1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 23 Dec 2001	Volume 2001 : Issue 711       Contents:> Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the> Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the> Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the> Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the> Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the> Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the> Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the> Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the> Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the> Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the> Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the> Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the> Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the> Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the> Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the> Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the> Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for theJ Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the festive sea2 Re: Compaq still tries to spin Alphacide both ways2 Re: Compaq still tries to spin Alphacide both ways2 Re: Compaq still tries to spin Alphacide both ways2 Re: Compaq still tries to spin Alphacide both ways2 Re: Compaq still tries to spin Alphacide both ways2 RE: Compaq still tries to spin Alphacide both ways2 Re: Compaq still tries to spin Alphacide both ways2 Re: Compaq still tries to spin Alphacide both ways2 Re: Compaq still tries to spin Alphacide both ways2 Re: Compaq still tries to spin Alphacide both ways* Re: Congratulations for the festive season* Re: Congratulations for the festive season* Re: Congratulations for the festive season* Re: Congratulations for the festive season* Re: Congratulations for the festive season* Re: Congratulations for the festive season* Re: Congratulations for the festive season* Re: Congratulations for the festive season* Re: Congratulations for the festive season* Re: Congratulations for the festive season* Re: Congratulations for the festive season* Re: Congratulations for the festive season* Re: Congratulations for the festive season* Re: Congratulations for the festive season* Re: Congratulations for the festive season* Re: Congratulations for the festive season* Re: Congratulations for the festive season* Re: Congratulations for the festive season* Re: Congratulations for the festive season creating a user directory  Re: creating a user directory  Re: creating a user directory  Re: creating a user directory  Re: creating a user directory 0 Re: HP admits it will kill VMS if merger suceeds* Re: Job security for HP-Compaq merger team1 Looking for a screen capture utility for Open VMS 5 Re: Looking for a screen capture utility for Open VMS 5 Re: Looking for a screen capture utility for Open VMS H New VMS newsgroup (was Re: HP admits it will kill VMS if merger suceeds), Re: OpenVMS  vs. Unix  -  put up or shut up!, Re: OpenVMS  vs. Unix  -  put up or shut up!; Re: PDP-10 architectural flaws? (was: VMS missing features) ; Re: PDP-10 architectural flaws? (was: VMS missing features) ; Re: PDP-10 architectural flaws? (was: VMS missing features) ; Re: PDP-10 architectural flaws? (was: VMS missing features) P Re: Proof!  I can secure UNIX faster than VMS! Was: Congratulations for the festP Re: Proof!  I can secure UNIX faster than VMS! Was: Re: Congratulations for the P Re: Proof!  I can secure UNIX faster than VMS! Was: Re: Congratulations for the P Re: Proof!  I can secure UNIX faster than VMS! Was: Re: Congratulations for the  Re: QIOs, ASTs, and Event Flags  Re: QIOs, ASTs, and Event Flags  Re: QIOs, ASTs, and Event Flags  Re: QIOs, ASTs, and Event Flags  Re: QIOs, ASTs, and Event Flags = Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice A Re: Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice A Re: Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice A Re: Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice P Re: Why would one want a colon in a logical name? (Re: TOPS residuals (was: RE:   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 07:27:10 -0000 / From: "Adam Price" <adam+usenet@pappnase.co.uk> G Subject: Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the @ Message-ID: <hHfV7.17895$4f7.2122108@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>  5 "Bob Ceculski" <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote in message 4 > Why don't you tell us why unix is better than VMS?: How many of those nice SC class supercomputers that Compaq" has been selling recently run VMS?* Now keep the religious biggotry elsewhere. *PLONK*    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 08:15:47 +0000 % From: Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net> G Subject: Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the * Message-ID: <3C2592B3.4E275ABC@virgin.net>   Adam Price wrote:   7 > "Bob Ceculski" <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote in message 6 > > Why don't you tell us why unix is better than VMS?< > How many of those nice SC class supercomputers that Compaq$ > has been selling recently run VMS?  + The ones they can't tell you about perhaps?    > , > Now keep the religious biggotry elsewhere.	 > *PLONK*    --
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:33:16 +0100 1 From: John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch> G Subject: Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the 5 Message-ID: <3C25B2EC.FC6C0E02@swissonline.delete.ch>    Alan Greig wrote:  >  > Adam Price wrote:  > 9 > > "Bob Ceculski" <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote in message 8 > > > Why don't you tell us why unix is better than VMS?> > > How many of those nice SC class supercomputers that Compaq& > > has been selling recently run VMS? > - > The ones they can't tell you about perhaps?     0 Arghhhh !   Don't start all this argument again.  G Okay, wars don't stop for religious holidays but this war is different.   H Each OS has strengths and weaknesses.  Both of these can be important to- customers.  Some buy one, some buy the other.    *EOA     John McL   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 12:02:10 +0100 2 From: martin@radiogaga.harz.de (Martin Vorlaender)G Subject: Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the ; Message-ID: <3c25b9b2.524144494f47414741@radiogaga.harz.de>   . Adam Price (adam+usenet@pappnase.co.uk) wrote:- > "Bob Ceculski" <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote: 6 > > Why don't you tell us why unix is better than VMS?< > How many of those nice SC class supercomputers that Compaq$ > has been selling recently run VMS?  H So Unix is a better number cruncher than VMS. In what way is that a sign of a more advanced technology?  , > Now keep the religious biggotry elsewhere.  G Both sides are religiously repeating their mantra. Only that some don't 2 buy Mark's "*ix is technologically more advanced".  A *ix is a heap of utilities built around some very simple concepts D (e.g. everything is a byte stream that can be piped). The simplenessF of these concepts sure has its beauty, but I wouldn't call it advanced technology.   D VMS' technology is built on top of some very careful and far-sightedI designs (e.g. a quadword for timestamps, the (distributed) lock manager).   H *ix to me seems more like "okay, we screwed it in that matter - so let'sF put another layer atop" (thinking of shadow passwords). Of course *ix'G flexibility is good for such "solutions" - but such kludges must not be  taken as advanced technology.    cu,    Martin --  D                         | Martin Vorlaender  |  VMS & WNT programmer1  VMS is today what      | work: mv@pdv-systeme.de E  Microsoft wants        |    http://www.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/ 8  Windows NT 8.0 to be!  | home: martin@radiogaga.harz.de   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 06:03:25 -0800( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)G Subject: Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the = Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0112230603.2ccd34d5@posting.google.com>   _ bad bob <sfmc68@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message news:<3C253E0F.AC7809C5@bellatlantic.net>...  > Bob Ceculski wrote:  > >  > > Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message news:<Pine.WNT.4.50.0112221446340.1372-100000@Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM>... ) > > > On 22 Dec 2001, Jerry Leslie wrote:  > Bob,@ > you do not know what you are talking about in general, and in G > particular with VMS and security.  Being uninformed, you are spouting F > the same drivel that MSdenizens spout.  It is a manifestation of theE > old iranian proverb: a lie told twice becomes truth.  I am not sure H > which factoid you are trying to sell as truth: that VMS will be aroundI > for another 20 years. that vms is secure.  that vms is more secure than H > unix.  that vms is more secure than NT.  In your fantasy world all of C > these statements might seem to be true. However, in the world of  I > reality, none of your statements are true at this time. They range from + > speculative to absurd. but you know that. F > One question: Do you live under a bridge?  So that you get the clue,$ > you do seem to act like a troll... > bob   ? I have been on a lot of platforms in the last 22 years ... MVS,  Primos, RSTE/E, F VMS, OS400, Windoze, Unix(gag!) ... how many have you been on?  I knowE what I can do on these platforms, and what I can't do ... and VMS can 
 do it all and C better and easier ... I listed above what VMS can do, why don't you  tell us A why unix is better?  You are the typical unix user, "you"   don't 
 understandF VMS and can only spout what you have been told ... give some reasons!  Put up or shut up!    ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 06:11:39 -0800( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)G Subject: Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the = Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0112230611.27ed8352@posting.google.com>   w "Adam Price" <adam+usenet@pappnase.co.uk> wrote in message news:<hHfV7.17895$4f7.2122108@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>... 7 > "Bob Ceculski" <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote in message 6 > > Why don't you tell us why unix is better than VMS?< > How many of those nice SC class supercomputers that Compaq$ > has been selling recently run VMS?, > Now keep the religious biggotry elsewhere.	 > *PLONK*   J that is because it is being pushed by people who know nothing else ... IBMH is the same way, I worked for a while in an OS400 shop, the IT head onlyG knew system3x, so when he got his pretty little as400 box, he ran it in I system3x mode, and killed the processor, then they needed to migrate part I of their accounting system, and because he knew about nothing else, tried J to rewrite in RPG cause that is what the IBM rep suggested!  Pity, cause IK gave him an Alpha solution that would have been alot cheaper and blown away K that junk closed menuing as400 box!  Why do so many other huge shops run 80 O million box windoze farms and spend 80% of their time bug patching?  I am still L waiting for answers to the above question ... you have failed to give any as	 usual ...    ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 06:15:21 -0800( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)G Subject: Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the ; Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0112230615.b6b53c@posting.google.com>   u martin@radiogaga.harz.de (Martin Vorlaender) wrote in message news:<3c25b9b2.524144494f47414741@radiogaga.harz.de>... 0 > Adam Price (adam+usenet@pappnase.co.uk) wrote:/ > > "Bob Ceculski" <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote: 8 > > > Why don't you tell us why unix is better than VMS?> > > How many of those nice SC class supercomputers that Compaq& > > has been selling recently run VMS? > J > So Unix is a better number cruncher than VMS. In what way is that a sign  > of a more advanced technology? > . > > Now keep the religious biggotry elsewhere. > I > Both sides are religiously repeating their mantra. Only that some don't 4 > buy Mark's "*ix is technologically more advanced". > C > *ix is a heap of utilities built around some very simple concepts F > (e.g. everything is a byte stream that can be piped). The simplenessH > of these concepts sure has its beauty, but I wouldn't call it advanced
 > technology.  > F > VMS' technology is built on top of some very careful and far-sightedK > designs (e.g. a quadword for timestamps, the (distributed) lock manager).  > J > *ix to me seems more like "okay, we screwed it in that matter - so let'sH > put another layer atop" (thinking of shadow passwords). Of course *ix'I > flexibility is good for such "solutions" - but such kludges must not be  > taken as advanced technology.  >  > cu, 
 >   Martin  O valid point number one ... that is what happens when you use freeware!  I agree " that VMS is more well designed ...   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 06:17:27 -0800( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)G Subject: Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the = Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0112230617.476c22aa@posting.google.com>   W Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net> wrote in message news:<3C2592B3.4E275ABC@virgin.net>...  > Adam Price wrote:  > 9 > > "Bob Ceculski" <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote in message 8 > > > Why don't you tell us why unix is better than VMS?> > > How many of those nice SC class supercomputers that Compaq& > > has been selling recently run VMS? > - > The ones they can't tell you about perhaps?  >  > > . > > Now keep the religious biggotry elsewhere. > > *PLONK*   L I don't buy that either ... VMS boxes sat around for years in the 80's doingH number crunching on vaxes for IBM boxes, not unix ... like I said, tru64J improved alot of things, but it is still a freeware, patchwork OS ... next$ reason why unix is better please ...   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 14:23:09 GMT ' From: bad bob <sfmc68@bellatlantic.net> G Subject: Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the 0 Message-ID: <3C25EA4F.E9DB87EB@bellatlantic.net>   Bob Ceculski wrote:  > a > bad bob <sfmc68@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message news:<3C253E0F.AC7809C5@bellatlantic.net>...  > > Bob Ceculski wrote:  > > >  > > > Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message news:<Pine.WNT.4.50.0112221446340.1372-100000@Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM>... + > > > > On 22 Dec 2001, Jerry Leslie wrote:  > > Bob,A > > you do not know what you are talking about in general, and in I > > particular with VMS and security.  Being uninformed, you are spouting H > > the same drivel that MSdenizens spout.  It is a manifestation of theG > > old iranian proverb: a lie told twice becomes truth.  I am not sure J > > which factoid you are trying to sell as truth: that VMS will be aroundK > > for another 20 years. that vms is secure.  that vms is more secure than I > > unix.  that vms is more secure than NT.  In your fantasy world all of D > > these statements might seem to be true. However, in the world ofK > > reality, none of your statements are true at this time. They range from - > > speculative to absurd. but you know that. H > > One question: Do you live under a bridge?  So that you get the clue,& > > you do seem to act like a troll... > > bob  > A > I have been on a lot of platforms in the last 22 years ... MVS,  > Primos, RSTE/E, H > VMS, OS400, Windoze, Unix(gag!) ... how many have you been on?  I knowG > what I can do on these platforms, and what I can't do ... and VMS can  > do it all and E > better and easier ... I listed above what VMS can do, why don't you 	 > tell us C > why unix is better?  You are the typical unix user, "you"   don't  > understandG > VMS and can only spout what you have been told ... give some reasons!  > Put up
 > or shut up! E I believe that your response indicates that you are a write only bot. C You send back words that are in the text but you do not address the > issues included.  AI has not progressed enough to identify the
 underlyingF concepts embodied in the text.  Mimsy were the bargroves.  You do siteD OS acronyms I provided you in an earlier post. Earwax does not shineF tables.  Yes, truly, the world does have gravity.  A hyperbolic mirror? is not a mirror that reflects hyperbole.  If you were a human,  ? I would try to resurrect Carl Lydick and turn him loose on you.RE I see no need to embarrass you by trading credentials.  I will adviser yout@ that I am shaping the electrons and photons on an box running MS	 products. G I have also telnetted into boxes running linux - which you seem to failr toG mention - freebsd, vms, netbsd, and a couple of others - as I sit here.aF You fail to mention manythings in your attempts to shape our opinions.H Therefor, I must conclude you are a bot. Perhaps even a mini EEEVil bot.H Perhaps, in this text are phrases and sentence fragments that might makeD your pattern recognition system stumble. knights who say Nee.  Then H again, you do seem to have some affinity to real shitty time sharing so H perhaps you are a terminal program running on an 11 tied to a 10 runningF eliza modified to be an antagonist of the computer kind.  Not too hard toG do if you combine some madlibs with eliza. Nick Nick. Know what I mean,R know what I mean.f   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 06:32:21 -0800( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)G Subject: Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for thei< Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0112230632.150f7af@posting.google.com>   Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message news:<Pine.WNT.4.50.0112221446340.1372-100000@Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM>... % > On 22 Dec 2001, Jerry Leslie wrote:i2 > > : My consulting rates start at $10,000/week...2 > > Damn, why are you wasting time in this forum ? > G > This is entertainment.  There's a lot of lurkers rolling on the flooreI > laughing at the notion that anyone could consider VMS superior to UNIX.u > > > > We'd forgive you if you had to go make a buck, really. ;-) >  > Fortunately, I don't.o >  > -- Mark -- > ! > http://staff.washington.edu/mrc H > Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.  J and while we are analyzing why unix is better as an os than vms, let's notG forget networking ... unix has what, tcp/ip?  that's it ... I submit tonH you that running Decnet over IP, the integrity of that network increasesJ substantially as for example decnet copies would become alot more reliableG than ftp ... and I know from experience that is fact ... what is unixese answer to decnet?o   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 06:40:24 -0800( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)G Subject: Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for thet< Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0112230640.493f8f5@posting.google.com>  X leslie@clio.rice.edu (Jerry Leslie) wrote in message news:<a02vs1$l64$1@joe.rice.edu>.... > Mark Crispin (mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU) wrote:0 > : My consulting rates start at $10,000/week... > 1 > Damn, why are you wasting time in this forum ?   > < > We'd forgive you if you had to go make a buck, really. ;-) > 6 > --Jerry Leslie     (my opinions are strictly my own)  J another point ... Bill Gates had Dave Cutler use VMS and the Dec Mica codeI as a base for NT ... if unix is so great, why didn't he base NT after theuB unix model instead of vms?  That is because he knows what is best!   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 14:40:51 GMTc' From: bad bob <sfmc68@bellatlantic.net>rG Subject: Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for ther0 Message-ID: <3C25EE76.E9EF6509@bellatlantic.net>   Bob Ceculski wrote:t >  > Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message news:<Pine.WNT.4.50.0112221446340.1372-100000@Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM>...e' > > On 22 Dec 2001, Jerry Leslie wrote: 4 > > > : My consulting rates start at $10,000/week...4 > > > Damn, why are you wasting time in this forum ? > >SI > > This is entertainment.  There's a lot of lurkers rolling on the floor K > > laughing at the notion that anyone could consider VMS superior to UNIX.E > > @ > > > We'd forgive you if you had to go make a buck, really. ;-) > >  > > Fortunately, I don't.  > >a > > -- Mark -- > >f# > > http://staff.washington.edu/mrceJ > > Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. > L > and while we are analyzing why unix is better as an os than vms, let's notI > forget networking ... unix has what, tcp/ip?  that's it ... I submit to,J > you that running Decnet over IP, the integrity of that network increasesL > substantially as for example decnet copies would become alot more reliableI > than ftp ... and I know from experience that is fact ... what is unixesc > answer to decnet?iF Pardonez-moi? I believe you bot factoid dictionary is somewhat out of C wack.  Many of the Nix varieties support more than the TcPIP stack.aF Yes, if you put a package in a sufficiently strong wrapper and provideC a better delivery system, you explicitly state an example of decnet  being:6 more reliable when it is wrapped in TcP.  Bot, go away	 !!PLONK!!B   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 14:45:41 GMT3' From: bad bob <sfmc68@bellatlantic.net>eG Subject: Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the 0 Message-ID: <3C25EF98.3C17B61C@bellatlantic.net>   Bob Ceculski wrote:i > Z > leslie@clio.rice.edu (Jerry Leslie) wrote in message news:<a02vs1$l64$1@joe.rice.edu>...0 > > Mark Crispin (mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU) wrote:2 > > : My consulting rates start at $10,000/week... > >e2 > > Damn, why are you wasting time in this forum ? > > > > > We'd forgive you if you had to go make a buck, really. ;-) > >h8 > > --Jerry Leslie     (my opinions are strictly my own) > L > another point ... Bill Gates had Dave Cutler use VMS and the Dec Mica codeK > as a base for NT ... if unix is so great, why didn't he base NT after thewD > unix model instead of vms?  That is because he knows what is best!E Ok, based on the bot posting about 22 years of experience, let us say  youqH are 23.  That means you are younger than the VMS development. Let us sayB taht you do not know the history of operating systems -well you do providek& ample evidence to support this therom:
 GO=FI*(BCP/0) D or in layman's terms Garbage out is what you get when BobC processes factual ! information - he devides it by 0.e   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 06:42:19 -0800( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)G Subject: Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the:= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0112230642.283c7922@posting.google.com>e  w "Adam Price" <adam+usenet@pappnase.co.uk> wrote in message news:<hHfV7.17895$4f7.2122108@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>...k7 > "Bob Ceculski" <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote in messageu6 > > Why don't you tell us why unix is better than VMS?< > How many of those nice SC class supercomputers that Compaq$ > has been selling recently run VMS?, > Now keep the religious biggotry elsewhere.	 > *PLONK*m  F why did bill gates choose vms over unix as the platform to base NT on?* why does intel make their chips using vms?A why does the jstars plane flying around over afghanistan use vms?m8 I could go on with these questions, do you have answers?   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 15:46:49 GMT / From: "Don Chiasson" <don_chiasson@notmail.com>sG Subject: Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for thel. Message-ID: <J%mV7.849$Czm.614@news1.bloor.is>  5 "Bob Ceculski" <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote in messagei6 news:d7791aa1.0112230640.493f8f5@posting.google.com... <<snip>> >e: > another point ... Bill Gates had Dave Cutler use VMS and6 > the Dec Mica code as a base for NT ... if unix is so; > great, why didn't he base NT after the unix model instead 1 > of vms?  That is because he knows what is best!   9 No. He used it because: first: he knew it; and second, itN1 was proprietary so no one could steal it (again).v   Done e-mail: it's not not, it's hot.    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 15:54:35 GMTe' From: bad bob <sfmc68@bellatlantic.net>-G Subject: Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for thew0 Message-ID: <3C25FFBF.F81EE407@bellatlantic.net>   Don Chiasson wrote:o > 7 > "Bob Ceculski" <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote in message38 > news:d7791aa1.0112230640.493f8f5@posting.google.com...
 > <<snip>> > >a< > > another point ... Bill Gates had Dave Cutler use VMS and8 > > the Dec Mica code as a base for NT ... if unix is so= > > great, why didn't he base NT after the unix model instead03 > > of vms?  That is because he knows what is best!  > ; > No. He used it because: first: he knew it; and second, iti3 > was proprietary so no one could steal it (again).n0 Ahh, the sound of truth!! Right on the mark Don! >  > Dond! > e-mail: it's not not, it's hot.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 09:52:37 -0700t+ From: Ben Franchuk <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>rG Subject: Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for theh, Message-ID: <3C260BD5.F6AD6931@jetnet.ab.ca>  L > another point ... Bill Gates had Dave Cutler use VMS and the Dec Mica codeK > as a base for NT ... if unix is so great, why didn't he base NT after the,D > unix model instead of vms?  That is because he knows what is best!  D With Bill Gates track record for quality software is this a plug for unix?r   -- S' Ben Franchuk --- Pre-historic Cpu's -- o+ www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.htmln   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 20:55:06 +0800, From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>S Subject: Re: Buffer Overflows - again Was: (Re: Congratulations for the festive sean- Message-ID: <87g0622j11.fsf@prep.synonet.com>.  * bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) writes:  N > the only dead OS right now is windoze XP ... goto to the inquirer or read my% > post here about the FBI warning ...   A I got the impression that someone in the beltway is in full flame-D over the billybuggery. Far more than the normal maeningless responseE to this sort of thing. MAybe they will even require stringent testingg and certification... a  / Nah, never happen. Just give bill more money...e   -- o< Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.u@                                              West Australia 6076. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 02:02:35 -0500s- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>a; Subject: Re: Compaq still tries to spin Alphacide both waysM+ Message-ID: <3C258189.9CF132F@videotron.ca>    "Main, Kerry" wrote:J > 1. Whether Intel will use the Alpha technology it has acquired or not inD > future versions of IPF. Whether it is to rescue it (your words) orB > enhance it (my words) is a moot point for beer hall discussions.  J There is a big difference between claiming that Intel will make use of theJ brains and algorithms/concepts it has acquired in future chip designs, andJ claiming that the newly acquired engineers and IP will result in an "Alpha inside" version of IA64.  G There were (initially) some highly credible people who claimed that the N infusion of Digital engineers into Intel would dramatically transform IA64 andI add to IA64 stuff that VMS might need (hence the long delay before VMS is8G available on IA64). These people quickly lost credibility and it becamewF apparent that they were just trying to keep their jobs by artificially supporting Compaq.  N The murder of Alpha is not defensible on a technological point of view. It wasI killed simply on political grounds. And anyone who used to brag about howuK superior Alpha was and now brags about IA64's bright future has very little E credibility and further erodes Compaq's image because it continues toyO underline the fact that Compaq has to find ways to spin its unpopular decision.       B > VMS is being ported to IA64 on IA64 systems available today. TheJ > expectation is that the IA64 systems available at the time when this newH > VMS version is available for Cust's will be much improved over what is > available today.    I Customers do not accept "expectation" over somthing that has yet to provea8 itself. People remember the math problem of the Pentium.  K Furthermore, from what I was told (correct me if I am wrong), the currentlytN available IA64 are essentially Merceds, and when will be available in a coupleL of years will essentially be Merceds with process shrinks. Not much infusion of Digital expertise in there.  K Mr Main, do you agree that those who made claims that the Digital engineers N would be able to add Alpha-style instructions to IA64  were misleading readersL ? (especially if the claim was that such improvements/changes would occur in* time for VMS to become available on IA64)   -  If the IA64 servers for that initial generaltF > availability release of VMS are not up to snuff, then they obviouslyJ > will have lots more work to do as existing and new Cust's will remain or > choose Alpha based servers.6  M Prior to June 25, Digital folks would brag about how flawed the philosophy oflL IA64 was and how this design philosophy would come to haunt the chip for its whole life.o  A Of course, those people are no longer allowed to say such things.e     >3   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:26:59 +0100k1 From: John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch>h; Subject: Re: Compaq still tries to spin Alphacide both waysy5 Message-ID: <3C25B173.8AA04B64@swissonline.delete.ch>    JF Mezei wrote:c >  > "Main, Kerry" wrote:L > > 1. Whether Intel will use the Alpha technology it has acquired or not inF > > future versions of IPF. Whether it is to rescue it (your words) orD > > enhance it (my words) is a moot point for beer hall discussions. > L > There is a big difference between claiming that Intel will make use of theL > brains and algorithms/concepts it has acquired in future chip designs, andL > claiming that the newly acquired engineers and IP will result in an "Alpha > inside" version of IA64. > I > There were (initially) some highly credible people who claimed that thehP > infusion of Digital engineers into Intel would dramatically transform IA64 andK > add to IA64 stuff that VMS might need (hence the long delay before VMS isbI > available on IA64). These people quickly lost credibility and it became<H > apparent that they were just trying to keep their jobs by artificially > supporting Compaq. > P > The murder of Alpha is not defensible on a technological point of view. It wasK > killed simply on political grounds. And anyone who used to brag about howtM > superior Alpha was and now brags about IA64's bright future has very littlehG > credibility and further erodes Compaq's image because it continues torQ > underline the fact that Compaq has to find ways to spin its unpopular decision.g > D > > VMS is being ported to IA64 on IA64 systems available today. TheL > > expectation is that the IA64 systems available at the time when this newJ > > VMS version is available for Cust's will be much improved over what is > > available today. > K > Customers do not accept "expectation" over somthing that has yet to provey: > itself. People remember the math problem of the Pentium. > M > Furthermore, from what I was told (correct me if I am wrong), the currently P > available IA64 are essentially Merceds, and when will be available in a coupleN > of years will essentially be Merceds with process shrinks. Not much infusion  > of Digital expertise in there. > M > Mr Main, do you agree that those who made claims that the Digital engineers P > would be able to add Alpha-style instructions to IA64  were misleading readersN > ? (especially if the claim was that such improvements/changes would occur in+ > time for VMS to become available on IA64)s > / >  If the IA64 servers for that initial general H > > availability release of VMS are not up to snuff, then they obviouslyL > > will have lots more work to do as existing and new Cust's will remain or > > choose Alpha based servers.  > O > Prior to June 25, Digital folks would brag about how flawed the philosophy ofxN > IA64 was and how this design philosophy would come to haunt the chip for its
 > whole life.a > C > Of course, those people are no longer allowed to say such things.p >   = Whoa !  The decision has been made, whether with questionable 7 justification or not, it has been made.  Life moves on.   E Right now there are a lot of plans, a lot of ideas of what Compaq and.E the Alpha people - current and now Intel - would LIKE to see happen. aE Whether those things come to fruition will depend on a whole range oflE circumstances, some of which can be seen now, others faintly glimpsed C and others which will only become apparent over the next few years.i  H Speculation can be useful in that it informs people of possible outcomesE and hence the possible options.  Speculation which is constantly *and 4 only* critical serves little useful purpose anytime.  > Constructive criticism would be fine because it points towardsH solutions, but it does seem that the only solution being proposed is one= that is not an acceptable alternative to the decision makers.   F This discussion has been going on sporadically since June 25th. That'sH SIX MONTHS !  I gave up on it a week or so ago. Isn't it time for all of us to give it a break ?-     John McLean-   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 12:11:04 +0100B( From: Paul Sture <paul.sture@bluewin.ch>; Subject: Re: Compaq still tries to spin Alphacide both ways7- Message-ID: <VA.00000501.04e4c140@bluewin.ch>   H In article <3C25B173.8AA04B64@swissonline.delete.ch>, John McLean wrote:  
 [big snip]  H > This discussion has been going on sporadically since June 25th. That'sJ > SIX MONTHS !  I gave up on it a week or so ago. Isn't it time for all of > us to give it a break ?r >  Agreed. Time to move on.  J The seasonal thank you letter which the property company has pinned to theI front door of my apartment starts out with this: "A disturbed year, whichuL brought many changes and many a sorrow both close and far, draws to an end".  9 That sums it up pretty well for me. Please let's move on.c ___s
 Paul Sture Switzerlandp   ------------------------------   Date: 23 Dec 2001 11:10:53 GMT( From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren); Subject: Re: Compaq still tries to spin Alphacide both ways 0 Message-ID: <a04e3t$ffa$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>  > In article <JG4V7.26540$Sj1.12923662@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,3 Terry C. Shannon <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote:f >.A >"Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote in messagew& >news:a02ko4$hfp$1@bob.news.rcn.net...B >> "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote in message; >> news:Ym4V7.26477$Sj1.12912646@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...: >> >E >> > "Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote in messagei* >> > news:a02jku$dr3$1@bob.news.rcn.net...G >> > > The Alpha chips fate was sealed the moment Digital was bought byi
 >> > >Compaq.a >> > >> > In hindsight, absolutely. >>K >> I used to work with a company that was a dgital partner up until the buyrL >> out.  We where told by our rep that the alpha didn't stand a chance.  MayM >> have been his opinion at the time but I still think the writing was on thel >> wall. >vF >Well, it was definitely WRIT LARGE by the time August 19, 1999 rolledH >around. A shame that the Sculptor project was killed. That IMHO was the >final nail in the coffin.  C Paradoxically, I think that it was API.  Not the decision to set it:@ up, which was reasonable, but the way that it was prevented from> producing products that would lead Compaq's (either in time or@ performance).  Rumours are that Samsung (who provided 2/3 of the? money) were really pissed of with Compaq about the latter's bade faith.  A The point is that Compaq handled the Alpha very much the way that C Barron handled the Transputer (in the T400/T800 days).  Even at the , time, there were clearly two viable options:  @     Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.  Borrowing money ifA necessary to get up to speed, and making the system into an equal A (in cash flow terms) of the market leader.  I.e. reorganising the  company round the product.  C     It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.  To sell the projects toaB a company that will take it on (or set up a subsidiary) and to use@ it as just another supplier and the extra cash to retool for the= originating company's strategic directions (e.g. VMS on others
 hardware).   What they did was:  B     The important thing is to maintain public confidence.  I.e. toC do just enough to keep the project plausible but not enough to make A it really competitive.  And to use the sales as a milk cow, while ' spending as little as possible on feed.e  C The history of UK IT comnpanies is solid with them being faced withn@ that choice and taking the last decision.  Compaq (aka Capellas)% did the same - with the usual result.t     Regards, Nick Maclaren,* University of Cambridge Computing Service,> New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England. Email:  nmm1@cam.ac.uk/ Tel.:  +44 1223 334761    Fax:  +44 1223 334679d   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 13:06:55 -0000= From: Doc.Cypher <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]>e; Subject: Re: Compaq still tries to spin Alphacide both ways(6 Message-ID: <20011223130655.23061.qmail@gacracker.org>  G On Sun, 23 Dec 2001, John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch> wrote:(   <snip>  G >This discussion has been going on sporadically since June 25th. That's(I >SIX MONTHS !  I gave up on it a week or so ago. Isn't it time for all ofw >us to give it a break ?   I'll second that!e     Doc. -- ?6 The bigger the humbug, the better people will like it.K ~ Phineas Taylor Barnum.                              http://vmsbox.cjb.net)   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 10:33:18 -0500c+ From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@compaq.com>g; Subject: RE: Compaq still tries to spin Alphacide both waysoT Message-ID: <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4010D7251@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>   Bill,e  B This is my last post with respect to this particular thread and as0 others have indicated, it is time to move on.=20  ' After all it is the Holiday season. :-)  +++++ . re:  what I stated in the private newsgroup ..  G I stated essentially the same thing in the private newsgroup as here inCG comp.os.vms. In fact, as you know, I even continued to use the same sig-G file as I always have to ensure there was no misrepresentation of wherei I was from.c  H The reason the group came together was to exchange viewpoints and idea'sH on how to constructively assist with improving OpenVMS's position in theG marketplace. Various idea's on the pro's and con's of the decision were5
 exchanged.=20w  H You obviously do not agree with my views and are dissecting every singleH word from myself and other Compaq resource's so that you can use them to@ further your own agenda. Fine. That is certainly your right as a! participant in a public forum.=20e  F However, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the Alpha to> IA64 decision, there is a much more basic issue at stake here.  H What has changed is that you personally decided to use the contents of aC private group discussion to post in a public forum to suit your own G personal agenda. This is the same group that got all upset at one point6A when it was only *thought* that a leak had somehow gotten out.=20:  E Now, you are openly and publicly posting these discussions to further- your own agenda.   Please answer these questions:  H When you joined this private group, did you or did you not agree to keep9 all discussions in that private group private? Yes or No?   F If one of these other private group members disagree's with your views? at some point in the future, does that mean you will post theiri, previously private posts as well? Yes or No?  % And you are questioning my integrity?b   Right ..  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultanta Compaq Canada Corp.n Professional Services) Voice: 613-592-4660t Fax  :  819-772-7036 Email: Kerry.Main@Compaq.com   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 16:15:17 GMTt* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>; Subject: Re: Compaq still tries to spin Alphacide both waysFB Message-ID: <pqnV7.203401$C8.14303873@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  > "John McLean" <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch> wrote in message/ news:3C25B173.8AA04B64@swissonline.delete.ch...p   ...a  @ > Constructive criticism would be fine because it points towardsJ > solutions, but it does seem that the only solution being proposed is one? > that is not an acceptable alternative to the decision makers.c  K That is likely because the solution being proposed starts by getting rid ofaL said decision makers:  are they really the *kind* of people *you* want to beK dealing with, aside from the fact that they're the main obstacle to getting $ Compaq turned in a better direction?   >-H > This discussion has been going on sporadically since June 25th. That'sJ > SIX MONTHS !  I gave up on it a week or so ago. Isn't it time for all of > us to give it a break ?3  K Why don't you ask the 36-bit people?  They've been at this for close to twor# decades and don't seem to be tired.a  H But, unlike the situation in 1983, Compaq is rather vulnerable right nowI (due entirely to its own actions).  Continued pressure *just might* causelL real change.  I recognize that many people here don't feel they can be quiteL as aggressive as I can because they continue to depend on their relationship? with Compaq (at least temporarily), but every little bit helps.0   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 16:27:52 GMTr* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>; Subject: Re: Compaq still tries to spin Alphacide both waysmB Message-ID: <cCnV7.203456$C8.14311924@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  6 "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@compaq.com> wrote in messageL news:BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4010D7251@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net. ..   ...b  F However, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the Alpha to> IA64 decision, there is a much more basic issue at stake here.  G < Indeed there is.  But it's clear that you would prefer to divert thisJE < discussion to Netiquette and away from the far more grievous breach G < of trust that occurred on June 25th (and in which your complicity wasK* < the direct cause of the current breach).  H What has changed is that you personally decided to use the contents of aC private group discussion to post in a public forum to suit your owniG personal agenda. This is the same group that got all upset at one point3> when it was only *thought* that a leak had somehow gotten out.  E Now, you are openly and publicly posting these discussions to further8 your own agenda.  G < What I'm posting is specific refutation of a lie you're attempting toh< < propagate concerning your position last June.  And from my< < viewpoint, when you began to spew the Compaq party line in< < our discussions, you crossed the line from being a private@ < participant (if you ever really were one) to being a corporate7 < shill, and lost your claims to private communication.i   Please answer these questions:  H When you joined this private group, did you or did you not agree to keep9 all discussions in that private group private? Yes or No?e  > < Yes.  As I said above, when you stopped discussing and began& < shilling that agreement became void.  F If one of these other private group members disagree's with your views? at some point in the future, does that mean you will post theirb, previously private posts as well? Yes or No?  B < No.  This is the only time I've *ever* posted someone's commentsE < with attribution and without consent, nor have I ever before posteddD < information even without attribution if I had reason to believe my# < correspondent did not wish me to.t  % And you are questioning my integrity?r  
 < Absolutely.t   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 18:05:20 +0100s1 From: John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch> ; Subject: Re: Compaq still tries to spin Alphacide both waysa5 Message-ID: <3C260ED0.69B03893@swissonline.delete.ch>e   Bill Todd wrote: > =w  @ > "John McLean" <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch> wrote in message1 > news:3C25B173.8AA04B64@swissonline.delete.ch...c > =e   > ...n > =r  B > > Constructive criticism would be fine because it points towardsJ > > solutions, but it does seem that the only solution being proposed is = onenA > > that is not an acceptable alternative to the decision makers.n > =   J > That is likely because the solution being proposed starts by getting ri= d ofJ > said decision makers:  are they really the *kind* of people *you* want = to beoJ > dealing with, aside from the fact that they're the main obstacle to get= ting& > Compaq turned in a better direction? > =    > >cJ > > This discussion has been going on sporadically since June 25th. That'= sVJ > > SIX MONTHS !  I gave up on it a week or so ago. Isn't it time for all=  oft > > us to give it a break ?M > =   J > Why don't you ask the 36-bit people?  They've been at this for close to=  two% > decades and don't seem to be tired.A > =b  J > But, unlike the situation in 1983, Compaq is rather vulnerable right no= w J > (due entirely to its own actions).  Continued pressure *just might* cau= seJ > real change.  I recognize that many people here don't feel they can be = quitesJ > as aggressive as I can because they continue to depend on their relatio= nship:A > with Compaq (at least temporarily), but every little bit helps.u    D No.  Most of us recognize that Compaq will not rollback the decisionH regardless of whatever else they may do.  Most of us also recognize thatE this forum appears to have little impact on Compaq's decisions.  ThisaC forum is fine for discussing issues and discovering if others sharesF similar views, but if you want to pressure Compaq over any issue, thenE you have to contact them directly or at least through some forum thatt they do monitor.  =s      C Bill, what has been achieved with all this discussion over the laste several months ?  - In my opinion (fwiw), the conclusions are =85lD (a)  that Compaq's technical justification has been shown to be weak9 (b)  that their other justifications were rather specious G (c)  that some of Compaq's aims with respect to Intel's delivery may beA
 optimistic= (d)  that Compaq's long silence before producing any detailede justification was disturbing  , And the probable outcomes from these are =85C (i)  that credibility of Compaq's future statements will be closelyr examinedD (ii) that some customers will be less enthusiastic about buying from Compaq in future =85and not much else  E Any attempts to pressure Compaq into changing its mind are a waste ofoH time because Alpha is not retrievable; any hopes for any kind of apologyG are a waste of time.  If there was a change in Compaq's management theniG *perhaps* something may happen but this is likely to be a different wayn@ of handling things in future rather than any kind of rollback. =    H Continuation of the arguments about Alpha versus Intel is likely to only> increase the ill-feeling and certainly not help the situation.  C We talk about Compaq's credibility but credibility is an issue thattG works both ways.  Continued alienation is a sure-fire way to be ignored D even when you have something relevant to say *and* there is a chance, that you can influence events and decisions.    D I believe that the major cause of all this anti-Compaq reaction goes? back to how Compaq communicates with its existing and potentialM
 customers.  D It could have been so easy to have communicated this is a simple andG dignified manner without disturbing the customer base unduly.  It couldi< even have been presented as a sensible and logical decision:  E << It is with some regret that Compaq announces its transfer of AlphapG technology to Intel but it has been decided that the funds will be moreAI effectively used in the downstream activities of software and services. =y  G Compaq will be working with Intel to try to ensure that the features ofsF Alpha are incorporated in future processors and that the disruption toH customers will be minimal.  It is expected that the new Intel processors@ will be available in the 2004-5 timeframe. Alpha processors willE continue to be available from Compaq at least until that time and thefC various EV6 releases will continue as planned. More details will be % announced as they become available.>>h    G How difficult was that ? The big differences are that (a) it implicitly B acknowledges that Alpha is great, (b) it does not contradict otherH statements from Compaq, (c) it is reassuring, (d) the justification is aH little nebulous but still quite reasonable, and (e) it gives no foothold# to mount a strong counter-argument.c  9 Why Compaq cannot communicate things like this amazes me.l  B We often hear the expression "don't shoot the messenger" but maybeD Compaq should start shooting because those messengers are failing inG their duties.  This is causing Compaq to lose customers and causing thesG kind of agression that we've been seeing in this newsgroup for the lasti several months.n     John McLeani   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 17:17:33 GMTi4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>; Subject: Re: Compaq still tries to spin Alphacide both waysn> Message-ID: <NkoV7.28693$Sj1.13479130@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>  > "John McLean" <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch> wrote in message/ news:3C260ED0.69B03893@swissonline.delete.ch...,   <snip>  G How difficult was that ? The big differences are that (a) it implicitlyCB acknowledges that Alpha is great, (b) it does not contradict otherH statements from Compaq, (c) it is reassuring, (d) the justification is aH little nebulous but still quite reasonable, and (e) it gives no foothold# to mount a strong counter-argument.   9 Why Compaq cannot communicate things like this amazes me.'  B We often hear the expression "don't shoot the messenger" but maybeD Compaq should start shooting because those messengers are failing inG their duties.  This is causing Compaq to lose customers and causing thetH kind of aggression that we've been seeing in this newsgroup for the last several months.e  ! Well stated, and absolutely true.o  J I suspect that there is a Major Disconnect between Compaq's Powers That BeI and the customer base. Obviously Compaq executives don't spend their timekD perusing Usenet commentary. The executives most likely rely on theirH marketing subordinates when it comes to taking the pulse of the customer base.6  H Now, if I was a marketing person, the last thing I would tell my boss isL that customers were unhappy, and that the proximate cause of said discontentI was the quality, quantity, and timeliness of the information disseminatedn# through various marketing channels.n  I Such candor would be, umm, career-limiting, no? Heck, "tell 'em what they K want to hear" is the path of least resistance regardless of where you work!n  F With respect to the angst and aggression on certain Usenet newsgroups,I postings that reflect this behavior are unlikely to gain much credence ath Compaq.t   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 02:12:32 -08003 From: Eric Smith <eric-no-spam-for-me@brouhaha.com>h3 Subject: Re: Congratulations for the festive seasonn0 Message-ID: <qhr8pm9re7.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>  4 Arthur Krewat <krewat@bartek.dontspamme.net> writes:J > Yeah, but come on. Isn't it the programmer's fault that they can't write > good C code? s  I Of course it is.  But the reality is that it's going to get written badlyiK by those programmers.  So the responsible thing for the rest of us to do isuI to give those programmers tools that can protect them (and their victims,mI er, end users) from the most obvious stupid errors.  The C language isn'ti the right tool.o  F If you knew that most furniture was going to be made by klutzy people,: you'd give them table saws that have finger guards, right?  K > Again, I see nothing wrong with the language except that it doesn't checki > on the assholes. y  J As I pointed out before, even experts slip up from time to time.  So toolsI that can catch the more obvious screwups are preferrable to brain-damageda tools that can't.e  I > Seen Ada, matter of fact had to tell the weenies how to program Ada in .A > an effective way (system admin for a place that did DOD stuff).s  G Sounds like you're talking about efficiency.  You can write inefficienttI code in any language, just like you can write buggy code in any language. G There are several areas in which Ada implementations (and the language)eG tend to be criticized for inefficiency.  In actuality, there is nothingIE in the language spec that can't be implemented just as efficiently asmE C code.  People tend to complain about exceptions and generics, which I actually have little run-time overhead.  They also complain about garbageeE collection, which is not actually required by the language.  However, D I would argue that garbage collection is actually another thing that% is well worth its small runtime cost.r  D The usual criticism of garbage collection turns into complaints that@ it isn't suitable for real-time systems, which is a red herring.G Memory management in real-time systems has to be done carefully whether @ you have garbage collection or not.  Ada implementations let youG explicitly deallocate your own memory (using the unchecked_deallocationl> generic), or you can plan your software to defer collection toC acceptable times.  The former is certainly no worse than C, and thee/ latter is reasonably easy and less error-prone.s  > > I like machine language, preferably in octal (for PDP-10's).  B You're never going to convince a non-trivial number of programmersA of that being the Right Thing (tm).  And I would argue that whilerA that might be fine for you, you wouldn't really want to depend onuC the unwashed masses programming in that.  The results would be much- worse that what we have with C.2  G > I never liked a compile/interpreter that pretended to know more than u > I did.  C Are you making the "I don't want the compiler to tell me what I canAC and can't do" argument?  That's the usual argument of assembler andlD C programmers against strongly typed languages.  The counterargumentC is that while the compiler isn't smarter or more knowledgeable thaniE the programmer, it is certainly better at mundane housekeeping tasks,eF and thus good at keeping track of data types and letting you know when you might have made a boo-boo.  C Generally people that run into a lot of problems with strong typingaE don't understand their problem or data well enough.  In many programscF there is a legitimate need for a small amount of type casting (betweenF arbitrary types, e.g.  Ada's unchecked_conversion generic,, not simpleF numeric casts as in C), but if you have to do a lot of it your programC isn't well-structured.  I've spend uncounted hours rewriting poorlyaG structured code supplied by outside vendors, and invariably the resultseD are cleaner, easier to understand, and have a lot less type casting.   ------------------------------  ! Date: Sun, 23 Dec 01 09:35:32 GMTe From: jmfbahciv@aol.comy3 Subject: Re: Congratulations for the festive season,+ Message-ID: <a04fs4$570$1@bob.news.rcn.net>r  , In article <3C241959.79281F28@jetnet.ab.ca>,/    Ben Franchuk <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:c >jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:f >m@ >> Oh, yea.  A key ingredient of this team is that they are ableA >> to learn from previous mistakes (not something that Misoft hash >> done at all). >M$ is great at marketing! l   I don't agree with this.  . > ..Not computer software. Why else could they >selleF >BASIC (yuck),DOS a (CP/M clone),WINDOWS! (apple clone?). The customer >has not learned yet!   = Because they are customers who acquire the software when theyo< buy the hardware on a one time basis.  That software is alsoA distributed on an "as is" basis.  It's only recently that patchesi< to fix problems have become available to existing systems.  = Misoft has never been in the software development business asC8 we at DEC knew it; they are in the software distribution6 business.  I don't know why people keep confusing this stuff.   /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.    ------------------------------  ! Date: Sun, 23 Dec 01 09:44:33 GMTe From: jmfbahciv@aol.comt3 Subject: Re: Congratulations for the festive seasonp+ Message-ID: <a04gd1$570$2@bob.news.rcn.net>w  3 In article <elvMuVgB4DbZ@eisner.encompasserve.org>, /    young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) wrote:iE >In article <3C24AF98.EB06DD41@bartek.dontspamme.net>, Arthur Krewat u& <krewat@bartek.dontspamme.net> writes: >o >>> J >>> Sorry, I forgot these are unix people ... they don't understand "real" >>> clustering ... ;)s >> aG >> Yeah, I guess I lost all those years working on VMS clusters when I t startedo? >> using UNIX... my IQ must have gone down a whole 20 points...y >> aK >> If anyone needs VMS clustering to recover from large disasters like the   WTC,F >> they are not doing their jobs. I've been doing the same thing with 	 Oracle on   >> UNIX for the last 10 years... >>   > E >	Not everyone is using Oracle nor should they be.  Likewise, certain ? >	folks "answer" is Veritas.  Okay, go out and buy something to @ >	make your OS less handicapped.  Fine.  You do the best you can" >	with what you have to work with.  @ That's all that exists!  If you take a look at the evolutions of@ any operating system, you'll find that they were all handicappedA for good reasons.  As hardware and computer usage changed, so didi@ the operating systems to accomodate those changes.  Unix has not= had the luxury of a concerted evolution effort until the lasti; few years.  Now that developers' hands aren't tied, it will  evolve.   ; The reason that Misoft's software will never evolve is thatc9 their procedures to produce software is based on one-time < ships.  Period.  And they've got absolutely nothing in place= to process all individual customers' complaints, suggestions, 	 or other.    /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.c   ------------------------------  ! Date: Sun, 23 Dec 01 09:52:53 GMTy From: jmfbahciv@aol.com 3 Subject: Re: Congratulations for the festive seasoni+ Message-ID: <a04gsl$570$3@bob.news.rcn.net>   2 In article <a032gl$2s0l$1@citadel.in.taronga.com>,,    peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:H >In article <a0232f$bdi$2@bob.news.rcn.net>,  <jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:4 >>In article <9vvmkd$1126$1@citadel.in.taronga.com>,. >>   peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:J >>>It's worse today. At least UNIX has error *detection* code, and code isJ >>>rewritten now and then to allow recovery from more errors, and there isH >>>an actual system call interface where security and overflow checks on >>>system calls can be made. >yH >>>In Windows, there is no single system call interface. Every call thatB >>>crosses a protection boundary has to invent its own protection  mechanisms,tF >>>because it's all based on regular shared library calls rather than  traps. > K >>>And, of course, instead of having 30 or 40 system calls (less on earliereH >>>systems, more on later) you have tens of thousands of calls that run  withG >>>elevated privileges that really need to exhaustively check all their 
 >>>arguments.h > B >>Windows checks?  It was definitely my gut feel that they didn't 	 >>bother.t >e8 >I didn't say they checked. I said they needed to check.  2 Ah, my apologies.  I've been reading too fast ;-). >i- >I believe your gut is telling you the truth.v  ; Sigh!  It's nice to know that my den mother knack is still w working.   /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.o   ------------------------------   Date: 23 Dec 2001 11:39:04 GMT( From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)3 Subject: Re: Congratulations for the festive seasono1 Message-ID: <a04foo$i2u$1@citadel.in.taronga.com>m  0 In article <qhadwairim.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,5 Eric Smith  <eric-no-spam-for-me@brouhaha.com> wrote:oE >That decision does not usually rest exclusively with the programmer.-G >When the market demands C or C++, most programmers will have to use itoE >whether they like it or not.  We could debate why the market demandsr- >bad languages, but it doesn't really matter.3  - It could be worse, they could be using BLISS.T  C C is actually not a bad language, for writing systems code on smallt@ systems. Other languages in the same class have almost identicalA kinds of problems when you apply them to problems that are out ofc
 their league.t  3 C++, I agree, has no redeeming features whatsoever.o   -- b@ Rev. Peter da Silva, ULC.	      "Cave cuniculos lagana ferentes"  F "Be conservative in what you generate, and liberal in what you accept" 	-- Matthew 10:16 (l.trans)i   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 20:05:06 +0800, From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>3 Subject: Re: Congratulations for the festive seasone- Message-ID: <87ofkq2lcd.fsf@prep.synonet.com>?  " John Santos <JOHN@egh.com> writes:  / > On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, David J. Dachtera wrote:= >  > > Christopher Stacy wrote: > > > G > > > >>>>> On 21 Dec 2001 18:48:48 -0800, Bob Ceculski ("Bob") writes:M  E > > >  Bob> Did the worlds top hacker lie to congress a few years agorE > > >  Bob> when he testified that the White House mail system ran on,B > > >  Bob> VMS (All-in-1) and that was one OS he could never hack > > >  Bob> into?l  = > > > I wouldn't put too much stock in that particular point.   0 > > So, you're saying he was less than truthful?  D > From what I've read, it appears that Kevin Mitnick is an extremelyB > good social engineer and fairly good at exploiting problems thatE > other people have found, but he isn't that proficient from a purelyzE > technical standpoint.  In other words, he probably believed what hes> > said, (and, since he was saying something good about VMS, heD > probably is correct :-), but he doesn't really have the competence > to be making that judgement.  D He is probably influenced some by the fact that it was a VMS clusterB that brought him down, and piled up the logs that caused him to beD traced. That cluster needed a lot of work to get it secure. By an ex DEC-10 hacker in fact...   -- u< Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.j@                                              West Australia 6076. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 20:13:35 +0800, From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>3 Subject: Re: Congratulations for the festive seasonm- Message-ID: <87k7ve2ky8.fsf@prep.synonet.com>n  - Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> writes:a    > I'll give you a hint: payload.  ? Was this the TOPS-20 password cracking bug? The page fault one?c     -- t< Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda. @                                              West Australia 6076. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------   Date: 23 Dec 2001 13:30:08 GMT' From: huw.davies@kerberos.davies.net.aua3 Subject: Re: Congratulations for the festive season O Message-ID: <9D644EF190198842.88F024D9D811533D.981E131D8F39C0B5@lp.airnews.net>e  : In alt.sys.pdp10 Peter da Silva <peter@taronga.com> wrote:  / > It could be worse, they could be using BLISS.n  D Well I think that BLISS would be better than C in that the "average"C programmer couldn't find a "Become a C guru in 10 minutes" book andqC pretend to be an expert. You either have to read the manual or haved; an experienced BLISS programmer around to ask questions of.   B I had the manual and time to spend trying to understand those bitsD of BLISS-10 that don't get explained in the manual. Access to source  code for the compiler helped.... -- o? Huw Davies          | e-mail: Huw.Davies@kerberos.davies.net.au =                     | "If God had wanted soccer played in theo;                     | air, the sky would be painted green" l   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 07:50:59 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)t3 Subject: Re: Congratulations for the festive seasonx3 Message-ID: <o7ljrjQ3fXe8@eisner.encompasserve.org>l  ] In article <a030sf$2r12$1@citadel.in.taronga.com>, peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:n3 > In article <jgOU7.331$sK3.5237@news.cpqcorp.net>,t6 > Fred Kleinsorge <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote:7 >>"Peter da Silva" <peter@taronga.com> wrote in messageb. >>news:a002id$1781$1@citadel.in.taronga.com...
 >>> One issuelN >>> I have with VMS and security is the complexity of the security model makes+ >>> privilege boosting attacks more likely.t > K >>Generally speaking, boosting privs is the way to go.  But not easy to do.s > K > I imagine it's gotten a lot better, when I was using VMS there are a heck N > of a lot of apparently innocuous privileges that let you get pretty much anyQ > other privilege on the system. I don't recall the details now, but they weren'ti6 > all as obvious as the right to grant privileges. :->  E "Apparently" does not count for those system managers who do not read B the documentation before granting privileges.  There are seven VMSD privilege "categories" indicating the degree of power granted by theB various privileges within each category.  This taxonomy indicates,C in part, the ability to escalate a privilege into other privileges.m  < This documentation has been available for at least 15 years.   ------------------------------   Date: 23 Dec 2001 13:58:02 GMT( From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)3 Subject: Re: Congratulations for the festive seasons1 Message-ID: <a04nta$mjt$1@citadel.in.taronga.com>h  O In article <9D644EF190198842.88F024D9D811533D.981E131D8F39C0B5@lp.airnews.net>,e+  <huw.davies@kerberos.davies.net.au> wrote: ; >In alt.sys.pdp10 Peter da Silva <peter@taronga.com> wrote: 0 >> It could be worse, they could be using BLISS.  E >Well I think that BLISS would be better than C in that the "average"mD >programmer couldn't find a "Become a C guru in 10 minutes" book and >pretend to be an expert.s  J If everyone was using BLISS then sure there'd be "BLISS for Dummies" books on the shelves.n   -- e@ Rev. Peter da Silva, ULC.	      "Cave cuniculos lagana ferentes"  F "Be conservative in what you generate, and liberal in what you accept" 	-- Matthew 10:16 (l.trans)m   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 14:24:41 GMTe' From: bad bob <sfmc68@bellatlantic.net>y3 Subject: Re: Congratulations for the festive seasont0 Message-ID: <3C25EAAB.1D18311B@bellatlantic.net>   Peter da Silva wrote:s > Q > In article <9D644EF190198842.88F024D9D811533D.981E131D8F39C0B5@lp.airnews.net>,r- >  <huw.davies@kerberos.davies.net.au> wrote:t= > >In alt.sys.pdp10 Peter da Silva <peter@taronga.com> wrote:h2 > >> It could be worse, they could be using BLISS. > G > >Well I think that BLISS would be better than C in that the "average"sF > >programmer couldn't find a "Become a C guru in 10 minutes" book and > >pretend to be an expert.i > L > If everyone was using BLISS then sure there'd be "BLISS for Dummies" books > on the shelves.n > F There is at least one poster here who is either a blissfull dummy or a> blissbot...maybe a blister on the posterior of computing bot.. bob c that is..n bobl > --H > Rev. Peter da Silva, ULC.             "Cave cuniculos lagana ferentes" > H > "Be conservative in what you generate, and liberal in what you accept"$ >         -- Matthew 10:16 (l.trans)   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 14:42:09 GMTs" From: Art Rice <arice@myhouse.org>3 Subject: Re: Congratulations for the festive seasono? Message-ID: <53mV7.160114$oj3.27465505@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>c  ( huw.davies@kerberos.davies.net.au wrote:  < > In alt.sys.pdp10 Peter da Silva <peter@taronga.com> wrote: > 0 >> It could be worse, they could be using BLISS. > F > Well I think that BLISS would be better than C in that the "average"E > programmer couldn't find a "Become a C guru in 10 minutes" book andgE > pretend to be an expert. You either have to read the manual or haved= > an experienced BLISS programmer around to ask questions of.  > D > I had the manual and time to spend trying to understand those bitsF > of BLISS-10 that don't get explained in the manual. Access to source" > code for the compiler helped....  L Sounds as good as TAL.  Most of use refer to that as "Try Another Language."   -- g Art Rice, Tandem Admin Special Data Processing Corp ----------------------------L All opinions are my own and do not reflect the views of the above mentioned 	 employer.o   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 06:53:59 -0800( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)3 Subject: Re: Congratulations for the festive seasona= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0112230653.6980b812@posting.google.com>i  a peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote in message news:<a03h9m$1r7$1@citadel.in.taronga.com>...h8 > In article <1011222203233.59837K-100000@Ives.egh.com>,$ > John Santos  <JOHN@egh.com> wrote: > G > In practice the VMS security design problems (mostly due to the large L > array of interconnected privileges that in combination provide rights thatF > were never intended) are more than made up for by the quality of theH > implementation. VMS benefits from all the strengths of the "cathedral"I > design philosophy, and those strengths (despite Raymond's comments) areo > not negligable.e > I > And yet there have been securitiy problems, simply because the securitye > model is so complex. > K > In practice the potential of the UNIX security model is frittered away by K > people who have no idea how it's supposed to work, and all the weaknesses N > of the bazaar design model... and those weaknesses, particularly in the area' > of security, should not be minimized.d >   C My 10 year old son has no problems with the vms security model ...  B The unix security model is all or none ... you call that security?   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 06:57:06 -0800( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)3 Subject: Re: Congratulations for the festive season = Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0112230657.7a911824@posting.google.com>r  o Arthur Krewat <krewat@bartek.dontspamme.net> wrote in message news:<3C256383.2A5C2E8A@bartek.dontspamme.net>...r > Eric Smith wrote:  > > 8 > > Arthur Krewat <krewat@bartek.dontspamme.net> writes:H > > > I don't accept the fact that programmers can be "unwashed masses". > > E > > Research shows that there is more than a 10:1 range of programmermL > > productivity.  The 10x programmers are obviously more experienced and/orE > > more skilled than the 1x programmers.  But there are many more 1xpJ > > programmers, and so the majority of software is written by them.  They+ > > are the unwashed masses of programmers.c > >  > J > Yeah, but come on. Isn't it the programmer's fault that they can't writeL > good C code? The fact that there are plenty of bad mechanics who will tellM > me my car needs a new motor when it does not, does that mean that I have totK > allow them to work on my car? Or should I find someone who knows that the- > f*&k they are doing? - > O > > > Exactly - again, it's the programmers. They decide to use C. case closed.r > > H > > That decision does not usually rest exclusively with the programmer.J > > When the market demands C or C++, most programmers will have to use itH > > whether they like it or not.  We could debate why the market demands0 > > bad languages, but it doesn't really matter. > K > Again, I see nothing wrong with the language except that it doesn't check. > on the assholes. k > 4 > > > What is a reasonable language? Very curious :) > >   E c is a conveluted piece of garbage ... another result of freeware ... 8 best language I have seen right now is synergy dibol ...   ------------------------------  ! Date: Sun, 23 Dec 01 13:03:07 GMTa From: jmfbahciv@aol.coms3 Subject: Re: Congratulations for the festive seasona+ Message-ID: <a04s1a$cba$1@bob.news.rcn.net>x  1 In article <a04nta$mjt$1@citadel.in.taronga.com>, ,    peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote: >In article D <9D644EF190198842.88F024D9D811533D.981E131D8F39C0B5@lp.airnews.net>,, > <huw.davies@kerberos.davies.net.au> wrote:< >>In alt.sys.pdp10 Peter da Silva <peter@taronga.com> wrote:1 >>> It could be worse, they could be using BLISS.  > F >>Well I think that BLISS would be better than C in that the "average"E >>programmer couldn't find a "Become a C guru in 10 minutes" book and  >>pretend to be an expert. >eK >If everyone was using BLISS then sure there'd be "BLISS for Dummies" books  >on the shelves. >6= Which would be a 200-page book repeating the words, "Do it inn	 FORTRAN".>   /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.n   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 16:38:02 GMT 2 From: Arthur Krewat <krewat@bartek.dontspamme.net>3 Subject: Re: Congratulations for the festive seasonQ5 Message-ID: <3C2607DF.473C41B2@bartek.dontspamme.net>    Eric Smith wrote:t > 6 > Arthur Krewat <krewat@bartek.dontspamme.net> writes:L > > Yeah, but come on. Isn't it the programmer's fault that they can't write > > good C code? > K > Of course it is.  But the reality is that it's going to get written badlyiM > by those programmers.  So the responsible thing for the rest of us to do istK > to give those programmers tools that can protect them (and their victims,wK > er, end users) from the most obvious stupid errors.  The C language isn'tt > the right tool.n  / Again, just get rid of the stupid programmers. h  H > If you knew that most furniture was going to be made by klutzy people,< > you'd give them table saws that have finger guards, right?  H It IS made by klutzy people - that's why OSHA exists. Of course, you canJ compare OSHA to your "good" compiler. I don't need OSHA to tell me to wear" a respirator when painting my car.  M > > Again, I see nothing wrong with the language except that it doesn't checkh > > on the assholes. > L > As I pointed out before, even experts slip up from time to time.  So toolsK > that can catch the more obvious screwups are preferrable to brain-damageda > tools that can't.-  J Of course. But I still don't see C as brain damaged. It is a tool designedG to do what it does, and it does it well. It is not SUPPOSED to check up4D on buffer overflows. Did it ever? No. It is doing exactly what it is. supposed to be doing. It is not brain-damaged.  J > > Seen Ada, matter of fact had to tell the weenies how to program Ada inC > > an effective way (system admin for a place that did DOD stuff).t > I > Sounds like you're talking about efficiency.  You can write inefficienteK > code in any language, just like you can write buggy code in any language.rI > There are several areas in which Ada implementations (and the language)sI > tend to be criticized for inefficiency.  In actuality, there is nothingdG > in the language spec that can't be implemented just as efficiently assG > C code.  People tend to complain about exceptions and generics, which>K > actually have little run-time overhead.  They also complain about garbage G > collection, which is not actually required by the language.  However,aF > I would argue that garbage collection is actually another thing that' > is well worth its small runtime cost.a  H They were programming an imbedded controller (68k) and couldn't find anyH extra cycles to fit in more code. Without knowing Ada, I looked at theirJ code, pointed out a few places where there were obvious ineffeciencies andG they got their job done. I used this as an example of weenie-ism to they nth degree.v  @ > > I like machine language, preferably in octal (for PDP-10's). > D > You're never going to convince a non-trivial number of programmersC > of that being the Right Thing (tm).  And I would argue that whileoC > that might be fine for you, you wouldn't really want to depend oneE > the unwashed masses programming in that.  The results would be muchc! > worse that what we have with C.c  C I'm not trying to change the world... I just think that the currentiE pile of weenies can't think their way out of a virtual wet paper bag, 2 and they shouldn't be allowed to program anything.  H > > I never liked a compile/interpreter that pretended to know more than
 > > I did. > E > Are you making the "I don't want the compiler to tell me what I can E > and can't do" argument?  That's the usual argument of assembler andmF > C programmers against strongly typed languages.  The counterargumentE > is that while the compiler isn't smarter or more knowledgeable thanoG > the programmer, it is certainly better at mundane housekeeping tasks,vH > and thus good at keeping track of data types and letting you know when  > you might have made a boo-boo.  F That's fine when talking about your perfect compiler. C is not, but it' is not as bad as you make it out to be.e  E > Generally people that run into a lot of problems with strong typing>G > don't understand their problem or data well enough.  In many programskH > there is a legitimate need for a small amount of type casting (betweenH > arbitrary types, e.g.  Ada's unchecked_conversion generic,, not simpleH > numeric casts as in C), but if you have to do a lot of it your programE > isn't well-structured.  I've spend uncounted hours rewriting poorly I > structured code supplied by outside vendors, and invariably the resultstF > are cleaner, easier to understand, and have a lot less type casting.  F Exactly. So why didn't the vendors hire REAL programmers? How the hellD did these idiots get their CS degrees in the first place? Oh, that's7 right, being a good programmer is not a prerequisite...i  5 Anyway, I've had enough of this thread :) Key points:    1) You think C is brain-damagedeE 2) I stand by my statements that it is not because it never came witha a guarantee of infalibility.I 3) We both agree that the vast majority of software these days is written  by "unwashed masses".rC 4) You say we should provide the weenies with better tools. This isoD like sticking your finger in the dike while there is a 10-foot crackE right next to the hole. You're going to die when the dike comes down.oE 5) I say the unwashed masses should go learn the right way to programg@ and put that CS sheepskin in a drawer somewhere because it don'tG mean shit (to me). And I AM in a position to hire and fire people based / on their ability to write good code (and have).   # Conclusion: we agree to disagree :)u  I I still say that by coddling the weenies, you are getting yourself deepertE and deeper into a quagmire that the world will never get out of - the-B only way to really fix it is to stop using weenies to write code -	 ANY code!p   aaky   -- o
 Arthur Krewat: VP of Engineering, Bartek, Inc.s krewat@bartek.dontspamme.net   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:00:55 -0700 + From: Ben Franchuk <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>s3 Subject: Re: Congratulations for the festive seasone, Message-ID: <3C261BD7.53826749@jetnet.ab.ca>   Arthur Krewat wrote:  K > I still say that by coddling the weenies, you are getting yourself deeper G > and deeper into a quagmire that the world will never get out of - theeD > only way to really fix it is to stop using weenies to write code - > ANY code!y  D But if the weenies never write code how do you expect them to becomeH great PROGRAMERS! Lets not forget management can be just as bad for poorE programing practice by not permitting the programer to finish the job1 too.C My real gripe is how come architecture and assemblers is so crappiep= now days you can't write clean assembler code in many cases. u  g   > -- > Arthur Krewatt! > VP of Engineering, Bartek, Inc.  > krewat@bartek.dontspamme.net     -- i' Ben Franchuk --- Pre-historic Cpu's --  + www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.htmle   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 10:54:04 -08003 From: Eric Smith <eric-no-spam-for-me@brouhaha.com>s3 Subject: Re: Congratulations for the festive seasont0 Message-ID: <qhelllvkc3.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>   I wrote:L > As I pointed out before, even experts slip up from time to time.  So toolsK > that can catch the more obvious screwups are preferrable to brain-damaged  > tools that can't.   4 Arthur Krewat <krewat@bartek.dontspamme.net> writes:L > Of course. But I still don't see C as brain damaged. It is a tool designedI > to do what it does, and it does it well. It is not SUPPOSED to check upsF > on buffer overflows. Did it ever? No. It is doing exactly what it is0 > supposed to be doing. It is not brain-damaged.  F You're arguing that it's perfectly fine and reasonable to use a hammerI to saw 2x4s, because a hammer is well designed to do what it does, and it>G does it well.  However, it doesn't saw 2x4s well.  When you want to saw1" 2x4s, you use a saw, not a hammer.  F Similarly, when you use a small computer as your development system toI write software to run on that small computer, C is a pretty good lanugagel) to use.  That's what it was designed for..  E When you're writing many megabytes of code that will run on a machinewA with dozens or hundreds of megabytes of RAM and many gigabytes ofp< disk, C isn't the right tool.  C doesn't have finger guards.  E > I'm not trying to change the world... I just think that the currentsG > pile of weenies can't think their way out of a virtual wet paper bag,o4 > and they shouldn't be allowed to program anything.  C Agreed.  But the reality is that they WILL program things.  It will C be difficult if not impossible for us to change this.  So we shouldr try to minimize the damage..  H > That's fine when talking about your perfect compiler. C is not, but it) > is not as bad as you make it out to be.h  H True.  It's much worse.  I've been using C professionally for ten years.F Before that I used other languages for fifteen.  I've been involved inE a lot of code reviews of my coworkers code and my own.  I've seen FARaC more silly, obvious bugs in "working" C code that is being reviewed8E than I ever saw in any other language other than FORTH and assembler.oB That's because most languages have some provision for the compiler2 finding those silly, obvious bugs, but C does not.  ; > Exactly. So why didn't the vendors hire REAL programmers?a  J You keep trying to sweep my point under the carpet.  Even real programmersD make trivial mistakes, or forget to check bounds, or whatever.  TheyD may not do it as often, but it happens.  At least one spacecraft was> lost due to a bug that could have been caught at compile time.  G And an even worse problem than the bad code (whether written by expertsyC or losers) is that the code gets trusted to the exclusion of having-B proper backup systems (e.g., Therac-25).  Pray that you never need= medical treatment from a system that uses software to prevente7 dangerous operation.  I should say, attempt to prevent.>  G > 5) I say the unwashed masses should go learn the right way to program5  @ Yes, over time that will happen for maybe a few percent of them.D Meanwhile, the rest of them will continue to write the vast majority of the code.  B > and put that CS sheepskin in a drawer somewhere because it don't > mean shit (to me).  C Agreed.  But it could be worse.  They could have an MCSE or CNE.  IcB won't even interview people that have one of those listed on their resume.e   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 10:56:28 -08003 From: Eric Smith <eric-no-spam-for-me@brouhaha.com>r3 Subject: Re: Congratulations for the festive season.0 Message-ID: <qhadw9vk83.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>  * peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:E > C is actually not a bad language, for writing systems code on small B > systems. Other languages in the same class have almost identicalC > kinds of problems when you apply them to problems that are out of- > their league.   G Agreed.  I said essentially the same thing earlier in the thread.  C isnF very good for developing code FOR small machines, with the developmentD HOSTED on a small machine.  Beyond that, it's the wrong tool.  SinceE almost no software development is HOSTED on a small machine any more,  C has little place any more.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 12:15:54 -0500i( From: Bill Gunshannon <bill@cs.uofs.edu>" Subject: creating a user directoryA Message-ID: <20011223120956.B1361-100000@server2.cs.scranton.edu>t  ; Can someone please tell me how to create a user directory??   C I have been unable to create a directory that belongs to anyone butuB [DEFAULT] and have been unable to change the ownership afterwards.  E I realize that VMS is supposed to be easy, but why is it that options F like OWNER_UIC= don't work and don't return some kind of error messageH telling you why they didn't work??  I have tried everything I could findI in the SysManagers Manual even to re-initializing the disk with differentb PROTECTION settings.  H I guess the fact that my production machine always used NFS mounted homeF directories from a Unix system has hidden this task from me until now.  - This can't really be that difficult, can it??2   bill   -- @J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |> Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 17:12:15 -0000= From: Doc.Cypher <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]>h& Subject: Re: creating a user directory6 Message-ID: <20011223171215.27236.qmail@gacracker.org>  > On Sun, 23 Dec 2001, Bill Gunshannon <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:< >Can someone please tell me how to create a user directory?? > D >I have been unable to create a directory that belongs to anyone butC >[DEFAULT] and have been unable to change the ownership afterwards.   8 Create your directory then use SET FILE/OWN=bill foo.dir  K I'm sure there are 101 other ways to skin that particular cat, but that one & does ok for when I'm adding new users.     Doc. --  6 The bigger the humbug, the better people will like it.K ~ Phineas Taylor Barnum.                              http://vmsbox.cjb.netd   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 13:12:32 -0500?( From: Bill Gunshannon <bill@cs.uofs.edu>& Subject: Re: creating a user directoryA Message-ID: <20011223130856.H1361-100000@server2.cs.scranton.edu>e  ! On 23 Dec 2001, Doc.Cypher wrote:a  @ > On Sun, 23 Dec 2001, Bill Gunshannon <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:> > >Can someone please tell me how to create a user directory?? > >kF > >I have been unable to create a directory that belongs to anyone butE > >[DEFAULT] and have been unable to change the ownership afterwards.p >r: > Create your directory then use SET FILE/OWN=bill foo.dir  J As I said, I reied everything I could find inthe docs, including this, but- I tried it again so I could post the results:/   $ dir/full bill.dira   Directory $1$DIA2:[000000]  0 BILL.DIR;1                    File ID:  (11,1,0)1 Size:            1/4          Owner:    [DEFAULT]r" Created:   23-DEC-2001 12:07:41.99& Revised:   23-DEC-2001 12:07:41.99 (0) Expires:   <None specified>a Backup:    <No backup recorded>? Effective: <None specified>t Recording: <None specified>e File organization:  Sequential Shelved state:      OnlineD File attributes:    Allocation: 4, Extend: 0, Global buffer count: 0H                     No default version limit, Contiguous, Directory fileI Record format:      Variable length, maximum 512 bytes, longest 512 bytes 4 Record attributes:  No carriage control, Non-spanned RMS attributes:     None Journaling enabled: None< File protection:    System:RWE, Owner:RWE, Group:RE, World:E Access Cntrl List:  None   Total of 1 file, 1/4 blocks. $ set file/own=bill bill.dir# %SET-E-SYNTAX, error parsing 'BILL'n# $ set file/own=[1000,1000] bill.dir  $ dir/full bill.dir.   Directory $1$DIA2:[000000]  0 BILL.DIR;1                    File ID:  (11,1,0)1 Size:            1/4          Owner:    [DEFAULT]h" Created:   23-DEC-2001 12:07:41.99& Revised:   23-DEC-2001 13:07:59.86 (1) Expires:   <None specified>- Backup:    <No backup recorded>  Effective: <None specified>h Recording: <None specified>n File organization:  Sequential Shelved state:      OnlineD File attributes:    Allocation: 4, Extend: 0, Global buffer count: 0H                     No default version limit, Contiguous, Directory fileI Record format:      Variable length, maximum 512 bytes, longest 512 bytese4 Record attributes:  No carriage control, Non-spanned RMS attributes:     None Journaling enabled: None< File protection:    System:RWE, Owner:RWE, Group:RE, World:E Access Cntrl List:  None   Total of 1 file, 1/4 blocks. $g   [1000,1000] = user BILLo   >CM > I'm sure there are 101 other ways to skin that particular cat, but that ones( > does ok for when I'm adding new users. >D  E Well, I didn't find 101, but I tried a bunch and none of them worked.a I am doing all this as SYSTEM.`A   bill   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |> Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 18:02:20 -0000= From: Doc.Cypher <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]>u& Subject: Re: creating a user directory6 Message-ID: <20011223180220.28197.qmail@gacracker.org>  > On Sun, 23 Dec 2001, Bill Gunshannon <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:" >On 23 Dec 2001, Doc.Cypher wrote: >pA >> On Sun, 23 Dec 2001, Bill Gunshannon <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:m? >> >Can someone please tell me how to create a user directory??s >> >G >> >I have been unable to create a directory that belongs to anyone butoF >> >[DEFAULT] and have been unable to change the ownership afterwards. >>; >> Create your directory then use SET FILE/OWN=bill foo.diro > K >As I said, I reied everything I could find inthe docs, including this, butp. >I tried it again so I could post the results: >  >$ dir/full bill.dir >d >Directory $1$DIA2:[000000]  >t1 >BILL.DIR;1                    File ID:  (11,1,0) 2 >Size:            1/4          Owner:    [DEFAULT]# >Created:   23-DEC-2001 12:07:41.99t' >Revised:   23-DEC-2001 12:07:41.99 (0)r >Expires:   <None specified>  >Backup:    <No backup recorded> >Effective: <None specified> >Recording: <None specified> >File organization:  Sequentialf >Shelved state:      OnlineeE >File attributes:    Allocation: 4, Extend: 0, Global buffer count: 0dI >                    No default version limit, Contiguous, Directory filevJ >Record format:      Variable length, maximum 512 bytes, longest 512 bytes5 >Record attributes:  No carriage control, Non-spannedt >RMS attributes:     Noned >Journaling enabled: None(= >File protection:    System:RWE, Owner:RWE, Group:RE, World:Ek >Access Cntrl List:  Nonec >c >Total of 1 file, 1/4 blocks.  >$ set file/own=bill bill.dirk$ >%SET-E-SYNTAX, error parsing 'BILL'$ >$ set file/own=[1000,1000] bill.dir >$ dir/full bill.dir >( >Directory $1$DIA2:[000000]  >c1 >BILL.DIR;1                    File ID:  (11,1,0) 2 >Size:            1/4          Owner:    [DEFAULT]# >Created:   23-DEC-2001 12:07:41.99o' >Revised:   23-DEC-2001 13:07:59.86 (1)i >Expires:   <None specified>  >Backup:    <No backup recorded> >Effective: <None specified> >Recording: <None specified> >File organization:  Sequentiala >Shelved state:      Online E >File attributes:    Allocation: 4, Extend: 0, Global buffer count: 0 I >                    No default version limit, Contiguous, Directory filelJ >Record format:      Variable length, maximum 512 bytes, longest 512 bytes5 >Record attributes:  No carriage control, Non-spannedl >RMS attributes:     Noneu >Journaling enabled: Noneg= >File protection:    System:RWE, Owner:RWE, Group:RE, World:Eh >Access Cntrl List:  Nonei >m >Total of 1 file, 1/4 blocks.o >$ >o >[1000,1000] = user BILL >v >>N >> I'm sure there are 101 other ways to skin that particular cat, but that one) >> does ok for when I'm adding new users.  >> >mF >Well, I didn't find 101, but I tried a bunch and none of them worked.  >I am doing all this as SYSTEM.`  J This is strange, I don't know any other way to do this so I'm sorry to sayF you'll have to wait on someone more experienced than I for a solution.  H The only thing that I can't quite figure is if the UIC of [1000,1000] isC valid, I always thought they were restricted to three octal digits.p     Doc. -- e6 The bigger the humbug, the better people will like it.K ~ Phineas Taylor Barnum.                              http://vmsbox.cjb.nete   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 19:51:21 +0100t1 From: John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch>t& Subject: Re: creating a user directory5 Message-ID: <3C2627A9.5508A9AA@swissonline.delete.ch>i   Bill Gunshannon wrote: > L > As I said, I reied everything I could find inthe docs, including this, but/ > I tried it again so I could post the results:t >  > $ dir/full bill.diry >  > Directory $1$DIA2:[000000] > 2 > BILL.DIR;1                    File ID:  (11,1,0)3 > Size:            1/4          Owner:    [DEFAULT]o$ > Created:   23-DEC-2001 12:07:41.99 ...snip > > File protection:    System:RWE, Owner:RWE, Group:RE, World:E > Access Cntrl List:  None >  > Total of 1 file, 1/4 blocks. > $ set file/own=bill bill.dir% > %SET-E-SYNTAX, error parsing 'BILL't% > $ set file/own=[1000,1000] bill.dir  > $ dir/full bill.dirs >  > Directory $1$DIA2:[000000] > 2 > BILL.DIR;1                    File ID:  (11,1,0)3 > Size:            1/4          Owner:    [DEFAULT] $ > Created:   23-DEC-2001 12:07:41.99( > Revised:   23-DEC-2001 13:07:59.86 (1)   >  > Total of 1 file, 1/4 blocks. > $r >  > [1000,1000] = user BILL     = Are you sure that UIC [1000,1000] is assigned to user BILL  ?b  5 Use the command MCR AUTHORIZE SHOW BILL and find out.yF Also enter the command MCR AUTHORIZE SHOW DEFAULT to see what UIC that has. a  G I woudn't be surprised to find that you have copied the DEFAULT accountaH to the BILL account and forgotten to change the UIC during the copy.  IfD you changed it afterwards, the UIC [DEFAULT] could be mapped to user BILL.d  A Let me know what you find.  If you find that this is true, pleasefD contact me - either via this Usenet group or via private email (withF obvious changes) - and I'll take you through some steps to correct it.    s   John McLeana   ------------------------------  ! Date: Sun, 23 Dec 01 10:15:33 GMTe From: jmfbahciv@aol.come9 Subject: Re: HP admits it will kill VMS if merger suceedso+ Message-ID: <a04i76$as3$1@bob.news.rcn.net>d  > In article <jP8V7.27022$Sj1.13059719@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,8    "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote: >e4 >"Peter da Silva" <peter@abbnm.com> wrote in message  >news:a0347k$nnt@web.nmti.com...A >> In article <cSHU7.23417$Sj1.12150550@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,p6 >> Terry C. Shannon <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote:J >> > Why on God's green earth would Microsoft want to buy VMS when they'veI >> > already been granted executive clemency for stealing the Son-of-VMS n MicaJ >> > code back in 1989? Fact of the matter is, Microsoft has had access to >the IP2 >> > since, what, August 1995? >>K >> They could use FreePort Express technology to run Win32 apps in multiplef> >> virtual sessions, and rename it "NT Enterprise Datacenter". >tK >Indeed they could... but if FreePort Express/FX!32 et al was so great, why F >didn't more folks run their Intel windoze apps on AlphaNT. Seems thatH >emulation/translation isn't acceptable, especially for mission-critical >apps.  E Because Misoft is NOT in the software development business.  Shannon,s@ I keep trying to teach you about this biz but you have a strange way of forgetting everything.y >>I >> > How would Microsoft support a real OS like VMS (or OS/400 or MVS, eta >al)?P >>F >> Support? Microsoft? If Microsoft had to do that they'd be be out of	 >business-D >> by now. They'd just precertify VMS people with MCSE-ED paperwork. > A >Well, maybe there's a place for Compaq (Services) after all! ;-}0  @ Compaq wanted that organization when they bought DEC.  What they> didn't understand is that at the heart of a good service group> is a successful software development business where the people< who do the work to ship the core software know what they're : doing.   Now, how is this done?  It's done by churning out8 quality documentation in the same time frame as the new 9 revision of the software.  And when I talk about quality t: documentation, I'm talking about docs that can get down to9 the spec level.  The support people use the output of theu9 the development organizations to train themselves for thec/ questions that the _paying_ customers will ask.   8 I can't believe that nobody sees any of this connection.   /BAH     /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.s   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:13:19 +0100n1 From: John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch> 3 Subject: Re: Job security for HP-Compaq merger team 5 Message-ID: <3C25AE3F.F1EAF84B@swissonline.delete.ch>t   JF Mezei wrote:  >  > grinch wrote:aR > > "Depending upon the circumstances, an employee may return to the same job, theL > > same job with different responsibilities or, in some cases, a completelyO > > different job where the confidential information is not relevant," Compaq'sd > > filing states. > K > Ouch, never considered that. So an employee being sent to the merger task K > force would in fact be punished. I wonder if employees will consider suchn( > offers to participate in merger teams.    C Maybe not punished ... perhaps moved to something more interesting.w  E Somehow these people have to keep quiet and not say anything to theirrC friends in their old departments, not even when talking over a beeru about some aspect of work...  F If the meger doesn't go through it looks like Fiorina won't have these$ kinds of issues to deal with ... ;-)     John McL   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 11:32:11 -0600% From: Warzdigger <Warzdigger@att.net>r: Subject: Looking for a screen capture utility for Open VMS8 Message-ID: <g95c2u8jedsg820bca9s48ffflia8jqr07@4ax.com>  3 >Looking for a screen capture utility for Open VMS.rB >Anyone know of a shareware Utility? If not any good regular apps? >TIA >Diggers   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 19:56:08 +0100o1 From: John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch>e> Subject: Re: Looking for a screen capture utility for Open VMS5 Message-ID: <3C2628C8.C89E5988@swissonline.delete.ch>h   Warzdigger wrote:o > 5 > >Looking for a screen capture utility for Open VMS.eD > >Anyone know of a shareware Utility? If not any good regular apps? > >TIA	 > >Diggert  D Simplest method I can think of is to access VMS through a PC packageE such as Reflection (or about 5 or 6 others).   Connect to the VMS boxe. via the PC and then use a tool such as SnagIt.  E If you want to do this for documentation purposes then there's a good   chance you'll be on a PC anyway.     John McL   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 18:54:58 GMTe= From: system@SendSpamHere.ORG (Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-)h> Subject: Re: Looking for a screen capture utility for Open VMS0 Message-ID: <00A06F41.DF78AC21@SendSpamHere.ORG>  ` In article <g95c2u8jedsg820bca9s48ffflia8jqr07@4ax.com>, Warzdigger <Warzdigger@att.net> writes:4 >>Looking for a screen capture utility for Open VMS.C >>Anyone know of a shareware Utility? If not any good regular apps?- >>TIA- >>Digger   XV --O VAXman- OpenVMS APE certification number: AAA-0001     VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COMj            rJ   "And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery I   intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" -- Calvin & Hobbes    ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 13:23:01 -0000= From: Doc.Cypher <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]>oQ Subject: New VMS newsgroup (was Re: HP admits it will kill VMS if merger suceeds) 6 Message-ID: <20011223132301.23286.qmail@gacracker.org>  , On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, gce <ge@gce.com> wrote:F >Might I observe too that info-vax is getting to be a VERY high volumeH >group, mainly due to these speculations and replies to them. Can't someF >of the speculations go into some other group and leave the tech stuff
 >in this one?- >-K >The pdp10 reminiscences are fun - for a while - but the technical fractionfG >of the content here has never been lower IMO during the 15 or so years1 >I've followed the discussions.u > D >alt.vms.corporate.politics and alt.vms.conspiracy.theories might beF >good names for groups in which to put most of the recent discussions. > P >If I have complaints about things VMS that are political I have Rich Marcello'sK >email address, and can find others for Mr. Capellas or various folks at HPa >if I need to. o >kI >Historically the mission of info-vax/c.o.v. has been much more technicaly+ >which made it much more rewarding to read.   K If there is sufficient interest in starting a new newsgroup under alt. I'llsH happily take it up on alt.config and issue the newgroup message. What isJ needed first is some agreement from the denziens of c.o.v. that we want toG take the more political discussion elsewhere. After all, this isn't the % first time the idea has been floated.   & Here's my suggestion, why not alt.vms?     Doc. --  6 The bigger the humbug, the better people will like it.K ~ Phineas Taylor Barnum.                              http://vmsbox.cjb.net-   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 07:45:09 -0800<( From: "Greg Cagle" <gregc@gregcagle.com>5 Subject: Re: OpenVMS  vs. Unix  -  put up or shut up! / Message-ID: <u2bur7d2ujt1b2@corp.supernews.com>S  ` "Jack Patteeuw" <jjpatteeuw@peoplepc.com> wrote in message news:3C2565C2.239C21D@peoplepc.com...  7 > >if you pull the plug on the box, your in trouble ...i >tK > Not a problem any more !!  Tru64 solved it years ago, Solaris finally did I > in V8.  AIX also has had a log based file system for awhile.  HP-UX ???f  A HP-UX has had JFS for several years - it is a port of the Veritasa journaled file system.   --
 Greg Cagle gregc at gregcagle dot com   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 17:34:48 +0100r. From: Dennis Grevenstein <dennis@pcde.inka.de>5 Subject: Re: OpenVMS  vs. Unix  -  put up or shut up! , Message-ID: <3C2607A8.3DEC3D96@pcde.inka.de>   Greg Cagle wrote:f > 9 > > >if you pull the plug on the box, your in trouble ...0 > >1M > > Not a problem any more !!  Tru64 solved it years ago, Solaris finally dideK > > in V8.  AIX also has had a log based file system for awhile.  HP-UX ???n > C > HP-UX has had JFS for several years - it is a port of the Veritas  > journaled file system.  B Same for Solaris. logging ufs has been around for quiet some time.= I used it first with 2.6, but I am not sure if it was alreadyr included in earlier releases.o. You can get the Veritas stuff for Solaris too.   Dennis   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 08:23:22 +0000 % From: Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net>AD Subject: Re: PDP-10 architectural flaws? (was: VMS missing features)* Message-ID: <3C25947A.7FF3A951@virgin.net>   Peter da Silva wrote:1  , > In article <3C251360.3EC78DF4@virgin.net>,) > Alan Greig  <a.greig@virgin.net> wrote: Q > >> I may actually be able to help here. Check your message composition settings Q > >> (I don't recall where they are, but the Netscape repferences are fairly easyoR > >> to deal with in both GUI and text forms) and tell it to always use plain text > >> rather than HTML. >r > >Already set...a > D > Plan B: install a real operating system and use a real newsreader. >u  T Nah just a reinstall of the existing one and apps usually fixes this type of problemQ with Windows. On another machine I read/post from wrapping is always fine but the:M spell-checker is jammed in US English and I want UK. I can change the settingN$ dynamically but can't make it stick.  T Experience has shown me that these types of problems often boil down to some obscureN registry problem. I used to try and track these things down but after 48 hoursS figuring out why Real Player settings didn't stick (two equal keys in the registry,6T one upper case, one lower - confused the hell out of windows) and similar with otherO problems I now follow the advice of our NT support guys. Either put up with theeQ problem or re-install. The frustration of ploughing through undocumented registryo settings isn't worth it.   >d > --H > Rev. Peter da Silva, ULC.             "Cave cuniculos lagana ferentes" >tH > "Be conservative in what you generate, and liberal in what you accept"$ >         -- Matthew 10:16 (l.trans)   --
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------   Date: 23 Dec 2001 11:43:00 GMT( From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)D Subject: Re: PDP-10 architectural flaws? (was: VMS missing features)1 Message-ID: <a04g04$i4f$1@citadel.in.taronga.com>u  * In article <3C25947A.7FF3A951@virgin.net>,' Alan Greig  <a.greig@virgin.net> wrote:f >Peter da Silva wrote:E >> Plan B: install a real operating system and use a real newsreader.l  E >Nah just a reinstall of the existing one and apps usually fixes thish >type of problem with Windows.  L And there you have it. Would anyone have considered an OS where reinstallingJ the OS was the easiest way to fix a problem in a minor application, twenty# years ago? How's that for progress.0   -- :@ Rev. Peter da Silva, ULC.	      "Cave cuniculos lagana ferentes"  F "Be conservative in what you generate, and liberal in what you accept" 	-- Matthew 10:16 (l.trans)    ------------------------------  ! Date: Sun, 23 Dec 01 10:05:22 GMT3 From: jmfbahciv@aol.comtD Subject: Re: PDP-10 architectural flaws? (was: VMS missing features)+ Message-ID: <a04hk2$570$5@bob.news.rcn.net>r  , In article <a02jbr$25k@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,4    gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) wrote: >jmfbahciv@aol.com writes: >(snip)e> >>no, no, no.  You don't get the point.  If you have to run in< >>the accumulators, you aren't running the system in all its@ >>glory.  It's either very broken or every little bit of address' >>space has to be free for the program.  > ? >I understood that the search function in TECO did it.  I don't.= >know that I ever heard of anything else.  I believe it makes < >a significant difference on the KA-10, maybe not on others.  : Oh, I'm sure lots of programs took advantage of that.  I'm9 talking to the people who have given me the distinct ideac; that they believe hardware can never fuck up.  The attituder: is understandable in this PCentric world since it's a plug and throw away set of hardware.x   /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.    ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 18:30:56 +0100- From: Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>nD Subject: Re: PDP-10 architectural flaws? (was: VMS missing features)/ Message-ID: <6ug061zvvz.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>:  - Ben Franchuk <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca> writes:E   > Neil Franklin wrote: > >nM > > Jan Vorbrueggen <jan@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:. > > 0 > > > void any advantage an I-cache might bring. > >16 > > Why would that limit it? And why void the I-cache? > >I > >0I > > I have programmed x86 and 86k, read a lot on ARM, MIPS, Sparc and PPC G > > implementation, and am presently designing an PDP-10 microprocessor9F > > just for the fun of it. I see no reason why I can not achieve 1990F > > ARM/MIPS/Sparc style performance, from an 1990-chip-size-equvalent, > > FPGA, using an 3-read-port register set. > >e > Sounds fast!1 > Just how big is that FPGA to be 1990 equvalent?o  C Well first I will define 1990 = 486DX-25 (I am using Intel for thislC calculation, as I have detailled data for them). For ARM/MIPS/Sparcr3 aim for say same logic complexity but double speed.R  I For 486DX-25 we have: 1.08mio transistors, which seem to be split roughlynJ 64k*6=400k for the 8k*8bit SRAM cache, 200-300k for the FPU, rest 300-400k for the integer unit.c  E So we need an FPGA with 64kbit BRAM and 150kGates (= 600k transistors0C when assuming standard 4-transistor NAND gates). And 25MHz for 486,k 50MHz for ARM/MIPS/Sparc.     G The XC2S200 I am using[1] has 14*4k=56kbit BRAMs and 80kGates logic. So E is between 1/2 the way and fully there. And I am programming it using C low-level techniques, so I should get good logic utilisation. And I # expect to get 50MHz from this FPGA.   @ Now add that an PDP-10 is a lot simpler than an x86 (= uses lessG logic), but then subtract the space lost to putting chipset/peripherals,8 into my FPGA, and I expect to get into 1990 speed range.    @ [1] as crossposted to comp.os.vms and comp.sys.dec here the URL:( http://neil.franklin.ch/Projects/PDP-10/     --? Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/-? Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayerm/ - Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robberyt   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 08:49:59 -0600i8 From: Daniel Seagraves <dseagrav@sakura.lunar-tokyo.net>Y Subject: Re: Proof!  I can secure UNIX faster than VMS! Was: Congratulations for the festrL Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0112230848150.6634-100000@sakura.lunar-tokyo.net>   On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, JD wrote:  L > > Falls under the same category as the VAX HALT.  This is supposed to be a5 > > VMS vs. UNIX flamewar, not a PC vs. VAX flamewar.: > >yE > Let's have a flamewar over what flamewar that should be prosecuted.   B Probably going to happen anyway, but can we wait until the currentC flamewar is over before starting the next?  comp.os.vms is really aiG mailing list, I think, and we're probably making more than a few peopleD) unhappy with the increased mail load. ^_^    ------------------------------  ! Date: Sun, 23 Dec 01 10:01:22 GMTE From: jmfbahciv@aol.comiY Subject: Re: Proof!  I can secure UNIX faster than VMS! Was: Re: Congratulations for the ,+ Message-ID: <a04hci$570$4@bob.news.rcn.net>   2 In article <a03103$2r2s$1@citadel.in.taronga.com>,,    peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote: >In article A <Pine.LNX.4.21.0112212011590.5800-100000@sakura.lunar-tokyo.net>, ; >Daniel Seagraves  <dseagrav@sakura.lunar-tokyo.net> wrote:LJ >>I did some testing... I can get my UNIX machines into a 100% secure modeK >>of operation MUCH faster than OpenVMS!  I am using Linux for the UNIX OS,r >>and OpenVMS v7.2. [...]t >uH >>On cue, Nate (my friend) logged in as SYSTEM on the VMS node, and I as; >>root on the UNIX.  I typed "shutdown -h now" and he typed- >>"@SYS$SYSTEM:SHUTDOWN".s > H >Heh. That's like Marcus Ranum's "100% secure Internet Firewall kit". A  pair >of diagonal cutters.: >3C >(ps, BSD is more secure than Linux because "halt" is quicker than  	 "shutdowne
 > -h" :) ) >s  ; That will work unless there's a red-neck sheriff with a gun78 standing over that wire.  This was a real-life situation with one of our PDP-10s.   /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.m   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 08:54:36 -0600H8 From: Daniel Seagraves <dseagrav@sakura.lunar-tokyo.net>Y Subject: Re: Proof!  I can secure UNIX faster than VMS! Was: Re: Congratulations for the fL Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0112230853320.6634-100000@sakura.lunar-tokyo.net>  # On 22 Dec 2001, Bob Ceculski wrote:>  G > > Yes, but that is not a feature of VMS, that's a feature of the VAX.eI > > I thought this was a VMS vs. UNIX flamewar, not an Intel vs. VAX war?s > M > that is not a feature of vax, it is the same on alpha ... that is a featureE	 > of VMS!a  J No, it's not...  I can run UNIX on an Alpha or VAX and push HALT to do the? same thing.  HALT is an architectural thing, not an OS feature.n  F I'll explain it nice and slow - THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A JOKE.  LAUGH.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 08:57:37 -0600o8 From: Daniel Seagraves <dseagrav@sakura.lunar-tokyo.net>Y Subject: Re: Proof!  I can secure UNIX faster than VMS! Was: Re: Congratulations for the oL Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0112230856200.6634-100000@sakura.lunar-tokyo.net>  , On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:  = > That will work unless there's a red-neck sheriff with a gune: > standing over that wire.  This was a real-life situation > with one of our PDP-10s.  D Been there, done that, stuck the backup tapes in my pants pocket and) walked out of the building with them. ^_^h  H In my case, business I was at was being raided by the IRS...  Wanna tell the story behind yours?t   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 09:28:25 +0100t( From: Paul Sture <paul.sture@bluewin.ch>( Subject: Re: QIOs, ASTs, and Event Flags- Message-ID: <VA.000004fe.044fd9d4@bluewin.ch>   H In article <3C24F08A.72E4B009@swissonline.delete.ch>, John McLean wrote: > Paul Sture wrote:l > > L > > In article <3C24A6A1.C78B25E8@swissonline.delete.ch>, John McLean wrote: > > > Lyndon Bartels wrote:n > > > >e( > > > > I have another quick question... > > > >hM > > > > I'm a bit confused by all the references to variables especially whena% > > > > they're passed to routines...- > > > >-* > > > > Could somebody explain that to me? > > > > 9 > > > > int a;  /* it's an interger variable called "a"*/JQ > > > > int *b; /* this is a pointer to an interger. the pointer is called "b" */d > > > >tS > > > > a = 4;          /* that's giving the integer variable "a" the value of 4 */  > > > >mL > > > > Stuff like this.... It's gets more confusing beyond this. EspeciallyH > > > > when you start passing pointers into functions. And how are they) > > > > referenced inside the function...  > > > >aM > > > > I *think* I've got it mostly figured out... but without a teacher forr* > > > > this student to ask.... it's hard. > > > J > > > I'm a bit rusty with this but let me try explaining it this way .... > > >bK > > > FORTRAN is a pass-by-reference language.  You call a subroutine usinghI > > > some parameters and underneath you have passed the address of thoseeJ > > > variables.  You change a value in the subroutine and it gets changedM > > > back in the calling routine because we are dealing with the same memorye > > > location.e > > >aJ > > Nitpick. It's been a long time, but IIRC, by default FORTRAN 77 passes$ > > character strings by descriptor. > H > Sure it is the descriptor in the call frame and not the ADDRESS of the > descriptor ??D >g Ah. Clearly out-nitpicked!  I > One big advantage of pass-by-reference was that it was possible for thenJ > compiler to optimise by building the call-frame with relative addressingI > and thus being able to grab the entire call-frame in a single operationo/ > rather than have to work with each parameter.h >    ___:
 Paul Sture Switzerland    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 10:23:10 +0100l1 From: John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch>a( Subject: Re: QIOs, ASTs, and Event Flags5 Message-ID: <3C25A27E.99E2E377@swissonline.delete.ch>g   JF Mezei wrote:  >  > John McLean wrote:K > > Warning !!  All this used to work fine under VMS on VAX.  When we moved(J > > to Alpha some of the uninterruptible system services disappeared (suchJ > > as the "interlocked" instructions INSQHI and INSQTI).  This meant thatB > > it was not possible to be certain that the instruction was not7 > > interrupted in the middle of changing the pointers.0 > M > For all operations that modified the lilnked list (adding or removing), theuK > main program would simply declare an AST that did the work. If an AST wasAJ > already in progress to add a new block in the linked list, my request toM > remove another block would wait for that first AST to complete. I have beennM > told that in a process only one user mode AST executes at any point in timeyL > and that no user mode AST will interrupt another user mode AST. So you can! > safely "queue" your operations.t    G Yes agreed, but that's only in the message receiving part.  Taking them H off the linked list in the main code will need certainty that the change2 of pointers can be done with risk of interruption.     John   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 10:55:02 +0100e1 From: John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch>o( Subject: Re: QIOs, ASTs, and Event Flags5 Message-ID: <3C25A9F6.D9E1CB5B@swissonline.delete.ch>i   Lyndon Bartels wrote:i >  > John McLean wrote: >  > > A few points > >rJ > > 1.  If the QIO read operation is handled by AST then you only need oneI > > Event Flag; the sending program doesn't need one.  This means you cansH > > drop $ASCEFC and change WTFLOR to a plain wait for single event flag > > ($WAITEF ?). > >a > G > I'm using multiple event flags for a couple reasons. 1. There are twonH > local event flag clusters. The first cluster has event flags from 0 toF > 31, the second cluster from 32 to 63. And there are two common eventB > flag clusters. The wflor looks at all the event flags in a givenF > cluster. I want to spread out the event flags for verious reasons soI > that the event flags aren't tripping over one another. 2. I'm using theeF > event flag to also indicate what action the io conversation has justF > done. That way, I can better decide what that conversation should do > next.r  F Are you sure that you don't want to pass this information in a messageE header (see point 4 below) ?  It gives you the chance to pass a wholee; lot more than just one bit (which is all the EF really is).o     J > > 2.  What is the situation with the sending and receiving images ?   IfK > > it is networked, everything I told you works fine because you will moveeL > > the data from the network mailbox into the allocated buffer (the addressI > > of which should be passed into the AST, probably as the first item in  > > the mailbox).s >  > >eH > > 3.  If all this is on one machine, possibly with a number of sendingL > > processes, then unless you are passing very small amounts of data in oneI > > of the QIO parameters you should look at putting all the buffers in a L > > global section.  Your sending program can be told the OFFSET at which toG > > start writing (because each process will have mapped the GS to somelE > > address of its own choosing).  This avoids the AST having to copyaJ > > anything anywhere; it just attachs the buffer to the Active list, setsI > > the EF and puts out another $QIO.  (This situation is a bit tricky ifhK > > you run short of empty buffers in the global section and have to createc > > some more.)- > >-H > > 4.  Now for a refinement.  I've found it useful to have some kind ofH > > header information.  For example, you could set a flag in the headerJ > > part of the data buffer to indicate what kind of data it is.  This wayI > > you can send "real" data or you can send some kind of control message F > > (eg. stop, request for monitoring data and so on). The decision ofI > > processing type could be made in the main code or in the AST routine.U > >nK > > 5. Another refinement.  If you wanted to, you could extend the previous J > > idea and have two types of "real" data, one at normal priority and oneJ > > at high priority.  The AST checks the priority type and attachs normalI > > messages to the TAIL of the queue (ie. linked list), but attachs highaK > > priority messages to the HEAD of the queue.  (See the Sys Serv routines1& > > for inserting at head or at tail.) > D > Right now, I'm working on getting the concept of the server engineH > working properly. Once that is done, then I can start writing both the9 > server and client to converse with actual, useful data.  > J > I'm still trying to figure out the longword bit vector used in the wflor> > call... How is that parameter declared and how is it set....    F $ASCEFC is an interesting routine because you specify a bit number andC what gets "associated" is a range of 32 bits (ie. 32 Event flags). e  G The documentation reads "To associate with common event flag cluster 2, D specify any flag number in the cluster (64 to 95); to associate withA common event flag cluster 3, specify any event flag number in thel cluster (96 to 127)."o  H So if you want to work across a number of pocesses, using the event flagG range from 64 to 95 for your signalling, you just specify a number fromi' 64 to 95 inclusive in the $ASCEFC call.n  D Note that when calling $ASCEFC you give the cluster a name.  This is< simply so that other processes can use the same name and, ifF protection/access allows it, you all end up with the same set of event/ flags.  IIRC the name doesn't do anything else.a  F Now in the $WFLOR call, the idea of a bit number to identify an entireB cluster is used again.  For example, using an efn value of 68 willH identify the cluster as cluster 2 (see 10 or 15 lines above).   I'd haveH to experiment but it looks like the longword mask (the second parameter)D will have to be the "offset" into this cluster.  (Each cluster is 32C bits or flags, so we set these bits in a longword and then pass the > value of this longword.  A 128 bit longword would be ... big.)    G Write some code to check it.  It looks like you could whip this kind ofg% test up in about 15 minutes or less !P    I > I've been looking around the documentation and I haven't found anything@H > yet, but is there somewhere that the various data types are listed andI > how they are declared? Especially, the ones needed for system services.i  C Sure there will be paper docs somewhere but I've just been using an = online reference for all the System Services.  There's one attH http://www7.minet.uni-jena.de/vmssys721/721final/4527/4527pro_index.htmlE (mind the wrap) and that was just the first one I found with a search  engine.n     John McL   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 10:58:12 +0100 1 From: John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch> ( Subject: Re: QIOs, ASTs, and Event Flags5 Message-ID: <3C25AAB4.B44BA1F2@swissonline.delete.ch>a  ! Just following my last message...-  G I used AltaVista to look for ASCEFC so that I could find the details ofR the routine.  D Very helpfully (???) at the bottom of the screen I see some links ..   Comparison shop for "ASCEFC"$ Find "ASCEFC" at eBay! Register now!. Search for "ASCEFC" in your local yellow pages   :-)))a     John   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 15:51:30 GMTe- From: "John E. Malmberg" <wb8tyw@qsl.network>i( Subject: Re: QIOs, ASTs, and Event Flags* Message-ID: <3C260345.3020504@qsl.network>   John McLean wrote:  # > Just following my last message...t > I > I used AltaVista to look for ASCEFC so that I could find the details of  > the routine.    B http://www.openvms.compaq.com/ and follows the documentation link.  
 Specifically:h  K http://www.openvms.compaq.com:8000/73final/4527/4527pro_002.html#index_x_43      -Johnv   wb8tyw@qsl.network Personal Opinion Onlya   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:32:40 +0100c( From: Paul Sture <paul.sture@bluewin.ch>F Subject: Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice- Message-ID: <VA.00000500.04c198c5@bluewin.ch>2  D I came across this the other day, and I thought folks might find it % interesting. Normal url wrap warning.a  G http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/12/13/011213hncompcust.xml? 	 1213alerth  6 I also have it in .PDF format if anyone is interested. ___ 
 Paul Sture Switzerland    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 13:30:48 +0100d1 From: John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch>hJ Subject: Re: Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice5 Message-ID: <3C25CE78.DBDF9EB8@swissonline.delete.ch>    Paul Sture wrote:i > E > I came across this the other day, and I thought folks might find itf' > interesting. Normal url wrap warning.c > I > http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/12/13/011213hncompcust.xml?e > 1213alert  > 8 > I also have it in .PDF format if anyone is interested.    @ What is it about Infoworld?  Is the whole site somehow dynamic ?  C I posted a URL last week and others couldn't find it.  Now the sameeC thing happens when I try to access the above URL.  (Again it is thecG article about Compaq customer defections - a bit spooky to get it twicer !)  , With a bit of trouble I finally found it at D http://www.infoworld.com/articles/ca/xml/00/10/02/001002caethics.xml       John McL   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 13:26:03 GMTh= From: system@SendSpamHere.ORG (Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-)6J Subject: Re: Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice0 Message-ID: <00A06F13.ECA903BA@SendSpamHere.ORG>  X In article <VA.00000500.04c198c5@bluewin.ch>, Paul Sture <paul.sture@bluewin.ch> writes:E >I came across this the other day, and I thought folks might find it  & >interesting. Normal url wrap warning. >hH >http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/12/13/011213hncompcust.xml?
 >1213alert >h7 >I also have it in .PDF format if anyone is interested.  >___ >Paul Sturec >Switzerland >p    This pulls up an article titled:# Compaq customer defections looming.P   What does it have to do with:i> Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice? --O VAXman- OpenVMS APE certification number: AAA-0001     VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COMt             J   "And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery I   intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" -- Calvin & Hobbesf   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 06:25:47 -0800( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)J Subject: Re: Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0112230625.320b9387@posting.google.com>p  ] Paul Sture <paul.sture@bluewin.ch> wrote in message news:<VA.00000500.04c198c5@bluewin.ch>...aF > I came across this the other day, and I thought folks might find it ' > interesting. Normal url wrap warning.r > I > http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/12/13/011213hncompcust.xml?l > 1213alerth > 8 > I also have it in .PDF format if anyone is interested. > ___t > Paul Sture
 > Switzerland   K this was already posted here, and I don't think much of it ... I am stayingmK on VMS unless the itanium port fails and after as much service out of alpha:K as I can get, I have no where else to go ... maybe by then, freeVMS will be  up and running ...   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Dec 2001 08:14:48 -0800. From: spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman)Y Subject: Re: Why would one want a colon in a logical name? (Re: TOPS residuals (was: RE: .= Message-ID: <b096a4ee.0112230814.5654a55b@posting.google.com>s  z "Chris Townley" <news@townleyc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<1009070298.7252.0.nnrp-10.d4e45fa5@news.demon.co.uk>...G > "John Macallister" <J.Macallister1@physics.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message J > news:35666012DF4CD411BE940090279FA240010BF193@ppnt41.physics.ox.ac.uk...F > > >Now, *why* would you *want* to include a colon in a logical name? > >eL > > SYS$SYSDEVICE is a logical name with a colon. It's just one way of using > <snip> > " > I missed the original post here. > L > Plenty of times when itis relevant. For example in a com file I will use aH > logical for the file handle with a trailing colon for readability, for	 > exampleD >  > $ open/read infile: file.namea >  > $ read infile: data_line >  > etc. > " > It is a convention I always use.  F I often do that myself, but that was not my question. The colon is notF part of the logical name. A SHOW LOGICAL INFILE: command would show noA translation. IOW, in your example, INFILE is a logical name while0? INFILE: is not. The colon you added is simply part of LNM usage>, syntax, not part of the logical name itself.  B What I *was* asking was if there is any reason to make the colon a- part of the logical name itself. For example:t       $ DEFINE LNM: EQUIVt   or       $ DEFINE ASDF:ZXCV EQUIV  D The DEFINE command keeps the trailing colon. The ASSIGN command doesB not. So I actually have two questions: 1.) Why would anyone want aF trailing colon or an embedded colon (or even a leading colon!) as part> of the logical name? 2.) Why the different behavior of the two	 commands?    Disclaimer: JMHO Alan E. Feldmanl afeldman &&& gfigroup.com.   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2001.711 ************************