Multiply that by at least 100 in 1980.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Monday, June 17, 2019, 11:39 PM, Mike Schwab wrote:
A patent about 2003 stated 21,000 sites had at least one mainframe.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 3:06 AM Charles Mills wrote:
>
> Were there once 4 million mainframes?
>
I don’t know the exact number but when I started, my employer had 2 mainframes.
One box was a NAS9000, for production, and the other was a smaller NAS (7750
comes to mind) for development. Just about every employer had a mainframe. Back
then, there were more mainframes than PC’s. Green screen
Very interesting. Collapsing the two steps and eliminating the intermediate
Unix file also works, but I do have explicit DCB information in the JCL for
both SYSUT1 and SYSUT2, so maybe that's what makes the IEBGENER process work
here.
I had been told by the coworker who solicited my help that
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 20:06:23 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>Were there once 4 million mainframes?
>
And were they z's?
>-Original Message-
>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
>Behalf Of Bill Johnson
>Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 2:08 PM
>To:
A patent about 2003 stated 21,000 sites had at least one mainframe.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 3:06 AM Charles Mills wrote:
>
> Were there once 4 million mainframes?
>
> Charles
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of
Because you don't come to SHARE? Specifically, Chad Rikansrud's security
keynote in March of 2017.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of R.S.
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 1:53 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Were there once 4 million mainframes?
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Bill Johnson
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 2:08 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: mainframe hacking "success stories"?
IBM z was
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 00:31:31 +, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:
>Finally got my mount issue straightened out and got to try your suggestion.
>IDCAMS REPRO gave errors trying to copy to the Unix output file, but IEBGENER
>worked just fine.
>
>This did not work:
>
>//STEP0100 EXEC PGM=IDCAMS
Finally got my mount issue straightened out and got to try your suggestion.
IDCAMS REPRO gave errors trying to copy to the Unix output file, but IEBGENER
worked just fine.
This did not work:
//STEP0100 EXEC PGM=IDCAMS
//SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=*
IBM z was more secure even when there were 1000 times more of them and a
million times less MSFT platforms. Target was down again over the weekend. How
many fools will blame the mainframe again? When it was their point of sale
system again.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Monday, June
Did they use z/OS?
Or maybe Linux on PC?
Not?
Windows?
What a surprise!
BTW: I have heard many times about filese encrypted by ransomware. Why
it's always Windows? Why the only file encryption on z/OS I ever heard
is the encryption directed by administrator?
Why?
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz,
W dniu 2019-05-13 o 02:42, Phil Smith III pisze:
Bill Johnson posted a couple more links to mainframe blog posts from a
mainframe vendor-more asking the barber if you need a shave; but even ignoring
that, you don't appear to have actually read the articles, Bill.
The first one
We have been devoted fans and customers of TDMF since long before IBM acquired
it. I stand in awe of its magical properties. But it is a bit clumsy when
copying/moving thousands of volumes shared by many LPARs. The method we used
this time was far more suited to our purpose.
.
.
J.O.Skip
Why not IDCAMS?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Jones, Phil <02379a6d81f2-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2019 7:41 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> The relevant subroutine - XVTCREAD - uses a CCW chain to read an entire
> track in a single EXCP,
Wow! It must be really old. Ever since the 3350 we had Read Multiple Count Key
Data.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM
"What" should have been "way" !
Jerry Whitteridge
Delivery Manager / Mainframe Architect
GTS - Safeway Account
602 527 4871 Mobile
jerry.whitteri...@ibm.com
IBM Services
IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on
06/17/2019 08:29:34 AM:
> From: Jerry Whitteridge
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>
In the (distant) past we've been able to get a temporary license from the
vendor of the target disk for TDMF as part of the deal - might be one what
of you getting a portion of your bridge.
Jerry Whitteridge
Delivery Manager / Mainframe Architect
GTS - Safeway Account
602 527 4871 Mobile
On 2019-06-14 7:58 AM, Mike Shaw wrote:
CVAF is much slower than BSAM, alphabetical order or not. EXCP with
chained CCWs is much faster, then just sort the DSNs yourself.
In the "LOAD/LINK exit" thread, Graeme mentioned the products named
Dorana and SoftAudit.
SoftAudit was from Isogon (who
Duncan,
why do you believe that HonorPriority=No could help? You will only be confining
work to the already potentially overloaded zIIPs by disallowing help from the
CPs. So, HonorPriority=No can only make things worse.
I assume that you don't want to go so far and configure all zIIPs offline
19 matches
Mail list logo
