1 INFO-VAX	Fri, 22 Oct 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 586       Contents:! Re: DEC-C: Null string constant ? ! Re: DEC-C: Null string constant ? ! Re: DEC-C: Null string constant ? ! Re: DEC-C: Null string constant ? ! Re: DEC-C: Null string constant ? 2 Re: Display status of network adapters in OpenVMS?2 Re: Display status of network adapters in OpenVMS? Re: ECU disk# RE: Latest on Windoze Navy software # Re: Latest on Windoze Navy software  Re: OT: Short Article about Sun  Re: OT: why USA is a regime  Re: OT: why USA is a regime  Re: Question about Descriptors Re: Question about Descriptors> Re: Routine to Resubmit print/batch entries from queue listing( Re: Samba 2.2.8 for OpenVMS, new release( Re: Samba 2.2.8 for OpenVMS, new release) Re: SYS$TIMEZONE_RULE logical not defined ) Re: SYS$TIMEZONE_RULE logical not defined ) Re: SYS$TIMEZONE_RULE logical not defined  Re: What happened with SEVMS?  Re: What happened with SEVMS?  Re: What happened with SEVMS?  Re: What happened with SEVMS?  Re: What happened with SEVMS?   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 21 Oct 2004 14:57:14 -04003 From: Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> * Subject: Re: DEC-C: Null string constant ?. Message-ID: <mddy8hzsxv9.fsf@panix5.panix.com>  / JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:   N > Sometimes it is the simplest code that gives the most heartaches :-( :-( :-(  N Ancient wisdom from my first programming course in 1969:  The only way to findN certain kinds of errors is to start explaining what the program is supposed toD be doing to an outside observer.  And I still find that that's true.   --  L Rich Alderson                                       | /"\ ASCII ribbon     |L news@alderson.users.panix.com                       | \ / campaign against |L "You get what anybody gets. You get a lifetime."    |  x  HTML mail and    |L                          --Death, of the Endless    | / \ postings         |   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:37:51 GMT ! From: Nigel Barker <nigel@hp.com> * Subject: Re: DEC-C: Null string constant ?8 Message-ID: <2t3gn0t1poq7247868s8ild7n9etdfjld2@4ax.com>  L On 21 Oct 2004 14:57:14 -0400, Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:  0 >JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: > O >> Sometimes it is the simplest code that gives the most heartaches :-( :-( :-(  > O >Ancient wisdom from my first programming course in 1969:  The only way to find O >certain kinds of errors is to start explaining what the program is supposed to E >be doing to an outside observer.  And I still find that that's true.   J What my friend Robert refers to as 'talking to your teddy bear':-) My wifeM bought me one specially for this purpose & it sits on my desk as I type this.    -- Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur    ------------------------------    Date: 21 Oct 2004 15:24:24 -0500 From: briggs@encompasserve.org* Subject: Re: DEC-C: Null string constant ?3 Message-ID: <ghR0zRXQUoRU@eisner.encompasserve.org>   U In article <4177CBED.40109@tsoft-inc.com>, David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:  > JF Mezei wrote:  >  >> char *mybuffer ;  >> mybuffer = "" >> myroutine(mybuffer);  >>   >> ----  >> myroutine(char *mybuffer) >> {1 >> printf ("Address of string=>%ld\n", mybuffer);  >> } >>  Q >> Retults in a big fat value of 0, and of course, if you try to strlen(mybuffer)  >> the program crashes.  >>  P >> I was under the impression that "" yielded a valid string constant containingP >> only the null character, and that you could use this to still provide a valid@ >> pointer address to the various routines in your applications. >  > 7 > First note that my prefered language is BASIC, not C.  >  > A null is a valid character.  C That statement is a tad strong.  A null _can be_ a valid character.   ? Whether it is valid depends on context.  It's a valid character  in the ASCII code.  D But, if your context is a null-terminated string, then a null is not1 a valid character within the body of that string.   3 > It takes one byte of storage for each character.  R > It is a bit tough to have a string of nulls when using null terminated strings.   E Of course.  As it happens, I find null-terminated strings distasteful  as well.  For this very reason.   J I have developed a distaste for VMS "can't be longer than 2^16 characters"B string descriptors as well.  It is a bit tough to encode a 100,000> character string when strings are limited to 65535 characters.  > Ah well.  Such is life.  I don't much care for ASN.1 unlimitedE length encodings either.  Guess there's no pleasing some people.  :-)   * >   Another shortcoming of that technique. > < > A null string is a string with no characters, zero length.  < True.  And a null string encoded as a null-terminated string/ is a buffer containing a single null character.   H A null string encoded using a VMS descriptor is a quadword with a lengthE code of zero and pointer that doesn't have to point anywhere special.   @ A null string encoded as a counted string is a buffer containing a single zero byte.   = A null string encoded with ASN.1 is... I'd have to go look it > up.  *** sound of furious keyboard tapping *** ...  A two byte buffer containing   +  0x4   (Universal, Primitive, Octet string)   0x0   (Short format, length 0)          (String contents -- null)   	John Briggs   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:13:15 GMT & From: John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com>* Subject: Re: DEC-C: Null string constant ?0 Message-ID: <LDVdd.1372$zI.670@news.cpqcorp.net>   briggs@encompasserve.org wrote:   L > I have developed a distaste for VMS "can't be longer than 2^16 characters"D > string descriptors as well.  It is a bit tough to encode a 100,000@ > character string when strings are limited to 65535 characters. >   E I didn't mention this in the other descriptor threads since it would  I just confuse the matter, but in OpenVMS Alpha and OpenVMS I64, there are  @ also "64-bit" flavors of each descriptor.  The "64-bit" CLASS_S : descriptor has a 64-bit address and a 64-bit length field.  D The problem is that some, but not all, routines that accept CLASS_S G descriptor parameters can handle the 64-bit form.  I believe the LIB$,  ? STR$, etc. routines can handle them, but not the SYS$ routines.   B For those who haven't memorized the calling standard, here is the % CLASS_S layout for both 32 and 64-bit    32-bit  0 +----------------------------------------------+3 |  class  |   dtype   |          length        | :0 0 +----------------------------------------------+3 |                  pointer                     | :4 0 +----------------------------------------------+   64-bit  0 +----------------------------------------------+3 |  class  |   dtype   |         must be 0      | :0 0 +----------------------------------------------+3 |                 must be -1                   | :4 0 +----------------------------------------------+3 |                 length                       | :8 0 |--                                          --|0 |                                              |4 +----------------------------------------------+ :160 |                 pointer                      |0 |--                                          --|0 |                                              |0 +----------------------------------------------+  H They are designed in such a way so code can tell them apart at run-time.  A To the best of my knowledge, no compiler knows how to build them  I automatically (it is on my list for Pascal now that I have quad-pointers  A on OpenVMS and know how to automatically allocate from P2 space).      --   John Reagan / HP Pascal/{A|I}MACRO for OpenVMS Project Leader  Hewlett-Packard Company    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 01:49:04 GMT % From: Roger Ivie <rivie@ridgenet.net> * Subject: Re: DEC-C: Null string constant ?3 Message-ID: <slrncngpo7.rhv.rivie@Stench.no.domain>   6 On 2004-10-21, John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com> wrote:F > The problem is that some, but not all, routines that accept CLASS_S I > descriptor parameters can handle the 64-bit form.  I believe the LIB$,  A > STR$, etc. routines can handle them, but not the SYS$ routines.   H Some SYS$ routines do, some don't. It's been a while since I argued withH this, but IIRC $ASSIGN does but $CRMPSC doesn't, for example. I probably	 don't RC.  --  
 Roger Ivie rivie@ridgenet.net http://anachronda.webhop.org/  -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- 
 Version: 3.12 H GCS/P d- s:+++ a+ C++ UB--(++++) !P L- !E W++ N++ o-- K w O- M+ V+++ PS+? PE++ Y+ PGP t+ 5+ X-- R tv++ b++ DI+++ D+ G e++ h--- r+++ z+++   ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:45:36 -0500 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>; Subject: Re: Display status of network adapters in OpenVMS? + Message-ID: <41786640.44879939@comcast.net>    Joel Loveless wrote: > 9 > To display cluster interconnect status, use the command  >  > $ MC SCACP  " Are you perhaps thinking of LANCP?   --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:15:04 -0400 * From: Joel Loveless <joell@mindspring.com>; Subject: Re: Display status of network adapters in OpenVMS? 8 Message-ID: <etqgn0lj0a097v7tukpjriao9smi7eu58j@4ax.com>  4 On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:45:36 -0500, David J Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> wrote:   >Joel Loveless wrote:  >>  : >> To display cluster interconnect status, use the command >>  
 >> $ MC SCACP  > # >Are you perhaps thinking of LANCP?   F No, SCACP is used specifiy to show cluster interconnect statistcs, SCS@ traffic. LANCP is usefull to display network adaptor statistics,< DECNET and IP. SCACP is very usefull to troubleshoot clusterF communications issues. You can use it to stop cluster communication onC a particular adaptor. I used it one time when a flacky GBIC adaptor ( was causing issues with my GIGE channel.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 00:27:57 -0400 ( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> Subject: Re: ECU disk , Message-ID: <41788C4D.7090405@tsoft-inc.com>   Larry Kilgallen wrote:  _ > In article <cl3bqv$eis$2@newslocal.mitre.org>, lewis@PROBE.MITRE.ORG (Keith A. Lewis) writes:  >  >>Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes in article <UWGjAa7xXsCi@eisner.encompasserve.org> dated 19 Oct 2004 10:04:42 -0500:  >>c >>>In article <cl1i0j$n74$2@hercules.btinternet.com>, "Rob H" <robert.heyes@btinternet.com> writes:  >>> O >>>>Where can I obtain an EISA (ECU) disk for an Alpha Server 1000? Can anyone    >>>>send me a link or the files? >>>>3 >>>That last I knew, that was copyrighted software.  >>> J >>>Those of us who make a living from copyrighted software are unlikely to! >>>be giving away illicit copies.  >>> H >>Larry, didn't each and every Alpha with EISA come with an ECU disk?  IN >>don't think it's nice to expect somebody to re-pay a license fee because the7 >>disk was lost (or wore out) somewhere along the line.  >> > K > You might not think it is nice, but if DEC had a contractual relationship K > with the company that wrote ECU, I think it is proper that DEC (and their " > successors) honor that contract. >   P I've seen few agreements that control the media.  Most often it's the software, Q licenses, and such.  If every Alpha sold included a license or whatever allowing  A use of the software, then replacement media would be appropriate.   J I think the answer is in Warren placing a copy of the software on the web A site/FTP server.  Must mean that Alpha owners are entitled to it.    Dave   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:58:59 -0400 # From: "Dan Allen" <dallen@nist.gov> , Subject: RE: Latest on Windoze Navy software: Message-ID: <JFEPKAPBPMDFDBOIANGDGEGOFLAA.dallen@nist.gov>  ( The C "char" is just a (real) short int.   > -----Original Message-----* > From: Tom Linden [mailto:tom@kednos.com]* > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 9:55 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com . > Subject: Re: Latest on Windoze Navy software >  > K > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:07:57 +0100, Tom Wade <nospam@picard.eurokom.ie>    > wrote: >  > > 9 > > "Bill Gunshannon" <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message ) > > news:2t83nvF1t1choU1@uni-berlin.de...  > > 0 > >> "It's a poor workman who blames his tools." > > 6 > > "It's a poor tool that encourages bad workmanship" > > J > >> I don't know how to break this too you, but C doesn't have a "string" > >> datatype. > > J > > It may not have a datatype called "string" but it has char and char*  	 > > which L > > are used in the manuals (including K&R) to implement what we think of as > > strings. > L > actually, char is a misnomer, 'byte' would be more descriptive.  String isF > also incorrect.  It may be that some people call this array of bytes? > terminated with a null a string, but that doesn't make it so.  > > > > >> There is nothing to prevent anyone from doing strings any? > >> way they please (like, for instance, the UCSD Pascal way).  > > L > > My argument is not that you can't write a good program in Cryptic, but   > > thatM > > sloppy practices like null terminated strings are encouraged, and are the L > > norm.  More to the point, most of the standard RTL calls use this data  	 > > type.  > > E > >> Ye, and long after all this was known newer versions of sendmail G > >> continued to have this problem.  The reason was apathy and not the D > >> C programming language.  How long ago was the weakness in "nullC > >> terminated strings" revealed?  Why do we still have them?  Not C > >> because of C, but because programmers don't really care.  And, ( > >> apparently neither do their bosses. > > L > > So why do we not see loads of applications written in Fortran, Pascal orA > > Cobol demonstrating this vulnerability ?  If you thesis about K > > bad-programmers-make-the-same-mistakes-in-any-language is correct, we   
 > > shouldL > > see equal amounts of vulnerabilities there.  And don't try to argue thatF > > more apps are written in Cryptic than Cobol or Fortran; when the  
 > > oppposite ? > > was the case, buffer overflow vulnerabilities were unknown.  > > 0 > >> No langauge can stop a prgrammer from being > > K > > Agreed.  And people will make sloppy mistakes in any language, but this I > > particular sloppy practice is encouraged by, and largely exclusive to  > > Cryptic. > > K > > In my opinion Cryptic was one of the three most awful things to crawl   
 > > out ofL > > Unix to infect the civilized world (the others being arcane command line- > > arguments and the case sensitive fetish).  > > C > > --------------------------------------------------------------- @ > > Tom Wade             | EMail: tee dot wade at eurokom dot ieC > > EuroKom              | X400:  g=tom;s=wade;o=eurokom;p=eurokom; 3 > > Unit A2              |        a=eirmail400;c=ie 3 > > Nutgrove Office Park | Tel:   +353 (1) 296-9696 3 > > Rathfarnham          | Fax:   +353 (1) 296-9697 @ > > Dublin 14            | Disclaimer:  This is not a disclaimerG > > Ireland              | Tip:   "Friends don't let friends do Unix !"  > >  > >  > >  >  >  >  > --  E > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/  >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:15:10 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> , Subject: Re: Latest on Windoze Navy software, Message-ID: <417826D5.EB337404@teksavvy.com>   Dan Allen wrote: > * > The C "char" is just a (real) short int.  % Which by default is (wrongly) signed.   G One must use "unsigned char" to define characters capable of processing  characters properly.  , (for instance so that '' is greater than 0)  M I alswasy use he /UNSIGNED compiler switch which treats all chars as unsigned  by default.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:10:42 -0400 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> ( Subject: Re: OT: Short Article about Sun, Message-ID: <xMidnazvKOVZiuXcRVn-gA@igs.net>  ( Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote: > Dr. Dweeb wrote: >> David Svensson wrote: >>2 >>> "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in message, >>> news:<K82dnYh-wOJC1ujcRVn-rQ@igs.net>... >>> 5 >>>> ...run bigger databases with fancier graphics...  >>>  >>> ;) >>> D >>> This is a bit sad, Sun was the last company who did something onF >>> their own, and did not bought the PC revolution. Now also they are$ >>> turning into being a PC company. >>> > >>> In a few years, the whole world could run on Linux x86-64. >>> Not fun. >> >>B >> Carley's mantra is that in a few years the whole world will run >> Windoze x86 >> > ; > Thats the amusing thing, a quick perusal of the customers 7 > that HP have won from Sun in their program to migrate : > customers from Solaris to HP reveals that a rather large5 > number have in fact chosen to migrate to Windows or % > Linux not HP-UX or any other HP OS.  > 6 > This is rather like the Digital MS pact being played6 > out all over again with Michael Dell standing in the3 > wings rubbing his hands (the role taken by Compaq 1 > in the Digital MS pact). Dell don't have a cats 4 > chance in hell of persuading customers to let them2 > run a migration from Solaris to Windows or Linux3 > but they do have a wonderfull prospect of picking 3 > up the hardware business off HP once HP have done 2 > the work and the customer is looking to upgrade. > 2 > HP are still in no shape to compete with Dell in3 > the commodity market and moving Solaris customers / > into the commodity space is only playing into  > Dells hands. >  > Hugely amusing    ! Funnily enough, I agree with you.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:07:51 -0400 * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>$ Subject: Re: OT: why USA is a regime= Message-ID: <8NednVjoyak6leXcRVn-uw@metrocastcablevision.com>   : "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message& news:4177E72E.AE824A46@teksavvy.com... > Bill Todd wrote:L > > Indeed, and Kerry's vote and subsequent attempts to weasel around it are5 > > major reasons why I won't consider voting for him  > * > <man, this is tough to resist answering>  ' Well, you just could have tried harder.   L But no matter:  I just happen to have a response at hand, this being an area? that I've followed rather closely for the past couple of years.    > L > In fairness to that vote, at the time, the "official" purpose, as outlined byJ > the Bush regime, was to put pressure on Hussein to fully comply with the UN > resolutions.  I That may have been the official line BushCo. was stringing out, but Kerry H was well aware at the time of the lie it was, yet found it convenient toK play along regardless of the consequences for the country.  As I said, I've - already got a response handy, and here it is:     K The assertion that Kerry voted merely to give Bush a bigger stick to use to L threaten Saddam with might have at least a bit of credibilty (even though itJ would still have been a monumentally stupid move on his part) if a) othersD at the time had not pointed out the grave problems with the Iraq WarL Resolution as drafted and b) Kerry's subsequent actions were consistent with that explanation.    Let's look at the record:   I Back in September, 2002, Kerry supported the Biden-Lugar amendment to the G IWR (as did Dean), which would have gone a considerable distance toward J limiting Dubya's freedom to invade Iraq and toward holding him accountableI after the fact for any chicanery on his part.  Without wishing to go down I too deep a rat-hole, the distinctions between the IWR and the Biden-Lugar D variant have been so widely misrepresented that a quick review seems appropriate (seeL http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A31884-2I 002Oct2&notFound=true and http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=1009 L for additional comments; the update to the latter fails to take into accountA the explicit Biden-Lugar phrasing in subsection (a) noted below).      Biden-Lugar   J [quote](b) Requirement for determination that use of force is necessary. -H Before exercising the authority granted by subsection (a), the PresidentK shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the < President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that -  G (1) the United States has attempted to seek, through the United Nations I Security Council, adoption of a resolution after September 12, 2002 under J Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter authorizing the action describedK in subsection (a)(1), and such resolution has been adopted; or (2) that the H threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons ofG mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so G grave that the use of force is necessary pursuant to subsection (a)(2), K notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution # described in paragraph (1).[/quote]    (The complete text appears at L http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/bidenlugar-resolution-093
 002.htm .)  D Note that since no such U.N. authorization for use of force was everI obtained, Biden-Lugar would have forced Bush, before starting the war, to F provide Congress with his determination "that the threat to the UnitedL States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programJ and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of forceJ is necessary" - a very specific assertion of need (clarified in subsectionL (a) as "the exercise of individual or collective self-defense") for which heJ could later be held accountable and if appropriate impeached.  In fact, inL the absence of such U.N. approval the Biden-Lugar version arguably gave BushE absolutely no authority that he did not already hold by virtue of the ! recognized right of self-defense.      The Iraq War Resolution   B [quote]In connection with the exercise of the authority granted inJ subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise orH as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours afterH exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of? Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his  determination thatI (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful K means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of K the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not E likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security ' Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and K (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States D and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions againstE international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those G nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or I aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.[/quote]    (The complete text appears at L http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/03/politics/03HTEX.html?ex=1082520000&en=fbc2E 3828cadaaffb&ei=5070 ; the first 1.5 pages are standard Congressional % meaningless "Whereas..." embroidery.)   H This resolution merely required Bush to assert that war was necessary toJ protect our 'national security' - itself a rather poorly-bounded concept -B [b]or[/b] to enforce "all relevant United Nations Security CouncilH resolutions", a sufficiently vague grab-bag to make later accountabilityI comfortably nebulous.  Furthermore, it conveniently ignored the fact that H absent U.N. approval, the U.S. had no right under international law (norL under U.S. law, by virtue of the fact that we have ratified the U.N. charterG as a treaty) to attack Iraq for any reason save self-defense against an J imminent threat (a point that was not lost on Paul Wellstone at the time -H see http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_10/alia/a2100413.htm , right at theG end - and which has recently, though regrettably belatedly, been stated  explicitly by Kofi Annan).    I Bush himself rejected the Biden-Lugar variant because he claimed it would  'tie his hands' H  http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200210/02/eng20021002_104296.shtml ). The ACLU held that view as well I  http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n100202a.html ).  Unfortunately, Geppy J forged an arrangement with the White House in support of the unamended IWRL (why, I have no idea), and this placed Kerry in a bind:  now he would eitherF have to stand up against something unconscionable that well might passK anyway (and thus risk being portrayed as soft on terrorism), or cave in and I support the unamended resolution even though viability of the Biden/Lugar I amendment hung by only 2 votes (and thus might well have prevailed had he $ the courage to stand up for it - see8 http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040216fa_fact1 ).  K While 22 of his fellow Democratic senators plus one independent (along with K 140 or so House Democrats, IIRC) had the courage to oppose the IWR when the F actual vote came up, for someone like Kerry this was a no-brainer:  heI dropped his support for Biden-Lugar like the hot political potato that he G felt it was and voted for the unamended IWR, but made a stirring Senate J floor speech about how he would be "the first to speak out" if Bush failedJ to abide by the understanding that an invasion would take place only if anK effective inspection regime could not be reinstated and there was an actual 
 threat to us:   K [quote]Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President E for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass L destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weaponsE inspections.  In giving the President this authority, I expect him to K fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - J to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolutionL setting out 'tough, immediate' inspections requirements and to 'act with ourA allies at our side' if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.   ? If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out.[/quote]   B ( http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html )    D So the question is, why didn't Kerry speak out, as he had so clearlyJ promised to, after Bush's 'failure to do so' had become obvious to most ofL the world (and even to the majority of Americans, who polls showed supportedL a war only with U.N. approval) well before the war began?  He was reportedlyL deluged with requests to stand up and be counted from both his MassachusettsB constituents and others around the country, because to anyone even' half-paying attention it was clear that   ' 1) Iraq posed no imminent threat to us,   @ 2) Iraq did not appear to be connected with our 'war on terror',  L 3) invading Iraq might well worsen the terrorist threat (by energizing theirF supporters, and according to the CIA creating the possibility that theE purported Iraqi WMD would be given to terrorists where no such danger  existed before),  7 4) even the presence of WMD in Iraq was far from clear,   B 5) the Bush administration had been systematically misrepresentingE intelligence in an attempt to build up support for an unnecessary war D (Nigerian yellowcake, aluminum tubes, Iraq/Al Qaeda connections, theE likelihood of an Iraqi nuclear weapon in a year or two rather than by D decade's end at the earliest - those are just the things that springJ immediately to mind, without actually going back to look, which were known" to be spurious in February, 2003),  ( 6) the U.N. clearly opposed an invasion,  K 7) the invasion was thus illegal under both international and (by virtue of / our ratification of the U.N. charter) U.S. law,   H 8) we had been utterly unable to create a credible coalition outside the$ U.N., and, perhaps most importantly,  H 9) the inspectors were back in, on the ground, and working effectively -L precisely the objective that he had claimed his vote in favor of the IWR wasF aimed at achieving so as to [b]avoid[/b] any need for military action.  J Here was Kerry's moment to be, if not the [b]first[/b] to speak out (as heJ had promised), at least a strong voice in support of those who had alreadyG been doing so largely without help from the rest of their party (Dennis L Kucinich, Robert Byrd, John Conyers, Howard Dean, and a very few others withJ whom I should be more familiar than I am).  And yet the best that he couldL come up with was a plaintive request to hold off for another month to try toA build up the kind of international coalition that might help lend G superficial legitimacy to our invasion (as indicated in this form email ' response I received on March 26, 2003):   J [quote]Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts about the war in= Iraq. I appreciate knowing your views at this difficult time.   ? I was deeply disappointed that the Bush Administration made the C decision to abandon diplomatic efforts rather than giving diplomacy E the time and commitment necessary for a real chance of success. In my < estimation, giving the world thirty additional days for real> multilateral coalition building would have been prudent and noC impediment to our military situation - an assessment with which our F top military brass apparently agree. The costs of this failure will beB borne out in the coming months and years as we labor to disarm andE rebuild Iraq and to reclaim the trust of the international community.   @ However, I voted last fall to authorize the use of force in Iraq@ because I believed then, as I believe now, that Saddam Hussein'sF development and possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) pose aC threat to our country and to his neighbors that must be confronted. F Now that our country is engaged in war, it is incumbent upon all of usB to support our troops in Iraq and to support President Bush as our Commander in Chief.   E As the fighting continues, my thoughts and prayers are with the brave F and capable men and women of our armed forces and those of our allies.F I am confident they will successfully remove Saddam Hussein from power? and bring an end to his regime's WMD programs. We must focus on E achieving these goals quickly and with a minimum loss of life on both F sides, so that we may soon get on with the process of rebuilding Iraq.  E Thank you once again for taking the time to share your views with me.   
 Sincerely,  
 John F. Kerry  United States Senator[/quote]     L Kerry has not even come to grips with the war's illegitimacy given 18 monthsI for additional reflection.  His book parrots the PPI's (and DLC's) mantra K that the main problem was [b]how[/b] the war was conducted, not [b]that[/b] ? the war was conducted.  He - in a fashion which many would call B characteristic - has continued to shift with the prevailing winds:  I By the summer of 2003, Iraq, while nowhere nearly as bad as it has become H since, was at least starting to look like less of a 'liberation' than anE unwanted occupation of a country that we had had no justification for B invading in the first place.  And this was not lost on much of theI Democratic party, even those less-than-astute non-activists who had stood H shoulder-to-shoulder with their Commander-in-Chief earlier.  Howard DeanL (and of course others) spoke to these Democrats, and they began to listen in significant numbers.  K This, naturally, got Kerry's attention in a serious way.  While as recently L as the first presidential debate on May 4th he had stood staunchly by Bush's decision to invadeJ  http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000012593), he nowK moved to address this new problem - not by joining the anti-war contingent, I but by trying to give the impression of doing so while actually confining G his criticism to the way Bush had [b]conducted[/b] the invasion and its 
 aftermath.  C Still, he failed to gain any traction.  So by the time the official K announcement of his candidacy rolled around on September 2nd, he decided to L ignore his refusal to stand up to Bush in February/March (voters have reallyG short memories, after all) and return to the unfulfilled fiction of his L Senate speech:  "I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam HusseinE comply with the resolutions of the United Nations."  And he carefullyaI insinuated that he had been seriously misled by Dubya while attempting topK avoid the stigma of having been 'brainwashed' that older readers may recalleI from George Romney's candidacy in 1968 (and those who apologize for Kerry L today seem more than willing to overlook the fact that such a large majorityG of the world managed to see through Dubya even though Honest John couldr not).m  J But somehow the party faithful still just didn't warm to Kerry, and he hadK to be rescued by the party's Republican wing, regrettably aided and abettedEG by a lot of other people who really should have known better.  This aid K began to appear in serious proportions just after Gore and a couple of verypI significant labor unions endorsed Dean, and then a plum fell into Kerry'sSJ undeserving lap:  Saddam Hussein was captured, and Kerry the Hawk suddenlyJ reemerged in full battle regalia in a December speech at Drake University,K questioning Howard's fitness to be president because of his rather sensiblemJ observation that capturing an old man huddled in a spider hole hardly made
 us any safer.o  G Nonetheless, it [b]was[/b] still primary season, and the Democrats were F somewhat less excited by Hussein's capture than the general electorateI seemed to be, so Kerry characteristically tried to have it both ways in asE January 6th Hardball interview.  Chris Matthews:  "Are you one of thehK anti-war candidates?"  JFK:  "I am.  Yes, in the sense that I don't believe A the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely."    Right, John.  ABBsolutely.  I Of course, since effectively capturing the Democratic nomination 7 months K ago, Kerry has moved hard to the pro-war side, recently maintaining that he D would have supported the IWR - and even 'might' have taken us to warK himself, had that been his decision to make - [b]despite knowing everythingaL that we know today[/b] (actually, his national security advisor went fartherG and stated that Kerry [b]probably[/b] would have invaded Iraq, but then J hastily back-pedaled in a classic non-denial denial which simply said thatL he had not been speaking for Kerry rather than that Kerry actually disagreed with what he had said).m  G It's safe now, you see:  there's no more competition for the DemocraticsE nomination, and he can count on nearly all of even the most disgusteddL Democrats to support him, given the alternative.  So there's nothing left toJ do but scoop up all the pro-war votes that he can get:  the only way he'llB be inclined to change his image yet again on the war issue is if aI third-party anti-war candidate suddenly develops serious support, and the J ABB contingent just isn't going to allow that to happen if there's any wayA to prevent it, despite the salutary effect it would have on theire$ oh-so-regretfully-supported nominee.  L All this from the man who stood up in the Senate 30 years ago and questionedL how they could ask anyone to be the last man to die for a mistake.  WhateverJ moral compass Kerry had then seems to have been thoroughly demagnetized in the interim.   (End of handy response)    ...t  E  the way it looks from outside the USA, half the USA population is sorL > brainwashed into voting republican, that it doesn't matter who they put as the ) > president, as long as he is republican.h  G Unfortunately, most of the other half of our voting population (a totalpG voting population which, of course, is well under 40% of the total U.S.iK population:  the majority here recognize just how lousy the choices they've D been given are, and are reacting accordingly) is so brainwashed intoG thinking that replacing Bush (even with someone with remarkably similarrL policies) will fix the situation that they've paid little or no attention toL just how much like a neocon Kerry has become since locking up the Democratic nomination back in March.e  K Sounds as if you might have the same problem.  The brainlessness behind thegG 'anybody but Bush' mantra is that it examines only half of the equationiH before reaching its conclusion.  Would Satan be better than Bush?  Would Hitler?  Would Cheney?  L Once one is prepared to ask, "*Would* Kerry be better than Bush?", one is atI least on the path toward a rational decision.  But not yet at that path's6K end, because while Kerry *would* almost certainly be *somewhat* better thanmI Bush, electing him would solidify the grip of the neocons controlling the A Democratic party to the point where the likelihood of any further L improvement over the little that Kerry offers would be virtually nil (if theJ more progressive elements of the party could get completely stiffed *this*L year, when the party could have fielded *any* decent centrist or even fairlyJ liberal candidate and won in a landslide against the imbecile currently inJ charge, and after a decade of abysmal failure of the Democratic LeadershipG Council's 'strategy' of moving ever-farther to the right, just how muchkG chance will the progressive wing have if the DLC can boast of an actualf win?).  J So the question becomes, "Is Kerry *sufficiently* better than Bush to makeL it worth trading away most chance of actually substantial improvement in theG future?"  When people reach that level of understanding, then, and onlya0 then, is a rational, informed decision possible.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:47:08 -0400s* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>$ Subject: Re: OT: why USA is a regime= Message-ID: <-Z6dnbisUsaWoeXcRVn-uw@metrocastcablevision.com>h  : "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message& news:417831DB.2BF101BA@teksavvy.com... > Bill Todd wrote:G > > That may have been the official line BushCo. was stringing out, buti KerryML > > was well aware at the time of the lie it was, yet found it convenient to> > > play along regardless of the consequences for the country. >bL > This applies to all democrats except howard dean (who was in the sidelines at
 > that time).t  D You're just continuing to demonstrate the superficial nature of yourF acquaintance with the situation.  Kucinich was vigorously opposing theG prospect of the war in early 2002, long before Dean's opposition becamefH visible.  And, as I noted in my previous response (which you might learnJ from by reading more carefully), 22 Democratic Senators (i.e., nearly halfK of them) plus a significant majority of the Democratic Representatives were G sufficiently aware of the problems with the Iraq War Resolution to votet against it in October, 2002.  @  They were affraid of being labeled unpatriotic and went by whatF > the slanted polls said instead of what the reality was. It was a big failingtE > of US democracy that there was no political opposition to this war.-  K No, it was a disasterous failure of the Democratic party leadership:  there H was plenty of opposition from the membership, and significant opposition, from at least a few of its national figures.   ...-  L > In February, Blix revealed at the UN, that *NONE* of the evidence provided byJ > the USA had yielded any traces of WMD activity. El Baradei revealed that the-A > so called evidence about nuclear purchased had been FABRICATED.s  . Both points that my previous response covered.   >oE > But the white house smears against the UN worked and the media justa
 pointed toL > the inefficacy of the UN, instead of questioning the evidence that the USA1 > claims to have but which didn't pan out at all.   L It's certainly true (though outside the scope of the discussion about Kerry)K that the U.S. media were actively complicit in selling Bush's propaganda to: the American public.   >eH > Sorry, but FALSIFIED evidence should have been a trigger for immediate senateF > investigation on the so called evidence the bush regime was using to justify@L > this invasion, especially since it got to a point where the threath became soI > imminent that Bush couldn't wait anylonger and launched the invasion inB march.  L Your use of the word 'sorry' suggests that you think you're disagreeing with something I said.'   >'* > The democrast were asleep at the switch,  L No, they were not, at least not the leadership:  they knew exactly what theyJ were doing, and did it out of concern for their careers instead of concern for the country.  #  the american public brainwashed byaF > the white shouse through media outlets had had become total zombies.  ! That, however, is certainly true.-   > L > The democrats and the USA media are just as reponsible for the unnecessaryC > deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and the systematics destructions > of a country.R  K Almost, but not quite:  while the Democratic national leadership allowed it9K to happen, and the media encouraged it to happen, Bush&Co. are the ones whocJ actually did the deed.  As I said elsewhere, the Democrats should pay withH their careers, while Bush and his major co-conspirators should be tried,K convicted, and pay the highest penalty applicable in the jurisdiction wherepB that occurs.  (And, though I didn't include them before, the media# conglomerates should be broken up.)-  L > > The assertion that Kerry voted merely to give Bush a bigger stick to use toF > > threaten Saddam with might have at least a bit of credibilty (even	 though it-A > > would still have been a monumentally stupid move on his part)2 > I > Fast forward to the democratic leadership race when howard dean was thee onlyH > one morally capable of denouncing the war and was gaining momentum. At thatK > time, Kerry could have chosen the above "escape clause" to explain why hes had J > voted for the deployment of troups with the understaning that they would onlyH > to put pressure on Saddam. He could have then stuck with this one line untiluK > this november, and Bush couldn't have attacked him for it since attackingn thisB > would be tantamount to Bush admitting he had lied about his true intendtionsa! > when he asked for those powers.  >-( > The democratic party was plain stupid.  H Once again, you're wrong.  The party leadership knew exactly what it wasH doing:  it did it for its careers, and for its corporate backers (war isK good for business, especially when it nets you the second- or third-largestOK petroleum producer on the planet, advances American hegemony, and gives youl$ a stick to keep the proles in line).   >nJ > > actual vote came up, for someone like Kerry this was a no-brainer:  heJ > > dropped his support for Biden-Lugar like the hot political potato that heK > > felt it was and voted for the unamended IWR, but made a stirring Senate0G > > floor speech about how he would be "the first to speak out" if Bushk failedK > > to abide by the understanding that an invasion would take place only ify anH > > effective inspection regime could not be reinstated and there was an actual > > threat to us:y >pF > And one has to wonder why he didn't stand up back in january when it becameK > apperant the Bush regime had no intentions of letting the UN process workr andn/ > that they had planned to go to war all along.   E One might wonder, if one hadn't read what I'd already written on that  subject.   >iD > > 2) Iraq did not appear to be connected with our 'war on terror', > L > My aunt from california was convinced at that time that 9-11 was caused byJ > Iraqis who had entered the USA through Canada. That is how good the Bush > propaganda machine was.e  L Your aunt from California clearly was as poorly-informed as most of the restB of the American public was.  But that wasn't because the truth was0 inaccessible to anyone interested in hearing it.   >  >aC > > I was deeply disappointed that the Bush Administration made theeG > > decision to abandon diplomatic efforts rather than giving diplomacy C > > the time and commitment necessary for a real chance of success.t >A >5A > Have you ever been to the www.newamericancentury.org web site ?:  A Of course:  that's why I mentioned it earlier in this discussion.s  I (You do realize that what you quoted above were Kerry's words, not mine?)n  I > > As the fighting continues, my thoughts and prayers are with the bravegJ > > and capable men and women of our armed forces and those of our allies. >1G > Yes, and that was another problem. With both Britain and the USA, then secondK > troups were told to enter Iraq, it became morally impossible to criticisec theu: > war and everyone just had to blindly support the troups.  K Not at all:  that's just the way most people reacted, and had nothing to do I with morality (in fact, morality dictated the exact opposite, and quite ar few of us heeded it).a  J > > Once one is prepared to ask, "*Would* Kerry be better than Bush?", one is at 1 > > least on the path toward a rational decision.v > * > At this point, it doesn't really matter.  
 Yes, it does.c  $  Bush is a war criminal. He must notJ > be allowed to stay in office, and americans must send a clear message to the L > rest of the world that they do not tolerate people like Bush who have lied to0 > the american public on such important matters.  I We'll decide what we 'must' do on our own, thank you.  Some of us have noeL interest in sacrificing our hopes for a better future (for both us *and* theK rest of the world) just to 'send a message' to the rest of the world simplyoK because they're too ignorant to understand how electing Kerry could imperils9 that future quite possibly more than electing Bush could.    >o  > Kerry does not have an agenda.  E Yes, he does:  once again, you clearly haven't been paying sufficient 
 attention.  .  His policies just try to match what he thinks5 > the american public will buy so he can get elected.   L Not at all.  If his policies were aimed at matching what the American publicH wanted, he'd be advocating universal health care, a return to a balancedG budget, withdrawal from Iraq ASAP, and a whole bunch of other desirablepL goals that are hardly 'liberal' in nature but straight down the center.  And he'd be winning in a landslide.a  L Instead, his agenda is to use the Bush boogeyman to allow him to move as farG right, and as far toward the interests of his corporate sponsors, as he H possibly can and still get elected.  Why else do you suppose he's havingF such a close race against an incompetent, obnoxious buffoon like Bush?    He wans to be as "grey" as K > possible as to not offend anyone and attract as many moderate republicans  as possible.  J That, too.  But don't mistake that for lack of an underlying agenda:  it's8 just one far more prudent to keep as hidden as possible.   >eK > Also, consider that the democratic party made a conscious decision not topL > oppose the war back in 2003. Democrats, except for Dean, have to live with > that decision.  L Kerry (and other national Democrats) have made a lengthy string of *choices*F to live with that decision.  Every time another whopping lie surfaced,J they've had the opportunity to say "Hey, that changes *everything*!" - and refused to do so.e   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 00:22:41 -0400 ( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>' Subject: Re: Question about Descriptors2, Message-ID: <41788B11.7060603@tsoft-inc.com>   Larry Kilgallen wrote:  Y > In article <41753908.6080304@tsoft-inc.com>, David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:F >  > Q >>I've heard, somewhere in the past, that when re-setting the value of a dynamic  S >>string, that if the new data is larger, then the existing memory is released and -Q >>a new block of memory of sufficient size is acquired.  If smaller, the size of oS >>the data is set and the rest of the memory ignored.  I'm guessing that if that's .Q >>so, that the memory would be in a location that is all released when the image rH >>is run down.  Still, a long running program would be 'leaking' memory. >> > H > It should be returning it to the available pool managed by LIB$GET_VM.D > When enough adjacent small fragments are available, they magically/ > become a larger fragment, suitable for reuse.  >   H I wrote the above before some of the DEC compiler people mentioned that K compilers/RTLs that supported descriptors kept 'hidden' data on the actual cM allocated memory.  Still learning.  :-)  Once that is known, then it's clear UE that everything required for discrete release of memory is available.>   Interesting subject.   Dave   -- t4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Roadh Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 00:24:50 -0400n( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>' Subject: Re: Question about Descriptorsn, Message-ID: <41788B92.8090907@tsoft-inc.com>   Larry Kilgallen wrote:  S > In article <417548E8.E5B8CC1D@adldata.com>, sol gongola <sol@adldata.com> writes:q >  > D >>Descriptors are not "The Solution" to the problem. They are a way D >>to manage a program. Languages that supported strings worked fine C >>before DEC had descriptors. Even null terminated strings are not  B >>the problem. The problem is in the coding practice where simple E >>checks are not being performed to prevent undesirable data overlayst) >>including buffer overrun type problems.e >> > D > The problem is people with computers who are unwilling to automateC > mundane tasks.  There have been languages with support for takingrA > care of string length details (Pascal, PL/I, Ada -- in order of D > participation of proponents in this discussion :-) for years.  ButD > some people insist on "bare-metal" programming in C-like languagesD > for no good public reasons (but possibly good private reasons like( > a cost-overrun payment on a contract). >   = You forgot BASIC, which may be the best at string processing.n  > Careful with the conspiricy theories.  Ammunition for JF.  :-)   Dave   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Roade Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------    Date: 21 Oct 2004 18:18:49 -0700. From: spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman)G Subject: Re: Routine to Resubmit print/batch entries from queue listingd< Message-ID: <b096a4ee.0410211718.e4b8c65@posting.google.com>  h "Fred Hoenisch" <Fred.Hoenisch@gems9.gov.bc.ca> wrote in message news:<4176d7f6$1@obsidian.gov.bc.ca>... > Thank you all: > J > I extracted the DISPLAY_JOBS.COM section from the HP link as per Peter'sI > suggestion, and it worked 99.9%.  For some reason, the generated submityL > statements missed (in all cases) the closing quotation marks following theD > /AFTER="dd-mmm-yyyy hh:mm.ss" parameter and the /NAME="<job name>" > parameter. > H > It took me a while (because the number of quotes in the routine lookedH > fine), but eventually found that the problem goes away if you keep the8 > F$GETQUI command all on a single line (is this a bug)? >  > For example,
 >     Change:t > 1 >     $ SAY " /NAME = ''F$GETQUI("DISPLAY_JOB", -t >  >     "JOB_NAME",, FLAGS )' -" >  >     To > H >     $ SAY " /NAME = ''F$GETQUI("DISPLAY_JOB", "JOB_NAME",, FLAGS )' -"    @ You can't interrupt a quoted string with a continuation hyphen.    From the User's Manual:i   OpenVMS User's Manualy   [...]u  ! 14.6.1 Defining Character StringstD You can define a character string by enclosing it in quotation marksE (" "). In this way, alphabetic case and spaces are preserved when the,. symbol assignment is made. Note the following:  D To include quotation marks (") within a string, type two consecutive quotation marks.C To continue a character string over two lines, use a plus sign (for 6 string concatenation) and a hyphen (for continuation).  @ You cannot use the hyphen continuation character within a quoted	 characteriJ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   string.  ^^^^^^^3   [...]0   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:48:35 -0500o2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>1 Subject: Re: Samba 2.2.8 for OpenVMS, new releaser+ Message-ID: <417866F3.1B9FF3C2@comcast.net>i   Jean-Franois Pironne wrote:e > B > A new release of Samba 2.2.8 for OpenVMS has just been released.K > Download and information from http://www.pi-net.dyndns.org/anonymous/jyc/e > R > This port is actively maintained by Jean-Yves COLLOT and some others volunteers.  & Is there a later release in the works?  = ...and is there an example config. file better suited to VMS?   F I cooked up a way to package the distro. so it installs the executableE from object code on a CD-ROM, and OPTIONALLY installs the source. I'drH like to get that into a working configuration sometime this winter so ifH I get sessions accepted at the HP Tech Forum in New Orleans next year, I& can pass out the CDs at my session(s).   -- e David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:)" http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/o   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 07:03:40 +0200/1 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Pi=E9ronne?=)1 Subject: Re: Samba 2.2.8 for OpenVMS, new releaseu7 Message-ID: <417894b3$0$28583$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>r   > Jean-Franois Pironne wrote:t > B >>A new release of Samba 2.2.8 for OpenVMS has just been released.K >>Download and information from http://www.pi-net.dyndns.org/anonymous/jyc/r >>R >>This port is actively maintained by Jean-Yves COLLOT and some others volunteers. >  > ( > Is there a later release in the works? > @ > ....and is there an example config. file better suited to VMS? > H > I cooked up a way to package the distro. so it installs the executableG > from object code on a CD-ROM, and OPTIONALLY installs the source. I'd J > like to get that into a working configuration sometime this winter so ifJ > I get sessions accepted at the HP Tech Forum in New Orleans next year, I( > can pass out the CDs at my session(s). >   3 You can subscribe to the samba-vms mailing list at  L http://lists.samba.org/listinfo/samba-vms, this will, probably, be the best  place to ask such questions.& It is a very low traffic mailing list.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:02:09 -0700n From: Z <z@no.spam>e2 Subject: Re: SYS$TIMEZONE_RULE logical not defined0 Message-ID: <10ng5dbl28g59b9@corp.supernews.com>   David J Dachtera wrote:l > D'ya get a dump?  * Yup... Machine check while in kernel mode.  ' System was up for > 400 days, now this.g   ------------------------------  + Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:09:20 +0000 (UTC)n6 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)2 Subject: Re: SYS$TIMEZONE_RULE logical not defined1 Message-ID: <newscache$ewcy5i$2a41$1@news.sil.at>o  e In article <RiPdd.1322$mb.63@news.cpqcorp.net>, hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com (Charlie Hammond) writes:t2 >In article <newscache$1tkw5i$zmz$1@news.sil.at>, 9 >peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER) writes:r >s@ >>So, you saw a reboot causing the lost of the timezone logical.C >>Now ask yourself why a boot didn't set it and consider installing0E >>the equivalent of VMS732_TDF for V7.3 (or upgrade to V7.3-2 before)p >s! >Did I miss-understand something?n   Maybe. Or maybe it was me ;-)   @ >I thought the reboot apparently restored the lost logical name.  J And I thought the machine was up for a long time and recently got problemsG with the missing logical. And the reason was the crash/reboot as it was $ becoming known shortly thereafter...   -- o Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER % Network and OpenVMS system specialistc E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:34:24 -0500.2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>2 Subject: Re: SYS$TIMEZONE_RULE logical not defined+ Message-ID: <417863A0.2E30BCEA@comcast.net>h   Z wrote: >  > David J Dachtera wrote:0 > > D'ya get a dump? > , > Yup... Machine check while in kernel mode. > ) > System was up for > 400 days, now this.c  ! Yeesh! Always hate to see that...f   -- e David J Dachtera dba DJE Systemse http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:." http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/0   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:21:58 -0400H) From: William Webb <webbww@bellsouth.net> & Subject: Re: What happened with SEVMS?9 Message-ID: <PzWdd.88087$yp.70058@bignews1.bellsouth.net>m   David J Dachtera wrote:w   > John Smith wrote:( >  >>[snip] >  >  > "What happened with SEVMS?"o >  > Doesn't run on IA32. >  > What more needs to be said?a >    Never ran on Alpha, AFAIK.   WWWebb   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 07:54:53 +0800s@ From: Tim Sneddon <first-initiallastname@bsddotinfomedia.com.au>& Subject: Re: What happened with SEVMS?+ Message-ID: <2tr0ihF21u53dU1@uni-berlin.de>g   William Webb wrote:  > David J Dachtera wrote:u >  >> John Smith wrote: >>
 >>> [snip] >> >> >> >> "What happened with SEVMS?" >> >> Doesn't run on IA32.i >> >> What more needs to be said? >> >  > Never ran on Alpha, AFAIK. >    Yes it did. Check here:   :     http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/epl/epl-by-vendor.html  < This is a list (by vendor) of evaluted software. Have a look under 'M' as well.  C SEVMS went to V6.1 on VAX and Alpha, receiving a B1 classification.l  ? From what has been said on this newsgroup by Hoff and others itoD would appear that people weren't interested in the B1 classification anymore. C2 was enough.e  
 Regards, Tim.d   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:44:30 -0500j2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>& Subject: Re: What happened with SEVMS?+ Message-ID: <417865FE.75307041@comcast.net>m   William Webb wrote:p >  > David J Dachtera wrote:i >  > > John Smith wrote:i > >u
 > >>[snip] > >e > >o > > "What happened with SEVMS?"i > >i > > Doesn't run on IA32. > >' > > What more needs to be said?  > >  >  > Never ran on Alpha, AFAIK.  ? Doesn't have to at this point. Alpha is a herring, while Itanicq/ flounders, clinging desparately to the surface.e  0 Meanwhile, IA32 servers continue to proliferate.  H Funny thing... VMware is supposed to enable server consolidation, yet inG many places this has actually fostered server proliferation, presumablytE because now a project does not need to buy its own server, just "buy".G resources (read: a VMware instance) on any server in the company havingr available resources.  D That's another thing the market repeatedly proves yet VMS managementD doesn't understand: affordable means more sales. The less affordableF (read: cost-justifiable) the product, the lower its sales numbers willD be. Lower sales = lower revenue, lower volume. Lower volume = higher5 cost per unit = slimmer profits = expendable product.e  F ...and y'know what "the bitch" is? I'm an idiot and I understand that.D These people are (supposedly) educated people, yet it remains beyond their grasp.   Go figure...   -- r David J Dachtera dba DJE Systemsc http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:s" http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/b   ------------------------------    Date: 21 Oct 2004 21:06:37 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)e& Subject: Re: What happened with SEVMS?3 Message-ID: <8oD9CTnUhOmf@eisner.encompasserve.org>a  ` In article <417865FE.75307041@comcast.net>, David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> writes: > William Webb wrote:  >> e >> David J Dachtera wrote: >> b >> > John Smith wrote: >> > >> >>[snip]a >> > >> >  >> > "What happened with SEVMS?" >> > >> > Doesn't run on IA32.c >> >  >> > What more needs to be said? >> > >> p >> Never ran on Alpha, AFAIK.t > A > Doesn't have to at this point. Alpha is a herring, while Itanicr1 > flounders, clinging desparately to the surface.i > 2 > Meanwhile, IA32 servers continue to proliferate.  K What mandatory access control implementations are validated at B1 on IA32 ?    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:33:13 -0400e- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>g& Subject: Re: What happened with SEVMS?, Message-ID: <41787F60.75713CA1@teksavvy.com>   Larry Kilgallen wrote:M > What mandatory access control implementations are validated at B1 on IA32 ?e   That is not the issue.  L The issue is that Sun now has bragging rights about very secure systems used by the military.  J VMS used to have such bragging rights, with mention fo VMS used on mission? critical military msisions. That gave it an exclusive position.n  N But now, if even Sun can claim this,  VMS no longer has any edge, and the fact> that VMS no longer has SEVMS means even fewer bragging rights.  @ This is all about strategy for bragging rights (aka: marketing).  L There are projects which may not result in standa alone profits for that oneO project, but whcih are stretegic for the success of the produc line as a whole.i   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.586 ************************would have been prudent and noC impediment to our military situation - an assessment with which our F top military brass apparently agree. The costs of this failure will beB borne out in the coming months and years as we labor to disarm andE rebuild Iraq and to reclaim the trust of the international community.   @ However, I voted last fall to authoriz.<HxP)žQ޳#G<*Db˶
R#m6 {9"i"i"i7긳㮴CZNQ՟Oڪ>~uϫz58'EzGzEdTjU7WP'q(u%ғ㷾͛{ؕuKQ'$xe-Xl[C"l.DyfA==VaGm?
;o}5뻉KCLۆyNc1h{P)%WVbN%s#o {eiNB!W.ZFV-вVVUIXaPs^mXyp}Bka~$A{m[좻żAFecP2~veVdv-ٟf8jggE.E?954jtX♞:SEvy9{<vB?k'F;B>3ތ?<6n\	^NxǕ͈+-lΗQ^!Amx0z7ѻǧ;y\ٌ>xͰ&5yʼם&]ǻdģ؞F7]ӛ>1|CMMQIdKxH_"T9gҕmͿHW_7k,f(c9mFmؘ&Bm>Z0'N{3duf;]l-ow]^DW
{UѮ쵓lG/+/YL;I>jJ=zX5;d3,w&NW-dɍ+3ʣ|b[*
_9.>Y{msQ"FXfAڏbYmRۭ$VD#D.Gݓj6U!J_Yekf/,yk,
M __Xjwۘu\.<Ld+ʦ	}ēGl&ӹJ7DEE"CFʛ4ER{lBQȤ}|Wڼ{bv%MG|o&Z
xxG:ȳ*48xxĿ2q|3{sM15k5)`=nBC}Zp4
w^tٙµsW範<eNkfV dy2_{hgjT՘g3VW-@ĨՖ*VԴE+PTLP19=l002]X~&@;2ƏUuEo| 497WϳMgޑZqAvJ"Hx˼FXt:~aMD;WGJ>C&b%jR!2&̇Uq|AFtOn	 ϧ)
K4x{[-5kӯw4iEo߅XQ!\&έK_mMiQ](3W@3Po3FAFN^P'5S8:!53
Է/m^AqDƃ|w
qZkf3Y]8O
n&ӊ*~)qb6xpgL_&|
KL1@\iJU7xNY<G<'֍'<.z+biaPwٴ;>>/wƉ1w*rUِY/0GBg4kyYнHI|$~<EQ9zN)e@;9',%ť=~XVLp+|5erj'[(9k,duwl2JAUX"#+?Ii##RxUQo
"#~w^'{>[t	{VI=3mF>^Bakq?nT^FY=g(XhPQdbmIZXSud-.vV3hr崖V/khaMm+pϚdmlVd(DA]*ۋn^묥JRH6TPA6]_v9mۨ& \pqB6'GOQy_WD$\ЩxW[q@
fNMQ5ߜ'(ڙ-2m
 _F缥5E<Kdpojt[$vqǵ]:ր(RC-t8]l3Xg|߁7ޙֱ߁0L\(rvv)COtm>C=yf0	L^