Our shop had migrated to z/os 1.7 from z/OS 1.4.
After migration one of our production job is abending with S30A-10
abend during freemain and subsequently the job encounters another
abend S878-18 (with z/OS 1.7).
When we resubmitted the same job in another two different LPAR that
has
How is this much different from patenting genes or gene sequences?
--
Regards - Grant
Doug Fuerst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
29/12/2007 00:26
Please respond to
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
To
IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:31:16 -0500, John P. Baker wrote:
I know that there are a lot of people who disagree with IBM in its ongoing
dispute with PSI, but I feel that IBM is on solid ground. PSI didn't spend
tens of billions of dollars on RD. IBM did. IBM should not have to give
the fruits of
xxx didn't pay for the RD. We did.
Methinks that we (the consumers etc) pretty much always pay for RD one
way or another. Even benevolent individuals acquired their wealth from
others somehow.
Sadly IBMLink ends the year the way it has been treating me too often this year
DOA.
sev1 ticket 34216258
pmr# 64344,487
Error when accessing ETR for me but helpdesk indicates it is down
There has been a problem processing your request.
Please try again. If you continue to have
I agree with John on this. Set a slip trap for the S30A to get an SVC
dump. Then, since the program works OK on z/OS v1.4 and abends on z/OS
1.7, I'd contact IBM support to find out what differences in the two
releases might cause this. Maybe there was a hole in z/OS v1.4 that
allowed the
Roger Bowler wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:31:16 -0500, John P. Baker wrote:
I know that there are a lot of people who disagree with IBM in its ongoing
dispute with PSI, but I feel that IBM is on solid ground. PSI didn't spend
tens of billions of dollars on RD. IBM did. IBM should not have
Someone Wrote... I just lost track...
S/390-based technology is critical to the functioning of our society.
IBM
does not have the right to keep society-critical technology secret,
nor to
hold society to ransom by preventing competitors from producing
compatible
systems.
I don't think there
All RD is paid for by the consumer in the end. So what?
IBM has not made hardware or software unavailable. US patent law provides
for a term of exclusivity. IBM is enforcing the legitimate rights afforded
to then under US patent law.
You seem to suggest that if an invention is of great
Your point is valid, but WHY would IBM want to shut out this part of the
market? One of the big things I keep hearing/reading is that there are
concerns that not enough mainframe-trained students are coming out of
colleges or trade schools and into the job market. The small-platform
mainframe
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Knutson, Sam
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 7:33 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: IBMLink down sev1 ticket 34216258
Sadly IBMLink ends the year the way it has been treating me too often
this
I don't disagree with you.
Philosophically, I have a problem with IBM's actions.
Legally, I feel that they are on solid ground.
In arguing the merits of this case or of any other case we need to remember
to distinguish between what we want and what we have a right to. They are
seldom the same
I believe you're correct on IBM's legal position - up to a point. But when
they
provided that information previously for development of the software, did they
not in effect diminish the strength of their case merely through that action?
I really wish that the USERS (that's us) were able to
No, IBM has not weakened its case.
IBM previously licensed 31-bit internal documentation to third parties.
However, if I recall the reports correctly, IBM has revoked PSI's licensing
upon IBM's assertion that PSI illegally obtained and made use of licensed
internal code and documentation in the
Interesting argument, kind of reminds of an exchange in the movie Godfather:
Tatalia : ... I'm talking about all the politicians he carrys in his pocket ...
Barzini : ... He must let us draw the water from the well ... off course Don
Corleone can present a bill for his services. We are not
Then, why are the 31-bit licenses also being affected?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of John P. Baker
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 10:27
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: It keeps getting uglier
No, IBM has not weakened
I am finally able to get in via the web.
Sure glad I still have the VM/3270 interface still available.
Later,
Steve Thompson
-- All opinions expressed by me are my own and may not necessarily
reflect those of my employer. --
I don't know.
However, I expect that there is a lot more yet to come out in the IBM vs.
PSI case which may shed light on the situation.
John P. Baker
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Doc Farmer
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007
Sure glad I still have the VM/3270 interface still available.
ditto, the 3270 interface is working wonderful, as usual,
so glad we still have it.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email
Robert Justice wrote:
Sure glad I still have the VM/3270 interface still available.
ditto, the 3270 interface is working wonderful, as usual,
so glad we still have it.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
All of my ACS source is No Num'd. And I seem to recall that when I took the
How to Code ACS in Tamapa Share 2006, we were running on a z/OS V1.9
system. And we did experience issues when there were numbers in 73-80.
So, I do not at this time believe that the ACS source is setup to exclude 73-
In a message dated 12/31/2007 8:18:40 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
releases might cause this. Maybe there was a hole in z/OS v1.4 that
allowed the freemain to seem to work, but it really wasn't, and now IBM
has closed that hole.
I was just wondering if
Roger,
Thank you for posting the 2 articles below. I found them very interesting
and informative. This whole issue is very controversial. Legally, I
certainly can't comment as I don't know the law involved. It just seems to
me that it would be in IBM's best interests to have PSI and
Lizette,
FWIW, we have numbers in columns 73-80 of all of our ACS source. We've
not had any problems. We are at z/OS 1.7.
Greg Shirey
Ben E. Keith Company
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Lizette Koehler
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 10:06 AM
All
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:10:05 -0600, Doc Farmer wrote:
I really wish that the USERS (that's us) were able to file an amicus curiae
brief
so that OUR wishes are heard and rights protected.
I'd like to read more about what rights we think we have in this. It seems
pretty clear-cut to me. IBM
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:44:26 -0500, John P. Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You seem to suggest that if an invention is of great benefit to society the
rights of the patent holder should be held null and void.
The founding fathers felt differently, and more than 200 years of
jurisprudence have
---snip---
Its been a LONG time... But IIRC the 360/30 POPS had at least some of
them (I presume not all). I ran across them by accident. When I was
helping to optimize someone else's code on the 1419 . The damn machine
had a timing issue and you had to make
What was Fmt6 for ?
I found two contradictory explanations
Disclaimer: I know it is obsolete and no longer used.
Happy New Year
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
--
BRE Bank SA
ul. Senatorska 18
00-950 Warszawa
www.brebank.pl
Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy
XII Wydział Gospodarczy
The critical part is Section 181, which specifically refers to the issuance
of an order of secrecy on a patent for national security reasons, and is
intended to preclude a patent holder from disclosing the details of an
invention where such disclosure would impair national security. For
example,
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:46:39 +0100, R.S. wrote:
What was Fmt6 for ?
Disclaimer: I know it is obsolete and no longer used.
It was for split-cylinder allocation. It hasn't been supported (or needed) in
many years. Check the IBM-MAIN archives for additional information - it has
been discussed
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/31/2007
at 01:48 AM, Doug Fuerst [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I don't think so.
Unless of course the Senior IBM factory reps didn't know either. I think
they knew where to look.
The CE manuals for the 2030, 2040, 2050 and 2065 were all available to the
general public,
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/31/2007
at 12:38 AM, Ed Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Shmuel:
Its been a LONG time... But IIRC the 360/30 POPS
There was no 360/30 POPS.
had at least some of them
That would be Functional Specifications, FETOM and the like, not POPS.
The book actually had
At 12:46 PM 12/31/2007, you wrote:
What was Fmt6 for ?
I found two contradictory explanations
Disclaimer: I know it is obsolete and no longer used.
Happy New Year
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
It was used for SPLIT allocation (cylinders which were shared). Allocated by
SPLIT= instead of
That is a possibility. I'm currently lost as to who first posted the
question. Anyway, the original post said they had gone from z/OS v1.4
to z/OS v1.7. Did the shop go from 31 bit to 64 bit processing at the
same time by any chance? I remember when the shop I was in at the time
went from 16
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:31:53 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on
12/31/2007
at 12:38 AM, Ed Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The book actually had instruction timing specifics for each
instruction.
If you look at the Functional Specifications for several models, you
On 21 Dec 2007 09:35:03 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
I would prefer to measure developers by inverting the cost of maintenance.
I don't want maintenance programmers to be productive, I want them to
be whithout anything to do ! ;)
Given that maintenance in many shops is defined
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:50:34 -0500, Doc Farmer wrote:
Your point is valid, but WHY would IBM want to shut out this part of the
market? One of the big things I keep hearing/reading is that there are
concerns that not enough mainframe-trained students are coming out of
colleges or trade schools
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:11:46 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
Which was a grievous and irresponsible and unnecessary design blunder.
No.
I'll retract grievous. Why was it necessary, or even
beneficial? Adding complexity and code with no benefit
is a blunder.
Who benefits from this
On Dec 31, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/31/2007
at 12:38 AM, Ed Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Shmuel:
Its been a LONG time... But IIRC the 360/30 POPS
There was no 360/30 POPS.
Its been at least 30 years I will yield to your memory.
On Dec 31, 2007, at 1:33 PM, Michael Stack wrote:
At 12:46 PM 12/31/2007, you wrote:
What was Fmt6 for ?
I found two contradictory explanations
Disclaimer: I know it is obsolete and no longer used.
Happy New Year
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
It was used for SPLIT allocation
On Dec 31, 2007, at 2:13 PM, Tom Marchant wrote:
--SNIP-
When processors srarted to include High-Speed Buffers, now commonly
called
cache, any published timings became very difficult to determine. When
memory references were simple real memory references, the time
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:28:22 -, Phil Payne wrote:
PSI has also filed its anti-trust suit in the EU. Dearly beloved DG IV is a
little different
from the New York District Court - it has teeth that it's not afraid to use.
http://ww.isham-research.co.uk/ibm-vs-psi-amended.html
Has anyone
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main as well.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Gould) writes:
Its been at least 30 years I will yield to your memory. I just
remember it giving me a blow by blow description on the format of the
instructions
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 2:45 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: It keeps getting uglier
SNIPAGE
could. But would it happen? Is z/OS at any price a preferred
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Gould) writes:
To refresh my memory was the 370 the first public machine that used
the HSB? My memory says yes but as we have seen the POPS
Darren, please come back.
Bob Shannon
Rocket Software
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:13:12 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/20/2007
at 12:06 PM, Howard Brazee said:
I recommend putting both the full URL and the short one.
Works for me.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:50:42 -0500, Thompson, Steve wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 2:45 PM
could. But would it happen? Is z/OS at any price a preferred
instructional
This thread is getting kind of ugly!
Eric Bielefeld
Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
414-475-7434
- Original Message -
From: Bob Shannon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Darren, please come back.
Bob Shannon
Rocket Software
My rather poor memory says it was DOS only. I don't recall it being
available at MFTII rel 18.6 (?).
Somebody pipe up if I am wrong, please.
...
I think it must not be just DOS because a B37-08 abend has as one
of its explanations:
o A split cylinder data set was located on cylinder zero,
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:39:16 -0600, Dave Kopischke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:10:05 -0600, Doc Farmer wrote:
I really wish that the USERS (that's us) were able to file an amicus curiae
brief
so that OUR wishes are heard and rights protected.
I'd like to read more about
Ted,
I also have a softcopy of a Redbook called:
DFSMS IMPLEMENTATION PRIMER SERIES: WRITING ACS ROUTINES
GG24-3403-01
It is from 1991 but is a great tutorial. I know all that information is also
in the DFSMS manuals, but this may be a bit easier to learn from.
Search the net
On Dec 31, 2007, at 3:43 PM, Anne Lynn Wheeler wrote:
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main as well.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Gould) writes:
Its been at least 30 years I will yield to your memory. I just
remember it giving me a blow
How do you figure that reverse engineering is an acceptable method of
RD or design? Reverse engineering is an easy way to replicate a
design. Since the company creating the product, in this case IBM,
spent millions developing the machine, they would be entitled to some
exclusivity. How fair is
I am also having an 878/80A issue on my 1.7 test system that I am
prepping for production. I will be opening an issue with IBM. DB2 has
had problems, as have several USS functions, and a number of CA products.
Doug
At 14:46 31-12-07, you wrote:
That is a possibility. I'm currently lost as
On Dec 31, 2007, at 6:34 PM, Doug Fuerst wrote:
How do you figure that reverse engineering is an acceptable method
of RD or design? Reverse engineering is an easy way to replicate a
design. Since the company creating the product, in this case IBM,
spent millions developing the machine,
LOL, yes they do. But here in Brooklyn we have many bagel places.
They all make them differently and have distinct tastes. I wonder if
one of them is buying on the sly from one of the others and is trying
to make them the same as the guy who makes the best? They protect
their recipes, and I
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Fuerst) writes:
How do you figure that reverse engineering is an acceptable method of
RD or design? Reverse engineering is an easy way to
On Dec 31, 2007, at 7:18 PM, Doug Fuerst wrote:
LOL, yes they do. But here in Brooklyn we have many bagel places.
They all make them differently and have distinct tastes. I wonder
if one of them is buying on the sly from one of the others and is
trying to make them the same as the guy who
59 matches
Mail list logo
