On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:56:09 -0800 (PST), Bill Gentry
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have an interesting challenge. I have a requirement that dictates
that email be sent from an MVS (z/OS) cobol program. In
oversimplified terms, this means that I'd read a file that would
contain email addresses and
I used TSO to change my brackets and they worked - but I then decided
that IBM didn't want people using Java and is happy with the current
trends away from the mainframe.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
From: Eric Bielefeld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At long last, I found a job. I'll be working for an insurance company in
Des Moines, Iowa. Its a 6 month contract with a possibility of being
longer. I'll leave the company name out for now. After I start, I'll make
sure its ok to mention
On 18 Nov 2007 13:54:47 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ted MacNEIL) wrote:
Now it's 2007 and I'd do it all again, if need be.
I would, too.
As long as it's greater than unemployment insurance.
But not if it required moving to a place where my future opportunities
are weak.Moving is expensive in
On 14 Nov 2007 14:20:38 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Klein)
wrote:
If you have a current copymember called ABC with the following code:
01 Group1.
05 WS-Field1 Pic X.
05 WS-Field2 Pic 9.
You want programs that use COPY ABC. to continue to work as is but you
want to be
On 15 Nov 2007 08:15:43 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Klein)
wrote:
Howard,
Why do you think if everything starts with WS- that you wouldn't have a
problem. The whole issue is that the '85 Standard (and IBM Enterprise
COBOL) don't support partial word replacement.
Sorry - got my compilers
On 13 Nov 2007 10:33:54 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Berg) wrote:
How many copy members have you created designed for the REPLACING
option?
None. (The new COPY's must be backwards compatible with old programs.)
Old programs don't use new COPY statements unless they are modified to
do so.
On 14 Nov 2007 08:42:26 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Berg)
wrote:
Old programs don't use new COPY statements unless they are modified to
do so.
But future programs will.
Old programs that are recompiled get the new copys/versions.
And fails in compilation if they contains the :tag:
On 12 Nov 2007 13:48:31 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Berg)
wrote:
Hm. I think there is some missunderstanding here. If it's from Your
or my side I'm not sure. But AFAICS there is no possibility of change
of either the original COPY or *what* COPY we could use in our programs.
(It's only
On 8 Nov 2007 14:04:13 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert A. Rosenberg)
wrote:
The one who decided that if they were in a car, they'd be in the back
left seat behind the chauffeur or cab driver.
I never let my chauffeur use the ATM.
On 9 Nov 2007 08:38:45 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chase, John) wrote:
I can't remember the whole thing, but I believe that Grace
Hopper used to use different rope lengths to show how long,
or short various measurements of time were: a nano second vs.
a full second.
I used to have one of
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:09:59 -0500, John Eells [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It's interesting to think about measurement in CPU cycles, too. With a
2 GHz cycle time, two machine cycles are consumed for every 9.7 or so
of travel through a shielded wire.
Have you ever looked inside of a Cray?
On 8 Nov 2007 09:59:30 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rick Fochtman) wrote:
And what intellectual paralytic decided that drive-up ATM's had to have
Braille keys? DU
Who wants to pay for the companies to supply two sets of ATM keys, one
which can be used anywhere, and the other can only be
On 6 Nov 2007 22:43:39 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy
Sipples) wrote:
Finally, there is the fact that software engineers -- or at least human
factors engineers -- apparently never reviewed ASCII. As we all know,
EBCDIC puts the letters in the correct numerical order, collating uppercase
and
On 1 Nov 2007 16:22:25 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick
O'Keefe) wrote:
FSVO better, I guess. I assume XL C/C++ is better than PL/X
like C/C++ is better than PL/I. And Windows is better than OS/2.
I *liked* PL/I. Oh, well.
C++ can't be as good as B-.
On 31 Oct 2007 05:52:47 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (McKown,
John) wrote:
Yes - and the worst ones are the ones who also insist on being called
Software Engineer. The word Engineer is in my title as well. I never
use it. I'm a sysprog, damn it!
I once worked for EDS when I was given that title. I
On 31 Oct 2007 09:20:20 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Engineer as a title
In some countries of Continental Europe and Latin America the title is
limited by law to people with an engineering degree, and the use of the
title by others (even persons with much work experience) is
On 31 Oct 2007 06:22:46 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Actually, in COBOL, you had to specify BLOCK CONTAINS ZERO.
Otherwise you got unblocked.
I've never tried unblocked. I really don't know what happens in that
case.
BLOCK CONTAINS ZERO is what I use, even though it semantically
On 30 Oct 2007 19:22:47 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerhard Adam)
wrote:
As for rough transitions, I have to wonder whether people that can't get
BLKSIZE and LRECL straight in their minds are in any position to be
designing or developing anything. This is some of the most trivial of the
On 30 Oct 2007 08:22:34 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (McKown,
John) wrote:
As an example, suppose I write a program which expects LRECL=80,
RECFM=F. If the actual file only has records which are 80 bytes long or
less, then the access method should just pad out the record in my
buffer using some pad
On 30 Oct 2007 08:47:17 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (GAVIN Darren
* OPS EAS) wrote:
Actually that can be done already, on FB files one can read in the
entire block into a program, by using the block size as the record
length. However Cobol LE forces DCB matching, so not sure how that gets
turned
On 30 Oct 2007 11:30:25 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
But why should a program care about block size?
Funny you should ask this; We had a major project implement a couple weeks
ago. To deal with the number of object moves, many of the libraries were just
cloned and renamed at
On 30 Oct 2007 13:06:19 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craddock, Chris)
wrote:
I will still be the list owner slapping your wrists.
Geez Big-D, don't you have any golf clubs that need dusting?
No friends to hang with? No list of honey-dos? :-)
Seriously, go enjoy yourself!
I'm hoping I can retire
SNIP
But SDB came too late: if it had been present in rudimentary form,
supplying a valid but nonoptimal BLKSIZE, in OS/360 release 1, coding
BLKSIZE could always have been optional, and much of the rough
transition to present techniques could have been avoided.
SNIP
It's amazing how hard it is
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:12:05 -0400, Walter Bushell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
And what was the sorter? Ah, the beauties of the radix sort. This beast
put cards into 10 output slots, based on the digit in a specified
column, thus enabling sorting with tab cards and no computers.
Lots of labor,
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:25:22 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I don't understand is pre sorting a deck that will be used as
input to the computer--couldn't the computer sort it faster than a
person could? The machine sorted strictly sequentially, while the
computer had bubble or shell sorts
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:02:42 -0400, Dan Espen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lots of shops, no disk.
Even with a disk, the sort program was loaded from cards.
I seem to remember the sort program being huge and the input
being stuffed into the middle of the deck.
Then you had to modify the receiving
On 22 Oct 2007 14:12:07 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zahir Hemini)
wrote:
This is exactly why there are products like CA OPS/MVS and Automan and
probably a few others. People sometimes are new to a procedure, they do
accidentally make mistakes, and read and write instructions incorrectly.
Which is
On 22 Oct 2007 18:43:18 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What
should happen to a computer operator in the US Marine Corps whose typo causes
an infantry platoon to be destroyed by friendly fire or a human error
resulting in a $1 loss? One size does not fit all. Let the punishment fit
the
On 22 Oct 2007 12:56:30 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon Brock) wrote:
Color me disbelieving.
snip
I think in the 30+ years I have been around OS360 and MVS and z/os,
there has never been an operator mistake of a typo.
I liked the time where the Vax operator put in a date a century in the
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:43:51 -0400, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you
wrote:
I need to read source code from a PDS member whose name I don't know until my
program runs, much the same as the COBOL
compiler handles COPY memname statements. Is dynalloc the only way to go
about it or does zOS provide
On 11 Oct 2007 04:33:34 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
The real question is the cost to run whatever is chosen.
...
OK, so for technology sake, it is great to know who would win if some race
were run.
But speed is a criterion used to determine:
1. Whether it is fast enough.
2.
On 12 Oct 2007 07:07:18 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R.S.) wrote:
Bad assumption IMHO. Mainframe is a dino, a lot of things still exist on
mainframe because of conservative users. At a risk of starting new war I
can provide some examples:
a) VSE. It is obsolete, insecure, in fact moribound.
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 08:31:42 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you
wrote:
May I know the server name for thisgroup???
This group is a copy of a list server. If you are wanting to
participate, subscribing would make sure any messages you sent get
read by everybody.
I have my participation set
On 5 Oct 2007 15:33:52 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shane) wrote:
China has one time zone.
Which (of course) is set for the convenience of Beijing. Pity the poor
souls in (far) western regions.
The difference is noticeable just trying to arrange photos at dawn each
day as you putter up (what is
On 5 Oct 2007 14:50:04 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Gilmartin)
wrote:
I suppose that if our lunchtime is 1800 UTC, the clock for Canberra
could be adjusted to show 1800 whenever it's lunchtime in Canberra.
This would work middling well except for an employee based in
Canberra who happens to
On 6 Oct 2007 10:37:58 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J R) wrote:
If they are analog clocks, you could orient each one with its
local noon at the top. ;-)
With 12 hour clocks, correspond with someone 12 hours away!!
--
For IBM-MAIN
On 5 Oct 2007 21:43:56 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Hewson)
wrote:
It has got to the stage where I am now suggesting that all our computers
just be set to UTC, with no local offset. That moves ALL handling of local
time to the applications which interface with people. Knowing that all
systems
On 8 Oct 2007 08:02:45 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Mason)
wrote:
Well, the one I would pity would be the person, most likely a truck driver,
who travelled the Karakoram Highway from, say, Kashgar to, say, Rawalpindi.
In spite of this being a North-South journey, he (most unlikely to be
On 4 Oct 2007 14:14:26 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shane) wrote:
Just say Eastern Time, or Pacific, or Mountain...
It's just as accurate and you don't have to worry about confusing people.
Wanna bet ???.
Shane ...
Especially if you are in Arizona in the summer, one of the few places
that
On 5 Oct 2007 06:19:53 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (McKown, John)
wrote:
I don't remember anybody asking about this before. I just got a new Mac
Mini and put it on my LAN at home. I use x3270 on Linux, but don't like
it very much compared to Hummingbird on Windows. I know that I can use
x3270 on my
On 5 Oct 2007 08:41:37 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edward Jaffe)
wrote:
IMHO, we should either a) make all time-telling devices adjust
themselves automatically -- with some way to keep up with the local
policy changes that will inevitably occur from time-to-time -- like
mainframes do when
On 5 Oct 2007 09:27:19 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Or c) set all clocks worldwide to GMT (UTC) and just learn what time of
day things (like sunrise, sunset, lunchtime, bedtime, happy hour,
etc.) happen in your locality.
World sports (ESPN time) may lead towards some public
On 5 Oct 2007 09:46:49 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom
Marchant) wrote:
My preference is B, though I don't see why we should make a half hour
adjustment. I don't really care that much what time it is. I just wish the
government would quit mucking with my clocks.
I wonder what they do with all
On 5 Oct 2007 11:39:50 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kelman, Tom)
wrote:
Just try Indiana. At least Arizona can agree on how to set their clocks
state wide. Indiana can't even do that. Some of the state goes to
Daylight Saving Time and some doesn't.
I thought I read that Indiana finally gave in.
I found a working solution, adding the following to my FTP:
SITE PAD (Z)
before each PUT
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
I am FTPing a fixed record length file from the mainframe to a Unix box
where a vendor has access to pick up that file and FTP it to his
machine. I don't know what kind of machine he has, but he's saying
that he's missing my space fill for the shorter records.
The first thing I verified is
On 28 Sep 2007 06:19:16 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Mason)
wrote:
but it's nothing new, that poor pays more.
put me in mind of a Victorian music hall song: She was poor but she was
honest or It's the same the whole world over, chorus:
It's the same the whole world over.
It's the poor
On 19 Sep 2007 13:15:46 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
I forgot to say - the sort can't change the order of transactions of a
particular type.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Can you please show and explain an
example of your input records and expected output records that
On 20 Sep 2007 08:19:01 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Yaeger)
wrote:
Yes, and I believe it does what you want based on your examples.
If not, then please show an example of input records where it
doesn't do what you want and the expected output for those
input records.
Thanks.
What would be the cleanest way to have a CoBOL program read a report
file
// DCB=(RECFM=FB,LRECL=133,DSORG=PS)
Would you copy it first, changing its format?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive
On 10 Sep 2007 06:04:53 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Why don't we look at the reason for outsourcing?
I see 2 major reasons...
1. The investor's greed to earn the max on his investment...
2. The Government of the country from which things are being outsourced,
to create an
On 10 Sep 2007 08:52:41 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
In the real world, however, clock signals are an extremely effective
way of maintaining stability in a digital system, as the analog world
and human engineering flaws creep in. A few firms tried making
asynchronous designs,
On 8 Sep 2007 04:58:03 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
No, I see it as an abrogation of corporate governance.
Customers that once demanded 5 nines (or better) of their IT
department(s) now accept anything that reduces their bottom line.
I am now less inclined to perpetuate the
I usually display starting time and ending time to SYSOUX cutting and
pasting from the following (depending on whether I will want a saved
time):
DISPLAY ' STARTED SIPR726' ' '
FUNCTION CURRENT-DATE (05:2) '/' FUNCTION
CURRENT-DATE
On 16 Aug 2007 09:58:28 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Veilleux, Jon
L) wrote:
Same here, however, as I became a more experienced systems programmer
there were less and less useful classes available. There are not a lot
of detailed system programmer type classes (maybe because the mainframe
is dead).
On 14 Aug 2007 13:03:19 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thompson,
Steve) wrote:
However, let me just inject here, I am a pilot. I know that all the
drivel coming from the airlines (and the ATA, their association) is
bunk. The rules of physics will not be denied -- a runway can only
handle so many
On 13 Aug 2007 11:26:10 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (john
gilmore) wrote:
Moreover, I must confess to some considerable impatience with this and other
of Mr Gilmartin's posts. He spends too much time (a) whining and (b)
employing what has historically been a Marxist style of argument: Instead
of
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:00:02 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While that is a common methodology of Marxist arguments, it is common
with pretty much any religious arguments. One such religious fervor
that we in this forum overlook is the Religion of Apple - especially
when we refer to our
On 8 Aug 2007 18:27:44 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Much of this thread is, as usual, uninformed and even radically ignorant.
Those who find the syntax of COND= uncongenial are---and have for many years
now been---free to use that of IF-THEN-ELSE instead. (Since it inverts the
On 9 Aug 2007 06:32:59 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (john
gilmore) wrote:
Unambiguous reference to any jobstepname.procstepname value is supported
in IF-THEN-ELSE-ENDIF statements that test RC values.
I'm not quite getting how to do this.I ran the following test
using condition codes and an
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:01:56 -0400, Neal Eckhardt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, thank you all. Even saying it the right way it still comes out
wrong in my head. As I put in another thread, why do any steps evecute
if COND=(9,LT) is on the Job card.
A lot of COND doesn't make much sense.
On 9 Aug 2007 10:53:50 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Of course someone had the bright idea to mix the COND technique with the
IF/THEN/ELSE technique. SO we have
//STEP0122 EXECPROC=myproc,COND=COND0122
// IF (STEP0122.procstep.RC NE 1) THEN
//STEP0123 EXEC
On 9 Aug 2007 13:17:29 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rick Fochtman) wrote:
Clem, the name of the game is Money and Power.
Money is just a subset of power. The name of the game is what it
always has been Who has the power, uses it.
The modern American
Golden Rule is Whoever has the gold makes
Computerworld July 16 had an article about a State of Tennessee data
center built on top of a landfill and below the largest US reservoir
east of the Mississippi - held by an unsafe dam. Parts of the center
are sinking.
Use your brain and do your homework in setting your data center sites.
Is there an easy way to override a proc step so that it does not run?
--
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 8 Aug 2007 12:24:31 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
//STEPONE EXEC PROCNAME,COND.PROCSTEPNAME=(0,LE)
That worked for my needs.
Or to override ALL steps not to run:
//STEPONE EXEC PROCNAME,COND=(0,LE)
Now that's odd - what would that give us to run a proc skipping all
steps?
On 7 Aug 2007 10:16:24 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
I expect this is because they don't want to always want it to be the
same URL.
I use BlueZone as my terminal emulator. Depending on what browser I
use, when I go to our URL for BlueZone, it moves to immediately either
a Java
On 7 Aug 2007 09:40:56 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
And it is *still possible*. I don't mean cashing money, but copying your
card number. A lot of people know your card number (it is on the card!),
a lot of people know your SSN, address, etc. It cannot be treated as
secret data.
On 7 Aug 2007 13:04:40 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J R) wrote:
Agreed! Over the course of forty years, I've never known anybody
who thinks that COND= is intuitive. I always mentally rearrange it to
state BYPASS THIS STEP IF but your SKIP= works well too.
Most everybody either has their JCL
On 4 Aug 2007 07:18:48 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Suppose program 'A' is processing a VSAM file and abends in middle. What
happens to the VSAM file? Will it be closed automatically?
Our site had some purchased programs that included a called CoBOL
program to handle VSAM
On 3 Aug 2007 10:14:10 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The best discounts are that in Cobb county GA you don't pay school taxes
after 62 (1/2 the bill) and in GA there is hefty discount on state income
taxes after 62. More to come at 65.
I find that I take senior discounts - but guiltily.
I hadn't thought of this as a cost with using server farms - physical
security is more difficult, and the disk drives are more easily
valuable to people who don't care about the data.
We don't care that the likelihood is extremely small that the thief is
after the data though, our considerable
On 2 Aug 2007 07:52:37 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Poll question of the day: How one goes about determining a good distance
between 2 data centers.
One which is primary and one which could be used as a DR site.
Consider what disasters might befall that might require activating
You don't create a DR recovery for the heck of it. You do so because
you analyze the risks of various things happening.
If the sun goes nova, then you need several light years separation -
but the value of such doesn't help your company.
So what you need to start with is a list of risks with
On 31 Jul 2007 07:54:10 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Out of curiosity:
IBMlink is down again. So WHAT ?
I work everyday with mainframes, I use some IBM web services, like
ShopzSeries, but I have no interest to visit IBMlink.
IBMlink (un)availability has completely no meaning for me.
On 28 Jul 2007 05:07:24 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
It's not easy. For example, you cannot dump 15MB region of memory (RAM)
to 15MB file. It doesn't mention tapes, wires (10MB/s - is it binary
or decimal ?), etc.
That's very important with virtual memory. I hope there's a
I was thinking of the process we are going through right now. There
are some applications that we will be dropping. The conversion is a
convenient way to drop printed bill, credit card processing, etc.
It's much harder politically to drop an application in the legacy
system. But some
On 24 Jul 2007 21:40:20 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy
Sipples) wrote:
4. Do your mainframe staff have a working concept of different application
classifications based on differing quality levels of delivery? Or are they
only able to follow processes and deploy at a single quality level
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:08:28 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why ever use a mainframe?
There are just some things you can do more efficiently
with a bulldozer than a thousand people with shovels.
You know the famous story where the union representative goes to the
WPA official suggesting they
On 25 Jul 2007 21:49:51 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rick Fochtman)
wrote:
And make sure you ship it from California to Hawaii.
-unsnip-
Can I have the tolls from that bridge? I could sure use the money!!
I'd like to have enough money to build a
On 26 Jul 2007 09:53:28 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
After 30 years of developing commercial grade software, this is the kind
of opportunities that are coming my way. Has anyone else been degraded like
this? That's not a typo, it is $15 an hour for proficiency in MVS. The job
is in
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 07:18:36 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you
wrote:
I've been in a lot of mainframe shops over the last 20+ years and have
seen one thing over and over. Mature shops have spent the last 30+
years building layers of policies and procedures to manage software
development and
OK, I'm thinking My an expert in MVS Diagnostic tools.
It's a bit hard getting a handle on the capital D, I'm assuming
that's a brand name.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL
On 25 Jul 2007 08:22:06 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Binyamin Dissen)
wrote:
:Does anyone know of a slick (accurate) way to compare two files which reside
:on two seperate tapes?
Simple equal/not equal? IEBCOMPR.
More complex? ISPF source compare can run batch.
More complex comparisons can be
On 25 Jul 2007 13:27:47 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (McKown, John)
wrote:
While I appreciate everyone's appreciation, I like John's
analogy best. :)
Yeah I'd like to see a step van carrying an Abrams tank.
It is simple. Disassemble it at the source, ship it quickly and
efficiently
On 24 Jul 2007 00:50:49 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Or, write your COBOL function as OO COBOL function. Then, you have a
whole object to give and take than just a few native arguments.
I spent a month trying to compile run OO CoBOL on the mainframe
before giving up a couple of
On 24 Jul 2007 04:40:00 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
a lot of stuff written for mainframe involves business critical
dataprocessing ... which is significantly more effort than
a standard application. our rule-of-thumb has been that to
take a well-tested, well-debugged application
On 23 Jul 2007 17:05:35 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Gould)
wrote:
There is an option in SAFARI to imitate IE if you are desperate
enough. I have (I am using SAFARI) run across pages that were coded
*ONLY* to work in IE. Usually I write the name of the company down
and then boycott their
On 22 Jul 2007 07:10:35 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd Burch)
wrote:
My biggest concern in going to the Mac was compatibility with the rest of
the world. Not.
Now, do people still send me Word docs and Powerpoint presentations? Sure.
And I forward them to my PC. No biggy. Would I rather
On 23 Jul 2007 02:18:37 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy
Sipples) wrote:
2. Apple offers refurbished Macintoshes at their online store. The
warranty is the same, and I think they're a better value. You have to
check back from time to time since stock varies.
But if you are wanting to run
On 23 Jul 2007 08:20:21 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd Burch) wrote:
Ah, you are confusing a cross platform application with internet browser
support. Cross platform should not imply cross browser. The app I do cross
platform development with only runs on Windows and OS X, and WHEN it
requires
On 17 Jul 2007 12:09:37 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dean Kent) wrote:
I agree with your first point, but not your second. There *is* a reason
that SPEC (and other benchmarking organizations) exist. These customers
want a common performance metric to identify the value they are getting for
the
On 18 Jul 2007 07:33:07 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
If I was making a decision, the H/W platform would be one of the last things
to consider.
Companies don't need bemchmarks, they need *applications*. It is possible to
have good application on poor platform, and it doesn't mean
On 16 Jul 2007 15:54:40 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Isn't it funny that these archaic items are considered building blocks
of modern systems, while the mainframe--30 years ahead in
virtualization; 25 years ahead in instrumentation; light years ahead in
multiprocessing, etc.--are
On 16 Jul 2007 19:27:37 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dean Kent) wrote:
Lest you misunderstand me - I am not trying to say that Intel is 'better'
than IBM, nor the other way around. I am not trying to say that x86
processors are 'better' than z9. Each has its strengths, and weaknesses.
There is no
On 17 Jul 2007 09:00:49 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
I have been bitten by giving out source code for free - and it left a very
sour taste.
A few years ago I happened to get hold of a few copies of MVS Update and lo
and behold some person had ripped off most of the programs from
On 13 Jul 2007 12:28:47 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thompson,
Steve) wrote:
Seriously, in an effort to compare processor power, IF one were to take
a COBOL program that would process 1000 records from a data base and
produce a report (let's say a payroll check register), which system
would process
On 13 Jul 2007 16:25:25 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
And I forgot to mention. If you want to build a benchmark that will show the
mainframe's capabilities, it should do a _LOT_ of I/O. Millions of I/Os on
each
of hundreds of devices spread across scores of channels.
That's
On 13 Jul 2007 23:11:56 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
However, you will never see an actual processor comparison. If it actually
would be favorable to IBM, it would have already released numbers to show
that. IBM happily publishes processor benchmark numbers for POWER, Opteron,
701 - 800 of 1286 matches
Mail list logo
