Re: MVSCPCMD in batch
All my VSE systems are under VM, but all my z/OS systems run native. But, with VSE, there are some things I don't want to do before the "CP IPL xxx' statement in the profile exec, so I do them as early as possible in the VSE IPLs Tony Thigpen John McKown wrote on 6/4/19 10:43 AM: On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:28 AM Tony Thigpen wrote: By "crippled", it could be during early IPL or late shutdown. It's been too long since I actually worked on VM (VM/XA actually!). I remember setting up the MVS guest ID to IPL CMS and set things up using the PROFILE EXEC. But there wasn't anything available for shutdown. I monitor this forum mainly because I loved VM and still miss it. Tony Thigpen John McKown wrote on 6/4/19 8:20 AM: On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:23 PM Tony Thigpen wrote: I would not convert it to LE. I have strong feelings that any system tool like this must be able to run in a crippled system with as little support from the OS as possible. Hum. I hadn't thought of running this in a "crippled" environment. I would have imagined that I would be logged into the z/VM "console" for the z/OS guest to interactively issue CP commands, rather than via TSO or batch. As an opinion, I think that simple programs like this should not be converted to base-less programming either. One, there is no need and second, I believe that abend fixing is easier with a base address. KISS rules. :-) True. I think that baseless programming is actually simpler. But in a very short routine like this one, it doesn't really make much of a difference. Almost all of the "application" code that I write now is baseless, with R instructions as well as LE enabled. Why LE? Because I can then use a lot of LE routines as well a C language subroutines, such as "snprintf" (which is wonderful to make nicely formatted messages). There are some nice ones. I know that many still hate LE, but I have learned to love the pain. I have no real opinion about making a unix command as I don't really use unix that much, but personally I would prefer that a unix user not have access to VM commands. I do a _LOT_ of z/OS UNIX shell scripting. I can do a UNIX shell script and get an answer faster than writing a TSO REXX program. Why should a TSO user have access, but not a UNIX user? I, personally, don't see any difference. I like what I read from Mr. Elliot about using RACF to restrict access to this program. Of course, this can be done implicitly done by putting the code in a place where unauthorized user cannot access it. I.e. no access to the STEPLIB or UNIX directory which contains the program. Of course, for me, all of this is theoretical because I don't have access to a z/VM system. Tony Thigpen -- 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: MVSCPCMD in batch
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:28 AM Tony Thigpen wrote: > By "crippled", it could be during early IPL or late shutdown. > It's been too long since I actually worked on VM (VM/XA actually!). I remember setting up the MVS guest ID to IPL CMS and set things up using the PROFILE EXEC. But there wasn't anything available for shutdown. I monitor this forum mainly because I loved VM and still miss it. > > Tony Thigpen > > John McKown wrote on 6/4/19 8:20 AM: > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:23 PM Tony Thigpen wrote: > > > >> I would not convert it to LE. > >> > >> I have strong feelings that any system tool like this must be able to > >> run in a crippled system with as little support from the OS as possible. > >> > > > > Hum. I hadn't thought of running this in a "crippled" environment. I > would > > have imagined that I would be logged into the z/VM "console" for the z/OS > > guest to interactively issue CP commands, rather than via TSO or batch. > > > > > > > >> > >> As an opinion, I think that simple programs like this should not be > >> converted to base-less programming either. One, there is no need and > >> second, I believe that abend fixing is easier with a base address. > >> > >> KISS rules. :-) > >> > > > > True. I think that baseless programming is actually simpler. But in a > very > > short routine like this one, it doesn't really make much of a difference. > > Almost all of the "application" code that I write now is baseless, with > R > > instructions as well as LE enabled. Why LE? Because I can then use a lot > of > > LE routines as well a C language subroutines, such as "snprintf" (which > is > > wonderful to make nicely formatted messages). There are some nice ones. I > > know that many still hate LE, but I have learned to love the pain. > > > > > > > >> > >> I have no real opinion about making a unix command as I don't really use > >> unix that much, but personally I would prefer that a unix user not have > >> access to VM commands. > >> > > > > I do a _LOT_ of z/OS UNIX shell scripting. I can do a UNIX shell script > and > > get an answer faster than writing a TSO REXX program. Why should a TSO > user > > have access, but not a UNIX user? I, personally, don't see any > difference. > > I like what I read from Mr. Elliot about using RACF to restrict access to > > this program. Of course, this can be done implicitly done by putting the > > code in a place where unauthorized user cannot access it. I.e. no access > to > > the STEPLIB or UNIX directory which contains the program. > > > > > > Of course, for me, all of this is theoretical because I don't have access > > to a z/VM system. > > > > > > > >> > >> Tony Thigpen > >> > >> > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough hunchbacks. Maranatha! <>< John McKown -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: MVSCPCMD in batch
By "crippled", it could be during early IPL or late shutdown. Tony Thigpen John McKown wrote on 6/4/19 8:20 AM: On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:23 PM Tony Thigpen wrote: I would not convert it to LE. I have strong feelings that any system tool like this must be able to run in a crippled system with as little support from the OS as possible. Hum. I hadn't thought of running this in a "crippled" environment. I would have imagined that I would be logged into the z/VM "console" for the z/OS guest to interactively issue CP commands, rather than via TSO or batch. As an opinion, I think that simple programs like this should not be converted to base-less programming either. One, there is no need and second, I believe that abend fixing is easier with a base address. KISS rules. :-) True. I think that baseless programming is actually simpler. But in a very short routine like this one, it doesn't really make much of a difference. Almost all of the "application" code that I write now is baseless, with R instructions as well as LE enabled. Why LE? Because I can then use a lot of LE routines as well a C language subroutines, such as "snprintf" (which is wonderful to make nicely formatted messages). There are some nice ones. I know that many still hate LE, but I have learned to love the pain. I have no real opinion about making a unix command as I don't really use unix that much, but personally I would prefer that a unix user not have access to VM commands. I do a _LOT_ of z/OS UNIX shell scripting. I can do a UNIX shell script and get an answer faster than writing a TSO REXX program. Why should a TSO user have access, but not a UNIX user? I, personally, don't see any difference. I like what I read from Mr. Elliot about using RACF to restrict access to this program. Of course, this can be done implicitly done by putting the code in a place where unauthorized user cannot access it. I.e. no access to the STEPLIB or UNIX directory which contains the program. Of course, for me, all of this is theoretical because I don't have access to a z/VM system. Tony Thigpen -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: MVSCPCMD in batch
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:23 PM Tony Thigpen wrote: > I would not convert it to LE. > > I have strong feelings that any system tool like this must be able to > run in a crippled system with as little support from the OS as possible. > Hum. I hadn't thought of running this in a "crippled" environment. I would have imagined that I would be logged into the z/VM "console" for the z/OS guest to interactively issue CP commands, rather than via TSO or batch. > > As an opinion, I think that simple programs like this should not be > converted to base-less programming either. One, there is no need and > second, I believe that abend fixing is easier with a base address. > > KISS rules. :-) > True. I think that baseless programming is actually simpler. But in a very short routine like this one, it doesn't really make much of a difference. Almost all of the "application" code that I write now is baseless, with R instructions as well as LE enabled. Why LE? Because I can then use a lot of LE routines as well a C language subroutines, such as "snprintf" (which is wonderful to make nicely formatted messages). There are some nice ones. I know that many still hate LE, but I have learned to love the pain. > > I have no real opinion about making a unix command as I don't really use > unix that much, but personally I would prefer that a unix user not have > access to VM commands. > I do a _LOT_ of z/OS UNIX shell scripting. I can do a UNIX shell script and get an answer faster than writing a TSO REXX program. Why should a TSO user have access, but not a UNIX user? I, personally, don't see any difference. I like what I read from Mr. Elliot about using RACF to restrict access to this program. Of course, this can be done implicitly done by putting the code in a place where unauthorized user cannot access it. I.e. no access to the STEPLIB or UNIX directory which contains the program. Of course, for me, all of this is theoretical because I don't have access to a z/VM system. > > Tony Thigpen > > -- This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough hunchbacks. Maranatha! <>< John McKown -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: MVSCPCMD in batch
I would not convert it to LE. I have strong feelings that any system tool like this must be able to run in a crippled system with as little support from the OS as possible. As an opinion, I think that simple programs like this should not be converted to base-less programming either. One, there is no need and second, I believe that abend fixing is easier with a base address. KISS rules. :-) I have no real opinion about making a unix command as I don't really use unix that much, but personally I would prefer that a unix user not have access to VM commands. Tony Thigpen John McKown wrote on 6/3/19 2:14 PM: I am thinking of taking the source to this and "upgrading" it in a few ways: modify to use relative and immediate instructions; convert it to be LE; add code to run it as a Unix command. Also, rename it to ZOSCPCMD. Or am I just wasting my time? -- 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: MVSCPCMD in batch
I am thinking of taking the source to this and "upgrading" it in a few ways: modify to use relative and immediate instructions; convert it to be LE; add code to run it as a Unix command. Also, rename it to ZOSCPCMD. Or am I just wasting my time? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
