1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 05 May 2002	Volume 2002 : Issue 247       Contents:( Re: ASTs and privs. Was: $QIO and SYSPRV( Re: ASTs and privs. Was: $QIO and SYSPRV3 Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix 3 Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix 3 Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix 3 Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix 8 Re: CRN: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' UnixH Re: dBASE IV package/license for VMS VAX, product status?  Transferable?H Re: dBASE IV package/license for VMS VAX, product status?  Transferable?/ Re: Itanium 2 hits ... Itanium 3 will be Alpha! / Re: Itanium 2 hits ... Itanium 3 will be Alpha! / Re: Itanium 2 hits ... Itanium 3 will be Alpha! / Re: Itanium 2 hits ... Itanium 3 will be Alpha! / Re: Itanium 2 hits ... Itanium 3 will be Alpha! P Re: Memo:  Re: Does anyone have example code for finding the BG device associate Re: New to VAX Re: New to VAX Re: Revisionist history  Re: Revisionist history  Re: Revisionist history  Re: Revisionist history  Re: Revisionist history  Re: Revisionist history  Re: Revisionist history  Re: Revisionist history  Re: Revisionist history  Search in ODL doesn't work' Re: SKC Morphs Again... We're Now SKHPC ' Re: SKC Morphs Again... We're Now SKHPC ' Re: SKC Morphs Again... We're Now SKHPC ' Re: SKC Morphs Again... We're Now SKHPC ' Re: SKC Morphs Again... We're Now SKHPC  Re: SMTP Usage Filter... Re: SMTP Usage Filter... USB on OpenVMS Re: USB on OpenVMS Re: USB on OpenVMS Re: Vax emulator for PC ) Re: VAXstation 3520 (Firefox) mem upgrade ( Re: VMS Bigots Unite To Form New Company( Re: VMS Bigots Unite To Form New Company( Re: VMS Bigots Unite To Form New Company8 Re: Was OpenVMS V7.3 ever released for the VAX platform?8 Re: Was OpenVMS V7.3 ever released for the VAX platform?8 Re: Was OpenVMS V7.3 ever released for the VAX platform?' Re: What does "affordable" mean to you? / Re: ZIPped .PCSI container arrives OK on VMS??? / Re: ZIPped .PCSI container arrives OK on VMS??? - Re: [OT] Re: UK folks this might interest you   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 20:03:25 -0400 ( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>1 Subject: Re: ASTs and privs. Was: $QIO and SYSPRV , Message-ID: <3CD476CD.1080900@tsoft-inc.com>   Mark Daniel wrote:    D > Just to state it again (and at the outset of this continued threadH > discussion) I was *not* originally interested in privileges associatedJ > with AST routine execution (although there must have been some confusionF > in my original post about this point) I was using AST delivery as anG > obvious point at which asynchronous $QIO processing has completed.  I J > wanted to understand whether (and better still why) a required privilegeG > for a given operation might have to stay enabled until that point, or C > whether (and why) it could be disabled when the asynchronous $QIO I > initially returned (whether or not the processing had completed at that  > point or not).    / I feel a bit stupid.  (I do that a lot lately.)   K Because of how the question was asked, I got caught up in the hypothetical  * problems, and didn't remember the obvious.  P Privilidges don't really do anything.  They are an indicator to system routines O as to whether you are allowed to have the system routines do something for you  O that the system routines can do regardless of what you're allowed to do.  Hope  N that sentence makes sense, because that's the total answer to the qusetion(s).  Q If you're invooking a system routine, say QIO, it is going to run in an elevated  Q mode.  Many times in KERNEL mode, or sometimes EXEC.  Now, these system routines  P can do anything.  There is no protection against something running in KERNEL or M EXEC mode.  So, what happens when you queue the QIO, many things are tested,  I including your priviledges, and the the result of queuing the routine is  N returned to you.  It hasn't necessarily executed yet, but it has successfully K determined that you can queue it for execution.  Regardless of what you do  O afterwards, including before the AST is delivered to tell you the operation is  P completed, the system routine will perform the operation that it has tested for  priviledges and such.   K Your only remaining problem is if the AST is delivered before you drop the  O temporary priviledge(s), the AST routine could execute while the priviledge(s)  N are still in effect.  If you AST routine cannot possibly do anything with the Q privs, then no problem, as far as I know, and my knowledge is a bit stretched at  M this point.  If the AST routine knows that it shouldn't have privs, it could  K check for them and drop them before doing other work.  This could be a bit  N risky, because it (the AST routine) could interupt other work, that had again P turned on privs to queue another async operation, and then that operation would O fail.  It's best if the AST routine doesn't care, and cannot do anything where  P the privs still being enabled would be a problem.  When considering that an AST O could be delivered while the program has raised privs for another operation, a  O totally valid condition, then you really don't want the AST routine to be able  2 to use priviledges that it's not intended to have.  Q A big caviet.  I haven't done much of this stuff lately.  I'm rather sure of the   above, but .....   Dave   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 11:00:19 +0930 / From: Mark Daniel <mark.daniel@wasd.vsm.com.au> 1 Subject: Re: ASTs and privs. Was: $QIO and SYSPRV / Message-ID: <3CD48B2B.57DF456E@wasd.vsm.com.au>    David Froble wrote: 
 8< snip 8<L > Your only remaining problem is if the AST is delivered before you drop theP > temporary priviledge(s), the AST routine could execute while the priviledge(s)O > are still in effect.  If you AST routine cannot possibly do anything with the R > privs, then no problem, as far as I know, and my knowledge is a bit stretched atN > this point.  If the AST routine knows that it shouldn't have privs, it couldL > check for them and drop them before doing other work.  This could be a bitO > risky, because it (the AST routine) could interupt other work, that had again Q > turned on privs to queue another async operation, and then that operation would P > fail.  It's best if the AST routine doesn't care, and cannot do anything whereQ > the privs still being enabled would be a problem.  When considering that an AST P > could be delivered while the program has raised privs for another operation, aP > totally valid condition, then you really don't want the AST routine to be able4 > to use priviledges that it's not intended to have. > R > A big caviet.  I haven't done much of this stuff lately.  I'm rather sure of the > above, but .....  G Thanks David.  The AST routine gaining control with the privilege still G enabled should not be an issue for my particular application because it H is *all* happening during user-mode AST delivery, and is thus completelyH serialized as far this issue goes.  In general though, your observationsG (that an AST routine can be activated before the initial call returns - C I've seen this happening myself) would be a relavant consideration.    ------------------------------   Date: 4 May 2002 19:25:51 -0500 + From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) < Subject: Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix3 Message-ID: <cUih88Dyl94i@eisner.encompasserve.org>   S In article <3CD2F4FC.5074D966@kgcc.co.uk>, Ken Green <Ken.Green@kgcc.co.uk> writes:  > JF Mezei wrote:  >  >> Ken Green wrote: Q >> > HP has just killed off it's own (profitable) proprietary (non Unix) OS, what  >> > chance , >> > that VMS will still exist by year end ? >>N >> Because VMS generates the profits necessary to subsidize the PC operations.Q >> And during the merger, I think that HP will need all the profits it can get to  >> pay for Carly's folly.  >>Q >> *IF* Carly takes objective decisions that are not based solely on the drive to O >> be Wintel only with a sprinkling of Linux, she will keep VMS and Tandem just N >> alive enough to keep those customers and generate enough profits to sustain >> the PC operation. >>Q >> At this point in time, it seems unlikely that Carly would start to push VMS as I >> an active solution and allow its marketing and competing against other P >> platforms. Considering the "wintel, industry standard, linux" rethoric comingN >> from HP/Compaq, I think that the best we can expect is the status quo whereZ >> VMS remains but stays in total obscurity and is maintained only for exsiting customers. >   L > You missed the point, MPE was in exactly the same position. It hadn't beenN > pushed in years, if it hadn't have been for Y2K it probably would never evenA > have been fed. But it kept making profits, it still got canned.     ? 	Similar in that they are both operating systems.  But as Keith F 	Parris points out, MPE is much smaller installed base and its profits 	are miniscule in comparison.    				Rob    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 20:42:24 -0400 ' From: Glenn Everhart <Everhart@gce.com> < Subject: Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix' Message-ID: <3CD47FEF.76D3F72F@gce.com>   A Linux is unix-like, certainly, but there are differences here and A there owing to its independent ancestry. For example, in unix one D has raw and cooked devices, under different names, so that one mightB access a disk partition as /dev/hda3 to do normal file operations,F or as /dev/rhda3 to access it as a nonfile structured device. In Linux? the same name does for both and the distinction comes with use,  not with name.    E Linux is not descended from ATT code, is as entitled to say it is not   unix as Gnu (Gnu's Not Unix) is.  I The defining of a standard API with remarks like "anything that satisfies E this API is Unix" has been interesting to watch. However, it has come H very close (and may reach the point) to allowing one to say VMS is Unix,; which those familiar with the systems would find a tad odd.   I Linux is of course very very close to unix when by "unix" I mean "systems F descended from the ATT code original". (Granted the BSDs have replacedI all the ATT code, but the fact of descent cannot be denied historically.)   K It would not be too surprising if the evolution of unix and linux (and Hurd 9 and some others) leads to a single overall system though.        Peter da Silva wrote:  > : > In article <aaudu1$58b$1@fizban.fizban.pprd.abbott.com>,2 > Dave Gudewicz <david.gudewicz@abbott.com> wrote:O > > I guess I need some help.  Could someone please explain how LINUX is really 
 > > NOT UNIX?  > F > Linux *is* UNIX. It's an independent implementation of the same API,G > environment, security model, network interfaces and protocols, and so L > on. "Linux is not UNIX" is as meaningless as "McDonalds is not hamburger",: > "a Schwinn isn't a bicycle", or "a Hyundai isn't a car". >  > --Q > I've seen things you people can't imagine. Chimneysweeps on fire over the roofs Q > of London. I've watched kite-strings glitter in the sun at Hyde Park Gate.  All N > these things will be lost in time, like chalk-paintings in the rain.   `-_-'M > Time for your nap.  | Peter da Silva | Har du kramat din varg, idag?    'U`    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 02:12:40 GMT * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>< Subject: Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix@ Message-ID: <sy0B8.64932$v7.5254679@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  4 "Glenn Everhart" <Everhart@gce.com> wrote in message! news:3CD47FEF.76D3F72F@gce.com... C > Linux is unix-like, certainly, but there are differences here and C > there owing to its independent ancestry. For example, in unix one F > has raw and cooked devices, under different names, so that one mightD > access a disk partition as /dev/hda3 to do normal file operations,H > or as /dev/rhda3 to access it as a nonfile structured device. In LinuxA > the same name does for both and the distinction comes with use,  > not with name.  K Linux Device Drivers (2nd edition), page 397, appears to suggest that Linux H raw access (new in 2.3) works pretty much the way you described Unix raw
 access above.    - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 04:22:45 GMT - From: "John E. Malmberg" <wb8tyw@qsl.network> < Subject: Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix* Message-ID: <3CD4CF02.4010807@qsl.network>   Dave Gudewicz wrote:M > I guess I need some help.  Could someone please explain how LINUX is really  > NOT UNIX?   @ http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Hills/9267/fud2.html#no14  H There are also other explainations in the LINUX distributions as to why I LINUX probably never will be certified as a UNIX.  No one seems to think  " that it would be worth the effort.  I The LINUX API is now becoming more of a reference standard than the UNIX   API.   Volume counts.  J > I don't mean beneath the cloak of branding, etc.  I mean under the hood.  G To be certified as UNIX apparently use to require a large license fee,  I and apparently many UNIX like operating system sellers did not feel they  " needed to have that certification.  6 It does not seem to matter to most of the LINUX users.  H There are also many other UNIX like operating systems with out the UNIX 7 branding.  And their users did not seem to care either.     @ There are some customers that require that the operating system 5 programming API meets specific programming standards.   " The DII-COE is an example of that.   -John  wb8tyw@qsl.network Personal Opinion Only    ------------------------------  $ Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 20:17:26 -0400% From: "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com> A Subject: Re: CRN: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix / Message-ID: <ud8ugntgr6l25c@news.supernews.com>   : "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote in message& news:3CD2E8D1.8DE99ABB@videotron.ca... [snip]E > Suppose Microsoft starts to have monopoly on enterprise systems and 
 decides toK > include its SQL server free with the Windows OS. (in effect including the  costF > of SQL server in the price of Windows and preventing you from buying windows 9 > without SQL server). How would Oracle feel about this ?   G For most intents and purposes, SQL Server IS included with Windows.  At I least it is if the developer uses Microsoft tools.  Microsoft Data Engine L (MSDE) is SQL server and can be freely redistributed with products developedK with MS tools (Visual Studio and maybe others).  MSDE is SQL Server that is E "optimized for 5 users".  It also has a few features disabled, mainly L replication.   If your requirements exceed the limitations of MSDE, you just8 buy SQL Server, there are no changed to the application.   ------------------------------    Date: 05 May 2002 07:33:50 +0800, From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>Q Subject: Re: dBASE IV package/license for VMS VAX, product status?  Transferable? - Message-ID: <87vga3jxnl.fsf@prep.synonet.com>   N winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr") writes:  9 > Hmmm.  Interesting stuff on dBASE and FoxPro history at B > www.foxprohistory.org; look at the stuff with Jeb Long and WayneA > Ratliff.  JPLDIS was written in FORTRAN (yay!) on Univac 1108s.   @ Boeing did Rbase in... FORTRAN! Just goes to show, you can write> fortran in any language, even fortran. Wonder if NASA work out they payed for TWO RDBs?   --  < Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda. @                                              West Australia 6076. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 23:46:16 -0500, From: "Rich Jordan" <rjordan@mindspring.com>Q Subject: Re: dBASE IV package/license for VMS VAX, product status?  Transferable? 2 Message-ID: <ab2d9e$h65$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>  I Following up.  KSoft (dbase.com) claims to only have license from dBASE V E and newer from Borland, not dBASE IV.  They also could not answer the K question about the copyright or license status.  I have another query in to E Borland now, but since they never responded to the first one, I'm note holding my breath.  K So its likely just a 'dead product' that nothing can be done with, unless IlI can verify that in fact the invalidation of the copyright applies to thatlC version, and that said invalidation somehow also eliminates licenseUD rights... probably getting to the point of not being worth the time.   Rich Jordan    ------------------------------    Date: 05 May 2002 06:34:23 +0800, From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>8 Subject: Re: Itanium 2 hits ... Itanium 3 will be Alpha!- Message-ID: <878z6zlez4.fsf@prep.synonet.com>A  3 "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@attbi.com> writes:   F > speaking of bridges and Alphas and IPF and such, don't look for much? > Alpha content in Madison/Itanium III. Earliest anything could F > reasonably show up would be in the Montecito and Chivano time frame,; > circa 2005. Or so it is said by those that should know...i  G And as intel have stated that they will still be using the 870 chipsetse< for them, and 'Alpha Inside' will be very, very tiny indeed.  D More percentage in watching for a Pirana type multi chip CMP variant of X86s and EPIC.r   -- D< Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.n@                                              West Australia 6076. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 23:47:51 GMT 1 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@attbi.com>m8 Subject: Re: Itanium 2 hits ... Itanium 3 will be Alpha!; Message-ID: <Hq_A8.67483$%s3.26685711@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>e  9 "Paul Repacholi" <prep@prep.synonet.com> wrote in message ' news:878z6zlez4.fsf@prep.synonet.com...p5 > "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@attbi.com> writes:t >eH > > speaking of bridges and Alphas and IPF and such, don't look for muchA > > Alpha content in Madison/Itanium III. Earliest anything could:H > > reasonably show up would be in the Montecito and Chivano time frame,= > > circa 2005. Or so it is said by those that should know...: >2I > And as intel have stated that they will still be using the 870 chipsetsr> > for them, and 'Alpha Inside' will be very, very tiny indeed.  L Yep. I imagine INTC can exploit the on-chip switching CPQ developed for EV7,J but there doesn't seem to be much commonality between superscalar RISC and EPICac.e   >oF > More percentage in watching for a Pirana type multi chip CMP variant > of X86s and EPIC.r  G That could prove to be interesting. A damn shame CPQ shelved the Piranan work...h   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 01:55:28 GMTw* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>8 Subject: Re: Itanium 2 hits ... Itanium 3 will be Alpha!@ Message-ID: <ki0B8.61070$q8.6281541@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  9 "Paul Repacholi" <prep@prep.synonet.com> wrote in messagen' news:878z6zlez4.fsf@prep.synonet.com... 5 > "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@attbi.com> writes:a >tH > > speaking of bridges and Alphas and IPF and such, don't look for muchA > > Alpha content in Madison/Itanium III. Earliest anything couldvH > > reasonably show up would be in the Montecito and Chivano time frame,= > > circa 2005. Or so it is said by those that should know...o  G As I noted earlier (complete with URL to Intel spokesperson), MontecitouE (currently slated for 2004) is not expected to be much different fromhL Madison, save likely in process shrinkage.  Chivano is the product currentlyJ slated to appear in 2005, and I haven't seen anything substantive about itJ reported (but that time fits my original guesstimate of when some EV7-like on-chip glue could appear).t   >rI > And as intel have stated that they will still be using the 870 chipsetsm> > for them, and 'Alpha Inside' will be very, very tiny indeed. >eF > More percentage in watching for a Pirana type multi chip CMP variant > of X86s and EPIC.t  3 OK, I'll bite:  what is, or was, Pirana (Piranha?)?r   - bill   ------------------------------  " Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 03:51:49 GMT- From: Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com>e8 Subject: Re: Itanium 2 hits ... Itanium 3 will be Alpha!D Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.30.0205042343020.14273-100000@world.std.com>  $ On Sun, 5 May 2002, Bill Todd wrote:   >t; > "Paul Repacholi" <prep@prep.synonet.com> wrote in messagew) > news:878z6zlez4.fsf@prep.synonet.com...c7 > > "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@attbi.com> writes:h > >rJ > > > speaking of bridges and Alphas and IPF and such, don't look for muchC > > > Alpha content in Madison/Itanium III. Earliest anything couldiJ > > > reasonably show up would be in the Montecito and Chivano time frame,? > > > circa 2005. Or so it is said by those that should know...u >oI > As I noted earlier (complete with URL to Intel spokesperson), MontecitonG > (currently slated for 2004) is not expected to be much different fromsN > Madison, save likely in process shrinkage.  Chivano is the product currentlyL > slated to appear in 2005, and I haven't seen anything substantive about itL > reported (but that time fits my original guesstimate of when some EV7-like > on-chip glue could appear).o >n > >bK > > And as intel have stated that they will still be using the 870 chipsets @ > > for them, and 'Alpha Inside' will be very, very tiny indeed. > >bH > > More percentage in watching for a Pirana type multi chip CMP variant > > of X86s and EPIC.  >r5 > OK, I'll bite:  what is, or was, Pirana (Piranha?)?: >:  G Scalable CMP-based system for commercial workloads. Nice paper on it at.  B http://research.compaq.com/wrl/projects/Database/html/piranha.html    ? It was a joint effort of the WRL, SRC, and the NonStop hardware # development lab down in Austin, TX,e    D Had Alpha lived on, CPQ planned to go to CMP *after* SMT. The CompaqH opinion was that SMT would give you 2X-3X performance with a ~10 percentH increase in chip real estate, while CMP required significantly more realH estate for a similar performance increase. So the idea was to tackle SMTG in EV8, then worry about CMP in the EV9 or EV10 timeframe. Or so it wasu said.t   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 05:16:18 GMTr* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>8 Subject: Re: Itanium 2 hits ... Itanium 3 will be Alpha!@ Message-ID: <Ce3B8.57333$n7.5326848@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  : "Terry C Shannon" <shannon@world.std.com> wrote in message> news:Pine.SGI.4.30.0205042343020.14273-100000@world.std.com...   ...e  7 > > OK, I'll bite:  what is, or was, Pirana (Piranha?)?d > >w > I > Scalable CMP-based system for commercial workloads. Nice paper on it ath >.D > http://research.compaq.com/wrl/projects/Database/html/piranha.html  I Thanks.  Too long to read through right now, but I suspect the gist is ini the opening.   >  >vA > It was a joint effort of the WRL, SRC, and the NonStop hardwarei% > development lab down in Austin, TX,d >n >sF > Had Alpha lived on, CPQ planned to go to CMP *after* SMT. The CompaqJ > opinion was that SMT would give you 2X-3X performance with a ~10 percentJ > increase in chip real estate, while CMP required significantly more realJ > estate for a similar performance increase. So the idea was to tackle SMTI > in EV8, then worry about CMP in the EV9 or EV10 timeframe. Or so it wasg > said.c  J Makes sense.  SMT much beyond the 4 concurrently-executing threads plannedJ for EV8 hits diminishing returns:  there's virtually no code that can makeE much single-threaded use of more function units, issuing and retiringKF instructions start to become bottlenecks in their own right, one wouldJ expect complexity to grow with the number of threads, and my impression isH that the additional FUs in EV8 may have already started to dominate core area.   K Once you've gotten the flexibility of being able to execute a single threadfK at maximal speed (as EV8 could have and Piranha could not), plus the optiontJ to use the same chip area to execute multiple threads concurrently when noH single thread has enough ILP to make use of the FUs, there's no point inL going any farther down that road.  So the next step, after process evolutionJ has reduced the size of your core (including SMT) some, is to put multipleI EV8-style cores on one chip, keeping you one step ahead of something like " POWER4 that bypassed the SMT step.  F But by the time the EV8 team could create an SMT variant of some otherK architecture (Yamhill might now be the best Intel candidate) processes will L have gone through another two or three generations beyond the point when EV8G should have been released.  Non-SMT cores may by then be small and fastoI enough to make the added complexity of developing SMT no longer worth it:tJ the confluence of technology curves that would have made EV8 a significant; win may not persist long enough to justify another attempt.i   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 19:21:45 GMTa. From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter LANGSTOEGER)Y Subject: Re: Memo:  Re: Does anyone have example code for finding the BG device associatem4 Message-ID: <dxWA8.92046$vc2.1090185@news.chello.at>  d In article <OF440A32B7.D6F4C4B7-ON80256BAE.003777AA@systems.uk.hsbc>, paul.beaudoin@hsbc.com writes:B >I have been trying to solve this problem also. The combination of3 >excursions and DHCP on the PC side means you can't H >set up a $SET DISP/CREATE .... in your LOGIN.COM that will always work.  < With excursion you don't need to know/do it on the hostside.J eXcursion is fully aware of OpenVMS/DCL host systems and how to create the' display there. You only need to specifyo   	$@DECW$SESSIONCOM  8 as your application (the session manager) and your done.  K >                                                                        IfoK >I can determine the IP address you logged in from then this could be againx >automated.t  E Hummingbird eXceed does AFAIK offer a IPaddr macro on the client sideoJ and if you use this in your application definition, the current IP addressG of the PC client is sent to the host system in clear and you don't needw- to find it out on the (VMS) host side at all.t  L >            I can't say I have done intensive investigation but a good lookH >at it does not reveal an obvious solution. Surely someone else has comeH >across this and either solved it (Yippee!) or can confirm that I should >stop wasting my time....s  K Was it enough to stop wasting your time ? From the subject, I was up to nowzL unable to help, but if I understand correctly now and you only want to startL an X-application from eXcursion, then my statement above should be enough...   HIH    --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGERI% Network and OpenVMS system specialistf E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atP A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm looking for (a) Network _and_ VMS Job(s)   ------------------------------    Date: 05 May 2002 04:16:15 +0800, From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com> Subject: Re: New to VAXn- Message-ID: <87lmazlldc.fsf@prep.synonet.com>i  * David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:  N > I'm sure the list is far from complete.  I figured others would fill it out.   A > One person mentioned the VT-241, and that jogs my memory a bit. F > Possibly there was never a VT-230, and the VT-240 was black & white,% > and the Vt-241 was the color model.0  % Same base unit, colour or BW monitor.d  bG > Then there was the Robin, a VT-100 with an embedded computer, runninge/ > CP/M possibly, and some funky 8 inch floppys.i  nC > I think there was a VT-103 also, but cannot remember what it was.nE > Also something targetted at IBM.  Possibly the one mentioned below.t  F VT100 with an 11/03 built in to it. But a 73 hot-rod job on it is MUCH nicer :)  F# > It's been a while, over 25 years.n  A Now if you look at a T64 system, you will see the latest terminala@ mentioned in stty is the VT05. I wonder if we could ask for them to upgrade to the VT05B :)  G How they went from the sleek, slinky lines of the VT05s to the croakingh< brick of a VT50/52/55 is another of lifes great mysteries...   -- e< Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.i@                                              West Australia 6076. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 02:37:20 GMTe- From: "John E. Malmberg" <wb8tyw@qsl.network>d Subject: Re: New to VAXe* Message-ID: <3CD4B64E.3060308@qsl.network>   David Froble wrote:oG  > I'm sure the list is far from complete.  I figured others would fillr
  > it out.  @ There was an early REGIS terminal, IIRC named a GIGI or a VK100. <snip>  @  > Then there was the Robin, a VT-100 with an embedded computer,8  > running CP/M possibly, and some funky 8 inch floppys.  I The Robin that I have in my basement is labeled a VT108, and it has 5.25 h inch floppies.  D  > I think there was a VT-103 also, but cannot remember what it was.F  > Also something targetted at IBM.  Possibly the one mentioned below.  D It was a VT100 with additional block mode transfer functions.  This < functionality was in the VT34x series and maybe some others.  $  > It's been a while, over 25 years.   It seems like only %x19 :-)t   -John  wb8tyw@qsl.network Personal Opinion Onlyc   ------------------------------    Date: 05 May 2002 06:12:56 +0800, From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>  Subject: Re: Revisionist history- Message-ID: <87d6wblfyv.fsf@prep.synonet.com>l  7 "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> writes:-  E > But it is acedemic.  The decision, like it or not, was to not buildnF > EV8, and to concentrate on building platforms and not chips.  And toB > be able to have a single server platform strategy for all O/S's.  7 So ComHP is dumping x86 for servers? No more Proliants?3   -- .< Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda. @                                              West Australia 6076. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 23:45:36 GMTL1 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@attbi.com>   Subject: Re: Revisionist history; Message-ID: <Ao_A8.67476$%s3.26684651@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>   9 "Paul Repacholi" <prep@prep.synonet.com> wrote in messageV' news:87d6wblfyv.fsf@prep.synonet.com...S9 > "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> writes:  > G > > But it is acedemic.  The decision, like it or not, was to not buildeH > > EV8, and to concentrate on building platforms and not chips.  And toD > > be able to have a single server platform strategy for all O/S's. >39 > So ComHP is dumping x86 for servers? No more Proliants?u  H Not by a long shot, at least not for a long time. The CPQ party line was8 IIRC "a single 64B architecture for enterprise servers."  < ProLiants--and IA32 chips--will be around for quite a while.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 20:10:10 -0400 ( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>  Subject: Re: Revisionist history, Message-ID: <3CD47862.3050505@tsoft-inc.com>   Terry C. Shannon wrote:R    L > Almost certainly the case. So, why did they do what they did when they didN > it, rather than announce IPF as a "complementary" architecture? Not everyoneN > at CPQ is stupid, particularly the technology types who made the decision toI > "abandon chip." Seems to me CPQ thought it could get more leverage withWI > Intel by effectively taking Alpha off the microprocessor playing field.h  P So, how do you gain leverage?  By giving up the best leverage you may have?  NowL that Alpha is dead, Compaq doesn't have any leverage with Intel. If somebody) disagrees, can they specify the leverage?     J I agree, not everyone at Compaq is stupid, many aren't, just the decision Q makers, and a major part of their stupidity is not listening to those who aren't   stupid.n   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 01:59:26 GMTn- From: "John E. Malmberg" <wb8tyw@qsl.network>   Subject: Re: Revisionist history* Message-ID: <3CD4AD6A.1060308@qsl.network>   JF Mezei wrote:f  > "Terry C. Shannon" wrote:  >F  >> Once VMS is successfully ported to IPF I am told that there are noC  >> insurmountable technical obstacles to porting the OS to anotherh  >> 64b processor architecture.t  >E  > What about memory protection modes ? Will Hammer offer enough suchg.  > modes to make viable (and just as secure) ?  I Since the 80386 and later all offer 4 protection modes, one would assume :& that the 64 bit extensions would also.  D Since most operating systems on x86 only use 2 protection modes, it A keeps getting mis-reported on newsgroups that the x86 only has 2.o  C Of course you could look at the chip maker's web sites for details.s   -Johna wb8tyw@qsl.network Personal Opinion Onlyn   ------------------------------  " Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 03:33:26 GMT- From: Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com>m  Subject: Re: Revisionist historyD Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.30.0205042330230.14273-100000@world.std.com>  $ On Sat, 4 May 2002, Bill Todd wrote:   >m> > "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@attbi.com> wrote in message > >gN > > Almost certainly the case. So, why did they do what they did when they didG > > it, rather than announce IPF as a "complementary" architecture? Not)
 > everyoneM > > at CPQ is stupid, particularly the technology types who made the decision  > toK > > "abandon chip." Seems to me CPQ thought it could get more leverage withrK > > Intel by effectively taking Alpha off the microprocessor playing field.- >-J > Unfortunately, it's also looking increasingly questionable just how much$ > leverage with Intel will be worth. >I  J Good point. The original switched-fabric-and-blade server game plan calledH for multiarchitectural support (IA32, IA64, Hammer, Alpha, possibly evenH Transmeta). With all road(blocks?) leading to IPF, this no longer is the case.e   ------------------------------  " Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 03:41:36 GMT- From: Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com>   Subject: Re: Revisionist historyD Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.30.0205042336520.14273-100000@world.std.com>  ' On Sat, 4 May 2002, David Froble wrote:    > Terry C. Shannon wrote:t >o > N > > Almost certainly the case. So, why did they do what they did when they didP > > it, rather than announce IPF as a "complementary" architecture? Not everyoneP > > at CPQ is stupid, particularly the technology types who made the decision toK > > "abandon chip." Seems to me CPQ thought it could get more leverage with K > > Intel by effectively taking Alpha off the microprocessor playing field.  >XR > So, how do you gain leverage?  By giving up the best leverage you may have?  NowN > that Alpha is dead, Compaq doesn't have any leverage with Intel. If somebody+ > disagrees, can they specify the leverage?c >.    F I suspect that CPQ got a better deal from Intel by taking Alpha out ofF play than they would have gotten by just adding IPF as a complementaryE 64b architecture. Better in what regard? Financial, access to ItaniumnC Porting Fund $$$, co-marketing $$$, joint parallelism project, etc.   ? What all this will amount to in the long run, I haven't a clue.      >h > B > I agree, not everyone at Compaq is stupid, many aren't, just theG > decision makers, and a major part of their stupidity is not listening  > to those who aren't stupid.b >h  $ Inside the company, and without. ;-}   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 00:55:11 -0400a- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>e  Subject: Re: Revisionist history, Message-ID: <3CD4BB2E.80982C2F@videotron.ca>   David Froble wrote:rR > So, how do you gain leverage?  By giving up the best leverage you may have?  NowN > that Alpha is dead, Compaq doesn't have any leverage with Intel. If somebody+ > disagrees, can they specify the leverage?w  * Effective May 3rd, Compaq ceased to exist.  L It remains to be seen how much, if any, goodwill that Compaq may have gottenG from Intel in exchange for murdering Alpha and donating its reamins and ) compiler poeple will be transfered to HP.P   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 00:57:53 -04002- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>n  Subject: Re: Revisionist history, Message-ID: <3CD4BBD0.760F6399@videotron.ca>   "John E. Malmberg" wrote:2J > Since the 80386 and later all offer 4 protection modes, one would assume( > that the 64 bit extensions would also.  M I had been given the impression during the many discussions about porting VMSCN to the 8086 that that architecture lacked certain features and that would make0 the port difficult. Is there any truth to this ?   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 01:07:36 -0400e- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>C  Subject: Re: Revisionist history, Message-ID: <3CD4BE17.5352A97E@videotron.ca>   Terry C Shannon wrote:H > I suspect that CPQ got a better deal from Intel by taking Alpha out ofH > play than they would have gotten by just adding IPF as a complementaryG > 64b architecture. Better in what regard? Financial, access to ItaniumdE > Porting Fund $$$, co-marketing $$$, joint parallelism project, etc.   > That is the same type of argument that Digital used to justifyG killing/restricting its own products in order to gain the right to sell  Microsoft products.   N Everyone else just gets the right to sell those damned products without havingM to sacrifice their own limbs, but Digital willingly did so, thinking it would  be in a better position.  K If Digital got such a "special" position close to Bill Gates' derrire, how L come Microsoft customers remained unaware that Digital was a prime Microsoft support organisation ?  N I bet that Compaq could have had access to that porting fund without having to" kill Alpha and donate its remains.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 19:35:42 -0700# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>n# Subject: Search in ODL doesn't work 9 Message-ID: <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIGEIBEOAA.tom@kednos.com>e  : I installed the latest ODL on a W2K server but as expected= search does not function.  Compaq seems to not be able to get8< searched to work anywhere.  I have never had success finding< anything on the Compaq web site using their searches.  It is? odd that Google finds things on the Compaq site that the nativee( search can't, maybe it only looks in NL:  < To clarify the value of the search, all I needed to know was? the syntax for line continuation in smtp.config, simple enough. @ launch ODL, enter search string limited to tcpip, nothing.  Wade; through the chapters, use index, finally find Hightlighted , SMTP.CONFIGn  @ What is Compaq using for a search engine?  While I am about, howB about transforming FAQ to an extensible Knowledge Base, dare I say it, like Microsoft has.. --- & Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).@ Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 4/19/2002   ------------------------------  " Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 23:01:53 GMT- From: Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com>p0 Subject: Re: SKC Morphs Again... We're Now SKHPCD Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.30.0205041856450.21051-100000@world.std.com>  ' On Thu, 2 May 2002, David Froble wrote:e   <snip>P > > Just to break the monotony, I'm thinking of making up a Letterman-style 'topM > > ten' list of reasons why we're all still breathlessly awaiting the publicM > > debut of Itanic 2. >e >y > That would be entertaining.  >   > Yes indeed. Haven't a clue what's going on with Unobtainium IIF (benchmark-tweaking, mayhap?) but if it isn't out by May 29, the firstC anniversary of the Unobtainium I platform launch, people who aren'tuJ questioning the whereabouts of the promised processor may begin to wonder.  J A significant delay beyond, say, midyear, would have an interesting effectE on some of the adoption rate charts that have been bandied about. ;-}     0 > > At this rate, EV7 and Hammer may not only beL > > embarrassingly faster, but embarrassingly faster to market as well.  AndP > > (while on the subject of Itanic 2's wondrous performance if and when), I was+ > > surprised to notice recently that USIIIe >o >t    H EV7 systems are shipping today, albeit to a very limited number of fieldH test/early adopter sites. Small Marvel configs could ship before the endH of the year as the last Marvel customer prebrief is slated for November.   ------------------------------  " Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 23:14:14 GMT- From: Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com>o0 Subject: Re: SKC Morphs Again... We're Now SKHPCD Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.30.0205041906430.21051-100000@world.std.com>  # On Fri, 3 May 2002, JF Mezei wrote:M   > "Terry C. Shannon" wrote:dN > > It would seem to me that if VMS was slated to be MPE/ix-ified, the seminarO > > would have gone the route of INVENT. The same holds true for the ITUG/DECUSiF > > Joint Conference in Lyon, which has its fair share of VMS content. >-O > I wouldn't say that.  Prior to June 25, how many Digital employees were awarea& > that Compaq was about to axe Alpha ? >R  J Not a heck of a lot of them (low triple-digits would be my guess) but moreJ than knew a month earlier (double-digits, guessing again). Had the numbersH been much higher, we would have seen evidence of the secrecy of a secretI being inversely proportional to the number of people privy to the secret.     O > Consider that Compaq continued to send out some materials such as Inform that.K > would still have the token page talking about non wintel and which touted ( > Alpha as having bright future etc etc. >f    J From what I know of the publishing business, hardcopy material like InformH has a lead time of as much as 60 days... and in CPQ's case it could have been even more. ;-}o  L > Considering that the VMS engineers learned of the Alpha murder at the sameP > time we did, isn't it fair to state that Carly's plans may not be known to theN > folks organising that event in the UK and they are proceeding with "business1 > as usual" until they get the real information ?o >e    B There is IMHO a more than sufficient body of data (Marvel customerE prebriefings featuring VMS (and Tru64) content, etc scheduled for MaydB through November) out there to indicate that VMS will not be Vince Fosterized on May 7.  6 > This event will be useful no matter what Carly does. >e   Indeed it will.s  N > If carly does to VMS what she did to Tru64, then both customers will need toO > be given information on the mechanisc of the end of VMS and Tru64, as well as P > the types of deals and support to migrate to other patforms. If Carly does theM > "status quo" thing, then the presentation will have to continue to spew outgF > the same sentence as before "our commitment to customers continues". >mM > And if Carly decides to unleash VMS and grow it, then the VMS folks will be 0 > able to again start to talk about Renaissance. >-  @ That would indeed be nice. Have to read between the lines of theJ long-embargoed letter of support for VMS that should come off embargo Real Soon Now....   ------------------------------  " Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 23:17:58 GMT- From: Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com>g0 Subject: Re: SKC Morphs Again... We're Now SKHPCD Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.30.0205041915330.21051-100000@world.std.com>  # On Fri, 3 May 2002, JF Mezei wrote:    > "Terry C. Shannon" wrote:1N > > I'd give pretty good odds on the survival of OpenVMS, Marvel/EV7, and evenO > > Tru64-on-Alpha well beyond May 7. VMS is IMHO more exposed to ISV attritiona > > than to merger-day culling.n >  >hN > If HP chooses to keep VMS in status quo mode (total obscurity, no marketing,L > VMS never mentioned in public), isn't that tantamount to signing its death0 > warrant, but expecting VMS to slowly die off ?    H I would expect so. Status quo will not reduce or reverse the current ISV attrition rate.l   <snip>  P > So, in my opinion, the "status quo" is really an expectation that VMS will die1 > not long after HP starts to ]ush IA64 machines.e >e  G In status quo mode, I'd say VMS will be on life support sometime withino the next five years.  O > A strong public commitment and serious marketing is needed to counter the ill6M > effects of the port to an inferior platform and the mayhem that will result  > from the merger. >s   Not such a bad idea.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 20:41:56 -0400u- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>-0 Subject: Re: SKC Morphs Again... We're Now SKHPC, Message-ID: <3CD47FD4.7DBB786E@videotron.ca>   Terry C Shannon wrote:I > In status quo mode, I'd say VMS will be on life support sometime withinw > the next five years.  L 5 years from now, how will Unix compare with VMS in terms of reliability andK clustering ? Would it be able to take on most of the VMS missions, with theh remainder going to Tandem ?i   ------------------------------  " Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 03:27:04 GMT- From: Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com>e0 Subject: Re: SKC Morphs Again... We're Now SKHPCD Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.30.0205042315290.14273-100000@world.std.com>  # On Sat, 4 May 2002, JF Mezei wrote:t   > Terry C Shannon wrote:K > > In status quo mode, I'd say VMS will be on life support sometime within  > > the next five years. >tN > 5 years from now, how will Unix compare with VMS in terms of reliability andM > clustering ? Would it be able to take on most of the VMS missions, with theO > remainder going to Tandem ?-  J Possible, but I wouldn't want to assign a "probability factor" to it. NoteI that a lot of TruCluster goodies have a VMScluster heritage. Prior to therE plans for the "Consolidaed Enterprise UNIX," Compaq planned to outfittD Tru64 UNIX with online system component add and removal (CPUs today,F storage and memory in the future), automatic removal of failing memoryH and CPU components, full dynamic system partitioning, TruCluster processJ management and migration, and finally software fault tolerance via process pairing and failover.     D The result would have been a pretty darned capable product. Capable,= perhaps, of snagging some low-hanging fruit in the NSK realm.W    G What with Tru64 UNIX becoming an organ donor to HP-UX, it's unknown how = many of the aforementioned Tru64 roadmap plans remain viable.    terry s-   ------------------------------    Date: 05 May 2002 07:39:33 +0800, From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>! Subject: Re: SMTP Usage Filter...g- Message-ID: <87n0vfjxe2.fsf@prep.synonet.com>c  * Don Sykes <annonymous@pacbell.net> writes:  E > Put another way: is there ever a VALID reason why a port 25 request C > would come from an IP that can't be translated back to its sender 	 > domain?T  E Yes, if your ISP uses dynamic addresses, and you send direct, not viatG the ISP's SMTP. Or in some cases where MX re-directs kick in, esp if itg. is a 3rd or 4th and has been unused for years.     -- P< Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.e@                                              West Australia 6076. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------   Date: 4 May 2002 19:58:30 -0500R+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young).! Subject: Re: SMTP Usage Filter...S3 Message-ID: <8YuiP5Zq5MYZ@eisner.encompasserve.org>w  V In article <3CD304CE.E854D469@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes <annonymous@pacbell.net> writes: >  > My Knowledgeable Friends, Q > In response to an email attack recently (using me as mail bouncer), I set up ana  > smtp.config file and entered :% > 	Reject-Unbacktranslatable-IP: TRUE P > I now notice far less junk mail and no new attacks. And I'm still getting someS > good mail, but I'm also rejecting about 10-20 emails/hr as "unbacktranslatable". aM > My question is could this setting cause "good" email to be blocked as well?cP > Put another way: is there ever a VALID reason why a port 25 request would come@ > from an IP that can't be translated back to its sender domain? >    	Short answer, yes.   : 	The key is to block email that isn't headed to your site.0 	The Multinet SMTP_REJECT entry looks like this:   !.L ! Disallow relaying through our mailer, and only allow users on our networks- ! to claim to be from our company (blech.com)o !f< !  Wildcards can be used in FROM_USER, FROM_IP, and TO_USER. !p2 !FROM_USER    FROM_IP       TO_USER         ACTION !t- *             *             *blech.com      nn- *blech.com    199.99.*      *               n>- *             199.99.*      *               neM *@*           *             *@*             q "no relaying through this site"hP *             *             *@*             y "missing domain name in MAIL FROM"  < 	Note that third entry , the ACTION is "q".  Quietly reject.  ? 	So weasels that are attempting to relay through your site willsB 	hit that rule.  Elsewise, it will be bound for your site, Rule 1.( 	Or coming from your site, Rule 2 and 3.  > 	I stuck a box out a few days ago.  Because it is out there as> 	SMTP.companyname.domain  weasels look for that.  I don't have@ 	nearly the issue with another box that allows incoming SMTP but@ 	isn't advertised.  Here is clear spammer activity, and not theyC 	both can be back translated.  How do I know attempting spam?  I am H 	blocking all incoming SMTP, never did allow incoming SMTP.  Just using  	it for outbound.w  T 4-MAY-2002 20:22:57 SMTP (rejected) from [64.4.19.245,3315] (f245.law12.hotmail.com)W 4-MAY-2002 20:23:41 SMTP (rejected) from [216.136.172.234,2962] (qmail2.bulk.yahoo.com)gU 4-MAY-2002 20:37:57 SMTP (rejected) from [64.4.19.245,1766]  (f245.law12.hotmail.com)u  ? 	Many more entries all the time... less than 10 minutes after If 	turned it on in fact.  B 	But worse than spammers, are weasels using your site to send spam- 	to the world (again, stop that with Rule 3).i   				Rob.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 00:16:43 GMTa From: statzerj@bellsouth.net Subject: USB on OpenVMSa5 Message-ID: <3cd4796b.5009249@news.atl.bellsouth.net>l  E Are there drivers available to support USB devices under OpenVMS?  My-E initial web seach was not promising, but I have a USB DSL modem and IoB have seen it possible to set up Linux to run this modem, but wouldF like to experiment with VMS as well if my Multia or Alphastation could
 handle it.   Thanks,b   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 23:06:48 -0400c1 From: Michael Austin <maustin@firstdbasource.com>d Subject: Re: USB on OpenVMSe2 Message-ID: <3CD4A1C8.717DFC96@firstdbasource.com>   statzerj@bellsouth.net wrote:r > E > Are there drivers available to support USB devices under OpenVMS?      No.P   >MyhG > initial web seach was not promising, but I have a USB DSL modem and I D > have seen it possible to set up Linux to run this modem, but wouldH > like to experiment with VMS as well if my Multia or Alphastation could > handle it.    D NOOOOO!!!!! do not even think about it.  If you want to put an AlphaH online and you want to continue to use that (excuse me while I barf) USBH <not nice words come to mind> modem, then get a VIGOR2200USB Router. youD plug the USB modem into the router and it knows how to use it.. thenE configure your Alpha (OpenVMS, Tru64, Linux) with a static 192.168 oraF 10.0.0 address (not sure which non-routable IP's they use) and surf toH your hearts content.  If it were me, I would toss the USB <more not niceC words come to mind> modem and get a external Ethernet modem.  But Ie? would still get a 4- or 8-port router... they make life so muchh	 easier...t  E And if anyone is interested, I could do a complete write-up on how tou@ configure your Alpha for use on DSL or Cable using a SOHO routerG (w/port-forwarding), Dynamic DNS and running such things as a web, mail8E and news servers via that connection - provided it is allowed by youraA ISP. Mine does not at this time, but I do occasionally use it fora testing purposes.e > 	 > Thanks,e -- e Regards,  7 Michael Austin            Registered Linux User #261163w7 First DBA Source, Inc.    http://www.firstdbasource.comi Sr. Consultant 704-947-1089 (Office)l 704-236-4377 (Mobile)o   ------------------------------  " Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 03:55:21 GMT- From: Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com>P Subject: Re: USB on OpenVMS-D Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.30.0205042353090.14273-100000@world.std.com>  ) On Sat, 4 May 2002, Michael Austin wrote:s   > statzerj@bellsouth.net wrote:D > >FE > > Are there drivers available to support USB devices under OpenVMS?  >e > No.f >     H There may be in the future. The MARVEL platform has USB hardware support? right on the I/O board. Not that you'd really want to use it...b   ------------------------------   Date: 4 May 2002 22:52:38 -0700e, From: srp336@getcoactive.com (Steve Pfister)  Subject: Re: Vax emulator for PC= Message-ID: <45126e60.0205042152.154ba198@posting.google.com>3  P > There is a Hobbyist version. This product is definitely the N 1 VAX emulator,8 > and it is also a real product for VAX/VMS development.  ? Where can I get the OpenVMS media? The online order form on thenD www.montgar.com website shows the VAX version as being sold out. Are there other sources?   Thanks!    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 03:23:48 GMT - From: "John E. Malmberg" <wb8tyw@qsl.network>l2 Subject: Re: VAXstation 3520 (Firefox) mem upgrade* Message-ID: <3CD4C131.7020908@qsl.network>   Roland Barmettler wrote:
 > Hi Folks > - > A friend of mine has the following problem:vK > He got a second 16MB memory board for his VAXstation 3520 but the machine C > sees only 16MB. He tried almost all possible slot combinations...i( > The new board is definitively working.K > Could there be a console parameter that has to be set ? A hidden jumper ?e  . Did he run AUTOGEN to set the new memory size?  C IIRC: This is in the OpenVMS FAQ, which is available from a link atl http://www.openvms.compaq.com/  G Some Memory upgrades do not seem to need autogen to be recognized, but -D others do.  In general it is good time to run autogen and read it's $ feedback file when you add hardware.   -JohnO wb8tyw@qsl.network Personal Opinion OnlyL   ------------------------------    Date: 05 May 2002 03:54:59 +0800, From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>1 Subject: Re: VMS Bigots Unite To Form New Companyd- Message-ID: <87pu0blmcs.fsf@prep.synonet.com>n  * spam@devnull.com (Russell Wallace) writes:  D > The landscape is littered with the bones of companies who tried to> > push proprietary desktop machines and refused to listen whenD > customers said no. People _don't want_ proprietary solutions. TheyF > want a standard, so they can buy a computer, buy a program, and haveA > the latter run on the former. Who that standard is from doesn'tsE > really matter; Microsoft happened to be the first (in 1990) to comeqD > out with a marketable GUI-based operating system that would run on > commodity hardware.n  B Let me give you a slight clue; bussinesses don't give a shit aboutC 'standard' they want 'work. They have 'standard' and have found outwE about the quality and reliability that you get from Redmond, and felt: it in the hip pocket!-  G They want and need something that is affordable, reliable, and fixable.h   -- s< Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.1@                                              West Australia 6076. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 20:49:06 -0400.- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> 1 Subject: Re: VMS Bigots Unite To Form New Companyb, Message-ID: <3CD48181.AEFE2177@videotron.ca>   Paul Repacholi wrote:,D > Let me give you a slight clue; bussinesses don't give a shit aboutE > 'standard' they want 'work. They have 'standard' and have found outeG > about the quality and reliability that you get from Redmond, and felt  > it in the hip pocket!m   I woud rephrase that as:  N Businesses have come to realise that using "standard" (aka: Microsoft)  is notJ the great cost saver that they all thought it would when you factor in theS increased support and decreased employee productivity, and now, the virus problems.,  L Presenting a robust solution that is in the same ballpark price as Microsoft@ would stand much greater chances now than it would in the 1990s.  N The love virus was a big hit on corporations, but they may have figured it wasH a once in a lifetime issue. But they keep coming and coming and now thatY corporations are realising this, they are no longer so comfortable with wintel solutions.r   ------------------------------  " Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 03:36:14 GMT- From: Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com>o1 Subject: Re: VMS Bigots Unite To Form New CompanyMD Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.30.0205042335100.14273-100000@world.std.com>  # On Sat, 4 May 2002, JF Mezei wrote:n   > Paul Repacholi wrote: F > > Let me give you a slight clue; bussinesses don't give a shit aboutG > > 'standard' they want 'work. They have 'standard' and have found outtI > > about the quality and reliability that you get from Redmond, and feltt > > it in the hip pocket!p >? > I woud rephrase that as: >tP > Businesses have come to realise that using "standard" (aka: Microsoft)  is notL > the great cost saver that they all thought it would when you factor in theU > increased support and decreased employee productivity, and now, the virus problems.  >pN > Presenting a robust solution that is in the same ballpark price as MicrosoftB > would stand much greater chances now than it would in the 1990s. >nP > The love virus was a big hit on corporations, but they may have figured it wasJ > a once in a lifetime issue. But they keep coming and coming and now that[ > corporations are realising this, they are no longer so comfortable with wintel solutions.e >-  J Hmmm... might this be one reason why Compaq's mantra recently changed from! "Windoze" to "Windoze AND LINUX?"t   ------------------------------   Date: 4 May 2002 13:20:37 -0500g- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)iA Subject: Re: Was OpenVMS V7.3 ever released for the VAX platform?e3 Message-ID: <1WTeDF83Zyo4@eisner.encompasserve.org>t  V In article <ByQA8.1099$W3.19157@typhoon.bart.nl>, "Hans Vlems" <hvlems@iae.nl> writes:K > The VMS binary kits are distributed seperately for AXP and VAX platforms.z  < As I said before, there is a kit that includes both.  It is:  & 	QA-MT3AA-H8  OVMS VAX+ALPHA CDROM KIT   Mine is dated 05-Apr-01.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 20:01:32 GMT . From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter LANGSTOEGER)A Subject: Re: Was OpenVMS V7.3 ever released for the VAX platform?I4 Message-ID: <w6XA8.92538$vc2.1092103@news.chello.at>  c In article <1WTeDF83Zyo4@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:cW >In article <ByQA8.1099$W3.19157@typhoon.bart.nl>, "Hans Vlems" <hvlems@iae.nl> writes:lL >> The VMS binary kits are distributed seperately for AXP and VAX platforms. >e= >As I said before, there is a kit that includes both.  It is:t > ' >	QA-MT3AA-H8  OVMS VAX+ALPHA CDROM KITm  J In the 'early days' while I still had a ConDist Contract, this was exactlyH what happened to be on my contract. It was a box with the original AlphaI box and the original VAX box in it. Nothing else. About 15 VAX CDs and 100J Alpha CDs. And some products with kits for both platforms happens to exist twice on this CDs therefore.  K I'm still waiting to see a REAL combined CDROM kit. And cheap/affordable !!v   --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGERM% Network and OpenVMS system specialistt E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atP A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm looking for (a) Network _and_ VMS Job(s)   ------------------------------   Date: 4 May 2002 16:13:37 -0500a- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)cA Subject: Re: Was OpenVMS V7.3 ever released for the VAX platform?l3 Message-ID: <13rKnQhvwiX2@eisner.encompasserve.org>e  e In article <w6XA8.92538$vc2.1092103@news.chello.at>, peter@langstoeger.at (Peter LANGSTOEGER) writes:oe > In article <1WTeDF83Zyo4@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:rX >>In article <ByQA8.1099$W3.19157@typhoon.bart.nl>, "Hans Vlems" <hvlems@iae.nl> writes:M >>> The VMS binary kits are distributed seperately for AXP and VAX platforms.r >>> >>As I said before, there is a kit that includes both.  It is: >>( >>	QA-MT3AA-H8  OVMS VAX+ALPHA CDROM KIT > L > In the 'early days' while I still had a ConDist Contract, this was exactlyJ > what happened to be on my contract. It was a box with the original AlphaK > box and the original VAX box in it. Nothing else. About 15 VAX CDs and 10eL > Alpha CDs. And some products with kits for both platforms happens to exist > twice on this CDs therefore.  - For V7.3, this kit has no duplicate material.    ------------------------------    Date: 05 May 2002 06:45:14 +0800, From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>0 Subject: Re: What does "affordable" mean to you?- Message-ID: <874rhnleh1.fsf@prep.synonet.com>r  3 bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:w  / > In article <87bsbxww2r.fsf@prep.synonet.com>,21 >  Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com> writes:M > |>B > |> Almost as good as the finacial group who did their DB backupsD > |> into a GZIPed tarball. No, better, the GZIPed tarball is pretty > |> standard unix stupidity...l > |> o > D > I give up, what difference does the internal format of the archiveC > make??  At least with a GZIPed tarball you are relatively certainoB > to be able to read it on any of a number of possible machines inA > an emergency.  Can the same be said of any proprietary formats?u  H Well, the big difference is how compressable the DB files are. The emptyG DB was a LOT smaller than DB plus deleted junk pages some months later. E The second part is that there was now checking to see if it fitted onv= one tape... Oh dear! Now how DO you restore half a data base.a     -- g< Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda. @                                              West Australia 6076. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 03:16:10 GMTp1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>-8 Subject: Re: ZIPped .PCSI container arrives OK on VMS???' Message-ID: <3CD4A6F6.7889FFD7@fsi.net>u   sms@antinode.org wrote:r > C > From: "David J. (Just-can't-let-a-thread-go-unmolested) Dachtera"m >  <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> > H > > RMS is the answer to your question, mon ami. Everything else is someG > > form of stream file (Stream, Stream_CR or Stream_LF). .ZIPs, .TARs,T > > ..TGZs, etc. ... > J >    Someone else had already offered a correct answer, namely that BACKUPF > cares more about file attributes (such as block size) than the image; > activator (run-time loader, whatever it's called). [snip]    I'd have to argue that point.   E I would say that BACKUP is no different from any other application or F program that expects the RMS attributes to actually reflect the formatF of the data in the file. *ANY* program that expects the RMS attributesE to accurately reflect the format of the file contents will choke whena+ there's a mistmatch. It's just that simple.s  A Some programs don't care: as long as record I/O returns data thatD2 matches the program's expectations, they're happy.  E The "image activator", like a boot loader or UNZIP, GUNZIP, [VMS]TAR,wG etc. really only cares about doing block I/O to read the input. As longkD as the data within the blocks is not corrupted (as in when a .EXE, a= .ZIP or a saveset are transferred as ASCII instead of binary, A potentially inserting extraneous <CR>s, <LF>s or <CR><LF> pairs).   H When you get down to the fundamental level of the question, RMS is *THE* answer.e   --   David J. Dachterad dba DJE Systemss http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  + Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 23:26:20 -0500 (CDT)i From: sms@antinode.org8 Subject: Re: ZIPped .PCSI container arrives OK on VMS???) Message-ID: <02050423262039@antinode.org>   F From: "David J. (Just-can't-give-up) Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> > [drool deleted]e  E    The original question was why BACKUP was fussy about save-set filecB attributes, while a PCSI kit was accepted with altered attributes.  F    You "explained" this by stating that "[...] Everything else is someE form of stream file (Stream, Stream_CR or Stream_LF). .ZIPs, .TARs, > 7 .TGZs, etc. ...", which was clearly wrong, as I showed.   F    I then stated that some programs, like BACKUP, care more about file attributes than others.   /    You apparently felt compelled to reply with:h  C > Some programs don't care: as long as record I/O returns data thatt4 > matches the program's expectations, they're happy.  F    Does that differ in any significant way from what I stated?  (OtherD than tossing in "record I/O", which is, again, irrelevant, that is.)  J > When you get down to the fundamental level of the question, RMS is *THE*	 > answer.e  E    When you figure out what "the question" is, please don't bother met	 about it..  H ------------------------------------------------------------------------  C    Steven M. Schweda               (+1) 651-699-9818  (voice, home)nC    382 South Warwick Street        (+1) 763-781-0308  (voice, work)AG    Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547      (+1) 763-781-0309  (facsimile, work)i9    sms@antinode.org                sms@provis.com  (work)7   ------------------------------    Date: 05 May 2002 04:31:32 +0800, From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>6 Subject: Re: [OT] Re: UK folks this might interest you- Message-ID: <87helnlknv.fsf@prep.synonet.com>   ? Doc.Cypher <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:   A > That must be pretty standard practice in chocolate factories. I-F > spent 6 weeks working in a Belgian one last year and the smell alone- > pretty much put me off chocolate for weeks.   F Where about's? I used to get free chocklate from the one in St Niklaas2 when they cleared them out at the end of the day.    -- t< Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.o@                                              West Australia 6076. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2002.247 ************************