1 INFO-VAX	Wed, 01 Mar 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 119       Contents: Re: AMD blew it big time! , Blog Marketing - Affordable OpenVMS exposure& Re: Building SSL support on VMS V7.3-21 Re: Differences between RUN/PROC and SPAWN/NOWAIT 1 Re: Differences between RUN/PROC and SPAWN/NOWAIT 1 Re: Differences between RUN/PROC and SPAWN/NOWAIT 1 Re: Differences between RUN/PROC and SPAWN/NOWAIT 1 Re: Differences between RUN/PROC and SPAWN/NOWAIT 6 HP to launch new Montecito servers - without Montecito Re: OpenVMS screenshots?1 Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure! 1 Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure! 1 Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure! 1 Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure! 1 Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure! 1 Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure! * Regarding finding memory address using SDA, Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-), Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-), Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-), Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-), Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-), Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-), Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-), Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-), Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-)( Re: Security holiday over for Mac users!( Re: Security holiday over for Mac users!( Re: Security holiday over for Mac users! up-to-date LaTeX etc on VMS  Re: up-to-date LaTeX etc on VMS ( Webinar, I asked the tough questions ...  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:05:26 -0500 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>" Subject: Re: AMD blew it big time!= Message-ID: <pc-dnTfH06aaMJnZRVn-vA@metrocastcablevision.com>   
 Andrew wrote:  > Bill Todd wrote:I >> And TPC-C was indeed that best case.  Though I've seen slightly higher H >> estimates from EV8's developers for EV8's TPC-C SMT improvement, evenJ >> 210% is somewhat greater than a factor of 2x, so it's really not at allG >> clear what portion of my statement you are under the mistaken belief  >> that you are refuting.  >>: >>> The 1.3Ghz EV7z does ~101 SPECint95 and ~255 SPECfp95.K >> Gee, Andrew:  leaving aside exactly where you got the above information, J >> what part of the difference between projections and reality has managed >> to evade you? >  > F > Hold that thought because it is the fundamental falacy heart of your > argument.   E As usual, Andrew, your spelling and logic are as incompetent as your   other contributions.   > < > We are discussing the actual performance of EV7 vs Opteron  I No, Andrew:  that may be what *you* want to discuss (since you're faring  H so poorly in the current context), but what *I* am discussing (and what I you have been at least purportedly responding to) is very precisely your  H estimate of EV8's performance vs. EV7's.  The fact that your attempt to G address the topic of EV8's ability to compete with Opteron was equally  > incompetent didn't happen to be a rat-hole I cared to go down.   ...   G > Your estimates of EV8 performance are based on an estimate multiplied * > by an estimate multiplied by an estimate  C No, you moron:  they're based on what the EV7 and EV8 *architects*  F (beside whom your own opinions count for less than nothing) estimated D their relative performance would be, plus the estimate of one other I independent observer whose knowledge in this area also far exceeds yours.    ...   + > You site TPC-C as being an ideal workload   E Wrong yet again, Andrew:  it was the EV8 development team which made  ( that observation - I merely reported it.     but in reality the 210% < > integer speedup projected by Compaq was based on SPECint95  D Ah - that explains why the number I remember for TPC-C was slightly I higher, then:  your acquaintance with EV8's performance projections fell   short once again.      a far more! > sympathetic workload than TPC-C   I You really ought to stop digging, Andrew:  the hole you're in just keeps  = getting deeper and deeper.  The idea that SPECint is a 'more  C sympathetic' workload *for SMT* than TPC-C is is utterly laughable.    ...   K >> The *projected* performance of EV7 (that which one should compare to the J >> *projected* performance of EV8) was stated in a (similarly early) 21364K >> presentation as 70 SPECint95 and 120 SPECfp95 (for a 1 GHz part).  Funny G >> how Alphas (in rather marked contrast to SPARCs...) tended to exceed H >> expectations, isn't it?  Of course, delays and subsequent advances inH >> things like clock and memory speeds played some part as well, but the > 9 > You seem to have missed out the T1, USVI+ and SPARC64 V   E Not at all:  as is usual with the statements I make, I used the past  ? tense above for a reason.  Sun has (finally) come up with very  G respectable chip-level performance in T1/T2 (at least for the somewhat  G specialized set of workloads for which it is suited), and has at least  G made *some* progress with USIV+ in that area (though one might observe  I that since USV was originally scheduled to appear quite a few years ago,  @ with performance far beyond that achieved by USIV+, USIV+ still F qualifies for the comment I made above regarding missed expectations).  C But I indeed should have made it clearer that the comment referred  E specifically to Sun's SPARC implementations, since Fujitsu's work in  F that area is well worthy of respect (and I've noted that consistently  over time).    ...   A >> fact remains that the *projected* SPECint95 EV8 performance at J >> introduction which you quote above is exactly twice the *projected* EV7J >> performance which Pete Bannon stated in the presentation I just cited -K >> and EV8's ultimate projected SPECint95 performance of 200 in its 130 nm. K >> process was nearly 3x EV7's projected performance (and *well* over twice F >> what that projection would have been even had it been scaled up for >> today's 1.3 GHz part).  > H > So you admit that EV7z is currently delivering 1/2 the single threaded3 > performance of the best EV8 performance estimate.   I Not only do I 'admit' it (at least provisionally accepting the SPECint95  I numbers which you pulled out of wherever), I specifically pointed it out  G as the glaring error in your own argument - since there's every reason  H to have expected EV8 to have exceeded its own estimates just as much as ? EV7 exceeded the ones that many of the same people made for it.   G That's the difference between comparing apples to apples and apples to  F oranges - though when incompetents and/or deliberate sleazes find the F former comparison doesn't serve their ends, they do often try to palm  off one of the latter variety.     Factor in Paul'sH > estimates of SMT throughput of 2x and you get a processor which at itsH > top clock speed might have delivered 4x the performance of the current > EV7z  I Are you as incompetent arithmetically as you are in so many other areas?  G   Paul explicitly estimated EV8's SMT throughput at its *introductory*  H clock rate of 1.8 GHz as 4x that of an EV7 running at 1.2 GHz.  He also C estimated EV8's top clock speed as *at least* 2.5 GHz.  If you can  G succeed in muddling your way through the numbers, you'll find that the  H result is an EV8 which at its top clock speed should have provided just E over 5x the throughput of a 1.3 GHz EV7 - not so coincidentally just   what I suggested earlier.    ...   ; > Humm the last projected date for EV8 manufacture was 2003   H Don't you ever get tired of publicly airing your abject ignorance?  The D last projected date for EV8 had slipped to 2004 by the time the axe F actually fell - though of course it's possible that this was just one H more way Compaq tried to make it appear that EV8 was in trouble of some / kind to try to justify the decision to kill it.      however atJ > that time the same NDA suggested that EV7 would arrive in 2001.  In fact > it arrived in 2003.   H The dates in Pete Bannon's presentations always showed EV8 as following G EV7 by one year - which made complete sense given that they were being  I developed in parallel (EV7 concentrating on the on-chip support features  G surrounding the core, and EV8 concentrating on a new core to slip into   them).  0   You are welcome to believe that EV8 would have< > arrived at the same time as EV7 but it is highly unlikely.  C Just how many strikes do you think you're entitled to before being  D called 'out', Andrew?  1) As I noted, EV8 was expected in 2004, not E 2003.  2) As I've noted here in the past, EV7 was expected in 2002Q3  ? right up until HP suddenly slipped it out two quarters (to all  B appearances to avoid having it shade McKinley's July, 2002 debut),  9 So a 2004 ship date for EV8 was if anything conservative.   	   So lets B > assume that EV8 had arrived in 2005 at 1.2 Ghz the initial intro > frequency   = Stop pulling pseudo-'facts' out of your arse.  EV8's planned  ? introductory frequency was 1.8 GHz:  it was in a newer process  3 generation than EV7 and benefited from SOI to boot.    ...   G > Take the example of Power 5+, in many ways a simpler processor with 2 H > rather than 4 threads but superscalar with support of OOE like EV8. It > has just reached 1.9 Ghz  F Wrong:  it has now hit 2.2 GHz, with no indication that it's anywhere I near its limit (Itanic certainly isn't pushing it, nor is anything else,  I and expectations are that it can hit at least 2.4 GHz without breaking a   sweat).   ,   and thats with each POWER5+ core consumingC > roughly 70% of transistors of the projected EV8 transistor count.   G POWER4/POWER5(+) used largely standard cell logic, whereas Alphas have  D always used highly custom logic - and benefited handsomely in clock F rates thereby until cHumPaq stopped pushing the envelope and let them H stagnate.  Paul had no doubt that EV8 could have hit 2.5 GHz in its 130 H nm. SOI process - and he'd likely expect *at least* 3 GHz for a top end F after the move to 90 nm (especially since IBM seems to be managing to ( hit that with some of the PPC970 parts).  E Being such a persistently active idiot is not likely to gain you any  D respect here, Andrew.  Are you simply fond of the abuse you earn by = doing it (some of your countrymen are said to lean that way)?    - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:25:27 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>5 Subject: Blog Marketing - Affordable OpenVMS exposure + Message-ID: <44050616.91B561AF@comcast.net>   G I read an interesting article in a local publication which talked about G how folks from big companies on through entrepreneurs are using on-line  blogs as a marketing tool.    1 Here's the full link (will expire in seven days): ; http://www.dailyherald.com/search/searchstory.asp?id=160941   F (May require a free registration - no sensitive information required.)  D Occurs to me that any of us could do the same for marketing OpenVMS.  H Preferably, sign-on with a blog site that the major search engines trawlE frequently and deeply, and be sure to enter searchable keywords where C ever the opportunity appears including VMS, OpenVMS, Alpha, Itanium 9 (GASP!), VAX and others that might be associated with our  bread-and-butter o.s.   D Be advised that you'll want to keep mum about sensitive topics. JustF extol the virtues of the o.s. and keep your employers' secrets secret.  D Oh yeah, avoid political statements involving your co-workers and/orA management or anything else that might be, um, "career-limiting".    --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  & Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page! http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/   ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/   ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:05:48 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>/ Subject: Re: Building SSL support on VMS V7.3-2 + Message-ID: <4405017B.D85CB14D@comcast.net>    Hunter Goatley wrote:  >  > David J Dachtera wrote:  > > J > > Multinet transfers RMS files to Multinet successfully, but not to UCX. > >  > > Can't say about TCPware. > > J > > UCX transfers RMS files to UCX successfully (according to the doc.'s -H > > I've yet to see it work as late as V5.4 ECO-4), but not to Multinet. > > D > Both MultiNet and TCPware support UCX's FDL method of transferringD > files and preserving attributes. When a file is transferred in FDLA > mode, an .FDL file is created and transferred to (using PUT/FDL  > and GET/FDL).  > A > MultiNet, TCPware, and HGFTP all support STRU O VMS, which is a C > cleaner method for preserving attributes, as no external FDL file G > is required.  The FDL method has the benefit of preserving attributes D > when an interim, non-VMS system is used. UCX has never implemented@ > support for STRU O VMS (which was a protocol designed by TGV).  5 AH! Much thanx for that bit of enlightenment, Hunter!    --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  & Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page! http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/   ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/   ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:50:19 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> : Subject: Re: Differences between RUN/PROC and SPAWN/NOWAIT, Message-ID: <4404C596.55A5F685@teksavvy.com>   briggs@encompasserve.org wrote: K > Yes.  And that has nothing to do with whether the process is a subprocess H > or is a detached process.  You only get a CLI if you run loginout.exe.   $run/proc=mosaic mosaic.exe   E This gets me the job logical name table of the parent, but no process ) logicals of the parent nor from login.com  vs" $run/proc=mosaic/detach mosaic.exe  F This gets me no job logicals, nor process logicals, not even SYS$LOGIN  D I know that logicals are not dependant on CLI, but it is interestingH that without detach, they say it is a subprocess, but it doesn't inherit4 any of the process logicals which spawn/nowait does.   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 02:14:44 +0000 (UTC)7 From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) : Subject: Re: Differences between RUN/PROC and SPAWN/NOWAIT( Message-ID: <du302k$dil$1@pcls4.std.com>  / JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:     >briggs@encompasserve.org wrote:L >> Yes.  And that has nothing to do with whether the process is a subprocessI >> or is a detached process.  You only get a CLI if you run loginout.exe.    >$run/proc=mosaic mosaic.exe  F >This gets me the job logical name table of the parent, but no process* >logicals of the parent nor from login.com >vs # >$run/proc=mosaic/detach mosaic.exe   G >This gets me no job logicals, nor process logicals, not even SYS$LOGIN   E >I know that logicals are not dependant on CLI, but it is interesting I >that without detach, they say it is a subprocess, but it doesn't inherit 5 >any of the process logicals which spawn/nowait does.   I It isn't 'interesting', it makes perfect sense.  $ SPAWN/NOWAIT is just a D front end to $ RUN/PROCESS with some extra magic by DCL to copy overG process logicals and DCL symbols.  Remember, a subprocess is a separate F process so it has different process logicals from all other processes,E even if its process logicals are an exact clone of another process's   logicals, which $ SPAWN does.   K If you want to run mosaic in a subprocess with the main process's logicals, C it's much easier to just $ SPAWN/NOWAIT it.  That's why it's there.    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:06:58 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> : Subject: Re: Differences between RUN/PROC and SPAWN/NOWAIT, Message-ID: <44050FBA.D89DA7F1@teksavvy.com>   Michael Moroney wrote:M > If you want to run mosaic in a subprocess with the main process's logicals, E > it's much easier to just $ SPAWN/NOWAIT it.  That's why it's there.   A It is a question of process quotas. SPAWN/NOWAIT causes mosaic to D consume ytour existing's job,s quotas, and that competes against TPUG also wanting much resource and TPU crashes upon startup if it can't get  enough resources.   B I'd rather find a clean way to get mosaic to run in its own job as7 opposed to boosting my default quotas for that account.    ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 04:05:38 +0000 (UTC)7 From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) : Subject: Re: Differences between RUN/PROC and SPAWN/NOWAIT( Message-ID: <du36ii$9ma$1@pcls4.std.com>  / JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:    >Michael Moroney wrote: N >> If you want to run mosaic in a subprocess with the main process's logicals,F >> it's much easier to just $ SPAWN/NOWAIT it.  That's why it's there.  B >It is a question of process quotas. SPAWN/NOWAIT causes mosaic toE >consume ytour existing's job,s quotas, and that competes against TPU H >also wanting much resource and TPU crashes upon startup if it can't get >enough resources.  C >I'd rather find a clean way to get mosaic to run in its own job as 8 >opposed to boosting my default quotas for that account.  G In that case, you can use neither $ SPAWN nor $ RUN (w/o /DETACHED), as B both create a subprocess which consumes job resources.  Either useF $ RUN/DETACH or submit a batch job if you don't want to raise account  quotas.    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 04:00:18 GMT   From: John Santos <john@egh.com>: Subject: Re: Differences between RUN/PROC and SPAWN/NOWAIT* Message-ID: <m%8Nf.9167$XE6.5020@trnddc07>   JF Mezei wrote:  > Michael Moroney wrote: > M >>If you want to run mosaic in a subprocess with the main process's logicals, E >>it's much easier to just $ SPAWN/NOWAIT it.  That's why it's there.  >  > C > It is a question of process quotas. SPAWN/NOWAIT causes mosaic to F > consume ytour existing's job,s quotas, and that competes against TPUI > also wanting much resource and TPU crashes upon startup if it can't get  > enough resources.  > D > I'd rather find a clean way to get mosaic to run in its own job as9 > opposed to boosting my default quotas for that account.   @ Then RUN/DETACHED SYS$SYSTEM:LOGINOUT/AUTHORIZE/INPUT=MOSIAC.COM   where MOSAIC.COM contains:   $ MCR MOSAIC  A (If you want to pass a command line or URL to MOSAIC, just create  MOSAIC.COM on the fly.)    --   John Santos  Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:36:50 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> ? Subject: HP to launch new Montecito servers - without Montecito , Message-ID: <440524C5.30A65C47@teksavvy.com>  m > http://news.com.com/HP+launching+Montecito+servers--without+Montecito/2100-1006_3-6044206.html?tag=nefd.top   F basically, HP cannot wait for the delayed Montecito, so it is about toG launch new superdomes with a new chipset but with the old madison chips G for now. Obviously, performance differnce between old and new superdome + won't be that big, so not big "wow" factor.   D This means that HP mist have realised it was falling behind in sales quite substantially.  B Marcello is also quoted in thata rticle as saying IA64 is about 18E months late in HP's roadmap in terms of sales. According to roadmaps, G IA64 shoudl have surpassed 50% of BCS sales by 2005. It is only at 30%, B and marcello says that within 12 to 18 months it should reach 50%.  ? (Of course, once they stop Alpha sales, IA64 will automatically < represent greater percentage even if actual sales decrease).    F And of course Marcello onlt talks of IA64 as "Unix servers" as opposedD to "enterprise servers that run "Unix, VMS NSK and limited windows".   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:08:33 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>! Subject: Re: OpenVMS screenshots? + Message-ID: <44050221.AD810366@comcast.net>    Michael Kraemer wrote: >  > as400 schrieb:@ > > Since I now know that OpenVMS may be the most secure UNIX OSG > > around...Can anyone please provide me with a link to view some nice # > > screenshots of OpenVMS? Please?  > >  > = > You have asked a similar question on c.s.h.hpux and I think ! > there was also an answer to it. < > VMS/alpha looks pretty much the same as any UNIX with CDE,  H The caveat there is that on Alpha, at install time, you will be asked toF install support for the traditional DECwindows desktop as well as CDE.  5 Not sure about I64. Haven't installed it on that yet.   1 > VMS/VAX has DECwindows, same as ancient Ultrix.    --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  & Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page! http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/   ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/   ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Feb 2006 12:34:30 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) : Subject: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure!3 Message-ID: <8mnjpe64BDe6@eisner.encompasserve.org>   Y In article <frqdnWegYaOijJnZRVn-qw@libcom.com>, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:  > Karsten Nyblad wrote:  > ? >> In this case the problem is that you want independence from  J >> hardware and software vendors and because of that you want portability  >> of your applications. > > > Don't you just love it when someone tells you what you want?  I    Sometimes anti-VMS postings here sound like sales monologs for one of:   
       Solaris        Linux        UNIX in general   C    But never for Windows.  So we must have a more educated bunch of )    people than in the general population.    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Feb 2006 12:34:49 -0800 From: bob@instantwhip.com : Subject: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure!C Message-ID: <1141158889.496661.100300@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   + no I don't want independence from my HW and ) SW vendor, I want a OS that is secure and 2 reliable and that I don't have to patch daily with the patch of the day!    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Feb 2006 13:04:13 -0800' From: "toby" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> : Subject: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure!C Message-ID: <1141160653.023204.295260@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>    bob@instantwhip.com wrote:- > no I don't want independence from my HW and + > SW vendor, I want a OS that is secure and 4 > reliable and that I don't have to patch daily with > the patch of the day!   D Apparently you already have this, so why don't you shut up about it?   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Feb 2006 16:13:18 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) : Subject: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure!3 Message-ID: <8TL0Qw$A6eje@eisner.encompasserve.org>   V In article <46jadqFbg1fdU1@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:  ; > Again, if backwards compatability wasn't needed there was J > nothing to stop people from changing as far back as Ultrix-11 as in most > cases Unix came with source.  ; I can achieve that level of security with a blank computer. @ Let people toggle a proper operating system into the font panel.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:58:50 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>: Subject: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure!+ Message-ID: <4404FFDA.8274846B@comcast.net>    bob@instantwhip.com wrote: > & > encrypt it ... do I win a cookie? :)  A You might, if there were at least SOME clue what the hell you are  replying to...   --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  & Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page! http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/   ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/   ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:29:02 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> : Subject: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linux is NOT secure!9 Message-ID: <vo-dnWgJnrHlm5jZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@libcom.com>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:  C >>>By the way, VMS passwords still mono-case.  How do you reconcile H >>>that with the government requirement that passwords contain a certainH >>>number of upper and lower case characters?  I believe that's probablyA >>>a FIPS mandate too, although at this point it may only be DOD.  >>>  >>>bill  >>>  >>H >>Better to ask why the government makes a requirement that matches the ( >>capabilities of a particular system.   >  > F > Which one system are you talking about?  The only system I have hereH > that is mono-case is VMS.  Seems like they picked the one that matchedF > the most systems.  And we won't even take into account the fact thatF > mixed case adds 26 additional symbols to the set used for passwords. >  > J >>                                     Their requirements should not take C >>a particular example and then declare that everyone must comply.   >  > H > Well, they had to choose mono or mixed case.  No other options in thatE > set.  They chose the one that only leaves one system in the cold as I > opposed to the one that would leave all but one in the cold.  And there - > is the increased security aspect of it too.   E Ah, better go back to that logic class you mentioned.  False delima.  G Then did not have to choose anything.  Why not just let each be judged  : on it's total merits, not some arbitrary decision on case?  D As for increased security, to what small amount is being discussed? G With break-in detection and evasion, what's the odds of guessing a VMS  F password in a small number of tries?  Make it simple, use only the 26 G capitol letters and a password of three characters.  If the VMS system  H is set up to ignore valid passwords after three (3) attempts, then even H guessing the correct password after the three tries fails, and if there C is any intellegence (oxymoron) in the break-in procedure, it won't   re-try failed passwords.  ) In the real world, it ain't gonna happen.   C If we're discussing direct access to SYSUAF.DAT, rather than going  2 through LOGINOUT, then you're already comprimised.   --  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: 28 Feb 2006 22:32:16 -0800' From: "Kaushal" <etheticgame@gmail.com> 3 Subject: Regarding finding memory address using SDA C Message-ID: <1141194736.781882.261890@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>    Hi All, G           I had find all the datastructures from the header files(.h).I G had compiled all the c files and link it using map option, so did i get F some information of structure addresses from the map file. Now  i dontC know how to find the address of the structure and structure members # using sda. please guide me for that    Regards  Parikh Kaushal   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:15:23 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) , Message-ID: <4404CB74.A1408A24@teksavvy.com>   Bill Gunshannon wrote:K > Why don't they manufacture and sell SUV's?  Refridgerators?  Light bulbs? H > The people at the top are given the task of deciding the direction theK > company will take.  Just because their vision doesn't match yours (ours?)  > doesn't mean their wrong.     B They have a legal duty to the shareholders of maximising return onG investment. If they have assets they are not interested in and which do H not fit within their strategy, then it is wrong to let those assets just rot. They should sell them.   F When CP Rail decided it no longer wanted to be a railway in the 1980s,F it started to tear off as many tracks as the canadian government wouldH allow. It even requested the permission to tear off the transcontinentalD tracks between sudbury and thunderbay. Why ? because they decided itG wasn't their core business and that ships/trucks could do a better job. B Why tear off the tracks instead of letting them rot ? Because beanE counters found buyers for the railway ties and steel recyling for the D tracks, nails, copper recyliers for the telegraph wires and they sawE that it was more profitable to pay for the tracks to be dismantle and  sell the materials.   H Ironic that since then, what used to be canada's largest corporation hasC downsized itself, sold off all its assets and the railway is now an H independant company without a transcontinental network  and of course noF longer any synergy between its ships, trains, trucks and all the otherD companies they had (hotels, airline, lumber, and tons of other stuff+ which fed into its transportation network).   F If HP wants to focus on being just another DELL, it should at least doH like CP and sell off the parts that are not in its strategy before thoseE parts no longer have any value. At least CP returned lots of money to D shareholders and/or gave them shares in the spun off corporations orA shares in the corporations that purchased its stuff (for instance ! Fairmont which bought CP Hotels).   E If HP wants to be a serious IT company, it needs to be more than DELL F and needs to have enterprise products and services. And if it wants toF stay in that business, it needs to really work on fully leveraging theC full potential of all its enterprise assets, and that includes VMS.   E Like it or not, HP purchased the Digital assets included with Compaq. H And it didn't get Compaq at a bargain so it isn't really right for it to6 write off all those assets that still have potential.   H Pfeiffer wanted the "Digital" parts because he wanted Compaq to grow outF of the "Dell" model and become and enterprise IT supplier of goods andA services. And Pfeiffer had told Palmer to sell off the parts that  Pfeiffer wasnt interested in.   F Why didn't Carly tell Curly to sell off the portions of Compaq that HPF wasn't interested in ? Or did she know that Curly was incompetant wand wouldn't be able to do so ?    ------------------------------   Date: 28 Feb 2006 23:39:56 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) + Message-ID: <46k5acFbga3kU1@individual.net>   , In article <4404CB74.A1408A24@teksavvy.com>,0 	JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote:L >> Why don't they manufacture and sell SUV's?  Refridgerators?  Light bulbs?I >> The people at the top are given the task of deciding the direction the L >> company will take.  Just because their vision doesn't match yours (ours?) >> doesn't mean their wrong.   >  > D > They have a legal duty to the shareholders of maximising return on
 > investment.   D And the shareholders have not complained yet so they must be meetingC their legal duty.  Just because you or I don't like it doesn't mean B the shareholders don't.  Of course, you could buy up a majority of+ the stock and then you might have your say.   I >             If they have assets they are not interested in and which do J > not fit within their strategy, then it is wrong to let those assets just > rot. They should sell them.   E Your opinion.  I can think of a lot of reasons they may have given to F their shareholders or the BOD (who actually make those decisions) thatD would result in not selling those assets.  One of them might be thatD they have offered it and had no takers.  And no, you and your pocket change don't count.    > H > When CP Rail decided it no longer wanted to be a railway in the 1980s,H > it started to tear off as many tracks as the canadian government wouldJ > allow. It even requested the permission to tear off the transcontinentalF > tracks between sudbury and thunderbay. Why ? because they decided itI > wasn't their core business and that ships/trucks could do a better job. D > Why tear off the tracks instead of letting them rot ? Because beanG > counters found buyers for the railway ties and steel recyling for the F > tracks, nails, copper recyliers for the telegraph wires and they sawG > that it was more profitable to pay for the tracks to be dismantle and  > sell the materials.  > J > Ironic that since then, what used to be canada's largest corporation hasE > downsized itself, sold off all its assets and the railway is now an J > independant company without a transcontinental network  and of course noH > longer any synergy between its ships, trains, trucks and all the otherF > companies they had (hotels, airline, lumber, and tons of other stuff- > which fed into its transportation network).   I And all totally irelevant as that's CP Rail and not HP.  What one company J does is not legally binding on another company.  By the way, they may haveJ sold off all your tracks up there, but CP Rail owns pretty much everythingF around here.  I watch them shuttle cars around onthe siding next to my office every day.    > H > If HP wants to focus on being just another DELL, it should at least doJ > like CP and sell off the parts that are not in its strategy before those" > parts no longer have any value.   G Why?  Because you say they should?  What secret information has the BOD / shared with you that the rest of us don't have?   H >                                  At least CP returned lots of money toF > shareholders and/or gave them shares in the spun off corporations orC > shares in the corporations that purchased its stuff (for instance # > Fairmont which bought CP Hotels).    That's CP Rail, not HP.    > G > If HP wants to be a serious IT company, it needs to be more than DELL 6 > and needs to have enterprise products and services.   I Your opinion and obviously not shared by those that run HP.  Get yourself ; onto the BOD and then what you say may carry some weight.       H >                                                     And if it wants toH > stay in that business, it needs to really work on fully leveraging theE > full potential of all its enterprise assets, and that includes VMS.   - Your opinion, not shared by those who run HP.    > G > Like it or not, HP purchased the Digital assets included with Compaq. J > And it didn't get Compaq at a bargain so it isn't really right for it to8 > write off all those assets that still have potential.   F Maybe they don't think they have potential.  In which case they have a, legal obligation to not waste money on them.   > J > Pfeiffer wanted the "Digital" parts because he wanted Compaq to grow outH > of the "Dell" model and become and enterprise IT supplier of goods andC > services. And Pfeiffer had told Palmer to sell off the parts that  > Pfeiffer wasnt interested in.   K Pfeiffer is gone.  Palmer is gone.  What they did or did not want no longer M means anything.  Oh yeah, Digital is gone and Compaq is also gone.  It's HP's : game now and they seem to be doing exactly what they want.   > H > Why didn't Carly tell Curly to sell off the portions of Compaq that HPH > wasn't interested in ? Or did she know that Curly was incompetant wand > wouldn't be able to do so ?   H They were both incompetent, but that's water under the bridge.  They areH both gone now too.  By the way, how do you know Carly didn't tell Curly F to sell VMS but he was unable to find a suitable buyer?  Even the junkI on Ebay usually has a reserve price and if it isn't met the owner doesn't F just say, "Oh well, you can have my Beemer for $22.95."  That's one ofG the problems here.  Everybody seems to think they know better than HP's I current owners what is best for HP.  There may well be considerable info- H rmation that we just don't have.  And, of course, there is the emotionalJ attachement to VMS which clouds men's judgement as well.  I don't have anyJ secret knowledge either (they never shared the handshake with me) but I amL willing ot admit there may be reasons we are all unaware of that are drivingI their actions.  The more important thing at this point, in my opinion, is G to make sure you have plans that won;t leave you caught short if things  don't go your way.   bill   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------    Date: 28 Feb 2006 16:59:16 -0800$ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) A Message-ID: <1141174756.891146.3130@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:E > In article <1141094418.585679.265050@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, ) > 	"AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:  > >  > > Bill Gunshannon wrote:H > >> In article <1141082595.559315.241030@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,, > >> 	"AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes: > >> > > >> > Bill Gunshannon wrote: C > >> >> In article <3OJMf.69756$DM.8211@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, 3 > >> >> 	Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net> writes: 	 > >> >> > 	 > >> >> >   > >> >> > Bill Gunshannon wrote:	 > >> >> > 
 > >> >> >>P > >> >> >> Of course, your right.  But, what's your (and JF's) point?  HP is notO > >> >> >> marketing it.  HP is not going to market it.  Allt he screaming here O > >> >> >> over the past decade (it did start before HP even got involved!) has P > >> >> >> not had any effect on it.  And, it is not going to.  So, I ask again," > >> >> >> what's your point?  :-)	 > >> >> > R > >> >> > For a brief period in the Compaq era someone was listening and even someM > >> >> > real marketing took place and, low and behold, VMS sales started to 0 > >> >> > grow. Then the campaign stopped and... > >> >> 9 > >> >> And that shold tell everyone here something, too.  > >> > > >> >L > >> > Well, I for one would simply like to understand *why* HP doesn't wantJ > >> > to market what is supposedly a high-margin product. What great harmK > >> > would come if they marketed VMS a little? Even a small gain in sales L > >> > would pay for it. And you say that despite all that they're still notJ > >> > going to do it. OK. But WHY? And it would help their Itanium sales, > >> > would it not? > >> >L > >> > Bill, I understand your point: HP is simply not going to do any majorK > >> > marketing for VMS. Fine. But given the big margin, and the fact that J > >> > the brief Renaissance of VMS in 2000 increased sales, all I ask is: > >> > WHY?  > >>L > >> Because VMS is obviously not the direction they want the company to go.! > >> Ray Charles could see that!!  > > F > > I acknowledged that. So they won't push VMS because that's not theE > > direction they want the company to go. So why don't they want the K > > company to go that way? (Which is what I thought I asked in my previous 
 > > post.) > >  > K > Why don't they manufacture and sell SUV's?  Refridgerators?  Light bulbs? H > The people at the top are given the task of deciding the direction theK > company will take.  Just because their vision doesn't match yours (ours?) J > doesn't mean their wrong.  I am sure they have their reasons, and again,  0 No, but that doesn't mean they're right, either.  J > while I am sure we would not agree with them, it just isn't our decisionI > to make.  The big thing becomes what are you (we) going to do about it?   C I understand that. I was asking what those reasons might be. If you G don't know, then just say so. You don't need to repeat your case. I got  it.   K > Contrary to what some people here would like to believe, we are not going N > to change the course of the good ship HP.  It is really time to start making: > plans that take this into consideration, like it or not. >  > bill >  > --L > Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesF > bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > University of Scranton   |@ > Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Feb 2006 16:55:53 -0800$ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) C Message-ID: <1141174553.124475.251070@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>    Bill Todd wrote: > AEF wrote: > > Alan Greig wrote:  > >> AEF wrote:  > >>K > >>> Bill, I understand your point: HP is simply not going to do any major J > >>> marketing for VMS. Fine. But given the big margin, and the fact thatI > >>> the brief Renaissance of VMS in 2000 increased sales, all I ask is: 
 > >>> WHY?J > >> Management school. The fewer things you manage the fewer variables toI > >> control. "Downsize, rightsize, capsize" as a DEC engineer once said.  > >> > >> --  > >> Alan Greig  > > * > > So why favor less profitable products? > @ > Duh - have you been asleep for the past half-dozen years here?  E Bill, I've read many posts on this topic, but not all. Maybe I missed C the one with the true answer. Maybe not. But of those I have read I @ have not seen what I consider a satisfactory answer. And with B.F Gunshannon pushing the point that nothing about HP w.r.t. VMS is going> to change, I thought I'd press the question. But he dodged it.  E > cHumPaq management favors what makes their jobs easy, with profit a F > distant second-place (if even that:  just as in the political realm,@ > expecting their nominal primary responsibility to rise even to+ > second-place priority is probably naive).   E Hmmm, the whole POINT of a corporation is to make money. For that you D need profits. A distant second doesn't make any sense. That's like aC living organism putting eating at at a distant second or worse. The E company's done better than that (at least since mid-2002 if you go by @ the stock price), so either they do value profit or they somehow stumbled upon it (less likely).        Assembling boxes from D > components made by others is easier than coming up with technologyJ > yourself:  no messy R&D to manage and (gasp!) actually direct and dependJ > upon for your future, easily-understandable metrics, minimal risk (whichC > of course tends to go hand-in-hand with minimal reward, but who's 
 > counting?).   D We're talking about HP. This is 100% opposite of what hp started outA as. The whole point of HP was R&D (and to make money, of course).   F Doesn't assembling boxes mean low margins? But you say they put profitF a distant second at best. OK, that's consistent. But you still have to make profit.  G And so what would it hurt to spend a little on VMS marketing? Would the G shareholders rise in revolt upon hearing about great profits being made  from increased sales of VMS?  B > As long as shareholders apparently won't demand any more of themJ > (another close parallel with politics), there's pretty much no down-sideG > at all.  Carly wasn't given the boot because she failed to live up to C > shareholder expectations:  she just rocked too many boats (in the E > process of burning them), with no particularly visible compensating A > strengths (aside from her silver tongue) to balance things out.   E Well what the hell were shareholders saying when HP's stock slid from C just above 30 in late 2000 to about 12 in the middle of 2002? I see E it's actually been going up quite nicely since and is now at least at  the just-above-30 level.  C Speaking about profitable products: Can you imagine HP allowing its > printer and printer-ink business to wither away due to lack ofC marketing? Of course not -- we're talking big profits. Unless those E profits are from sales of VMS of course! Then everyone says all sorts - of things why HP doesn't market VMS properly.      > F > What irony:  they (the HP BoD) probably would have been happier with: > Curly - not that that would have done VMS any more good. >  > - bill   AEF    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:56:21 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) , Message-ID: <4404F125.B2485E5B@teksavvy.com>   Bill Gunshannon wrote:L > secret knowledge either (they never shared the handshake with me) but I amN > willing ot admit there may be reasons we are all unaware of that are driving > their actions.      H The reasons are pretty simple: they are convinced there isn't any growthE potential and that VMS is a donosaur bound for extinction and that it F isn't worth to even try. So they milk customers stupid enough to stick to this old legacy platform.    G If you accept that HP has no long term plans for VMS and will just milk D it as long as possible, then the question becomes: when does the "as long as possible" expire ?  D With the installed base having shrunk by 25%, and lack of success ofF that IA64 thing, is the point where HP decides to stop developping VMS coming sooner than expected ?    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Feb 2006 17:40:49 -0800 From: bob@instantwhip.com 5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) B Message-ID: <1141177249.665978.37090@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>  = "Oh yeah, Digital is gone and Compaq is also gone.  It's HP's < game now and they seem to be doing exactly what they want. "    & or did you mean what Bill Gates wants?   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Mar 2006 02:02:58 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) + Message-ID: <46kdmiFb9062U1@individual.net>   B In article <1141177249.665978.37090@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, 	bob@instantwhip.com writes:? > "Oh yeah, Digital is gone and Compaq is also gone.  It's HP's > > game now and they seem to be doing exactly what they want. " >  > ( > or did you mean what Bill Gates wants?  K Wait, is that a black helicopter I hear?  No, just a passing garbage truck. H Sorry, no conspiracy theories.  I doubt Bill Gates gives a rats patootie3 about VMS.  Assuming he even knows it still exists.    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: 28 Feb 2006 17:54:44 -0800$ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) C Message-ID: <1141178084.012859.103270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    Karsten Nyblad wrote:  > AEF wrote:G > > So why favor less profitable products? Volume? Is it really enough?  > G > Business management 101 says that you should invest in the sectors of J > grows, make sure the steady ongoing business continues, and extort money  > from business on its way down.  D So if their printer and/or printer-ink business starts to wane, theyC should extort money from it to prop something else up that's either 3 growing or not waning as quickly? I don't think so.   '  The market for other OSes than Windows F > and open source OSes is under pressure, and it looks like these OSesA > will be difficult save.  That is even true for the z/OS and the  > proprietary Unixes.   G But one of, if not the, biggest problems is security. And VMS should be G a rather easy sell because of that. Or at least easier than others. And E as you mention below, there's the problem of maximizing availability,  where VMS also shines brightly.   . Thus business management 101 tells you that HPF > should suck out all the money they can from VMS customers and invest" > that money in Windows and Linux.  C Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, teach gym --Woody  Allen.   > F > I am not telling you that this is the right way to run HP, because IH > think that VMS's high availability features are so unique that VMS canJ > survive a long time on them.  And then for all practical purposes VMS is* > one of the most secure OSes you can get.   OK.    AEF    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:01:41 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) + Message-ID: <44050085.CD48FDC4@comcast.net>    Bill Gunshannon wrote: > - > In article <4403AAD8.FFAD849D@comcast.net>, > >         David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> writes: > > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > >>@ > >> In article <3OJMf.69756$DM.8211@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,7 > >>         Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net> writes:  > >> > > >> > > >> > Bill Gunshannon wrote:  > >> > > >> >> M > >> >> Of course, your right.  But, what's your (and JF's) point?  HP is not L > >> >> marketing it.  HP is not going to market it.  Allt he screaming hereL > >> >> over the past decade (it did start before HP even got involved!) hasM > >> >> not had any effect on it.  And, it is not going to.  So, I ask again,  > >> >> what's your point?  :-)  > >> >O > >> > For a brief period in the Compaq era someone was listening and even some J > >> > real marketing took place and, low and behold, VMS sales started to- > >> > grow. Then the campaign stopped and...  > >>6 > >> And that shold tell everyone here something, too. > > 3 > > Tells me that we're right and "they" are wrong.  > > $ > > ...or did I miss something here? > G > Except that in this case, "they" get to decide what is right and what  > is wrong.   G Well, no "they" don't. "They" can decide what "they" will/won't do, but  that's as far as it goes.    --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  & Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page! http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/   ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/   ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:16:44 -0700 6 From: "Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospam>1 Subject: Re: Security holiday over for Mac users! . Message-ID: <n43Nf.15$917.641@news.uswest.net>     G Unfortunately, the newer VMS layered products are based on code from UC I Berkeley (TCP/IP) and Microsoft (COM interface).  This newer code set may L open VMS to attacks based on some of the same viruii circulating for WindowsH running on the Itanium processor.  Hopefully, VMS is enough different in/ system calls internally that this won't happen.   
 Mike Ober.    & <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote in message< news:1141136995.335799.36290@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...F > have you ever noticed these are the only two examples which are overG > 20 years old now that people ever mention in relation to vms security E > problems ... not bad, only two they can think of in 20 years ... :)  >  >    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Feb 2006 13:42:17 -0800 From: bob@instantwhip.com 1 Subject: Re: Security holiday over for Mac users! C Message-ID: <1141162937.082108.284780@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>   ? a tech from process was on here one day when we were discussing C differences between ucx multinet and tcpware ... I don't know about > the other two but TCPware is based on the vms kernel where theC other two are not, and if you go to process.com and look at all the G CERT advisories for ip stack issues, all they register under TCPware is    ACCESS VIOLATION ERROR   and does not affect vms ...    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 03:14:26 GMT   From: John Santos <john@egh.com>1 Subject: Re: Security holiday over for Mac users! * Message-ID: <mk8Nf.9159$XE6.7616@trnddc07>   Bill Gunshannon wrote:1 > Well, as my one contribution to this thread....  > G > It has been pointed out that in order for this virus to work you have G > to type the root password into a prompt popup.  People here have been G > amazed at readily Mac users will do this.  We have one Mac using prof G > here.  I mentioned this to him (mostly as a warning) and was informed : > that the Mac prompts for the root password all the time.   You were mis-informed.  H                                                               Unless youH > are running as root (not recommended) every time you do something thatI > wold require root priveledges it merely asks for the password.  Can you G > say "Pavlov's dogs"?  After doing this several dozen times, most Mac  E > users probably reach a point where they do it without even thinking 1 > much less considering the possible consequence.  >  > Interesting!!  >  > bill  E The only time a typical Mac user is prompted for the password is when B they are installing a patch ("Software Update").  If you are doingB system stuff, such as manually adding a network route, you need toB "sudo route ...", which prompts for the root password, but I think2 99.99% of Mac users *never* do anything like that.     --   John Santos  Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  + Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:50:13 +0000 (UTC) P From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)$ Subject: up-to-date LaTeX etc on VMS$ Message-ID: <du2614$pa6$1@online.de>  D I've asked this here a couple of times before, but never really got 1 anywhere.  So, I'll rephrase my request somewhat.   H Since 1992 I have done essentially all my computer work on VMS.  I have  no plans to change this.  C I used LaTeX practically every day 1992--2000.  Since then, I have   hardly used it as all.  H I need to start using LaTeX again, on VMS of course.  My current [TEXMF]@ installation is from 1998 or so, and is based on Ralf Grtner's 1 contribution to a VMS-freeware CD from that time.    I see several possibilities:  H    1)  continue with my current distribution, upgrading things piecemeal        when necessary   G    2)  get a modern [TEXMF...] tree and re-install from scratch (my own G        stuff in the old distribution is obvious and can be copied over)   B    3)  re-install from scratch from the standard CTAN distribution  >    4)  upgrade my current distribution from the standard CTAN         distribution   E I think 1) will be too much trouble.  It will take too much time, it  I won't be obvious what needs to be done until it needs doing (and at that  C time it might not be convenient) and I'm not sure that things will   continue to work at all stages.   F 2) would probably be the best best, if such a beast exists.  If thingsB are installed properly, I should be able to just put a copy of the; entire directory tree on one of my disks, and some stuff to I SYSTARTUP_VMS.COM and SYS$SYLOGIN and be all set.  It would be nice, but  ? not essential, to have VAX and ALPHA executables and/or have a  F distribution which can be compiled from the sources.  Is anyone using 3 LaTeX on VMS who could provide me with such a tree?   E 3) is a non-starter since I have never done a fresh install from CTAN I (only upgrades) unless there is a step-by-step guide how to do this on a   VMS system.   A 4) would be an option if a) not that much of the stuff I need has G changed and b) if I can find a step-by-step guide of what I need to do, B which in contrast to 3) is probably not VMS-specific.  (I consider? myself quite proficient in VMS.  With LaTeX, I was a reasonably > proficient user.  As far as installation, my slightly modifiedG out-of-the-box installation continues to work OK and I understand what  D it does.  I don't know much about the internals of (La)TeX, which I D won't need to as long as things work more or less out-of-the-box or " according to a step-by-step plan.)  H Which of the options do folks currently using LaTeX (and XDVI and DVIPS  and GS etc) on VMS recommend?   F If I recall correctly, the LaTeX world has split somewhat based on theD approach to PDF.  My gut reaction would be to have a setup as in theG past, using GS to produce PDF if needed.  (Even my quite old version of B GS produces PDF (though probably not the best PDF) from PostScriptA generated by DVIPS.)  This might be essentially a replacement for @ PostScript for people who for whatever reason don't want to readB PostScript.  I don't know if I will need links within the documentE and/or external links and if so what is the best way to produce them.   H Apart from "core" stuff, I'll be looking to include PostScript graphics + and will use BibTeX, natbib and custom-bib.    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:54:05 GMT # From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) ( Subject: Re: up-to-date LaTeX etc on VMS2 Message-ID: <xT1Nf.3821$fN1.1383@news.cpqcorp.net>  w In article <du2614$pa6$1@online.de>, helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) writes: E :I've asked this here a couple of times before, but never really got  2 :anywhere.  So, I'll rephrase my request somewhat.  H   And to prevent this question from landing in my mailbox, I do not haveI   a newer version of TeX or LaTeX queued for the Freeware, nor am I aware <   of a newer port than what shipped out quite some time ago.  F   I would be happy to accept a submission for the upcoming Freeware V8   distro, of course. :-)    N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faq N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------G        Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[\0100]hp.com    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Feb 2006 12:32:31 -0800 From: bob@instantwhip.com 1 Subject: Webinar, I asked the tough questions ... C Message-ID: <1141158751.706791.159740@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>    but got no answers ...   Q: itanium laptopsF A: not in the next 3 years ("did he maybe mean "not in your lifetime")  G Q: We hear VMS and itanium are for the high end, what about us small 1P       server customers.7 A: We are looking at offerings beyond the rx1600 series   0 Q: Rich Marcellos low growth potential statementD A: We are starting to get some calls from OS390 customers, so we see someG     potential there ("but we still can't see the low and high end until  Bill gates quits     writing us checks")     D and I am not the only one who asked some of these ... these managers
 (and I useF the term loosely) have no vision beyond the certain niche markets they mention F (healthcare, banks, stocks) so I guess they are either being forced to repeat this 7 garbage over and over or they are really really dum ...    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.119 ************************