1 INFO-VAX	Fri, 05 Dec 2003	Volume 2003 : Issue 672       Contents:+ "Compaction disabled" ... how to enable it? ! Re: Freeware download corrupt (?)  Hairdoo Economics : Re: I wonder if this HP director will resign from HP's BOD: Re: I wonder if this HP director will resign from HP's BOD: Re: I wonder if this HP director will resign from HP's BOD! Re: OpenVMS Freeware V6.0 On-Line  Re: OT: What's next for HP? & Re: Pictures from the OpenVMS bootcamp& Re: Pictures from the OpenVMS bootcamp& Re: Pictures from the OpenVMS bootcamp& Re: Pictures from the OpenVMS bootcamp Re: Problems starting TCPIP$NTP $ RE: Routable Protocol for Clustering$ RE: Routable Protocol for Clustering$ Re: Routable Protocol for Clustering$ RE: Routable Protocol for Clustering$ RE: Routable Protocol for Clustering$ Re: Routable Protocol for Clustering$ RE: Routable Protocol for Clustering$ Re: Routable Protocol for Clustering1 Re: setting password with external authentication = Strange FTP behavior (and a followup to my bugcheck message). 9 Re: Sun to use AMD Opteron - announcement expected Monday  Unknown memory modules. = Re: VMS clusters prove they are the best - Sun comes in last! = Re: VMS clusters prove they are the best - Sun comes in last!  Re: What is ACAS on VMS ? 4 Re: X terminal MOP connected to a uVAX: replacement?  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 04:46:16 -0000 ! From: Z  <zarlenga@conan.ids.net> 4 Subject: "Compaction disabled" ... how to enable it?/ Message-ID: <vt03codd8c6001@corp.supernews.com>    $ SHOW DEVICE MKE600/FULL   E Magtape NODE03$MKE600:, device type SDLT1, is online, record-oriented K device, file-oriented device, error logging is enabled, controller supports " compaction (compaction  disabled). ...     .  "Compaction disabled" ... how do I enable it?     H Will it be enabled when I do INIT/MEDIA=COMPACTION or is there something* I need to do with SET DEVICE to enable it?
  End of note     ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:59:17 -0800* From: "Alder" <MUNDDGNTDYTV@spammotel.com>* Subject: Re: Freeware download corrupt (?)+ Message-ID: <3fcfbc45$1@obsidian.gov.bc.ca>   G Sorry about not describing my system earlier.  Here's the version info:    $ TCPIP SHOW VERSION  3   HP TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS Alpha Version V5.4 3   on a AlphaServer 1000A 4/266 running OpenVMS V7.3    $ PRODUCT SHOW HISTORYG DEC AXPVMS VMS73_ACRTL V6.0         Patch       Install     29-NOV-2003 G DEC AXPVMS VMS73_DCL V3.0           Patch       Install     29-NOV-2003 G DEC AXPVMS VMS73_PTHREAD V3.0       Patch       Install     29-NOV-2003 G DEC AXPVMS VMS73_TDF V1.0           Patch       Install     29-NOV-2003 G DEC AXPVMS TCPIP V5.4-15            Full LP     Install     26-NOV-2003 G DEC AXPVMS VMS73_UPDATE V2.0        Patch       Install     25-NOV-2003 G DEC AXPVMS VMS73_PCSI V1.0          Patch       Install     25-NOV-2003   
 $ UNZIP -?, UnZip 5.50 of 17 February 2002, by Info-ZIP.  J Before doing anything with the ZIP archive I reported on, I confirmed that6 the file sizes within the ZIP archive, as reported by:  &     $ UNZIP "-l" GHOSTSCRIPT-V0811.ZIP  $ were identical with those you cited.  L Then, using the same LYnx 2.8.4 browser on my Alpha, I tried downloading theJ Alpha SFX file, rather than the ZIP file containing both the VAX and ALPHAI SFX archives.  After extracting the archive and running PRODUCT INSTALL I J got the same DECC$SHR errors as before, so perhaps I messed up when I last
 patched C.  K As noted above, I currently have the VMS73_ACRTL V6.0 patch installed (from K the HP FTP site).  Previous to that I was at VMS73_ACRTL V3.0 level.  Could  that be the problem?   Any help greatly appreciated.    Thanks,  Alder     0 "Hoff Hoffman" <hoff@hp.nospam> wrote in message- news:Q2qzb.10040$XF6.7779@news.cpqcorp.net... 5 > In article <3fcd2ec8$1@obsidian.gov.bc.ca>, "Alder" $ <MUNDDGNTDYTV@spammotel.com> writes: > I > :Seems to be a wee problem with the GHOSTSCRIPT V8.11 package available  via J > :HTTP from the HP Freeware site.  I download it twice with LYnx directly toE > :my Alpha system to confirm the problem.  During both attempts, the  archive,: > :or at least the VAX part of it, coughed up a CRC error: > G >   Interesting.  I see no similar errors when performing a binary-mode H >   FTP download and an unzip, nor during an OpenVMS Alpha installation.( >   See below for the local unzip steps. > D >   Please confirm a correct FTP download transfer mode was selectedD >   and a valid download was performed, and please confirm a currentC >   or recent version of unzip was used.  (Your output shows that a F >   relatively recent version of UnzipSFX was used within the archive,D >   but does not indicate which version of unzip you yourself used.) > D >   Please confirm the entire download was completed, as well -- FTPG >   file transfers can occasionally and unfortunatelly result in silent  >   file truncations.  > D >   The vast majority of problem reports I've seen with the FreewareD >   tend to involve use of an older version of unzip, or a corruptedE >   or partial download, or an incorrect FTP transfer mode selection. A >   No offense is intended here, of course -- and yes, there does C >   occasionally arise a corruption within some random zip archive,   >   so thank you for the report. >  > $ > $ unzip -l GHOSTSCRIPT-V0811.ZIP;1: > Archive:  SYS$SYSDEVICE:[HOFFMAN]GHOSTSCRIPT-V0811.ZIP;1" >   Length     Date   Time    Name" >  --------    ----   ----    ----1 >      1207  09-26-03 23:01   freeware_readme.txt ? >  58486380  09-26-03 23:01   ghostscript-v0811.pcsi_sfx_axpexe ? >  57941652  09-26-03 23:02   ghostscript-v0811.pcsi_sfx_vaxexe % >  --------                   ------- % > 116429239                   3 files 6 > $ unzip SYS$SYSDEVICE:[HOFFMAN]GHOSTSCRIPT-V0811.ZIP: > Archive:  SYS$SYSDEVICE:[HOFFMAN]GHOSTSCRIPT-V0811.ZIP;1" >   inflating: freeware_readme.txt0 >   inflating: ghostscript-v0811.pcsi_sfx_axpexe0 >   inflating: ghostscript-v0811.pcsi_sfx_vaxexe > $ unzip -?L > UnZip 5.41 of 16 April 2000, by Info-ZIP.  For more details see: unzip -v. > .. > $  > F >   The above download was from the Freeware V6.0 area of the website,L >   using Mozilla V1.4 on OpenVMS Alpha.  (The web browser can and obviouslyL >   does select the transfer mode for the FTP download, and web browsers areI >   notorious for the occasionally unexpected selections and particularly J >   when presented with an "unusual" file extension.  I'd expect a .ZIP to! >   download as binary, however.)  >  > ...  > H >   The following C compilation errors imply changes in the C libraries,D >   or confusion over which library is present, or something that isH >   causing routines to be resolved in the compilation and linking path,D >   and typically that the code appears to include replications of aI >   C RTL function.  Which OpenVMS version is in use, and what C ECOs and J >   C (DECC$*) and LINK (LNK$*) ogical names are present?  (I've tried theB >   installation on OpenVMS Alpha V7.3-1, and it works correctly.) >  >  > : > :The following product will be installed to destination:@ > :    FREEWARE AXPVMS GHOSTSCRIPT V8.11      DISK$NET:[000000.] > :  > :Portion done: 0% 8 > :%PCSI-I-PRCOUTPUT, output from subprocess follows ...; > :%LINK-W-MULDEF, symbol decc$gxvsnprintf multiply defined D > :        in module DECC$SHR file SYS$COMMON:[SYSLIB]DECC$SHR.EXE;1: > :%LINK-W-MULDEF, symbol decc$gxsnprintf multiply definedD > :        in module DECC$SHR file SYS$COMMON:[SYSLIB]DECC$SHR.EXE;1 > :  > .. > 6 > :Can anyone replicate this?  Suggest why it happens? > 
 >   I see: >  > ...  > Execution phase starting ... > 9 > The following product will be installed to destination: B >     FREEWARE AXPVMS GHOSTSCRIPT V8.11      DISK$XD:[VMS$COMMON.]9 > The following product will be removed from destination: B >     FREEWARE AXPVMS GHOSTSCRIPT V6.50      DISK$XD:[VMS$COMMON.] >  > Portion done: ? 0%...10%...20%...30%...40%...50%...60%...70%...80%...90%...100%  > + > The following product has been installed: < >     FREEWARE AXPVMS GHOSTSCRIPT V8.11      Layered Product) > The following product has been removed: < >     FREEWARE AXPVMS GHOSTSCRIPT V6.50      Layered Product > G > FREEWARE AXPVMS GHOSTSCRIPT V8.11: Postscript interpreter for OpenVMS  Alpha  > 1 >     Some post-installation tasks are necessary.  > ...  >  > H >   Unpack the sources, and have at.  This is Freeware, after all -- theH >   pricing model means that you get to help with the "product support". :-)  >   TANSTAAFL, after all.  > L >   And please: when posting, please remember to include the OpenVMS version7 >   and any other relevent product version information.  > ( >  ---------------------------- #include' <rtfaq.h> ----------------------------- 3 >     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ --  www.hp.com/go/openvms/faq , >  --------------------------- pure personal# opinion --------------------------- G >         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.com  >    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 02:04:15 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>  Subject: Hairdoo EconomicsL Message-ID: <zIRzb.152084$Fv8.47290@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  - Over on www.openvms.org, Terry Shannon writes < (http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=03/12/04/3038414):   "OpenVMS: Built to Last     A SKHPC believes OpenVMS has a very bright future. HP isn't running L advertisements for the OS, but the firm is making significant investments inF OpenVMS, especially in the areas of business-critical capabilities and+ software that enables eBusiness solutions."       G Nothing against Terry, but let's look at what he wrote and see how HP's  management stacks up:   8 a) the firm is making significant investments in OpenVMS  - b) HP isn't running advertisements for the OS       K Now as a business person I think to myself, "Self, if you were in investing F a boatload of dough in building and enhancing a product, how yould you maximize your revenue stream."  K And I'd say to myself, "I'd sell it to all my existing customers of course, H but I'd also make a concerted effort to sell it to a large number of newI customers because I won't necessarily be able to sell my new and improved D product to ALL my existing customers, and I may well lose some of myL existing customers to bankruptcy, change in business focus or philosophy, orI they may be unhappy with my service or product, or maybe the phase of the  moon just isn't right."   J So I'd take out ads in various publications that target the markets I wantI to make waves in. Even if the ads themselves don't make the customer call H me, at least it provides product awareness to the prospects when we callL them. We can say, "Have you seen our ads in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes,I Business Week, etc... We have a great value proposition for you that will L enhance shareholder wealth (both yours and ours), lower your admisinstrativeK costs, enhance your availability, and give you everything you need and then  some."  G But then I'm not the CEO of HP....who sees value in heavily advertising I PeeCees when they provide zero profit or long-term revenue streams to the K company at the expense of products which provide real value propositions to I corporate customers. The CEO of HP really only sees value in Tex and Edna K Boil who run 'Tex and Edna Boil's Organ Emporium'* and their purchase of an # ink cartridge one every six months.    *apologies to SCTV   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 20:48:03 -0500 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>C Subject: Re: I wonder if this HP director will resign from HP's BOD ) Message-ID: <3FCFE3BF.479C01BD@istop.com>    Rick Jones wrote: H > Unless those customers plan on becoming an "all Airbus" shop, it seemsD > that the addition of Airbus to their fleets doesn't do anything to( > solve the differing cockpit situation.  G In the case of US Air, this was the eventual goal (now, their future is K uncertain).  At the time Northwest went for the 320, it was because the 320 I had other significant advantages over the then current 737-classics (1980 M era). Since the introduction of the 737-NG, the gap has narrowed. But once an M airline has begin to go with one, it is unlikely to switch (although this has . happened with one low cost carrier in the UK).    J However, Northwest, already having a big fleet of 320s, chose to buy A330s: instead of Boeing products, partly because of commonality.  J cockpit commonality is not the only advantage Airbus has. Until the recentG dramatic fall of the US dollar, Boeing was also at a great disadvantage L because of the high US dollar. The lifting of US steel sanctions wasn't onlyK because of threaths of sanctions by the rest of the world, it was also that M the significant drop of the US dollar  has made steel imports more expensive. H At one point, pure economic advantages will make one customer choose one7 product even if he woudl have prefered another product.   E > Is there more or less similarity bewteen the cockpit of a 737 and a 0 > 747 or 777 than there is with say an A319/320?  L 777 is quite different from the 737, 767 and 747 because it is a fly by wire and a lot more automation.   You can take a look at: * http://www.meriweather.com/flightdeck.html  M Note that many functions are the same on the surface. What the above web site L won't tell you is that some of the tedious functions are greatly helped in a5 modern cockpit (for instance pre-flight check lists).   L This is a bit like clusters. VMS has tools that make managing a cluster much( easuer than less developped competitors.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:04:09 -0500 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>C Subject: Re: I wonder if this HP director will resign from HP's BOD ) Message-ID: <3FCFAF53.EA6444F5@istop.com>    "Bart Z. Lederman" wrote: J > As I understand it, there are a lot of those "old" 737s flying (possibly& > more of them than any other model).   N Since the introduction of more stringent noise standards, and especially sinceF the airline depression since 9-11, the older 737s have almost all beenE widthdrawn from service (along with the 727s, both of which were very M prevalent in the USA). Their already dismal fuel efficiency was made worse by L the addition of "mufflers" (hushkits) to make them barely compliant with theL noise restrictions. And places such as the EU prohibited their airlines fromD buying aircraft with such engines because they don't meet the higherM standards. As a result, those planes are slowly being converted to beer cans.   J > Perhaps it was the customers who asked Boeing not to change the cockpit.  M Existing customers such as Southwest which operate only 737s (so far). But as L a result of the 737 retaining some of its 1960s era restrictions, Airbus hasN significantly increased its market share.  And because Boeing hasn't yet movedH to standardize its cockpit across all its families, airlines are chosingJ Airbus because of the cost savings of having much more cockpit commonality between its products.   M For southwest which has only one type of aircraft, it doesn't matter. United, M the launch customer for the 737, went with the A320, as did US Air, Northwest . as well as a few low cost carriers in the USA.  N Qantas, which used to pride itself with being an "all Boeing" airline has justD ordered 23 Airbus A320, as well as some A380s and 330s a while back.  J Little by little, Boeing's market share is being eroded. The benefits of aI more modern cockpit don't justify the huge costs for Boeing to modify its M planes to have a common cockpit. But when a customer comes to buy a plane, it K gives Airbus an edge. Boeing is in a very difficult situation. Its proposed L replacement for the 767, the 7E7 would have cockpit commonality with the 777N (which is Boeing's only commercial plane with modern cockpit). That will still9 leave the 737 and 747 with older, incompatible cockpits.          C > Sometimes customers have a huge investment in an existing system, @ > and have very good reasons not to change.  OpenVMS Engineering% > is very familiar with this concept.   M But this is more like Microsoft having to maintain old DOS stuff in its newer M software. At one point, you really need to ditch the old stuff if you want to 1 move forward and keep pace with your competitors.   L Boeing was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Airbus is lucky in that itJ built its current family over a period of perhaps 10 years (mid 80s to midM 90s). (if you exclude the 380). Boeing built the 737s in the late 60s, 747 in . early 1970s, 767 in early 80s, 777 in mid 90s.  I At the time they decided on the 777, the 767 wasn't old enough to warrant K cancelling. So they kept the 767 and sized the 777 between the 767 and 747. N Airbus, not having that constraint because it wiped the slate clean and didn'tJ try to save any of its older planes, sized the 330/340 between the 767 andK 777. By stretcbing or shortening the fuselage, Airbus can compete with both  767 and 777 families.   N It would have taken lots of guts, but Boeing (in hindsight) should have killedH the 10 year old 767 and designed the 777 to be between the 767 and DC-10( (which the 777 was designed to replace).  ? > why.  But they might have done it because the customers asked 
 > for it.)  L Boeing has traditionally been extremely customer focused.  This is why everyG aircraft Boeing built had the airline's "number" attached to the model. L Canadian Airlines didn't buy 4 747-400s, they bought 4 747-475  (75 being CPL old customer number) that has been custom built to CP specifications. BoeingM has recently realised the costs of doing such customizations and have decided J that its new planes will be more vanilla but designed to allow the airline] some flexibility to reconfigure it) (consider a galley: its floor needs to be strenghthened).   N Airbus also was "guilty" of customizations, but to a lesser extent. Its planesK are more interchangeable between airlines. It too has decided to design the E planes such that customizations are done by customer and not builder.     J This is somewhat similar to MicroVMS. Digital wanted to supply a "simpler"N version of VMS to fit onto all-mighty Microvaxes, but quickly realised that itJ turned out costing way too much money to supply a different version of theV software and documentation to some customers and as of 5.0, standardized distribution.  L Like VMS, airplanes last a very long time, and during that time, Boeing mustN continue to provide support and spare parts. However, constrary to VMS, BoeingN need not upgrade old planes during their lifetime, they keep the same features that they were certified with.  I In VMS terms, it would mean that if you bought your vax in 1987, you'd be G still running VMS 4.7 and Digital/HP would provide you with patches and ! support for that version of VMS.    L But because you can upgrade the software on a VAX, the motivation to upgradeK the hardware is not as intense as it is for planes, although, in the end it  comes down to this:   L        how much does it cost to operate and maintain the old plane/computer 7        versus how much would it cost to buy a new one ?   N Carly's plan to streamline all products onto a single platform will only startM to yield real benefits once that platform becomes old and they start to think K about replacing it. Look at how long VAX has survived after it was replaced L with Alpha. One could expect Alpha to last as long if not longer, and duringH that time, if demand continues, HP will have to continue to spew out newD versions of VMS on Alpha and even on VAx to keep the revenus coming.  K Where the savings will be made is with tru64 and MPE. While they will still T have to provide support, they won't be spending any more development money on those.  L So, a bit like Boeing, HP is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It has aJ mishmash of platforms it will need to support for a long time.  But unlikeK Boeing, that mismash is a self inflicted wounds due to stupidity (HP buying L Compaq, Compaq buying Digital and Tandem). Boeing's mismash is just a resultG of progressive evolution. By the time Boeing realised the advantages of % commonality, it was already too late.   I Carly knew very well that buying Compaq would bring to HP a worse case of J mismash. Heck, Digital has enough problems with the PC business preventingI Alpha from being succesful, and competition between Digital Unix and VMS.    ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:35:39 GMT & From: Rick Jones <foo@bar.baz.invalid>C Subject: Re: I wonder if this HP director will resign from HP's BOD 2 Message-ID: <fxPzb.10182$mS7.957@news.cpqcorp.net>  + JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote: ? > For southwest which has only one type of aircraft, it doesn't F > matter. United, the launch customer for the 737, went with the A320,D > as did US Air, Northwest as well as a few low cost carriers in the > USA.  ? > Qantas, which used to pride itself with being an "all Boeing" D > airline has just ordered 23 Airbus A320, as well as some A380s and > 330s a while back.  F Unless those customers plan on becoming an "all Airbus" shop, it seemsB that the addition of Airbus to their fleets doesn't do anything toA solve the differing cockpit situation. And now, instead of having < different cockpits from one vendor, they have them from two.  C Is there more or less similarity bewteen the cockpit of a 737 and a . 747 or 777 than there is with say an A319/320?  F > Boeing was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Airbus is lucky inD > that it built its current family over a period of perhaps 10 yearsB > (mid 80s to mid 90s). (if you exclude the 380). Boeing built theD > 737s in the late 60s, 747 in early 1970s, 767 in early 80s, 777 in
 > mid 90s.  5 IIRC, first flight of the 747 was 1969 (perhaps 1968)   
 rick jones --  = denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth... C                                      where do you want to be today? F these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)A feel free to post, OR email to raj in cup.hp.com  but NOT BOTH...    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 20:31:37 -0600 @ From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>* Subject: Re: OpenVMS Freeware V6.0 On-Line6 Message-ID: <3FCFEE09.5EB4DF38@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>   Karl Rohwedder wrote:  >  > A little errata with DFU:  > W >         the image is linked /TRACEBACK, so DFU$STARTUP fails to install it with privs   D Given what DFU can do, installing it with priv.'s seems inadvisable, IMO.   --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:56:18 -0800* From: "Jack Peacock" <peacock@simconv.com>$ Subject: Re: OT: What's next for HP?2 Message-ID: <DZWdnd75jo1eeFKi4p2dnA@mpowercom.net>  7 "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message " news:3FCE61B0.A35AC5E@istop.com...$ > re: > HP trying to become more hip > K > While this may seems like a fairly "funny" thing at first, it may in fact  be a > genious idea.  > I > This about it. Teenagers growing to like cool HP products. Universities  willK > adopt "hip" products from HP and teach student HP-UX.  When they get jobs  and I > start to be involved in product selection process, HP may have a bigger  footG > in the door than IBM whose loyal supporters will all be in retirement  homes  > and geriatric centres. > I If we assume "hip" motivates data center buyers then most all big servers L must be based on Apple.  Wasn't the Apple ][ and the Mac the hippest machineL around twenty years ago?  No wonder Microsoft has to continue to struggle to8 carve out a tiny portion of the vast Apple market share.  I GE makes all kinds of neat consumer gadgets.  So does Sony.  When was the 7 last time you saw a GE mainframe or a Sony workstation?     Jack Peacock     Jack Peacock    ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 20:06:25 GMT " From:   VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG/ Subject: Re: Pictures from the OpenVMS bootcamp 0 Message-ID: <00A29E00.ADF13C7D@SendSpamHere.ORG>  | In article <V0Lzb.10146$kI7.5170@news.cpqcorp.net>, lederman@star.enet.dec.DISABLE-JUNK-EMAIL.com (Bart Z. Lederman) writes:t >In article <h9Hzb.74976$I53.3351832@twister.southeast.rr.com>, "Ken Farmer" <KFarmer@NOSPAM.SpyderByte.com> writes: >>L >>So if he claims copyright on the photographs and says they can't be copied >>without permission he's ok?  > 4 >No, because he doesn't own the person in the photo.   So what!  G I consulted serveral of my wife's professional photography sources and  G did some web searches.  The general concensus about taking photos is as  follows:  F   The law allows you to take anyone's picture in a public place if theC   photo is used for editorial purposes such as to illustrate a news I   story, or a research project. On the other hand, if your take a picture B   of someone close enough that the person can be identified in the@   photo you cannot use it for commercial purposes unless you getE   them to sign what is called a model release. The model release is a 8   simple form that asks the person being photographed to=   acknowledge your right to use the photograph for commercial    purposes.     I I doubt it that Martin has any intentions of using his pix for commercial J purposes (despite how photogenic I am ;).  It could be argued that his pixK serve an editorial function re the VMS bootcamp.  It is clearly obvious (to L anybody other than a fucking law(lie)yer but then you could show one of themK the Pacific ocean and you'd still have to pay a king's ransom to argue that M it is not a desert!) that Martin's pix are not being used for any commercial   purpose.      ? >As I mentioned, the laws (and all the ones I know of are state F >laws, not federal laws) have certain very clearly defined exemptions.  J Please cite statutes if you know them.  I'm very interested in researching this.      --  L VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker    VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM             5   "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"     ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:55:32 -0500 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>/ Subject: Re: Pictures from the OpenVMS bootcamp ) Message-ID: <3FCFBB5B.379D6992@istop.com>    "Bart Z. Lederman" wrote: G > For example, everyone who attends an awards ceremony can expect their I > picture to be taken entering or leaving.  If someone took their picture C > in the rest room, publishing it without permission would be iffy.   N One would then have to define exactly what sort of event that Bootcamp was. ItI was in a hotel/conference facility, simular to an awards show. The people M attending knew that were be seen in public, not only by conference attendees, + but also hotel staff and anyone walking by.   J Unless the photographs were taken with a hidden camera, I think that it isK fair to assume that attendees knew that they were being photographed during 6 this event, as has been the case in most DECUS events.  E > of cases recently where photographers obtained pictures of "public" B > figures (such as actors) at private events such as weddings, andB > published them.  The courts have ruled against the photographers > in a number of cases.   L I think that it hinges on whether the picture is considered degrading by theF victim or not. Consider lady Di. She didn't sue for someone publishingN apicture of her walking on the streets, but she did when she found out her GymE had installed hidden cameras to photographs her during her exercises.   G In fairness, she was a public figure so the line was different from her [ compared to a private citizen who doesn't expect to be constantly hounded by photographers.     @ > a face.  If someone could be identified by a particular uniqueD > item of clothing, or outline, or way of walking, then you couldn'tH > make that image visible to the general public without their permission: > (unless it's covered by one of the specific exemptions).  H I think that there are exceptions to this. For instance, if they shoot aH commercial in Times Square, they wouldn't have to get permission and payG everyone who happens to be visible in the shot. They would only get the L paperwork and cheques done for those who are the primary people who actuallyN play a role.  Someone might be recognizable in the background, but if they areB lost in the crowd, they don't actually "figure" in the commercial.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:11:40 -0500 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>/ Subject: Re: Pictures from the OpenVMS bootcamp ) Message-ID: <3FCFB116.21919E19@istop.com>    "Bart Z. Lederman" wrote: C > them public.  Doing that, and then telling people who object that < > they can be removed, doesn't help: by law, you have to get> > permission FIRST, and only make those images public when the > subject has already agreed.   M I realise that this would be the case for publications/media, with exceptions M for newsmedia who have some "fair use" rights, for instance, reporting from a J busy sidewalk, you don't have to get a permission from anyone and everyone- that walks into the camera's field of vision.   L Similarly, those windowed ground level studios broadcasting live shows don'tJ have to get permissiosn from anyone walking in front of their premises, orL teenage girls peering into the windows to see if their favourite pop star is being intervied.  L However, because that web page has a collection of pictures whose purpose isD to put a face to a name (or vice versa), perhaps permission would beK necessary. On the other hand, it remains possible that the photographer, in M asking the folks to pose for a shot, would have mentioned he would be posting J the pictures on his web site, at which point, if there were no objections,& that would be tantamount to a release.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 21:56:44 -0600 5 From: "Martin P.J. Zinser" <zinser@zinser.no-ip.info> / Subject: Re: Pictures from the OpenVMS bootcamp : Message-ID: <bqovm3$23j7r3$1@ID-209632.news.uni-berlin.de>   Hello again,   PEACE PLEASE!!!!   Short version:  I All I wanted (and still) want to do is to share the good memories of the  G bootcamp with the other attendees and the community at large. I do not  H want to harm/cause discomfort/rip off anybody at all. As Barts reaction H clearly shows there are people with serious misgivings about what I did D with their pictures and who think I stepped way out of bounds. I do F sincerely apologize to everybody who feels this way. >>All<< pictures G from the bootcamp showing any person at all have been removed from the   server as of now!!! G As most of the persons who where displayed participate in this forum I  1 do ask them to sent me a short personal email to  D zinser@zinser.no-ip.info if they are willing to have their pictures ? displayed in the strictly OpenVMS non-commercial section of my  A webserver. If you can and want to spread word about this to other E persons you remember I have pictures of to sent me their consent for   display this is appreciated.    
 Long version:   A I really enjoyed the bootcamp, not only because of the excellent  G technical content but also because of the generally good spirit of all  D participants. Even if there were issues at hand people were unhappy A about (like some of the recent changes in the patch process) the  I discussion remained civil, courteous and constructive. I think this good  F spirit shows in a considerable number of the pictures and that is the E reason why I want to share them. Especially here in comp.os.vms were  H unfortunatly too many discussion turn sour and hostile (which is by the H way the reason why I am rather more active in the hp OpenVMS ITRC forum 
 recently).  F Since it is very difficult to near impossible to reach all the personsF after the fact I really and sincerly believed that offering to remove I anybodies pictures at their first request would be sufficient to resolve  G complaints about privacy violations. I obviously grossly misjudged this H issue. Independent from the question if I did violate any laws (which I B have no desire to test in court) I certainly caused at least Bart G discomfort, which is not what I wanted to do, so the pictures are gone  F for now to protect anybody who has similar feelings from further harm.  F As for the "picture use". I recently ran my first 1/2 Marathon. There F were professional photographers near the finish area taking pictures. C After the run they published low quality (but clearly discernible) nD pictures on their website and offered prints for a really hefty fee.C They went so far as to "protect" even the low quality online copiesnI from download to enforce their intellectual property (although this does  H not defeat a screen grab). I considered this kind of mean and wanted to D make clear that the pictures I have taken are royalty free although I being human I certainly do not mind a "Thank you". Again it seems I have o: to improve my American to actually transport this meaning.G Asking for 0.50 USD for a papercopy is really more a means to distract t@ jokers from requesting copies they do not really care about, it / certainly was not meant as a way to make money.m  C All in all this has proven to be a valuable, although not entirely t pleasant experience.  I Getting explicit permission via email I hope will cure any qualms people tF might have about this. And yes, I do have a pretty good idea about theF email addresses I would expect to see in these mails and I do know howI to read mail headers to detect certainly most of the common forgeries in a/ case someone would try to set somebody else up..  E Actually I will extend this to a more general offer to regular c.o.v. E denizens. If you do <<want>> a picture of yours being available make ,/ sent it to me and I will host it on the server.e  8 And now please let us return to the regular discussions.   Greetings, Martin    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 02:30:29 GMT % From: "Mike Naime" <mnaime@kc.rr.com>I( Subject: Re: Problems starting TCPIP$NTP: Message-ID: <95Szb.107656$Eq1.26650@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>  I What hardware is this on?  If it's a Marvel box (ES47, ES80, GS1280) thendL you need a different TCPIP$NTP.EXE file.  According to my TAM, It's supposed3 to be in the next SYS patch or something like that.   - James T Horn <horn@shsu.edu> wrote in messageh7 news:843706dc.0312030822.43c61fc3@posting.google.com...eB > While trying to start TCPIP$NTP on 7.3-1, I'm getting the error: >r< > VMS timekeeping is not working as expected - can't proceed >AE > I've seen the post about the patch, have applied the patch, but I'm33 > still getting this same message. Any suggestions?0   ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 16:25:03 -0600/ From: "Stuart, Ed" <Ed.Stuart@austinenergy.com> - Subject: RE: Routable Protocol for Clustering.T Message-ID: <92EFB80E551BD511B39500D0B7B0CDCC110534E6@ohms.electric.ci.austin.tx.us>  7 Here's some specific info from our network engineers...P  J The only limitations to the Proprietary VMS cluster are self imposed by HPI due to the fact that they will not support IP clustering. All other majoraE OSs support IP clustering.  There were good reasons for the other OSsrG vendors to do this. A good reason for us is the fact we do not have theiL fiber resources to dedicate paths for Proprietary VMS use exclusively.  ThisJ fact was made apparent 3 years ago when we made the decision to go IP onlyJ on the network, and the resource limitations were a major consideration inL the decision. Other considerations include the fact that MOST modern systemsC require fast failovers of <2 seconds.  To run the ancient  flat lannL architecture which  Proprietary VMS requires, means fail over times up to 45G seconds.  This is unacceptable for all of the critical service systems,?K which by the way are high availability, which have to share the same pipes.oK I don't see why we are even wasting time on this discussion, because it was J known well in advance that the network was to be all IP by the end of thisE year.  My understanding was that we were speaking with HP to see whatPI solutions were available as far as IP clustering from them. If a solutionnK couldn't be provided by HP, then Proprietary Clustering VMS wasn't going toeG be the system of choice.  The SANs, and all other recent purchases haveiG revolved around the fact they were IP capable to meet our goals for the I network backbone.  You are asking us to take a step backward because HP'snJ VMS team doesn't want to deal with the realities of WANs and budgets todayG for most customers.  We are being asked to change a business process to E match a vendors product, instead of the vendor producing a product torK enhance our business process.  I'm not saying HP/VMS is not a good OS, justy- not a good OS for us under the circumstances.    EdE **Please apply a generous amount of all the usual disclaimers here.**)     -----Original Message-----4 From: Paul Repacholi [mailto:prep@prep.synonet.com] ( Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 9:05 AM To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Comi- Subject: Re: Routable Protocol for Clusteringp    1 "Stuart, Ed" <Ed.Stuart@austinenergy.com> writes:   H > We keep getting pressure from our networking group to consolidate our G > multi-site VMS cluster.  They want this consolidation so they do not n> > have to worry about network configurations that support the I > non-routable LAVC protocol.  Are there any plans to make LAVC routable t > or tunnel LAVC in IP?n  L Perhaps if they explain why disaster resiliance is less important than theirL tiny mindset? Do they have an MCSE? Perhaps they should get one, then use it :|     -- 1< Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.5@                                              West Australia 6076* comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot. 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 Dec 2003 18:17:25 -0600n- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)t- Subject: RE: Routable Protocol for Clusteringi3 Message-ID: <fOx8v4Dx7Yxx@eisner.encompasserve.org>r   In article <92EFB80E551BD511B39500D0B7B0CDCC110534E6@ohms.electric.ci.austin.tx.us>, "Stuart, Ed" <Ed.Stuart@austinenergy.com> writes:9 > Here's some specific info from our network engineers...  > L > The only limitations to the Proprietary VMS cluster are self imposed by HPK > due to the fact that they will not support IP clustering. All other majornG > OSs support IP clustering.  There were good reasons for the other OSsoI > vendors to do this. A good reason for us is the fact we do not have theoN > fiber resources to dedicate paths for Proprietary VMS use exclusively.  ThisL > fact was made apparent 3 years ago when we made the decision to go IP onlyL > on the network, and the resource limitations were a major consideration in > the decision.f  K Let's see, their proposal is to make VMS clustering depend on the integrity H of some router software ?   I realize things have changed, but have theyK even considered the design considerations that went into the star coupler ?    ------------------------------  * Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 00:50:05 +0000 (UTC)7 From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - Subject: Re: Routable Protocol for Clusteringt( Message-ID: <bqoknt$mnc$1@pcls4.std.com>  1 "Stuart, Ed" <Ed.Stuart@austinenergy.com> writes:   8 >Here's some specific info from our network engineers...  F >OSs support IP clustering.  There were good reasons for the other OSs, >vendors to do this. [support IP clustering]    Out of curiosity, what are they?  G Why do you think a protocol not designed for clustering (IP) would work.C better for clustering than a protocol specifically designed for it?b  5 > A good reason for us is the fact we do not have theSG >fiber resources to dedicate paths for Proprietary VMS use exclusively.e  J Why not run the direct paths for VMS and also run IP over them?  No reason) to dedicate paths to VMS clustering only.1     ThisK >fact was made apparent 3 years ago when we made the decision to go IP only K >on the network, and the resource limitations were a major consideration ino >the decision.  ? Again, why not direct LAN links with IP also running over them?   / What other reasons are there for IP only links?H  @ > Other considerations include the fact that MOST modern systemsD >require fast failovers of <2 seconds.  To run the ancient  flat lanM >architecture which  Proprietary VMS requires, means fail over times up to 45n	 >seconds.n  F Huh?  The default failover time (RECNXINTERVAL) is 20 seconds, and canG usually be shortened by quite a bit.  There is no "45 second" timer fortG LANs unless you have those funny self-configuring lan bridges in there.n  @ >  This is unacceptable for all of the critical service systems,L >which by the way are high availability, which have to share the same pipes.  K Again, there is nothing wrong with running IP over those "dedicated" pipes.o     -- - -Mike-   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Dec 2003 17:58:01 -0700 1 From: nothome@spammers.are.scum (Malcolm Dunnett)-- Subject: RE: Routable Protocol for Clusteringm- Message-ID: <Aa$gyjCoJ4tF@malvm7.mala.bc.ca.>d  T In article <92EFB80E551BD511B39500D0B7B0CDCC110534E6@ohms.electric.ci.austin.tx.us>,5     "Stuart, Ed" <Ed.Stuart@austinenergy.com> writes:h  9 > Here's some specific info from our network engineers...  > L > The only limitations to the Proprietary VMS cluster are self imposed by HP; > due to the fact that they will not support IP clustering.k  I     I think that was already covered by Hoff. VMS clustering is much morecH tightly integrated with the kernel than those other clustering solutions: and must be available long before the IP stack is running.   > All other majoraG > OSs support IP clustering.  There were good reasons for the other OSseI > vendors to do this. A good reason for us is the fact we do not have thenH > fiber resources to dedicate paths for Proprietary VMS use exclusively.  H    If you control the fibre ( either owned or leased "dark" fibre ) thenA why can't you implement a VLAN architecture between the sites andxH run your VMS cluster on it? You could still route the IP traffic to keep# different subnets in each location.r  L    I do this with a cluster I have. Two of the nodes are in the same room, aL third node is in a building about 1/2 mile away ( as the fibre runs), acrossN a path spanning 4 Cisco switches/routers. The two buildings are routed for theJ purposes of IP traffic (each a different subnet). The cluster has it's ownN IP subnet which spans the buildings. It all runs over the same pair of fibres.  L > fact was made apparent 3 years ago when we made the decision to go IP onlyL > on the network, and the resource limitations were a major consideration in > the decision.   O     Could a poor choice of routers have limited their ability to simultaneously  bridge and route traffic?o  @ > Other considerations include the fact that MOST modern systemsE > require fast failovers of <2 seconds.  To run the ancient  flat lanyN > architecture which  Proprietary VMS requires, means fail over times up to 45 > seconds. i  G    I have no idea what this statement is supposed to mean. I suspect itr7 means your network folks don't understand VMS clusters.s  I > for most customers.  We are being asked to change a business process toPG > match a vendors product, instead of the vendor producing a product to'  > enhance our business process.   G    I get confused here, aren't you already using a VMS cluster? Does it-E not have value for your business ( either in features it provides or  I simply in the fact that the existing application meet your business needsPH and would have a real cost to replace? ). If so, then aren't the networkE people asking you to change a business process in order to meet their D view of what your network should look like ( tail wagging the dog? )  . > I'm not saying HP/VMS is not a good OS, just/ > not a good OS for us under the circumstances.t  H   "I'm not saying your network design is not a good one, just not a good' one for us under the circumstances" :-)    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:43:15 GMTs4 From: brad@.gateway.2wire.net (Bradford J. Hamilton)- Subject: RE: Routable Protocol for Clusteringa0 Message-ID: <DwQzb.305607$ao4.1046935@attbi_s51>  c In article <fOx8v4Dx7Yxx@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:i !In article <92EFB80E551BD511B39500D0B7B0CDCC110534E6@ohms.electric.ci.austin.tx.us>, "Stuart, Ed" <Ed.Stuart@austinenergy.com> writes:o: !> Here's some specific info from our network engineers... !> UM !> The only limitations to the Proprietary VMS cluster are self imposed by HPaL !> due to the fact that they will not support IP clustering. All other majorH !> OSs support IP clustering.  There were good reasons for the other OSsJ !> vendors to do this. A good reason for us is the fact we do not have theO !> fiber resources to dedicate paths for Proprietary VMS use exclusively.  ThisvM !> fact was made apparent 3 years ago when we made the decision to go IP onlycM !> on the network, and the resource limitations were a major consideration in  !> the decision. !oL !Let's see, their proposal is to make VMS clustering depend on the integrityI !of some router software ?   I realize things have changed, but have they L !even considered the design considerations that went into the star coupler ?  N This is becoming the "norm" in some IT shops - at my last job, the connectionsO to our clusters were going to be arbitrated by a piece of software running on arO Cisco box.  The name of the software company escapes me at present, but I thinko3 the number "5" was part of the name of the company.   G Said software was going to "poll" the members of the cluster, and route>D incoming connections to the least-busy or fastest-responding member.  O I don't know the ultimate outcome of the setup, becuase I left the company, foruH unrelated reasons.  There was no thought of using any other protocol forK connection.  (DECknet???  What's that???  We don't route no stinkin' non-IPn
 protocols...)   . Hey, is "Proprietary VMS" an HP trademark?	:-)  J __________________________________________________________________________A Bradford J. Hamilton                    "All opinions are my own"aK bMradAhamiPltSon-at-coMmcAast.nPeSt     "Lose the MAPS, and replace '-at-' (0                                          with @"   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:39:55 -0500m* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>- Subject: Re: Routable Protocol for Clusteringu( Message-ID: <3FCFD3CC.F6FA9BB@istop.com>   "Stuart, Ed" wrote:eL > The only limitations to the Proprietary VMS cluster are self imposed by HPK > due to the fact that they will not support IP clustering. All other major  > OSs support IP clustering.    N Not all clusters are created equally. Non-VMS clusters are extremely primitiveL and it is partly because of their lack of a stringent protocol between nodes( that make non-VMS clusters so primitive.  I > vendors to do this. A good reason for us is the fact we do not have theeH > fiber resources to dedicate paths for Proprietary VMS use exclusively.   Yes, this is a good point.    N > the decision. Other considerations include the fact that MOST modern systemsE > require fast failovers of <2 seconds.  To run the ancient  flat lantN > architecture which  Proprietary VMS requires, means fail over times up to 45 > seconds. 0  L 45 seconds ? Woudn't spanning tree bridges automatically adapt very fast  toI loss of a link ? In what way would IP adapt more quickly to the loss of ar route ?o    ? > This is unacceptable for all of the critical service systems,mM > which by the way are high availability, which have to share the same pipes.u  J Some may say the opposite. To ensure high availability, you need to ensureJ that each cluster has its own independnat pipes that cannot be "broken" byK others systems. You need to ensure that come cisco weenie won't play with ap# router and bring down your cluster.   K If fibre strands are limited, then consider some multiplexing hardware thattD will provide two separate pipes in the same fibre pair, one for yourD proprietary VMS and another for the more primitive IP based network.  K > solutions were available as far as IP clustering from them. If a solutioniM > couldn't be provided by HP, then Proprietary Clustering VMS wasn't going tos > be the system of choice. a  D There is no such thing as "open clustering". Each system has its ownH proprietary and different clustering technology. Clustering is way above networking.   J Does Tandem's NSK interconnect via IP or their own proprietary protocols ?  / > The SANs, and all other recent purchases havewI > revolved around the fact they were IP capable to meet our goals for thee > network backbone.   G Can a SAN really provide the high performance with an IP interconnect ?a  8 > You are asking us to take a step backward because HP'sL > VMS team doesn't want to deal with the realities of WANs and budgets today > for most customers.b  K The day IP based networks (who claim to be "clusters") start to get some ofnK the same functionality and robustness of the VMS clustering, then yes, youre above comments will be valid.i  L However, for VMS to be IP-clustering capable, it would require some hardwareM additions so that the hardware would be IP capable since VMS would need it at M the very beginning of the boot sequence.  VMS's clustering is far superior innK part because it is not a layered product on top of an OS, it os an integral  part of the OS.    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 01:12:34 GMTfL From: winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr")- Subject: RE: Routable Protocol for Clustering 6 Message-ID: <00A29E12.4584CB5C@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>  c In article <fOx8v4Dx7Yxx@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:a >In article <92EFB80E551BD511B39500D0B7B0CDCC110534E6@ohms.electric.ci.austin.tx.us>, "Stuart, Ed" <Ed.Stuart@austinenergy.com> writes: : >> Here's some specific info from our network engineers... >> tM >> The only limitations to the Proprietary VMS cluster are self imposed by HPaL >> due to the fact that they will not support IP clustering. All other majorH >> OSs support IP clustering.  There were good reasons for the other OSsJ >> vendors to do this. A good reason for us is the fact we do not have theO >> fiber resources to dedicate paths for Proprietary VMS use exclusively.  ThisnM >> fact was made apparent 3 years ago when we made the decision to go IP only M >> on the network, and the resource limitations were a major consideration ine >> the decision. >rL >Let's see, their proposal is to make VMS clustering depend on the integrityI >of some router software ?   I realize things have changed, but have theyuL >even considered the design considerations that went into the star coupler ?  F You can really tell they've drunk the Kool-Aid, by the way, calling it@ "Proprietary VMS" every time they refer to it.  As distinct from# non-proprietary Windows or Solaris?   I (And then the thing, not quoted here, about how VMS wanted them to change K their business processes to accommodate it, when in fact they changed theirmH business processes with VMS in place.  And then the thing about how longG failover takes when you use LAVC, when of course you don't want to _do_l
 failover.)   That's pretty hosed.   -- Alane   -- sO =============================================================================== 0  Alan Winston --- WINSTON@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDUM  Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL   Phone:  650/926-3056pM  Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA   94025hO ===============================================================================v   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 20:26:48 -0600c@ From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>- Subject: Re: Routable Protocol for Clustering 6 Message-ID: <3FCFECE8.6FA353D5@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>   > "Stuart, Ed" wrote:p > G > We keep getting pressure from our networking group to consolidate ouriF > multi-site VMS cluster.  They want this consolidation so they do not= > have to worry about network configurations that support theg > non-routable LAVC protocol.   A Sure. Anything *YOU* can do to make *THEIR* life easier. Hmppphh!s  F Of course, if pick enough nits, SCS *IS* routable. Think about it. TheF cluster number makes it possible to have multiple clusters communicateG on the same physical media. You must "drill" into IP in order to switch:B it or route it. Just as you must "drill" into the TCP/IP or DECnetE protocol to route it, so you could - in theory - "drill" into SCS ands@ isolate the cluster number, then establish routing based on that identifier.'  + > Are there any plans to make LAVC routableh > or tunnel LAVC in IP?,  B Any entrepreneurial hobbyists out there interested in blazing thisF trail? Maybe a piece of software on a LINUX or (*GASP* *CHOKE* *PUKE*)F WhineBloze box that "listens" to SCS (LAVc) and encapsulates it in the appropriate tunnel?c  @ After all, SIMH arose after SRI pulled the hobbyist's version of
 Charon-VAX...t   Calling SRI, maybe?o   -- f David J. Dachteray dba DJE Systemsh http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/h   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 20:50:36 GMTt) From: "Rick Barry" <richard.barry@hp.com>w: Subject: Re: setting password with external authentication3 Message-ID: <w6Nzb.10169$KW7.7759@news.cpqcorp.net>t   Try turning on tracing:i  , $ define/sys/exec sys$single_signon 80000001 $ reply/enable  L Then issue the SET PASSWORD command. The operator terminal should give you aK trace of events. Post them here if you can't interpret them and I'll take ap look.   
 Rick Barry OpenVMS Systems Software Group Hewlett-Packard Company,
 Nashua, NH  6 "Alfred Falk" <falk@arc.REMOVE.ab.ca> wrote in message3 news:Xns9446984381D76falkarcabca@198.161.157.145...i > I > I am experimenting with external authentication, and it works for logonm3 > but SET PASSWORD fails.  Here's a sample session:  > ================ > Username: z_tester > Password:J? >     Last interactive login on Friday,  5-MAY-2000 16:13:21.29OF >     Last non-interactive login on Wednesday, 26-APR-2000 15:24:44.26C >     OpenVMS password has been synchronized with external passwordU > $  > $ set password > Old password:A > New password:A > Verification:tG > %SET-I-SNDEXTAUTH, Sending password request to external authenticatoreG > %SET-E-EXTPWDERR, Password could not be set by external authenticatorp+ > -SYSTEM-F-AUTHFAIL, authorization failurepI > -ACME-E-FAILURE, operation failure - details are in the ACME$SERVER log- > file > =================2: > However, ACME$SERVER.LOG contains only the startup line:@ >     %ACME-I-LOGOPEN, logfile opened on  2-DEC-2003 12:43:32.78 >K9 > Anybody have any suggestions as to what could be wrong?. >> > VMS 7.3 ECO 2 2 > Advanced Server for VMS 7.3 ECO 2, member server  > Windows 2000 domain controller > --B > ----------------------------------------------------------------B >   A L B E R T A         Alfred Falk               falk@arc.ab.caB > R E S E A R C H         Information Systems Dept   (780)450-5185- >   C O U N C I L         250 Karl Clark Road 3 >                         Edmonton, Alberta, Canadar! > http://www.arc.ab.ca/   T6N 1E4 " > http://www.arc.ab.ca/staff/falk/   ------------------------------   Date: 05 Dec 2003 00:48:04 GMT% From: ejheller@aol.com.com (EJHeller)tF Subject: Strange FTP behavior (and a followup to my bugcheck message).: Message-ID: <20031204194804.26022.00000170@mb-m06.aol.com>  C First: I had an earlier message regarding a BUGCHECK in SYSMAN.EXE:vL AOL is not showing my original message for some reason, so I cannot directlyJ respond to it. However, I have learned that a BUGCHECK is different from aJ MACHINECHECK, which is what the console displays for message 215. I had HPI service out here and they determined that it was a parity on the PCI bus. N Swapping boards and cards seemed to indicate a problem with a SmartArray 5300.H Swapping the board did not solve the problem. Current status is that theO problem is being escalated. Thanks to those that pointed me in the direction of 	 hardware.)  H My latest problem is with the FTP server on this same machine. We run anJ embedded application on a VME system using VxWorks. This system boots fromM EPROM and loads it kernel, source and data via FTP from the AlphaServer. ThishN process works flawlessly from other AlphaServers here, in particular our olderL development system (AS 1000 OVMS 7.2.1 TCPIP 5.0A). However on this new DS10N with OVMS 7.3-1 and TCPIP 5.3 (with all the latest patches and ECO's), the FTPO has a problem transferring one of the data files. Using the Ethereal sniffer, ItG noticed that on the good transfers, the Alpha1000 does not send the 226oM Transfer complete message until after the last data is transferred and on thecK bad transfers the AlphaDS10 sends the 226 message after the transfer of theiL first 2 of 9 data packets. Apparently VxWorks sees the 226 and issues a QUITN command, messing up the data transfer. I even tried getting the file via a DOS0 window and get the same results. Any thoughts??? Thanks,h
 Edward Heller 
 TransCore ITS   edward.heller-@-transcore-.-coml   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:41:41 -0500n* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>B Subject: Re: Sun to use AMD Opteron - announcement expected Monday) Message-ID: <3FCFB81D.F75699CC@istop.com>w   Rob Young wrote:D >         NIH is very powerful.  I point out in meetings that "do weH >         really need that?  If so, do you realize department Y is usingF >         a product that has the same functionality?"  Do you know howJ >         much overlap in product lines there is?  But sadly, department YK >         has their own budget and they will do what they please, thank younE >         very much.  Breaking that culture is hard.  All high-end is C >         Itanium forces a break in culture.  That is a good thing.     M Based on comments I have heard here, it seems to me that there is very little-K cross polination between the VMS and Tandem/NSK folks as well as HP-UX with< regards to systems design.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 20:02:34 +0100D9 From: Jan-Erik =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=F6derholm?= <aaa@aaa.com>l  Subject: Unknown memory modules.' Message-ID: <3FCF84CA.A045B4A2@aaa.com>b   Hi. 8 I have a couple of modules that I think has been mounted4 in a "Jensen" box. They are marked "MT36D436M-7" and "Micron Tech USA".  : Anybody know what the DEC/Compaq/HP name could have been ?   Regards 	 Jan-Erik.t   ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 18:17:16 -0500& From: "Chris Moore" <just@my.twocents>F Subject: Re: VMS clusters prove they are the best - Sun comes in last!: Message-ID: <WePzb.12824$yd.1825324@news20.bellglobal.com>  ( Sun sees mild reaction on product launch    By Rex Crum, CBS.MarketWatch.com# Last Update: 5:15 PM ET Dec 3, 2003s        K "Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy" <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>n; wrote in message news:bqkvef$aie$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com...t > Bob Ceculski wrote:g- > > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13002d >a >t > More old BS Bob. >n6 > Sorry but this is the same TechWise or should we say6 > MarketingFoolish TCO study sponsored by HPQ that did: > the rounds last year and was well an truly trashed then. >p9 > If you compare a GS320 with a P690 or Sun F15K then itsf; > hardly suprising that your cost of downtime for the GS320  > is lower.r >e$ > Can you remember why that was ???? > 8 > I will help you, the GS320 has about 1/3 to 1/4 of the9 > capacity of the F15K. The GS is in fact only comparable 7 > with the F6800 (which beats it on Oracle applicationse > throughput). >u6 > Now care to compare the cost of downtime of an F6800" > with a GS320. I didn't think so. >m& > Can I ask you a serious question Bob >h > What are you good at.  >s> > System Security clearly isn't a forte, you trumpet a serious9 > Linux security violation on this newsgroup when HP haveo; > just released a mandatory security patch for OpenVMS thatn: > is so serious that they won't even hint at what its for. >w? > You misslead people about TCPWARE etc alledged invunerabilitytF > to various CERT exploits and get conradicted by their documentation. > : > Perimeter security isn't a forte, remember you ludicrous9 > Firewall discussions that were contradicted by HP's own- > technical staff. >e1 > TCO analysis clearly isn't a forte (see above).< >e9 > Performance isn't a forte you keep talking about 80,000V > SPARCs vs 1 Alpha. >  > So what can you do well ?  > 	 > regardsd > Andrew Harrisonh >p   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Dec 2003 13:11:45 -0800c( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)F Subject: Re: VMS clusters prove they are the best - Sun comes in last!= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0312041311.19550698@posting.google.com>    Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<bqkvef$aie$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...s > Bob Ceculski wrote: - > > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13002h >  >  > More old BS Bob. > 6 > Sorry but this is the same TechWise or should we say6 > MarketingFoolish TCO study sponsored by HPQ that did: > the rounds last year and was well an truly trashed then. > 9 > If you compare a GS320 with a P690 or Sun F15K then itsp; > hardly suprising that your cost of downtime for the GS320e > is lower.t > $ > Can you remember why that was ???? > 8 > I will help you, the GS320 has about 1/3 to 1/4 of the9 > capacity of the F15K. The GS is in fact only comparablep7 > with the F6800 (which beats it on Oracle applicationsu > throughput). > 6 > Now care to compare the cost of downtime of an F6800" > with a GS320. I didn't think so. > & > Can I ask you a serious question Bob >  > What are you good at.- > > > System Security clearly isn't a forte, you trumpet a serious9 > Linux security violation on this newsgroup when HP havem; > just released a mandatory security patch for OpenVMS that2: > is so serious that they won't even hint at what its for. > ? > You misslead people about TCPWARE etc alledged invunerability F > to various CERT exploits and get conradicted by their documentation. > : > Perimeter security isn't a forte, remember you ludicrous9 > Firewall discussions that were contradicted by HP's own  > technical staff. > 1 > TCO analysis clearly isn't a forte (see above).h > 9 > Performance isn't a forte you keep talking about 80,000  > SPARCs vs 1 Alpha. >  > So what can you do well ?m > 	 > regardsh > Andrew Harrison   C I must be better at a lot more than you ... I will keep counting mypF bonus money for this year while you continue to look for a new job! :)   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 21:16:01 GMTe/ From: brooks@cuebid.zko.dec.nospam (Rob Brooks)e" Subject: Re: What is ACAS on VMS ?- Message-ID: <ZNlrK+f02YyS@cuebid.zko.dec.com>   , JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes:P > While testing software that browses text libraries, I stumbled on ACAS modules > in the SYS$STARLET_C.TLB.  > P > It stands for "Application Control Architecture Services" and has a rather bigN > module to define varous messages. (that is what caught my attention as I was > randomly selecting modules). > L > What exactly is this beast ? Is it available on VAX VMS or just on Alpha ?  1 ACAS is the old name of the ObjectBroker product.I   -- t  M Rob Brooks    VMS Engineering -- I/O Exec Group     brooks!cuebid.zko.dec.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 21:12:29 -0500n3 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net>(= Subject: Re: X terminal MOP connected to a uVAX: replacement? 0 Message-ID: <WradnUqlp_sTdFKiRVn-vA@comcast.com>  H I would not try it on a PC with Reflection-X.  There doesn't seem to be F any way to map the PC keyboard to the DEC keyboard unless you want to H study X-windows keycodes, keysyms, etc.  It seems to me to be something G that should just work, right out of the box but it doesn't!  The VTxxx dA emulations do an excelent job of keyboard mapping; it's just the e! X-windows stuff that's a problem.a   Didier Morandi wrote:    > Hello happy tax payers,a > I > I have a request from a Customer who still uses Tektro XP338 terminals s: > to do X from MicroVAXen via MOP and thin Ethernet (yes.) >"F > What would be a good replacement solution for these old boxes which 6 > blow out one after the other every two months or so? >uH > I'm thinking of suggesting to give up with MOP and do X from a PC via ( > Exceed or any other X Windows package. >t* > What does the honourable assembly think? >h	 > Thanks,t >n > D. >e   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2003.672 ************************