1 INFO-VAX	Sat, 17 Jun 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 335       Contents:? Re: Has any version of VMS ever received an A1 security rating? 0 Re: Just Ask The Vendor: Can OpenVMS Scale Down?0 Re: Just Ask The Vendor: Can OpenVMS Scale Down?0 Re: Just Ask The Vendor: Can OpenVMS Scale Down?0 RE: Just Ask The Vendor: Can OpenVMS Scale Down?$ Re: Pathworks authentication problem$ Re: Pathworks authentication problemI Re: Q: (long) DCL symbols not appearing in Show Symbol output [SLS V2.9H]   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 17 Jun 2006 04:50:12 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) H Subject: Re: Has any version of VMS ever received an A1 security rating?3 Message-ID: <H1snrxspsIs7@eisner.encompasserve.org>   ` In article <e6v4pn$otd$1@news.xmission.com>, legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) writes:  ? > Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) spake the secret code 1 > <uoSxoOlAckqf@eisner.encompasserve.org> thusly:  > F >>The informal political description I have heard is that the ComputerG >>Security part of NSA was gung-ho to get vendors to support multilevel D >>security on a single machine.  But it was not for their own use --F >>they run "system high" just like other government departments.  TheyI >>set the rules for what was required to run a multilevel secure machine.  >   > What is running "system high"?  H Saying "there is one file on this system labelled TOPSECRET, NOKLINGONS.F Therefore everybody who has any access to this system shall be clearedG for TOPSECRET, NOKLINGONS data.  We are not going to trust VMS and file K protections to keep you out of other people's data.  Any tapes or printouts : from this machine shall be labeled TOPSECRET, NOKLINGONS."  E And regardless of your appearance, don't order Gahk in the cafeteria.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 07:39:00 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> 9 Subject: Re: Just Ask The Vendor: Can OpenVMS Scale Down? 9 Message-ID: <mfmdnSnl645fdQ7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@libcom.com>    Karsten Nyblad wrote:  > Dave Froble wrote:H >> I'm pretty sure that the popularity of packaged solutions is in part I >> due to the beancounters in charge of companies not understanding that  F >> many times their company knows it's business better than a generic G >> application vendor, and therefore force such generic solutions onto  E >> the company.  There are also plenty of arguments against in-house  ) >> development, some of which have merit.  > C > I have been working for an ERP supplier.  I talked to one of the  J > experienced guys, who told me that his experience was that ERP projects F > were more likely to be a success if the customer chose to adapt the K > organization to the ERP system and not the other way around.  One reason  J > is that ERP systems tend to support best business practice, and because I > of that adapting to the ERP systems meant dropping bad old customs and  = > getting people to be more efficient without working harder.   E Well I'm sure that an ERP vendor would have such notions.  What else   would they think?   B The other side of this is that a company that is a leader in it's G industry is such a leader for some reasons.  Usually it's because they  G understand the industry better, and do a better job than others.  When  G they adapt their organization to a generic piece of software, they can  F lose that advantage they had and become just another average company. E So sure, the ERP project is more successful, but the company becomes  D less successful.  A win for the ERP vendor, a loss for the customer.  % Is this suppost to be a 'good thing'?   F An example of standardization is giving up the advantages of Alpha to I use the generic itanic.  Where has this gone?  One of the alleged better  C Unix operating systems is dead.  VMS is now dependent upon another  B company continuing to produce the itanic.  A leading edge company ; decided to become just another follower with no advantages.   H There is also the assumption that the company had 'bad old customs' and B was not working efficiently.  I'd suggest that this assumption is G invalid for a company that is doing well and leading in their industry.    --  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: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:02:49 GMT ( From: Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net>9 Subject: Re: Just Ask The Vendor: Can OpenVMS Scale Down? > Message-ID: <Z3Tkg.417808$tc.141225@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>   Karsten Nyblad wrote:    > C > I have been working for an ERP supplier.  I talked to one of the  J > experienced guys, who told me that his experience was that ERP projects F > were more likely to be a success if the customer chose to adapt the K > organization to the ERP system and not the other way around.  One reason  J > is that ERP systems tend to support best business practice, and because I > of that adapting to the ERP systems meant dropping bad old customs and  = > getting people to be more efficient without working harder.   ; Errm, yes that's the standard sales pitch - word for word!!  --  
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:47:13 +0200 + From: Karsten Nyblad <nospam@nospam.nospam> 9 Subject: Re: Just Ask The Vendor: Can OpenVMS Scale Down? = Message-ID: <449415ae$0$67264$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk>    Alan Greig wrote:  >  >  > Karsten Nyblad wrote:  >  >>D >> I have been working for an ERP supplier.  I talked to one of the B >> experienced guys, who told me that his experience was that ERP F >> projects were more likely to be a success if the customer chose to B >> adapt the organization to the ERP system and not the other way I >> around.  One reason is that ERP systems tend to support best business  C >> practice, and because of that adapting to the ERP systems meant  D >> dropping bad old customs and getting people to be more efficient  >> without working harder. >  > = > Errm, yes that's the standard sales pitch - word for word!!   I Except that this guy was in consulting and support.  The more changes to  A the standard ERP implementation the more work for consulting and  I support.  Thus his own interest would be to have many changes, such that  % consulting could earn a lot of money.   H Besides, he knew very well that there was no chance of selling anything " to me or anybody influenced by me.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:25:26 -0400 ' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> 9 Subject: RE: Just Ask The Vendor: Can OpenVMS Scale Down? T Message-ID: <FA60F2C4B72A584DBFC6091F6A2B8684015B478B@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----7 > From: Karsten Nyblad [mailto:nospam@nospam.nospam]=20  > Sent: June 17, 2006 10:47 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com ; > Subject: Re: Just Ask The Vendor: Can OpenVMS Scale Down?  >=20 > Alan Greig wrote:  > >=20 > >=20 > > Karsten Nyblad wrote:  > >=20 > >>H > >> I have been working for an ERP supplier.  I talked to one of the=20F > >> experienced guys, who told me that his experience was that ERP=20J > >> projects were more likely to be a success if the customer chose to=20F > >> adapt the organization to the ERP system and not the other way=20? > >> around.  One reason is that ERP systems tend to support=20  > best business=20G > >> practice, and because of that adapting to the ERP systems meant=20 H > >> dropping bad old customs and getting people to be more efficient=20 > >> without working harder. > >=20 > >=20? > > Errm, yes that's the standard sales pitch - word for word!!  >=20B > Except that this guy was in consulting and support.  The more=20 > changes to=20 E > the standard ERP implementation the more work for consulting and=20 : > support.  Thus his own interest would be to have many=20 > changes, such that=20 ' > consulting could earn a lot of money.  >=20; > Besides, he knew very well that there was no chance of=20  > selling anything=20 $ > to me or anybody influenced by me. >=20  B Well meaning as that resource likely was, imho, the best answer is= usually somewhere in between a customized solution and wholly  standardized COTS solutions.=20   E What promoters of fully "standard" ERP implementations that emphasize H minimal customization often fail to consider is how hard it typically is# to re-establish, test and maintain:   H - regulatory and legal / governmental compliance considerations that are$ different from 1 country to another.H - links to custom applications that are core / critical to the companies businessF - links to external suppliers (e.g. EDI) that are core/critical to the companies businessF - competitive differentiation and flexibility that custom applicationsD provide over std packages. As an example - CEO states "we need to be@ able to offer XYZ functionality to leap ahead or catch up to ourF competitor". Vendor states that "they have not seen sufficient demand,8 but will take it into consideration in future releases".  G And last but certainly not least - how difficult it really is to change E a culture where field peoples access to reports, information that has E been customized to their needs for the last 10-20 years adopting to a G system with minimal reports and information that is customized to their  field specific needs.=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: 16 Jun 2006 23:02:08 -0700 From: mcbill20@yahoo.com- Subject: Re: Pathworks authentication problem C Message-ID: <1150524128.187428.193560@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>   
 PEN wrote:
 > Hi Michael,  > = > "Pfleging, Michael" <pfleging.lka@ekkw.de> wrote in message ? > news:1150468833.666440.218890@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... H > > Pathworks 7.4 (Client Software) is running on Windows XP and WindowsI > > Server 2000, but definitly not on Windows Server 2003 (see also SPD).  > >  > [snip] > L > That's incorrect; the SPD clearly states Windows 2003 is supported by v7.4( > (perhaps you were thinking of v7.3)... > K > I believe Bill's issue has been resolved (by granting the Windows account ) > the user right "Logon as a batch job").  >  > Paul  D Actually, it looks like the FAL does not even use the windows domainC authentication, nor the local machine authentication. I finally got F this working by adding the user/password combination in NCP on the WinF 2003 box. There was also one other issue; DECnet object number 17 (theG FAL listener) is not defined at installation. This object also needs to  be manually defined in NCP.    Bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:44:44 GMT & From: "PEN" <paul.nunez.nosp@m.hp.com>- Subject: Re: Pathworks authentication problem 2 Message-ID: <MWRkg.2019$CT1.1602@news.cpqcorp.net>   Hi Bill,  & <mcbill20@yahoo.com> wrote in message = news:1150524128.187428.193560@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...  >  > PEN wrote: >> Hi Michael, >>> >> "Pfleging, Michael" <pfleging.lka@ekkw.de> wrote in message@ >> news:1150468833.666440.218890@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...I >> > Pathworks 7.4 (Client Software) is running on Windows XP and Windows J >> > Server 2000, but definitly not on Windows Server 2003 (see also SPD). >> >	 >> [snip]  >>I >> That's incorrect; the SPD clearly states Windows 2003 is supported by   >> v7.4 ) >> (perhaps you were thinking of v7.3)...  >>L >> I believe Bill's issue has been resolved (by granting the Windows account* >> the user right "Logon as a batch job"). >> >> Paul  > F > Actually, it looks like the FAL does not even use the windows domainE > authentication, nor the local machine authentication. I finally got H > this working by adding the user/password combination in NCP on the WinH > 2003 box. There was also one other issue; DECnet object number 17 (theI > FAL listener) is not defined at installation. This object also needs to  > be manually defined in NCP.  >  > Bill >   J The spawner will attempt to authenticate your credentials using the local J Windows accounts first; if that fails, it falls over to the DECnet access L information (defined in NCP).   Note that if the Windows system is a domain J controller, then you can use a domain account, but (I believe) otherwise, H you need to create a local user account (ie. if it's a member server or 
 workstation).   L In addition, the Windows account must be granted the User Right "Logon as a K batch job".  Oh,  if you're logged in as that user making this User Rights  L assignment, logoff and logon again to have it added to your rights list (or $ shell to DOS and do GPUPDATE/FORCE).  J You can get spawn32 to post messages regarding user authentication in the H PW32 event log by including a startup parameter of  /D:4.   To supply a I startup parameter, modify the properties of the DEC PATHWORKS 32 Spawner  E service (right-click My Computer, select Manage; expand Services and  H Applications, select Services) so the "Start parameters" field includes  D:/4.   L Then remove the access defined in the NCP database and duplicate the access K failure from the OVMS system.  Then check the pw32 event log for details...    HTH,   Paul     ------------------------------    Date: 17 Jun 2006 05:48:43 -0500? From: burley.not-this@encompasserve-or-this.org (Graham Burley) R Subject: Re: Q: (long) DCL symbols not appearing in Show Symbol output [SLS V2.9H]3 Message-ID: <HeVYy8RErFyp@eisner.encompasserve.org>   Z In article <e6vbik$7m6$2@news01.intel.com>, Ken Fairfield <my.full.name@intel.com> writes:  F > Can anyone explain what is happening?  Is there a 3rd, or 4th, classA > of symbols I've never heard of that are hidden (sometimes) from % > Show Symbol??  Have I gone crazy???   D Maybe it's just the scope, e.g. in this example A does not appear in0 the show symbol output in XYZ but is accessible.  " $ set sym/scope=(nolocal,noglobal)( $ write sys$output f$env("SYMBOL_SCOPE") $ a = 1  $ sho sym *  $ write sys$output a
 $ call XYZ $exit  $! $XYZ: subroutine( $ write sys$output f$env("SYMBOL_SCOPE") $ sho sym *  $ write sys$output a $exit    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.335 ************************                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                إ'>^s^wޅK!KO}foyg^w4?2rd*l
GOހþ=yTh[ߘc	&+Sx
~NjqM3J'J|=6xt_K?۩r=/pLU=w=¶mY#˲ԋ}ZpCGZm|KOr)"(u[yp{z˟M#>?+ѭ^:wnEgŜ1=υʧTefR/|W
FH]9;hu5)хM1G?<pm̘F'~Wso+nq
7\?xqNanR_?5Y3C͊nՓ{5}>wֿ2SFSjy9L\"5EE;l8VSmo0Uz/bΕSIn;ЭR}CnQ]sŞ;k:ދV2'pM8ex/q箁y1şYY3Si矗q=Ztok{5

<%TfXw+U9䍒ء\漀^iSH5߄]vK|k洞j!쫒?oqe䑑ScMZKNâ©.fϸuӧ5*y.s>yitW)u4gur&7עG?7]0n1>?K:TL٫b$~ܺe=4wnÆ#ꯝ|cu1{̌A͂Z~۱Lsz.<xҢ:wVU[W[yjtmm,y-oqԿJ3
_?4e1gaJM֩hԴ5><}nL4z'~5ֵq_͍(N{6Ҩ
t]ro~N̐Gy*E߮2n]ZsS摹CƎFj^Vkfnࣳf^ZfaϿ]Tz-ߙ?ejϳI<{+dEzG#x׍ӹ7g3q؁orޙ+Ft,,-aVO-_۰~]N=lv?J\|V{<K4pN||uFfI؎QG}h*LEgkI]7z0jZw'n?EZ%N=V;e׆.Ekz4jٸ`^Ko"(
XեysjgA
]s|;y
4iǾ/8L~ܱރ;͟[sq]D)bOk{c۝?ojũ6o6ڒ&