---SNIP:---
On Oct 29, 2005, at 7:00 PM, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
I'm not saying to re-arrange the deck-chairs on the Titanic.
Maybe you should add some life boats while you are at it :-)
Ed
-teD
In God we Trust!
All others bring data!
>How? The sysprog doesn't buy the memory, disc space, cpu cycles, etc.
If the management wants the job done, the management has to provide
sufficient resource for the sysprog to allocate.
...
I had said:
“If the business has justified it, implement it!”.
That assumes that a justified resource ge
On 28 Oct 2005 15:27:30 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ted MacNEIL) wrote:
>>I think we'd be discussing you stealing
>100 gallons of my gas (Gb of memory) vs. you driving on my lawn and running
>over my azaleas (anything other than poor ol' Zeke).
>..
>To quote the Great Monty
On Oct 28, 2005, at 9:16 AM, Edward E. Jaffe wrote:
--SNIP
I suppose, if we could convince Mr. Peabody to use the Wayback Machine
to take us to the meeting where RACF's moniker was invented, we could
insist on a more-appropriate one, like PCF
On Oct 28, 2005, at 7:41 AM, Martin Kline wrote:
I apologize in advance for not knowing the best list to send this
question to. (Perhaps ISPF-L? But I'm not a subscriber there.) I'm
proposing to our systems folks that we allow a "user" to use TSO to
get to the Zeke Work Center function. I'm
>I think we'd be discussing you stealing
100 gallons of my gas (Gb of memory) vs. you driving on my lawn and running
over my azaleas (anything other than poor ol' Zeke).
...
To quote the Great Monty Python:
“Stop that! It's silly! It was funny once. But, now it's just silly!”
The issue is not how
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Grimes
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 2:06 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Allowing Joe User into TSO
>
>
> Hello again!
>
>
ginal Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Steve Grimes
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 2:06 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Allowing Joe User into TSO
Hello again!
We'll I'm certainly enjoying the exchange. I think the initial res
Hello again!
We'll I'm certainly enjoying the exchange. I think the initial responses
covered what I was after.
An additional detail for the curious -- Joe User currently has a Roscoe
account and uses it to submit jobs that do updates. So, he has a
reasonable amount of RACF authority already
On 28 Oct 2005 09:14:03 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin
Kline) wrote:
>But the previous discussion had some users suggesting that memory limits
>for all users should be set higher than the maximum requirement for any
>user. I believe this leave the organization vulnerable to problems.
>Instead, a
>> On the contrary, I am not confused at all.
> I'm inclined to think you are, because you're in effect comparing a
> restriction on how fast you can drive a car (storage/CPU) vs. a
> restriction on where you can or cannot drive it (TSO, SDSF, Zeke, etc.).
If this discussion is about a car, then
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Martin Kline
>
> > Your confusion is due to an unfortunate use of the word
> "resource" in
> > two wholly-different contexts.
>
> On the contrary, I am not confused at all.
I'm inclined to think you are, because yo
> If a persons job function requires that they be able to use ISPF and edit
> a file that requires 128M of virtual storage, then they should have
> access to that much storage. If their job functions requires that they
> have update access to SYS1.PARMLIB, then the should have it.
I agree, Wayne.
There are two polar attitudes toward problems of this sort, viz.,
Was ist nicht erlaubt is verboten (What is not allowed is forbidden).
and
Was ist nicht verboten ist erlaubt (What is not forbidden is allowed).
The second of them has three great merits:
o It does not require uncommon, even Go
Martin Kline wrote:
Each business' requirements are different. Perhaps the originator is
satisfied with a logon proc that only points Joe user to Zeke. Maybe the
requestor isn't interested in the myriad methods of bypassing security, and
is only interested in satisfying the immediate needs of Jo
AIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Allowing Joe User into TSO
> Your confusion is due to an unfortunate use of the word "resource" in
> two wholly-different contexts.
On the contrary, I am not confused at all. Clearly, users should be
prevented from deleting datasets they shouldn't de
> Your confusion is due to an unfortunate use of the word "resource" in
> two wholly-different contexts.
> You're getting waaay off track here...
I'm confused and off track? Please do not attacking me personally.
I got into this discussion just to highlight the inconsistency of two
arguments. In
== Steve Grimes == wrote2005-10-26 01:11:
Our application programmers no longer, for instance, have update access to
SYS1.PARMLIB, etc.
8-O :-D
ROFL!
--
--
Mundus Vult Decipi
--
They that can give up essential liberty to
Walt Farrell wrote:
On 10/28/2005 10:16 AM, Edward E. Jaffe wrote:
RACF stands for Resource Access Control Facility. But, the
"resources" it protects have nothing whatsoever to do with CPU time
or virtual storage.
I suppose, if we could convince Mr. Peabody to use the Wayback
Machine to ta
Martin Kline wrote:
Your confusion is due to an unfortunate use of the word "resource" in
two wholly-different contexts.
On the contrary, I am not confused at all. Clearly, users should be
prevented from deleting datasets they shouldn't delete. However, who's to
say Joe user shouldn't del
In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 10/25/2005
at 06:11 PM, Steve Grimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I apologize in advance for not knowing the best list to send this
>question to. (Perhaps ISPF-L? But I'm not a subscriber there.)
>I'm proposing to our systems folks that we allow a "user" to use TSO
On 10/28/2005 10:16 AM, Edward E. Jaffe wrote:
RACF stands for Resource Access Control Facility. But, the "resources"
it protects have nothing whatsoever to do with CPU time or virtual storage.
I suppose, if we could convince Mr. Peabody to use the Wayback Machine
to take us to the meeting whe
> Your confusion is due to an unfortunate use of the word "resource" in
> two wholly-different contexts.
On the contrary, I am not confused at all. Clearly, users should be
prevented from deleting datasets they shouldn't delete. However, who's to
say Joe user shouldn't delete dataset JOE.yyy.zzz?
Martin Kline wrote:
I find this interesting. Just recently, list members were objecting that
limiting a user's access to resources (in that case it was memory) was
probably keeping them from doing their job. Where are they now?
The argument was that if a user was requesting a resource, they MUS
In a recent note, Martin Kline said:
> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 08:15:26 -0500
>
> So, you believe that resources, e.g. memory, should be protected, while
> functions, like TSO commands, should not?
>
I was thinking more of data sets than memory (Resources like the
"R" in "RACF"), but yes.
HI Gil. You said:
> "depend on their honorable nature" is appropriate for functions,
> but inadequate for resources.
So, you believe that resources, e.g. memory, should be protected, while
functions, like TSO commands, should not?
-
In a recent note, Martin Kline said:
> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 07:41:03 -0500
>
> I find this interesting. Just recently, list members were objecting that
> limiting a user's access to resources (in that case it was memory) was
> probably keeping them from doing their job. Where are they n
>> I apologize in advance for not knowing the best list to send this
>> question to. (Perhaps ISPF-L? But I'm not a subscriber there.) I'm
>> proposing to our systems folks that we allow a "user" to use TSO to
>> get to the Zeke Work Center function. I'm being told that there is no
>> way for u
Edward E. Jaffe wrote:
Steve Grimes wrote:
I apologize in advance for not knowing the best list to send this
question to. (Perhaps ISPF-L? But I'm not a subscriber there.) I'm
proposing to our systems folks that we allow a "user" to use TSO to
get to the Zeke Work Center function. I'm bei
Steve Grimes wrote:
I apologize in advance for not knowing the best list to send this question
to. (Perhaps ISPF-L? But I'm not a subscriber there.) I'm proposing to
our systems folks that we allow a "user" to use TSO to get to the Zeke
Work Center function. I'm being told that there is no
Hi,
This is actually able to be accomplished in several ways. You can use a
program like CMDLGOFF on file 416 of the CBT tape, or, (even easier), you
can set up the "logon" rexx exec (the parm on the execute statement of the
logon proc) to have the following:
(this example lets a user into VPS's
ssage-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Steve Grimes
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 7:11 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Allowing Joe User into TSO
Hello, z/OS 1.4 here.
I apologize in advance for not knowing the best list to send this
question to. (Perhaps ISPF-L? But I'
Hello, z/OS 1.4 here.
I apologize in advance for not knowing the best list to send this question
to. (Perhaps ISPF-L? But I'm not a subscriber there.) I'm proposing to
our systems folks that we allow a "user" to use TSO to get to the Zeke
Work Center function. I'm being told that there is n
33 matches
Mail list logo
