>So this half-a$$ed masking was put in there by DESIGN? WOW! Incredibly
>brain dead. They violated Lionel Dyck's "principle of least astonishment".
>It should have been designed to work like standard dataset masking in SMS.
>Designer: "Should we use DFDSS rules? Nahhh! (and now for something
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Zelden"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: IDCAMS delete with mask
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:17:52 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg
wrote:
At 17:05 -0700 on 09/26/2009, Stuart Holland wrote about IDCAMS
My 2 cent,
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg247699.html?Open
Chapter 7. IP Filtering
Regards,
Rob Schramm
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the me
Mike,
If you have RACF as your z/OS security product, I suggest you investigate
the use of the SERVAUTH class.
Regards, Bob
-
Robert S. Hansel | 2009 RACF Training
Lead RACF Specialist | > Intro & Basic Admin - Boston -
adically inappropriate for internal, computational use.
Analogously, 2009 September 27, 20090927, and the like are appropriate to data
entry and display, and radically inappropriate to computation. For computation
internal to a computer a signed fullword Gregorian-Day (GD) value that refle
wmhbl...@comcast.net (William H. Blair) writes:
> Of course, to some people it wasn't "common knowledge."
> But folks were no more interested in hearing about the
> two-digit year problem in 1981 than they were in 1995.
> Nobody (but some banks and a lot of software vendors)
> cared. It would not h
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:17:52 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg
wrote:
>At 17:05 -0700 on 09/26/2009, Stuart Holland wrote about IDCAMS
>delete with mask:
>
>>The delete with mask feature currently defaults to only looking in the
>>master catalog. You have to code the CATALOG parameter to have it look
>>
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 05:32:31 -0500, William H. Blair wrote:
>
>There was some question which representation would be
>best to represent dates>1999: dddF or 0cyydddF. The
>several IBMers with whom folks like us at GUIDE on some
>of the futures task forces discussed the issue eventually
>decided
Don't mean to be harping on this but if you read the papers this morning or
checked out any of the web news sites you would of seen this:
"U.S. job seekers exceed openings by record ratio"
Something like 6 to 1 and if that's the case in the general job market it's
only worse for mainframe syste
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 05:41:24 -0500, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:
>
>>Not really. Rexx, supplied by IBM, supports at least 3 different linkage
>conventions:
>
>Thanks for your kind reply. Does interpreted Rexx and compiled Rexx support
>these 3 different linkage conventions?
>
I haven't a Rexx compil
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>Not really. Rexx, supplied by IBM, supports at least 3 different linkage
conventions:
Thanks for your kind reply. Does interpreted Rexx and compiled Rexx support
these 3 different linkage conventions?
Just curious...
Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht
Andy Wood wonders:
> Maybe they were just optimists and figured that by the
> time they really needed it, the operating system would
> have been updated to provide it.
As I said, I don't know where Poughkeepsie got the idea.
Maybe they thought of it all by themselves. We did not
care at the tim
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:52:04 -0500, William H. Blair
wrote:
. . .
>
>The short version: Yes, essentially, it has been like that forever,
>or indeed at least "long enough" that his intended point was valid.
>
>The long version:
>
>I don't know about "that field" specifically, since I'm not a CIC
13 matches
Mail list logo
