ISHELL / UDLIST Performance (was Re: z/OS 1.11 3.17 / UDLIST )
Mark Zelden
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 10:55:33 -0600, Paul Gilmartin <PaulGB...@AIM.COM> wrote:
>On Jul 7, 2010, at 10:16, Mark Zelden wrote:
>
>> I thought that 3.17 / UDLIST would finally be a suitable ISHELL replacement
>> for browsing / editing / manipulating z/OS unix files in z/OS 1.11 so I am
>> trying to "force" myself to use it more, even though I am still more
>> comfortable with ISHELL.
>>
>I'm quite comfortable with a line mode interface, so I don't need
>ISHELL.
I use (a nice) telnet client (not win-doze) when I
have to do any "real work" in z/OS unix. I'm sure I'm not any where
near as proficient as you or others that work with *nix, but I still
like it. I can even use vi, but still prefer ISPF for editing of course.
> And I avoid ISHELL because it takes about a minute to
>display the initial BPXWP99 panel.
That is a long time.
>
>I know the reason. It reads my ~/.profile. And mine is elaborate,
>and it runs with STEPLIB open. And I have some private non-LLA libraries
>in STEPLIB. /etc/profile turns off STEPLIB, but I know no way to do
>this once my .profile begins executing.
>
>Has UDLIST solved this?
>
>I spotted the culprit. In /etc/profile:
>
> if [ -z "$STEPLIB" ] && tty -s;
> then
> export STEPLIB=none
> exec sh -L
> fi
>
>And in ISHELL, "sh tty" tells me "not a tty", so /etc/profile considers
>BPXWISH a non-interactive shell. I wonder if I could hack a copy of
>BPXWISH.
>
I doubt that is really what is making it take so long. Starting a telnet
session for me is still quicker than getting into ISHELL or UDLIST and
I don't have any STEPLIBs. Maybe has something to do with forking /
spawning a new asid (BPXAS) from within ISPF.
>Or perhaps a PMR that ISHELL improperly behaves as a non-interactive
>shell.
>
>Sigh.
>
>(What do you set your ISPF command separator to so that you can
>stack multiple ISPF commands on one ISHELL command line?)
>
I don't. I typically use ISHELL to either edit/browse a file or change
attributes (much less often) or to look at, mount / unmount physical
file systems. But for as often as I am in there, ISHELL works fine
and is quicker than starting telnet from my work station and logging
in using my userid/password and doing what I want.
Mark
--
Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS
mailto:mze...@flash.net
Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html
Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/
Kenneth Klein
Although I've been working on mainframes since the early 80's, I have also
embraced the "open side" or "distributed" or whatever you want to call
those little boxes. That said, I find the ISHELL and the OMVS interface
appalling, give me a putty session with my Tcsh and vi any day. Give it a
try, it's truly amazing.
Kenneth Klein
Systems Specialist
502-868-3644
859-750-5179 (Cell)
502-868-2298 (Fax)
kennet...@tema.toyota.com
Mark Zelden <mze...@FLASH.NET>
Sent by: ISPF discussion list <ISP...@LISTSERV.ND.EDU>
07/07/2010 01:23 PM
Please respond to
ISPF discussion list <ISP...@LISTSERV.ND.EDU>
Subject
ISHELL / UDLIST Performance (was Re: z/OS 1.11 3.17 / UDLIST )
Steve Comstock
Paul Gilmartin
>
> But I can't stand vi: how can you say it's "truly amazing"?
> It's an awful interface. Commands like Ctrl+B instead of F7,
> Ctrl+F instead of F8,
Of course! I had forgotten how much more intuitive F7 and
F8 are than Ctrl+B(ackward) and Ctrl+F(orward)! (Or am I
overlooking some whimsy?)
> h to move the cursor left one character instead of using the left arrow,
Ergonomic; my hands never leave the home row. And most
vi descendants nowadays, including that on z/OS, accept the
arrow keys. (Of course, not in insert mode. Would you really
want the terminal-dependent cursor motion codes inserted in
your file, any more than you'd want SBA 3270 data stream
commands inserted by ISPF?)
And, of course, it's _so_ much more intuitive that when the
cursor is on the last line of the screen and I press <down-arrow>
ISPF moves the cursor to the top line displayed on the screen
instead of the next line down in the file.
And how do you move the cursor to the end of a line? (I
defined a PF key for that.)
> data wrapping around if the screen isn't wide enough to display the data;
Huh? You know what a pain it is to insert a character in a
non-wrapped long line in an ISPF edit session!
> no 'exclude', 'flip', nor 'hide' commands,
Valid point.
> and so on. And you can only use
> vi against z/OS UNIX files, not z/OS MVS files.
>
My preferred mode to edit z/OS MVS files is to mount them
on a workstation with NFS and edit with vi. Seems to work great.
> The best thing vi has going for it is the ability to use
> regular expressions in search and change command constructs.
>
> But, of course, it's all a holy war kinda' thing. To each
> his own, usually what one is most comfortable with.
-- gil
Steve Comstock
McKown, John
> From: ISPF discussion list [mailto:ISP...@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Steve Comstock
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 4:08 PM
> To: ISP...@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: ISHELL / UDLIST Performance (was Re: z/OS 1.11
> 3.17 / UDLIST )
>
> Actually, Paul, I got to thinking about this a little bit more,
> and recalled that many of the ISPF editor commands are fairly
> new: I think for every recent release of ISPF there has been
> some new command(s) or command option(s) introduced: the product
> keeps improving. Is that true of vi? I have the impression (and
> I may be totally wrong) that the vi editor is kinda' static, with
> no stream of improvements. One could argue that it doesn't need
> improving, but that would clearly be specious: there is always
> room for improvement. I'm just asking here because I'm curious
> about it.
>
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -Steve Comstock
vim get some enhancements over time. vim and gvim are what I use on Linux. They are much better than the vi that comes with z/OS UNIX. vim is console mode, gvim is a gui (X Window).
--
John McKown
Systems Engineer IV
IT
Administrative Services Group
HealthMarkets(r)
9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010
(817) 255-3225 phone * (817)-961-6183 cell
john....@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM
Paul Gilmartin
> I doubt that is really what is making it take so long. Starting a telnet
> session for me is still quicker than getting into ISHELL or UDLIST and
> I don't have any STEPLIBs. Maybe has something to do with forking /
> spawning a new asid (BPXAS) from within ISPF.
>
>
run a new login shell for every "sh" command I enter.
>> (What do you set your ISPF command separator to so that you can
>> stack multiple ISPF commands on one ISHELL command line?)
>>
>
> I don't. I typically use ISHELL to either edit/browse a file or change
> attributes (much less often) or to look at, mount / unmount physical
> file systems.
In this case, for diagnosis, I particularly wanted to enter
sh tty; echo $? $0 $-
In fact, that worked because I had set my command delimiter to
a nondisplayable character decades ago when I was working a lot
with Pascal. Had to edit my ISPF profile in hex, IIRC. I wanted
to set it to Field Mark, since that was on my keyboard and not
used by any programming language I ever used. ISPF wouldn't
let me. I never understood why.
> But for as often as I am in there, ISHELL works fine
> and is quicker than starting telnet from my work station and logging
> in using my userid/password and doing what I want.
>
>
And as long as I'm in a linemode session, it works fine and
it's far quicker than logging in with a 3270, starting ISPF, and
<gasp/> starting ISHELL.
Clearly, some users find a tabular file menu very desirable. I'm
confident there are many, curses-based, that will work from a
shell. I doubt there are any that work from 3270 OMVS. Pity.
We need a Grand Unification of ISHELL/UDLIST with OMVS.
WSA? PITA^HY that it requires an idiosyncratic agent on every
display server. Why doesn't it just use X11 for which servers
are available on practically any display platform?
Has anyone got jedit working on z/OS?
-- gil
Turriff, Leslie
You might want to take a look at Blair Thompson's X2 editor, which I find to be very flexible and much easier to learn to use. You can find it at
http://www.tangbu.com/x2main.shtml .
Leslie
-----Original Message-----
From: ISPF discussion list [mailto:ISP...@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Steve Comstock
--
Paul Gilmartin
vi than there are platforms it runs on. And ISPF has at least one
variant, sort of, SimpList. (I may get an argument on that.)
-- gil
Dave Salt
> ISPF has at least one variant, sort of, SimpList.
SimpList isn't really a variant but more of an add-on to ISPF. It enhances just about everything ISPF does (3.4, member lists, edit/view sessions, etc), but you have to have ISPF installed and running in order to use SimpList.
Dave Salt
SimpList(tm) - try it; you'll get it!
http://www.mackinney.com/products/program-development/simplist.html
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Dating: Find someone special. Start now.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9734384
Ted MacNEIL
Whenever I get a different terminal emulator installed, I map F1-F12 to PF13-PF24, and <shift>F1-F12 to PF1-PF12.
This comes from my days as a green-screen user, where the high-order keys were in a little pad and you had to shift the upper row to get the PFKeys.
People are constantly amazed at the setup I use, because most of them have only used emulators to access the mainframe.
-
I'm a SuperHero with neither powers, nor motivation!
Kimota!
Jeff Byrum
When we moved to PCs with emulators, I really missed the "F13-F24" pad, which had been replaced with the totally useless numeric keypad in the same location. So one day I figured out how to map my keyboard in the emulator, and realized that I could still have my PF13-PF24 keypad. On the numeric keypad (don't laugh), I mapped:
/ = PF13
* = PF14
- = PF15
7 = PF16
8 = PF17
9 = PF18
4 = PF19
...etc.
3 = PF24
True, the first three are shifted to the right a bit, but it only took me a couple of days to get used to that. I use F1 - F12 for non-standard functions because for me, they are awkward to use, and I always have to look at the keyboard.
Every once in a while, someone wants to show me something in ISPF using my keyboard, and they quickly become discouraged. There was one developer who even argued with me that it was not good professional practice to customize my keyboard or my PF keys! My response: it's a *P*C -- a *personal* computer. Don't use my toothbrush; don't use my keyboard!
Jeff (mainframe dinosaur)
--
"De gustibus non est disputandum"
-----Original Message-----
From: ISPF discussion list [mailto:ISP...@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 6:51 PM
To: ISP...@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: ISHELL / UDLIST Performance (was Re: z/OS 1.11 3.17 / UDLIST )
Ted MacNEIL
>My response: it's a *P*C -- a *personal* computer.
>Don't use my toothbrush; don't use my keyboard!
I had a similar situation, in the mid-1990's, where (due to RSI) I had to use my mouse left-handed.
So, I swapped the right/left click keys -- it was easier.
My response was similar to yours, but I had the added ammunition that it was against company policy (a bank) for somebody to use somebody else's PC -- security exposure.
Mark Zelden
"z/OS 1.11 3.17 / UDLIST Disappointments" when Paul started to
talk about ISHELL performance! :-)
Someone should have change the subject again because this thread
has gone far away from the new topic also.
thoma...@swedbank.se
> Från: ISPF discussion list [mailto:ISP...@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] För Steve
> Comstock
> Skickat: den 7 juli 2010 23:08
> Till: ISP...@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Ämne: Re: ISHELL / UDLIST Performance (was Re: z/OS 1.11 3.17 / UDLIST )
>
> Paul Gilmartin wrote:
> > On 07/07/10 14:27, Steve Comstock wrote:
> >>
> >> But I can't stand vi: how can you say it's "truly amazing"?
> >> It's an awful interface. Commands like Ctrl+B instead of F7,
> >> Ctrl+F instead of F8,
> >
> > Of course! I had forgotten how much more intuitive F7 and
> > F8 are than Ctrl+B(ackward) and Ctrl+F(orward)! (Or am I
> > overlooking some whimsy?)
>
> Of course, that speaks to my last point about what one is
> familiar with: when I run into a student has mapped their
> PF keys different than most it always causes some astonishment.
>
Since the day when the PFkeys moved from a group to the right
to a vertical row above the ordinary keys (1981 ?) I've been using
customized keys. E g PF12 = UP, PF24 = DOWN. Etc.
Regards,
Thomas Berg
_________________________________________
Thomas Berg Specialist A M SWEDBANK
James Magruder
Down keys on the emulator to F7 / F8? So that you scroll up or down
by pressing Page Up or Page Down?
This seems to me to be the most obvious thing in the world. But I
haven't seen anyone else doing it.
I also started with dumb terminals, back in the early '80s, so I guess
I'm a dinosaur too.