1 INFO-VAX	Fri, 02 Jun 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 304       Contents: .txt to .doc Re: .txt to .doc5 Alphaserver 800 series ram modules at almost 20$ each  Re: DCL: IF and .AND. logic  Re: DCL: IF and .AND. logic  Re: DCL: IF and .AND. logic " Re: Fixing a Corrupt PCSI DatabaseA Re: I knows it's unsupported, but does current VMS run on ZX2000? A Re: I knows it's unsupported, but does current VMS run on ZX2000? A Re: I knows it's unsupported, but does current VMS run on ZX2000? ) Intel to let go, re-assign 16,000 workers - Re: Intel to let go, re-assign 16,000 workers  NYSE to merge with Euronext 2 Re: OT: Sun release 8-socket/16-way SMP X64 server2 Re: OT: Sun release 8-socket/16-way SMP X64 server
 Personal note  Re: Personal note  Re: Personal note  Re: Personal note  Re: Unix runs faster, maybe  Re: Unix runs faster, maybe  Re: Unix runs faster, maybe  Re: Unix runs faster, maybe  Re: Unix runs faster, maybe  Re: Unix runs faster, maybe  Re: Unix runs faster, maybe  Re: Unix runs faster, maybe  Re: Unix runs faster, maybe  Re: Unix runs faster, maybe  Re: Unix runs faster, maybe  Re: Unix runs faster, maybe D Re: Unix runs faster, maybe (was: Re: Educating potential VMS users)) Re: [MAILUAF] Newer version with RENAME ? ) Re: [MAILUAF] Newer version with RENAME ?   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------   Date: 1 Jun 2006 13:45:33 -0700  From: himansu114@gmail.com Subject: .txt to .doc B Message-ID: <1149194732.967837.48730@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   Hello everyone,   F Anyone know how to convert .txt file in DCL (alpha os) to .doc format.D (I usually ftp the .txt and use a Word macro to convert from .txt to .doc).  E ** Is there any code out there that I can place DCL to do this on the  alpha.   -- Thanks,  Himansu    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:03:17 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>  Subject: Re: .txt to .doc , Message-ID: <447F6415.1B3A1A2A@teksavvy.com>   himansu114@gmail.com wrote: H > Anyone know how to convert .txt file in DCL (alpha os) to .doc format.F > (I usually ftp the .txt and use a Word macro to convert from .txt to > .doc).   It is an old WORD version but:  @ $CONVERT/DOCUMENT myfile.txt/format=TEXT myfile.doc/format=WORD5  < (I believe that the CDA converters are now in the freeware).  E There are a whole bunch of options you can specify in an optiosn file G that steer the converters with specification of fonts, margins etc etc.    ------------------------------   Date: 1 Jun 2006 11:25:51 -0700  From: vanjkos@gmail.com > Subject: Alphaserver 800 series ram modules at almost 20$ eachB Message-ID: <1149186351.483747.29940@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>  ; If you take a look to this link on Ebay,you'll find all the   information. Best regards,Vanja.   http://cgi.ebay.com/Compaq-Alphaserver-Ram-Memory_W0QQitemZ6887688425QQihZ013QQcategoryZ172QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 13:57:08 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> $ Subject: Re: DCL: IF and .AND. logic/ Message-ID: <_4SdnXuglNEOtOLZ4p2dnA@libcom.com>    Paul Sture wrote:  > Dave Froble wrote: >> Doug Phillips wrote:  >> >>> Dave Froble wrote: >>>  >>>> Michael Unger wrote:  >>>>0 >>>>> On 2006-05-30 18:47, "Hoff Hoffman" wrote: >>>>>  >>>>>> [...] >>>>>>I >>>>>>    Run-time computed goto operations -- one of the reasons why it   >>>>>> wouldK >>>>>> be comparatively "fun" to write a compiler for DCL -- are available:  >>>>>>! >>>>>>    $ GOTO LABEL_'severity'  >>>>> I >>>>> I don't like "GOTO" at all -- it is much simpler to "go back" using ? >>>>> "GOSUB" and "RETURN" or "CALL" and "EXIT" (or even "EXIT   >>>>> <status-value>". >>>>>  >>>>>> [...] >>>>> 
 >>>>> Michael  >>>>> B >>>> And next we'll have someone wanting to get rid of the BRANCH  >>>> instruction >>>> in assembler. >>>> >>> F >>> Uh Oh. I smell another religious war, and here I was just about to >>> GOSUB lunch ;-)  >>>  >>0 >>  From which I assume you plan to RETURN.  :-) >  > LOL  >  > $ gosub lunch 6 > $ if $status .eq. too_much_spaghetti then goto sleep  ? Don't you mean GOSUB SLEEP?  You do plan on waking, right?  :-)   H >> The point is, any instruction can be misused.  Don't blame GOTO when J >> some idiot uses it to write practically unreadable code.  If there was 1 >> no GOTO, he'd find some other way to screw up.  >>H >> I knew a guy that was so intent on writing 'structured' code that he 1 >> used GOSUB to GOTO the exit part of a program.  >> > C > I've seen that, but also instances where such coding has lead to  J > recursive calls causing the program to blow up (not necessarily in DCL). > I > In DCL, I personally prefer CALL to GOSUB, as you have to declare your   > subroutine formally with >  > $label: SUBROUTINE >  > ...  >  > $ENDSUBROUTINE > B > Compare the results of HELP CALL EXAMPLE and HELP GOSUB EXAMPLE. > H >> And anybody that has written any assembler code understands that the B >> various forms of BRANCH is how it's all done regardless of HLL  >> implementations.  >> >  > True.      --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com DFE Ultralights, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:33:57 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> $ Subject: Re: DCL: IF and .AND. logic, Message-ID: <447F3311.6A7509C7@teksavvy.com>   Paul Sture wrote: H > In DCL, I personally prefer CALL to GOSUB, as you have to declare your > subroutine formally with    C CALL has a major difference from GOSUB: the subroutine does not, by F default, have the ability to modify local symbols defined in your mainH DCL code. I *think* this can be overriden with a SET SYMBOL/SCOPE but am	 not sure.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:12:22 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> $ Subject: Re: DCL: IF and .AND. logic, Message-ID: <447F3C10.8EF92C01@teksavvy.com>   Michael Unger wrote:H > being an implicite "ENDSUBROUTINE") you get a new procedure level whenB > it gets executed -- making it easier to manage the "locality" of
 > symbols.    B Au contraire. It makes for much less obvious management of symbolsH because when searching for all occurances of a symbol, you will not knowF if that symbol is within a subnroutine or not unless you have a really7 big window and see that it is within a subroutine code.   E When you look at C subroutines, you alwasy have explicit declarations F "or local symbols" within a subroutine. This is not the case with DCL,B and the use of a SET SYMBOL/SCOPE elsewhere in the DCL program can0 completely change the behaviour of your symbols.  H Having a new set of local symbols is a neat concept for DCL, but from myB point of view, it causes more grief than harm since the subroutineF cannot modify mainline symbols unless the symbol(s) you modify are not@ only declared globally, but there is also no local declarations.   $A = 1 .... <lots of lines of code> $A == 2 * $write sys$output "The value of a is ''A'"  ! The result will show a value of 1    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:20:30 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> + Subject: Re: Fixing a Corrupt PCSI Database / Message-ID: <VKWdncrmQOKQsuLZRVn-pg@libcom.com>    Hoff Hoffman wrote:  > Dave Froble wrote: >> JF Mezei wrote: >>> Charlie Hammond wrote:D >>>> How/why is this easier than just repeating the PRODUCT INSTALL  >>>> operation?  > ... # >> Gotta agree with JF on this one.  > H >   So folks here are seriously proposing manually moving files around? 2 > (Shudder.)  That's why installation tools exist.   No no no no no!!!   I Was just agreeing with the reference to windoz registry and reloading of  > complete OS.  Seems that was snipped, causing my remark to be # misunderstood/taken out of context.   G >   Please use the PRODUCT REGISTER commands to recreate the database,  B > that's the safest way.  PRODUCT *REGISTER*, not PRODUCT INSTALL. > F >   Barring a transactional file system and/or barring occurrences of K > perfect code, these sorts of problems can unfortunately arise -- keeping  D > current on ECOs, such as those for PCSI, can help reduce exposure.  B Got no problem with re-registering products.  Just with having to  re-install.    --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com DFE Ultralights, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 20:07:16 GMT , From: Hoff Hoffman <hoff-remove-this@hp.com>J Subject: Re: I knows it's unsupported, but does current VMS run on ZX2000?1 Message-ID: <UNHfg.1385$5j5.354@news.cpqcorp.net>   : "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message(   news:447DF472.CC62BD96@teksavvy.com... > Hoff Hoffman wrote: H >>    As for unsupported HP Itanium-based systems, the zx2000 and zx6000I >> workstations and the older McKinley-class Integrity systems within the G >> supported Integrity lines should -- SHOULD -- boot Hobbyist OpenVMS. F > VMS today still runs on the all mighty microvax II even though thereJ > have been a number of new generation VAXes since that time. I guess thatE > once the support files were added for the MVII, they didn't need to  > change over the years.  C    That's a somewhat isolated and limited view of how an operating  F system fits together, and how support decisions are reached.  More is F involved in platform support than the bootstrap files.  The bootstrap ( files are necessary, but not sufficient.  J > Will the same be said about IA64, or will the evolution of the compilersJ > that are more closely tied to the chip mean that at one point, a versionH > of VMS compiled to support a new generation of those IA64 things would5 > no longer run properly on a McKinley class system ?   E    So now you are asking for support for these platforms?  Ok, I can  D answer that one.   These platforms are not supported.  The McKinley I class boxes are not supported by OpenVMS I64.  The zx2000 series systems  E are not supported by OpenVMS I64.  The zx6000 series systems are not   supported by OpenVMS I64.   B    We may well and have already removed support specific existing C platforms (with notice), and we have removed support for platforms  C including the venerable MicroVAX II cited -- the last release with  G support for that platform was OpenVMS VAX V7.2.  Decisions around (the  H removal of) support have to do with a variety of factors, and decisions D typically centrally involve considerations like the availability of H distribution media, of maximum available physical memory, or of maximum 3 available disk storage on supported configurations.   H    We already provide some rather clever optimizations to allow OpenVMS C Alpha code with byte-word operations to correctly operate on older  F systems and particularly on systems that lack those instructions.  We E also provide the ability to target different instruction sets within  B existing compilers.  This is nothing particularly new, and issues D involving application compatibility are considerations that OpenVMS I Engineering has been and is familiar with; compatibility has been a goal   for quite some time.  F    As for discussing potential future changes within a compiler, it's H also possible that a large hunk of some building might fall on my head. F   If that becomes a more immediate and thus more interesting and more A relevant (and more pressing :-) issue, then folks can address it.   G    As for OpenVMS Hobbyists, the McKinley-class variants (as installed  H within a series of otherwise supported Integrity boxes), as well as the E zx2000 and zx6000 series boxes, might be interesting.  For hobbyists.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 17:50:40 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> J Subject: Re: I knows it's unsupported, but does current VMS run on ZX2000?, Message-ID: <447F6121.EC75E839@teksavvy.com>   Hoff Hoffman wrote: G > system fits together, and how support decisions are reached.  More is G > involved in platform support than the bootstrap files.  The bootstrap * > files are necessary, but not sufficient.  A Would it be correct to state that the VAX instruction set did not D evolve/change because it started off as a full instruction set ? AndG while the MVII may have lacked some instructions, they were emulated in E software and thus transparent to compilers ? (aks: when compiling for H any VAX machine, you wouldn't worry about which VAX would be running the executable.)  Is this correct ?   F In the case of Alpha, seems that since VMS 7.1, any executable can runH on any Alpha platform even if there are performance hits when running onD an older platform not supporting certain new instructions.  (Is thisB implemented with newer PAL code  supplied starting with VMS 7.1 ?)    C My question with regards to IA64 pertain on whether Merced machines J could conceptually run executables generated with Montecito-era compilers.  F I realise that VMS was never commercially available on Merced, but youC guys started the porting of VMS to that IA64 thing on Merced boxes.   C Does the IA64 architecture allow for something like Alpha where new F instructions can be emulated so that older generation machines can runH executables generated for newer generation machines ? (even if it causes performanmce hit)   C Or will each new generation of chip/compiler for IA64 mean that new C executable will not run on older platforms, meaning that those with H older hardware will eventually not be able to install new version of VMS' due to architecture incompatibilities ?   > Or has the IA64 architecture now completed its puberty and itsG instruction set now expected to remain stable and code generated in the C foreseable future will be compatible all the way down to McKinley ?    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 04:19:53 GMT   From: John Santos <john@egh.com>J Subject: Re: I knows it's unsupported, but does current VMS run on ZX2000?+ Message-ID: <J%Ofg.16650$xO5.7888@trnddc03>    JF Mezei wrote:  > Hoff Hoffman wrote:  > G >>system fits together, and how support decisions are reached.  More is G >>involved in platform support than the bootstrap files.  The bootstrap * >>files are necessary, but not sufficient. >  > C > Would it be correct to state that the VAX instruction set did not F > evolve/change because it started off as a full instruction set ? And  E Huh?  The VAX instruction set *did* evolve/change!  Interlocked Queue D instructions were added, as well as others (G Floating point, maybe)    I > while the MVII may have lacked some instructions, they were emulated in G > software and thus transparent to compilers ? (aks: when compiling for J > any VAX machine, you wouldn't worry about which VAX would be running the! > executable.)  Is this correct ?  >   C Yes, but it would usually be faster to execute the emulation inline E than to trap on an unimplemented op code and emulate it, so you might * want to worry if performance was critical.  H > In the case of Alpha, seems that since VMS 7.1, any executable can runJ > on any Alpha platform even if there are performance hits when running onF > an older platform not supporting certain new instructions.  (Is thisD > implemented with newer PAL code  supplied starting with VMS 7.1 ?) >  > E > My question with regards to IA64 pertain on whether Merced machines L > could conceptually run executables generated with Montecito-era compilers. > H > I realise that VMS was never commercially available on Merced, but youE > guys started the porting of VMS to that IA64 thing on Merced boxes.  > E > Does the IA64 architecture allow for something like Alpha where new H > instructions can be emulated so that older generation machines can runJ > executables generated for newer generation machines ? (even if it causes > performanmce hit)  > E > Or will each new generation of chip/compiler for IA64 mean that new E > executable will not run on older platforms, meaning that those with J > older hardware will eventually not be able to install new version of VMS) > due to architecture incompatibilities ?  > @ > Or has the IA64 architecture now completed its puberty and itsI > instruction set now expected to remain stable and code generated in the E > foreseable future will be compatible all the way down to McKinley ?    no idea about the IA64 stuff.      --   John Santos  Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:34:19 -0700 # From: "Tom LINDEN" <tom@kednos.com> 2 Subject: Intel to let go, re-assign 16,000 workers) Message-ID: <op.tahkvhiylvpiaf@hyrrokkin>    EE Times: Latest News = Heard on the beat: Intel to let go, re-assign 16,000 workers?     
 Peter Clarke	  EE Times (06/01/2006 1:38 PM EDT)  G LONDON — Intel Corp. is expected to announce the results of a major   E self-appraisal on June 15 and this is set to include the lay off or   D redeployment of 16,000 employees, according to TG Daily, an online  J publication. TG Daily referenced Omid Rahmat, author of a website called   Second Hand Smoke, as a source.   K According to its website Intel employs 99,900 people so lay-off of 16,000   ? would be approximately 16 percent or nearly every sixth person.   G Second Hand Smoke suggested that in addition to axing employees' jobs   G Intel could drop a number of marketing initiatives including Viiv, an   F attempt to get personal computers to be used as entertainment centers.  E Paul Otellini, chief executive of Intel (Santa Clara, Calif.), told   F analysts in April that he was planning an overhaul that would impact  H "every part" of the company. “In terms of non-performing businesses,  I anything with a bracket will be looked at,” he said, referring to the    company’s loss-ridden units.  K Intel followed up by closing a design office in Glasgow, Scotland, laying   H off 17 workers there who were involved in developing voice and network  I processors as well as Ethernet technology. The facility was acquired by   G Intel through the acquisition seven years ago of Level One (see May 9    story).    Related articles:    --  E Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 19:54:10 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 6 Subject: Re: Intel to let go, re-assign 16,000 workers, Message-ID: <447F7E0C.B0A82490@teksavvy.com>   Tom LINDEN wrote: G > LONDON — Intel Corp. is expected to announce the results of a major E > self-appraisal on June 15 and this is set to include the lay off or # > redeployment of 16,000 employees,   G Any bets if there will be a mention of IA64 during this announcement ?  ? My guess is that it will not be mentioned, but that some of the ? "redeployment" will involve moving engineers from IA64 to 8086.   E It is the fastest way to move resources to the 8086 without many much 3 fuss and give Intel a chance at catching up to AMD.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:00:34 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> $ Subject: NYSE to merge with Euronext, Message-ID: <447F6372.1114B58E@teksavvy.com>  C There has been much talk about mergers of european stock exchanges.   F Deutsche Boerse was fighting against the NYSE to get Euronext (a groupD of european stock exchanges). BBC reports that NYSE is just about to@ announce agreement to buy Euronext. (With NASDAQ owning 24.9% of> London's stock exchange, likely to make a formal bid as well).  F Does anyone know if there mergers will mark a net loss for VMS if NYSE@ and NASDAQ impose their systems onto their newly purchased stock exchanges ?   F Had Deutsche Boerse bought Euronext, it might have seen VMS spread its3 wings from Frankfurt to many other european cities.   C Interestingly, this will leave Deutsche Boerse as the only european C stock exchange that will not be forced into the burdensome Sarbanes G Oxley regulations imposed on US corporations or corporations trading on  US owned stock exchanges.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:36:28 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> ; Subject: Re: OT: Sun release 8-socket/16-way SMP X64 server , Message-ID: <447F33A8.4F258A52@teksavvy.com>   Brainstorming question:   , If there were to be some petition or survey:  G -would vast majority of remaining customers support a port of VMS to 64  bit 8086s ?   G -would vast majoprity of non customer state that with VMS on 8086, they ? would be more likely to consider VMS as a platform for their IT  infrastructure ?   ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 14:18:33 -06006 From: "Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospam>; Subject: Re: OT: Sun release 8-socket/16-way SMP X64 server / Message-ID: <uYHfg.14$EL5.1300@news.uswest.net>        : "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message& news:447F33A8.4F258A52@teksavvy.com... > Brainstorming question:  > . > If there were to be some petition or survey: > I > -would vast majority of remaining customers support a port of VMS to 64 
 > bit 8086s ?  > I > -would vast majoprity of non customer state that with VMS on 8086, they A > would be more likely to consider VMS as a platform for their IT  > infrastructure ? > I Have the vast majority of non-VMS customers even heard of VMS?  This is a  more appropriate question.  
 Mike Ober.   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Jun 2006 18:45:21 -0700 ) From: "Sue" <susan_skonetski@hotmail.com>  Subject: Personal noteC Message-ID: <1149212721.821428.226040@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    My Dear Friends,  D Since tomorrow is my last day for a number of weeks I wanted to sendG you this note today, tomorrow I will be finishing up some loose ends at C the office. I will be having surgery for a total knee replacment on  Monday.   > Those of you that know me well know that I am a planner and anF organizer by nature and I have always been that way.  No kidding, evenG when I was a child I sorted my cloths by color.  And not to be to weird B but I alphabetized my books which was a huge task for a person whoG loved to read and surrounded by sisters who could care less about order D of books ;').  So why am I telling you this.  Since I am going to beF out for the next 6-8 weeks and things could happen I want to say a few things..  G In Japanese the word sayonara means "if it must me so" so if it must be F so please stick with my ramblings and then delete them at a later date) when it is apparent that is all they are.   > I am very fortunate to know and love people from all over thisE beautiful planet of ours.  When we get together we say we have VMS in D common which we do but I see so much more in you. You are beautiful,D passionate and more powerful than you think. The OpenVMS AmbassadorsE symbol is a Gryphon which is a protector of the treasure of kings (or B knights in shinning armor) which really applies to everyone in the@ community.  I think that to code someone needs to  learn C, C++,D Fortran Basic but to create such an elegant OS like VMS takes a realA team of exceptional artists.  But normally if you take a bunch of G highly creative artists and put them together they can't work in a team D but the VMS group is different  - we can break the mold. Because, we@ can and have become more than just a group of co-workers, we areC friends or family.  That family is not just in the VMS group in ZK. F It's the folks that we have known for years the customers the partnersF who might as well be part of the group.  They are the ones that arriveD to our events 2 days early so they can help set up or send mail whenE they hear another customer is at risk or down load field test kits as E soon as they become available even if its 2am because they want to or = partners that port overnight because they want to be first or E distributors that work so close with our customers that the customers F can't tell if they are HP or not.  There is not one of you that is notG important, to me, to VMS or to our customers. And I wanted to say Thank 8 you for the work you do every day to make this possible.  F Those of you that know me and have been to an awards dinner, know thatE one if my favorite quotes is from Dr Martin Luther King which is also E in the hallway here in ZKO which says ""The ultimate measure of a man G is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where G he stands at times of challenge and controversy."  Its very easy to say C I support something when its going your way, VMS is 29 years old we F have had easy times and not so easy times and we have had our share ofC controversy that's for sure so I wanted to say -  Thank you for all  your support over the years   C We have had Three Companies, six CEO's, Three Architectures and One  VMS, because we have one team   A Thank you for being the people you are and thank you for being my * friends, you make a difference in my life.  D If you are in the neighborhood I would welcome your visit or a phone call.   
 Sue Skonetski  81 Back River Road Merrimack, NH 03054     
 Warm Regards,  Sue    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 12:16:12 +1000 $ From: Phaeton <phaeton@iinet.net.au> Subject: Re: Personal noteJ Message-ID: <447f9f67$0$22159$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>  
 Sue wrote: > My Dear Friends, > F > Since tomorrow is my last day for a number of weeks I wanted to sendI > you this note today, tomorrow I will be finishing up some loose ends at E > the office. I will be having surgery for a total knee replacment on 	 > Monday.  ...   D 	Wish you a speedy and total recovery, Sue. You are an unreplaceableC 	person, who with her tireless attitude and overwhelming enthusiasm B 	has done a great service to the VMS cause. We need you, so please 	be back soon :-) F                                                        Cheers,   Csaba  E --------------------------------------------------------------------- F   CSABA I. HARANGOZO  |d|i|g|i|t|a|l|  phaeton at iinet dot net dot auE --------------------------------------------------------------------- <     EARTH::AUSTRALIA:[SYDNEY]HARANGOZO.CSABA;1, delete? [N]:     Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 22:29:24 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>  Subject: Re: Personal note, Message-ID: <447FA281.DCEF2BC8@teksavvy.com>  
 Sue wrote:F > Since tomorrow is my last day for a number of weeks I wanted to sendI > you this note today, tomorrow I will be finishing up some loose ends at 
 > the office.   G Sue, even though I was not able to attend, I appreciate the work you do G for the VMS symposium. (boot camp) because it beneits even those who do - not attend by injecting much energy into VMS.       9 > I will be having surgery for a total knee replacment on 	 > Monday.   F And you won't be back at work on Tuesday ?  :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)   What( will VMS do without you for a few days ?      H > out for the next 6-8 weeks and things could happen I want to say a few
 > things..  D I bet you won't be able to stay away from a computer that long.  AndG we'll want to know about how you are doing, so you will HAVE to keep us  informed of your well being...  0 >  Thank you for all your support over the years  E And thank you for single handily saving VMS over the years.... And we 9 expect you to continue to do so for many years to come...     G Good luck Sue, and many of us will be thiking of you on Monday and hope D to hear from you ASAP after the operation. How long do you expect to stay in hospital ?   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Jun 2006 20:15:48 -0700 ; From: "johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com" <johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com>  Subject: Re: Personal noteC Message-ID: <1149218148.848395.325170@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>    Sue,A    Thanks for all that you do.  May you have a good surgery and a E speedy recovery.  Take good care of yourself.  You're the only one of  you we have.     Sincerely,       John H. Reinhardt    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:52:01 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> $ Subject: Re: Unix runs faster, maybe9 Message-ID: <D-WdnYIXO7nsq-LZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@libcom.com>    Bill Todd wrote: > Dave Froble wrote: >  > ...  > G >> If VMS ran on only itanic, and Unix also ran only on itanic, do you  B >> truly feel that Unix would enjoy such greater numbers of users? > G > Absolutely.  In fact, if Unix only ran on the Itanic it would ensure  K > Itanic's future, because all the existing Unix enthusiasts would have no  7 > alternative but to embrace it (or migrate elsewhere).   F You just jumped outside the hypothetical question.  If both operating I systems ran on only one platform today, then the past would have been no  H better, and if not, where would all those existing Unix users have come  from?   D Now, if it's your intention ignore the question as posed, I have no  problem with what you write.   > J > Attempting to compare VMS and Unix on technical grounds entirely misses G > the point.  Unix is clearly *adequate* for most needs, regardless of  K > whether VMS might be better.  And Unix is credible as a platform for the  F > future, whereas VMS simply isn't (due to decades of neglect with no 6 > indication whatsoever of any change in that status). >  > - bill  H But that's just what I did.  Remove the history of Unix running on just I about every platform out there now or in the past, and judge them solely   on OS capabilities.   ? Apparently you aren't willing to address the question as posed.    --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com DFE Ultralights, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:54:58 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> $ Subject: Re: Unix runs faster, maybe9 Message-ID: <D-WdnbwXO7m9quLZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@libcom.com>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:5 > In article <KN+4BPdKkHr$@eisner.encompasserve.org>, @ > 	koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:u >> In article <n--dncxoJ9118ePZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com>, Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes: G >>> By contrast, the existing VMS customer base (which clearly already  H >>> includes all VMS enthusiasts, at least those committed to using the G >>> product) is minute (and shrinking - in no small part because VMS's  E >>> future is insufficiently assured to justify embracing a hardware  D >>> platform that they don't find very attractive in its own right).H >>    Minute?  Well, small may be a better word.  Shrinking?  Nope, it'sE >>    stable.  Some are leaving, some are entering, most are staying.  > F > I guess that depends on how deep you look.  I have found many of theF > supposed VMS strongholds to have been looted and left with the doors? > hanging off their hinges. (And, I have looked recently, too!)  > J >>    The great dropoff in the VMS market share was a long time ago.  If IH >>    have to choose between replacinga old VAX/VMS based solution with G >>    either a new VMS/Itanium solution or a UNIX based solution, I'll  ; >>    choose that Itanium because UNIX can't meet my needs.  >>I >>    And I'll keep watching UNIX, Linux, ..., to see if any of them ever B >>    catch up.  For many of my need Linux has turned in the rightE >>    direction, even though Linus used to claim he didn't believe in  >>    addressing those needs.  > 6 > Boy would I like to see a list of those needs!!  :-) >  > bill >    >   I I'll also throw in some of my needs.  You may discount them, but I don't.   	 VAX Basic 	 DEC BASIC  MACRO-32   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com DFE Ultralights, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:40:58 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> $ Subject: Re: Unix runs faster, maybe, Message-ID: <447F34B6.E09DFEEA@teksavvy.com>   david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: P > Linux is adequate for most needs and is credible as a platform for the future.I > Traditional commercial Unix systems look like they are going to be very  > badly squeezed.     G When you consider that Solaris is now "free" and also runs on the 8086, ? is it still at a big disadvantage versus Linux in terms of real  onwership costs ?   E I can see Linux having an edge against Solaris for pilot projects and D "R&D" where some geek can bring in a free Linux on some spare PC andF demo some software to his bosses and a geek can find patches, softwareI etc on the net designed for Linmux probably more easily than for Solaris.   A But when the time comes to deploy this commercially to handle his E employer's real data, wouldn't Solaris end up being a more robust and  better supported solution ?    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:53:50 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> $ Subject: Re: Unix runs faster, maybe9 Message-ID: <D-Wdnb0XO7lBq-LZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@libcom.com>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:5 > In article <KN+4BPdKkHr$@eisner.encompasserve.org>, @ > 	koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:u >> In article <n--dncxoJ9118ePZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com>, Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes: G >>> By contrast, the existing VMS customer base (which clearly already  H >>> includes all VMS enthusiasts, at least those committed to using the G >>> product) is minute (and shrinking - in no small part because VMS's  E >>> future is insufficiently assured to justify embracing a hardware  D >>> platform that they don't find very attractive in its own right).H >>    Minute?  Well, small may be a better word.  Shrinking?  Nope, it'sE >>    stable.  Some are leaving, some are entering, most are staying.  > F > I guess that depends on how deep you look.  I have found many of theF > supposed VMS strongholds to have been looted and left with the doors? > hanging off their hinges. (And, I have looked recently, too!)  > J >>    The great dropoff in the VMS market share was a long time ago.  If IH >>    have to choose between replacinga old VAX/VMS based solution with G >>    either a new VMS/Itanium solution or a UNIX based solution, I'll  ; >>    choose that Itanium because UNIX can't meet my needs.  >>I >>    And I'll keep watching UNIX, Linux, ..., to see if any of them ever B >>    catch up.  For many of my need Linux has turned in the rightE >>    direction, even though Linus used to claim he didn't believe in  >>    addressing those needs.  > 6 > Boy would I like to see a list of those needs!!  :-) >  > bill >    >   C Well it's my understanding that one of them is near real time data  D collection, (correct me if I'm wrong Bob), and he's stated multiple 2 times in the past that Unix isn't up to his needs.   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com DFE Ultralights, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:05:44 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> $ Subject: Re: Unix runs faster, maybe9 Message-ID: <ZvKdndz4c6k6pOLZnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@libcom.com>   
 Andrew wrote:   D > Depends which UNIX you are refering to. True64 hasn't changed muchI > recently, on the other hand other UNIX OS's have gone through so fairly I > significant changes which have a major impact on performance. Of course G > most of the other UNIX OS's don't run on Alpha making a like for like  > comparison impossible.  I Well dud!  The original topic was Unix running faster on, I believe, the  G same hardware.  I'd have to go back and re-read to be absolutely sure.  A However, comparing the different operating systems on dissimilar  ) hardware is rather useless now, isn't it.   A If it's hardware speed you're wanting to talk about, then say so.    --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com DFE Ultralights, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:34:58 -0400   From: nobody <nobody@nobody.org>$ Subject: Re: Unix runs faster, maybe* Message-ID: <447F415B.1E81970B@nobody.org>  F In the past, VMS's higher overhead was compensated by the fact that it ran on Alpha, a faster chip.  E In the past, VMS had its own compilers and Digital supposedly had top 9 notch compiler people that produce really good compilers.   A Not only has VMS lost the hardware edge and is now relegated to a ? lacklustre IA64 thing, but it has also lost itw own compilers.    G The two assets that compensated for VMS' higher overhead are now gone.  D And if VMS is now forced to use "vanilla" hardware and compilers, itE should choose the maintream ones (aka: 8086 architecture which is the D one industry standard commodity platofrm that gets most of the R&D).   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 16:41:16 -0400 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>$ Subject: Re: Unix runs faster, maybeG Message-ID: <V9adncOO4vFyzeLZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com>    Dave Froble wrote: > Bill Todd wrote: >> Dave Froble wrote:  >> >> ... >>H >>> If VMS ran on only itanic, and Unix also ran only on itanic, do you C >>> truly feel that Unix would enjoy such greater numbers of users?  >>H >> Absolutely.  In fact, if Unix only ran on the Itanic it would ensure I >> Itanic's future, because all the existing Unix enthusiasts would have  ; >> no alternative but to embrace it (or migrate elsewhere).  > 4 > You just jumped outside the hypothetical question.  B Not at all:  it's not my fault if you framed it too nebulously to < capture your intent - I responded to exactly what you asked.      If both operatingK > systems ran on only one platform today, then the past would have been no  	 > better,   F That assumption was in no way included in the question that you posed.  A   and if not, where would all those existing Unix users have come  > from?  > F > Now, if it's your intention ignore the question as posed, I have no  > problem with what you write.  @ Perhaps you should learn to read what *you* have written before E attempting to understand what others write - especially when they're  H responding to material of yours which you don't seem to have understood 	 yourself.    >  >>D >> Attempting to compare VMS and Unix on technical grounds entirely A >> misses the point.  Unix is clearly *adequate* for most needs,  I >> regardless of whether VMS might be better.  And Unix is credible as a  H >> platform for the future, whereas VMS simply isn't (due to decades of G >> neglect with no indication whatsoever of any change in that status).  >>	 >> - bill  > J > But that's just what I did.  Remove the history of Unix running on just K > about every platform out there now or in the past, and judge them solely   > on OS capabilities.   E No:  that may be what you're doing *now*, but it's certainly not the  $ question you posed before, which was  E "If VMS ran on only itanic, and Unix also ran only on itanic, do you  @ truly feel that Unix would enjoy such greater numbers of users?"   > A > Apparently you aren't willing to address the question as posed.   G Au contraire:  apparently you aren't willing to stand by your question  	 as posed.   C As for the question you now seem to *wish* you had asked, my first  A inclination would be to respond, "Who cares what might happen in  H Never-Never Land?" - but since you seem particularly interested in that G mythical locale, I'll address it:  Unix pretty clearly appeals to more  I people per se than VMS does, all other things being equal, despite VMS's  G arguable technical superiority in some areas.  This is perhaps because  C even tech weenies by and large aren't very disciplined (after all,  E they're members of an *extremely* - and increasingly - undisciplined  E society) and prefer Unix's cozy and sometimes casual simplicity over  * VMS's often daunting complexity and rigor.  C Just look at the differences in the file system APIs at the system  F interface (RMS FABs, RABs, and XABs vs. the simple Unix system calls: G sure, RMS offers incredibly more control and features, but most people  G don't need them (or obtain those they do through special packages that  E don't complicate the system interface for simpler uses), or the Unix  F utilities (which facilitate 'piping' from one program to the next and D simple input/output to standard targets, using a common 'everything I looks like a byte-stream file' model to handle many entities that aren't  H files at all) vs. VMS's 'everything is handled specially with its own - ? usually incompatible with everything else - software' approach.   E Hell, I cut my teeth on RSX and find VMS *far* more comfortable than  D Unix, but even I can see why people coming at both from less-biased D backgrounds would pick Unix 9 out of 10 times (with the one oddball H likely as obsessive/compulsive about minutiae as I often can be).  Do I H think the world would be a better place of 9 out of 10 people were more I like me?  Possibly - but I accept the reality that that's just not going  B to happen (and I'm not *entirely* sure that I even wish it could).   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 22:49:17 +0200 / From: Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> $ Subject: Re: Unix runs faster, maybe; Message-ID: <94608$447f52ce$50db5015$17386@news.hispeed.ch>    Dave Froble wrote: >> > K > I'll also throw in some of my needs.  You may discount them, but I don't.  >  > VAX Basic  > DEC BASIC 
 > MACRO-32 >   / And how about Ada, COBOL, Fortran, Pascal, PLI?    And yes, even DIBOL :-)    ------------------------------   Date: 1 Jun 2006 21:42:07 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)$ Subject: Re: Unix runs faster, maybe, Message-ID: <4e959fF1dpqfoU2@individual.net>  9 In article <D-WdnbwXO7m9quLZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@libcom.com>, * 	Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote:6 >> In article <KN+4BPdKkHr$@eisner.encompasserve.org>,A >> 	koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: v >>> In article <n--dncxoJ9118ePZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com>, Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:H >>>> By contrast, the existing VMS customer base (which clearly already I >>>> includes all VMS enthusiasts, at least those committed to using the  H >>>> product) is minute (and shrinking - in no small part because VMS's F >>>> future is insufficiently assured to justify embracing a hardware E >>>> platform that they don't find very attractive in its own right). I >>>    Minute?  Well, small may be a better word.  Shrinking?  Nope, it's F >>>    stable.  Some are leaving, some are entering, most are staying. >>  G >> I guess that depends on how deep you look.  I have found many of the G >> supposed VMS strongholds to have been looted and left with the doors @ >> hanging off their hinges. (And, I have looked recently, too!) >>  K >>>    The great dropoff in the VMS market share was a long time ago.  If I I >>>    have to choose between replacinga old VAX/VMS based solution with  H >>>    either a new VMS/Itanium solution or a UNIX based solution, I'll < >>>    choose that Itanium because UNIX can't meet my needs. >>> J >>>    And I'll keep watching UNIX, Linux, ..., to see if any of them everC >>>    catch up.  For many of my need Linux has turned in the right F >>>    direction, even though Linus used to claim he didn't believe in >>>    addressing those needs. >>  7 >> Boy would I like to see a list of those needs!!  :-)  >>   >> bill  >>   >>   > K > I'll also throw in some of my needs.  You may discount them, but I don't.  >  > VAX Basic  > DEC BASIC 
 > MACRO-32  I But hat is like saying you need a car and one of the requirements is that H it says Cadilac on the back.  There is nothing that is specific to thoseF products that can't be done with something else.  I realize that oftenE the conversion is difficult and expensive, but the original statement F seemed to imply tasks that only VMS could do.  I am curious just whereH specifically people see Unix lagging behind VMS. (other than clustering, of course. :-)   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: 1 Jun 2006 21:37:22 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)$ Subject: Re: Unix runs faster, maybe, Message-ID: <4e950iF1dpqfoU1@individual.net>  9 In article <D-Wdnb0XO7lBq-LZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@libcom.com>, * 	Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: > E > Well it's my understanding that one of them is near real time data  F > collection, (correct me if I'm wrong Bob), and he's stated multiple 4 > times in the past that Unix isn't up to his needs.  F Well, I'm probably wrong again, but I wouldn't think that VMS was hardD realtime either.  And there are versions of Unix and linux that haveF been modified to do realtime, but I don;t think they are hard realtime. either.  Isn't that what VAXELN was all about?   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: 1 Jun 2006 21:44:18 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)$ Subject: Re: Unix runs faster, maybe, Message-ID: <4e95diF1dpqfoU3@individual.net>  ; In article <94608$447f52ce$50db5015$17386@news.hispeed.ch>, 2 	Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> writes: > Dave Froble wrote: >>>  >>  L >> I'll also throw in some of my needs.  You may discount them, but I don't. >>   >> VAX Basic >> DEC BASIC >> MACRO-32  >>   > 1 > And how about Ada, COBOL, Fortran, Pascal, PLI?   K Ada, COBOL, Fortran and Pascal are all readily available (even in different > flavors) for various Unixes.  Tom will have to answer to PL/I.   >  > And yes, even DIBOL :-)   L DIBOL goes back to my Cadilac argument.  There is nothing done in DIBOL that" can't be done in another language.   bill   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------   Date: 1 Jun 2006 21:57:08 -0500 - From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) $ Subject: Re: Unix runs faster, maybe3 Message-ID: <VNYEfbF+esdf@eisner.encompasserve.org>   W In article <4e95diF1dpqfoU3@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:   N > DIBOL goes back to my Cadilac argument.  There is nothing done in DIBOL that$ > can't be done in another language.  + "Use my existing DIBOL code" comes to mind.    ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 20:54:41 GMT ' From: jls <jeffls-nospam@sbcglobal.net> M Subject: Re: Unix runs faster, maybe (was: Re: Educating potential VMS users) 8 Message-ID: <3hku721tj0g2t30gu8qhjtb1rjfieanaav@4ax.com>  2 On Wed, 31 May 2006 00:01:51 +0200, Karsten Nyblad <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:    >Bob Koehler wrote: Z >> In article <4dpq96F1936phU1@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >>  J >>>That's a shell shortcoming and has little. if anything, to do with Unix5 >>>or the file system.  And, it's easy to get around.  >>   >>  K >>    It has a lot to do with UNIX.  As in depending on the shell to expand ? >>    wildcards instead of providing an API to the application.  >>  J >Well in order to get parameters on VMS you have to learn the CLI API and H >you have to write a CLD file.  Compare that to the *NIX way of passing H >two parameters to the "main" routine.  The later does not require half H >as much education.  Further it is my experience that you need to write H >much more code when using the CLI API than when writing an interpreter J >for *NIX options.  Further, wildcard processing is not directly included E >in languages like Pascal.  You end up having to write a lot of code  6 >before you have an interface like VMSes own commands.  B Well, I beg to differ.  I've worked on plenty of large projects inF development on VMS.  The CLD (and message utility, and hlp utility) is actually a HUGE win for VMS.  C You need much less of a mess of code to do syntax checking when you C use a CLD to define your verb.  It also expands some things for you C (like data & time strings, file name defaults, etc) for you, before D your code ever gets the value (e.g., "today+13-00:00" will expand to( the correct date/time 13 days from now).  D These significantly decrease the amount of coding you need, and evenC better, are completely source-language independent (meaning you can D utilize the cld modules from different programming languages without9 having to re-code all the parsing & syntax checking too).   = You can define some very complex interactions of parameters & D qualifiers, as well as define your own keyword syntaxes that MUST be= followed correctly or your code won't ever even get executed.   F Coupled with things like the message files and cool use of lib$signal,F you can get much more complex operations without having special coding4 to account for every single case that might crop up.     > I >Say simple wildcards are not enough, e.g., you need a /since qualifier.  D >  On VMS it has to be part of the program or you are out of luck.    ? Not really, you can couple the use of DIRECTORY as input to the : utility.  But I much prefer the addition of the qualifier.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:59:25 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 2 Subject: Re: [MAILUAF] Newer version with RENAME ?, Message-ID: <447F3908.96EBFCD4@teksavvy.com>    Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote:M > Background: We might need (and please don't ask why) to UAF>RENAME hundreds # > of users (and their directories)     Why ?     M > MAILUAF>RENAME their mailrecords, too. Otherwise we will need to build some K > (DCL) script which extracts infos with MAILUAF>SHOW and makes MAILUAF>ADD & > and MAILUAF>DELETE commands from it.  F Renaming the records can be done easily with DCL. VMSMAIL_PROFILE.DATAA is a simple indexed file with fixed size key. So you can read the A record, delete it, change the name in the key field and write it.   A However, this is not enough. You need to consider all the "dummy" 7 entries that point to a record via a forwarding address   > for instance a record "John.Doe" that has forwarding to "jdoe"  H What you could do is build a temporary indexed file whose contents would* be the outpout of MAIL>SHOW FORWARD/USER=*4 and make it so that the forwarding address is a key.  H So when you try to rename jdoe, you also scan the temporary file for any7 records with key "jdoe" and then you can issue MAIL SET   FORWARD/user="John.Doe" new_user   ------------------------------   Date: 1 JUN 2006 21:06:10 GMT + From: Dave Greenwood <GreenwoodDE@ornl.gov> 2 Subject: Re: [MAILUAF] Newer version with RENAME ?1 Message-ID: <1JUN06.21061046@feda34.fed.ornl.gov>   N In a previous article, eplan@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER) wrote:P > Is there perhaps a newer version of MAILUAF available somewhere which includes > already a RENAME command?  >   M > Background: We might need (and please don't ask why) to UAF>RENAME hundreds K > of users (and their directories) and it would be a lot better if we could M > MAILUAF>RENAME their mailrecords, too. Otherwise we will need to build some K > (DCL) script which extracts infos with MAILUAF>SHOW and makes MAILUAF>ADD & > and MAILUAF>DELETE commands from it.  J The version of MAILUAF I have has a 'NAME' command which renames a record:  
 MAILUAF> help            [snip]'         NAME old new      Rename a user          [snip]  I I think that's been a part of MAILUAF since I first got a copy (somewhere  between 1989 and 1993).    Dave --------------9 Dave Greenwood                Email: Greenwoodde@ORNL.GOV H Oak Ridge National Lab        %STD-W-DISCLAIMER, I only speak for myself   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.304 ************************