1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 12 Sep 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 507       Contents:2 Re: I'm giving up computers if this is the future.2 Re: I'm giving up computers if this is the future.2 Re: I'm giving up computers if this is the future.2 Re: I'm giving up computers if this is the future.2 Re: I'm giving up computers if this is the future.2 Re: I'm giving up computers if this is the future.2 Re: I'm giving up computers if this is the future.2 Re: I'm giving up computers if this is the future.2 Re: I'm giving up computers if this is the future.2 Re: I'm giving up computers if this is the future. Re: Impersonate  Re: Impersonate  Re: Impersonate # Re: Marketing of tech into campuses # Re: Marketing of tech into campuses # Re: Marketing of tech into campuses ; smbd serves connects only when ran in interactive mode (-i) P Re: Status of PL/I on Itanium (Was: Re: Canada's Equitable Life begins         mG Re: TSM hates my DECnet version (Was: TSM won't accept my circuit name) G Re: TSM hates my DECnet version (Was: TSM won't accept my circuit name)  VMSKITBLD.COM failure " Re: why mainframes are still used?  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 14:18:55 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> ; Subject: Re: I'm giving up computers if this is the future. , Message-ID: <4143418E.46DC56C1@teksavvy.com>   David Froble wrote: M > HA HA!  Reminds me a bit of my son when he had trouble getting an inkjet to M > work.  I think it may have already been broken, but he grabbed the printer, Q > raised it over his head, and propelled it rapidly toward the floor.  Oh, and he R > works out at a gym almost every day, so when I say rapidly, I mean VERY rapidly.  E Any damage to the floor ?  That's what I would be concerned about ;-)    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 02:19:20 -0400 3 From: Undisclosed <nomail@dontbeaweaselspammer.com> ; Subject: Re: I'm giving up computers if this is the future. 0 Message-ID: <Mcqdnfs4Ovv0d97cRVn-gw@comcast.com>   Mike Bartman wrote:   E > I have.  PCI is better, with the newer MBs, but it isn't perfect.    > G > The first things I listed were mostly problems with the IBM PC.  Some D > of them have been improved considerably in the last 20 years, some
 > haven't.   true enough.  C >>everyone uses PCI and the derivatives now. Even Apple(!) and Sun.  >  > < > That's not because it's better.  It's just more available.  H better alternatives don't matter for anything but niche markets if they  aren't open.  
 ISA was open.    PCI is fairly open.   H >>>How about the whole "can't address a drive over xxx megabytes" thing?D >>>(that we went through more than once as drives *continued* to getE >>>bigger...like nobody thought that would happen after the first two H >>>times and came up with a scheme that wasn't closed-ended???)  And allF >>>the various ways different companies came up with to get around it? >>& >>is there a generic solution to this? >  > C > Yeah, if you design things properly.  The culprit is fixed length G > fields in data structures.  That may have been necessary 30 years ago F > due to limited memory and CPU power, but there's not much excuse forG > it today.  If you need still more speed than the CPU can manage (find F > this hard to believe...), use variable length fields to describe theF > drive, and self-modifying code when you mount the drives...write theG > fixed length version as you need it; once you know what sizes you are D > dealing with on the particular drive in question.  Don't hard codeC > them into the EPROMS and standards, and then run into a wall when H > drives exceed the limits set by this, and then play all sorts of games< > trying to get around them...just fix the problem up front!   interesting.  I >>AMD-64 adds a comfortable number of registers. It's not the SPARC with  $ >>32 GP registers, but it's not bad. >  > F > While it may be compatible with the Intel 80x86 family, it isn't theG > Intel 80x86 family, so it doesn't change my complaints with the Intel  > 80x86 family.    true enough.   >>At least the non-real-mode >>F >>>addressing has gotten rid of that rediculous segmented memory modelH >>>and the pain and suffering it exacted...you couldn't even compare twoE >>>pointers without "normalizing" them first (stuffing as much of the 2 >>>address into the segment register as possible). >>E >>dude, segments have been dead for everything but control by the OS   >>kernel itself since the 386. >  > D > No, not really.  The 80486 and MS-DOS (and early Windows versions)F > used real mode too, and had the segment problems, and I suspect thatF > the current Pentium 4 still has them in there too...though I haven't@ > tried to program an Intel chip at that level since the PentiumF > days...I let the compilers worry about it these days and don't writeE > any boot code.  As I said, going virtual and using the "flat model" E > eliminated them, but they are still there in the CPUs if you aren't  > using that mode of operation.   D I was thinking of Linux, which has been all flat-mode, all the time  since forever.  G regardless, the problem had been fixed by Intel by adding flat mode to   the 386.  H the rest of it is more of a problem with MS software not upgrading than  the architecture.     G >>>And the flash upgrades of motherboards that, if anything goes wrong, H >>>leaves you with a dead bit of chip-jewelry?  How about a ROM with theE >>>flash program in it and a reset so you can try again to load a new B >>>BIOS???  That one's not IBM's fault...they didn't have a way to5 >>>upgrade the BIOS without plugging in a new chip...  >>F >>if you are buying a server or high-end PC, you can get one with two B >>flash memories full of BIOS. One dies - you switch to the other. >  > F > That there are options on some systems, if you spend enough on them,3 > doesn't change the fact that PCs have problems...    why?  F some people don't flash their firmware often enough to justify having = two BIOS's and can deal with the wait for getting a new BIOS.   5 most people don't ever flash their firmware, in fact.   * you have the option of getting it, or not.    it's not particularly expensive.   >>ahh, a hardware geek. ;) >  > G > No, I'm a programmer...but software has to run on hardware to get any G > real speed out of it...and as a computer owner and user, I do tend to 1 > pay attention to hardware and its capabilities.   
 same here.  * >>never heard of those machines, actually. >  >   > You're under 30, aren't you?     jawohl!   $ >You're one of those people who came4 > along after the Wintel boxes took over the world,   F actually, I was loading games from cartridges at 5 on my C64, futzing F around a bit with BASIC as a 8-9 year old on a Commadore 64, entering G PEEK and POKE commands from Commadore Magazine to fiddle with my games  F at 10, and playing with DOS on my first 386 in-between playing with a $ Amiga while reading about Core Wars.   so I'm a microcomp kid.    so you've never seenB > the other ways it could have been if Joe Sixpack and the BOTASMs? > hadn't perverted the computer revolution.  You don't know any  > better...   I the Commadore 64 WAS the first real mass marketed computer (Apple II was  D more business'y and didn't have the fancy stuff like good sound and G graphics chips required for mass market, and had different marketing -  C Commadore aimed straight for the mass market from the beginning)...   D if it weren't for the demands of Joe Sixpack, I probably would have G never gotten started with this since I wouldn't have had a computer to  
 play with.   what's a BOTASM?  H > [the above is mostly a mini rant...may or may not really apply to you,' > but it's true enough for too many...]   C well, I do try to learn about computing history and older systems,  I although I don't know much about anything before the PDP-11, besides the  F TX-0 that the MIT Tech Model Railroad club worked on and that IBM old % mainframes and 360's ruled the Earth.   H I mean, I'm on a VMS newsgroup... nobody else I know from my generation 7 even remembers VMS as anything but a historical system.   H I first heard about VMS when following the whole Mitnick thing as a kid.  H I'm interested in LISP, which most people think is useless and too old, % and I'm trying to learn ML right now.   E >>as for the expansion bus... ISA is one of the major reasons the PC   >>florished. >  > G > That it had an expansion bus, yes, I agree.  That it had such a sucky F > one is another issue.  IBM tried to fix it with the Microchannel busE > in the PS-2, but the world was already too far down the rackety ISA B > track to switch by that point.  Too bad they didn't think thingsF > through better before they foisted the PC on the world in a mad rush? > of indifference to the whole concept of personal computers...   I Microchannel could have been technically perfect, but it was owned lock,   stock, and barrel by IBM.   4 would you have adopted it if you were a clone maker?  K >>I agree with your general points that the PC, when it started out, was a   >>wretched architecture. >>4 >>but it's had 20 years to rub away the sharp edges. >  > F > Some.  It has improved, but some of the rough edges are still there,A > they are just covered up a bit here and there.  They still show H > through though.  Things like where you can install NT on a disk for itH > to boot properly (first 2 gigs only I believe...due to a limitation inD > the BIOS design I hear), the whole drive letter scheme that limitsD > total drive count (you can get around it sort of with RAID), etc..   "drive letter scheme"?  G are you referring to Windows's stupid "C:" drive crap, or the fact the  6 average PC only can handle a limited number of drives?  I I can get rid of the "C:" crap by installing Linux or the BSD's, and you  B can get around the second by installing another SATA or SCSI card.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 02:24:35 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> ; Subject: Re: I'm giving up computers if this is the future. , Message-ID: <4143EBA3.80F680A4@teksavvy.com>  ! VAXman-, @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote: N > 2 freaking days already of trying to get reflection's file transfer protocol- > to work.  Their support droids are useless.   K But that is still better than what most pointy haired managers have come to W expect from their microsoft weenies who would have taken over 7 days to get it working.   H Consider the employment implications if all the microsoft boxes ended upN working as well as VMS boxes. You'd have a serious unempoloyement problem with< those millions and millions of microsoft weenies unemployed.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:09:04 +0200 * From: Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net>; Subject: Re: I'm giving up computers if this is the future. * Message-ID: <2qip2lFvmu4dU1@uni-berlin.de>   Undisclosed wrote: > Mike Bartman wrote:    <snip>   >>G >> Some.  It has improved, but some of the rough edges are still there, B >> they are just covered up a bit here and there.  They still showI >> through though.  Things like where you can install NT on a disk for it I >> to boot properly (first 2 gigs only I believe...due to a limitation in E >> the BIOS design I hear), the whole drive letter scheme that limits E >> total drive count (you can get around it sort of with RAID), etc..  >  >  > "drive letter scheme"? > I > are you referring to Windows's stupid "C:" drive crap, or the fact the  8 > average PC only can handle a limited number of drives?  F I read that as being the 'stupid "C:" drive crap'. What is worse than G simply running out of letters is the way assigned letters can "float".  G Add another hard drive and hey presto, your CD gets a different letter.   C OK you can nail your CD down to a non floating letter, but you had  H better do that before you install Office or other products which litter 8 the registry with a hard coded drive letter for your CD.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:54:51 GMT " From:   VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG; Subject: Re: I'm giving up computers if this is the future. 0 Message-ID: <00A37C26.459CC109@SendSpamHere.ORG>  \ In article <4143EBA3.80F680A4@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:" >VAXman-, @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:O >> 2 freaking days already of trying to get reflection's file transfer protocol . >> to work.  Their support droids are useless. > L >But that is still better than what most pointy haired managers have come toX >expect from their microsoft weenies who would have taken over 7 days to get it working. > I >Consider the employment implications if all the microsoft boxes ended up O >working as well as VMS boxes. You'd have a serious unempoloyement problem with = >those millions and millions of microsoft weenies unemployed.   J Consider all the prosperity and productivity if all of those boxes worked. --  < http://www.ProvN.com  for the *best* OpenVMS system security=                       solutions that others only claim to be.  --  , Cyber-Terrorism (si'-ber tayr'-or-iz-em) n.:M   The release of, the sale of, or the use of any Micro$oft software product!   --  K VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:42:31 GMT " From:   VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG; Subject: Re: I'm giving up computers if this is the future. 0 Message-ID: <00A37C24.8D116DC7@SendSpamHere.ORG>  V In article <qMG0d.634$7d6.371@fe39.usenetserver.com>, "E.S." <emu@ecubics.com> writes: >VAXman- wrote:  >>  F >> NEVER I tell you, NEVER in a million years would I have had the in-F >> tuition -- even if I had beat myself around the head with that leadF >> pipe -- to click ad nauseum with the myriad variations of the themeE >> that she had me do.  I wish I had some way to have what she had me 7 >> do logged so I could playback all of the insanity.    >  >Why didn't you use kermit ?  D I was setting up to simulate a customer environment and they use the2 reflection file transfer when said problem occurs.  C I would *never* use a PeeCee for terminal emulation.  Hell, I would D never use a PeeCee for anything other than to emulate this customer D environment.  I have ample real VT terminals, DECWindows on monitorsD and a Poerbook which, out of the box, does a fine VT emulation usingD a keyboard with has an alternate keypad which does not have the [,]  and [-] keys fused into one.   --  < http://www.ProvN.com  for the *best* OpenVMS system security=                       solutions that others only claim to be.  --  , Cyber-Terrorism (si'-ber tayr'-or-iz-em) n.:M   The release of, the sale of, or the use of any Micro$oft software product!   --  K VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 09:39:39 -0400 . From: Mike Bartman <omni@foolie.omniphile.com>; Subject: Re: I'm giving up computers if this is the future. 8 Message-ID: <q8k8k0pj11ikgvbeq4k8u027cejlb3tfp4@4ax.com>  8 On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 21:58:51 -0700, Z <z@no.spam> wrote:  G >Didn't VAXstations suffer this same problem? I seem to remember a 2GB  H >or 1GB disk size limit when I rebuilt a 3100 (?) from spare parts last  >year.  E Yes, the 3100 machines have a 1.2gig limit for the boot device.  Once D VMS is up, the limit is gone for data disks, but you can't boot from anything bigger than 1.2gigs.   E I read somewhere a few years back that there was a guy in Germany who D had hacked the boot PROMs to allow larger drives, but I don't recallD the details.  A Google search may turn him up though.  You'd have to@ have your own EPROM burner and a supply of chips to use his code though.     
 -- Mike B.  @ ----------------------------------------------------------------=   To reply via e-mail, remove the 'foolie.' from the address. %   I'm getting sick of all the SPAM... @ ----------------------------------------------------------------   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 10:22:13 -0400 . From: Mike Bartman <omni@foolie.omniphile.com>; Subject: Re: I'm giving up computers if this is the future. 8 Message-ID: <qgk8k0ln239fishlctifnrhlggc22pse3g@4ax.com>  / On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 02:19:20 -0400, Undisclosed ( <nomail@dontbeaweaselspammer.com> wrote:  F >>>dude, segments have been dead for everything but control by the OS  >>>kernel itself since the 386.  >>  E >> No, not really.  The 80486 and MS-DOS (and early Windows versions) G >> used real mode too, and had the segment problems, and I suspect that G >> the current Pentium 4 still has them in there too...though I haven't A >> tried to program an Intel chip at that level since the Pentium G >> days...I let the compilers worry about it these days and don't write F >> any boot code.  As I said, going virtual and using the "flat model"F >> eliminated them, but they are still there in the CPUs if you aren't  >> using that mode of operation. > E >I was thinking of Linux, which has been all flat-mode, all the time   >since forever.   F I guess some people's "forever" goes back farther than others.  To me,8 Linux is a relatively recent addition to the mix...  ;-)  H >regardless, the problem had been fixed by Intel by adding flat mode to 	 >the 386.   F To use it you had to set up a whole virtual memory setup.  There was aB lot of code involved in using that mode...and the processors still? come up in real mode...so segmented memory is involved in every E machine even today.  (if this is incorrect, somebody yell at me about  it!  ;-)  G >>>if you are buying a server or high-end PC, you can get one with two  C >>>flash memories full of BIOS. One dies - you switch to the other.  >>  G >> That there are options on some systems, if you spend enough on them, 4 >> doesn't change the fact that PCs have problems... >  >why?   D The M1 Abrams is pretty much immune to typical highway accidents andE the crew is most likely going to survive any such.  Doesn't make cars 
 any safer.  G >some people don't flash their firmware often enough to justify having  > >two BIOS's and can deal with the wait for getting a new BIOS.  A When I've lost a MB that way there was no new BIOS available.  It  meant replacing the MB.   E I don't want two BIOSes anyway...I want enough code in a ROM to allow D flashing the BIOS, so that if the BIOS gets hosed, I can put it backB myself and not have to go buy another MB (most likely from another company...)   6 >most people don't ever flash their firmware, in fact.  F Most people don't run Windows Update either.  If it had the capabilityE to kill your system, and did so on a fairly regular basis (i.e. often E enough that most people who used it had had it happen at least once), = would the fact that most didn't use it make it ok to leave it  unreliable?   9 I think you are demonstrating the results of the "lowered 3 expectations" I mentioned in another thread here...   + >you have the option of getting it, or not.   E I have the option of getting it, or having a less useful, or useless, B system.  When a BIOS update is desired, it's usually desired for aD very specific reason.  Like you can't upgrade to the next release of@ your OS, or some major piece of software won't work, or your new0 hardware isn't supported without it or whatever.  ! >it's not particularly expensive.   E A new MB is $50-$200.  If you can't install it yourself in your spare D time, it's $60/hour for labor and anything from a day to a couple ofE weeks of downtime (depending on your dealer's schedule).  If it's the D machine you rely on for your daily work, the cost could be very high? indeed (though if that's the case, you really should have a hot 
 spare...).  + >>>never heard of those machines, actually.  >>   >>  ! >> You're under 30, aren't you?    >  >jawohl!  D That explains it then.  Most of those machines were being sold aboutD the time you were learning to talk.  Or maybe before that, depending" on how much under 30 you are.  ;-)   >so you've never seen C >> the other ways it could have been if Joe Sixpack and the BOTASMs @ >> hadn't perverted the computer revolution.  You don't know any >> better... > J >the Commadore 64 WAS the first real mass marketed computer (Apple II was E >more business'y and didn't have the fancy stuff like good sound and  H >graphics chips required for mass market, and had different marketing - D >Commadore aimed straight for the mass market from the beginning)...  @ I programmed a Commadore 64 for money shortly after I got out ofF college (Home Banking system).  It was a toy, but useful for education? and fun.  I preferred the Atari 800...a much more solidly built A machine (physically and in that it had an actual OS with loadable E device drivers just like the big boys) with much faster floppy drives D (the Commodore machines' were the slowest I've ever seen...somethingA south of 9800 baud equivalent...30 seconds to load a half-K BASIC  program???)   E When I said "other ways" I meant things like the Amiga, the Sage, and - the bigger professional machines, like VAXes.   @ If the same thing happened to the construction industry that hasB happened to the computer industry, most contractors would be usingD Black and Decker tools, rather than DeWalt, Porter Cable, MillwaukeeC and Makita...and there would be a lot more cursing on the job sites  than there is now.  E >if it weren't for the demands of Joe Sixpack, I probably would have  H >never gotten started with this since I wouldn't have had a computer to  >play with.   F No, there'd still be toy computers...we just wouldn't be trying to use them for real work.    >what's a BOTASM?   E Back Of The Airplane Seat Magazine.  Those things that top execs read E while they are flying off to meetings, and which they use to override D the objections of their trained IT staffs when deciding what sort of> systems their companies should run because trained journalists? obviously know more about computers than experienced IT people.   F They are why NT took over from VMS and IBMs systems in a lot of shops,E over the objections of the technical people involved who had concerns F about security, reliability, support, scalability, connectivity, etc..C The managers read that "everybody" was going to NT, and they didn't ? want to get "left behind" with reliable systems, so they forced B change.  It took a few years for this mistake to be proven to be aD mistake, and by then VMS was in a death spiral that continues today.B DEC didn't help matters by keeping VMS stratospherically expensiveF compared to the competition. Linux is looking like the way out, but it? isn't quite ready to take over yet in terms of matching VMS for D reliability and power...though it's getting there, and may exceed it5 in some areas.  It's certainly better than Windows...   I >I mean, I'm on a VMS newsgroup... nobody else I know from my generation  8 >even remembers VMS as anything but a historical system.  E Spread the word!  VMS is still used where uptime and security matter. D Those who don't mind having their data stolen or destroyed, or theirA systems hijacked, can use Windows, but there are still people who @ can't put up with that, and a lot of them are still running VMS.  I >I'm interested in LISP, which most people think is useless and too old,  & >and I'm trying to learn ML right now.  F I never learned LISP.  Saw it in school, but never used it after that.E It's never come up in any job I've had so far.  The closest I came to @ it work-wise was when I worked briefly on a Unix system and usedE Emacs...and the macro language for that was Lisp.  I didn't write any  macros though.  ? I hear the name stands for Lots of Irritating Silly Parenthesis E though.  ;-)  Two of the common function names come from the original D host machine's architecture: CDR (Contents of the Data Register) andE CAR (Contents of the Address Register).  That's about all I recall of  Lisp...   F >>>as for the expansion bus... ISA is one of the major reasons the PC 
 >>>florished.  >>   >>  H >> That it had an expansion bus, yes, I agree.  That it had such a suckyG >> one is another issue.  IBM tried to fix it with the Microchannel bus F >> in the PS-2, but the world was already too far down the rackety ISAC >> track to switch by that point.  Too bad they didn't think things G >> through better before they foisted the PC on the world in a mad rush @ >> of indifference to the whole concept of personal computers... > J >Microchannel could have been technically perfect, but it was owned lock,  >stock, and barrel by IBM.  E Yep, that it would have had to be licensed was one of the fatal blows > to it...but even if they'd made it an open design and free, itC wouldn't have survived.  ISA was seen as too embedded in the market F already, and a new design that was incompatible wasn't possible at theD time.  By the time the PCI came along the 3rd party market was a lotF bigger and healthier and could afford to support two busses during the> transition.  MC faced the same problem that Apple still has inA competing with Windows.  Doesn't matter if you are better, if you  aren't seen as "the standard".  5 >would you have adopted it if you were a clone maker?   F If I could have afforded to support both MC and ISA?  Yes.  If I'd had; to choose one it would have been ISA.  There was already an 4 established market for those cards...and no license.  E >> the BIOS design I hear), the whole drive letter scheme that limits E >> total drive count (you can get around it sort of with RAID), etc..  >  >"drive letter scheme"?  > H >are you referring to Windows's stupid "C:" drive crap, or the fact the 7 >average PC only can handle a limited number of drives?    Both.   J >I can get rid of the "C:" crap by installing Linux or the BSD's, and you   E Your BIOS doesn't use that reference anymore for which device to boot  from?  Mine do...   C >can get around the second by installing another SATA or SCSI card.    Until you run out of IRQs...      
 -- Mike B.  @ ----------------------------------------------------------------=   To reply via e-mail, remove the 'foolie.' from the address. %   I'm getting sick of all the SPAM... @ ----------------------------------------------------------------   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 09:00:37 -0600  From: "E.S." <emu@ecubics.com>; Subject: Re: I'm giving up computers if this is the future. 5 Message-ID: <nwZ0d.772$7d6.284@fe39.usenetserver.com>    VAXman- wrote:X > In article <qMG0d.634$7d6.371@fe39.usenetserver.com>, "E.S." <emu@ecubics.com> writes: > $ >> [E.S] Why didn't you use kermit ? >  > F > I was setting up to simulate a customer environment and they use the4 > reflection file transfer when said problem occurs.  & OK, you HAD to use reflection than ...  E > I would *never* use a PeeCee for terminal emulation.  Hell, I would F > never use a PeeCee for anything other than to emulate this customer F > environment.  I have ample real VT terminals, DECWindows on monitorsF > and a Poerbook which, out of the box, does a fine VT emulation usingF > a keyboard with has an alternate keypad which does not have the [,]  > and [-] keys fused into one.  D I was talking about all the "other" stuff which is builtin in kermit* already like ftp,ssh, kermit-transfer, ...  E If I have a real terminal close by, I wouldn't use any PC's for that  
 either ;-)   cheers   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 09:50:11 -0700  From: Z <z@no.spam> ; Subject: Re: I'm giving up computers if this is the future. 0 Message-ID: <10k8vhlskc60m0f@corp.supernews.com>   Mike Bartman wrote: H >>Didn't VAXstations suffer this same problem? I seem to remember a 2GB I >>or 1GB disk size limit when I rebuilt a 3100 (?) from spare parts last   >>year.   G > Yes, the 3100 machines have a 1.2gig limit for the boot device.  Once F > VMS is up, the limit is gone for data disks, but you can't boot from > anything bigger than 1.2gigs.   J Yet you fault PCs from the same time period for the same basic limitation?   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 02:18:28 -0400 ( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> Subject: Re: Impersonate, Message-ID: <4143EA34.8020006@tsoft-inc.com>   Larry Kilgallen wrote:  d > In article <yLs0d.24224$Of3.1627@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "The KGB" <kgb@tampabay.rr.com> writes: > K >>Looking in the UAF at SYSTEM rights and stuff I see that 'impersonate' is M >>listed.  I  find very little information on it.  Can someone please clue me  >> > B > You can defend against it by demanding that VMS Development make > privilege names more clear.  > B > Others have done that in the past, and the response was that theA > VMS Developers renamed the old DETACH privilege to IMPERSONATE. D > It did not gain any capabilities in the renaming, but it certainly > made things more clear.   I I cannot see that.  To me, and possibly only me, the DETACH priv was for  O allowing a detached process to be created.  What clarity does it gain by being  B re-named to IMPERSONATE?  Stupidest thing they've done in a while.   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: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 03:26:53 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>  Subject: Re: Impersonate, Message-ID: <4143FA38.32D3BC4E@teksavvy.com>   David Froble wrote: J > I cannot see that.  To me, and possibly only me, the DETACH priv was forP > allowing a detached process to be created.  What clarity does it gain by beingD > re-named to IMPERSONATE?  Stupidest thing they've done in a while.   HELP RUN PROCESS /DETACH    J My understanding is that without the DETACH/IMPERSONATE privilege, you canM create detached processes that run under your username and count against your  job quota defined in your UAF.  N With the IMPERSONATE/DETACH, you could create detached processes with /UIC andM various QUOTAS specified, wich is a mighty ppowerful priv since it allows you  more than SUBMIT/USER    ------------------------------    Date: 12 Sep 2004 07:58:42 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)  Subject: Re: Impersonate3 Message-ID: <EGj+2mrP2t9d@eisner.encompasserve.org>   W In article <4143EA34.8020006@tsoft-inc.com>, David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:  > Larry Kilgallen wrote:  C >> You can defend against it by demanding that VMS Development make  >> privilege names more clear. >>  C >> Others have done that in the past, and the response was that the B >> VMS Developers renamed the old DETACH privilege to IMPERSONATE.E >> It did not gain any capabilities in the renaming, but it certainly  >> made things more clear. > K > I cannot see that.  To me, and possibly only me, the DETACH priv was for  Q > allowing a detached process to be created.  What clarity does it gain by being  D > re-named to IMPERSONATE?  Stupidest thing they've done in a while.  G The fact that you just skimmedthe documentation is a sample of why they G changed the name.  The security consideration of DETACH was always that A the user could create a detached process _running_under_any_UIC_.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 14:11:56 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> , Subject: Re: Marketing of tech into campuses, Message-ID: <41433FEB.F466CDD2@teksavvy.com>   Fabio Cardoso wrote:C > OpenVMS would become a campus operating system again if HP donate E > pairs of Itanium servers and a suite of products/development to the  > universities.   I Nop. 3 machines at bare minimum in order to form a workable clusters with L proper understanding of quorum. Remember that where VMS still has an edge isL with clustering, so the owner of VMS must pitch VMS as the best platform for9 the univessity to use to teach students about clustering.   M And the owner of VMS would also be well advised to provide teaching materials N and even lead a "visiting professor" (aka: VMS ambassador) for a few hours perN week to provide lecture on VMS and clustering, at least until the university'sI own faculty not only have learned the stuff but are also on side and have  stopped naysaying VMS.   ------------------------------    Date: 12 Sep 2004 06:07:48 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski), Subject: Re: Marketing of tech into campuses= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0409120507.52d475a3@posting.google.com>    "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> wrote in message news:<FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB3E0341@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>...i  2 ok, now when is HP going to do this in the states?% This should have been done years ago!e   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:33:07 -0400r# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>i, Subject: Re: Marketing of tech into campuses, Message-ID: <z-udnVY1OfCo8dncRVn-rw@igs.net>   Bob Ceculski wrote:t4 > "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> wrote in message >fL news:<FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB3E0341@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>. .. >t4 > ok, now when is HP going to do this in the states?' > This should have been done years ago!m    ) You can't force a drunk to stop drinking.n  F You can take that as a comment about DEC/ChumHPaq and/or university CS departments as you see fit.    ------------------------------    Date: 12 Sep 2004 01:08:28 -0700 From: abord@chek.com (Ashot)D Subject: smbd serves connects only when ran in interactive mode (-i)= Message-ID: <60cc41fe.0409120008.42d2fa26@posting.google.com>-  F I recently installed the newly released vms samba 2.2.8 build 20040908 (openVMS 7.3/TCPIP 5.1 ECO 5).  C After simple configuration (public share, map to guest etc.). I was  able@ to connect successfully with SMBCLIENT to the VAX share from VAX _itself,B and it also appeared in the Network Neighborhood and I was able to connect F _from VAX to WIN98 shares. However the other way around from WIN98 _to VAXtF share results in WIN ERROR 54: network busy, or insuficient resources.  E After long and painstaking insvestigation and numerous RFMs, I didn'tI find? any inconsistency in the config and general settings.  The logs  suggest thatC when receiving external (WIN98) request smbd fails to obtain socket, (claiming 00? is the last call before socket mess -- getpeername failed), andm subsequently fails to serve the request.   C Finally I tried to start smbd in interactive mode (-i) (well, after 
 disabling itswD service from tcpip, defining tmp and tempdir as in smbd_startup.com) from the SYSTEM account:  $ MC SAMBA_EXE:SMBD "-id5"  D and  miraculously I was able to connect from WIN98 _to the VAX share
 and use itF successfully ( well dramatically slower than FTP, still functional). I. also works interactively without debug option.  B However it would still not serve the connects when ran as an tcpip service.  E Does anybody have ideas what could be the obstacle/difference in thiso case. F I tried to look into quota and priority settings, but can't understand what to B tweak if it uses the same SYSTEM account in both modes). Any known* issues with sockets under TCPIP 5.1 ECO 5?  F BTW: the system is vanilla vms7.3 install, so the original quotas etc. are at their defaults.t  ) I would appreciate all relevant opinions.v   AB   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 02:05:28 -0400g( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>Y Subject: Re: Status of PL/I on Itanium (Was: Re: Canada's Equitable Life begins         m , Message-ID: <4143E728.5090605@tsoft-inc.com>   Tom Linden wrote:    >  >>-----Original Message-----1 >>From: David Froble [mailto:davef@tsoft-inc.com]e* >>Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 8:56 PM >>To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.ComeJ >>Subject: Re: Status of PL/I on Itanium (Was: Re: Canada's Equitable Life >>begins moving off VMS) >> >> >>John Smith wrote:o >> >> >>>Bob Ceculski wrote: >>>o >>> 2 >>>>"Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> wrote in message9 >>>>news:<NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECICEEKDMAA.tom@kednos.com>...n >>>> >>>>I >>>>>We are planning to start a port in Q1 2005 and expect to take 6 to 9 H >>>>>months to get to a field test version.  These plans could change if< >>>>>HP drops Itanium.  Bart, what is your interest in PL/I? >>>>>. >>>>>o> >>>>and what makes you think HP is going to drop itanium after; >>>>commiting all their os's to it?  That would be suicide!t >>>> >>>> >>>eI >>>Not any more costly to sales than announcing the end of Alpha for some  >>>half-baked Intel cpu. >>>t >>>t >>>n >>>aA >>And it's usually easier to do something the second time around.e >> > B > True, but each time you do, you inevitably will lose a number of > customers.  ! That's what they find easy to do.m   -- (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  15486e   ------------------------------  + Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 06:57:09 +0000 (UTC) 6 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)P Subject: Re: TSM hates my DECnet version (Was: TSM won't accept my circuit name)1 Message-ID: <newscache$vm1x3i$kd61$1@news.sil.at>t  W In article <4142823B.5050105@tsoft-inc.com>, David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:gM >Now don't you all remember my advice on using DECnet IV?  Damn kids, always r5 >gotta play with fire.  Then cry when they get burnt.a  F The wrong DECNET_VERSION number is a well known problem of DECnet PlusG V7.3-1 ECO 2. (I'm surprised that it isn't already fixed with a ECO 3).y  J But your recommendation for DECnet-IV is like suggesting "ride with a bike  then you have no fuel problems".   -- t Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGERa% Network and OpenVMS system specialisty E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------  + Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 07:39:36 +0000 (UTC)o6 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)P Subject: Re: TSM hates my DECnet version (Was: TSM won't accept my circuit name)1 Message-ID: <newscache$ll3x3i$6h61$1@news.sil.at>   B In article <04091100463492@antinode.org>, sms@antinode.org writes:* >From: Antonio Carlini <arcarlini@iee.org>> >> The NCL SHOW VERSION is always uninteresting - I believe itC >> has been at T5.0.3 since slightly before forever and is unlikelyn
 >> to change.i >h" >   Ok.  I'm willing to ignore it.   The correct way is to useI   	NCL> SHOW IMPLEMENTATIONr  B >> As for your DECNET_VERSION - something looks seriously hosed toA >> say the least. I cannot find the right notebook at the moment,eB >> but you seem to have a version V5.6 (DECnet) or earlier system. >> a? >> This seems incredibly unlikely - particularly since I assumea> >> you've maanaged to boot your Alpha far enough to be able to >> log in and look :-).   K Well known problem of DECNET_VERSION of V7.3-1 ECO 2. The displayed version K number is way too low. I don't know why there is still no DECNET_OSI V7.3-1 J ECO 3 to fix it (I wonder also why there is no DECNET_OSI V7.3-2 ECO 1) !!  C >   I have dim recollections of DECnet upgrades associated with VMS C >upgrades over time.  This system started out with the first of therD >(Alpha) Hobbyist kits, and has been upgraded with each new one (and< >possibly with one or more non-Hobbyist kits along the way).  ' Why not upgrade to V7.3-2 alltogether ? ! Kits should not be the problem... . (But VMS V7.3-2 has currently over 20 ECOs ;-)  @ >> Perhaps you have some old cruft lying around in SYS$SPECIFIC:A >> that gets loaded, but somehow causes no ill effects other thane? >> to load the appropriate system cell with this value. I don't 0 >> recall which DECnet execlet does this though.   No problem with old files.  I >   I saw nothing in SYS$SPECIFIC, but I did do an ANAL /IMAGE on all the F >NET*.EXE files I could find in SYS$SYSTEM.  Most said something like: >b4 >      SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]NET$EVENT_DISPATCHER.EXE;1 >u) >        Image Identification Information  >h9 >                image name: "DECNET-PLUS AXP EVENT DISP"o4 >                image file identification: "V7.3-1"4 >                image file build identification: ""8 >                link date/time: 22-MAY-2002 23:03:05.610 >                linker identification: "A11-50" >  >or the newer: > ' >      SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]NET$MOP.EXE;1a >B) >        Image Identification Informationh > & >                image name: "NET$MOP": >                image file identification: "V7.3-1 ECO02"4 >                image file build identification: ""8 >                link date/time:  7-MAR-2003 18:42:55.780 >                linker identification: "A11-50" >e >sF >   A few had some odd-ball "image file build identification" numbers,? >like "X9UH-0060030000" or "X9E9-0060020000", but the stand-outs >suspicious one was:   Show me perfect software ;-)  ' >      SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]NETBIOS.EXE;1a >h) >        Image Identification Informationr >a& >                image name: "NETBIOS"7 >                image file identification: "V5.0-500E"c4 >                image file build identification: ""8 >                link date/time:  4-DEC-1996 19:28:57.610 >                linker identification: "A11-14"  G NETBIOS.EXE is part of PCSA/PATHWORKS/ADVANCEDSERVER and not of DECnet.eK So it looks you have PATHWORKS V5.0E installed which is indeed way too old.o  I >Which appears to be unusually old, as well as suspiciously numbered.  Of I >course, I don't know what it does (if anything).  Some Pathworks thing? t >(I don't use Pathworks.)   7 Yes, PATHWORKS. If you don't use it, then deinstall it.e> More free space, less fragmentation, less backup/restore time, less upgrade headaches/time....l  I >   Is it time for PRODUCT REMOVE (and perhaps a bit of manual DELETE, as ' >appropriate) and then PRODUCT INSTALL?   H To do what ? Install ADVANCEDSERVER ? Or DECNET_OSI ? DECNET has nothingI to do with PATHWORKS. If you want to get rid of old files, then deinstallrJ the corresponding products. If you need to delete file manually afterwardsJ do it BUT WITH CARE (if you don't know which file belongs to which product then don't touch the files !).   HIHe   -- f Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGERg% Network and OpenVMS system specialist  E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------    Date: 12 Sep 2004 07:23:56 -0700 From: alegend@mail.com (Al)g Subject: VMSKITBLD.COM failure= Message-ID: <f486c91c.0409120623.3da249cf@posting.google.com>m   Hi All,p  E I am trying to create a bootable TK50 installation tape off a running'B VMS V5.5, using VMSKITBLD.COM . The system is a fresh install on a MicroVAX II.  D After specifying the BUILD option, the source and target drives, andE leaving SYS0 as the root dir, VMSKITBLD.COM goes through initializing - the tape, and then I get the following error:l  ? %CREATE-E-EDIRNOTCRE, _MUA0:<SYSEXE> directory file not createdS, -LIB-F-INVFILSPE, invalid file specification   and the procedure aborts.d   My questions are: F A) Why does this out-of-the box procedure fail? could'nt find any ECOs relating to this.0> B) More importantly, how do I go ahead with making this tape ?  ' Any advice will be greatly appreciated.e   -Al.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 09:37:00 -0400n. From: Mike Bartman <omni@foolie.omniphile.com>+ Subject: Re: why mainframes are still used?e8 Message-ID: <64k8k0d4rr35i8u3kbgb1rit3iasa2qddp@4ax.com>  , On 12 Sep 2004 01:21:21 -0400, Rich Alderson& <news@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:1 >Mike Bartman <omni@foolie.omniphile.com> writes:e/ >> On 10 Sep 2004 13:34:45 -0400, Rich Aldersonh) >> <news@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:m4 >>> Mike Bartman <omni@foolie.omniphile.com> writes: > B >> Hello again then!  Thanks for the info.  I think the show was a6 >> Fed-Expo in D.C., probably sometime in the mid-90s. >tA >The DECUS trade show.  Spring Symposia, May 1995, Washington DC.   ? That's the one!  You've got a good memory...or good notes!  ;-)   B >> Are Toad-1 machines still being sold?  If so, how much?  DEC-10C >> assembler was actually kind of fun, and I think I've still got a I >> Simila-10 release tape around here somewhere...though it's unlikely toh/ >> still be readable after 24 years in a box...  >eO >The Toad-1 was discontinued as a product by XKL a few years ago, although they.N >are still in use in-house.  XKL and I parted ways about 18 months ago, so I'mO >no longer privy to any plans for future products that might involve the PDP-10h >architecture.  E Thanks for the info.  Hope you are in a better place now.  I'll watch8A E-bay for used Toad-1 machines.  I'm sure they will show up there & eventually!  Everything seems to.  ;-)  
 -- Mike B.
 -- Mike B.  
 '04 FLSTCI  @ ----------------------------------------------------------------=   To reply via e-mail, remove the 'foolie.' from the address.p%   I'm getting sick of all the SPAM...p@ ----------------------------------------------------------------   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.507 ************************nded up O >working as well as VMS boxes. You'd have a serious unempoloyement problem with = >those millions and millions of microsoft weenies unemployed.   J Consider all the prosperity and productivity if all of those boxes worked. --  < http://www.ProvN.com  for the *best* OpenVMS system security=                       solutions that others only claim to be.  --  , Cyber-Terrorism (si'-ber tayr'-or-iz-em) n.:M   The release of, the sale of, or the use of any Micro$oft software pr4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4     4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    	4    
4    4    4    
4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4     4    !4    "4    #4    $4    %4    &4    '4    (4    )4    *4    +4    ,4    -4    .4    /4    04    14    24    34    44    54    64    74    84    94    :4    ;4    <4    =4    >4    ?4    @4    A4    B4    C4    D4    E4    F4    G4    H4    I4    J4    K4    L4    M4    N4    O4    P4    Q4    R4    S4    T4    U4    V4    W4    X4    Y4    Z4    [4    \4    ]4    ^4    _4    `4    a4    b4    c4    d4    e4    f4    g4    h4    i4    j4    k4    l4    m4    n4    o4    p4    q4    r4    s4    t4    u4    v4    w4    x4    y4    z4    {4    |4    }4    ~4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    4    