0 INFO-VAX	Sun, 22 Jan 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 43      Contents:( Re: Email Tadpole for itanium notebooks! Re: ETHERMON for Alpha?  Re: ETHERMON for Alpha? & Re: Extract SYSUAF.DAT into a CSV File Re: Fiber channel on XP1000 ) Re: forgetting my DCL: what am I missing? ) Re: forgetting my DCL: what am I missing? ) Re: forgetting my DCL: what am I missing? H Re: How about VMS:  "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification"H Re: How about VMS:  "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification"H Re: How about VMS:  "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification"H Re: How about VMS:  "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification"H Re: How about VMS:  "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification"H Re: How about VMS:  "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification"H Re: How about VMS:  "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification"G Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification" G Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification" G Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification" G Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification" G RE: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification" G Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification" G Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification" G Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification" G Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification" G Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification" G Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification" G Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification" * How to read tape with wrong file attribute$ Re: Itanium lap tops are needed now!$ Re: Itanium lap tops are needed now!$ Re: Itanium lap tops are needed now!$ Re: Itanium lap tops are needed now!$ Re: Itanium lap tops are needed now!$ Re: Itanium lap tops are needed now!0 Re: LK463 and OS X - Was: LK463 (and Windows XP)  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:55:55 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>1 Subject: Re: Email Tadpole for itanium notebooks! + Message-ID: <43D291CB.D2EF915A@comcast.net>    Martin Heller wrote: > [snip] > Well, B > There's one one vendor who will happily ship you a single systemG > MPP configuration which scales from 200 up to 30000 (no mistake here) ? > AMD Opteron processors, thanks to the HyperTransport links on G > the processors and a special communication egine chip called SeaStar. $ > The system is called Cray XT3 ....  4 Should be one or two coming up on eBay soon, eh? ;-)   --   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/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    Coming soon:& Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:29:58 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>  Subject: Re: ETHERMON for Alpha?+ Message-ID: <43D2C3F5.C93DA650@comcast.net>    Ken Robinson wrote:  > 0 > At 09:00 PM 1/19/2006, David J Dachtera wrote:J > >Has anyone Ported ETHERMON to Alpha? Have a working binary I could beg? > , > Which TCP stack are you running & version.  F Wrong layer. I'm looking for layer 2, not layer 3. (Don't have layer 3F connectivity, trying found out why by seeing what's wrong at layer 2.)   --   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/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    Coming soon:& Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:32:22 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>  Subject: Re: ETHERMON for Alpha?+ Message-ID: <43D2C486.2F5B17B8@comcast.net>     David B Sneddon - bigpond wrote: > ( > David J Dachtera mentioned in passing:K > > Has anyone Ported ETHERMON to Alpha? Have a working binary I could beg?  > > F > > I have an issue where I need to see what traffic a NIC is hearing,J > > because it doesn't seem to be hearing it's own subnet, even though the# > > traffic LED flashes constantly.  > > L > > If I have to DUMP out a file of what is being picked up off the wire and& > > find the packets myself, so be it. > > : > > ...or is there a freeware protocol analyzer for Alpha? > > A > You could try the various DBS-*WATCH utilities from the address 
 > below... > 
 > Regards, > Dave > --D > David B Sneddon (dbs) VMS Systems Programmer dbsneddon@bigpond.comD > Sneddo's quick guide ...   http://www.users.bigpond.com/dbsneddon/D > DBS freeware   http://www.users.bigpond.com/dbsneddon/software.htm  ! Thanx, Dave! Will look into that.    --   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/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    Coming soon:& Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:59:05 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>/ Subject: Re: Extract SYSUAF.DAT into a CSV File + Message-ID: <43D29289.8CF7F632@comcast.net>    "B. Z. Lederman" wrote:  > b > In article <43D041DF.F05B623C@comcast.net>, David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> writes: > >> > > K > > Does anyone have an actual, working link to a DTR record definition for  > > SYSUAF?  > @ >     I just put "SYSUAF_RECORD" into one of the internet search< >  engines, and it returned a number of links.  One of them, > C >  http://vmsone.com/~decuslib/vmssig/vmslt96a/lederman/datatrieve/  > C >     worked when I tried it a few minutes ago. At least one of the  >  other links works.    Muchas gracias.    --   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/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    Coming soon:& Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:37:10 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>$ Subject: Re: Fiber channel on XP1000+ Message-ID: <43D2C5A6.710BA984@comcast.net>    Malcolm Dunnett wrote: > * > In article <ops3ppobsxzgicya@hyrrokkin>,+ >     "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> writes:  > > B > > Well, I bought (on a lark) an HSG80  www.kednos.com/hsg80.htmlB > > and I wanted to ultimately replace the BA356 that is currentlyG > > attached to three xp1000's on shared scsi.  None of these boot from ; > > the shared devices, they all have their own system disk  > @ >    Based on my limited testing with a PWS500 last year I'd say= > that should work just fine. In my testing I found that even > > though I couldn't boot the PWS500 over FC once VMS was up it> > autoswitched the system disk to access it via FC rather thanA > MSCP. So there was no performance hit, the only caveat was that ? > for a FC system disk you'd need to keep a node in the cluster ? > capable of booting over FC (eg a DS10L) and use it to provide = > network boot services to the other nodes. Of course none of  > this would be "supported".  G I take it, then, that the XP1000 and the other machines mentioned don't 
 have wwidmgr?   G Just enter "wwidmgr" at the console prompt and see how it yells at you.    --   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/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    Coming soon:& Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:25:45 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 2 Subject: Re: forgetting my DCL: what am I missing?, Message-ID: <43D2D100.3692785A@teksavvy.com>  / Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote: 0 > $  WWW_NEWTRACE :== 'PRIVREQUEST' 931 NEWTRACE   >    $  privrequest newtrace/3   >    $  www_newtrace/11     E my *guess* is that DCL puts a space. aka privrequest 931 newtrace /11    ------------------------------    Date: 21 Jan 2006 17:36:35 -0800$ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>2 Subject: Re: forgetting my DCL: what am I missing?C Message-ID: <1137893795.722320.292690@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   / Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote: I > This is rather obviously related to the OSU web server, but it's really  > a DCL question.  >  > Consider the following:  > S > $  PRIVREQUEST :== $DISK$SOFT:[HTTP_SERVER_3-10A.'ARCH'.BASE_CODE]PRIVREQUEST.EXE  [...] 0 > $  WWW_NEWTRACE :== 'PRIVREQUEST' 931 NEWTRACE [...]    >    $  privrequest newtrace/3' > then it works fine.  This also works: A The line above is missing the 931 even after symbol substitution.    >    $  www_newtrace: The line above includes the 931 after symbol substitution.   > However, this doesn't: >    $  www_newtrace/11 5 This line includes the 931 after symbol substitution. 
 > which gives I >    error connecting to 'localhost': -1(can't assign requested address )  >  > What am I missing?  F 931: The line with /3 is missing 931. The line with /11 is not missing the 931.  D > Again, though the error comes from the web server, I believe it isD > essentially some detail of DCL I'm forgetting which is causing the
 > problem.   What is the 931 for?   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 21:27:26 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 2 Subject: Re: forgetting my DCL: what am I missing?, Message-ID: <43D2ED7D.BB3EBD19@teksavvy.com>  
 AEF wrote: > What is the 931 for?  > It is a super secret number you're not supposed to know about.  G Management commands to the web server need to originate from a specific @ port. (indicating that the user using the command has sufficientG privileges, assuming the management command is issued from a VMS host.)   S One VMS, to make a call where you specify a port of origin < 1024 needs privileges.   H eg: a TCPIP connection from a knowns host's port 931 to the web server's port 80.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 14:11:46 -0500 * From: "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com>Q Subject: Re: How about VMS:  "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification" * Message-ID: <43d28773@usenet01.boi.hp.com>  5 "Bill Gunshannon" <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message & news:43f31oF1mgom6U1@individual.net...5 > In article <ijqjZEyApUtI@eisner.encompasserve.org>, 1 > Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes: F > > In article <43D16C20.6892.26C1C9C3@localhost>, "Stanley F. Quayle"  <squayle@insight.rr.com> writes:H > >> Gosh, if Windows XP gets the highest level of CC certification, VMS > > I > > Actually it says "the highest level granted to a commercial product", D > > which is quite different that either "the highest level" or "theA > > highest level that could be granted to a commercial product".  > > < > > What are the current B1-equivalent commercial products ? > >  > >> should be able to!  > >>: > >>   http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1901965,00.asp > >> > >> HP, you listening?? > > I > > Of course they are.  Every time I hear Leo Demer gives a talk he asks J > > the crowd "to whom of you is Common Criteria certification important".C > > Every time I have been there the response has been a resounding  > > silence. > > 9 > > HP has been listening.  Customers are not interested.  > E > Which kind of shoots down this notion I kept hearing here about DOD ! > still being a big VMS customer.  >   I Not really.  When you get right down to it, even in it's hay-day most DOD I systems never used this stuff because of the headaches involved.  SUN has K recently created another check-the-box attempt at using their secure UNIX - K like they did with COE.  Nobody in the end is actually going to use it - or B it's features.  However, there *is* a demand to be met in terms ofJ multi-level security that doesn't fit the mold of the old CC environment -! in particular for web interfaces.    ------------------------------    Date: 21 Jan 2006 14:57:53 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Q Subject: Re: How about VMS:  "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification" 3 Message-ID: <cJoiIkbf3nIZ@eisner.encompasserve.org>   W In article <43f31oF1mgom6U1@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: 5 > In article <ijqjZEyApUtI@eisner.encompasserve.org>, 2 > 	Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:  H >> Of course they are.  Every time I hear Leo Demer gives a talk he asksI >> the crowd "to whom of you is Common Criteria certification important". B >> Every time I have been there the response has been a resounding >> silence.  >>  8 >> HP has been listening.  Customers are not interested. > E > Which kind of shoots down this notion I kept hearing here about DOD ! > still being a big VMS customer.    Not necessarily.  H Remember the Secure Virtual System, an A1 non-product that was cancelledG while in field test.  It was an excellent example of following the most H stringent Orange Book (predecessor to Commmon Criteria) rules, developed# by the NSA Computer Security folks.   F While the NSA agreed with civilian computer security experts about theB way to secure a computer, those in the government who actually buyE computers for classified processing were not interested in multilevel C security.  They preferred to declare the "system high" mechanism to @ be in use and buy separate computers for the unclassified stuff.  > So what government departments (including the military) see as> necessary is not going to always be some set of criteria, even* criteria that come from the US government.   =====   G Things might be different if there were a rule that government agencies H had to do something about computer security.  That rule is called FISMA,J the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002.  While the OfficeJ of Management and Budget (reporting to the White House) is responsible forI enforcing the rules, the standards are drawn up by the National Institute I of Standards and Technology (NIST), and I think their Special Publication G 800-53 is an excellent one.  It is scheduled to switch from advisory to E mandatory with the Secretary of Commerce signing FIPS 200 in February B 2006.  It affects federal computer systems, including those run byC contractors, which includes not only military contractors but those ; involved in medicare and other federally funded activities.   F There is some dilution of authority in the case of "National Security"F systems, where DoD gets to make their own decisions.  But they seem toF be following on the FISMA bandwagon, to the extent they make their ownE activities known.  I get 15,700 Google hits today on a search for the  combination    	fisma site:.mil  D Looking at NIST SP 800-53 you will find many items familiar from the2 Orange Book under which VMS got its C2 evaluation.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:39:05 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>Q Subject: Re: How about VMS:  "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification" + Message-ID: <43D2C619.F1B89538@comcast.net>    Larry Kilgallen wrote: >  > [snip]7 > HP has been listening.  Customers are not interested.   0 I guess the same holds true for Linux, etc., eh?   --   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/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    Coming soon:& Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page   ------------------------------   Date: 22 Jan 2006 00:57:13 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)Q Subject: Re: How about VMS:  "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification" , Message-ID: <43g3j9F1nf83uU2@individual.net>  * In article <43d28773@usenet01.boi.hp.com>,- 	"FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> writes:  > 7 > "Bill Gunshannon" <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message ( > news:43f31oF1mgom6U1@individual.net...6 >> In article <ijqjZEyApUtI@eisner.encompasserve.org>,2 >> Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:G >> > In article <43D16C20.6892.26C1C9C3@localhost>, "Stanley F. Quayle" " > <squayle@insight.rr.com> writes:I >> >> Gosh, if Windows XP gets the highest level of CC certification, VMS  >> >J >> > Actually it says "the highest level granted to a commercial product",E >> > which is quite different that either "the highest level" or "the B >> > highest level that could be granted to a commercial product". >> >= >> > What are the current B1-equivalent commercial products ?  >> > >> >> should be able to! >> >> ; >> >>   http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1901965,00.asp  >> >>  >> >> HP, you listening??  >> >J >> > Of course they are.  Every time I hear Leo Demer gives a talk he asksK >> > the crowd "to whom of you is Common Criteria certification important". D >> > Every time I have been there the response has been a resounding
 >> > silence.  >> >: >> > HP has been listening.  Customers are not interested. >>F >> Which kind of shoots down this notion I kept hearing here about DOD" >> still being a big VMS customer. >> > K > Not really.  When you get right down to it, even in it's hay-day most DOD D > systems never used this stuff because of the headaches involved.    C I don't know when you mean by "in it's hay-day" but I have bunch of C of CD's on Common Criteria that I brought back from Ft. Gordon that A seem to hint that as IA becomes more and more important so is CC.   J >                                                                  SUN hasM > recently created another check-the-box attempt at using their secure UNIX - M > like they did with COE.  Nobody in the end is actually going to use it - or  > it's features.    D I can't say for sure, but since getting back into looking at SolarisD again I have seen a lot of mention of Sun's Secure Unix.  Of course,B while I can't speak for DOD in toto, I can say that DA has stoppedD teaching Solaris in favor of Linux.  Not something I consider a good/ idea, but we use the tools they tell us to use.   D >                 However, there *is* a demand to be met in terms ofL > multi-level security that doesn't fit the mold of the old CC environment -# > in particular for web interfaces.   H Well, never worked with the old CC environment but I suspect the currentI Common Criteria is considerably different.  Now that computers come under H Signal Systems rather than Administrative Systems much more attention isH being paid to keeping up with modern technology and that in itself would  require constant updating of CC.   bill   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 20:20:18 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> Q Subject: Re: How about VMS:  "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification" + Message-ID: <43D2DDC5.E5B0DD4@teksavvy.com>    A sideline comment:   H It has just been announced that Symbian (the OS orifinally developped byE the now defunct PSION) and running on 2/3 of smart phones is seeing a B rise in trojan/viri to a point where Nokia will include anti virus software in its phones.   F In one case, a trojan deposits a corrupt file over a system file which8 makes the phone unusable the next time it is powered on.  B Seems that as a platform gains connectivity and the ability to add( software, it also gains vulnerabilities.   ------------------------------    Date: 21 Jan 2006 23:20:38 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Q Subject: Re: How about VMS:  "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification" 3 Message-ID: <RbJOwq+6NhBc@eisner.encompasserve.org>   [ In article <43D2DDC5.E5B0DD4@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:   D > Seems that as a platform gains connectivity and the ability to add* > software, it also gains vulnerabilities.  5 Much less when there is a separate system manager :-)    ------------------------------    Date: 21 Jan 2006 23:26:07 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Q Subject: Re: How about VMS:  "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification" 3 Message-ID: <8rH7YDfEeVKe@eisner.encompasserve.org>   W In article <43g3j9F1nf83uU2@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: , > In article <43d28773@usenet01.boi.hp.com>,/ > 	"FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> writes:   E >>                 However, there *is* a demand to be met in terms of M >> multi-level security that doesn't fit the mold of the old CC environment - $ >> in particular for web interfaces. > J > Well, never worked with the old CC environment but I suspect the currentK > Common Criteria is considerably different.  Now that computers come under J > Signal Systems rather than Administrative Systems much more attention isJ > being paid to keeping up with modern technology and that in itself would" > require constant updating of CC.  E Based on Fred's background, I presumed by CC he meant Character Cell.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 14:55:33 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> P Subject: Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification"/ Message-ID: <11t54cmtqdqbbe@corp.supernews.com>    Stanley F. Quayle wrote:, > On 21 Jan 2006 at 8:05, Main, Kerry wrote: > I >>Imho, while there is no such thing as a 100% secure system, a platforms " >>track record speaks for itself.  >  > G > Track record doesn't seem to be buying us much.  Expensive as it is,  B > being fully "certification compliant" can increase revenue.  If , > Microsoft did it, it must make them money.  G Maybe Microsoft felt it had to do something, worthwhile or not, to FUD  F things up when their customers start asking them about security.  Now F they can refer to the certification and the customers can continue to I think they're in good hands.  Some people will want to believe something  F so much that they'll accept anything that will allow them to continue  believing in MS.   > --Stan Quayle  > Quayle Consulting Inc. >  > ----------: > Stanley F. Quayle, P.E. N8SQ  Toll free: 1-888-I-LUV-VAX5 > 8572 North Spring Ct., Pickerington, OH  43147  USA 2 > stan-at-stanq-dot-com       http://www.stanq.com+ > "OpenVMS, when downtime is not an option"  >      --  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: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 14:57:21 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> P Subject: Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification"0 Message-ID: <11t54g08qrkp82c@corp.supernews.com>   davidc@montagar.com wrote:F >>Track record doesn't seem to be buying us much.  Expensive as it is,A >>being fully "certification compliant" can increase revenue.  If , >>Microsoft did it, it must make them money. >  > ? > That's because they are still trying to build a perception of F > "security".  What with their security push from over two years ago -C > yet the number of exploits found in a given period of time hasn't C > changed much.  They NEED this "certification" in order to prevent   > continued slips in confidence. >   F Yeah, that's what I was trying to say, but didn't do as good a job at  saying.  :-)  = Confidence and security having nothing to do with each other.    --  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: 21 Jan 2006 15:01:51 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) P Subject: Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification"3 Message-ID: <nsbngL6kXI7W@eisner.encompasserve.org>   ^ In article <1137868352.093395.52110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, davidc@montagar.com writes:F >>Track record doesn't seem to be buying us much.  Expensive as it is,A >>being fully "certification compliant" can increase revenue.  If , >>Microsoft did it, it must make them money. > ? > That's because they are still trying to build a perception of F > "security".  What with their security push from over two years ago -C > yet the number of exploits found in a given period of time hasn't C > changed much.  They NEED this "certification" in order to prevent   > continued slips in confidence.  8 Or attempt to slow acceleration down the slippery slope.  = It is not true that everything Microsoft does enhances sales. ? How many licenses were sold due to the presence of the infamous  "Talking Paper Clip" ?   ------------------------------    Date: 21 Jan 2006 15:05:17 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) P Subject: Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification"3 Message-ID: <IlPtZVeEUJNK@eisner.encompasserve.org>   W In article <43fdf7F1nun7bU2@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: D > In article <1137868352.093395.52110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, > 	davidc@montagar.com writes:G >>>Track record doesn't seem to be buying us much.  Expensive as it is, B >>>being fully "certification compliant" can increase revenue.  If- >>>Microsoft did it, it must make them money.  >>  @ >> That's because they are still trying to build a perception ofG >> "security".  What with their security push from over two years ago - D >> yet the number of exploits found in a given period of time hasn'tD >> changed much.  They NEED this "certification" in order to prevent! >> continued slips in confidence.  > F > Most of the public don't deal in confidence.  If they did they neverE > would have adopted MS in the first place.  I would imagine the rush B > to certification is needed to continue their push in gov (and in1 > particular DOD) sales.  "Perception is Reality"   A The one aspect where I detect that the Microsoft culture "got to" A the authors of NIST SP 800-53 is the notion that minimum password D lifetimes is a good thing.  I sent my rebuttal in during the commentC period that ended 21 days ago; I don't know how many of the rest of  you did.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:11:36 -0500 ' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> P Subject: RE: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification"R Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB7D33ED@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----; > From: davidc@montagar.com [mailto:davidc@montagar.com]=20   > Sent: January 21, 2006 1:33 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com = > Subject: Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent=20  > Security Certification"  >=20G > >Track record doesn't seem to be buying us much.  Expensive as it is, B > >being fully "certification compliant" can increase revenue.  If- > >Microsoft did it, it must make them money.  >=20? > That's because they are still trying to build a perception of F > "security".  What with their security push from over two years ago -C > yet the number of exploits found in a given period of time hasn't C > changed much.  They NEED this "certification" in order to prevent   > continued slips in confidence. >=20  @ The impact of testing and QA'ing monthly security patches on the? numerous app's in large shops is a huge, huge cost to any large B production shop with important and mission critical app's. This isH especially true with many med to large shops implementing serious server consolidation initiatives.  H [Note - because of the one app, one server model, the average x86 serverG peak utilization in prime time today is between 5-20% .. Ask any CIO if G they would be satisfied if they got that much productivity out of their  employees..]  G At some point, customers will have to ask themselves if they can afford C any platform with monthly security patches being distributed by the  vendor.   E Course, a Customer could decide to roll our security patches blindly, B but then they likely do not have a mission critical environment to support.=20    Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax: 613-591-4477  kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  4 OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.   ------------------------------   Date: 22 Jan 2006 01:02:37 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)P Subject: Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification", Message-ID: <43g3tdF1nf83uU3@individual.net>  3 In article <IlPtZVeEUJNK@eisner.encompasserve.org>, 0 	Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:Y > In article <43fdf7F1nun7bU2@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: E >> In article <1137868352.093395.52110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,  >> 	davidc@montagar.com writes: H >>>>Track record doesn't seem to be buying us much.  Expensive as it is,C >>>>being fully "certification compliant" can increase revenue.  If . >>>>Microsoft did it, it must make them money. >>> A >>> That's because they are still trying to build a perception of H >>> "security".  What with their security push from over two years ago -E >>> yet the number of exploits found in a given period of time hasn't E >>> changed much.  They NEED this "certification" in order to prevent " >>> continued slips in confidence. >>  G >> Most of the public don't deal in confidence.  If they did they never F >> would have adopted MS in the first place.  I would imagine the rushC >> to certification is needed to continue their push in gov (and in 2 >> particular DOD) sales.  "Perception is Reality" > C > The one aspect where I detect that the Microsoft culture "got to" C > the authors of NIST SP 800-53 is the notion that minimum password F > lifetimes is a good thing.  I sent my rebuttal in during the commentE > period that ended 21 days ago; I don't know how many of the rest of 
 > you did.  C I don't know if your comments helped or not, but the current rumble C seems to be that the whole concept of passwords is being looked at. B The requirement for passwords no one could remember (which resultsD in decreased security as people write the down, usually in an easilyF guessed and located place) is being re-looked at with a strong likeli-E hood that they will opt for much longer passwords with spaces allowed A so that the password can actually be a phrase or even a sentence.    bill   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:40:56 -0800 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> P Subject: Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification"( Message-ID: <ops3rayir2zgicya@hyrrokkin>  F On 21 Jan 2006 18:36:10 GMT, Bill Gunshannon <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:  * > In article <ops3qozjy0zgicya@hyrrokkin>,( > 	"Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> writes:I >> On 21 Jan 2006 17:21:01 GMT, Bill Gunshannon <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:  >>E >>> Did you ever work with Primos?  The only thing that gave it any    >>> securityJ >>> at all was the strange way they decided to do some things and the factJ >>> that no one knew anything about it.  It was designed with obscurity inK >>> mind (why else would they even change the ASCII character set!!)  Trust  >>> me, I've seen the source!! >>) >> Yes, I did Fortran, PL/I, C and Pascal  >  > Wow, another Primate.  :-)7 > And people today think buffer overruns are a problem.  > K >>                                         and they did Cobol and rpg for    >> the	 >> common K >> backend similar, but better and earlier than VCG.  I had sources as well  >> starting 1 >> with Version 15 something up through 19 or so.  > I > Must have been only a little C as I don't think Garth Conboy's compiler H > was available until Rev 19.something Primos. At least I don't rememberH > seeing it at Rev 18. I had the distinct "pleasure" of having to try toE > port whole bunches of Unix istuff to run on Primos.  A much  more   
 > daunting  J Garth's compiler was the one marketed by Prime, we did our own K&R which   was usedL also with a NS32032 code generator for cross-compiling and porting to that   chip  K > task than even doing the same to VMS.  Personally, I did my best projects J > in Pascal (with subroutine calls for things like serial I/O).  It had to, > be about the best language they supported.I All their languages were pretty good, and there was a common debugger for H them all,  my bias is of course PL/I and it was well supported on PrimosH and was certainly more capable than Pascal.  We extended Pascal in the  	 direction H of PL/I, don't remember much of the details ( ord(pointer) some I/O ...) > K >>                                                 I remember once for some 	 >> reason E >> I no longer recall had to look at/modify the tape driver, it was   
 >> written in  >> Fortran!  > K > Fortran, PLI/G, SPL, PMA and later some Pascal and even C.  (What was the & > vallue of a NULL Pointer again?  :-) > K >>           Later they modified PL/I and called it PLP and that became the J >> systems language of choice.  They started out with a very talented crew
 >> many of? >> whom, including Poduska came out of the Multics environment.  > G > When you think about it, one has to wonder about the Multics project. F > When they split up they went in two different directions, Primos andE > Unix.  With such differing ideas of what an OS should look like you 1 > have to wonder how they ever got anything done.   + Some of the better primates went to Stratus  > J >>                                                               Since the
 >> machineL >> was microcoded it could be run either as an accumulator machine, V-mode   >> or  >> as a G >> general register machine, I-mode, which was imposed on Prime by some  >> govenment >> contract, > 7 > It wouldn't surprise me to find out that was us.  :-)  > F >>           accordingly we had two distinct code generators for the   >> compiler 
 >> family.F >> The compiler was largely done by Bob Freiburghouse and I assumed it
 >> relatively E >> late when Itook over Translation Systems from him after he started  >> Stratus.  This G >> was about the same time that Digital licensed PL/I and Cutler et.al.  >> ported it from J >> a Multics host to VMS 1.0  PL/I was the primus motor for Prime securing >> Ford as oneI >> of their largest customers, and ironically it was PL/I on the VAX that  >> took thatJ >> business away.  Ford today remains a big VMS PL/I user, at least they   >> were  >> a couple  >> of years ago. > G > I am amazed at how many there still are and where I find other former F > Prime people.  I wonder how many VMS PL/I users actually were peopleF > leaving Prime when it became obvious their demise was imminent?  VMSD > would easily be the system of choice for any of them as opposed toD > one of the flavors of Unix that were floating around at that time.  E Porting from Primos to VMS would certainly have been easier than Unix C because  of the richer subroutine libraries and they both had ISAMs    >  > bill >    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 21:31:57 -0500 - From: William Webb <william.w.webb@gmail.com> P Subject: Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification"I Message-ID: <8660a3a10601211831g6ebe0e96p4f6825fbff070a16@mail.gmail.com>   2 On 1/21/06, Main, Kerry <Kerry.Main@hp.com> wrote: > > -----Original Message-----3 > > From: Paul Sture [mailto:paul.sture@bluewin.ch] " > > Sent: January 21, 2006 3:46 AM > > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com < > > Subject: Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent > > Security Certification"  > >  > > Stanley F. Quayle wrote:I > > > Gosh, if Windows XP gets the highest level of CC certification, VMS  > > > should be able to! > > > ; > > >   http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1901965,00.asp  > > >  > > > HP, you listening??  > > >  > > H > > Noted, though the readers' comments there were hardly complimentary. > >  > . > So why are there *monthly* security patches? >  > Extract from article: J > "Critics of Common Criteria certification say the ratings are not a trueA > reflection of the secure nature of a product in general purpose J > situations because it does not take every general-purpose situation into > account."  > I > Keep in mind that this criteria is extremely expensive and takes a long I > time to get certified (lots of red tape). As I recall, these cert's are F > also done in standalone environments i.e. not connected to a network > (but might be wrong on this).  > I > Imho, while there is no such thing as a 100% secure system, a platforms ! > track record speaks for itself.  > 	 > Regards  >  > Kerry Main > Senior Consultant  > HP Services Canada > Voice: 613-592-4660  > Fax: 613-591-4477  > kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom > (remove the DOT's and AT)  > 6 > OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works. >  >  >   = Kerry, my favorite quote that correlates to your 100% remark:   J "Anybody who says their system is bulletproof is either a liar or stupid."  L                                                                 Winn Schwar= tau      WWWebb   --C NOTE: This email address is only used for noncommerical VMS-related  correspondence. C All unsolicited commercial email will be deemed to be a request for 8 services pursuant to the terms and conditions located at# http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/e/webbww/    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 21:30:12 -0500 - From: William Webb <william.w.webb@gmail.com> P Subject: Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification"I Message-ID: <8660a3a10601211830y1cdb4637p21e2daef08deb546@mail.gmail.com>   F On 21 Jan 2006 15:41:44 GMT, Bill Gunshannon <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:5 > In article <ijqjZEyApUtI@eisner.encompasserve.org>, 9 >         Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes: L > > In article <43D16C20.6892.26C1C9C3@localhost>, "Stanley F. Quayle" <squ= ayle@insight.rr.com> writes:H > >> Gosh, if Windows XP gets the highest level of CC certification, VMS > > I > > Actually it says "the highest level granted to a commercial product", D > > which is quite different that either "the highest level" or "theA > > highest level that could be granted to a commercial product".  > > < > > What are the current B1-equivalent commercial products ? > >  > >> should be able to!  > >>: > >>   http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1901965,00.asp > >> > >> HP, you listening?? > > I > > Of course they are.  Every time I hear Leo Demer gives a talk he asks J > > the crowd "to whom of you is Common Criteria certification important".C > > Every time I have been there the response has been a resounding  > > silence. > > 9 > > HP has been listening.  Customers are not interested.  > E > Which kind of shoots down this notion I kept hearing here about DOD ! > still being a big VMS customer.  >  > bill >  > --L > Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolve= s F > bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > University of Scranton   |@ > Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h> >    From what I know--  , Navy and Marine Corp, less so than formerly.  ) Air Force- Still lots.  Army- Still lots.    WWWebb   --C NOTE: This email address is only used for noncommerical VMS-related  correspondence. C All unsolicited commercial email will be deemed to be a request for 8 services pursuant to the terms and conditions located at# http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/e/webbww/    ------------------------------   Date: 22 Jan 2006 02:50:19 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)P Subject: Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification", Message-ID: <43ga7bF1mrpkvU1@individual.net>  I In article <8660a3a10601211830y1cdb4637p21e2daef08deb546@mail.gmail.com>, 0 	William Webb <william.w.webb@gmail.com> writes:H > On 21 Jan 2006 15:41:44 GMT, Bill Gunshannon <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:6 >> In article <ijqjZEyApUtI@eisner.encompasserve.org>,: >>         Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:h >> > In article <43D16C20.6892.26C1C9C3@localhost>, "Stanley F. Quayle" <squayle@insight.rr.com> writes:I >> >> Gosh, if Windows XP gets the highest level of CC certification, VMS  >> >J >> > Actually it says "the highest level granted to a commercial product",E >> > which is quite different that either "the highest level" or "the B >> > highest level that could be granted to a commercial product". >> >= >> > What are the current B1-equivalent commercial products ?  >> > >> >> should be able to! >> >> ; >> >>   http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1901965,00.asp  >> >>  >> >> HP, you listening??  >> >J >> > Of course they are.  Every time I hear Leo Demer gives a talk he asksK >> > the crowd "to whom of you is Common Criteria certification important". D >> > Every time I have been there the response has been a resounding
 >> > silence.  >> >: >> > HP has been listening.  Customers are not interested. >>F >> Which kind of shoots down this notion I kept hearing here about DOD" >> still being a big VMS customer. >> > From what I know--. > Navy and Marine Corp, less so than formerly.+ > Air Force- Still lots.  Army- Still lots.   G The last time this came up I decided to ask among my peers.  The answer E was a resounding silence.  In the end, after about 3 months I had one G person say he remembered VMS systems but had not seen one in some time.   D I would really like to know where all these systems are.  Or is this! just more of the 411,000 systems?    billG (Seriously, feel free to contact me in private, but I really would like H to know where I could go to find some of these VMS systems in use by the Army!!)    --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 22:01:40 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> P Subject: Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification", Message-ID: <43D2F581.D1BC7FD6@teksavvy.com>   William Webb wrote: . > Navy and Marine Corp, less so than formerly. > + > Air Force- Still lots.  Army- Still lots.     F It may be my undestanding of english that is wrong, but the use of the= word "still" seems to imply the condition is expected to end.    "he still has the flue".# "we still feel our baby baby food".   # "he is still the number 1 athlete".    ------------------------------    Date: 21 Jan 2006 23:24:41 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) P Subject: Re: How about VMS: "Windows XP Gets Independent Security Certification"3 Message-ID: <s8FxZBbOfUVY@eisner.encompasserve.org>   \ In article <43D2F581.D1BC7FD6@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: > William Webb wrote: / >> Navy and Marine Corp, less so than formerly.  >>  , >> Air Force- Still lots.  Army- Still lots. >  > H > It may be my undestanding of english that is wrong, but the use of the? > word "still" seems to imply the condition is expected to end.  >  > "he still has the flue".% > "we still feel our baby baby food".  > % > "he is still the number 1 athlete".   6 Yes, in the sense of "George Bush is still president".  : No, in the sense "Despite George Bush being president, the  sun still rises in the morning".   ------------------------------    Date: 21 Jan 2006 12:11:45 -0800" From: "Bill Law" <blaw@cincom.com>3 Subject: How to read tape with wrong file attribute C Message-ID: <1137874305.805897.116640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>   
 Greetings,  G We are trying to copy the contents of a large 1.5GB file from tape to a G disk file but are so far unable to do so.  The problem seems to be that F the file on tape has file attributes that do not match the actual fileE contents.  The tape was written on a VMS machine by a C program which F was designed for UNIX, but the same program is unable to read it back.  C The valid contents of the tape file are a sequence of 4096 bytes of B binary data.  Doing a dump of the tape file shows that it actuallyC contains 4 bytes of ASCII string "4101", followed by the 4096 valid F bytes of binary data, followed by a <LF> character hex 0A.  A DIR/FULL. command on the tape file yields the following: File organization:  Sequential  G File attributes:    Allocation: 121737, Extend: 0, Global buffer count:  0, Version limit: 0 ? Record format:      Stream_LF, maximum 0 bytes, longest 0 bytes   A Record attributes:  Carriage return carriage control, Non-spanned    RMS attributes:     None    > A simple COPY of the file to disk gives a disk file with these attributes:  File organization:  Sequential  A File attributes:    Allocation: 3605877, Extend: 0, Global buffer  count: 0, No version limitB Record format:      Stream_LF, maximum 0 bytes, longest 5756 bytes  4 Record attributes:  Carriage return carriage control   RMS attributes:     None  D but this resulting disk file is corrupted by having 4 bytes stripped, following every x0A binary byte in the file.  A So we are trying to develop a C program to read the tape in a raw ? format like dump can, then strip out the leading "4101" and the A trailing <LF>, and finally write each 4096 binary bytes to a good 0 output file.  Using the following does NOT work:=     InFile = fopen(InputFileName, "rb", "ctx=bin", "rfm=udf", 
 "rat=none" ); 3     while (fread(&InRec, sizeof(InRec), 1, InFile))   And the following does NOT work:     *p_in_fab = cc$rms_fab;      *p_in_rab = cc$rms_rab;   (     p_in_fab->fab$l_fna = InputFileName;3     p_in_fab->fab$b_fns = strlen ( InputFileName ); $     p_in_fab->fab$b_rfm = FAB$C_FIX;$     p_in_fab->fab$b_org = FAB$C_SEQ;     p_in_fab->fab$b_rat = 0;$     p_in_fab->fab$b_fac = FAB$M_GET;$     p_in_fab->fab$b_shr = FAB$M_NIL;#     p_in_rab->rab$l_fab = p_in_fab; $     p_in_rab->rab$b_rac = RAB$C_SEQ;  &     rms_status = sys$open( p_in_fab );        if( rms_status == RMS$_SUC )-         rms_status = sys$connect( p_in_rab );         if( rms_status == RMS$_SUC )?        while( (rms_status = sys$read( p_in_rab )) == RMS$_SUC )   G Both the fread() and the sys$read() fail to read the tape file with the C tape mounted both /foreign and not.  Surely this is possible, there B must be something wrong in the options used to open the tape file.E Would someone please help us figure out how to get this file properly B copied from tape to disk?  Thanks in advance; any insight would be greatly appreciated.   Cheers, Bill  :-) D Talent is God's gift to you.  Using that talent is your gift to God. --  Red Skelton    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:27:32 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>- Subject: Re: Itanium lap tops are needed now! + Message-ID: <43D28B24.D8166C01@comcast.net>    davidc@montagar.com wrote: > J > >Think: Citrix. Citrix is an "X-windows" paradigm for MS-Windows in thatA > >the program runs on a "server", but is displayed on a desktop.  > G > Yes, I've dealt with a company that used to use Citrix for some HIPAA B > application - now uses web-based applications.  Web browsers areI > getting more capable, what with some of the AJAX functionality becoming  > more widespread.  E OT: Am I the only one here old enough to remember a book titled, "You  Try Love, and I'll Try Ajax"?   H > >Windows is unstable enough without adding the complexity of Citrix onI > >top of it, not to mention the bandwidth demands. Let a virus or a worm J > >through the firewall and kiss your enterprise-wide app. (not to mentionA > >the desktop clients) good-bye (speaking from experience here).  > 4 > Okay - Citrix "X-window"-like functionality is bad  F For what it tries to be, I don't think Citrix is "bad" ("mediocre" mayF be at least somewhat fair) - it's just a kludge to allow MS-Windows to) do something it was never intended to do.   
 > - so why is  > X-windows better?   7 1. X was designed to be client/server. Windows was not.   > 2. Of itself, X offers no other advantages, save for a certainE "ubiquity", if I can be a bit loose about using that term. What makes D the difference is the underlying platform. Granted, applications andG middleware can defeat even the strongest low-level security. See recent C threads here regarding php vulnerabilities allowing a VMS-based web  server to be compromised.   1 > Why is opening up port 6000 better than Citrix. A > Remember that in X-windows, the client/server is reversed.  The D > "server" is really the desktop and the X-window application is theI > client and has to connect to your desktop.  At least with Citrix, it is H > an explicit connection from the desktop to the Citrix server (which is' > easier to deal with firewall issues).   H Of course, that only speaks to the interconnect layers, and not the user interface "layer" itself.   H > >Now, take that same app., and develop it for an X-capable deployment,K > >run it on a multi-user o.s. like VMS and VOILA! Secure, stable operating K > >environments with VASTLY improved performance and reliability. The folks / > >at HIPAA will "thank" you, to say the least.  > I > Secure?  How secure is it when it's possible for another application to E > screen-scrape your whole X-window session, because you've have port 
 > 6000 open?    - See recent threads about tunnelling over SSH.   5 > X-window traffic isn't encrypted, either. Web based E > application can be encrypted almost trivially by using https rather  > than http.  : However, the application architecture is vastly different.  G Consider the complexities of, say, "wwwWord" or "WebExcel", or whatever 5 they might be called, compared to what we have today.    --   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/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    Coming soon:& Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:38:50 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>- Subject: Re: Itanium lap tops are needed now! + Message-ID: <43D28DC9.3326DEBC@comcast.net>    davidc@montagar.com wrote: > " > >    X windows is client-server. > > J > >Once again the utterly vague term 'client-server' shows how useless the > >term is.  > > I > >David wants to run the actual application on the client.  x-windows is  > >basically a smart terminal. > I > Exactly - and many people do not really understand who's the cilent and I > who's the server with X-Windows!  X-windows is a really thin-client.  A D > glorified terminal emulator with graphics.  The web-based apps areI > "client/server', too, but with Javascript/Java/Flash, the client can be  > more substantial.  > E > Given the amount of memory and computes the average desktop has, it A > makes sense to keep as much burden on the desktop as reasonable E > ("reasonable" is of course subjective and dependent upon the actual G > task at hand).  This frees your server for managing the core business E > logic and database management.  The benefit is maximizing your full 6 > hardware/software investment from desktop to server. > A > A good desktop app, ilnked with a stable OpenVMS server running I > middleware/database is a very nice solution.  Why does that app need to G > be running on OpenVMS, ported/use X-windows, consuming the memory and A > CPU on the server, when you have excess usable capacity on your 
 > desktop? >  > I see this Catch-22 here:  > $ > 1) We want OpenVMS on the desktop.C > 2) OpenVMS Desktop apps are needed to get OpenVMS on the desktop. F > 3) Port the Desktop apps to X-windows, so we can put them on OpenVMS
 > servers.D > 4) Once the desktop apps are on OpenVMS server, we can put them on > desktop OpenVMS.7 > 5) OpenVMS does not have an advantage on the desktop.   D I believe the fault of the logic expressed here lies entirely within that statement.   B OpenVMS most certainly DOES have an advantage on the desktop (ref.H discussions re: DEFcon-9, other threads over the history of this forum),B not to mention a great deal of unrealized potential. If folks wereH getting as much "sunshine blown up their skirts" in favor of an expandedE VMS market as they currently get re: a restricted VMS market, perhaps G paradigms about what's actually possible might shift rather a good bit.   ? I doubt the team that ported OVMS to I64 experienced from their ? leadership the constant, unrelenting, almost militant stream of E skepticism and opposition we have always seen and continue to see re: 2 "VMS on the desktop", "OpenVMS-x86/64", and so on.  . > 6) Then why port the desktop app to OpenVMS?  , See the above. Shift your paradigm, then ...   > 7) Goto #1  E ...and I believe you'll see amazing things start to happen like never  before.    --   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/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    Coming soon:& Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:50:19 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>- Subject: Re: Itanium lap tops are needed now! + Message-ID: <43D2907B.34DD35DE@comcast.net>    Bill Gunshannon wrote: > D > In article <1137774244.539311.28600@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,% >         davidc@montagar.com writes: 
 > > [snip]F > > 4) Once the desktop apps are on OpenVMS server, we can put them on > > desktop OpenVMS. > G > Not necessarily as there is not now nor is there likely to be desktop = > VMS again.  Unless oyu want to buy some of my VS3100's. :-)   8 I have to disagree there. VMS is VMS is VMS is VMS is...& %EXEC-F-LOCKLOOP, locked loop detected9 %RQP-I-EXREQSTEP, request stepping requested by Executive   F DS15s, while not exactly "desktop" form factor, are still small enough$ to used where space is at a premium.  D Aside from PostScript viewer, nothing has been removed from VMS thatC would make it any less suitable than it ever was. In fact, with the E addition of SWB, it is even more suitable now than ever before. As of F V7.3-2 it still runs on everything from my AlphaStation-200 4/233 withF 256MB of RAM and 50GB of RZ29 storage to 32-CPU GS1280s with 128GB+ of= RAM and tens - if not hundreds - of terabytes of SAN storage.    --   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/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    Coming soon:& Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:54:01 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>- Subject: Re: Itanium lap tops are needed now! + Message-ID: <43D29159.8EC68DEE@comcast.net>    Bill Gunshannon wrote: > - > In article <43D04039.5F3A36BA@comcast.net>, > >         David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> writes: > > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > >>0 > >> In article <43CF040C.7DD3546C@comcast.net>,A > >>         David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> writes:  > >> > Paul Sture wrote: > >> >>  > >> >> Bill Gunshannon wrote:6 > >> >> > In article <4378onF1lapj6U1@individual.net>,: > >> >> >       Paul Sture <paul.sture@bluewin.ch> writes:	 > >> >> >   > >> >> >>Bill Gunshannon wrote:
 > >> >> >>6 > >> >> >>>In article <43CD6C37.F9BA4B27@comcast.net>,D > >> >> >>>     David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> writes:
 > >> >> >>R > >> >> >>>>Linux took off because folks were already running '386es (at the time,S > >> >> >>>>and later machines), were already subscribed to a BBS or ISP and didn't D > >> >> >>>>have to pay to extra acquire the software in most cases. > >> >> >>>  > >> >> >>> F > >> >> >>>The same is true of FreeBSD, why is Linux a bigger success? > >> >> >>> 
 > >> >> >>N > >> >> >>In my case, FreeBSD didn't have the online press coverage that LinuxM > >> >> >>did, but the clincher was that I could pick up a packaged copy with Q > >> >> >>documentation from a local shop. I only had dial up access at the time. 	 > >> >> > 	 > >> >> > N > >> >> > But that is part of marketing.  Putting the product in the consumersO > >> >> > hand.  You can't buy VMS or FreeBSD at a local store, but you can buy  > >> >> > Linux or Windows. 	 > >> >> >  > >> >>  > >> >> Exactly. > >> >H > >> > I've purchased FreeBSD at everything from a bookstore to CompUSA. > >>D > >> Did you buy FreeBSD or did you buy a book that just happened to0 > >> provide a copy on CD inside the back cover? > > G > > Book-plus at a bookstore, an actual distro. at the computer stores.  > H > What version?  Must have been a while ago. And even at that I doubt itJ > actually was put out by FreeBSD.  Much more likely a package like WalnutG > Creek.  As I said, searching the web finds no reference to any distro G > actually out out by the FreeBSD guys (who really do not seem to be at * > all interested in competing with Linux.)  B Indeed. Walnut Creek remains their "distributor of choice", AFAIK.   > > L > > Mind you, I haven't poked around with it for some good time now. Does itJ > > still have that goofy SYSINSTALL program that starts from a compressedK > > kernel? (Required 16MB last I played with it. Naturally, my DECpc-450ST  > > only has 12MB.)  > H > No idea what your talking about.  I put a CD in, boot, select from theH > three levels of install (in my case, always expert), answer a questionI > or two and go do something else while it install. Come back in about 10 K > minutes (used to be more than an hour, but I haven't got a CD slower than K > 52X at this point :-) do final config for things like network and startup H > options and away it goes.  Still not as slick as something like RedHatI > or Knoppix, but not at all painful.  I am having much more trouble with - > Solaris 10 and that's a commercial product!   B Hhhmmm... I've always had to spend a good hour or more guessing orH trying to figure out which of the provided drivers in the install kernelH underlying SYSINSTALL stands the best chance of actually working with my	 hardware.   6 ...when I can get the FreeBSD install to run at all...   --   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/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    Coming soon:& Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page   ------------------------------    Date: 21 Jan 2006 15:08:28 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) - Subject: Re: Itanium lap tops are needed now! 3 Message-ID: <hB41Xx9g4zJJ@eisner.encompasserve.org>   ` In article <43D28B24.D8166C01@comcast.net>, David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> writes: > davidc@montagar.com wrote:  J >> Secure?  How secure is it when it's possible for another application toF >> screen-scrape your whole X-window session, because you've have port >> 6000 open?  > / > See recent threads about tunnelling over SSH.  > 6 >> X-window traffic isn't encrypted, either. Web basedF >> application can be encrypted almost trivially by using https rather
 >> than http.    What is wrong with IPSEC ?   ------------------------------   Date: 22 Jan 2006 00:48:48 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)- Subject: Re: Itanium lap tops are needed now! , Message-ID: <43g33gF1nf83uU1@individual.net>  + In article <43D29159.8EC68DEE@comcast.net>, 5 	David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> writes:  > Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>  I >> What version?  Must have been a while ago. And even at that I doubt it K >> actually was put out by FreeBSD.  Much more likely a package like Walnut H >> Creek.  As I said, searching the web finds no reference to any distroH >> actually out out by the FreeBSD guys (who really do not seem to be at+ >> all interested in competing with Linux.)  > D > Indeed. Walnut Creek remains their "distributor of choice", AFAIK.    H Sorry, Walnut Creek is not "a Commercial FreeBSD Distributor".  They areF a company that sells free CD images already burned onto plastic.  TheyD have absolutely no affiliation with FreeBSD.  As I said in the firstD place, the FreeBSD crowd do not appear to be interested in marketingE their product at all and that is the only advantage Linux has.  To be B honest, I think most of the driving force behind all of the *BSD'sC think they are still in college and working for the CSRG.  It's all E just an academic exercise.  Truly sad, considering the superiority of  their work.    >  >> >M >> > Mind you, I haven't poked around with it for some good time now. Does it K >> > still have that goofy SYSINSTALL program that starts from a compressed L >> > kernel? (Required 16MB last I played with it. Naturally, my DECpc-450ST >> > only has 12MB.) >>  I >> No idea what your talking about.  I put a CD in, boot, select from the I >> three levels of install (in my case, always expert), answer a question J >> or two and go do something else while it install. Come back in about 10L >> minutes (used to be more than an hour, but I haven't got a CD slower thanL >> 52X at this point :-) do final config for things like network and startupI >> options and away it goes.  Still not as slick as something like RedHat J >> or Knoppix, but not at all painful.  I am having much more trouble with. >> Solaris 10 and that's a commercial product! > D > Hhhmmm... I've always had to spend a good hour or more guessing orJ > trying to figure out which of the provided drivers in the install kernelJ > underlying SYSINSTALL stands the best chance of actually working with my > hardware.   E You must goi out of your way to buy the strangest hardware available. D I can not remember the last time I had a problem with installing BSDC on any hardware and we use a mix of straight commercial systems and A machines we build ourselves.  The only real problem usually turns @ out to be getting X running and that has nothing to do with BSD.   > 8 > ...when I can get the FreeBSD install to run at all...  C I wold love to know what machine you are trying that the CD doesn't / boot and go right into the install program on!!    bill   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 20:14:11 +0100 ( From: Paul Sture <paul.sture@bluewin.ch>9 Subject: Re: LK463 and OS X - Was: LK463 (and Windows XP) , Message-ID: <43ffg5F1nrbfeU1@individual.net>    VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:   > 
 > Hi Paul, > K > If you happen upon a driver for the Mac (OS X) which will allow me to use  > the LK463, do let me know. >   	 Hi Brian,   G Did you see the beginning of the thread? The OP was asking for keycode  > details so he can build a new OS X keyboard map for the LK463.  ' Full thread at http://tinyurl.com/9ew5f    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.043 ************************                                                                                                                                                                                                                  