0 INFO-VAX	Sun, 13 Jan 2002	Volume 2002 : Issue 23      Contents:" Re: COMPAQ - Spin off VMS Business" Re: COMPAQ - Spin off VMS Business" Re: COMPAQ - Spin off VMS Business- Re: Compaq's Notion of "Enterprise Platforms" - Re: Compaq's Notion of "Enterprise Platforms" : Re: DCL day of the minute: Inconsistency in date handling? Re: FTP Success/Failure? Re: FTP Success/Failure?1 Re: historical evidence of what went wrong at DEC 1 Re: historical evidence of what went wrong at DEC 1 Re: historical evidence of what went wrong at DEC 1 Re: historical evidence of what went wrong at DEC P Re: historical evidence of what went wrong at DEC - NTFS IS NOT CASE INSENSITIVE: New Compaq Board Member Needed ASAP... or "Without de-LAY"& Please make the subject line pertinent* Re: Please make the subject line pertinent* Re: Please make the subject line pertinent Selling VMS licenses Re: Selling VMS licenses Re: Selling VMS licenses$ Re: SYS$SETAST while inside an AST ?$ Re: SYS$SETAST while inside an AST ? Re: Unix filesystems on VMS " Re: vms emacs: last call? the end?" Re: vms emacs: last call? the end?" RE: vms emacs: last call? the end?( Re: VMS Marketing For the General PublicF Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was Re:     The demF Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was Re:     The demF Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was Re:     The demF Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was Re:     The demF Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was Re:     The demB Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was Re: The demP Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was Re: Thedemise of compaq )P Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was Re: Thedemise of compaq )P Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was Re: Thedemise of compaq )P Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was Re: Thedemise of compaq )P Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was Re: Thedemise of compaq )  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:31:17 GMT ' From: Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> + Subject: Re: COMPAQ - Spin off VMS Business + Message-ID: <3C40C7FE.4A623C61@pacbell.net>    JF Mezei wrote:  >  > Don Sykes wrote: > > L > > First, no one using Unix or NT is going to consider VMS a better OS with > > case INsensitive filenames.  > P > Is that really the case ? I would have thought that in a business environment,K > they just agree to live with that case sensitivity liability. But from an P > operations and support point of view, NOT having to spell a file name over theV > phone with case specications for each file name is an advantage, not a disadvantage. > ( > > I know there are those cov folks whoL > > disagree, but I think it would be a BIG plus if at least filenames couldJ > > convert one-to-one. Also, Unix style symbolic links must be supported. > O > When in Rome, do as the romans do. The VMS style is to use logical names, and K > guess what, they are far more flexible and more "esthetic" than having to A > create link files and then deleting them when no longer needed.  > N > Heck, even IBMS, JCL has the equivalent of logical names that allow the same3 > image to use different files without recompiling.   H That just isn't the same. I agree, logical names are a great & powerfullE tool, but Unix style symbolic names are "resident sensitive". Logical C names do not translate to different things depending upon what your G default directory is. I can't do a dir in VMS and see all the files and F links to other files. Unix style symbolic links are needed in ADDITIONH to VMS logical names and symbols as part of a more generalized method ofG name translations. I say this after many years porting Unix apps to VMS C and vice-versa and the first thing (and often the biggest thing) is @ dealing with the file name differences and symbolic link issues.   --     Have VMS. Will Travel. Wire Paladin @alphase.com 
 San Francisco    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:34:10 GMT ' From: Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> + Subject: Re: COMPAQ - Spin off VMS Business + Message-ID: <3C40C8AC.26CF00EB@pacbell.net>    Bob Ceculski wrote:  > \ > Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<3C3F9941.607A6DB7@pacbell.net>...L > > First, no one using Unix or NT is going to consider VMS a better OS withD > > case INsensitive filenames. I know there are those cov folks whoL > > disagree, but I think it would be a BIG plus if at least filenames couldJ > > convert one-to-one. Also, Unix style symbolic links must be supported.J > > Hard links a-la "set file/entry=xxx.dat yyy.dat" are not sufficient. II > > could live without these things, but I know non vms people are always I > > touting these deficiencies as examples of how old and out of date vms  > > is. J > > In fact if I had my way I'd create an OS that was a super set of VMS &J > > Unix, where DCL & csh & ksh would all work just fine on the underlying > > system.  > >  > H > who wants to use case sensitive file names?  thats asking for trouble!G > and logicals are superior to stupid file links anyday ... as for unix B > command set on vms, just replace dcl in the cli with a unix one!  A As I said, "I know there are those cov folks who disagree", but I  respectfully disagree with you.    --     Have VMS. Will Travel. Wire Paladin @alphase.com 
 San Francisco    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:34:01 GMT * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>+ Subject: Re: COMPAQ - Spin off VMS Business @ Message-ID: <ZB408.29863$jc.1766751@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  4 "Don Sykes" <anonymous@pacbell.net> wrote in message% news:3C40C7FE.4A623C61@pacbell.net...  >  >  > JF Mezei wrote:  > >  > > Don Sykes wrote: > > > I > > > First, no one using Unix or NT is going to consider VMS a better OS  with! > > > case INsensitive filenames.  > > E > > Is that really the case ? I would have thought that in a business  environment,J > > they just agree to live with that case sensitivity liability. But from anI > > operations and support point of view, NOT having to spell a file name  over theJ > > phone with case specications for each file name is an advantage, not a
 disadvantage.   K That, plus the fact that so often case-insensitive Windows environments are  included in the mix.   > > * > > > I know there are those cov folks whoH > > > disagree, but I think it would be a BIG plus if at least filenames could L > > > convert one-to-one. Also, Unix style symbolic links must be supported. > > F > > When in Rome, do as the romans do. The VMS style is to use logical
 names, andJ > > guess what, they are far more flexible and more "esthetic" than having toC > > create link files and then deleting them when no longer needed.  > > K > > Heck, even IBMS, JCL has the equivalent of logical names that allow the  same5 > > image to use different files without recompiling.  > J > That just isn't the same. I agree, logical names are a great & powerfullG > tool, but Unix style symbolic names are "resident sensitive". Logical E > names do not translate to different things depending upon what your I > default directory is. I can't do a dir in VMS and see all the files and H > links to other files. Unix style symbolic links are needed in ADDITIONJ > to VMS logical names and symbols as part of a more generalized method of > name translations.  L I'll second that, and observe that the VMS logical name mechanism is (as areI many other VMS features) both more powerful and more complex than a great L many applications and/or users need, whereas Unix-style file-system-specificF 'link' mechanisms are very straight-forward solutions for the far more1 limited class of problems that they address well.    - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:37:33 GMT 4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>6 Subject: Re: Compaq's Notion of "Enterprise Platforms"= Message-ID: <hF408.15694$uA.122718@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>   . "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in message8 news:9sX_7.158503$pa1.47307554@news3.rdc1.on.home.com... > A > "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote in message : > news:n4R_7.10796$DG5.109136@rwcrnsc53.ops.asp.att.net... > > + > > If nominated, I'll run. If elected, VMS  > >  > >  > E > Call Compaq's head office (281) 370-0670 , 0  ask for the Corporate I > Secretary's office, or failing that, ask for Thomas C. Siekman - Senior  Vice  > President and General Counsel. > < > Then ask about the procedure for nominations to the Board. > J > Once we know, we can propose an entire slate of candidates, get press in the J > WSJ, Financial Times, etc... and make it known that there is a competingI > slate of candidates to those proposed by Ben 'Stalin' Rosen and Michael  > 'Iron Felix' Capellas. >   I Problem is, at the Stockholders Meeting last year, a stockholder-advanced H proposal (which the Board of course recommended voting against) to allowI multiple candidates or independently-selected candidates to run for Board  vacancies was voted down.   J With Ken Lay out of the way, the Board is down a seat... not sure what theL current total is but the Board can range from 7 to 12 members according to a Compaq spokesperson.  G Seriously, I wouldn't mind running. In the waning days of Digital, some H DECfolk started a "Draft Shannon" movement but it kinda fizzled when the Compaq-tion came along.   C But I'm probably underqualified. I've only been on the Board of one L corporation and an advisor to one other. On the other hand, I daresay I haveB damaged none of the organizations with which I've been associated!   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:46:07 -0500 % From: JF Mezei <jfmezei@videotron.ca> 6 Subject: Re: Compaq's Notion of "Enterprise Platforms", Message-ID: <3C40E6D7.A2AA4922@videotron.ca>   "Terry C. Shannon" wrote: E > But I'm probably underqualified. I've only been on the Board of one N > corporation and an advisor to one other. On the other hand, I daresay I haveD > damaged none of the organizations with which I've been associated!  K A board needs diversity. Ken Lay probably knew about expensive restaurants, M but not much about how Compaq customers feel about Compaq.  Your knowledge of J the customer base and your long time hostorical perspective of Digital and) Compaq would make you extremely valuable.   I However, the question really is: would the remainder of the board members K really want a voice capable of doing sanity checks on their little projects 3 and  would they welcome some opposition/criticism.    K If the board decides they need an advocate for customers, then you'd be the F best qualified and at that point, they would see you for what you are:J customer advocate and would expect to see your feedback on they decisions.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 03:23:27 GMT . From: "Alphaman" <alphaman64@nixspam-home.com>C Subject: Re: DCL day of the minute: Inconsistency in date handling? > Message-ID: <P4708.48211$LQ1.14323774@news2.nash1.tn.home.com>  G Oh heck, your previous answer was more than adequate.  This helps, too.    Cheers,  Aaron  --> Aaron Sakovich  http://members.home.net/sakovich/alphaman.htmlI "vi troff ps su fsck grep rm du - - - And they call this a 'language'???"   9 Alan E. Feldman <SPAMSINK2001@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message 7 news:343f30ae.0201111529.15bb5d52@posting.google.com... I > alphaman-nixspam@hsv.sungardtrust.com (Aaron Sakovich) wrote in message 9 news:<8af17fe1.0112121211.43f06f3d@posting.google.com>...  :  : G > Actually, today I realized a better answer to your question. Think of F > TODAY and TOMORROW as supplying *only* the date portion of the time.D > Then consider that when you specify only a date, and specify it inE > dd-mmm-yyyy format, the time defaults to 00:00:00.00. Now, when you H > specify TODAY or TOMORROW, you are still only specifying the date. TheG > time then defaults to 00:00:00.00 because you specified only the date ' > portion and everything is consistent.  > A > So, think of TODAY, TOMORROW, etc., as specifying only the date  > portion of the date-time.  > E > (Sorry about my previous answer not being up to snuff. I think this & > answer should be much more helpful.) >  > Disclaimer: JMHO > Alan E. Feldman  > afeldman!~~/\~~!gfigroup.com;    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 03:30:32 GMT . From: "Alphaman" <alphaman64@nixspam-home.com>! Subject: Re: FTP Success/Failure? > Message-ID: <sb708.48225$LQ1.14327871@news2.nash1.tn.home.com>  K Yes -- Copy/FTP _does_ return a $STATUS symbol, and it works extremely well J in this regard.  I use it extensively with On Warning... to manage copies.K The only thing you've got to watch out for when copying to an IBM system is  file name case.    Aaron  --> Aaron Sakovich  http://members.home.net/sakovich/alphaman.htmlI "vi troff ps su fsck grep rm du - - - And they call this a 'language'???"   0 JF Mezei <jfmezei@videotron.ca> wrote in message& news:3C3F5259.6BD300BC@videotron.ca...6 > re: finding out if 6 hour FTP process worked or not. > I > would COPY/FTP provide you with a $STATUS symbol that would be usable ?    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 04:17:10 GMT - From: "John E. Malmberg" <wb8tyw@qsl.network> ! Subject: Re: FTP Success/Failure? * Message-ID: <3C410D2D.3040306@qsl.network>   Alphaman wrote:   M > Yes -- Copy/FTP _does_ return a $STATUS symbol, and it works extremely well L > in this regard.  I use it extensively with On Warning... to manage copies.M > The only thing you've got to watch out for when copying to an IBM system is  > file name case.     G Unless you use a two step procedure to FTP copy to a temp filename and  H then rename it, you run the risk that the remote system will attempt to  process an incomplete file.    -John  wb8tyw@qsl.network Personal Opinion Only    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 15:52:23 -0500 ( From: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net>: Subject: Re: historical evidence of what went wrong at DEC2 Message-ID: <Qk108.260$vb1.46990@news1.iquest.net>  ) <rivie@cougar.no.domain> wrote in message - news:slrna40bsl.5v1.rivie@cougar.no.domain... F > In article <a1p9th$pdl$2@bob.news.rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:6 > > In article <a1ne4j$240q$1@citadel.in.taronga.com>,0 > >    peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:* > >>A file system is not a user interface. > > @ > > Exactly.  So why should it "know" the local spoken language. > J > OK, now you folks will have to explain to me why files should have names > in the first place.  > H > The file system is not a user interface. It should access all files byD > inode number. The filenames are a user interface problem; the userG > interface is responsible for accepting appropriate filenames from the J > user and turning them into inode numbers for the filesystem. This allows? > filenames to include anything, even /, when it's appropriate.  > K Actually, the structuring for the ffs in BSD is similar to this.   There is A actually a layering from filename to inode, and that layering was G explicitly designed in the current structure.   Even though I worked on F subsequent versions of the code, Kirk McKusick (over a dinner meeting)? made the reasoning for his concept quite clear to me.   We were > discussing using the notion of an anonymous file mechanism for various OS purposes...   John   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:01:00 -0500 ( From: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net>: Subject: Re: historical evidence of what went wrong at DEC2 Message-ID: <9l208.269$vb1.47813@news1.iquest.net>  8 "Ben Franchuk" <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca> wrote in message& news:3C3F9E8F.88449691@jetnet.ab.ca... > rivie@cougar.no.domain wrote:  > J > > The file system is not a user interface. It should access all files byF > > inode number. The filenames are a user interface problem; the userI > > interface is responsible for accepting appropriate filenames from the L > > user and turning them into inode numbers for the filesystem. This allowsA > > filenames to include anything, even /, when it's appropriate.S > > > The OS does it because of security reasons tied in with file > creation/accesse > /deletion. >SD File data protection is provided on an inode basis.   The filenamingJ is a layering over the actual file identification (inode number.)   Access@ to filenames (on UNIX) is provided by directory permissions, but< access to file data is provided by permissions in the inode.   John   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:43:38 -0500o  From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com>: Subject: Re: historical evidence of what went wrong at DEC6 Message-ID: <1020113004053.16693C-100000@Ives.egh.com>  , On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:  4 > In article <a1ne4j$240q$1@citadel.in.taronga.com>,. >    peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote: > >In article B > <francini1026-ya02408000R1001020302190001@news.ne.mediaone.net>,0 > >John J Francini <francini1026@mac.com> wrote:J > >>Suppose someone -- a financial analyst -- works on a spreadsheet file  > namedsM > >>"April Sales Data" on MacOS X, which is UNIX under the hood, but uses the M > >>HFS+ filesystem as the default. (It also has UFS available as an option.)  > >>M > >>He saves it to disk.  He then later makes a word-processing document thatwD > >>references that spreadsheet (using Microsoft-like object linkingM > >>facilities), and, instead of using a GUI-oriented file selector, he types:H > >>the filename in directly.  He makes an error typing it in -- enters  > "april > >>sales data" instead. > >xK > >That's a user-interface problem. The user interface should at this pointnK > >provide a list of file names that may match the one he entered and allowaL > >him to select one. That would also deal with the situation where one nameD > >was "may sales forecast" and the other was "may sales forecasts". > >n) > >A file system is not a user interface.) > > > Exactly.  So why should it "know" the local spoken language. >  > >pJ > >>Writing C (or its descendents), on the other hand, subjects you to theF > >>tyranny. Perish forbid that you might forget that, say, the OpenGLL > >>"glTexImage3D()" routine begins with a lower-case "gl", and you code it  > asK > >>"GLTexImage3D()".  The linker will say "Duh?  I can't find that routineF > >>anywhere!".l > > 1 > >No routine should ever be called glTexImage3D.  > B > The only way you can prevent that is to have a strict enforcable@ > rule about case.  Kids will always try to be different because > they think it's cool.  t  > No, it's "k00l" and "3l33t" (if I have my script-kiddie jargon	 correct?)i   >  > <snip> >  > /BAH >  > ) > Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.i >  >    -- i John Santost Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 01:38:05 -0500f( From: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net>: Subject: Re: historical evidence of what went wrong at DEC2 Message-ID: <WV908.286$vb1.52156@news1.iquest.net>  J <jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:a1p9th$pdl$2@bob.news.rcn.net...4 > In article <a1ne4j$240q$1@citadel.in.taronga.com>,. >    peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote: > >In article B > <francini1026-ya02408000R1001020302190001@news.ne.mediaone.net>,0 > >John J Francini <francini1026@mac.com> wrote:J > >>Suppose someone -- a financial analyst -- works on a spreadsheet file  > namedhM > >>"April Sales Data" on MacOS X, which is UNIX under the hood, but uses themM > >>HFS+ filesystem as the default. (It also has UFS available as an option.)r > >>M > >>He saves it to disk.  He then later makes a word-processing document thatnD > >>references that spreadsheet (using Microsoft-like object linkingM > >>facilities), and, instead of using a GUI-oriented file selector, he typesgH > >>the filename in directly.  He makes an error typing it in -- enters  > "april > >>sales data" instead. > >tK > >That's a user-interface problem. The user interface should at this pointdK > >provide a list of file names that may match the one he entered and allowPL > >him to select one. That would also deal with the situation where one nameD > >was "may sales forecast" and the other was "may sales forecasts". > > ) > >A file system is not a user interface.  > > > Exactly.  So why should it "know" the local spoken language. > B Right -- it shouldn't either do silly things like folding case, or: make assumptions about the equivalence between characters,A especially at the filesystem level.   UI assumptions and behaviore" needs to be implemented in the UI.    l > B > The only way you can prevent that is to have a strict enforcable > rule about case. >r> Yep -- don't mess with the filenames or make assumptions aboutB the equivalence between characters.   The strict rule is a strict,> simple, and fully compatible (amongst languages, proper names,B and automatically generated) file names without assumptions and/orG conversions...   (Well, unless a wild-card, equivalence set, or patternr" to match is provided by the user.)   > . > Kids will always try to be different because > they think it's cool.    > D It is indeed a silly feature of 'being cute' by either changing case@ or making assumptions about character equivalences.   It is muchH better to put those 'cute' features (if desired) into the UI.   Frankly,G I have even tended to dislike 'cute' features in UI code, but sometimesw> the well thought out features have been useful.   For example,E I especially like full command line editing...   When I initially saw F it, I found it to be a 'cute' feature, but now it is pretty clear thatK it is also useful.   That was actually one of the first 'UNIX/ksh' featuresS< that I used when moving from an RSX11M+ environment, and oneK of the first times on UNIX that I initially believed that it was relatively3M useless fluff.   Of course, NOW it is one of the FIRST features that I eithereB miss, or immediately relearn for each OS -- because of the extreme
 convienience.e  H If limitations are created because of design tradeoffs at the FILESYSTEME layer, then it is pretty much reasonable if those tradeoffs were made I because of memory, space or CPU resource reasons (e.g. SIXBIT is okay, if H memory is expensive.)   If the filesystem supports 8bit characters, thenC creating equivalence sets that are at least language dependent, and D perhaps even place limitations on other filenaming schemes is rather9 specious.   The biggest justification would be for legacy K reasons.   An example of UC/LC folding being useful might be on NTFS or DOS = filesystem volumes, where the filenames have historically had D traditional US ASCII UC/LC equivalence on the original host systems.  H Perhaps in the world of 6.3, 9.3 or other filename lengths, then limitedH or folded character sets aren't as big a deal.   In that olden world, itJ is alot like the original Basic programming language (which was admittedlyL worse, with two character names), where moving back to the 'old' limitationsG can be painful.   In the world of 100+ character filenames, most of therC time, the filenames are of short length, but those are more for thea; same traditional applications as the 'older' style systems.   K Just because one has access to a feature, it doesn't mean that it should besF abused :-).   So, I can agree that naming files like 'keWL' and 'KEWL'F is rather wierd, that doesn't mean that any use of UC/LC and correctlyE distinct UC/LC is necessarily bad.   Imagine moving from 6  character C fortran names to essentially unlimited :-).   I have heard the samecF argument about long variable names as being too irritating to use, andB indeed I have seen abuses.    Not all usage of an abusable feature is misuse :-).  D Another abuse of the ability to use single character filenames is to; name all files and subdirectories as single characters :-).    John   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 16:58:34 -0500-( From: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net>Y Subject: Re: historical evidence of what went wrong at DEC - NTFS IS NOT CASE INSENSITIVE 2 Message-ID: <Ti208.268$vb1.47845@news1.iquest.net>  A "Martin Heller" <martin.heller@whoa.mheller.org> wrote in messageo) news:3C405367.9070606@whoa.mheller.org...$ >. >0 > JD wrote:c >n- > > <rivie@cougar.no.domain> wrote in messagea- news:slrna3uj6t.4ts.rivie@cougar.no.domain...R > >7L > >>In article <a1nef4$249t$1@citadel.in.taronga.com>, Peter da Silva wrote: > >>M > >>>In the file system? That's putting a heck of a lot of code into a common M > >>>path for operations that are supposed to be fast. Have you looked at thee& > >>>Unicode conversion tables lately? > >>>o > >>Aha! The truth will out! > >>J > >>I've always suspected that the only reason Unix was case-sensitive wasK > >>that someone was too lazy to do a case-insensitive compare in the first.L > >>versions and, rather than fixing the problem, invented a rationalization2 > >>to make it appear to be The Right Thing To Do. > >> > >>O > > The amazing thing is that 'good' UNIX OSes can implement case insensitivitynV > > in the filesystem code.   For reverse compatibility with NTFS-like filesystems, it' > > is easy to add (and has been done.)d >t >t4 > NTFS is not case insensitive -it's case sensitive. >LG Yep, the case folding is added from the standpoint of filename lookups.   I > It's case insensiitvity is a (typical MS) kludge opon NTFS by the WIN32sE > subsystem of the NT kernel (legacy reasons). Case insensitivity haso= > nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the NTFS filesystem.tI > Unix OSes witch implement case-insensitivity for NTFS are violating thedH > NTFS spec. per se ...  but they are supporting the expected filesystem' > behaviour of nearly all applications.e > E That is what I meant...   The UNIX OSes provide the expected behavioreE associated with those OSes that support the NTFS.   This is a perfect 9 example of modifications made to support legacy behavior.:   John   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 02:27:57 GMTr4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>C Subject: New Compaq Board Member Needed ASAP... or "Without de-LAY" = Message-ID: <Ng608.22346$JF.166049@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>e  2 "JF Mezei" <jfmezei@videotron.ca> wrote in message& news:3C40E6D7.A2AA4922@videotron.ca... > "Terry C. Shannon" wrote:oG > > But I'm probably underqualified. I've only been on the Board of oneaK > > corporation and an advisor to one other. On the other hand, I daresay Ii haveF > > damaged none of the organizations with which I've been associated! >e@ > A board needs diversity. Ken Lay probably knew about expensive restaurants,L > but not much about how Compaq customers feel about Compaq.  Your knowledge ofL > the customer base and your long time hostorical perspective of Digital and+ > Compaq would make you extremely valuable.e >qK > However, the question really is: would the remainder of the board membersvD > really want a voice capable of doing sanity checks on their little projects4 > and  would they welcome some opposition/criticism.  L That is indeed a good question. Back in the mid-90s Bob Palmer heard me do aG pitch and decided he should invite me into a BoD meeting to do the same3J pitch (an outsider's perspective on DEC strategy). It never went anywhere.K Of course, the DEC BoD was, by and large, a bunch of old folks who probably/* were not interested in such a perspective.     > I > If the board decides they need an advocate for customers, then you'd be  theaH > best qualified and at that point, they would see you for what you are:L > customer advocate and would expect to see your feedback on they decisions.  H Compaq talks a good line on customer advocacy and has folks dedicated toF customer satisfaction, etc, but I doubt this influence reaches the BoDL level. IMHO it ought to, because why does CPQ exist if not to make money andJ deliver shareholder value, both of which are contingent upon on satisfying its customers!   cheers,m   terry se   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:04:06 +0100a1 From: John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch> / Subject: Please make the subject line pertinenty5 Message-ID: <3C40B2D6.432B7B6F@swissonline.delete.ch>   G After so many recent hydra-like threads that branch into topics totallytG unconnected to the subject heading, can I please ask that people try topE get back to the conventional netiquette of having a relevant title on  their post.M  E The situation right now makes it very difficult to decide which posts-H may be of interest to me, and I know that in future it will be difficultF to search for a particular posting buried deep within an inappropriate title.  G Before anyone else makes the statement, yes, I have been guilty of this_G too.  I know how easy it is to quickly respond to someone and forget toIH look at the title.  I'm certainly not blaming anyone; I'm just trying to get us all back on track.w     John McLean    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:32:02 -0500e% From: JF Mezei <jfmezei@videotron.ca> 3 Subject: Re: Please make the subject line pertinenta+ Message-ID: <3C40B960.AF35485@videotron.ca>o   John McLean wrote:G > The situation right now makes it very difficult to decide which posts  > may be of interest to me,   L In other words, you want us to add the word "SEX" to important posts to make sure you read it, correct ? :-)e   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:36:40 GMTt' From: Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> 3 Subject: Re: Please make the subject line pertinentm+ Message-ID: <3C40C942.AD7AD59B@pacbell.net>    JF Mezei wrote:n >  > John McLean wrote:I > > The situation right now makes it very difficult to decide which postse > > may be of interest to me,  > N > In other words, you want us to add the word "SEX" to important posts to make! > sure you read it, correct ? :-)c  D Good one JF. Let's just begin each post with the word SEX and get it over with. :-):-)a -- t   Have VMS. Will Travel. Wire Paladin @alphase.com 
 San Franciscos   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 18:15:00 -05000C From: Stephen Eickhoff <""operagost\"@e-mail.com (remove the dash)>: Subject: Selling VMS licensest2 Message-ID: <a1qg1j$enl$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>  @ I have unused VMS licenses which I would like to sell. Yup, the H original, honest to goodness blue border certificates. They aren't tied D to any hardware IDs or expiration dates. Would I run into any legal  problems doing this?   ------------------------------    Date: 12 Jan 2002 17:53:44 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)l! Subject: Re: Selling VMS licensesa3 Message-ID: <j44asDXsFlMq@eisner.encompasserve.org>   x In article <a1qg1j$enl$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>, Stephen Eickhoff <""operagost\"@e-mail.com (remove the dash)> writes:B > I have unused VMS licenses which I would like to sell. Yup, the J > original, honest to goodness blue border certificates. They aren't tied F > to any hardware IDs or expiration dates. Would I run into any legal  > problems doing this?   In general, yes.  G See http://www.compaq.com/products/software/info/policies/swl_xfer.htmlr   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:20:18 -0500 % From: JF Mezei <jfmezei@videotron.ca>n! Subject: Re: Selling VMS licensesc+ Message-ID: <3C40D2BF.1DA58D2@videotron.ca>    Stephen Eickhoff wrote:c > A > I have unused VMS licenses which I would like to sell. Yup, thecI > original, honest to goodness blue border certificates. They aren't tiednE > to any hardware IDs or expiration dates. Would I run into any legal- > problems doing this?  K If you had those licences to a company name (a company which you controlled M such as home business), you could always sell the company and all its assets,2J at which point the licences would automatically go to the new owner of the company ....  K I am not sure you can "sell" you licenses. But you might sell a microvax II I with all its licences for the value of the licences. Technically you'd be F giving away the licences (with the new owner arranging with compaq for transfer paperwork).   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:01:02 GMTg4 From: Tim Llewellyn <tim.llewellyn@blueyonder.co.uk>- Subject: Re: SYS$SETAST while inside an AST ?w0 Message-ID: <3C409531.F3B8699A@blueyonder.co.uk>   "Stanley F. Quayle" wrote: > + > On 12 Jan 2002, at 12:23, JF Mezei wrote: P > > I just realised that I am about to be calling some subroutine from inside anP > > AST and that subroutine calls SYS$SETAST(off) when it starts and $SETAST(on) > > at the end.b > G > Actually, this is a poor practice.  The subroutine should capture theiG > return code from the first SYS$SETAST, and only turn AST's back on ifa > they were on originally. > E yup, otherwise some very interesting problems can arise, depending on  the application.    D -- 2 Tim.Llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk  .  C Standard disclaimer applies. My views in no way represent those of 1! my employers or service provider.,   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:31:01 -0500n% From: JF Mezei <jfmezei@videotron.ca>n- Subject: Re: SYS$SETAST while inside an AST ?0, Message-ID: <3C40B923.B1DBBF09@videotron.ca>   Tim Llewellyn wrote:I > > Actually, this is a poor practice.  The subroutine should capture thehI > > return code from the first SYS$SETAST, and only turn AST's back on if  > > they were on originally. > >tG > yup, otherwise some very interesting problems can arise, depending ons > the application.  N Thanks. Although in this particular case, the first routine isn't being calledN by any other which might execute in AST mode for that program (recycled code).I But I will probably add the check in the other applications that have the>C same/similar code. (the $SETAST is just to prevent one fprintf froms5 interrupting a fprintf that was already in progress).f   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:06:06 -0500o  From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com>$ Subject: Re: Unix filesystems on VMS6 Message-ID: <1020112234107.16693B-100000@Ives.egh.com>  ' On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Rich Jordan wrote:r  K > Make it mountable as a 'pseudo-console' device.  Its been so long since I N > worked with one on the old 11/785s that I don't remember the details; SYSGENN > connect console, then methods of access... make it feel like home even if it& > is a foreign dos-format partition...  E IIRC, the FAT-formatted partition is mapped into a reserved file (seti, nomove, I hope ;-) in the ODS-2/5 structure.  D There is alread a (several?) VMS driver(s) that allow you to mount a: file as a logical disk.  E.G. LDDRIVER on the Freeware CD:  K http://www.openvms.compaq.com/freeware/freeware50/ld063/freeware_readme.txt   B So "all" that would be required is a FAT32 ACP.  Just a SMOP.  ;-)  B BTW, the standard format for the 11/78x console floppies was RT11,@ and required exchange to access them, but you could init them asE ODS-2 volumes and access them directly from all the normal utilities.-E They could also be mounted NFS and used by backup, etc.  I think thisJ& is how LP kits on RX01's were handled.  A One thing that annoyed me was that the floppies seemed to require9E 4 rotations to read or write a single block.  IIRC, they had 128-byteaC sectors and it acted as though the console wasn't fast enough to be@J ready for the next sector before missing it and having to wait a rotation.+ I don't know if there was any interleaving.0  F I always thought a nice project for an ambitious college student wouldC be to re-write the console and include a 512-byte buffer and use itsG for all floppy transfers.  Speed up boots, S/A backup, system upgrades,NC loading diagnostics by a factor of 4!  Be a hero to system manglers D everywhere!  But since my last 785 went away in August 1999, I don't much care anymore :-(e  @ (See how I've managed to make a thread about the IPF port into a& complaint about VAX-11/780 behaviour?)  
 > Rich Jordand > & > Fred Kleinsorge wrote in message ... > >h > >eM > >We of course will have this very issue with Itanium.  There will be a file M > >on the ODS volume that will actually contain a FAT partition.  The "files" K > >inside this container file will not be visible to standard VMS utilitiesy > andtN > >applications.  A seperate utility will allow files to be copied into/out of< > >the container, and to be directoried, deleted, renamed...   --   John Santoss Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 13:29:43 -0600gC From: "Craig A. Berry" <craig.berry@nospam.signaltreesolutions.com>e+ Subject: Re: vms emacs: last call? the end?b; Message-ID: <3C408EA7.10906@nospam.signaltreesolutions.com>a  $ Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman- wrote:  k > In article <a1p6h5$f3c$1@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no>, Roar =?iso-8859-1?Q?Thron=E6s?= <roart@nvg.ntnu.no> writes:t > J >>It seems that the emacs people are trying to decide whether to eliminate= >>the VMS conditionals. (Got a mail from Stallman himself...)     E Ouch. Does "trying to decide" imply that they are open to persuasion?i> Was there any rationale given? If it's the old proprietary vs.A non-proprietary chestnut, that's pretty weak since there is Win32oG support (among others). If he has specific concerns about the nature ofe- the modifications, let's try to address them.t  H > Had Stallman introduced the 19.28 mods that Levitte made and respondedD > to emails from otehrs like myself, we might not be in this thread.    G Undoubtedly true, but if we have his attention now, let's make the mostd of it.  G What kind of problems have those recently involved in the VMS port beenuH encountering? I've found with other GNU software that VMS mods made someB years ago and targeted for VAX C are often actually a hindrance toB getting something working with the vastly improved C library and CE compiler that we have now. So rather than defending each "#ifdef VMS"nG tooth and nail it might make more sense to see if there are any special @ cases we can now live without and try to relegate as many of theG remaining ones as possble to jacket routines that do not clutter up theaA main sources. Of course in the short run working code should take H precedence. I wish I had time to get more involved; I'll at least try to0 download Roar's snapshot and take it for a spin.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:21:14 -0800.- From: "Douglas B Rupp" <rupp@nospam_gnat.com> + Subject: Re: vms emacs: last call? the end?h- Message-ID: <3c40e3e7.0@topcat.tabbygnat.com>   E Emacs on VMS is alive and well at Ada Core Technologies. I use v19.28i- everyday and so do some of our VMS customers.u  D Porting a newer version has been on my list for a long time, but itsB alot of work. However I certainly would be willing to help do such a port.e  C We have most all of the Gnu tools ported to VMS, to the extent that J Gcc 3.1 can be completely built and bootstrapped using standard Unix tools
 on VMS 7.x  E With the upcoming port of VMS to IA64 we hope to continue to grow ournA business on VMS.  This will probably require porting Emacs, so weh  would hate to see it eliminated.   Douglas Rupp Ada Core Technologies, Inc www.gnat.com   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 18:05:30 -0800h# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>l+ Subject: RE: vms emacs: last call? the end?i9 Message-ID: <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIMEKNDOAA.tom@kednos.com>b  L Yes, but 19.28 has been there for at least 6 years.  rather than reinventingI the wheel each time a program gets ported, wouldn't it make sense to portiK enough of a unix environment to facilitate such porting.  IBM has done this I with great success and your bash effort was a big step in this direction.n This shouldtA also reduce the number of conditionals needed in the source code.s  C Based on my observations I think that there are adequate skills and  resources onK this list to get such an effort moving.  What is needed is someone to carryg theaI torch, which in technical terms I guess means maintaining the source treee	 and such. G This effort will have to come from interested parties who have a common 	 desire tomL see it happen.  This coordination effort should rightfully come from Compaq, but I it will not.  They unfortunately haven't a clue as to what is required on8 this marketplace.   > -----Original Message-----4 > From: Douglas B Rupp [mailto:rupp@nospam_gnat.com]* > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 5:21 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com.- > Subject: Re: vms emacs: last call? the end?t >i >@G > Emacs on VMS is alive and well at Ada Core Technologies. I use v19.28n/ > everyday and so do some of our VMS customers.  >eF > Porting a newer version has been on my list for a long time, but itsD > alot of work. However I certainly would be willing to help do such	 > a port.o >cE > We have most all of the Gnu tools ported to VMS, to the extent that L > Gcc 3.1 can be completely built and bootstrapped using standard Unix tools > on VMS 7.x >tG > With the upcoming port of VMS to IA64 we hope to continue to grow our C > business on VMS.  This will probably require porting Emacs, so wek" > would hate to see it eliminated. >. > Douglas Rupp > Ada Core Technologies, Inc > www.gnat.com >i >e   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:38:55 GMTt4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>1 Subject: Re: VMS Marketing For the General Publica+ Message-ID: <zG408.9400$Tq.55425@rwcrnsc54>,  F "Phillip Helbig" <HELBPHI@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com> wrote in message5 news:01KCVAGI2WIY8ZEGIP@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com...TL > > The only problem is the reference to Windows.  You'd have a much greaterK > > chance of getting Compaq approval if it didn't obviously malign another < > > product.  Can you say something similar by implication ? >n > Industry-standard?  :-)   K No, that would not sit well with Mary McDowell and the ISSG. I'd stick with L something less controversial, such as "less robust platform" or something...   ------------------------------  + Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:57:10 +0000 (UTC)c' From: Bryce Utting <butting@ihug.co.nz>oO Subject: Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was Re:     The dema* Message-ID: <a1q7v6$r5b$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>  9 Christian Bau <christian.bau@cbau.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:bI > Then comes the usual sermon that a three button mouse is so much betterrG > than a single button mouse. But I only ever hear this from people whomE > have no experience with a single button mouse whatsoever. MacintoshoD > users know better about the usability of a single button mouse (inJ > conjunction with software designed for a single button mouse, obviously)J > then for example a PC user who has never used a single button mouse. And* > Macintosh users don't complain about it.   *absolute* rubbish.a  F when I was a Mac user (would still like to be, btw) I cursed the thingD daily for this very reason.  and though I'd used Windows for a whileB by then, I was far from a heavy mouse user until I got to the Mac.4 (that was to come later, when I hit X in a big way.)  C don't make me pull out my HCI notes: before the release of the Mac,cC Apple were having *very*, er, lively arguments about one-button-or-uD two.  they'd heavily tested both in their usability labs, and *knew*@ that the two-button was more productive while the one-button wasE easier for beginners.  the argument was finally settled by someone in E higher management (citable if necessary) who finally forced the issueuF in favour of helping new users learn; no other motive than that behindA it, ever.  not a particularly pointy-haired manager, of course (IdC vaguely remember he had an employee number of 17 or suchlike), it'se@ just that the issue of being *useful* for users who'd passed the' training-wheels stage was glossed over.t  C there's nothing inherent in the Mac design that forces a one-buttonuC mouse.  in fact, typing and pointer actions are frequently entirelycE different: you'll move the pointer, make some action with the button,bD and then either start typing or make another pointer action, and theF typing and the actions are different enough that you don't *want* them: confused by modifying the action at the keyboard.  Alas...  G > The last bit was someone posting how unintuitive the use of the shiftnH > button together with a mouse click is, and that this was a huge designH > mistake that Apple made. I think this is nonsense and I posted that. IJ > may be right, wrong, opinionated or whatever. Fact is that the MacintoshJ > uses shift-clicks extensively and Macintosh users don't complain that it > is non-intuitive  F I did!  and I had the research from usability and the experience of an0 apparently busted carpal to prove I was right ;>  , > and Windows uses shift-clicks just as much  ? news to me, and I've been using the damned thing since Win 3.1.i  ) > and Windows users don't complain eitherl  ) ehhhh, I think there's a reason for that!t  ' > and Linux users can feel free to postqJ > whether Linux uses shift-clicks, but I bet it does, and I bet they don't > complain.n  B tends to be Emacs users rather than Linux users in general, and itE also tends to be because they've deliberately configured it that way.0= combinations of the three buttons are probably more frequent.s  C [followups to afc, since VMS, architecture and Intel aren't -quite-t	 relevant]     	 cheersya,t butting    ------------------------------    Date: 12 Jan 2002 18:03:41 -0600 From: Jim <eduorg@com.net>O Subject: Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was Re:     The demu/ Message-ID: <120120021900319538%eduorg@com.net>-  F In article <5ihv3u00jqbv5pdqncdp5qmmhqa9uj6c7s@news.newsguy.com>, Paul Guertin <pg@sff.net> wrote:c    D > Coming soon from Apple: the monitor with just one knob. Turn it toD > adjust brightness, hold shift while turning it to adjust contrast,C > use it with command to set the vertical hold, and poke at it withe" > the mouse to degauss the screen. > C > > > Apple got many things right with the MacOS interface, but thet* > > > shift-click thing isn't one of them.  @ I totally agree with this.   The reason you have to shift-click,D control-click and command-click is purely emotional:  to do it rightD requires a 2 (or more) button mouse.   Two button mice are seen as a9 "Windows Thing".   Can't have a "Windows Thing" on a Mac!<  F Stubbornly clinging to single button mice is just one of many gripes I@ have with Apple.   Another is their sky-high prices for mediocreF hardware.   That's why I'm running OS 10 on a Umax S900 - a Mac Clone!   Jimo   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:31:22 -0500e% From: JF Mezei <jfmezei@videotron.ca>eO Subject: Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was Re:     The dem , Message-ID: <3C40D557.EA86356B@videotron.ca>  
 Jim wrote:B > I totally agree with this.   The reason you have to shift-click,F > control-click and command-click is purely emotional:  to do it rightF > requires a 2 (or more) button mouse.   Two button mice are seen as a; > "Windows Thing".   Can't have a "Windows Thing" on a Mac!.  D Need I remind you that the MAC predates usable windows by a decade ?  L Also in terms of ergonomics, I have no problems using one hand for the shift* or ctrl button and one hand for the mouse.  K Where I have problems are GUIs where you have to switch often between mousemN and keyboard. My little trusted PSION S3c PDA has no mouse or pointing device,M but it has a keyboard and the software was made for it to be very usable withsL the fewest keystrokes selected for usability. And it is far more usable thanN its successor with fancy touch screen and hiearchical menus that require a lotU of keystrokes to navigate to options you used to be able to do with one key sequence.p  H One thing about single button mouse is that its simplicity  makes it farL easier to make a MAC work for disabled people or for other technologies such as touch screens.o   > H > Stubbornly clinging to single button mice is just one of many gripes I > have with Apple.  N I have absolutely no problem with the Apple single-key mice. I did have issuesK with theyr miniature hockey puck for the imacs though (they learned and now  have real mice for imacs).   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:52:13 -0500p2 From: Roland Hutchinson <rolands.spamtrap@usa.net>O Subject: Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was Re:     The deme4 Message-ID: <a1qlk9$s7ha3$1@ID-99522.news.dfncis.de>  D On Friday 11 January 2002 20:46, Bruce Hoult <bruce@hoult.org>wrote:  A > In article <3381.776T2711T7025736@sky.bus.com>, "Charlie Gibbs"o > <cgibbs@sky.bus.com> wrote:I   > F > What Apple does (or at least did 15 years ago) and which pretty muchE > no one else does (then or now) is implement the same functionallityeF > in every reasonable way they can think of and then *TEST* it on realA > people and carefully record and analyse to see which techniquesA! > cause the fewest user mistakes.i > B > Of course no one does this because it's ten times more expensiveB > than just implementing the first thing you think of and stopping > there.  B As a card-carrying Mac and Linux fanatic, I hate to have to point ? this out, but: Microsoft has for some time now been conducting -E extensive usability research.  See www.microsoft.com/usability .  It @A wouldn't surprise me to learn that they are actually outspending s Apple on this work.   D Although I have no idea how, or how much, of this research actually F trickles over into product design at Microsoft, I find it frightening D to contemplate that without Microsoft's army of usability engineers ) their products might be even less usable.y   -- sA Roland Hutchinson              Will play viola da gamba for food.s  A NB mail to rolands.spamtrap@usa.net is heavily filtered to removel8 spam.  If your message looks like spam I may not see it.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 01:54:25 GMTa From: "ZOD" <ZOD@ZOD.com> O Subject: Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was Re:     The demgF Message-ID: <lN508.26019$Vz3.2652284@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>  F > Need I remind you that the MAC predates usable windows by a decade ?  # That's when we used Amiga's....hehen   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:40:14 -0800J) From: Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com>oK Subject: Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was Re: The demt. Message-ID: <3C41019E.4040806@beagle-ears.com>  
 Jim wrote:  G >Stubbornly clinging to single button mice is just one of many gripes Iv >have with Apple.r >nH Didn't someone say this week that if you plug a 2-button mouse into the 	 USB port,eD it works, and works as expected? If so,  I would say they are doing 
 *exactly* therC right thing: Shipping it with a "beginner" interface, but allowing   "experts" to upgrade.r  < >   Another is their sky-high prices for mediocre hardware.  >6I Sounds like you are a "cheap" person. All in all, I think Apple's prices J
 are fairlyJ reasonable. They aren't following eMachines into the $400 to $500 range,  ; but then I hear that those guys are not profitable, either.    ------------------------------   Date: 12 Jan 2002 23:24:00 GMT1 From: wl@tawanna.nowhere.there (Wolfgang Liebich)bY Subject: Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was Re: Thedemise of compaq )dG Message-ID: <3c40c590$0$21072$5039e797@newsreader01.highway.telekom.at>e  7 In article <20020111074725.6aa55981.steveo@eircom.net>,a/ 	Steve O'Hara-Smith <steveo@eircom.net> writes:b$ > On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 20:39:49 +01006 > Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@hda.hydro.com> wrote: > B > TM> Not _nearly_ as bad as current movies about the same things. > D > 	Can you cite any examples where movies have been better than evenI > quite bad books in the same genre ? I am quite sure that there are *no*AG > science fiction films that improve on novels with similar topics (lete$ > alone the ones they are based on).  I "Metropolis" by Fritz Lang. The book (written by Thea v. Harbour) is justeE mindblowingly bad (IMHO). I couldn't bring myself to finish the book.o- The movie is waaay better than the book IMHO.J  F Another example is "African Queen". The difference in quality between G movie and book is way smaller, but I thought the movie to be the bettero one.  G "2001" is a draw IMHO but it has been mentioned already, so ... OK  :-)s   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:37:21 -0500n  From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com>Y Subject: Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was Re: Thedemise of compaq )d6 Message-ID: <1020112232000.16693A-100000@Ives.egh.com>  ' On 12 Jan 2002, Wolfgang Liebich wrote:-  9 > In article <20020111074725.6aa55981.steveo@eircom.net>, 1 > 	Steve O'Hara-Smith <steveo@eircom.net> writes:s& > > On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 20:39:49 +01008 > > Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@hda.hydro.com> wrote: > > D > > TM> Not _nearly_ as bad as current movies about the same things. > > F > > 	Can you cite any examples where movies have been better than evenK > > quite bad books in the same genre ? I am quite sure that there are *no*yI > > science fiction films that improve on novels with similar topics (letm& > > alone the ones they are based on). > K > "Metropolis" by Fritz Lang. The book (written by Thea v. Harbour) is justlG > mindblowingly bad (IMHO). I couldn't bring myself to finish the book.s/ > The movie is waaay better than the book IMHO.g > H > Another example is "African Queen". The difference in quality between I > movie and book is way smaller, but I thought the movie to be the bettera > one. > I > "2001" is a draw IMHO but it has been mentioned already, so ... OK  :-)h  E I'm not sure if the question is "Movie better than book in any genre" B or just science fiction, but since I can force "The African Queen"E into S.F. by any stretch, I'll add "Jaws".  The movie (especially any C scene with Robert Shaw) was brilliant.  The book was a forgettable,e 2nd-rate pot-boiler with teeth.e  F I think the movie was mostly improved by what they omitted, especiallyE the love affair between the Richard Dreyfuss character and the policenB chief's wife.  (If you've only seen the movie, you'll probably sayF "Huh?"  If you've read the book and forgotten it, you'll probably alsoC say "Huh?")  I re-read it last summer in a fit of boredom, and was nE surprised by how bad it was.  I had forgotten most of the stuff whichn? wasn't in the movie and which didn't add anything to the story.    -- d John Santosh Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------    Date: 12 Jan 2002 21:35:05 -0800* From: Dowe Keller <dowe@krikkit.127.0.0.1>Y Subject: Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was Re: Thedemise of compaq )V. Message-ID: <m36666bypi.fsf@krikkit.127.0.0.1>   jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:     m? > I never read his novel, but he sure didn't seem coherent whenyB > did his TV work.  I don't know how well he did in the classroom.  D Although I never read _Contact_, I have read some of his non-fictionC works.  I find their writing lucid and natural, and their tone wry.u- But then, I liked the _Cosmos_ TV series too.    OB_AFC:   B The Sagan book who's spine I am looking at, _The_Dragons_of_Eden_,F mentions among other things, a conversation between a psychiatrist and@ an Eliza program, that the psychiatrist supposedly assumed to beG another psychiatrist, and the mention of the game Hanurabbi(Spelling?).1   -- 06 dowe@sierratel.com	Home: http://www.sierratel.com/dowe1 		    Projects: http://freshmeat.net/projects/vshs/ 			      http://freshmeat.net/projects/menuitisc   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:10:06 GMTr4 From: Tim Llewellyn <tim.llewellyn@blueyonder.co.uk>Y Subject: Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was Re: Thedemise of compaq ) 0 Message-ID: <3C408941.C7FB5466@blueyonder.co.uk>   Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:h > " > On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:36:21 GMT4 > rsteiner@isis.visi.com (Richard C. Steiner) wrote:   O > RCS> Blade Runner?  Perhaps not an improvement on the original Philip K. Dick # > RCS> novel, but certainly on par.o > K >         I disagree, when I first saw Blade Runner I had known Do Androids > > Dream of Electric Sheep for some time - I was not impressed.   ; I liked Blade Runner better when I stopped comparing it to   Do Androids Dream...   regardsc -- n Tim.Llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk  m  C Standard disclaimer applies. My views in no way represent those of s! my employers or service provider.k   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:27:37 -0500p% From: JF Mezei <jfmezei@videotron.ca>aY Subject: Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was Re: Thedemise of compaq )t, Message-ID: <3C40B857.D319E561@videotron.ca>   Tim Llewellyn wrote:M > >         I disagree, when I first saw Blade Runner I had known Do Androidso@ > > Dream of Electric Sheep for some time - I was not impressed. > < > I liked Blade Runner better when I stopped comparing it to > Do Androids Dream...  N On my first day out of a Taipei hotel, I arrived in Keelung at nightfall on myN bike in pouring rain. I really felt like i was *IN* Blade Runner. The mood wasH exactly the same for a foreigner who had become illiterate as soon as heN stepped out of the hotel. (yep, that means not able to read road signs either,L I wish I had had a gps at that time !). Thankfully, there was one place nearM the harbour that had 5 magic letters : H,O,T,E and L. Didn't care how much it K cost. But they were nice and gave me student discount, and a room above thejN neighbouring buildings (which means a room with a window and I had view on the4  giant animated billboards , just like in the movie.   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2002.023 ************************