1 INFO-VAX	Thu, 26 Dec 2002	Volume 2002 : Issue 713       Contents: DECserver 200/MC Re: DECserver 200/MC' Re: F$GETDVI ("AVL") in an IF statement  FA: DEC Memorobilia ( Re: initialize/erase does no useful work& Re: Merry Christmas to all VMS'ers ...& Re: Merry Christmas to all VMS'ers ...& Re: Merry Christmas to all VMS'ers ...P Re: Unix and Wintel are not the only games in town ( was Re: OT: Whoa! Is Sun ai Re: UTC time in DCL  Re: UTC time in DCL  Re: UTC time in DCL  Re: UTC time in DCL  Re: UTC time in DCL  Re: VAX 7810's.  Re: vax6k.openecs.org rebirth  Re: vax6k.openecs.org rebirth  Re: vax6k.openecs.org rebirth 
 Re: VMS ISPs? 
 Re: VMS ISPs?   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 21:10:07 +0100 * From: "Vandijck Andy" <fa334583@skynet.be> Subject: DECserver 200/MC 6 Message-ID: <3e0a0f9a$0$90216$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>  ) I have a problem with my DECserver 200/MC ' at boot it gives the following message: K Local -901- Initializing DECserver "08-00-2B-09-A9-C1" -- ROM BL20, H/W Rev  F.C & Local -941- Transceiver loopback error$ Local -942- Image load not attempted9 Local -950- Troubleshooting procedures should be followed 0 What can i do that it loads its image and boots?, help wanted on this part (mail is preferred) TIA  Andy   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 20:27:46 GMT . From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter LANGSTOEGER) Subject: Re: DECserver 200/MC 3 Message-ID: <6xoO9.67180$qq5.862840@news.chello.at>   c In article <3e0a0f9a$0$90216$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>, "Vandijck Andy" <fa334583@skynet.be> writes: * >I have a problem with my DECserver 200/MC( >at boot it gives the following message:L >Local -901- Initializing DECserver "08-00-2B-09-A9-C1" -- ROM BL20, H/W Rev >F.C' >Local -941- Transceiver loopback error ( ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^% >Local -942- Image load not attempted : >Local -950- Troubleshooting procedures should be followed1 >What can i do that it loads its image and boots?    Fix the network problem    --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER % Network and OpenVMS system specialist  E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------    Date: 25 Dec 2002 17:19:29 -0800. From: spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman)0 Subject: Re: F$GETDVI ("AVL") in an IF statement= Message-ID: <b096a4ee.0212251719.52b1287a@posting.google.com>   _ JF Mezei <jfmezei@vl.videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<3E08C243.4C6FE7D2@vl.videotron.ca>...  [...] N > But in the case of AVAILABLE it doesn't hurt to return "false" if the device > doesn't exist. > 5 > It is just a question of allowing cleaner DCL code.  >  > IF F$GETDVI("DUA0:", "AVL")  > THEN% > 	device is available can be mounted  > ELSE > 	devince not available.  > ENDIF  > Z > no need for ON-ERROR and specyfying a goto statement in case the device isn't available. >  >  > The current way would be:  >   > IF F$GETDVI("DUA0:", "EXISTS") > THEN > 	IF F$GETDVI("DUA0:", "AVL") > 	THEN  > 		ok to mount it > 	ELSE = > 		handle device can't be mounted (exists but not available)  > 	ENDIF > ELSE2 > 	handle device can't be mounted (doesn't exists) > ENDIF  > P > Which requires repeating the code to handle the situation where the disk can't
 > be mounted.   
 How about:  
 $ JFAVAIL = 0 & $ IF (F$GETDVI("disk","EXISTS") THEN -&       JFAVAIL = F$GETDVI("disk","AVL") $ IF (JFAVAIL) $ THEN $     ! ok to mount it $ ELSE+ $     ! handle device that can't be mounted  $ ENDIF    (not tested)  A You can add a check in the "ok to mount it" section to see if the  device is already mounted.  B Why do you want the same action for the cases of non-existence and< existing but not available? Are you just trying to mount all@ "mountable" disks without error messages are is there some other7 motivation? Where do the disk specifications come from?    Disclaimer: JMHO Alan E. Feldman    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 14:45:08 -0500 3 From: "Homer J. Simpson" <hsimpson@burnsenergy.com>  Subject: FA: DEC Memorobilia6 Message-ID: <bPnO9.92250$C06.74505@news.bellsouth.net>   Cards, article, pin:  < http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=750235466   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 17:34:13 -0000 E From: "Dane Maslen" <dane.maslen@real-address-withheld-to-avoid-spam> 1 Subject: Re: initialize/erase does no useful work ? Message-ID: <CdrO9.589$jT3.191463@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>   > Frank Troth wrote in message <3E024E47.2CA854F0@boeing.com>...F >At HP's suggestion we attempted an initialize/erase of a 4 18-GB diskG >RAID5 raid set on a dual HSZ50 controllers scsi'ed from an Alpha 8400,     [snip] B >restored the 52GB image backup to the disk (which too 16 hours inG >itself, another mystery in HP's lap right now -- the backup image save + >took only 3 hours, to a tz89 with DLT4's).     F Do you have writeback cache?  If not, I'm not surprised that a restore' should take so much longer than a save.   J I have a vague recollection (it's several years since I did anything alongD these lines, so I'm not entirely convinced that this recollection isL correct) that tinkering with some settings on the RAID5 set can speed up theK restore (my vague recollections also suggest to me that there are potential 4 data integrity issues that can arise from doing so).   Dane Maslen    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 12:22:06 -0800 % From: Dean Woodward <deanw@rdrop.com> / Subject: Re: Merry Christmas to all VMS'ers ... ( Message-ID: <3E0A136E.9080801@rdrop.com>   VAXman-@SendSpamHere.ORG wrote: 8 > Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi.nospam@Free.fr> writes: > + >>Tou you too and to all the group as well. L >>Over here, it's merely Pippin Christmas due to the availability of the Two+ >>Towers on the European Cinema screens :-)  >  > ?????????   I Lord of the Rings.  Pippin Took is Meriadoc (Merry) Bradybuck's sidekick.    Merry. Pippin.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 20:14:40 GMT - From: bdc@world.std.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) / Subject: Re: Merry Christmas to all VMS'ers ... % Message-ID: <H7oywH.Eo@world.std.com>   0 In article <00A18F82.73780714@SendSpamHere.ORG>,#  <VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote: 7 > In article <3E099D57.F661CE5@Free.fr>, Didier Morandi ) > <Didier.Morandi.nospam@Free.fr> writes:   - > > Tou you too and to all the group as well. N > > Over here, it's merely Pippin Christmas due to the availability of the Two- > > Towers on the European Cinema screens :-)  >  > ?????????   D You know... _Lord of the Rings_--Merry, *Pippin*, Sam, etc.--they'reD hobbits.  The second film of the trilogy has opened in theaters this month.   -brian.  --  F --- Brian Chase | bdc@world.std.com | http://world.std.com/~bdc/ -----B        "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."5               -- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 22:12:48 +0100 4 From: Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi.nospam@Free.fr>/ Subject: Re: Merry Christmas to all VMS'ers ... ' Message-ID: <3E0A1F50.CCDC7CF9@Free.fr>   N yep. Just back from it. Amazing piece of production. Smeagol-Gollum is just...: fantastic. All virtual reality, but so real on the screen.   To be seen absolutely.  F Also, for those of you who like Umberto Eco (The Name of the Rose, theH Foucault's Pendule, etc.) please read his last one: "Bandolino". A must.   D.   Brian 'Jarai' Chase wrote: > 2 > In article <00A18F82.73780714@SendSpamHere.ORG>,% >  <VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote: 9 > > In article <3E099D57.F661CE5@Free.fr>, Didier Morandi + > > <Didier.Morandi.nospam@Free.fr> writes:  > / > > > Tou you too and to all the group as well. P > > > Over here, it's merely Pippin Christmas due to the availability of the Two/ > > > Towers on the European Cinema screens :-)  > > 
 > > ?????????  > F > You know... _Lord of the Rings_--Merry, *Pippin*, Sam, etc.--they'reF > hobbits.  The second film of the trilogy has opened in theaters this > month. > 	 > -brian.  > --H > --- Brian Chase | bdc@world.std.com | http://world.std.com/~bdc/ -----D >        "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."7 >               -- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943    --  3   ------------------------------------------------- 3 MORANDI Consultants - http://Didier.Morandi.Free.fr 0   19 chemin de la Butte, 31400 Toulouse, France.3 Tel.: +33 (0)6 7983 6418 - Fax : +33 (0)5 6154 1928 3 OpenVMS, APPLE, Computer Security, Migration plans. 3 --------------------------------------------------- 3 Anti-publicit : enlever ".nospam" pour me rpondre    ------------------------------    Date: 25 Dec 2002 21:21:12 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Y Subject: Re: Unix and Wintel are not the only games in town ( was Re: OT: Whoa! Is Sun ai 3 Message-ID: <KSpFTLxIq$pL@eisner.encompasserve.org>   a In article <1eqm0vo0qg534ool2b7ng1vfl5f3aprcs0@4ax.com>, faust <urfaust@optushome.com.au> writes:   D > What do you think all the Intel fabs are moving to , now that they > have dumped VMS ?   B And why did Intel waste all that money sending their VMS expert toB DECUS in St. Louis?  And why was he lying at the lunch table about using VMS on Alpha ?   ------------------------------    Date: 25 Dec 2002 12:40:15 -0800. From: spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman) Subject: Re: UTC time in DCL= Message-ID: <b096a4ee.0212251240.718f191b@posting.google.com>   t "Jerome H. Fine" <jhfineb9rv@b9rvnospamcompsys.to> wrote in message news:<3E08DEF7.8DB7492A@b9rvnospamcompsys.to>... > 9 > Although I used to use VMS a few years ago, I don't use 8 > VMS these days at all.  But I do seem to remember that6 > both the DATE and the TIME are internally kept via a6 > 64 bit clock of so many 100 nanoseconds since a date' > in 1800s - is that January 1st, 1858?   # All right! A calendar question! :-)   , The VMS time reference date-time is actually  F 17-nov-1858:00:00:00.00 = Julian Date 2400000.5 = Modified Julian Date	 0. (IIRC)   < > My question is this:  Now that the use of leap seconds has; > been introduced, does the VMS internal clock get adjusted # > every time a leap second is used?   @ Only if you are using a time service that gets its time from the official atomic clock(s)!   ; > The alternative seems to be that the clock keeps track of 6 > the absolute number of 100 nanoseconds and somewhere= > a table does an adjustment with the current Delta-T or what ( > is needed to provide the correct TIME.  F The leap second corrections do not come at regular intervals. They areE added on an as-needed basis. When the need arises, an announcement by @ the time authorities is issued and everyone prepares for the bigC event! See the Web reference below (and others -- I know there is a ? table of past leap seconds on the Web somewhere, but future Web 2 seconds are somewhat unpredictable) for as to why.  ' So no table can be prepared in advance.   E Additionally, I think you need to read Stan Rabinowitz's SPR response D to someone complaining that V3 of VMS "incorrectly" treats 2000 as aD leap year. (Of course, 2000 *was* a leap year.) This reference is onF the Web, perhaps even on the openVMS Web site in the Y2K section -- itA was there a year ago -- don't know about if it's still there now. F [Note: I just found it with Google: one page, among several others, is  , http://www.mixed-up.com/markb/humor/spr.html  C .] [Editor's note: Stan had to remove the reference to VMS4 and the  last paragraph of his reponse.]   ; > Also, are the internal DATE/TIME calculations done now in C > 64 bits or are they still done in 32 bits - which means that they . > will fail sometime during the next 50 years.   I don't know, but according to  J http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=17780394%40MVB.SAIC.COM&output=gplain  > it is now correct up to at least past 31-dec-9999, but for pre, VMS-5.5, there was a "bug" [same reference]:   {[BEGIN QUOTED MATERIAL] Real neat & unexpected bug :-()   ? It goes (on a VMS V4.5 system that I happen to have access to):   A 4.5-$ write SYS$OUTPUT f$cvt("10-dec-5941:2:08:00.00",,"weekday") 	 Wednesday A 4.5-$ write SYS$OUTPUT f$cvt("10-dec-5941:2:08:00.01",,"weekday")  Tuesday A 4.5-$ write SYS$OUTPUT f$cvt("10-dec-5941:2:08:00.05",,"weekday")  Sunday  7 and continues quite chaotically after that. How's that?  [END QUOTED MATERIAL]}    See the reference for as to why.   > > Finally, while any adjustments needed for the calendar being@ > different from the current Gregorian adjustments to the Julian: > Calendar (ONLY one century year out of 4 is a leap year): > probably will not be required for about 2000 years until: > 4000 CE, has anyone actually checked the details to make > sure?    Yes, see below.   6 > In particular, will the use of Leap Seconds defer or= > hasten the need for additional adjustments to the Gregorian 8 > Calendar in the form of changing the number of century< > leap years in every 400 years from ONE to ZERO (or perhaps7 > even TWO - unless so eager beaver group in the future = > decides to restore the Julian requirement for every century  > leap year being required).  B The use of leap seconds is necessary because the day is defined as? 86400 seconds where a second is a certain, very large number of < transitions (about 9 billion) of a cesium atom under certainA conditions (the atomic clock). This turns out to be just slightly D shorter than the average earth day. (This definition is based on theB mean solar day in 1900. See the reference below.) The speed of the9 rotation of the earth is affected by a number of factors. @ Redistribution of water via ice-water transitions, tidal forces,9 continental drift, weather, and others, many of which are > unpredictable. The official atomic clock time "day" is about 2E milliseconds shorter than the current average real earth day (current B mean solar day). Leap seconds are added in part to accomodate thisD difference and in part to correct for unpredictable varations of the earth's rotation rate.   See   * http://maia.usno.navy.mil/eo/leapsec.html   D for information about the leap second. (Other Web references abound.A In particular, use keywords Universal Time, Coordinated Universal 6 Time, UTC, UT1, and, if you're really ambitious, UT2.)  B So to answer your question, it depends on what 365.2422 days meansF (the actual length of the year (accurate to that many deicmal places),B itself changing very slowly with time). What days are they talkingD about? Atomic clock days, probably. The Gregorian calendar assumes a> year of 365.2425 (mean solar) days, of course. That 0.0003 dayF difference amounts to a one day error in approx. 3333 years (of courseF that 3333 years is accurate only to one significant figure, so I couldC just as well have said 3000 years, but then someone would complaing A that I don't know how to divide!). So that answers your 4000 C.E. 	 question.   E Now, since, due to tidal forces, the average length of the mean solar > day (time for the earth to rotate once using the mean sun as aD reference point) is decreasing by 2 milliseconds per day per centuryE (see above Web reference), this will not affect the calendar for many  millennia to come.  > One effect for which the leap year rules might one day requireF modification is the fact that the official day and the current averageF day differ by 2 milliseconds. Over one year this becomes 0.73 seconds.> So over a thousand years this becomes 730 seconds, or about 12B minutes. I don't think that will have much effect on the calendar.D OTOH, the length of the actual mean tropical year itself is changingE ever so slowly, but you'll have to look that up yourself to see if it * has an effect. I've run out of steam! (;-)  F But I will say that as the earth's rotation rate slows, that will tend@ to reduce the number of days in a year. But at the same time the? length of the year itself is changing ever so slowly in time. I = suspect that the increasing length of the day will eventually E dominate. That means that the number of (mean solar) days in the year B will decrease, which will tend to require removing more leap days.F Since the Julian calendar is 365.25 days, the Gregorian 365.2425 days,D and the current 365.2422 days, a further reduction will not bring usD back to the Julian, and additional leap days will have to be omitted (for the very distant future).  ? There are many useful references to the many issues that affect F precise timekeeping on the Web. By using Google with search words likeE leap second time calendar Gregorian, etc., you should be able to find D all you ever wanted to know about timekeeping, and a whole lot more,@ I'm sure (except, perhaps, direct answers to your 9999 paragraph@ below). Also, the VMS FAQ has a section on timekeeping issues as regards VMS.  = > And last, but for me NOT least, is it presently possible to < > project how long it will be (an estimate in seconds) until > January 1st, 9999 CE?   E Well, assuming no cataclysmic events, like the Earth colliding with a E very large body, I don't see why not. I'd think you should be able to C get it down to an accuracy of less than an hour, perhaps much less, D except I haven't considered the changing length of the mean tropical year.   # > Or is the answer to this question 8 > have such a huge range to the possible answer that any' > estimate just makes no sense at all?    C No, if an hour, a few minutes, or whatever it turns out to be isn't 
 too large.   > Likewise, does the5 > date January 1st, 9999 BCE have a reasonable number 8 > for the range in the estimate of the number of seconds8 > between January 1st, 9999 BCE and January 1st 1999 CE?   yes.  7 > Namely when someone wishes to talk about exactly when 8 > January 1st, 9999 BCE would have been in the Gregorian: > Proleptic Calendar, is there an answer which most people > can agree on?   F yes. In fact, I can tell you right now. It would have been Jan 1, 9999E B.C.E. You mean in seconds? yes, to the same accuracy already stated.   . >  And the same for how long it will be before" > January 1st, 9999 CE will occur?  E In seconds, yes, assuming no cataclysms. You already asked that, BTW.    Disclaimer:   F I just did some very quick research to produce the above answers. MoreE careful research may yield important corrections to what I say, but I B think I'm not too far off. Corrections are welcome! (Well, correct corrections, anyway!)    Disclaimer: JMHO JMHO JMHO Alan E. Feldman    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 17:02:58 -0500 ' From: Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net>  Subject: Re: UTC time in DCL< Message-ID: <howard-FE901D.17025825122002@enews.newsguy.com>  = In article <b096a4ee.0212251240.718f191b@posting.google.com>, 0  spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman) wrote:  G > Now, since, due to tidal forces, the average length of the mean solar @ > day (time for the earth to rotate once using the mean sun as aF > reference point) is decreasing by 2 milliseconds per day per century > (see above Web reference),  F Oops.  You might want to double-check what you wrote against what you 
 meant to say.     H > But I will say that as the earth's rotation rate slows, that will tend) > to reduce the number of days in a year.   $ I -knew- you'd simply mis-worded it.    H > Since the Julian calendar is 365.25 days, the Gregorian 365.2425 days,F > and the current 365.2422 days, a further reduction will not bring usF > back to the Julian, and additional leap days will have to be omitted  > (for the very distant future).  F Eventually, one day = one solar year, as I understand it.  Don't hold I your breath waiting, though.  I understand that during part of the reign  J on the dinosaurs, the day was 21 hours long, for instance.  Extrapolate.  H Assuming we lost 3 hours in the last 65,000,000 years, how long will it = take to lose the remaining 24?  I figure 520M years from now.   D That's assuming that the average rate of rotational braking remains J constant and that the day was 21 hours long when the dinosours died out.   So it's a low-ball estimate.   --  4 Today, on Paper-view: The World Origami Championship   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 21:33:32 +0100  From: Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl> Subject: Re: UTC time in DCL8 Message-ID: <jf5k0vsh1dtk40e4i45faegrnhu308dhsq@4ax.com>    Hi Jerome,   D You can find a great story about the VMS time etc. in the VMS FAQ onF the Compaq site. It is really hilarious to read, but also offers a lot of information.   C The VMS internal clock can be synchronised to a DTSS time server, a > NTP timeserver, or a timesource like a radio receiver for time> signals. Without any of these timesources the clock will be asF (in)accurate as you can expect from any computerclock, and it will not take in account leap seconds.   D The VMS internal time is kept in a quad word, so it is 64 bits. ThatB means VMS will get into trouble around the year 32000, and that is well after my retirement.   E As far as I know it is possible to make calender calculations for any C date up till the year 32000. Judging from the story in the FAQ, I'm E quite convinced that these calculations will be accurate according to  the present rules.  B Since all calculations are based on a quad word, it should also be@ possible to get delta times in seconds, even if the year 9999 is	 involved.   F Going back into time will be much more difficult. I'm sure I have seenA software that can do that, but since VMS time starts around 1858, D those calculations can not use the normal VMS time quad word format.  C Furthermore there were some strange odities in the calender, so the A calculations can not be as straight forward as with future dates.   E I'm not an expert on calenders etc., so this is all the information I  can offer you I'afraid.    Regards,	 Dirk Munk     >Jerome Fine replies:  > 8 >Although I used to use VMS a few years ago, I don't use7 >VMS these days at all.  But I do seem to remember that 5 >both the DATE and the TIME are internally kept via a 5 >64 bit clock of so many 100 nanoseconds since a date & >in 1800s - is that January 1st, 1858? > ; >My question is this:  Now that the use of leap seconds has : >been introduced, does the VMS internal clock get adjusted" >every time a leap second is used? > : >The alternative seems to be that the clock keeps track of5 >the absolute number of 100 nanoseconds and somewhere < >a table does an adjustment with the current Delta-T or what' >is needed to provide the correct TIME.  > : >Also, are the internal DATE/TIME calculations done now inB >64 bits or are they still done in 32 bits - which means that they- >will fail sometime during the next 50 years.  > = >Finally, while any adjustments needed for the calendar being ? >different from the current Gregorian adjustments to the Julian 9 >Calendar (ONLY one century year out of 4 is a leap year) 9 >probably will not be required for about 2000 years until 9 >4000 CE, has anyone actually checked the details to make < >sure?  In particular, will the use of Leap Seconds defer or< >hasten the need for additional adjustments to the Gregorian7 >Calendar in the form of changing the number of century ; >leap years in every 400 years from ONE to ZERO (or perhaps 6 >even TWO - unless so eager beaver group in the future< >decides to restore the Julian requirement for every century >leap year being required).  > < >And last, but for me NOT least, is it presently possible to; >project how long it will be (an estimate in seconds) until 9 >January 1st, 9999 CE?  Or is the answer to this question 7 >have such a huge range to the possible answer that any 9 >estimate just makes no sense at all?  Likewise, does the 4 >date January 1st, 9999 BCE have a reasonable number7 >for the range in the estimate of the number of seconds 7 >between January 1st, 9999 BCE and January 1st 1999 CE? 6 >Namely when someone wishes to talk about exactly when7 >January 1st, 9999 BCE would have been in the Gregorian 9 >Proleptic Calendar, is there an answer which most people ; >can agree on?  And the same for how long it will be before ! >January 1st, 9999 CE will occur?  >  >Sincerely yours,  >  >Jerome Fine   ------------------------------    Date: 25 Dec 2002 18:24:47 -0800. From: spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman) Subject: Re: UTC time in DCL= Message-ID: <b096a4ee.0212251824.579c24a4@posting.google.com>   t "Jerome H. Fine" <jhfineb9rv@b9rvnospamcompsys.to> wrote in message news:<3E08DEF7.8DB7492A@b9rvnospamcompsys.to>... [...] = > And last, but for me NOT least, is it presently possible to < > project how long it will be (an estimate in seconds) until: > January 1st, 9999 CE?  Or is the answer to this question8 > have such a huge range to the possible answer that any: > estimate just makes no sense at all?  Likewise, does the5 > date January 1st, 9999 BCE have a reasonable number 8 > for the range in the estimate of the number of seconds8 > between January 1st, 9999 BCE and January 1st 1999 CE?7 > Namely when someone wishes to talk about exactly when 8 > January 1st, 9999 BCE would have been in the Gregorian: > Proleptic Calendar, is there an answer which most people< > can agree on?  And the same for how long it will be before" > January 1st, 9999 CE will occur?  D What is your motivation for these questions? Why do you want to knowF how many seconds it is from now to thousands of years past and future?  
 Anyway,...   Check this reference:   = http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/~kb/Papers/JRASC/Tropic.htm#E12   C [begin quote -- NOTE: I inserted double asterisks ** in the formula F below to convey exponentiation since the copy and paste result left noC indication of that. So 10**-6 is 10 raised to the minus sixth power 3 and 10**-10 is 10 raised to the minus tenth power.]    ABSTRACT  A The expression for the length of tropical year, based on a modern E theory of the motion of the Earth, is derived. The formula valid over 8 about 8 000 years centered at the present reads in days:  > t = 365.242189669781 - 6.16187010**-6T - 6.4410**-10T**2,    > where T is the time reckoned from J2000 and measured in JulianA centuries of 365.25 ephemeris days. A comparison of the Gregorian D calendar with a perfect solar calendar suggests that the former willF be adequate at least during the nearest one to two thousand years. DueD to high uncertainty in the Earth rotation it is premature at presentB to suggest any reform that would reach further than a few thousandE years into the future. An approach to calendrical analysis relying on < the summation of the length of tropical years is shown to be methodologically incorrect.    [end quote]   % See the reference for the full paper.    Disclaimer: JMHO Alan E. Feldman    ------------------------------    Date: 25 Dec 2002 20:48:56 -0800. From: spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman) Subject: Re: UTC time in DCL= Message-ID: <b096a4ee.0212252048.3fcfe632@posting.google.com>   k Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote in message news:<howard-FE901D.17025825122002@enews.newsguy.com>... ? > In article <b096a4ee.0212251240.718f191b@posting.google.com>, 2 >  spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman) wrote: > I > > Now, since, due to tidal forces, the average length of the mean solar B > > day (time for the earth to rotate once using the mean sun as aH > > reference point) is decreasing by 2 milliseconds per day per century > > (see above Web reference),  + %AUTHOR-E-PARITY, parity error in adjective 
  \decreasing\   H > Oops.  You might want to double-check what you wrote against what you  > meant to say.   + Oops. Your right. I meant increasing. Ref.:   ) http://maia.usno.navy.mil/eo/leapsec.html   J > > But I will say that as the earth's rotation rate slows, that will tend+ > > to reduce the number of days in a year.  > & > I -knew- you'd simply mis-worded it.  
 You're right!   J > > Since the Julian calendar is 365.25 days, the Gregorian 365.2425 days,H > > and the current 365.2422 days, a further reduction will not bring usH > > back to the Julian, and additional leap days will have to be omitted" > > (for the very distant future). > H > Eventually, one day = one solar year, as I understand it.  Don't hold K > your breath waiting, though.  I understand that during part of the reign  L > on the dinosaurs, the day was 21 hours long, for instance.  Extrapolate.  J > Assuming we lost 3 hours in the last 65,000,000 years, how long will it ? > take to lose the remaining 24?  I figure 520M years from now.  > F > That's assuming that the average rate of rotational braking remains L > constant and that the day was 21 hours long when the dinosours died out.   > So it's a low-ball estimate.  E I once read, many years ago when I was a teenager, that the earth and D moon will enter a tidal lock billions of years from now. I think theB estimate was 5 billion years. Anyway, that book predicted that theA same side of the earth would face the moon and they would revolve > around each other 7 times a year, IIRC. Make that double IIRC.F Actually, right now, it is always the same side of the moon that faces? the earth, so the moon is already in tidal lock with the earth. E Billions of years from now, they will both be in tidal lock with each ; other! I wonder how far apart they'll be when that happens.   E The other interesting aspect of this is that this same tidal friction E actually causes the moon to spiral outward. (I think something like 1 D cm per year, or per century [???]) This happens in order to conserveF angular momentum. Since the moon's gravity (and the sun's, to a lesser> extent), moves water around the earth (the tides), this causesF friction that slows the earth. But it's like a person using a spinningA table to make a pot. As the spinner grabs the pot, he can slow it F down, but in doing so he inevitably feels the reaction force trying toF throw him outward. This same reaction force is what is making the moonB ever so slowly spiral outward. Eventually, thousands or more yearsF from now, we may not have total solar eclipses because the moon may beE too far away to totally cover the sun! We are lucky to be around when % there still are total solar eclipses.   C Thanks for pointing out my goof. As I said, correct corrections are  welcome.   Disclaimer: JMHO Alan E. Feldman    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 22:16:32 -0000 8 From: "Leigh Bowden" <LGBowden@bowdenfamily.fsnet.co.uk> Subject: Re: VAX 7810's.. Message-ID: <audajo$i9g$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>  L All cards are connected including FDDI. What I meant was that when machine A4 is swapped to machine C it uses the same route as A.   -- Leigh G. Bowden.# http://www.bowdenfamily.fsnet.co.uk ! LGBowden#bowdenfamily.fsnet.co.uk  +44 161 477 2526   Opinions are mine alone.   ------------------------------    Date: 25 Dec 2002 11:37:59 -0800# From: hemanir@netzero.com (Anamika) & Subject: Re: vax6k.openecs.org rebirth< Message-ID: <180adbe.0212251137.2ec90e0a@posting.google.com>  B One might as well shut down the free service if there are not many- patrons. There are other free VMS accounts at 3 http//deathrow.vistech.net, http://hobbesthevax.com  etc.,  Just a thought.    -A  c vax6k Team <chris@vax6k.openecs.org> wrote in message news:<3E05FE9D.B3A12286@vax6k.openecs.org>...  > Dear Newsgroup,  > P > some of you might already know vax6k.openecs.org, a freely accessible VAX 6000P > system running the OpenVMS 7.3 operating system. Those of you who tried to useQ > this system over the last few months noticed that it is unavailable. The reason O > is easy to explain: no money. Operating a system like that costs about EUR100 N > per month. Including the cost for 18.5kWh electricity a day and the internet
 > connection. N > There are about 50 registered users on the vax6k.openecs.org system. To keepJ > this project alive we encourage all users and feature users to donate anP > adequate amount of money to this project. We have powered the system up again,R > but if we don't receive sufficient funds until 1st January 2003, we're forced to: > shut down the service again for an indefinite long time.O > Please visit http://vax6k.openecs.org and convince yourself how valuable this Q > project is. You will find all details on how donate there. Sponsors are welcome  > too. >  > Best Regards - vax6k team    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 22:40:06 GMT - From: bdc@world.std.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) & Subject: Re: vax6k.openecs.org rebirth& Message-ID: <H7p5Mv.E08@world.std.com>  . In article <auc76l$pvj$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>,( jason andrade <jason@dstc.edu.au> wrote:+ > Stuart Fuller <stufuller@usa.net> writes:  > > Dave wrote:h  K > > Next to the last.  The VAX 7000 series (76xx, 77xx, 78xx) was the last.h > M > digressing a bit - was there ever a VAX10000 ?  i've got some documentations> > here that talks about the Alpha 10000 boxes running OpenVMS. > L > anyone know very much about these - did DEC sell many ?  what happened to  > them ?  2 There are a few details about them available here:A <http://h18002.www1.hp.com/alphaserver/vax/archive/vax10000.html>s  J I'm fairly certain one of them appeared on eBay within the past 2-3 years.   -brian., -- eF --- Brian Chase | bdc@world.std.com | http://world.std.com/~bdc/ -----9               "You are not expected to understand this." eD    -- A comment from the source of UNIX 6th Ed, unix/slp.c, line 438   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 01:54:14 GMT"- From: bdc@world.std.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) & Subject: Re: vax6k.openecs.org rebirth& Message-ID: <H7pEME.FGz@world.std.com>  < In article <180adbe.0212251137.2ec90e0a@posting.google.com>,$ Anamika <hemanir@netzero.com> wrote:  E > One might as well shut down the free service if there are not many -K > patrons. There are other free VMS accounts at http//deathrow.vistech.net,a > http://hobbesthevax.com etc.,  > Just a thought.v  E The deathrow folks seem to have difficulties keeping their site up.  tH At least their website is down now, and I remember them not lasting veryD long as they were Slashdotted a month or two ago.  I hadn't realizedG they'd attempted to continue after that.  The hobbes fellows have a lot J better track record, or at least a longer history of running their system,0 albeit with some extended outages now and again.  H I quite like the idea of a sizeable VAX 6000 being available on the net.G You can support thousands of users on one of these; probably with a fewbI hundred people logged in simultaneously.  If *enough* people were to makewH use of these systems, the donations required by each of them to keep theH system(s) running would be quite small.  A hundred users would only haveG to pay ~$1US/month, two hundred users would have to pay ~$0.50US/month.k  H Since the holidays are upon us, they're getting $100US from me.  I can't2 stand to see a good VAX go to waste, sitting idle!   -brian.e --  F --- Brian Chase | bdc@world.std.com | http://world.std.com/~bdc/ -----F     "Science explains the world, but only art can reconcile us to it."=            -- The oldest sage, "King Globares and the Sages".    ------------------------------    Date: 25 Dec 2002 14:21:06 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)a Subject: Re: VMS ISPs?3 Message-ID: <Dq5YBjNBbmyI@eisner.encompasserve.org>   d In article <74ca5032.0212241652.359728dd@posting.google.com>, bdhobbs18@acm.org (Bill Hobbs) writes:G > My second regularly unscheduled poll of cov looking for ISPs that useI > VMS.  / > http://www.dls.net/  Apache on NetBSD/OpenBSD A > DLS Internet acquired FSINet (www.fsi.net and had VMS) 2001 Auge# > VMS is mentioned among other OSs.e  = FSInet hosted www.ljk.com on VMS, but when DLS took over theys< told us they were no longer willing to do web hosting on VMS; (thereby breaching our contract).  We pulled out and monthsE= later after much pestering they sent us a refund for the partA7 of the (paid in advance) contract they failed to honor.L  < We switched to Arnold Consulting, where the connection seems= to be lower bandwidth but the web site is on a cluster, so aso" to stay up if a machine goes down.    E > So Endor seems to be an all VMS ISP, DLS and InfoAve appear to haveaB > VMS servers among other OSs.  Anyone here actually a customer orC > employee of any of these ISPs?  Can a customer have their accountaF > services (web, e-mail, etc.) exclusively on VMS?  Can a customer get > to a $ prompt?  $ Yes at DLS, before they dropped VMS.  C No at Arnold, but for web hosting I don't need a dollar sign promptb5 so much as I need the vendor to stay in the business.-   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 09:09:43 +0300t2 From: "Ruslan R. Laishev" <Laishev@StarLet.SPB.RU> Subject: Re: VMS ISPs?- Message-ID: <3E0A9D27.7000409@StarLet.SPB.RU>4  & > Yes at DLS, before they dropped VMS.   VMS is not dropped by DLS.   -- m Cheers, Ruslan.iD +---------------------pure personal opinion------------------------+=        Mobile: +7 (812) 116-3222/NMT,   8 901 300-0102/IMT-MCeB     TKD (WTF) in Russia, St.-Petersburg - www.TaeKwonDo-WTF.SPb.RU0                  http://starlet.spb.ru/~laishev/   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2002.713 ************************