1 INFO-VAX	Mon, 30 Dec 2002	Volume 2002 : Issue 721       Contents:' Better graphics card for my PWS  600au? + Re: Better graphics card for my PWS  600au? + Re: Better graphics card for my PWS  600au? 3 Re: Character echo (was: vax6k.openecs.org rebirth) J Re: Crunching SETI (was:ORe: Compaq's phenomonal stupidity in killing Alph Re: is VMS really easy to use? Re: is VMS really easy to use? Re: is VMS really easy to use? Re: is VMS really easy to use? Re: is VMS really easy to use? Re: is VMS really easy to use? Re: is VMS really easy to use? Re: is VMS really easy to use? Re: is VMS really easy to use? Re: is VMS really easy to use? Re: is VMS really easy to use? Re: is VMS really easy to use? Re: is VMS really easy to use? Re: is VMS really easy to use? Re: is VMS really easy to use? Re: is VMS really easy to use? Re: is VMS really easy to use? Re: is VMS really easy to use?' Re: printing of string descriptors in C ' Re: printing of string descriptors in C  rrd40 P The Factorial function (was Re: is VMS really easy to use?) (includes a brief reP Re: The Factorial function (was Re: is VMS really easy to use?) (includes a brie Re: vax6k.openecs.org rebirth  Re: vax6k.openecs.org rebirth  Re: vax6k.openecs.org rebirth ; Re: Volatility of Argument Registers in EXEC mode R25,16-21  X-10 Software for VMS D Re: Your Multi-volume Tape Backups may be bad on all versions of	VMS; [Heavily OT] Dictionary definitions (was: Factorial etc...) : Re: [very OT] domestic network between PC W98 and Mac OS X  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 21:05:06 +0100 4 From: Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi.nospam@Free.fr>0 Subject: Better graphics card for my PWS  600au?& Message-ID: <3E0F5572.7040807@Free.fr>  N I have an ELSA GLORIA SYNERGY something in my PWS600au which gives me only 16 O colors or so. What can I do to have "normal" pictures display with DECwindows?  N Change a parameter? (which one, where), install a "real" PC-like card? (which 	 one, how)    Thanks,    D. --  4    -------------------------------------------------3 MORANDI Consultants - http://Didier.Morandi.Free.fr 1    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: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 17:40:20 -0600 7 From: "Craig A. Berry" <craigberry@nospam.telocity.com> 4 Subject: Re: Better graphics card for my PWS  600au?G Message-ID: <craigberry-1A47EE.17402029122002@news.directvinternet.com>   & In article <3E0F5572.7040807@Free.fr>,6  Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi.nospam@Free.fr> wrote:  P > I have an ELSA GLORIA SYNERGY something in my PWS600au which gives me only 16 Q > colors or so. What can I do to have "normal" pictures display with DECwindows?  * > Change a parameter? (which one, where),   B Read the FAQ, which points to the following Ask the Wizard topic, 7 entitled "ELSA GLoria Synergy Graphics Configuration?":   4 <http://www.openvms.compaq.com/wizard/wiz_5448.html>    > install a "real" PC-like card?   Huh?   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 22:20:24 -0600 ( From: Rich Jordan <duodec@speakeasy.net>4 Subject: Re: Better graphics card for my PWS  600au?1 Message-ID: <9mKdnRmFCsesV5KjXTWcpw@giganews.com>   I I just went through that on my PWS600au. I was running an Elsa (actually  A Powerstorm 4D10T) at 1280x1024x24, which worked but was slow and  F jittery; a long time ago Fred Kleinsorge posted to the effect that at E higher resolution and pixel depth, the Elsa was near the edge of its  H capabilities so screen jitters and anomalies could occur, and I believe F the recommendation was to stay at lower resolution and/or pixel depth.  H Since the powers that be won't make newer cards like the Powerstorm 300 F or Oxygen work on EV5 systems like ours, the best cards available for F VMS are the older TGA2 PowerStorm 3D30 (8-plane) and 4D20 (24 plane), I the latter of which is quite hard to find and usually expensive when you  F do, unless you pick one up from someone buying a PWS that ran UNix or F VMS and plans on switching to Linux (the TGA2 cards mentioned are not $ well supported there under XFree86).  I I got lucky and picked up a 4D20, paid about twice what a PCI Powerstorm  > 300 cost in the aftermarket, and it works fantastically well. > 1280x1024x24, clean, fast, and rock solid on my VRC21 monitor.  = To change what your Elsa is running at, try editing the file  G SYS$MANAGER:DECW$PRIVATE_SERVER_SETUP.COM  I'm pretty sure you can run  E 1024x768x24 with a fairly clean display, or 1280x1024x8 (256 colors)   without too much issue.   G BTW, is your card a DEC Elsa or a third party unit?  That might make a  F difference, though I've no direct experience with an aftermarket unit.   Rich Jordan      Didier Morandi wrote: H > I have an ELSA GLORIA SYNERGY something in my PWS600au which gives me H > only 16 colors or so. What can I do to have "normal" pictures display E > with DECwindows? Change a parameter? (which one, where), install a  ' > "real" PC-like card? (which one, how)  > 	 > Thanks,  >  > D.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 00:31:56 GMT 4 From: Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca>< Subject: Re: Character echo (was: vax6k.openecs.org rebirth)8 Message-ID: <i6gs0v02dhqg3tpeue8njbt6mj8mqsa36u@4ax.com>  ; On 28 Dec 2002 14:59:53 -0600, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry  Kilgallen) wrote:   c >In article <3E0DF790.6060101@vajhoej.dk>, Arne =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:  > 7 >> Key strokes in a VMS editor are *not* echoed back by  >> the terminal driver ! > > >Certainly they are for TECO, up until one enters a terminator6 >character, at which point the application takes over. > A >That is one of the reasons TECO character handling is efficient.   @ Any line driver that doesn't offer at least buffering up to next> control character or preferably non-horizontal spacing control> character (to exclude backspace and tab), as well as character< count or timeout is brain dead. Even X.25 PADs offered those= options. Buffering escape sequences up to next upper or lower > alpha would be advantageous. Should work symmetrically in both? directions. And any xon/xoff control should be aware of control > characters and escapes to avoid problems with other brain dead line drivers.   9 Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis 	Calgary, Alberta, Canada  --  F Brian.Inglis@CSi.com 	(Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca),     fake address		use address above to reply@ abuse@aol.com tosspam@aol.com abuse@att.com abuse@earthlink.com ? abuse@hotmail.com abuse@mci.com abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com  B abuse@yahoo.com abuse@cadvision.com abuse@shaw.ca abuse@telus.com - abuse@ibsystems.com uce@ftc.gov				spam traps    ------------------------------   Date: 29 Dec 2002 15:47:23 CDT= From: wayne@tachysoft.xxx.134848.killspam.00ac (Wayne Sewell) S Subject: Re: Crunching SETI (was:ORe: Compaq's phenomonal stupidity in killing Alph . Message-ID: <giHoXy3i7gGW@tachxxsoftxxconsult>  i In article <hxMrkVAhTDYx@eisner.encompasserve.org>, bradhamilton@127.0.0.1 (Bradford J. Hamilton) writes: n > In article <rrqL9.371471$%m4.119265@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, "Mark E. Levy" <levy@sysman-inc.com> writes:F >> I just upgraded one of my PCs running W2K to a 2.4GHz Athlon. I runJ >> Seti@Home on it. It took 11 hours to get to the 80% completed point. MyN >> 533Mhz EV56 Alpha churns through a work unit in slightly less than 10 hoursK >> (per CPU). Interesting the AMD's clock rate is ~5 times higher, yet it's ? >> slower. Compaq's stupidity in killing the Alpha astounds me.  >>   >> ML  >>   >>   > 
 > Hi Mark, > P > My (admittedly limited) understanding of the speed at which SETI workunits areP > crunched, leads me to think that raw CPU speed is not as important a factor asM > the amount of on-chip (L2?) cache available to the processor.  Any idea how ( > much cache is involved in each system?  K Cache makes a difference, all right.  I know of a 600au that was originally O bought without a cache (I'm not sure why) and the cache module was added later. N This machine was running seti both before and after.  The average cpu per workO unit was 10 hr 43 min without cache.  The average for the units performed after L the cache was installed is 7 hr 54 min.  Remember, this is the same physical0 machine.  The *only* difference is cache or not.   --  O =============================================================================== M Wayne Sewell, Tachyon Software Consulting  (281)812-0738  wayne@tachysoft.xxx : http://www.tachysoft.xxx/www/tachyon.html and wayne.html  K change .xxx to .com in addresses above, assuming you are not a spambot  :-) O =============================================================================== P Larry(sniffing):"I smell something awful." Moe:"Yeah, well don't brag about it."   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 08:27:17 +1300  From: "AG" <ang@xtra.co.nz> ' Subject: Re: is VMS really easy to use? 4 Message-ID: <pQmP9.20100$kq6.299684@news.xtra.co.nz>  9 "Bill Gunshannon" <bill@gw5.cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message / news:auia3q$7gh5c$1@ID-135708.news.dfncis.de...   I > Misusing any tool can cause a disaster.  If we made all tools incapable I > of causing a disaster it would be real hard to build a house becuase we J > would have no saws to cut the wood.  Afterall, that same saw can be usedJ > to cut out the supporting beams.  But we rely on the user to know not to
 > do that.  6 The problem with that argument is that a saw is a much8 simpler tool than most software packages. It's also been8 around a much longer time so there is more expertise and# "common knowledge" about it around.   9 However, consider the case of using "." vs "," as decimal 8 or thousands separator based on locality. (That includes6 cash numbers of course). Would you really trust a user9 who's used to one convention and is busily typing in some 8 receipts to remember which location this one is going to7 and use the delimiters accordingly? Probably not. After B all, isn't that what all the locality setting are for - to protect; the user from cutting not just the beams off but his or her  arm as well ...    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 10:13:37 -0800  From: "AG" <ang@xtra.co.nz> ' Subject: Re: is VMS really easy to use? 4 Message-ID: <LsoP9.20230$kq6.300644@news.xtra.co.nz>  0 "Arne Vajhj" <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote in message# news:3E0DF644.3000309@vajhoej.dk...  > Bill Gunshannon wrote: >   > > OK, I should have made that:D > >          n! = "the product of all positive integers from 1 to n"  * But in that case the statement is correct.+ Since zero is neither positive nor negative 1 it is specifically excluded from that definition.   * [Before someone points it out - we are not* talking signed floating point zeroes found on some architectures... ]   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Dec 2002 15:07:34 -0800. From: spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman)' Subject: Re: is VMS really easy to use? = Message-ID: <b096a4ee.0212281507.4b9134fc@posting.google.com>   e bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote in message news:<aukr4f$83lbf$2@ID-135708.news.dfncis.de>... 6 > In article <QAbP9.19180$kq6.291770@news.xtra.co.nz>,  > 	"AG" <ang@xtra.co.nz> writes: > > 9 > > "Bill Gunshannon" <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message 3 > > news:aui4o1$6tfih$3@ID-135708.news.dfncis.de...  > >  > >> (I also disagree withI > >> teaching that n! = "the product of all integers from 1 to n" because D > >> although it is correct in all but one case, it is still wrong.) > > D > > That's nothing, a quick search on the net turned up a definitionE > > that n! is a product of itself and all whole numbers below it ... = > > Now I'm greasing my abacus since calculating 1! obviously C > > requires going to minus infinity, not that it's gonna make much > > > difference since zero is also included, or does it? ... :) > > A > > On the other hand, your statement about "all but one case" is B > > also not correct it seems (assuming you allow an integer to be > > negative) ...  >  > OK, I should have made that:B >          n! = "the product of all positive integers from 1 to n" > ? > But my point was that the above is not a true definition of a ? > factorial even though that is what most people learn up to at ? > least the 12th grade. The one case that disproves this is, of  > course, "0".  !0 == 1.   >    > bill  , How would you define the factorial function?   Disclaimer: JMHO Alan E. Feldman    ------------------------------   Date: 28 Dec 2002 20:11:11 GMT, From: bill@gw5.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)' Subject: Re: is VMS really easy to use? 5 Message-ID: <aul0gv$83g4p$1@ID-135708.news.dfncis.de>   T In article <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF402660C58@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>,* 	"Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> writes: > Bill,  > I >>>> If an unused machine with nothing running but the login screen saver @ > runs out of virtual memory, what would you attribute it to?<<< > J > Well, to be fair .. Lots of other W2K systems run for longer than a week > without this problem.=20 > I > The issue is likely an older version of W2K not up to latest patches or H > some background ISV/home grown application or piece of code acting up. > Latest version is W2K SP3.  B Win2K SP3.  These are lab machines, regularly reloaded using ghostB and with no "home grown application or pieces of code".  And, whenB no one is logged on, there is nothing running that isn't a part of Win2K.   > : > The usual "what version" questions also applies here.=20 > I > I would also wonder if you have "let Windows manage the virtual memory" . > setting in place (Windows will expand file)   A That would merely confirm what I have already said.  Why would it D need to expand the page file if nothing is being done on the machine* unless it is consuming memory on it's own?  I >                                             or has a to small page file  > been setup manually.  B Size of pagefile is what Windows set up from it's install program.  @ In any case, if the pagefile is big enough inthe first place and@ after 2 weeks of none use it is no longer big enough, what would- you call it??  Sounds like memory leak to me.    > E > Fwiw, I have seen this issue on some of my home systems with Norton G > anti-virus and some freeware utilities like Kazaa running at the same  > time.   C Could be Norton, I suppose.  I assume Vshield runs even when no one F is logged onto the machine.  Of course, I would have assumed a companyA of that staure who specializes in software for Windows would know B how to write software that didn't trash the whole system.  And, toC place the blame where it properly lies, would VMS let a single task B consume all virtual memory until the machine is no longer usable??D No version of Unix I have running (well, except maybe for Ultrix-11) would allow it.    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   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 23:45:27 GMT ) From: "Mark E.Levy" <levy@sysman-inc.com> ' Subject: Re: is VMS really easy to use? ? Message-ID: <rIqP9.364338$GR5.109624@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>    Z wrote:   > Win 2000 is pretty damn good.  > < > Not quite Enterprise Critical quality yet, but damn close.  = Compared to what? Win98? NT4?  Certainly not compared to VMS.    ML   ------------------------------   Date: 29 Dec 2002 02:47:48 GMT, From: bill@gw5.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)' Subject: Re: is VMS really easy to use? 5 Message-ID: <aulnok$89csf$1@ID-135708.news.dfncis.de>   = In article <b096a4ee.0212281507.4b9134fc@posting.google.com>, 1 	spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman) writes:  > . > How would you define the factorial function? >   @ I can't define it.  Somebody beat me to it by hundreds of years.= I was rather surprised to find out that after 40 some years I < had never had a single math course that actually gave me the= correct definition.  Maybe that's why it has become one of my = pet peeves.  Or maybe it's because I see the same inprecision  in computer teaching as well.    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   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 16:18:26 -0700 % From: Dan O'Reilly <dano@process.com> ' Subject: Re: is VMS really easy to use? B Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20021229161712.0230bb70@raptor.psccos.com>  * At 04:45 PM 12/28/2002, Mark E.Levy wrote:	 >Z wrote:  >  >>Win 2000 is pretty damn good. < >>Not quite Enterprise Critical quality yet, but damn close. > > >Compared to what? Win98? NT4?  Certainly not compared to VMS.  G My W2k system crashes regularly 2-3 times a week, with no more use than E email and MS-Office.  On the other hand, I've had one crash on my VMS D systems that I pound the heck out of in the last 6 months.  And that was a hardware fault.      >ML    ------J +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+J | Dan O'Reilly                  |  "There are 10 types of people in this |J | Principal Engineer            |   world: those who understand binary   |J | Process Software              |   and those who don't."                |J | http://www.process.com        |                                        |J +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+   ------------------------------   Date: 29 Dec 2002 23:53:57 GMT, From: bill@gw5.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)' Subject: Re: is VMS really easy to use? 5 Message-ID: <auo1uk$8nhs6$1@ID-135708.news.dfncis.de>   ' In article <3E0E73E7.B49867D3@fsi.net>, 4 	"David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>  H >> out "manual pages".  There have been improvementsd made.  I have seenC >> HTMLized versions of the man pages, but in the long run, the man F >> command is the one that can be expected to be found on most systemsB >> and as the least common denominator is the one most people will >> look for first. > D > Actually, you raise an interesting point: when I got my first UNIXH > system back in 1986, I spent a good couple of months or more trying toH > figure out how to actually PRINT out the manual pages in hard copy, asE > opposed to having them scroll up my screen. Sorry, but I still work  > better from hard copy.  A I, too, had a printed out set of man pages.  But I wouldn't waste 1 the paper today.  Some of them I never looked at.    > I > I still don't know if there's a way to accomplish this in modern Unices G > and/or the utilities that ship with most Linux or *BSD distro.'s. The C > Solaris training I've had so far makes no mention of such a feat.   D I don't know of a simple (or single) command to print all the manualA pages and the fact that they may not all be in the same directory D any more (most Unices now have a MANPATH to go aloong with PATH) butB I could easily come up with a find command that would dig them allB out, format them and print them.  But, as I said, I wouldn't waste all that paper.    > E > ...and no, I don't recal what magic finally resulted in a four-inch A > binder packed overly full with single-sided sheets printed on a  > Printronix P-300 printer.  >    Me neither.    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   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------   Date: 30 Dec 2002 00:06:44 GMT, From: bill@gw5.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)' Subject: Re: is VMS really easy to use? 5 Message-ID: <auo2mk$8s5at$1@ID-135708.news.dfncis.de>   = In article <b096a4ee.0212290032.7c93b4cc@posting.google.com>, 1 	spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman) writes: k > bill@gw5.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote in message news:<aulnok$89csf$1@ID-135708.news.dfncis.de>... @ >> In article <b096a4ee.0212281507.4b9134fc@posting.google.com>,4 >> 	spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman) writes: >> >  1 >> > How would you define the factorial function?  >> >   >>  C >> I can't define it.  Somebody beat me to it by hundreds of years. @ >> I was rather surprised to find out that after 40 some years I? >> had never had a single math course that actually gave me the @ >> correct definition.  Maybe that's why it has become one of my@ >> pet peeves.  Or maybe it's because I see the same inprecision  >> in computer teaching as well. >>   >> bill  > G > 1. You mean they never mentioned in any of those math courses that 0!  > = 1? What were these courses?   A Nop, they mentioned that.  What they never mentioned was that the @ actual computation is much more complex and works for all cases.   > H > 2. If you're happy with using the "wrong" definition for evaluating 1!E > where no product is involved, it is not much of a stretch at all to F > use it for 0! by invoking the multiplicative identity as I explained > in a previous post.   B But my point is that, mathematically, factorials don't involve theB products of all the numbers.  That's just an easier way to expressC it requiring one exception and of course one solution that can't be & a product as there is only one number.   > @ > 3. If we simply added 0! = 1 (and perhaps also 1! = 1) to thatG > definition you quoted that you don't like, wouldn't that satisfy you? : > And then you could offer that as the correct definition.  A No, because that is not the mathematically correct way to compute  factorials.    > H > 4. I'm sorry, but didn't you write "LOGICAL, SYMBOL, ALIAS, KNICKNAME,E > in the end it's all the same"? Yet the factorial definition bothers  > you? Please explain.  D Apples and oranges.  All those terms above are merely jargon and theF meaning varies from conversation to conversation.  In essence they allE consist of using one simple term to describe a more complex function. A Computing a factorial is a well defined mathematical concept with B proofs and all that other stuff mathemeticians love.  (I am not by1 any stretch of the imagination a mathematician!!)    >  > 5. OK, how's this:   >  > Factorial function:  >  >         0! = 1, / >         n! = n * (n-1)!  for n an integer > 0  > E > It's easier to think of it as all the positive integers from 1 to n A > multiplied together, isn't it? But the second line of the above F > definition includes the defining property of the factorial function.E > The first line provides the normalization (the scale, if you wish). ( > Both ways of looking at it are useful.  @ BUt that is not how mathematics defines it and that was my wholeB point.  While that definition is reasonable and probably all rightA for 5th graders, by the time one has had algebra and triginometry ? and most assuredly by the time one learns calculus one is ready B to be given the real mathematics behind factorials.  It seems from< the people I have talked with here that unless one majors in@ mathematics one can not expect to actually go beyond the formula you give above.   D Let me add that when it was explained to me by a real mathemetician,F I didn't understand it.  But at least he didn't patronize me by saying the formula above was correct.   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   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 22:02:47 -0600 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> ' Subject: Re: is VMS really easy to use? ' Message-ID: <3E0E73E7.B49867D3@fsi.net>    Bill Gunshannon wrote: > ) > In article <3E0C9534.BE8DE2AC@fsi.net>, = >         "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> writes: 
 > > [snip]L > > 2. IMO, "HELP" is more intuitive than "man", unless you're trying figureK > > out something and think, "man, what the hell command do I use here??!!"  > C > We've been through this already.  intuiticve is in the eye of the F > beholder.  "man" is merely short for "manual" and the command printsG > out "manual pages".  There have been improvementsd made.  I have seen B > HTMLized versions of the man pages, but in the long run, the manE > command is the one that can be expected to be found on most systems A > and as the least common denominator is the one most people will  > look for first.   B Actually, you raise an interesting point: when I got my first UNIXF system back in 1986, I spent a good couple of months or more trying toF figure out how to actually PRINT out the manual pages in hard copy, asC opposed to having them scroll up my screen. Sorry, but I still work  better from hard copy.  G I still don't know if there's a way to accomplish this in modern Unices E and/or the utilities that ship with most Linux or *BSD distro.'s. The A Solaris training I've had so far makes no mention of such a feat.   C ...and no, I don't recal what magic finally resulted in a four-inch ? binder packed overly full with single-sided sheets printed on a  Printronix P-300 printer.    --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 03:03:34 -0000 ! From: Z  <zarlenga@conan.ids.net> ' Subject: Re: is VMS really easy to use? / Message-ID: <v0vds6c1lv6qeb@corp.supernews.com>   - Bill Gunshannon <bill@gw5.cs.uofs.edu> wrote: < : Not having the source, how could I possibly know?? But, as; : I mentioned a few messages ago, if I leave the lab locked : : for more than aweek I return to find an error message on= : the screen of every machine stating that virtual memory has < : been exhausted.  If an unused machine with nothing running= : but the login screen saver runs out of virtual memory, what  : would you attribute it to?  > I have a Win 2000 machine with plenty running and it's been up> since my last s/w update.  That's gotta be more than 2 months.  < I don't know anyone with a Win 2000 box that requires weekly reboots like yours does.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 03:06:37 -0000 ! From: Z  <zarlenga@conan.ids.net> ' Subject: Re: is VMS really easy to use? / Message-ID: <v0ve1tcb2t1i29@corp.supernews.com>   - Bill Gunshannon <bill@gw5.cs.uofs.edu> wrote: D : Win2K SP3.  These are lab machines, regularly reloaded using ghostD : and with no "home grown application or pieces of code".  And, whenD : no one is logged on, there is nothing running that isn't a part of : Win2K. ... E : Could be Norton, I suppose.  I assume Vshield runs even when no one   @ Impossible.  Norton is not part of Win 2K.  You stated twice now2 that nothing's running when people are logged off.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 03:12:39 -0000 ! From: Z  <zarlenga@conan.ids.net> ' Subject: Re: is VMS really easy to use? / Message-ID: <v0ved7ie0genc9@corp.supernews.com>   0 David J. Dachtera <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote:D : Actually, you raise an interesting point: when I got my first UNIXH : system back in 1986, I spent a good couple of months or more trying toH : figure out how to actually PRINT out the manual pages in hard copy, asE : opposed to having them scroll up my screen. Sorry, but I still work  : better from hard copy.   One way:  
 man ... > x.x 
 lpr -r x.x   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 03:13:58 -0000 ! From: Z  <zarlenga@conan.ids.net> ' Subject: Re: is VMS really easy to use? / Message-ID: <v0vefm2528ave6@corp.supernews.com>   & Dan O'Reilly <dano@process.com> wrote:  :>>Win 2000 is pretty damn good.= :>>Not quite Enterprise Critical quality yet, but damn close.  :>? :>Compared to what? Win98? NT4?  Certainly not compared to VMS.   I : My W2k system crashes regularly 2-3 times a week, with no more use than G : email and MS-Office.  On the other hand, I've had one crash on my VMS F : systems that I pound the heck out of in the last 6 months.  And that : was a hardware fault.   ? With all due respect, you need a better system manager for your  Win 2K system.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 03:18:47 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> ' Subject: Re: is VMS really easy to use? G Message-ID: <rWOP9.87101$E_.75971@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>   5 "JF Mezei" <jfmezei@vl.videotron.ca> wrote in message ) news:3E092E05.A2682C35@vl.videotron.ca...  > Baby Peanut wrote:$ > > I mean come on which is simpler: > >  > > $ DELETE; dev:[dir.subdir...]*.*;*,;*,;*,;*,;*,;*,;*,[dir]subdir.dir;  >  > $DELETE [dir.subdir...]*.*;*D > <ctrl-b><return> until there is no longer a complaint of non-empty directories. > ? > If you really must automate this, you can use the reeware DFU  utility to get
 > it done. >  > & > VMS is to Unix what Cobol is to APL. > C > VMS uses more intuitive commands, easier to understand in plainer  english than: > Unix whose commands and arguments/switches very cryptic.  E I'd rather use APL than Cobol. APL is mathematically 'sweet' and idea C for use in analyzing financial data, which I did for many years. In C our brokerage house in the late 70's - mid 80's, we used I.P. Sharp ? APL extensively, migrating to DEC APL and STSC APL on 750's and D MicroVAX II's. I built our firm's first on-line fixed income trading@ systems - available 24x7, using APL, with a bit of assembler and? Fortran thrown in for good measure, hooked into our global x.25  network.  D The first minimal iteration of that trading system was in productionC six weeks from the date we first thought about doing it at all - it > would have been more like 60 weeks had we chosen to use Cobol.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 20:58:05 -0700 % From: Dan O'Reilly <dano@process.com> ' Subject: Re: is VMS really easy to use? B Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20021229205703.02340d98@raptor.psccos.com>    At 08:13 PM 12/29/2002, Z wrote:' >Dan O'Reilly <dano@process.com> wrote: ! >:>>Win 2000 is pretty damn good. > >:>>Not quite Enterprise Critical quality yet, but damn close. >:> @ >:>Compared to what? Win98? NT4?  Certainly not compared to VMS. > J >: My W2k system crashes regularly 2-3 times a week, with no more use thanH >: email and MS-Office.  On the other hand, I've had one crash on my VMSG >: systems that I pound the heck out of in the last 6 months.  And that  >: was a hardware fault. > @ >With all due respect, you need a better system manager for your >Win 2K system.   D With all due respect, I've been doing PC work since 1984.  This is aF software issue, not a hardware one.  Granted W2k is head and shouldersG above its predecessors, it's still not something I would bet a mission- ! critical business on, unlike VMS.      ------J +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+J | Dan O'Reilly                  |  "There are 10 types of people in this |J | Principal Engineer            |   world: those who understand binary   |J | Process Software              |   and those who don't."                |J | http://www.process.com        |                                        |J +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+   ------------------------------    Date: 29 Dec 2002 21:12:40 -0800. From: spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman)' Subject: Re: is VMS really easy to use? = Message-ID: <b096a4ee.0212292112.73f57af1@posting.google.com>   i bill@gw5.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote in message news:<aul0gv$83g4p$1@ID-135708.news.dfncis.de>...  [...] 	 > And, to E > place the blame where it properly lies, would VMS let a single task D > consume all virtual memory until the machine is no longer usable??  3 Remember the RWMPB state? Here's a fun, true story.   F A programmer was "cleaning up" on a development machine and decided toF look at a very large file (maybe 60-90,000 blocks) and he used the EVED editor. (!) The pagefile wasn't big enough and the system locked up.B Getting a Username prompt would literally take minutes. (He should! have used EDT!!! Hurray for EDT!)   ? Anyway, we were able to delete some batch jobs from an existingrF session that was still somewhat usable and that freed up memory. LaterB that very same week he did it again!!! And he also told me he only@ wanted to look at the last few screens' worth of the file. (!!!)' Apparently he never heard of TYPE/TAIL.?   So yes, it would.a  F > No version of Unix I have running (well, except maybe for Ultrix-11) > would allow it.   F Is that because of quotas you've set up or is it something inherent inF Unix? I remember that at a previous place I worked a single user could; hog all available memory to himself on their Unix machines.e   Disclaimer: JMHO Alan E. FeldmanV   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 05:25:58 GMT 0 From: "Mark E. Levy" <levy@sysman-NOSPAMinc.com>' Subject: Re: is VMS really easy to use?i. Message-ID: <GNQP9.161252$qF3.12100@sccrnsc04>   Alan E. Feldman wrote:k > bill@gw5.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote in message news:<aul0gv$83g4p$1@ID-135708.news.dfncis.de>...a > [...]c > 	 >>And, to E >>place the blame where it properly lies, would VMS let a single taskaD >>consume all virtual memory until the machine is no longer usable?? >  > 5 > Remember the RWMPB state? Here's a fun, true story.r > H > A programmer was "cleaning up" on a development machine and decided toH > look at a very large file (maybe 60-90,000 blocks) and he used the EVEF > editor. (!) The pagefile wasn't big enough and the system locked up.D > Getting a Username prompt would literally take minutes. (He should# > have used EDT!!! Hurray for EDT!)c > A > Anyway, we were able to delete some batch jobs from an existingeH > session that was still somewhat usable and that freed up memory. LaterD > that very same week he did it again!!! And he also told me he onlyB > wanted to look at the last few screens' worth of the file. (!!!)) > Apparently he never heard of TYPE/TAIL.s >  > So yes, it would.-  ( Maybe a better way to ask this would be:  G "Would a PROPERLY CONFIGURED VMS let a single task consume all virtual t. memory until the machine is no longer usable?"  E The system described above should have had a larger pagefile, or the gE PGFLQUOTA for the account in question should have been smaller. It's nG also possible that the sysgen parameter WSMAX was set too high for the - amount of available memory.e   ML   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 21:47:30 GMT  From: danco@ns2.pebble.org0 Subject: Re: printing of string descriptors in C1 Message-ID: <slrnb0sa5i.kbe.danco@ns2.pebble.org>   ? In article <3E0DD0C7.9DBF6895@vl.videotron.ca>, JF Mezei wrote:o  ; >>         printf("%*.s",zz.dsc$w_length,zz.dsc.a_pointer);  > H > Thanks. Just wish there were a way to do this without having to supplyN > individual members of the descriptors (to save on typing/space). But this is@ > much better than having to manually null-terminate the string.   #if SUNSPARCb #define PRINTF_DSC(dsc) (dsc)->dsc_w_length,(((dsc)->dsc_a_pointer==NULL)?"":(dsc)->dsc_a_pointer) #elsei@ #define PRINTF_DSC(dsc) (dsc)->dsc_w_length,(dsc)->dsc_a_pointer #endif   printf("%*.s", PRINTF_DSC(zz));e  0   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 03:16:29 -0000B! From: Z  <zarlenga@conan.ids.net>a0 Subject: Re: printing of string descriptors in C/ Message-ID: <v0vekd1kdc5017@corp.supernews.com>I  ) Stanley F. Quayle <stan@stanq.com> wrote:4) : On 28 Dec 2002 at 2:23, JF Mezei wrote: D :> Is there a magic trick to print a string descriptor with printf ?  G : printf ("%*.*s", dx.dsc$w_length, dx.dsc$w_length, dx.dsc$a_pointer);   " : That does it every time...   :-)  * %.* is more elegant an efficient than %*.*   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 18:54:39 -0500i# From: "mhr" <mreilly36@comcast.net>e Subject: rrd400 Message-ID: <qwOdndwCLseGpJOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com>  C looking for a cartridge (cd-rom) holder for a RRd-40 da cdrom for ar vaxstation 3100 76 sfx.  Thanks mhr    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Dec 2002 13:16:34 -0800. From: spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman)Y Subject: The Factorial function (was Re: is VMS really easy to use?) (includes a brief re = Message-ID: <b096a4ee.0212281316.276c9e89@posting.google.com>n  / (Reference to VMS is near the end of the post.)e  W "AG" <ang@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<QAbP9.19180$kq6.291770@news.xtra.co.nz>...a7 > "Bill Gunshannon" <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message 1 > news:aui4o1$6tfih$3@ID-135708.news.dfncis.de...  >  > > (I also disagree withEH > > teaching that n! = "the product of all integers from 1 to n" becauseC > > although it is correct in all but one case, it is still wrong.)   / You (still) can't believe everything you read.    B > That's nothing, a quick search on the net turned up a definitionC > that n! is a product of itself and all whole numbers below it ... ; > Now I'm greasing my abacus since calculating 1! obviouslygA > requires going to minus infinity, not that it's gonna make muchc< > difference since zero is also included, or does it? ... :)  : Since when are negative integers considered whole numbers?  ? > On the other hand, your statement about "all but one case" is @ > also not correct it seems (assuming you allow an integer to be > negative) ....  F I don't know what the "official" definition of factorial is. There are@ two possibilities. Bill is right assuming he's talking about theC simpler version (except that what he calls "still wrong" is correct C for all values but zero). He's right that it is wrong because it isj: incomplete, but it is wrong only because it is incomplete.  F Now if the "official" definition of the factorial function -- if there@ even is such a thing -- extends to real numbers (except negative  integers), that's another story.  C Anyway, in one sense, the factorial function is defined as follows:sB Zero factorial is defined as one and the factorial of any positiveE integer is the product of all integers from one to itself, inclusive.nF (By that I mean in the case of one, one, if you wish to be that picky.D If you prefer to explicitly define one factorial to be one -- that's@ fine.) This is the natural, original definition of the factorialD function which limits us to zero and positive integers. To extend it4 to other numbers requires use of the Gamma function.  C When teaching such subjects, it is better to start with the simpler ? version, which I have already defined above. That's why you see-D definitions involving the multiplication of integers. And while thatE definition cannot be used for computing the factorial of real numbersaD other than non-negative integers, it *is* the indispensible startingF point for such calculations. It is also the most natural definition inE the context of the Taylor series we learn in calculus, which is where	7 most (if not many) students first encounter factorials.9  F Later (and this usually happens maybe a year later, if at all) you can* introduce the Gamma function and show that       p! = Gamma(p+1)o    and since the Gamma function is   B     Gamma(p) = [Integral from t=0 to inf. of] t^(p-1) exp(-t) dt         for p > 0,  D you can thus extend the definition of p! to all real numbers greater than -1.B Now, extension of the Gamma function to non-integral negative real- numbers can be performed by using the formulao       Gamma(p) = [Gamma(p+1)] / pz  A So, armed with this, we can give a meaningful value for the Gamma%D function for all positive real numbers and all non-integral negativeB real numbers. Shift by one for the range of factorials that can be	 computed.i  D This is more than just an academic exercise. Extension of the domainE of the factorial function is necessary for Bessel functions expressed F as series. (And Bessel functions are essential to physics, and physicsA is essential to semiconductors, which are essential to computers,i0 which are essential to VMS [back on topic!] :-).  A For purposes of the example produced by Bill Gunshannon, I see non> (further(!)) need to consider factorials of numbers other than1 non-negative integers (yes, that includes zero!).o   Disclaimer: JMHO Alan E. Feldman   C Stay tuned! We'll be right back with more commercials. But first, ar few minutes of the program.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 12:15:31 -0800e From: "AG" <ang@xtra.co.nz> Y Subject: Re: The Factorial function (was Re: is VMS really easy to use?) (includes a briee4 Message-ID: <2fqP9.20379$kq6.302617@news.xtra.co.nz>  ; "Alan E. Feldman" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message 7 news:b096a4ee.0212281316.276c9e89@posting.google.com...@ >h( > "AG" <ang@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message0 news:<QAbP9.19180$kq6.291770@news.xtra.co.nz>...9 > > "Bill Gunshannon" <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message=3 > > news:aui4o1$6tfih$3@ID-135708.news.dfncis.de...= > >= > > > (I also disagree withfJ > > > teaching that n! = "the product of all integers from 1 to n" becauseE > > > although it is correct in all but one case, it is still wrong.)  >m0 > You (still) can't believe everything you read. >eD > > That's nothing, a quick search on the net turned up a definitionE > > that n! is a product of itself and all whole numbers below it ...$= > > Now I'm greasing my abacus since calculating 1! obviously C > > requires going to minus infinity, not that it's gonna make muchs> > > difference since zero is also included, or does it? ... :) >a< > Since when are negative integers considered whole numbers? >   < Well, yes, of course, mathematically speaking you are right.> But the original post(s) were in the context of "easy to use".9 Would you find it easy to explain to a typical practicing / programmer just why -1 is *not* a whole number?e8 After all, where is it's fractional part? Note that even; the original poster in his later post [sort of] agreed witha. my example enough to re-phrase his definition.  ; Besides, the definition I turned up seems to imply that any 9 factorial is exactly zero anyway since zero *is* includeds8 according to that. Or did you miss the smiley at the end of what I wrote up there ?  2 [Thanks for the lecture on the Gamma function btw]   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 20:01:17 GMTo4 From: Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca>& Subject: Re: vax6k.openecs.org rebirth8 Message-ID: <n70s0vsn5o3tkicqku0b527j0sif2pqsuo@4ax.com>  A On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 20:03:32 +0100, Arne Vajhj <arne@vajhoej.dk>9 wrote:   >David Wade wrote: >>J >>>>Its day was about 2-3 years before it was introduced, in that case. ;) >h >.A >>>A lot of those was used for number chrunching at universities.a >>  J >> At this it was great. Unfortunatley in many cases they were not used asJ >> number crunchers more as general purpose interactive machines. And thisK >> tended to not show them at their best performance wise. For example when G >> running the VMS Editor each character was echoed back to the user atnH >> Application not OS level. So each time a user typed a character theirO >> program needed  to be unswapped, and dispatched to, all so it could echo the:M >> character back to the user. On a reasonable busy machibe this would result.2 >> in the dreaded "Type Behind" so loved by users. >e >  >????  >s; >What does that have to do with the speed of the hardware ?< >P? >All modern OS's echo characters back at the application level.i >:A >I have not tried a terminal & editor doing otherwise in 15 years & >(never worked in an IBM environment). >i >>>What were the alternatives ?g >> i< >> Small IBM machines such as the 4381 ?  PR1ME 9000 series? >o= >Prime was probably a hard competitor performance/price wise.i >s+ >I find it hard to believe that IBM was so.u  > Knocked the socks off VAX in I/O and thruput in an interactive= environment with VM/CMS, and batch jobs were over an order of > magnitude faster: one big job we used for a benchmark took ~24A hours on a PDP-11/70, the same on a VAX/11-780, and 30 minutes onr? a 4341. Much better commercial performance for the same price. n  9 Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis 	Calgary, Alberta, Canada  -- lF Brian.Inglis@CSi.com 	(Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca),     fake address		use address above to reply@ abuse@aol.com tosspam@aol.com abuse@att.com abuse@earthlink.com ? abuse@hotmail.com abuse@mci.com abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com oB abuse@yahoo.com abuse@cadvision.com abuse@shaw.ca abuse@telus.com - abuse@ibsystems.com uce@ftc.gov				spam trapsi   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 00:14:53 GMTl4 From: Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca>& Subject: Re: vax6k.openecs.org rebirth8 Message-ID: <igfs0voa4qmkj8bio7pclfvels500cv95s@4ax.com>  , On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 22:25:48 GMT, CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:    >David Wade wrote:3 >> "Arne Vajhj" <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote in message5 >> > Pete Fenelon wrote:E >> > > In alt.folklore.computers Arne Vajh?j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:. >> >A >> > >>Actually I think the VAX 8650 was pretty fast in its days.g >> t
 >> It was. >> aM >> > > Its day was about 2-3 years before it was introduced, in that case. ;)e >> >C >> > A lot of those was used for number chrunching at universities.i >>  J >> At this it was great. Unfortunatley in many cases they were not used asJ >> number crunchers more as general purpose interactive machines. And thisK >> tended to not show them at their best performance wise. For example when G >> running the VMS Editor each character was echoed back to the user attH >> Application not OS level. So each time a user typed a character theirO >> program needed  to be unswapped, and dispatched to, all so it could echo theaM >> character back to the user. On a reasonable busy machibe this would result 2 >> in the dreaded "Type Behind" so loved by users. >e; >I seem to recall that effect with some timesharing service ; >(TymShare?) back about 1970.  I believe they used PDP10s.  ; >Sometimes it took 5 minutes to echo a char. back.  We weren: >overloading the input with high speed 110 baud teletypes. >h >We dumped them.  A Used Online Systems Inc TOPS-10 systems in the UK in the 70s witht9 ASRs set to no echo and TOPS set to no echo to avoid thati	 problem. n  9 Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis 	Calgary, Alberta, Canadao -- eF Brian.Inglis@CSi.com 	(Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca),     fake address		use address above to reply@ abuse@aol.com tosspam@aol.com abuse@att.com abuse@earthlink.com ? abuse@hotmail.com abuse@mci.com abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com rB abuse@yahoo.com abuse@cadvision.com abuse@shaw.ca abuse@telus.com - abuse@ibsystems.com uce@ftc.gov				spam trapsm   ------------------------------    Date: 29 Dec 2002 04:01:07 -00004 From: Doc.Cypher <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>& Subject: Re: vax6k.openecs.org rebirth5 Message-ID: <20021229040107.4822.qmail@nym.alias.net>   + On Sat, 28 Dec 02, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: 0 >In article <3E0C9C07.3EDB5E56@vl.videotron.ca>,5 >   JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca> wrote:   H >>Just because it is good doesn't mean that it is invincible. Opening a I >>machine to the whole world of script kiddies etc means that you have tofH >>be much more careful compared to just letting serious folks access the
 >>machine. >dC >DEC sold its high end machines to _universities_.  I guarantee youe< >that was a good test against people more clever than those  >categorized as script kitties.s  F I'm pretty sure it was. I have fond memories of a SunOS 4 installationD being turned into swiss-cheese (security-wise) by various interested first-year students.  J Of course, I've already had to trash two account applications this morningK because people tried applying with free email addresses. Use of a throwaway4H account is a fair indication that the applicant will upload some sort ofJ BNC or Eggdrop "thing" and then pester me incessantly about not being able' to get gzip, tar, or ./install to work.1  F It is partly due to security through obscurity that running a free VMSI account service is relatively simple, and if I can do it, I'd say that ati) least 90% of the people here could do it.o     Doc. --  : Time and money, the psychotropics of the business world...K ~ VAXman                                             https://vmsbox.cjb.netn   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 21:50:36 GMTb From: danco@ns2.pebble.orgD Subject: Re: Volatility of Argument Registers in EXEC mode R25,16-211 Message-ID: <slrnb0sabc.kbe.danco@ns2.pebble.org>e  D In article <aujsum$f6t$1@venus.btinternet.com>, Richard Maher wrote:  N > I am trying to move away from Homing my argument lists for that little extraI > performance and so that I can cater for 64-bit arguments and addresses.   3 Hmmm.  Are you coding that in Macro-64 or Macro-32?c   - Danj   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 18:57:20 -080021 From: Jason Brady <jrbrady@nospam.mindspring.com>0 Subject: X-10 Software for VMS8 Message-ID: <j8os0vobt8uuno60d837tj1g41nrj311rt@4ax.com>   All,  A I recently wrote software to interface a LynX-10 controller to anT@ Alphaserver and would like to share it with the OpenVMS hobbyist: community.  It's one of many possible approaches, and with= modification, could be suitable for other devices and/or X-10m9 controllers.  Source code (C and COBOL) for the software,h6 called X10_MONITOR, along with example user interfaces5 and documentation can be found in Encompasserve Notes-& topic 3064.23-27 at the following URL:  = http://eisner.decus.org/DECUServe/DECnotes/VMS/3064/SDIR.HTMLe   Regards, Jason Brady, Lynnwood, WA USAn   ------------------------------   Date: 28 Dec 2002 20:25:21 CDT= From: wayne@tachysoft.xxx.134848.killspam.00ac (Wayne Sewell) M Subject: Re: Your Multi-volume Tape Backups may be bad on all versions of	VMS-. Message-ID: <5GDjMk6pEods@tachxxsoftxxconsult>  f In article <dJ0P9.56640$6H6.1943397@twister.austin.rr.com>, "Jay E. Morris" <jem@epsilon3.com> writes:0 > In message <c1O+QBuvFLPp@tachxxsoftxxconsult>,@ > wayne@tachysoft.xxx.134848.killspam.00ac (Wayne Sewell) wrote: > .... >>  H >> As some may have noticed (and others rejoiced), I haven't been in the > newsgroup O >> much for a while, but I modified the news system to send me mail if articlesiM >> contain keywords such as my name, tachysoft, tapesys, thruway, or software = >> partners.  When that happens, I come back in a hurry.  :-)  >> e >> oF > So now instead of a NSA signature we start using a Sewell signature?  M I suppose you can, if driving me insane with mail is such a high priority for ' you.  Most people don't care that much.o   -- tO ===============================================================================sM Wayne Sewell, Tachyon Software Consulting  (281)812-0738  wayne@tachysoft.xxxt: http://www.tachysoft.xxx/www/tachyon.html and wayne.html  K change .xxx to .com in addresses above, assuming you are not a spambot  :-)tO ===============================================================================eP Larry(sniffing):"I smell something awful." Moe:"Yeah, well don't brag about it."   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 16:35:22 -0800  From: "AG" <ang@xtra.co.nz>cD Subject: [Heavily OT] Dictionary definitions (was: Factorial etc...)4 Message-ID: <G2uP9.20691$kq6.306124@news.xtra.co.nz>  ; "Alan E. Feldman" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> wrote in messagem7 news:b096a4ee.0212281804.678bfe8d@posting.google.com...r > F > www.webster.com says: any of the set of nonnegative integers; also :	 > INTEGER. >dF > So, I guess if you using the terms whole numbers or natural numbers,2 > you better spell out just exactly what you mean.  @ OK, since we are now talking dictionary definitions, here is one: (excluding stress marks and subject to any typing errors):  : "whole number"  ...  2. (loosely) integer (def 1). 1550-60  5 That comes from the Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged  Dictionary (ISBN 0-517-15026-3)   = So, while it does say "loosely" which I've already agreed to,-> it does seem to say that you can use the word in that meaning.  = Now, considering it was a tangent in the first place, I'm notg9 too sure what exactly are we arguing about. But, based oncA the authority of the Webster's definition, I do reserve the right03 to call "-1" a whole number (even if loosely ... :).  7 And, perhaps, you've now heard of a definition of wholec' numbers that does include all integers.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 21:48:17 +01001" From: DTL <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr>C Subject: Re: [very OT] domestic network between PC W98 and Mac OS X 4 Message-ID: <newscache$ciku7h$mda$1@news.tiscali.fr>   Michael Austin wrote:IH > There are a couple of "USB" routers that have a USB port for the modemH > and 4-8 ethernet ports for the LAN.  The one that comes to mind is theI > Draytek Vigor2200USB. Or contact your DSL provider and tell them to get I > you an ethernet modem not this USB crap...  It is good for printers and D > such, but as a transport for networking is woefully inadequite and > doens't work in general. > I > I am not real familiar with ICS, but there must be a piece missing fromwH > the ICS config. A google search for "w98 configure internet connectionB > sharing " turned up: http://www.generation.net/~hleboeuf/ics.htm > which points to:+ > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=230151o >   G Looks like there was a problem with the fact that the ADSL link was up  D and running when starting ICS. I unchecked the autoconnect feature, G deleted all network stuff, unplugged the Ethernet card, the USB modem, tG then rebooted the PC, then reinstalled all that and, now, the ADSL/USB eG card still does not show up in the ICS selection window, but selecting  I the Remote Access Card instead gives access to the Internet and my eMail i! server, as you can see right now.,  F Thanks to all of you who helped. The box is now connected, and up and  running again.   D.   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2002.721 ************************