On 26/4/22 20:29, Seymour J Metz wrote:
I mean "Are there current Z ports for those languages?".
Yes. ooRexx has the package files for download
https://sourceforge.net/projects/oorexx/files/oorexx/4.2.0/. It only
includes an rpm for s390x so you need to use alien to convert to a deb
on
You can always fall back on good old cksum which is usually good enough.
cat "//'SYS1.LPALIB(IEFBR14)'" | cksum
On 27/4/22 07:31, Charles Mills wrote:
FSUMF437 ICSF is required but not available.
:-(
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 19:32, Charles Mills wrote:
>
> FSUMF437 ICSF is required but not available.
>
> :-(
Dallas?
Works on this zPDT under VM. And even better, gives the same answer as
on Gord's system! So either we both have the correct IEFBR14 or we
both have the same corrupted/infected
FSUMF437 ICSF is required but not available.
:-(
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Gord Tomlin
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 3:59 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Checksum of "legacy" load module?
That should do it!
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Gord Tomlin
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 3:59 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Checksum of "legacy" load module?
On 2022-04-26 18:30 PM,
I realise it is not exactly what you aske for but have you looked at program
signing?
https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/2.5.0?topic=verification-enabling-racf-verif
y-signed-programs
Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw
Director: Reverse Sweep Consulting Limited
https://rsclweb.com
Phone: +44 (0) 7504 304158
This what I see for 60d
60D
Explanation
The recovery termination manager (RTM) discovered an error in a calling
program.
A hexadecimal reason code in the following explains the error:
. Field RTM2CRC of the RTM2 work area (RTM2WA)
. Message IEA995I
. TCBARC field of the task control block (TCB)
On 2022-04-26 18:30 PM, Charles Mills wrote:
Is there any z/OS utility that will give a hash of a (traditional,
old-fashioned) load module in a PDS?
Specifically what I am trying to do is answer the question "is load module X
in PDS Y.Z on box A binary equal to load module X in PDS Y.Z on box
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 15:30:29 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>
>Specifically what I am trying to do is answer the question "is load module X
>in PDS Y.Z on box A binary equal to load module X in PDS Y.Z on box B?"
>without copying and comparing. I suspect the BLKSIZEs are the same so that
>may make
Is there any z/OS utility that will give a hash of a (traditional,
old-fashioned) load module in a PDS?
Specifically what I am trying to do is answer the question "is load module X
in PDS Y.Z on box A binary equal to load module X in PDS Y.Z on box B?"
without copying and comparing. I suspect the
In what way is RTM telling you to use SDWALSLV?
That is not what 60D-14 is telling you.
In fact, the doc for 60D-14 says "For reason codes 14 -18, search problem
reporting databases for a fix for the problem. If no fix exists, contact the
IBM Support Center."
I couldn't tell whether you were
Mark J wrote:
Datasets in our linklist are APF authorized via LINKAUTH=LNKLST. Is there any
differences on how program fetch behaves if a dataset in the linklist is also
APF authorized in PROGxx as far as modules being fetched from the linklist?
To the specific question: "no". When
RACF Discussion List ; on behalf of; Mautalen Juan
Guillermo
Is the origin of this thread.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Farley, Peter x23353
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 1:12 PM
To:
Never mind, I just checked the RACF-L archive and that thread started today so
I haven't seen it in any digest yet.
Based on the OP's initial question and a couple of the other "hide everything"
responses on RACF-L, I agree with Phil - it would be pointless to discuss
hiding all the
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 12:55:56 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>> Put another way: this is arguably a fundamental design flaw in OS/360
>
>I remember well the early days of OS/360. There was no concept of the
>insider threat. We were all in this together, and we were all good guys.
>...
I suspect a
I receive the RACF-L digest every day and I see no references to IPLINFO in any
of the digests for the last week or ten days.
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Phil Smith III
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 3:55 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Put another way: this is arguably a fundamental design flaw in OS/360
I remember well the early days of OS/360. There was no concept of the
insider threat. We were all in this together, and we were all good guys.
Maybe one or two of the application folks were suspect but the sysprogs
were
Oops. Wrong list! RACF not IBM-MAIN.
From: Phil Smith III
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 2:39 PM
To: ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Marx Zelden - IPLINFO utility
This is a pointless discussion. Protecting this storage will break myriad
programs, and adding a subsystem or service to
@Lennie, earlier today:
"It's native control block structure allows this kind of delving. Other
operating systems provide more protection of this type of information.
System calls are needed to extract information about the setup."
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe
Just a question… how Mark became Marx?
ITschak
בתאריך יום ג׳, 26 באפר׳ 2022 ב-22:14 מאת Paul Gilmartin <
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>:
> On Apr 26, 2022, at 12:39:06, Phil Smith III wrote:
> >
> > This is a pointless discussion. ...
> >
> > Put another way: this is arguably a
On Apr 26, 2022, at 12:39:06, Phil Smith III wrote:
>
> This is a pointless discussion. ...
>
> Put another way: this is arguably a fundamental design flaw in OS/360. At
> this point, it's not fixable.
>
Is this a Reply to something not cited, perhaps on BIT.LISTSERV?
--
gil
This is a pointless discussion. Protecting this storage will break myriad
programs, and adding a subsystem or service to provide controlled access
would be a huge undertaking, both for IBM to implement and for customers and
ISVs to use. I would predict that even if IBM did it, people would turn it
The LINUX-390 list is also archived, of course:
https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-390@vm.marist.edu/
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message:
On 4/26/2022 5:05 AM, kekronbekron wrote:
ESG = ?
Environmental, Social and Governance issues...
--
Phoenix Software International
Edward E. Jaffe
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
https://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
Glad you found it useful - have a blessed day.
Lionel B. Dyck <><
Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com
Github: https://github.com/lbdyck
“Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is what you
are, reputation merely what others think you are.” - - - John Wooden
Found it.
LINUX-390 discussion
Linux-390 focuses on Linux on IBM Z including Linux on z/VM. To subscribe to
the LINUX-390 discussion, send an email to:
lists...@vm.marist.edu
In the body of the email, write the following line, substituting only your name:
SUBSCRIBE LINUX-390 firstname lastname
Lionel, thank you for this tool. It works perfectly, and saved me a lot of time
and effort!
Have a great day!
Don
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with
Thanks, thought you were about to suggest I somehow time travel to get to it.
Will look up that list.
- KB
--- Original Message ---
On Tuesday, April 26th, 2022 at 8:37 PM, Phil Smith III wrote:
> I'm compelled to note that all of the discussion of third-party product
> availability,
Does anyone have a URL for the LINUX-390 list?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Kirk Wolf
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 10:11 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Use of zCX
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Texas
Very good point.
Phil - I haven't been subscribed for a year or two to linux-390 - are they
discussing arch=390x docker packages as needed for zCX as well? VM/Linux vs
zCX? I would assume yes to both.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022, at 10:07 AM, Phil Smith III wrote:
> I'm compelled to note that
I'm compelled to note that all of the discussion of third-party product
availability, difficulty (or not) of porting, etc. has been rehashed over
the last 20 years on the LINUX-390 list. That doesn't mean it's not a valid
discussion, just that joining that list will likely get more detailed
Don - I've written a tool, called ZSTART, that does exactly what you are
looking for.
You can get it at my website, my github repository, or from the CBTTAPE file
314.
Hope this helps - let me know you have any questions/issues/suggestions for it.
Lionel B. Dyck <><
Website:
Hi all, I have a teammate who wants to change his ISPF ZSTART profile variable
in the ISP profile, and I wanted to see if there is an easy way to do this.
ISPF 7.3 won't work, as that is only showing ISR profile variables.
I can write a quick little utility that will (1) copy ISPPROF to some
I mean "Are there current Z ports for those languages?".
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
kekronbekron [02dee3fcae33-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu]
ESG = ?
- KB
--- Original Message ---
On Tuesday, April 26th, 2022 at 3:30 PM, Matt Hogstrom
wrote:
> I did have an interesting conversation with a customer recently where given
> ESG they wanted to move relevant workload to zLinux because the power / VM /
> container ratio was
Just want to see if I understand things correctly
In a SRB initiated with IEAMSCHD
When my recovery routine or FRR gets control first of it seems both
SDWAGR regs and SDWASR regs are always the same
As opposed to normal estate when I can pretty much count on SDWASR regs not
being
I did have an interesting conversation with a customer recently where given ESG
they wanted to move relevant workload to zLinux because the power / VM /
container ratio was lower than an x86 farm to lower their carbon footprint; I’m
not sure if this is an edge case or not.
For many Z customers
> On Apr 25, 2022, at 11:19 PM, kekronbekron
> <02dee3fcae33-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
>> If it's "easy", why is the IBM Z and LinuxOne Open Source list not bigger
>
A significant factor from my perspective is the lack of availability of IBM Z
hardware to the broader
38 matches
Mail list logo
