z/OS 1.13 preview

Today the IBM announcements newsletter included the preview for z/OS 1.13. One point that caught my eye immediately: * Support is planned for in-stream data sets to be used within JCL procedures and for include statements. Well! That's been a long time coming. But I'm sure more than a

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

Does anyone else think that working with z/OS is completely the coolest thing since the invention of "sliced bread"? I am reading thru the 1.13 announcement and there is alot of really cool stuff. It is hard to just select a few things to talk about. Rob Schramm On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:07 AM,

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

Sent by: IBM IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Mainframe cc Discussion List Re: z/OS 1.13 pr

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Rob Schramm > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 9:59 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > Subject: Re: z/OS 1.13 preview > > Does anyone else think that working

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

Sent by: IBM IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > Mainframe cc > Discussion List > .edu> Re: z/OS 1.13 preview > > > 02/15/2011 10:59 >

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

inal Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > > [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Rob Schramm > > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 9:59 AM > > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > > Subject: Re: z/OS 1.13 preview > > > > Does anyone else thin

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

Schramm To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Tue, February 15, 2011 11:19:43 AM Subject: Re: z/OS 1.13 preview John, Not that I am a firm advocate of vi ... (I used to complain endlessly about it when I was working on AIX and grew to more of a grudging acceptance because it was one of the few things I

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

cc Discussion List Re: z/OS 1.13 pr

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

I agree I cut my teeth on VM/VSE in the 4381 days..   Augusto: I agree I cut my teeth on VM/VSE in the 4381 days..   Scott J Ford   From: August Carideo To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Tue, February 15, 2011 11:46:26 AM Subject: Re: z/OS 1.13 preview VSE has

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Rob Schramm > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 10:20 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > Subject: Re: z/OS 1.13 preview > > John, > > Not that I am a firm

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

2011 11:10 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: z/OS 1.13 preview > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Rob Schramm > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 10:20 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > Subject: Re:

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

ssage- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On > Behalf Of McKown, John > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 11:10 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > Subject: Re: z/OS 1.13 preview > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discuss

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

Yes -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Rob Schramm Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 12:25 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: z/OS 1.13 preview Is anyone using BIND DNS to provide DNS resolution? On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

ruary 15, 2011 12:25 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > Subject: Re: z/OS 1.13 preview > > Is anyone using BIND DNS to provide DNS resolution? > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Ward, Mike S wrote: > > > John, I'm not trying to be funny, but have you tried obrowse

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ward, Mike S > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 12:22 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > Subject: Re: z/OS 1.13 preview > > John, I'm not trying to be funny,

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

On 2/15/2011 10:24 AM, Rob Schramm wrote: Is anyone using BIND DNS to provide DNS resolution? We moved ours to Linux for z because of IBM's SOD articulated in today's announcement. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 310-338-040

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

On 2/15/2011 10:22 AM, Ward, Mike S wrote: John, I'm not trying to be funny, but have you tried obrowse or oedit. Those work only in a very limited subset of interactive z/OS UNIX environments. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

nframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On > Behalf Of Edward Jaffe > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 10:40 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > Subject: Re: z/OS 1.13 preview > > On 2/15/2011 10:24 AM, Rob Schramm wrote: > > Is anyone using BIND DNS to provide DNS

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

On 15 Feb 2011 10:25:48 -0800, rob.schr...@gmail.com (Rob Schramm) wrote: >Is anyone using BIND DNS to provide DNS resolution? Yes! We've been running BIND on our zOS system for quite a while and it's been working well. It was our primary internal name server, but we recently migrated that primar

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

         Discussion List                                                                                  Re: z/OS 1.13 preview                                                                                                                                                                           

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Ed Gould wrote: > I cannot remember where my first run in with VSE was. It was a LONG time ago. > Probably im the mid 70's (???). I think it was in St Louis at an IBM school > there.We were trying to set up a 4331 for our New York Office. It was either > there

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:25 AM, zMan wrote: > > "Desert west of LA"? As Marisa Tomei said in My Cousin Vinny, "Are you > shooo-ah??" Maybe they shot you full of happy-juice and took you to > Area 51, then made you forget most of it... > -- > zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

ive >name server should investigate using BIND on Linux for System z or BIND on >an IBM blade in an IBM zEnterprise BladeCenter® Extension (zBX)." > > >On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Ward, Mike S wrote: > >> Yes >>

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

gt;Information Technology Services >Washington State University > > >> -Original Message- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On >> Behalf Of Edward Jaffe >> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 10:40 AM >> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

.ua.edu] On > Behalf Of Chris Mason > Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 7:27 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > Subject: Re: z/OS 1.13 preview > > Dave > > > Went to RESOLVER with 1.9. Actually, I seem to remember first > starting > RESOLVER at 1.7 but it has become bl

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

Chris, Consider the topic of "z/OS 1.13 Preview". Seems a fairly open invitation to discuss anything that has to do with "z/OS 1.13 Preview". I am not sure how someone would misinterpret a subject that is clearly bounded within "z/OS 1.13 Preview" to be a gener

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

id os390 2.10 to z/OS 1.4. And I guess I must >have since that's the doc. >I think it was the 1.4 to 1.7 jump when I had to customized the proc and >update BPXPRM00. > >> -Original Message- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On >>

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

t;BIND". Yes, I know, following Douglas Adams, I vote for 42 as the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. > I am not sure that I understand the ambiguity. Incidentally I was planning to apply the name "BIND and RESOLVER (Was: z/OS 1.13 preview)" to my post - but I forgot

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

n To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Wed, February 16, 2011 8:25:31 AM Subject: Re: z/OS 1.13 preview "Desert west of LA"? As Marisa Tomei said in My Cousin Vinny, "Are you shooo-ah??" Maybe they shot you full of happy-juice and took you to Area 51, then made you forget most of

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

In , on 02/15/2011 at 12:30 PM, "McKown, John" said: >But I can't do a large edit macro in one screen and then switch away >to another ISPF screen while that one is running. Is that the case when you're using WSA GUI, or only for the 3270 interface? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysPro

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

In , on 02/16/2011 at 09:25 AM, zMan said: >"Desert west of LA"? Mongolia? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam ac

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

In <485121.22623...@web65504.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>, on 02/15/2011 at 08:43 AM, Scott Ford said: >TSO kinda pales in compassion to CMS, IMHO. I greatly prefer TSO. However, I miss XEDIT. Does anybody know whether ISPF in z/OS 1.13 will include an equivalent to SET PENDING? -- Shmuel (Se

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) > Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 3:14 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > Subject: Re: z/OS 1.13 preview > > In , > on 02/15/201

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

In , on 02/18/2011 at 10:16 AM, "McKown, John" said: >I prefer to run Linux. There is no WSA client for Linux. Have you submitted a requirement? >It would be nice if IBM "opened" the WSA protocol so that others >could use it. I know why they won't - it would increase their cost >and decrease

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

From: zMan To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Wed, February 16, 2011 8:25:31 AM Subject: Re: z/OS 1.13 preview On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Ed Gould wrote: > I cannot remember where my first run in with VSE was. It was a LONG time ago. >Probably im the

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

ps2...@yahoo.com (Ed Gould) writes: > I cannot remember where my first run in with VSE was. It was a LONG > time ago. Probably im the mid 70's (???). I think it was in St Louis > at an IBM school there.We were trying to set up a 4331 for our New > York Office. It was either there or out in the LA I

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

On 7/5/2011 2:17 PM, Edward Jaffe wrote: On 7/5/2011 10:28 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: z/OS will be designed to support some programs running in 64-bit storage, provided that they meet certain restrictions. This is intended to provide virtual "certain restrictions". Does this restrict ATB execu

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

On 7/5/2011 1:57 PM, Steve Comstock wrote: WOW! That's a big deal. Is this documented somewhere public? Or is this NDA? Do you what the "certain restrictions" are? Can you tell us? Can you tell us how it's done? The Feb 15, 2011 announcement preview is the only public information I'm aware

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:33:20 -0700 Edward Jaffe wrote: :>Other possible 'restrictions' immediately come to mind as well. For example, :>there are hundreds of callable z/OS services. I imagine the process of :>inspecting, updating, testing and documenting required to make them all work for :>ca

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

On 7/6/2011 10:33 AM, Edward Jaffe wrote: On 7/5/2011 1:57 PM, Steve Comstock wrote: WOW! That's a big deal. Is this documented somewhere public? Or is this NDA? Do you what the "certain restrictions" are? Can you tell us? Can you tell us how it's done? The Feb 15, 2011 announcement preview

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:33:20 -0700, Edward Jaffe wrote: >On 7/5/2011 1:57 PM, Steve Comstock wrote: > >The Feb 15, 2011 announcement preview is the only public information I'm aware >of. It tells you a lot if you know how to translate the 'announcementese'. It's >been out there four months which pr

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

On 7/6/2011 9:42 AM, Binyamin Dissen wrote: On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:33:20 -0700 Edward Jaffe wrote: :>Other possible 'restrictions' immediately come to mind as well. For example, :>there are hundreds of callable z/OS services. I imagine the process of :>inspecting, updating, testing and documentin

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 07/06/2011 12:42:25 PM: > :>Other possible 'restrictions' immediately come to mind as well. > For example, > :>there are hundreds of callable z/OS services. I imagine the process of > :>inspecting, updating, testing and documenting required to make > t

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 14:03:02 -0400 Jim Mulder wrote: :>IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 07/06/2011 :>12:42:25 PM: :>> :>Other possible 'restrictions' immediately come to mind as well. :>> For example, :>> :>there are hundreds of callable z/OS services. I imagine the process of :>> :>i

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

On 7/6/2011 10:53 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: I understand that for some few releases now CSV has been able to load CSECTs above the bar, Even in z/OS 1.12 you cannot load CSECTs above the bar. RMODE(64) is treated as RMODE(ANY) for module loading and execution. You cannot specify RMODE(64) as a

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 21:08:20 +0300, Binyamin Dissen wrote: >:>> Anything with an SVC or PC entry does not require any changes for a 64 >:>bit >:>> above the bar caller - just for above the bar data. > >:> That is not always true. Consider, for example, what would happen >:>if you invoked GETMAIN

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

> >:>> Anything with an SVC or PC entry does not require any changes for a 64 > >:>bit > >:>> above the bar caller - just for above the bar data. > > > >:> That is not always true. Consider, for example, what would happen > >:>if you invoked GETMAIN or STORAGE OBTAIN via an SVC or PC from > >:>a

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 11:16:31 -0700, Edward Jaffe wrote: > >Even in z/OS 1.12 you cannot load CSECTs above the bar. RMODE(64) is treated as >RMODE(ANY) for module loading and execution. You cannot specify RMODE(64) as a >binder option. The only exception is data class C_WSA64 which can be loaded >abo

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview

On 7/6/2011 5:22 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: Does ANY mean "any" in the conventional English sense, or does it actually mean "any but 64"? Sigh. Of course! ANY continues to mean what it has meant since it was first invented in MVS/XA--namely either 24 or 31. It is an upward compatible specifica

z/OS 1.13 preview at SHARE in Anaheim

On 2/15/2011 7:07 AM, Steve Comstock wrote: Today the IBM announcements newsletter included the preview for z/OS 1.13. Previewed z/OS 1.13 features will be presented in detail at SHARE in Anaheim at the end of this month. If you or your "bean counters" were on the "fence," this announcement a

DOS/360 (VSE) reminiscences (Was: z/OS 1.13 preview)

Ed I'm congratulating myself in getting this inconsequential "memory lane" response off in less than a month! > I cannot remember where my first run in with VSE was. It was a LONG time ago. Probably in the mid 70's (???). Which means it was not really early enough to appreciate DOS/360! It's

z/OS 1.13 preview (was: Lines, Bars and ... mini-bars???)

On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:38:25 -0400, Jim Mulder wrote: > > The z/OS 1.13 preview (Feb 15, 2011) says: > I must have been napping about then. But I checked the IBM-MAIN archives around mid-February, and I can't readily find a URL for this. Help! >z/OS will be designed to supp

Why VSE is still with us [was:RE: z/OS 1.13 preview]

on some day when there are no more mainframe shops left to buy their products. Peter -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Gould Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 12:50 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: z/OS 1.13 p

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview (was: Lines, Bars and ... mini-bars???)

Try here: http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=ca&infotype=an &supplier=897&letternum=ENUS211-007 or search ibm.com for 211-007 HTH, > The z/OS 1.13 preview (Feb 15, 2011) says: > I must have been napping about then. But I checked the IBM-MAIN a

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview (was: Lines, Bars and ... mini-bars???)

On 5 July 2011 13:28, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:38:25 -0400, Jim Mulder wrote: >>storage constraint relief to applications, particularly those that imbed code >>in data areas for performance reasons. >> > Why would there be an advantage to imbedding code in data areas? > Somet

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview (was: Lines, Bars and ... mini-bars???)

On 7/5/2011 10:28 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: z/OS will be designed to support some programs running in 64-bit storage, provided that they meet certain restrictions. This is intended to provide virtual "certain restrictions". Does this restrict ATB execution to contexts such that the PSW needn

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview (was: Lines, Bars and ... mini-bars???)

On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 13:17:26 -0700, Edward Jaffe wrote: > >The operating system control blocks now handle 64-bit PSWs such that an >interrupt while executing above the bar is supported. No abend occurs. > They put a 64-bit address in a 64-bit PSW? This leaves precious little room for flags. -- gil

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview (was: Lines, Bars and ... mini-bars???)

PSW on a z machine is 128 bits or 16 bytes or 4 fullwords aka a quadword. z/OS "compresses" this to a doubleword by assuming that the instruction address is below 2 GiB and eliminates a lot of the bits which are always set to 0 because they are currently unused by the hardware (must be zero?). See

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview (was: Lines, Bars and ... mini-bars???)

On 7/5/2011 2:53 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 13:17:26 -0700, Edward Jaffe wrote: The operating system control blocks now handle 64-bit PSWs such that an interrupt while executing above the bar is supported. No abend occurs. They put a 64-bit address in a 64-bit PSW? This leav

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview (was: Lines, Bars and ... mini-bars???)

On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 17:52:39 -0500, John McKown wrote: >PSW on a z machine is 128 bits or 16 bytes or 4 fullwords aka a >quadword. z/OS "compresses" this to a doubleword by assuming that the >instruction address is below 2 GiB and eliminates a lot of the bits >which are always set to 0 because they

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview (was: Lines, Bars and ... mini-bars???)

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin > > [ snip ] > > # z/OS V1.13 is planned to be the last release to support > BPX.DEFAULT.USER. IBM recommends that you either use the > BPX.UNIQUE.USER support that was introduced in z/OS V1.11, >

Re: z/OS 1.13 preview (was: Lines, Bars and ... mini-bars???)

On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 19:15:45 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >What's the rationale for bit 12? It must be 0 for LPSWE and 1 >for LPSW, but in either case a 0 is loaded into the PSW. In the System/360, bit 12 was the USASCII bit. It controlled the operation of only a few instructions. UNPK was one

Re: IEBCOPY in z/OS R13 (was (re: z/OS 1.13 preview (was: Lines, Bars and ... mini-bars???))

On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 19:15:45 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote: ># Enhancements are planned for the IEBCOPY utility that are intended > to improve performance when copying a partitioned data set (PDS) > to another PDS. In addition, IEBCOPY is planned to exploit 31-bit > storage for track buffers, and