Re: Updated UNIX certification WAS: z/OS 3.1: Now UNIX® Certified

2023-06-09 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 14:29:38 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >Well, it started with IBM making a bad guess as to what ASA/USASA/ANSI would >pass as the 8-bit ASCII (which died on the vine). Then there was a plethora of >8-bit code pages loosely based on ASCII ("a maze of twisty passages, all >alike

Re: Updated UNIX certification WAS: z/OS 3.1: Now UNIX® Certified

2023-06-09 Thread Seymour J Metz
.EDU] on behalf of Rick Troth [tro...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 9:49 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Updated UNIX certification WAS: z/OS 3.1: Now UNIX® Certified This "file tagging" is completely new for me. Please pardon my ignorance. The behavior you descr

Re: Updated UNIX certification WAS: z/OS 3.1: Now UNIX® Certified

2023-06-08 Thread Timothy Sipples
David Frenzel asks: >Timothy, are you stating that z/OS 3.1 now has the same certification >that 2.1 has or is this certification for 3.1 implying any changes as to >how USS works and whether anything has been improved from 2.x? There have been many improvements in z/OS UNIX since z/OS 2.1. The z/

Re: Updated UNIX certification WAS: z/OS 3.1: Now UNIX® Certified

2023-06-08 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 09:49:57 -0400, Rick Troth wrote: >This "file tagging" is completely new for me. Please pardon my ignorance. > It's fairly old. It was once described to me as a kernel facility. It appears now t

Re: Updated UNIX certification WAS: z/OS 3.1: Now UNIX® Certified

2023-06-08 Thread Rick Troth
This "file tagging" is completely new for me. Please pardon my ignorance. The behavior you describe (some utils honor the tag, others don't) sounds perfectly typical, totally expected. There *must* be a default, and that would predate the availability of a "tag", so for apps to not "honor" a ta

Re: Updated UNIX certification WAS: z/OS 3.1: Now UNIX® Certified

2023-06-08 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 09:58:39 +, David Frenzel wrote: > >I can see that z/OS 2.1 received the same certification back in 2013 >(https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3601.htm). >Timothy, are you stating that z/OS 3.1 now has the same certification that 2.1 >has or is this certifica