I don't remember if this was a pay for option, or a SYSGEN option.
I think it was available some time in the early to mid 1970's
any body remember this feature?
I think it might have been implemented using SVC Screening

Steve
Sailor in Clearwater Beach Florida

•  1
  New Members
•  1
  New Files

It was a commercial product - UCC2 or "DUO" (DOS Under OS)

>
> I don't remember if this was a pay for option, or a SYSGEN option.
> I think it was available some time in the early to mid 1970's
> any body remember this feature?
> I think it might have been implemented using SVC Screening
>
> Steve
> Sailor in Clearwater Beach Florida
>
>

•  1
  New Members
•  1
  New Files

http://www-304.ibm.com/jct09002c/gsdod/solutiondetails.do?solution=30265&expand=true&lc=en
Interpretive Space Executive ISX from an IBM Partner in Moscow, Russia.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6530078.html U.S. Patetent 6,530,078.

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 6:40 PM, stevendonato <stevedonato <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't remember if this was a pay for option, or a SYSGEN option.
> I think it was available some time in the early to mid 1970's
> any body remember this feature?
> I think it might have been implemented using SVC Screening
>
> Steve
> Sailor in Clearwater Beach Florida

--
Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA
Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all?

•  1
  New Members
•  1
  New Files

--- In turnkey-mvs <at> yahoogroups.com,
"stevendonato" <stevedonato <at> ...> wrote:
> I don't remember if this was a pay for option,
>or a SYSGEN option. I think it was available
>some time in the early to mid 1970's any body
>remember this feature? I think it might have
>been implemented using SVC Screening
> Steve
> Sailor in Clearwater Beach Florida

It was originally UCC 2 from University
Computing Corporation ( pronounced uck two )
and later became CA2 ( Computer Associates ).
It did function sort-of but for most CoBOL
shops that had source, it wasn't worth the
trouble. Re-compiling IBM CoBOL to IBM
CoBOL is easier than converting IBM CoBOL
to DUO and then you don't have to carry
and support patch products for years.

See:

http://www.ca.com/files/ProductBriefs/duo_product_brief.pdf

and you might be interested in:

http://gsf-soft.com/Products/VSE-ON-MVS.shtml

•  1
  New Members
•  1
  New Files

On Apr 1, 2009, at 5:01 PM, au1john wrote:

> It was a commercial product - UCC2 or "DUO" (DOS Under OS)
>
>>
>> I don't remember if this was a pay for option, or a SYSGEN option.
>> I think it was available some time in the early to mid 1970's
>> any body remember this feature?
>> I think it might have been implemented using SVC Screening

Was implemented with its own SVC.

SVC Screening did not become an option until midway in the Selectable
Units group of service updates, probably post-1976.

We ran Duo/UCC2 at Litton in that time frame.

•  1
  New Members
•  1
  New Files

In another post I wrote:

"It might not matter whether some SMP ELEMENTS get added before SYSGEN or afterward. This evualation of PTFs on the allptfs tape is probably long overdue."

There have been some experiments going on with SMP and all those PTFs and some progress has been made.

The bad news is another discovery of backlevel maintenance.

The usermods to allow DASD newer than 3350 to be utilized in 3.8j get clobbered in sg0390. Not all of them but none of them should be. Here is the list of them from the original TK3 CD printout of sg00390:

M023200 SUPD USERMOD SUPBY UZ39100
M023302 SUPD USERMOD SUPBY UZ69948
M023404 SUPD USERMOD SUPBY UZ65177
M023405 SUPD USERMOD SUPBY UZ84429
M024305 SUPD USERMOD SUPBY UZ69948
M024408 SUPD USERMOD SUPBY UZ84429

For those who don't understand what all this is about, you can do a quick check of SYS1.AGENLIB(UNITNAME) and see that it doesn't have a 3380 or 3390 mentioned in it at all. That was what M023302 did and now it's not there because UZ69948 replaced the MACRO.

On another note the mass inclusion of PTFs in the initial ACCEPT noAPPLY job, sg0060-sg0100, results in a bunch of them falling out due to being SUPD by the FUNCTION so those can be dropped from the 'need to receive' PTFs tape ( less PTFs to receive, less space occupied on the system ).

What I wasn't expecting was the PTFs with ++ HOLD to be ACCEPTed. This caused UY49086 to be included which we can't have ( it and some other PTFs modify things to get ready for TSO/E ) because it breaks things. So does ++ HOLD not work in SMP4, does an EXCLUDE list need to be made or just leave it out of the list to include in processing ?

Phil - this is getting messy and I never liked SMP stuff anyway

•  1
  New Members
•  1
  New Files

--- In turnkey-mvs <at> yahoogroups.com, "halfmeg" <opplr <at> ...> wrote:
>
> Phil - this is getting messy and I never liked SMP stuff anyway
>

Hi Phil,
that' why it is taking me so long to do things
in order to have a clean setup I am building
the system without any new dasd support.

I am following closely enough Volker approach,
IIRC the Volker had carefully investigated the PTFs
to be applied and they should not contain any PE

what I am doing now is to read all the ++HOLD
documentation for the UCLIN to be run
and the REASON(FULLGEN/IOGEN) in order to have
a reasonably well done job

I am using the CCKD SHAD approach taking a
backup of the shadow files after each step

but it takes a lot of checking and rechecking after each step

I did NOT install the FMIDS related to:
GAM, MSS, MICR/OCR, TCAM

if somebody wants to play with TCAM it means he has the
skill to reinstall

with the job streams ready to run and everything checked out
it takes about four hours to have a running system

I hope to post next week the results and the space requirements

regards
enrico sorichetti

•  1
  New Members
•  1
  New Files

On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:24:08 -0000, halfmeg wrote:

>What I wasn't expecting was the PTFs with ++ HOLD to be ACCEPTed.

What I wasn't expecting was IBM PTFs SUPing USERMODs.
How does that happen? I wouldn't think the USERMOD is
listed in a SUP (or PRE) of the PTF's MCS.

Usually these conflicts prevent the APPLY. The conventional
action is to RESTORE the USERMODs, APPLY the PTFs, and
then refit the USERMODs as required. The refitting may involve
changing ZAP offsets, changing IEBUPDTE-controlled source
code and/or line numbers, and changing the MCS to PRE the
latest RMID of the element - presumably the PTF just applied.

Tell me there is no BYPASS for ID, PRE or SUP in the job.

And yes, I believe the ++HOLD stuff is for SMP/E only.
There was no such thing as HOLDDATA before SMP/E.

With the advent of HOLDDATA, HOLD became a valid
subparameter of BYPASS, which it is not in SMP 4.

Cheers,
Greg

•  1
  New Members
•  1
  New Files

--- In turnkey-mvs <at> yahoogroups.com, "stevendonato" <stevedonato <at> ...> wrote:
>
> I don't remember if this was a pay for option, or a SYSGEN option.
> I think it was available some time in the early to mid 1970's
> any body remember this feature?
> I think it might have been implemented using SVC Screening

In the mid-1970s, the company I was with had a 370/158 with a DOS hardware emulator which was supported under OS/VS2 R2 and R3. So, under MVS, you could IPL a DOS/360 system using a DOS system 3330, and run jobs under it, jobs that used DOS JCL and PHASEs from the DOS CILs.

•  1
  New Members
•  1
  New Files

> Greg Price wrote:

> > halfmeg wrote:

> >What I wasn't expecting was the PTFs with ++ HOLD to be ACCEPTed.

> What I wasn't expecting was IBM PTFs SUPing USERMODs.
> How does that happen? I wouldn't think the USERMOD is
> listed in a SUP (or PRE) of the PTF's MCS.

> Usually these conflicts prevent the APPLY. The conventional
> action is to RESTORE the USERMODs, APPLY the PTFs, and
> then refit the USERMODs as required. The refitting may involve
> changing ZAP offsets, changing IEBUPDTE-controlled source
> code and/or line numbers, and changing the MCS to PRE the
> latest RMID of the element - presumably the PTF just applied.

> Tell me there is no BYPASS for ID, PRE or SUP in the job.

Hmmm, don't know why the sg0390 jobstream ( see below ) although Volker did explain in this post:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/H390-MVS/message/1573

//* Desc: ACCEPT Every APPLYed PTF (but not the USERMODs)
//*
//********************************************************************
//ACCEPT EXEC SMPACC
//SMPWRK3 DD UNIT=3350,SPACE=(CYL,(200,10,1000)),DCB=(BLKSIZE=3120,
// LRECL=80)
//SMPCNTL DD *
ACCEPT
E(
M026200
M026302
M026305
M026404
M026405
M026408
)
/* CHECK */
BYPASS(ID)
DIS(WRITE)
.
//OOPS EXEC PGM=OOPS,COND=(4,GE)
//

I agree with the last step however, oops.

> And yes, I believe the ++HOLD stuff is for SMP/E only.
> There was no such thing as HOLDDATA before SMP/E.

> With the advent of HOLDDATA, HOLD became a valid
> subparameter of BYPASS, which it is not in SMP 4.

Thanks, I noticed there were several mods to enable SMP 4 to accept the SMP/E control statements even though a 'warning' message was suppose to appear when it required 'manual' intervention. This was probably done to allow one release of the service from IBM without having to have one for SMP4 and another for SMP/E.

There are about 73 PTFs with ++ HOLD for one reason or another. It will take a while to look them over and figure out what needs to be done for each. Enrico has progressed with this I think according to his recent post.

Phil

•  1
  New Members
•  1
  New Files