 2022, 9:58 PM, Jay Maynard 
> wrote:
> 
> Uhm, Bill...where, exactly, did Tony (I assume you mean Tony Harminc,
> right?) say that IBM was going to hand over $1.6e+09? Citation, please.
> With quote.
> 
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 8:54 PM Bill Johnson <
> 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> > Tony thinks IBM is handing over 1.6 billion. Because the judge ordered it.
> > In the article it states IBM is going to appeal. Which means they don’t pay
> > anything, yet. Once they file a Notice of Appeal, usually within 30 days,
> > with documentation of why they think the trial judge was wrong, the
> appeals
> > court will decide whether the case gets heard. (Very likely) It gets
> > scheduled, might be a while, and the appeals court might overturn or
> uphold
> > the judgment. If upheld, IBM can appeal further. If overturned, BMC can
> > appeal. Meanwhile, BMC & IBM can negotiate a settlement while the
> appeals
> > play out. It could take years. No money changes hands while it plays out.
> > No matter what the judge said.
> > I was in law enforcement and was going to be a lawyer about 20 years ago.
> > Took the LSAT, passed with flying colors and was offered seats at a number
> > of law schools nationwide.
> >
> >
> > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> >
> >
> > On Friday, June 3, 2022, 9:34 PM, Bob Bridges 
> > wrote:
> >
> > Well, look at the history (I saved it below):
> >
> > You: the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that [IBM will now
> > hand over 1.6 billion]...
> >
> > Tony: ...no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC".
> >
> > You said (among other things) that the articles headline states that IBM
> > will now hand over the fine.  I don't think you meant that, you were
> > conflating the headline with the article, while distinguishing between the
> > judgement against IBM and IBM's putative obedience.  Tony pointed out,
> > correctly, that the headline did not after all say exactly that.  He was
> > picking out just that one part of your words, not the whole thing.
> >
> > The discussion kind of went south from there.  I'm guessing you thought
> > Tony was disagreeing with the entirety of your post, not just that one
> > part, and the two of you started sliding down the slippery slope toward a
> > flame war.  As usual, it isn't necessary.
> >
> > ---
> > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313
> >
> > /* The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings.
> > The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
> > -Churchill */
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> Behalf
> > Of Bill Johnson
> > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 20:09
> >
> > Explain it to me Bob. I gotta hear this.
> >
> > --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 8:02 PM, Bob Bridges
> 
> > wrote:
> > No, Bill, you don't, or at least you didn't in this case.  I don’t mind
> > explaining it to you, if you really missed it.  If you don't care, I'll
> > leave it.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> Behalf
> > Of Bill Johnson
> > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 19:03
> >
> > I read just fine. There’s more than just the headline.
> >
> > --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 6:58 PM, Tony Harminc 
> > wrote:
> > Do you not understand how to read?
> >
> > --- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 17:11, Bill Johnson <
> > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> > > And they’re appealing. So no payment will be made yet. Do you not
> > understand how courts work?
> >
> > --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 5:09 PM, Tony Harminc 
> > wrote:
> > Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC".
> >
> > --- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson <
> > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> > > Saying it will o

Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Jay Maynard]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 9:06 PM Bill Johnson <
0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote, in reply to my
request for a citation that shows Tony Harminc thinks that IBM *will* hand
over $1.6e+09:

> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson
> <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating
> IBM will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet,
> the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add.
>
> Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC".
>

That's what I thought. What I don't understand is how you can read more
into that statement than that IBM was *ordered* to pay. In particular, that
statement says exactly zero about IBM's intentions, and does not assume
that the order is the last word - which, sa you have repeatedly pointed
out, it is not.
-- 
Jay Maynard

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

Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Gibney, Dave]

I hate to chime in here, but I believe you both are saying that "ordered" is 
not equivalent to the act of actually distributing the funds

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> Behalf Of Bill Johnson
> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2022 7:04 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
> 
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize
> the sender and know the content is safe.
> 
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson
> <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating IBM 
> > will
> now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the headline
> states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add.
> 
> Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC".
> 
> 
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> 
> 
> On Friday, June 3, 2022, 9:58 PM, Jay Maynard 
> wrote:
> 
> Uhm, Bill...where, exactly, did Tony (I assume you mean Tony Harminc,
> right?) say that IBM was going to hand over $1.6e+09? Citation, please.
> With quote.
> 
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 8:54 PM Bill Johnson <
> 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> > Tony thinks IBM is handing over 1.6 billion. Because the judge ordered it.
> > In the article it states IBM is going to appeal. Which means they don’t pay
> > anything, yet. Once they file a Notice of Appeal, usually within 30 days,
> > with documentation of why they think the trial judge was wrong, the
> appeals
> > court will decide whether the case gets heard. (Very likely) It gets
> > scheduled, might be a while, and the appeals court might overturn or
> uphold
> > the judgment. If upheld, IBM can appeal further. If overturned, BMC can
> > appeal. Meanwhile, BMC & IBM can negotiate a settlement while the
> appeals
> > play out. It could take years. No money changes hands while it plays out.
> > No matter what the judge said.
> > I was in law enforcement and was going to be a lawyer about 20 years ago.
> > Took the LSAT, passed with flying colors and was offered seats at a number
> > of law schools nationwide.
> >
> >
> > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> >
> >
> > On Friday, June 3, 2022, 9:34 PM, Bob Bridges 
> > wrote:
> >
> > Well, look at the history (I saved it below):
> >
> > You: the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that [IBM will now
> > hand over 1.6 billion]...
> >
> > Tony: ...no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC".
> >
> > You said (among other things) that the articles headline states that IBM
> > will now hand over the fine.  I don't think you meant that, you were
> > conflating the headline with the article, while distinguishing between the
> > judgement against IBM and IBM's putative obedience.  Tony pointed out,
> > correctly, that the headline did not after all say exactly that.  He was
> > picking out just that one part of your words, not the whole thing.
> >
> > The discussion kind of went south from there.  I'm guessing you thought
> > Tony was disagreeing with the entirety of your post, not just that one
> > part, and the two of you started sliding down the slippery slope toward a
> > flame war.  As usual, it isn't necessary.
> >
> > ---
> > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313
> >
> > /* The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings.
> > The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
> > -Churchill */
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> Behalf
> > Of Bill Johnson
> > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 20:09
> >
> > Explain it to me Bob. I gotta hear this.
> >
> > --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 8:02 PM, Bob Bridges
> 
> > wrote:
> > No, Bill, you don't, or at least you didn't in this case.  I don’t mind
> > explaining it to you, if you really missed it.  If you don't care, I'll
> > leave it.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> Behalf
> > Of Bill Johnson
> > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 19:03
> >
> > I read just fine. There’s more than just the headline.
> >
> > --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 6:58 PM, Tony Harminc 
> > wrote:
> > Do you not understand how to read?
> >
> > --- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 17:11, Bill Johnson <
> > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> > > And they’re appealing. So no payment will be made yet. Do you not
> > understand how courts work?
> >
> > --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 5:09 PM, Tony Harminc 
> > wrote:
> > Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC".
> >
> > --- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson <
> > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> > > Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating
> > IBM will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet,
> > the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add.

Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Bill Johnson]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson
<0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating IBM 
> will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the 
> headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add.

Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC".


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Friday, June 3, 2022, 9:58 PM, Jay Maynard  wrote:

Uhm, Bill...where, exactly, did Tony (I assume you mean Tony Harminc,
right?) say that IBM was going to hand over $1.6e+09? Citation, please.
With quote.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 8:54 PM Bill Johnson <
0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

> Tony thinks IBM is handing over 1.6 billion. Because the judge ordered it.
> In the article it states IBM is going to appeal. Which means they don’t pay
> anything, yet. Once they file a Notice of Appeal, usually within 30 days,
> with documentation of why they think the trial judge was wrong, the appeals
> court will decide whether the case gets heard. (Very likely) It gets
> scheduled, might be a while, and the appeals court might overturn or uphold
> the judgment. If upheld, IBM can appeal further. If overturned, BMC can
> appeal. Meanwhile, BMC & IBM can negotiate a settlement while the appeals
> play out. It could take years. No money changes hands while it plays out.
> No matter what the judge said.
> I was in law enforcement and was going to be a lawyer about 20 years ago.
> Took the LSAT, passed with flying colors and was offered seats at a number
> of law schools nationwide.
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>
>
> On Friday, June 3, 2022, 9:34 PM, Bob Bridges 
> wrote:
>
> Well, look at the history (I saved it below):
>
> You: the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that [IBM will now
> hand over 1.6 billion]...
>
> Tony: ...no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC".
>
> You said (among other things) that the articles headline states that IBM
> will now hand over the fine.  I don't think you meant that, you were
> conflating the headline with the article, while distinguishing between the
> judgement against IBM and IBM's putative obedience.  Tony pointed out,
> correctly, that the headline did not after all say exactly that.  He was
> picking out just that one part of your words, not the whole thing.
>
> The discussion kind of went south from there.  I'm guessing you thought
> Tony was disagreeing with the entirety of your post, not just that one
> part, and the two of you started sliding down the slippery slope toward a
> flame war.  As usual, it isn't necessary.
>
> ---
> Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313
>
> /* The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings.
> The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
> -Churchill */
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf
> Of Bill Johnson
> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 20:09
>
> Explain it to me Bob. I gotta hear this.
>
> --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 8:02 PM, Bob Bridges 
> wrote:
> No, Bill, you don't, or at least you didn't in this case.  I don’t mind
> explaining it to you, if you really missed it.  If you don't care, I'll
> leave it.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf
> Of Bill Johnson
> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 19:03
>
> I read just fine. There’s more than just the headline.
>
> --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 6:58 PM, Tony Harminc 
> wrote:
> Do you not understand how to read?
>
> --- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 17:11, Bill Johnson <
> 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> > And they’re appealing. So no payment will be made yet. Do you not
> understand how courts work?
>
> --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 5:09 PM, Tony Harminc 
> wrote:
> Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC".
>
> --- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson <
> 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> > Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating
> IBM will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet,
> the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add.
>
> --
> 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
>


-- 
Jay Maynard

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

Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Jay Maynard]

Uhm, Bill...where, exactly, did Tony (I assume you mean Tony Harminc,
right?) say that IBM was going to hand over $1.6e+09? Citation, please.
With quote.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 8:54 PM Bill Johnson <
0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

> Tony thinks IBM is handing over 1.6 billion. Because the judge ordered it.
> In the article it states IBM is going to appeal. Which means they don’t pay
> anything, yet. Once they file a Notice of Appeal, usually within 30 days,
> with documentation of why they think the trial judge was wrong, the appeals
> court will decide whether the case gets heard. (Very likely) It gets
> scheduled, might be a while, and the appeals court might overturn or uphold
> the judgment. If upheld, IBM can appeal further. If overturned, BMC can
> appeal. Meanwhile, BMC & IBM can negotiate a settlement while the appeals
> play out. It could take years. No money changes hands while it plays out.
> No matter what the judge said.
> I was in law enforcement and was going to be a lawyer about 20 years ago.
> Took the LSAT, passed with flying colors and was offered seats at a number
> of law schools nationwide.
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>
>
> On Friday, June 3, 2022, 9:34 PM, Bob Bridges 
> wrote:
>
> Well, look at the history (I saved it below):
>
> You: the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that [IBM will now
> hand over 1.6 billion]...
>
> Tony: ...no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC".
>
> You said (among other things) that the articles headline states that IBM
> will now hand over the fine.  I don't think you meant that, you were
> conflating the headline with the article, while distinguishing between the
> judgement against IBM and IBM's putative obedience.  Tony pointed out,
> correctly, that the headline did not after all say exactly that.  He was
> picking out just that one part of your words, not the whole thing.
>
> The discussion kind of went south from there.  I'm guessing you thought
> Tony was disagreeing with the entirety of your post, not just that one
> part, and the two of you started sliding down the slippery slope toward a
> flame war.  As usual, it isn't necessary.
>
> ---
> Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313
>
> /* The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings.
> The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
> -Churchill */
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf
> Of Bill Johnson
> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 20:09
>
> Explain it to me Bob. I gotta hear this.
>
> --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 8:02 PM, Bob Bridges 
> wrote:
> No, Bill, you don't, or at least you didn't in this case.  I don’t mind
> explaining it to you, if you really missed it.  If you don't care, I'll
> leave it.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf
> Of Bill Johnson
> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 19:03
>
> I read just fine. There’s more than just the headline.
>
> --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 6:58 PM, Tony Harminc 
> wrote:
> Do you not understand how to read?
>
> --- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 17:11, Bill Johnson <
> 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> > And they’re appealing. So no payment will be made yet. Do you not
> understand how courts work?
>
> --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 5:09 PM, Tony Harminc 
> wrote:
> Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC".
>
> --- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson <
> 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> > Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating
> IBM will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet,
> the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add.
>
> --
> 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
>


-- 
Jay Maynard

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

Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Bill Johnson]

Tony thinks IBM is handing over 1.6 billion. Because the judge ordered it. In 
the article it states IBM is going to appeal. Which means they don’t pay 
anything, yet. Once they file a Notice of Appeal, usually within 30 days, with 
documentation of why they think the trial judge was wrong, the appeals court 
will decide whether the case gets heard. (Very likely) It gets scheduled, might 
be a while, and the appeals court might overturn or uphold the judgment. If 
upheld, IBM can appeal further. If overturned, BMC can appeal. Meanwhile, BMC & 
IBM can negotiate a settlement while the appeals play out. It could take years. 
No money changes hands while it plays out. No matter what the judge said.
I was in law enforcement and was going to be a lawyer about 20 years ago. Took 
the LSAT, passed with flying colors and was offered seats at a number of law 
schools nationwide. 


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Friday, June 3, 2022, 9:34 PM, Bob Bridges  wrote:

Well, look at the history (I saved it below):

You: the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that [IBM will now hand 
over 1.6 billion]...

Tony: ...no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC".

You said (among other things) that the articles headline states that IBM will 
now hand over the fine.  I don't think you meant that, you were conflating the 
headline with the article, while distinguishing between the judgement against 
IBM and IBM's putative obedience.  Tony pointed out, correctly, that the 
headline did not after all say exactly that.  He was picking out just that one 
part of your words, not the whole thing.

The discussion kind of went south from there.  I'm guessing you thought Tony 
was disagreeing with the entirety of your post, not just that one part, and the 
two of you started sliding down the slippery slope toward a flame war.  As 
usual, it isn't necessary.

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings.  The 
inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.  -Churchill */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Bill Johnson
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 20:09

Explain it to me Bob. I gotta hear this.

--- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 8:02 PM, Bob Bridges  wrote:
No, Bill, you don't, or at least you didn't in this case.  I don’t mind 
explaining it to you, if you really missed it.  If you don't care, I'll leave 
it.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Bill Johnson
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 19:03

I read just fine. There’s more than just the headline.

--- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 6:58 PM, Tony Harminc  wrote:
Do you not understand how to read?

--- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 17:11, Bill Johnson 
<0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> And they’re appealing. So no payment will be made yet. Do you not understand 
> how courts work?

--- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 5:09 PM, Tony Harminc  wrote:
Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC".

--- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson 
<0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating IBM 
> will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the 
> headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add.

--
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 ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Bob Bridges]

Well, look at the history (I saved it below):

You: the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that [IBM will now hand 
over 1.6 billion]...

Tony: ...no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC".

You said (among other things) that the articles headline states that IBM will 
now hand over the fine.  I don't think you meant that, you were conflating the 
headline with the article, while distinguishing between the judgement against 
IBM and IBM's putative obedience.  Tony pointed out, correctly, that the 
headline did not after all say exactly that.  He was picking out just that one 
part of your words, not the whole thing.

The discussion kind of went south from there.  I'm guessing you thought Tony 
was disagreeing with the entirety of your post, not just that one part, and the 
two of you started sliding down the slippery slope toward a flame war.  As 
usual, it isn't necessary.

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings.  The 
inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.  -Churchill */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Bill Johnson
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 20:09

Explain it to me Bob. I gotta hear this.

--- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 8:02 PM, Bob Bridges  wrote:
No, Bill, you don't, or at least you didn't in this case.  I don’t mind 
explaining it to you, if you really missed it.  If you don't care, I'll leave 
it.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Bill Johnson
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 19:03

I read just fine. There’s more than just the headline.

--- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 6:58 PM, Tony Harminc  wrote:
Do you not understand how to read?

--- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 17:11, Bill Johnson 
<0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> And they’re appealing. So no payment will be made yet. Do you not understand 
> how courts work?

--- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 5:09 PM, Tony Harminc  wrote:
Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC".

--- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson 
<0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating IBM 
> will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the 
> headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add.

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

Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Bill Johnson]

Explain it to me Bob. I gotta hear this.


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Friday, June 3, 2022, 8:02 PM, Bob Bridges  wrote:

No, Bill, you don't, or at least you didn't in this case.  I don’t mind 
explaining it to you, if you really missed it.  If you don't care, I'll leave 
it.

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* The cities are for money but the high-up hills are purely for the soul.  
-from _Galloway_ by Louis L'Amour */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Bill Johnson
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 19:03

I read just fine. There’s more than just the headline.

--- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 6:58 PM, Tony Harminc  wrote:
Do you not understand how to read?

--- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 17:11, Bill Johnson 
<0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> And they’re appealing. So no payment will be made yet. Do you not understand 
> how courts work?

--- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 5:09 PM, Tony Harminc  wrote:
Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC".

--- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson 
<0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating IBM 
> will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the 
> headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add.

--
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 ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Bob Bridges]

No, Bill, you don't, or at least you didn't in this case.  I don’t mind 
explaining it to you, if you really missed it.  If you don't care, I'll leave 
it.

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* The cities are for money but the high-up hills are purely for the soul.  
-from _Galloway_ by Louis L'Amour */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Bill Johnson
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 19:03

I read just fine. There’s more than just the headline.

--- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 6:58 PM, Tony Harminc  wrote:
Do you not understand how to read?

--- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 17:11, Bill Johnson 
<0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> And they’re appealing. So no payment will be made yet. Do you not understand 
> how courts work?

--- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 5:09 PM, Tony Harminc  wrote:
Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC".

--- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson 
<0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating IBM 
> will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the 
> headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add.

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

Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Bill Johnson]

I read just fine. There’s more than just the headline.


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Friday, June 3, 2022, 6:58 PM, Tony Harminc  wrote:

On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 17:11, Bill Johnson
<0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> And they’re appealing. So no payment will be made yet. Do you not understand 
> how courts work?

Do you not understand how to read?

Tony H.

--
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 ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Tony Harminc]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 17:11, Bill Johnson
<0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> And they’re appealing. So no payment will be made yet. Do you not understand 
> how courts work?

Do you not understand how to read?

Tony H.

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

Re: New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

[Horacio Luis Villa]

OK, thanks! Now I've got the page.

De: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  en nombre de Eric 
D Rossman 
Enviado: viernes, 3 de junio de 2022 18:55
Para: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Asunto: [EXTERNAL] Re: New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

That's only the first half of the link. I'm splitting it across 3 lines to make 
it clearer (in case your mail program is trying to rewrite URLs.

https://
community.ibm.com/community/user/ibmz-and-linuxone/blogs/lionel-dyck
2/2022/06/02/ispf-list-and-log-improved-access


Eric Rossman, CISSP
ICSF Cryptographic Security Development
z/OS Enabling Technologies
edros...@us.ibm.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Horacio Luis Villa
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 5:32 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

I did that. It leads me to this page: 
https://community.ibm.com/community/user/blogs/lionel-dyck
and I get "page not found"

De: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  en nombre de Eric 
D Rossman 
Enviado: viernes, 3 de junio de 2022 14:48
Para: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Asunto: [EXTERNAL] Re: New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

It was split across lines. Join the two lines and it works.

Eric Rossman, CISSP
ICSF Cryptographic Security Development
z/OS Enabling Technologies
edros...@us.ibm.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Horacio Luis Villa
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 1:47 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

The link gives me Page not found.

De: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  en nombre de 
Lionel B. Dyck 
Enviado: viernes, 3 de junio de 2022 08:20
Para: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Asunto: [EXTERNAL] New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

I think y'all will enjoy this new blog

https://community.ibm.com/community/user/ibmz-and-linuxone/blogs/lionel-dyck
2/2022/06/02/ispf-list-and-log-improved-access


Lionel B. Dyck <><
Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com
Github: https://github.com/lbdyck

"Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is what you
are, reputation merely what others think you are."   - - - John Wooden

--
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: New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

[Eric D Rossman]

That's only the first half of the link. I'm splitting it across 3 lines to make 
it clearer (in case your mail program is trying to rewrite URLs.

https://
community.ibm.com/community/user/ibmz-and-linuxone/blogs/lionel-dyck
2/2022/06/02/ispf-list-and-log-improved-access


Eric Rossman, CISSP
ICSF Cryptographic Security Development
z/OS Enabling Technologies
edros...@us.ibm.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Horacio Luis Villa
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 5:32 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

I did that. It leads me to this page: 
https://community.ibm.com/community/user/blogs/lionel-dyck
and I get "page not found"

De: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  en nombre de Eric 
D Rossman 
Enviado: viernes, 3 de junio de 2022 14:48
Para: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Asunto: [EXTERNAL] Re: New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

It was split across lines. Join the two lines and it works.

Eric Rossman, CISSP
ICSF Cryptographic Security Development
z/OS Enabling Technologies
edros...@us.ibm.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Horacio Luis Villa
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 1:47 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

The link gives me Page not found.

De: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  en nombre de 
Lionel B. Dyck 
Enviado: viernes, 3 de junio de 2022 08:20
Para: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Asunto: [EXTERNAL] New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

I think y'all will enjoy this new blog

https://community.ibm.com/community/user/ibmz-and-linuxone/blogs/lionel-dyck
2/2022/06/02/ispf-list-and-log-improved-access


Lionel B. Dyck <><
Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com
Github: https://github.com/lbdyck 

"Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is what you
are, reputation merely what others think you are."   - - - John Wooden

--
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: New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

[Horacio Luis Villa]

I did that. It leads me to this page: 
https://community.ibm.com/community/user/blogs/lionel-dyck
and I get "page not found"

De: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  en nombre de Eric 
D Rossman 
Enviado: viernes, 3 de junio de 2022 14:48
Para: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Asunto: [EXTERNAL] Re: New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

It was split across lines. Join the two lines and it works.

Eric Rossman, CISSP
ICSF Cryptographic Security Development
z/OS Enabling Technologies
edros...@us.ibm.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Horacio Luis Villa
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 1:47 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

The link gives me Page not found.

De: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  en nombre de 
Lionel B. Dyck 
Enviado: viernes, 3 de junio de 2022 08:20
Para: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Asunto: [EXTERNAL] New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

I think y'all will enjoy this new blog

https://community.ibm.com/community/user/ibmz-and-linuxone/blogs/lionel-dyck
2/2022/06/02/ispf-list-and-log-improved-access


Lionel B. Dyck <><
Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com
Github: https://github.com/lbdyck

"Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is what you
are, reputation merely what others think you are."   - - - John Wooden

--
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 ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Mike Schwab]

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/search/%7B%22query%22%3A%2217-CV-2254%20bmc%22%2C%22offset%22%3A0%7D

17-cv-2254 bmc for the case documents.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 1:16 PM Charles Mills  wrote:
>
> Well, #1 we are a bunch of jailhouse lawyers without even the source 
> documents in front of us. Who knows EXACTLY what IBM agreed, or how it is 
> effectively modified by the operation of law, or what exactly transpired 
> between IBM and AT&T.
>
> I *thought* I read that AT&T's "unhook BMC initiative predated IBM. Too lazy 
> to go confirm.
>
> Another interpretation of IBM's "failure to go this route" is that they 
> thought they were good to go as-is. We don't know. Perhaps the judge's 
> decision is hard to fathom, and IBM will prevail on appeal. We don't know.
>
> Charles
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On 
> Behalf Of zMan
> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 9:59 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
>
> IBM has supported *me *indirectly since before I was born. Bill mistakes
> critical thinking for bias, and reveals his own lack of the former and
> excess of the latter instead, alas.
>
> Charles's question is incisive, and reflects IBM's dilemma. However, the
> solution would have been to renegotiate or dispute the agreement, not to
> unilaterally break it. Whether it's an anticompetitive agreement or not, it
> was an agreement. You don't get to say "I think this is invalid and
> therefore I'm going to ignore it": that way lies chaos. You instead apply
> to a court to have it declared null and void. The fact that IBM with its
> legions of lawyers did not go this route suggests (does *not *prove) that
> they did not believe they would prevail.
>
> Speculation, based on having worked with AT&T: I tend to doubt that AT&T
> specifically wanted to unhook BMC products. I suspect IBM said "We can save
> you $ by using our versions of these products", and that THAT's what AT&T
> wanted (as would most any customer).
>
> I wonder whether in a future, similar scenario, Kyndryl's independence
> might change the equation. Similarly, the large number of products IBM has
> silently divested (Optim, Rational, SPSS, more) probably also subtly
> changes it, in that the savings may not be as realizable.
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 12:37 PM Tom Brennan 
> wrote:
>
> > I suspect you'll be called an IBM hater anyway :)  And probably me too
> > just for posting on the subject, even though IBM has indirectly
> > supported me and my family since 1983.
> >
>
> --
> 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: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Bill Johnson]

And they’re appealing. So no payment will be made yet. Do you not understand 
how courts work?


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Friday, June 3, 2022, 5:09 PM, Tony Harminc  wrote:

On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson
<0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating IBM 
> will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the 
> headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add.

Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC".

Tony H.

--
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 ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Tony Harminc]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson
<0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating IBM 
> will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the 
> headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add.

Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC".

Tony H.

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

Re: [EXTERNAL] New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

[Farley, Peter x23353]

Some of us do not get to choose whether the links we post get converted to 
urldevense.com instead.  Corporate email servers do that without consulting us.

What I do us "reply" to the email and then cut and paste the "real" url into my 
browser (the part between double-underscores).

Peter

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 1:56 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

EXTERNAL EMAIL

On Jun 3, 2022, at 07:23:18, René Jansen wrote:
> 
> Ha, that does not work either. Fortunately Paul sent a link that was not cut 
> off anywhere.
> 
"urldefense.com" is another thing I'd distrust.  What's their business model?
They get to inspect too much of your web traffic.

>> On 3 Jun 2022, at 14:49, Pommier, Rex wrote:
>> 
>> I couldn't get René's  link to work.  If you can't either, try this one.
>> 
>> shorturl.at/uwPSY
>> 
>> Rex
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
>> René Jansen
>> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 6:25 AM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing
>> 
>> For those of us who are searching: shorturl.at/HNPQ9 
>> >  >
>> 
>> 
>>> On 3 Jun 2022, at 13:20, Lionel B. Dyck wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think y'all will enjoy this new blog
-- 

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: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?

[Farley, Peter x23353]

Yep, I got it from Bill G.'s reply, thanks.  PEBKAC.

Peter

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Alan Young
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 2:01 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?

The link for 013 is embedded in the paragraph text at the top of the page.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://publibfp.dhe.ibm.com/epubs/pdf/a227832d.pdf__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!PSHnr3iwCycr_CbU0xB1tqN0-_PjjMTGrqWlAP5N1YCu_3snY3hQkz74jFK1nUepDeU5eIWTpwDil32fAAPXmA$
 
 
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Sent: Jun 3, 2022 7:30 AM
To: 
Subject: Re: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?
 
Thanks for that link, but those are all the ones up to the -12 edition, not 
including the new -13 edition yet.
 
Peter
 
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Alan Young
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 6:23 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?
 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://linux.mainframe.blog/zarchitecture-principles-of-operation__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!KFbcdz-pDFxDB3WHjV0LI3pEuEoWOTMyO6VUlAsDZ25PtBD7XWM_XKq2hGVPwejBkoN10zXRKVSvFZUpnAVvjw$
  has a link to that version and older versions of it.
 
Alan
 
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Sent: Jun 2, 2022 9:39 PM
To:
Subject: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?
 
Even Jim Elliiot's CMOS website only has a ResourceLink url to get it, and some 
of us do not have ResourceLink ID's.
 
Has anyone found it on a publicly available website that needs no login?
 
I do have an IBM developer login, but apparently that one does not give me 
access to ResourceLink.
 
Peter
--

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: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?

[Farley, Peter x23353]

Bingo!  Thank you , I missed that link when I first went to the page.

Peter

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Bill Godfrey
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 12:28 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?

That same page has a link to the -13 edition, in parentheses, in the paragraph 
above all the others. No ResourceLink login required.

On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 14:29:59 +, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:

>Thanks for that link, but those are all the ones up to the -12 edition, not 
>including the new -13 edition yet.
>
>Peter
>
>-Original Message-
>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On 
>Behalf Of Alan Young
>Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 6:23 AM
>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Subject: Re: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?
>
>https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://linux.mainframe.blog/zarchitecture-principles-of-operation__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!KFbcdz-pDFxDB3WHjV0LI3pEuEoWOTMyO6VUlAsDZ25PtBD7XWM_XKq2hGVPwejBkoN10zXRKVSvFZUpnAVvjw$
>  has a link to that version and older versions of it.
> 
>Alan
> 
>-Original Message-
>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
>Sent: Jun 2, 2022 9:39 PM
>To: 
>Subject: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?
> 
>Even Jim Elliiot's CMOS website only has a ResourceLink url to get it, and 
>some of us do not have ResourceLink ID's.
> 
>Has anyone found it on a publicly available website that needs no login?
> 
>I do have an IBM developer login, but apparently that one does not give me 
>access to ResourceLink.
> 
>Peter
--

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: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?

[Farley, Peter x23353]

Yes I did try that link.  When you click on the PDF link it sends you to the 
ResourceLink site, which requires login.

Peter

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of Sri 
h Kolusu
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 11:29 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?

EXTERNAL EMAIL

>> Thanks for that link, but those are all the ones up to the -12 edition, not 
>> including the new -13 edition yet.

Peter,

Did you try this link ?

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/zarchitecture-principles-operation__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!IdeaCoNOiQH7BoRjEa0hDXgWoxf0GWa9-M06WEcrDkrKh1NY5UFHLqIxE6SWPzfgd98pyh135RtO6Es_vlPb_w$
 


Thanks,
Kolusu
--

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: [EXTERNAL] New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

[Tony Harminc]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 14:05, Paul Gilmartin
<042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

> "urldefense.com" is another thing I'd distrust.  What's their business model?

I think there are roughly three business models for these things.

1) Like Microsoft's safelinks.com, urldefense[sic].com (aka proofpoint) is
part of a package sold to businesses to help protect their employees from
phishing emails. As such, the URLs are replaced on *incoming* email to
those employees,but are then not unmangled on forwarded or replied-to mail.
We see these a lot on these lists.

As well, they doubtless take advantage of the flow of links for their own
purposes, even if they don't directly sell them on to advertising companies.

2) The url shorteners have been around for a lot longer, and once served
a genuine purpose. I think tinyurl.com was the first, and there are a
zillion more. But they have all become just data capturers, with the
only business model being selling your data to the advertising/data
brokerage infrastructure. (Well, there may be a few who provide the
sender-paid service of tracking who clicks on the URLs - I've noticed
IBMers sometimes use these. But I can't imagine they don't also sell
the data on.)

3) And then there are the mailing/marketing list operators, of which,
sadly, Lsoft seems to have become one. Constant Contact is a prominent
one, but there are a zillion. They send bulk emails - in theory
solicited, but in practice they often cross the line into spam.

Of these three only type (1) have decodable URLs, and they generally even
document how to do it, and some provide websites or little JS or
python programs.
By decodable, I mean that the original URL can be extracted from the mangled
one without doing a database lookup. Types (2) and (3) either don't have or at
least don't document how to do this,and so decoding requires
disclosing data to the provider.

> They get to inspect too much of your web traffic.

I never, ever, click directly on a URL in an email. Or on FB, for example.
Copy, unmangle, remove tracking. Then click.

And as we've seen many times, these things get stacked. So a URL
shortener is wrapped by urldefense or safelinks or any number of
others. I don't know if the type (1) wrappers look for their
competitors and avoid double wrapping.

I think Lsoft would do us all a favour if it (optionally) unwrapped
all the URLs it can - certainly of type (1).
It could even do types (2) and (3) and by effectively aggregating the
data, avoid connecting
the ultimate clicker with the creator of the mangled URL.

Maybe Lsoft accepts RFEs. But who are their customers these days?
Presumably not the end users
of their mailing lists...

Tony H.

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

Re: Logstreams

[Charles Mills]

Does "56+ kbytes per track" help?

What are those numbers? Kilobytes? 

Charles


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Steve Beaver
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 12:08 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Logstreams

Has anyone figured out how to compute the number of cylinders for

 

STG_SIZE(119880)

LS_SIZE(119880)

 

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

Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Bill Johnson]

Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating IBM will 
now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the headline 
states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add. 


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Friday, June 3, 2022, 3:09 PM, Tony Harminc  wrote:

On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 14:16, Charles Mills  wrote:

> Well, #1 we are a bunch of jailhouse lawyers without even the source 
> documents in front of us. Who knows EXACTLY what IBM agreed, or how it is 
> effectively modified by the operation of law, or what exactly transpired 
> between IBM and AT&T.

Indeed. Anyone who has ever seen a program written by a lawyer may
appreciate this. I have seen a few (mostly but not entirely
spreadsheets), and it just reinforces my thinking that lawyers live in
a "differently logical" world from the rest of us. Many of us here
have all kinds of experience dealing with lawyers and contracts (to
say nothing of personal matters), but that kind of "legal experience"
doesn't make us lawyers or even experts.

Looked at another way, "legal reasoning" is a law school topic of
instruction and study, and is generally the thing that we programmers
take to because it most closely resembles programming, and we like to
think that the law is algorithmic in nature. But legal reasoning is
very far from being "the law", and is actually quite a small part of
the education of a lawyer. Applying it other people's cases to
conclude that this or that judgement is correct or will obviously be
overturned is just silly.

Tony H.

--
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 ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[David Purdy]

My brother is a computer forensic consultant for a law firm, and he mines and 
compares source code for a living.
He maintains it's (mostly) not a matter of proving who is right and wrong, but 
which legal team makes a mistake.
David
-Original Message-
From: Tony Harminc 
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Fri, Jun 3, 2022 3:09 pm
Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 14:16, Charles Mills  wrote:

> Well, #1 we are a bunch of jailhouse lawyers without even the source 
> documents in front of us. Who knows EXACTLY what IBM agreed, or how it is 
> effectively modified by the operation of law, or what exactly transpired 
> between IBM and AT&T.

Indeed. Anyone who has ever seen a program written by a lawyer may
appreciate this. I have seen a few (mostly but not entirely
spreadsheets), and it just reinforces my thinking that lawyers live in
a "differently logical" world from the rest of us. Many of us here
have all kinds of experience dealing with lawyers and contracts (to
say nothing of personal matters), but that kind of "legal experience"
doesn't make us lawyers or even experts.

Looked at another way, "legal reasoning" is a law school topic of
instruction and study, and is generally the thing that we programmers
take to because it most closely resembles programming, and we like to
think that the law is algorithmic in nature. But legal reasoning is
very far from being "the law", and is actually quite a small part of
the education of a lawyer. Applying it other people's cases to
conclude that this or that judgement is correct or will obviously be
overturned is just silly.

Tony H.

--
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 ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Tony Harminc]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 14:16, Charles Mills  wrote:

> Well, #1 we are a bunch of jailhouse lawyers without even the source 
> documents in front of us. Who knows EXACTLY what IBM agreed, or how it is 
> effectively modified by the operation of law, or what exactly transpired 
> between IBM and AT&T.

Indeed. Anyone who has ever seen a program written by a lawyer may
appreciate this. I have seen a few (mostly but not entirely
spreadsheets), and it just reinforces my thinking that lawyers live in
a "differently logical" world from the rest of us. Many of us here
have all kinds of experience dealing with lawyers and contracts (to
say nothing of personal matters), but that kind of "legal experience"
doesn't make us lawyers or even experts.

Looked at another way, "legal reasoning" is a law school topic of
instruction and study, and is generally the thing that we programmers
take to because it most closely resembles programming, and we like to
think that the law is algorithmic in nature. But legal reasoning is
very far from being "the law", and is actually quite a small part of
the education of a lawyer. Applying it other people's cases to
conclude that this or that judgement is correct or will obviously be
overturned is just silly.

Tony H.

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

Logstreams

[Steve Beaver]

Has anyone figured out how to compute the number of cylinders for

 

STG_SIZE(119880)

LS_SIZE(119880)

 

Thanks


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

Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Charles Mills]

Well, #1 we are a bunch of jailhouse lawyers without even the source documents 
in front of us. Who knows EXACTLY what IBM agreed, or how it is effectively 
modified by the operation of law, or what exactly transpired between IBM and 
AT&T.

I *thought* I read that AT&T's "unhook BMC initiative predated IBM. Too lazy to 
go confirm.

Another interpretation of IBM's "failure to go this route" is that they thought 
they were good to go as-is. We don't know. Perhaps the judge's decision is hard 
to fathom, and IBM will prevail on appeal. We don't know. 

Charles


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of zMan
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 9:59 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

IBM has supported *me *indirectly since before I was born. Bill mistakes
critical thinking for bias, and reveals his own lack of the former and
excess of the latter instead, alas.

Charles's question is incisive, and reflects IBM's dilemma. However, the
solution would have been to renegotiate or dispute the agreement, not to
unilaterally break it. Whether it's an anticompetitive agreement or not, it
was an agreement. You don't get to say "I think this is invalid and
therefore I'm going to ignore it": that way lies chaos. You instead apply
to a court to have it declared null and void. The fact that IBM with its
legions of lawyers did not go this route suggests (does *not *prove) that
they did not believe they would prevail.

Speculation, based on having worked with AT&T: I tend to doubt that AT&T
specifically wanted to unhook BMC products. I suspect IBM said "We can save
you $ by using our versions of these products", and that THAT's what AT&T
wanted (as would most any customer).

I wonder whether in a future, similar scenario, Kyndryl's independence
might change the equation. Similarly, the large number of products IBM has
silently divested (Optim, Rational, SPSS, more) probably also subtly
changes it, in that the savings may not be as realizable.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 12:37 PM Tom Brennan 
wrote:

> I suspect you'll be called an IBM hater anyway :)  And probably me too
> just for posting on the subject, even though IBM has indirectly
> supported me and my family since 1983.
>

--
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: [EXTERNAL] New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Jun 3, 2022, at 07:23:18, René Jansen wrote:
> 
> Ha, that does not work either. Fortunately Paul sent a link that was not cut 
> off anywhere.
> 
"urldefense.com" is another thing I'd distrust.  What's their business model?
They get to inspect too much of your web traffic.

>> On 3 Jun 2022, at 14:49, Pommier, Rex wrote:
>> 
>> I couldn't get René's  link to work.  If you can't either, try this one.
>> 
>> shorturl.at/uwPSY
>> 
>> Rex
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
>> René Jansen
>> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 6:25 AM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing
>> 
>> For those of us who are searching: shorturl.at/HNPQ9 
>> >  >
>> 
>> 
>>> On 3 Jun 2022, at 13:20, Lionel B. Dyck wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think y'all will enjoy this new blog
>>> 
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://community.ibm.com/community/user/i
>>> bmz-and-linuxone/blogs/lionel-dyck__;!!KjMRP1Ixj6eLE0Fj!qfRHVRztiZ__Y-
>>> uRENOKZmScUQlVtSk6NY3YGHz_9Ba8N7f93cGFgnV1F48sGluq_yaMckEbtpyLWDs4YNOs
>>> JJkYnNWhVQ$ 2/2022/06/02/ispf-list-and-log-improved-access
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Lionel B. Dyck <><
>>> Website: 
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.lbdsoftware.com__;!!KjMRP1Ixj6
>>> eLE0Fj!qfRHVRztiZ__Y-uRENOKZmScUQlVtSk6NY3YGHz_9Ba8N7f93cGFgnV1F48sGlu
>>> q_yaMckEbtpyLWDs4YNOsJJnqlfdudA$
>>> Github: 
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/lbdyck__;!!KjMRP1Ixj6eL
>>> E0Fj!qfRHVRztiZ__Y-uRENOKZmScUQlVtSk6NY3YGHz_9Ba8N7f93cGFgnV1F48sGluq_
>>> yaMckEbtpyLWDs4YNOsJJnYzWtOTA$

-- 
gil

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

Re: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?

[Steve Beaver]

Google z/Architecture Principles of Operation SA22-7832-13



-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Bill Godfrey
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 11:28 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?

That same page has a link to the -13 edition, in parentheses, in the paragraph 
above all the others. No ResourceLink login required.

On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 14:29:59 +, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:

>Thanks for that link, but those are all the ones up to the -12 edition, not 
>including the new -13 edition yet.
>
>Peter
>
>-Original Message-
>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
>Alan Young
>Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 6:23 AM
>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Subject: Re: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?
>
>https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://linux.mainframe.blog/zarchitecture-principles-of-operation__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!KFbcdz-pDFxDB3WHjV0LI3pEuEoWOTMyO6VUlAsDZ25PtBD7XWM_XKq2hGVPwejBkoN10zXRKVSvFZUpnAVvjw$
>  has a link to that version and older versions of it.
> 
>Alan
> 
>-Original Message-
>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
>Sent: Jun 2, 2022 9:39 PM
>To: 
>Subject: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?
> 
>Even Jim Elliiot's CMOS website only has a ResourceLink url to get it, and 
>some of us do not have ResourceLink ID's.
> 
>Has anyone found it on a publicly available website that needs no login?
> 
>I do have an IBM developer login, but apparently that one does not give me 
>access to ResourceLink.
> 
>Peter
>--
>
>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

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

Re: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?

[Alan Young]

The link for 013 is embedded in the paragraph text at the top of the page.
http://publibfp.dhe.ibm.com/epubs/pdf/a227832d.pdf
 
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
Sent: Jun 3, 2022 7:30 AM
To: 
Subject: Re: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?
 
Thanks for that link, but those are all the ones up to the -12 edition, not 
including the new -13 edition yet.
 
Peter
 
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Alan Young
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 6:23 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?
 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://linux.mainframe.blog/zarchitecture-principles-of-operation__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!KFbcdz-pDFxDB3WHjV0LI3pEuEoWOTMyO6VUlAsDZ25PtBD7XWM_XKq2hGVPwejBkoN10zXRKVSvFZUpnAVvjw$
  has a link to that version and older versions of it.
 
Alan
 
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Sent: Jun 2, 2022 9:39 PM
To:
Subject: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?
 
Even Jim Elliiot's CMOS website only has a ResourceLink url to get it, and some 
of us do not have ResourceLink ID's.
 
Has anyone found it on a publicly available website that needs no login?
 
I do have an IBM developer login, but apparently that one does not give me 
access to ResourceLink.
 
Peter
--
 
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

 

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

Re: New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

[Eric D Rossman]

It was split across lines. Join the two lines and it works.

Eric Rossman, CISSP
ICSF Cryptographic Security Development
z/OS Enabling Technologies
edros...@us.ibm.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Horacio Luis Villa
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 1:47 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

The link gives me Page not found.

De: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  en nombre de 
Lionel B. Dyck 
Enviado: viernes, 3 de junio de 2022 08:20
Para: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Asunto: [EXTERNAL] New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

I think y'all will enjoy this new blog

https://community.ibm.com/community/user/ibmz-and-linuxone/blogs/lionel-dyck
2/2022/06/02/ispf-list-and-log-improved-access


Lionel B. Dyck <><
Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com
Github: https://github.com/lbdyck 

"Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is what you
are, reputation merely what others think you are."   - - - John Wooden

--
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: New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

[Horacio Luis Villa]

The link gives me Page not found.

De: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  en nombre de 
Lionel B. Dyck 
Enviado: viernes, 3 de junio de 2022 08:20
Para: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Asunto: [EXTERNAL] New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

I think y'all will enjoy this new blog

https://community.ibm.com/community/user/ibmz-and-linuxone/blogs/lionel-dyck
2/2022/06/02/ispf-list-and-log-improved-access


Lionel B. Dyck <><
Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com
Github: https://github.com/lbdyck

"Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is what you
are, reputation merely what others think you are."   - - - John Wooden

--
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

TEST

[rpinion865]

This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. Please ignore.

Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/) secure email.

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

Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Bill Johnson]

LOLOLOLOL yeah, you’re a critical thinking master. Anyone with Legal experience 
(me) knows this will be overturned. 

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Friday, June 3, 2022, 12:59 PM, zMan  wrote:

IBM has supported *me *indirectly since before I was born. Bill mistakes
critical thinking for bias, and reveals his own lack of the former and
excess of the latter instead, alas.

Charles's question is incisive, and reflects IBM's dilemma. However, the
solution would have been to renegotiate or dispute the agreement, not to
unilaterally break it. Whether it's an anticompetitive agreement or not, it
was an agreement. You don't get to say "I think this is invalid and
therefore I'm going to ignore it": that way lies chaos. You instead apply
to a court to have it declared null and void. The fact that IBM with its
legions of lawyers did not go this route suggests (does *not *prove) that
they did not believe they would prevail.

Speculation, based on having worked with AT&T: I tend to doubt that AT&T
specifically wanted to unhook BMC products. I suspect IBM said "We can save
you $ by using our versions of these products", and that THAT's what AT&T
wanted (as would most any customer).

I wonder whether in a future, similar scenario, Kyndryl's independence
might change the equation. Similarly, the large number of products IBM has
silently divested (Optim, Rational, SPSS, more) probably also subtly
changes it, in that the savings may not be as realizable.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 12:37 PM Tom Brennan 
wrote:

> I suspect you'll be called an IBM hater anyway :)  And probably me too
> just for posting on the subject, even though IBM has indirectly
> supported me and my family since 1983.
>

--
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 ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[zMan]

IBM has supported *me *indirectly since before I was born. Bill mistakes
critical thinking for bias, and reveals his own lack of the former and
excess of the latter instead, alas.

Charles's question is incisive, and reflects IBM's dilemma. However, the
solution would have been to renegotiate or dispute the agreement, not to
unilaterally break it. Whether it's an anticompetitive agreement or not, it
was an agreement. You don't get to say "I think this is invalid and
therefore I'm going to ignore it": that way lies chaos. You instead apply
to a court to have it declared null and void. The fact that IBM with its
legions of lawyers did not go this route suggests (does *not *prove) that
they did not believe they would prevail.

Speculation, based on having worked with AT&T: I tend to doubt that AT&T
specifically wanted to unhook BMC products. I suspect IBM said "We can save
you $ by using our versions of these products", and that THAT's what AT&T
wanted (as would most any customer).

I wonder whether in a future, similar scenario, Kyndryl's independence
might change the equation. Similarly, the large number of products IBM has
silently divested (Optim, Rational, SPSS, more) probably also subtly
changes it, in that the savings may not be as realizable.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 12:37 PM Tom Brennan 
wrote:

> I suspect you'll be called an IBM hater anyway :)  And probably me too
> just for posting on the subject, even though IBM has indirectly
> supported me and my family since 1983.
>

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

Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Bill Johnson]

Exactly. I’m way more concerned with the collusion of 2 software vendors 
agreeing not to cannibalize the others business. 


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Friday, June 3, 2022, 12:12 PM, Charles Mills  wrote:

I am not taking pro- or "bashing" sides here. How can any outsourcer agree not 
to replace product family X with product family Y, and then agree to run a 
datacenter the way a customer wants?

IBM apparently promised BMC they would not unhook their products, and then 
promised AT&T to do what they wanted ... and apparently what they wanted was to 
unhook BMC products.

Charles


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of zMan
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 7:37 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/31/ibm_ordered_to_pay_16/

Tsk. IBM appears to have been caught red-handed here.
-- 
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"

--
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 ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Tom Brennan]

I suspect you'll be called an IBM hater anyway :)  And probably me too 
just for posting on the subject, even though IBM has indirectly 
supported me and my family since 1983.


On 6/3/2022 9:13 AM, Charles Mills wrote:

I am not taking pro- or "bashing" sides here.


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

Re: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?

[Bill Godfrey]

That same page has a link to the -13 edition, in parentheses, in the paragraph 
above all the others. No ResourceLink login required.

On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 14:29:59 +, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:

>Thanks for that link, but those are all the ones up to the -12 edition, not 
>including the new -13 edition yet.
>
>Peter
>
>-Original Message-
>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
>Alan Young
>Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 6:23 AM
>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Subject: Re: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?
>
>https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://linux.mainframe.blog/zarchitecture-principles-of-operation__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!KFbcdz-pDFxDB3WHjV0LI3pEuEoWOTMyO6VUlAsDZ25PtBD7XWM_XKq2hGVPwejBkoN10zXRKVSvFZUpnAVvjw$
>  has a link to that version and older versions of it.
> 
>Alan
> 
>-Original Message-
>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
>Sent: Jun 2, 2022 9:39 PM
>To: 
>Subject: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?
> 
>Even Jim Elliiot's CMOS website only has a ResourceLink url to get it, and 
>some of us do not have ResourceLink ID's.
> 
>Has anyone found it on a publicly available website that needs no login?
> 
>I do have an IBM developer login, but apparently that one does not give me 
>access to ResourceLink.
> 
>Peter
>--
>
>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: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Charles Mills]

I am not taking pro- or "bashing" sides here. How can any outsourcer agree not 
to replace product family X with product family Y, and then agree to run a 
datacenter the way a customer wants?

IBM apparently promised BMC they would not unhook their products, and then 
promised AT&T to do what they wanted ... and apparently what they wanted was to 
unhook BMC products.

Charles


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of zMan
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 7:37 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/31/ibm_ordered_to_pay_16/

Tsk. IBM appears to have been caught red-handed here.
-- 
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"

--
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: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?

[Charles Mills]

You cannot order the hardcopy AFAIK. IBM went out of the printing business
years ago.

So I guess the definitive version is a version that does not exist.

Charles


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Retired Mainframer
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 9:00 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?

I clicked on the link and downloaded SA22-7832-13 with no problem.  Page ii 
contains the following:

"Fourteenth Edition (May, 2022)
This edition obsoletes and replaces z/Architecture Principles of Operation, 
SA22-7832-12."

It also contains the following disclaimer to keep the lawyers happy:

"The reader should be aware of the fact that this publication contains many 
symbols, such as superscripts, that may not display correctly with any given

hardware or software. The definitive version of this publication is the 
hardcopy version."

I'm curious if anyone has put out information on where such incorrect
displays 
occur. I also wonder how may customers order the hard copy.

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

Re: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?

[Retired Mainframer]

I clicked on the link and downloaded SA22-7832-13 with no problem.  Page ii 
contains the following:

"Fourteenth Edition (May, 2022)
This edition obsoletes and replaces z/Architecture Principles of Operation, 
SA22-7832-12."

It also contains the following disclaimer to keep the lawyers happy:

"The reader should be aware of the fact that this publication contains many 
symbols, such as superscripts, that may not display correctly with any given 
hardware or software. The definitive version of this publication is the 
hardcopy version."

I'm curious if anyone has put out information on where such incorrect displays 
occur. I also wonder how may customers order the hard copy.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Farley, Peter x23353
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 7:30 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?

Thanks for that link, but those are all the ones up to the -12 edition, not 
including the new -13 edition yet.

Peter

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

Re: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?

[Sri h Kolusu]

>> Thanks for that link, but those are all the ones up to the -12 edition, not 
>> including the new -13 edition yet.

Peter,

Did you try this link ?

https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/zarchitecture-principles-operation


Thanks,
Kolusu


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

Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Bill Johnson]

It’s collusion & illegal.
Collusion is a non-competitive, secret, and sometimes illegal agreement between 
rivals which attempts to disrupt the market's equilibrium.
He always bashes IBM. It’s his MO.
IBM will win on appeal. 


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Friday, June 3, 2022, 11:10 AM, Seymour J Metz  wrote:

No, you don't know his agenda. While I expect this to be overturned on appeal, 
he is correct that AT&T is not a party to the suit, although I wouldn't be 
surprised if they filed a friend off the court brief.


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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Bill Johnson [0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu]
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 11:06 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

It’s AT&T’s shop. They decided they wanted IBM’s products instead of BMC. 
Imagine your shop with multiple vendors where the vendors decide not to replace 
each others software. THATS illegal. Restraint of trade. I guarantee it’ll be 
overturned. But, we know your agenda. You’re an IBM hater.


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:55 AM, zMan  wrote:

Um. AT&T's approval or otherwise isn't relevant. They're not a party to
this.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 10:41 AM Bill Johnson <
0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

> I doubt IBM acted without the approval of AT&T.
>
> IBM rejected the decision and said it intends to appeal the ruling.
>
> "This verdict is entirely unsupported by fact and law, and IBM intends to
> pursue complete reversal on appeal," IBM said in an emailed statement. "IBM
> acted in good faith in every respect in this engagement. The decision to
> remove BMC Software technology from its mainframes rested solely with AT&T,
> as was recognized by the court and confirmed in testimony from AT&T
> representatives admitted at trial." ®
>
> It’ll be reversed.
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>
>
> On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:37 AM, zMan  wrote:
>
> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1xJhnZCNeW7_rNin7h4BrhTJh2FKKfaVZoJRtvyBUBiorGShjv3uXoDQVoj41wa3xbw9Du5kLyl_Z3H3CSox90qbGwoIudpZ9NwBtsj0xdkoDwvmWOquUzQkeFu0AfjrJ2a_9BgRpXLwr3VwahvERxN-Sigw6qYPotjrQB1e8apAXdF06ZWmt8Utbx-iG-DexdrckZDein6ub17mp1YDhbqO1SAqXIcnFIEi7D3teVf_BD08Z0ExjAKiuqRgKYRVThnXwEQGOFJ9UgZ9Tb_YaOrL2oXOs1ZrptDwMQlr-VG6JvZbNDruBTpXDD3UzLKzQm4TAb1zyCIJUTC98FZWNgnXqsJJ6D2CZC_AYuRh0HTFU0oSyWJBlzBvExCGziJFd5zJBgqxEgiADr10VcdQ6ekazrWhbLwueSB365b0dFRBk0WCNaG1ot_3VIgEOCOog/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theregister.com%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2Fibm_ordered_to_pay_16%2F
>
> Tsk. IBM appears to have been caught red-handed here.
> --
> zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"
>
> --
> 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
>


--
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"

--
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 ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Seymour J Metz]

No, you don't know his agenda. While I expect this to be overturned on appeal, 
he is correct that AT&T is not a party to the suit, although I wouldn't be 
surprised if they filed a friend off the court brief.


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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Bill Johnson [0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu]
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 11:06 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

It’s AT&T’s shop. They decided they wanted IBM’s products instead of BMC. 
Imagine your shop with multiple vendors where the vendors decide not to replace 
each others software. THATS illegal. Restraint of trade. I guarantee it’ll be 
overturned. But, we know your agenda. You’re an IBM hater.


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:55 AM, zMan  wrote:

Um. AT&T's approval or otherwise isn't relevant. They're not a party to
this.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 10:41 AM Bill Johnson <
0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

> I doubt IBM acted without the approval of AT&T.
>
> IBM rejected the decision and said it intends to appeal the ruling.
>
> "This verdict is entirely unsupported by fact and law, and IBM intends to
> pursue complete reversal on appeal," IBM said in an emailed statement. "IBM
> acted in good faith in every respect in this engagement. The decision to
> remove BMC Software technology from its mainframes rested solely with AT&T,
> as was recognized by the court and confirmed in testimony from AT&T
> representatives admitted at trial." ®
>
> It’ll be reversed.
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>
>
> On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:37 AM, zMan  wrote:
>
> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1xJhnZCNeW7_rNin7h4BrhTJh2FKKfaVZoJRtvyBUBiorGShjv3uXoDQVoj41wa3xbw9Du5kLyl_Z3H3CSox90qbGwoIudpZ9NwBtsj0xdkoDwvmWOquUzQkeFu0AfjrJ2a_9BgRpXLwr3VwahvERxN-Sigw6qYPotjrQB1e8apAXdF06ZWmt8Utbx-iG-DexdrckZDein6ub17mp1YDhbqO1SAqXIcnFIEi7D3teVf_BD08Z0ExjAKiuqRgKYRVThnXwEQGOFJ9UgZ9Tb_YaOrL2oXOs1ZrptDwMQlr-VG6JvZbNDruBTpXDD3UzLKzQm4TAb1zyCIJUTC98FZWNgnXqsJJ6D2CZC_AYuRh0HTFU0oSyWJBlzBvExCGziJFd5zJBgqxEgiADr10VcdQ6ekazrWhbLwueSB365b0dFRBk0WCNaG1ot_3VIgEOCOog/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theregister.com%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2Fibm_ordered_to_pay_16%2F
>
> Tsk. IBM appears to have been caught red-handed here.
> --
> zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"
>
> --
> 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
>


--
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"

--
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 ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Bill Johnson]

It’s AT&T’s shop. They decided they wanted IBM’s products instead of BMC. 
Imagine your shop with multiple vendors where the vendors decide not to replace 
each others software. THATS illegal. Restraint of trade. I guarantee it’ll be 
overturned. But, we know your agenda. You’re an IBM hater.


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:55 AM, zMan  wrote:

Um. AT&T's approval or otherwise isn't relevant. They're not a party to
this.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 10:41 AM Bill Johnson <
0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

> I doubt IBM acted without the approval of AT&T.
>
> IBM rejected the decision and said it intends to appeal the ruling.
>
> "This verdict is entirely unsupported by fact and law, and IBM intends to
> pursue complete reversal on appeal," IBM said in an emailed statement. "IBM
> acted in good faith in every respect in this engagement. The decision to
> remove BMC Software technology from its mainframes rested solely with AT&T,
> as was recognized by the court and confirmed in testimony from AT&T
> representatives admitted at trial." ®
>
> It’ll be reversed.
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>
>
> On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:37 AM, zMan  wrote:
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/31/ibm_ordered_to_pay_16/
>
> Tsk. IBM appears to have been caught red-handed here.
> --
> zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"
>
> --
> 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
>


-- 
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"

--
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 ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[zMan]

Um. AT&T's approval or otherwise isn't relevant. They're not a party to
this.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 10:41 AM Bill Johnson <
0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

> I doubt IBM acted without the approval of AT&T.
>
> IBM rejected the decision and said it intends to appeal the ruling.
>
> "This verdict is entirely unsupported by fact and law, and IBM intends to
> pursue complete reversal on appeal," IBM said in an emailed statement. "IBM
> acted in good faith in every respect in this engagement. The decision to
> remove BMC Software technology from its mainframes rested solely with AT&T,
> as was recognized by the court and confirmed in testimony from AT&T
> representatives admitted at trial." ®
>
> It’ll be reversed.
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>
>
> On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:37 AM, zMan  wrote:
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/31/ibm_ordered_to_pay_16/
>
> Tsk. IBM appears to have been caught red-handed here.
> --
> zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"
>
> --
> 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
>


-- 
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"

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

Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[Bill Johnson]

I doubt IBM acted without the approval of AT&T.

IBM rejected the decision and said it intends to appeal the ruling.

"This verdict is entirely unsupported by fact and law, and IBM intends to 
pursue complete reversal on appeal," IBM said in an emailed statement. "IBM 
acted in good faith in every respect in this engagement. The decision to remove 
BMC Software technology from its mainframes rested solely with AT&T, as was 
recognized by the court and confirmed in testimony from AT&T representatives 
admitted at trial." ®

It’ll be reversed.


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:37 AM, zMan  wrote:

https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/31/ibm_ordered_to_pay_16/

Tsk. IBM appears to have been caught red-handed here.
-- 
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"

--
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 ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC

[zMan]

https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/31/ibm_ordered_to_pay_16/

Tsk. IBM appears to have been caught red-handed here.
-- 
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"

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

Re: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?

[Farley, Peter x23353]

Thanks for that link, but those are all the ones up to the -12 edition, not 
including the new -13 edition yet.

Peter

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Alan Young
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 6:23 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://linux.mainframe.blog/zarchitecture-principles-of-operation__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!KFbcdz-pDFxDB3WHjV0LI3pEuEoWOTMyO6VUlAsDZ25PtBD7XWM_XKq2hGVPwejBkoN10zXRKVSvFZUpnAVvjw$
  has a link to that version and older versions of it.
 
Alan
 
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Sent: Jun 2, 2022 9:39 PM
To: 
Subject: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?
 
Even Jim Elliiot's CMOS website only has a ResourceLink url to get it, and some 
of us do not have ResourceLink ID's.
 
Has anyone found it on a publicly available website that needs no login?
 
I do have an IBM developer login, but apparently that one does not give me 
access to ResourceLink.
 
Peter
--

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: [EXTERNAL] New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

[Pommier, Rex]

Interesting, I tested mine before posting it and it worked fine.  Now it 
doesn't.  

Rex

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
René Jansen
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 8:23 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

Ha, that does not work either. Fortunately Paul sent a link that was not cut 
off anywhere.

René.

> On 3 Jun 2022, at 14:49, Pommier, Rex  wrote:
> 
> I couldn't get René's  link to work.  If you can't either, try this one.
> 
> shorturl.at/uwPSY
> 
> Rex
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On 
> Behalf Of René Jansen
> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 6:25 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing
> 
> For those of us who are searching: shorturl.at/HNPQ9 
>  E0Fj!qfRHVRztiZ__Y-uRENOKZmScUQlVtSk6NY3YGHz_9Ba8N7f93cGFgnV1F48sGluq_
> yaMckEbtpyLWDs4YNOsJJkvE2U-1A$ >
> 
> 
>> On 3 Jun 2022, at 13:20, Lionel B. Dyck  wrote:
>> 
>> I think y'all will enjoy this new blog
>> 
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://community.ibm.com/community/user/
>> i
>> bmz-and-linuxone/blogs/lionel-dyck__;!!KjMRP1Ixj6eLE0Fj!qfRHVRztiZ__Y
>> - 
>> uRENOKZmScUQlVtSk6NY3YGHz_9Ba8N7f93cGFgnV1F48sGluq_yaMckEbtpyLWDs4YNO
>> s JJkYnNWhVQ$ 2/2022/06/02/ispf-list-and-log-improved-access
>> 
>> 
>> Lionel B. Dyck <><
>> Website: 
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.lbdsoftware.com__;!!KjMRP1Ixj
>> 6 
>> eLE0Fj!qfRHVRztiZ__Y-uRENOKZmScUQlVtSk6NY3YGHz_9Ba8N7f93cGFgnV1F48sGl
>> u
>> q_yaMckEbtpyLWDs4YNOsJJnqlfdudA$
>> Github: 
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/lbdyck__;!!KjMRP1Ixj6e
>> L 
>> E0Fj!qfRHVRztiZ__Y-uRENOKZmScUQlVtSk6NY3YGHz_9Ba8N7f93cGFgnV1F48sGluq
>> _
>> yaMckEbtpyLWDs4YNOsJJnYzWtOTA$
>> 
>> "Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is what you
>> are, reputation merely what others think you are."   - - - John Wooden
>> 
>> -
>> - 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
> 
> --
> 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

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

--
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: [EXTERNAL] New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

[René Jansen]

Ha, that does not work either. Fortunately Paul sent a link that was not cut 
off anywhere.

René.

> On 3 Jun 2022, at 14:49, Pommier, Rex  wrote:
> 
> I couldn't get René's  link to work.  If you can't either, try this one.
> 
> shorturl.at/uwPSY
> 
> Rex
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
> René Jansen
> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 6:25 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing
> 
> For those of us who are searching: shorturl.at/HNPQ9 
>   >
> 
> 
>> On 3 Jun 2022, at 13:20, Lionel B. Dyck  wrote:
>> 
>> I think y'all will enjoy this new blog
>> 
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://community.ibm.com/community/user/i
>> bmz-and-linuxone/blogs/lionel-dyck__;!!KjMRP1Ixj6eLE0Fj!qfRHVRztiZ__Y-
>> uRENOKZmScUQlVtSk6NY3YGHz_9Ba8N7f93cGFgnV1F48sGluq_yaMckEbtpyLWDs4YNOs
>> JJkYnNWhVQ$ 2/2022/06/02/ispf-list-and-log-improved-access
>> 
>> 
>> Lionel B. Dyck <><
>> Website: 
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.lbdsoftware.com__;!!KjMRP1Ixj6
>> eLE0Fj!qfRHVRztiZ__Y-uRENOKZmScUQlVtSk6NY3YGHz_9Ba8N7f93cGFgnV1F48sGlu
>> q_yaMckEbtpyLWDs4YNOsJJnqlfdudA$
>> Github: 
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/lbdyck__;!!KjMRP1Ixj6eL
>> E0Fj!qfRHVRztiZ__Y-uRENOKZmScUQlVtSk6NY3YGHz_9Ba8N7f93cGFgnV1F48sGluq_
>> yaMckEbtpyLWDs4YNOsJJnYzWtOTA$
>> 
>> "Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is what you
>> are, reputation merely what others think you are."   - - - John Wooden
>> 
>> --
>> 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
> 
> --
> 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

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

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

[Pommier, Rex]

I couldn't get René's  link to work.  If you can't either, try this one.

shorturl.at/uwPSY

Rex

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
René Jansen
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 6:25 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

For those of us who are searching: shorturl.at/HNPQ9 



> On 3 Jun 2022, at 13:20, Lionel B. Dyck  wrote:
> 
> I think y'all will enjoy this new blog
> 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://community.ibm.com/community/user/i
> bmz-and-linuxone/blogs/lionel-dyck__;!!KjMRP1Ixj6eLE0Fj!qfRHVRztiZ__Y-
> uRENOKZmScUQlVtSk6NY3YGHz_9Ba8N7f93cGFgnV1F48sGluq_yaMckEbtpyLWDs4YNOs
> JJkYnNWhVQ$ 2/2022/06/02/ispf-list-and-log-improved-access
> 
> 
> Lionel B. Dyck <><
> Website: 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.lbdsoftware.com__;!!KjMRP1Ixj6
> eLE0Fj!qfRHVRztiZ__Y-uRENOKZmScUQlVtSk6NY3YGHz_9Ba8N7f93cGFgnV1F48sGlu
> q_yaMckEbtpyLWDs4YNOsJJnqlfdudA$
> Github: 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/lbdyck__;!!KjMRP1Ixj6eL
> E0Fj!qfRHVRztiZ__Y-uRENOKZmScUQlVtSk6NY3YGHz_9Ba8N7f93cGFgnV1F48sGluq_
> yaMckEbtpyLWDs4YNOsJJnYzWtOTA$
> 
> "Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is what you
> are, reputation merely what others think you are."   - - - John Wooden
> 
> --
> 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

--
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: New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 13:25:04 +0200, René Jansen wrote:

>For those of us who are searching: shorturl.at/HNPQ9 
>
Why  not just:
?

I distrust shortcutters, I suspect their business model is to track me and
market the information.

>> On 3 Jun 2022, at 13:20, Lionel B. Dyck wrote:
>> 
>> I think y'all will enjoy this new blog
>> 
>> https://community.ibm.com/community/user/ibmz-and-linuxone/blogs/lionel-dyck
>> 2/2022/06/02/ispf-list-and-log-improved-access
>> 
>> 
>> Lionel B. Dyck <><
>> Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com
>> Github: https://github.com/lbdyck

-- 
gil

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

Re: JES2 spool outputs

[Willy Jensen]

I found this link https://developer.ibm.com/articles/jes2-privilege-support/ to 
the article, brilliant, thanks Ravi.

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

Re: New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

[René Jansen]

For those of us who are searching: shorturl.at/HNPQ9 


> On 3 Jun 2022, at 13:20, Lionel B. Dyck  wrote:
> 
> I think y'all will enjoy this new blog
> 
> https://community.ibm.com/community/user/ibmz-and-linuxone/blogs/lionel-dyck
> 2/2022/06/02/ispf-list-and-log-improved-access
> 
> 
> Lionel B. Dyck <><
> Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com
> Github: https://github.com/lbdyck
> 
> "Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is what you
> are, reputation merely what others think you are."   - - - John Wooden
> 
> --
> 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

New IBM Community Blog - ISPF List/Log Viewing

[Lionel B. Dyck]

I think y'all will enjoy this new blog

https://community.ibm.com/community/user/ibmz-and-linuxone/blogs/lionel-dyck
2/2022/06/02/ispf-list-and-log-improved-access


Lionel B. Dyck <><
Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com
Github: https://github.com/lbdyck

"Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is what you
are, reputation merely what others think you are."   - - - John Wooden

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

Re: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?

[Alan Young]

https://linux.mainframe.blog/zarchitecture-principles-of-operation has a link 
to that version and older versions of it.
 
Alan
 
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
Sent: Jun 2, 2022 9:39 PM
To: 
Subject: Publicly available site for SA23-7832-13 zArch PoOP for z16?
 
Even Jim Elliiot's CMOS website only has a ResourceLink url to get it, and some 
of us do not have ResourceLink ID's.
 
Has anyone found it on a publicly available website that needs no login?
 
I do have an IBM developer login, but apparently that one does not give me 
access to ResourceLink.
 
Peter
 
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

 

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

Re: JES2 spool outputs

[Ravi Gaur]

As some of  us has mentioned about $DLIMITS(SPOOL),LONG command and found it 
interesting ...so i thought to drop an additional point here...if you get time 
read JES2 Privilege resource as that's where this command is mentioned with 
some of the nice way of getting spool shortage situation alleviated in case 
that happens...just do the google on JES2 Privilege resources and that will 
give you more information.

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

Re: data set deletion problem

[Francois desmadrille]

On Tue, 31 May 2022 13:00:58 +, Peter Relson  wrote:

>As far as I know, XCFAS would not allocate any data set other than what XCF 
>itself needs (perhaps some sort of couple data set) 

Yes it is ! These are alternate couple data sets.

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

Re: apply unix command under 3.4 to pathname dir

[David Crayford]

On 3/6/22 04:33, Paul Gilmartin wrote:

On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 15:19:47 -0500, Erik Janssen wrote:


Ah yes, it is actually on the panel; 'Use the pathname substitution character 
!' :-)
That what I was looking for, I already thought that there had to be some way, I 
just didn't notice it.
I was already using 3.17 basically, but since some recent z/os release you can 
just type in a unix directory under 3.4 and it will automatically bring you to 
3.17. From the responses so far this seems like a well hidden feature :-)
So, what works for me is to put an X for the . (current directory) in the 
filelist, then use cd !;git status as a command with option 2 (login shell).


Wouldn't it be simpler to work under a z/OS UNIX shell rather than struggling 
with
the recondite conventions of ISPF?


ISPF is a half decent z/OS UNIX file manager. Rocket Ported Tools 
includes Midnight Commander but ISPF is more than usable. I personally 
would stick to a shell for executing Git commands as some invoke pagers 
or use color coding so don't work well outputting to an ISPF Browse panel.





BTW, how can one use a literal "!", not as a pathname substitution character?



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