1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 10 Sep 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 496       Contents: "My name is Hoff" ( Re: Alpha/V8.3/Backup/Control-T/BUGCHECK( Re: Alpha/V8.3/Backup/Control-T/BUGCHECK( Re: Alpha/V8.3/Backup/Control-T/BUGCHECK3 Re: Bugcheck 3C4 Alpha 7.2-2 $audit_event User Mode 8 DISMOUNT foreign tape crashes with VMS83A_ADDENDUM-V0100' Re: Encrypted backup questions/concepts & Re: HP announces new Integrity servers& Re: HP announces new Integrity servers> Re: Inner-Mode initi-routines, mailbox i/o channels, and privs OK, Here 'tis! (Example code) P Re: OT - running IE in Windows (was:Re: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long 5 Re: OT: IA64's speed beaten by orders of magnitude... ' Re: Pseudo-Device Driver example needed ! Re: SAMBA 3.0 (CIFS) with TCPware 2 Re: VAX 4000/600 free to good home - Manchester UK  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 09:07:42 +0800 3 From: "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com>  Subject: "My name is Hoff"1 Message-ID: <edvob1$8nf$1@news-02.connect.com.au>   	 Hi Steve,   C >    I'd likely look to use an identifier; to avoid the privileges.   L Another marvellously context-devoid throw away line. Which privileges? WhereH would you stick the identifier? If you mean the UWSS .EXE file then that sounds good.  J [Just had an Idea for a new T.V. Series where this guy has acrawled down aL list, on the back of an envelope, of all the things *other people* have doneJ wrong in their lives. (Like coding UWSSs and initialization routines, etc,L etc) then, just like karma's evenging angel, he goes round each week reaking/ havoc on development environments. Could work!]   * >    EXEC and KERNEL have implicit SETPRV.  
 Well done!  < > > 2) Why doesn't the *last* asynchronous read need SYSPRV?D >    Donno.  If it's in the same mode as the channel, I'd expect not  J OK. I'll rephrase; Why *do all the others* at the same mode as the channel need SYSPRV?  J One explanation could be that I was only imagining that the lib$initializeI routine got invoked in Exec Mode and that it's been in User Mode all this I time and the $SETPRVs are using Auth privs? But what about that last one? K And why does it need SYSPRV if I drop the ASTADR parameter? I'll look again 
 this arvo.  J >    Channels are mode specific.  Once opened, any I/O from the particular mode > can perform I/O.  J Please see my example 'cos I must have a bug or what you have just said is! incorrect for the mailbox driver.   C >    There are multiple privilege masks.  Did you check the running  > (enabled) mask?   D I was checking CURPRIV the image is not installed but AUTHPRIVs wereK available. Maybe I should've been testing with an account that doesn't hace  auth privs?   H >    Outer-mode code can't (by default) access more-privileged channels.  5 Which clearly is the point of the inner-mode channel.   4 > > work at ambient (I swear it's zilch!) privileges >  >    Which is expected.   K All points to the initialization routine being in User Mode. As I said I'll  have to check later.   Cheers Richard Maher  9 "Hoff Hoffman" <hoff-remove-this@hp.com> wrote in message $ news:450329b5@usenet01.boi.hp.com... > Richard Maher wrote: > C >    I'd likely look to use an identifier; to avoid the privileges.  > H > > 1) Having assigned the cmd_chan channel in Exec Mode, why do I first have to L > > $setprv to SYSPRV before being able to do a $QIO on that chan while *in* > > Exec Mode? > * >    EXEC and KERNEL have implicit SETPRV. > < > > 2) Why doesn't the *last* asynchronous read need SYSPRV? > E >    Donno.  If it's in the same mode as the channel, I'd expect not.  > J > > 3) Why doesn't a subsequent UWSS routine also need to up privileges to do a > > QIO? > J >    Channels are mode specific.  Once opened, any I/O from the particular mode > can perform I/O. > I > > 4) Given 2 and 3, I automatically assumed that I'd left on SYSPRV and  the J > > elevated state was persisting, but I've checked the process privileges and  > > they are still at /NOALL > C >    There are multiple privilege masks.  Did you check the running  (enabled) mask?  > J > > 5) I tried other asynchronous i/o but they still seemed to need SYSPRV > H >    Outer-mode code can't (by default) access more-privileged channels. > L > > 6) Writes from Exec Mode rundown handler and Asynch reads from EXEC ASTs all 4 > > work at ambient (I swear it's zilch!) privileges >  >    Which is expected.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 20:34:22 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 1 Subject: Re: Alpha/V8.3/Backup/Control-T/BUGCHECK , Message-ID: <45035D82.74C08A9E@teksavvy.com>   Guy Peleg wrote:7 > I find it hard to believe that BACKUP is the culprit.     G Yeah ! yeah ! says the guy fleeing VMS engineering just before his bugs   make it to the customers !!!!!!!  4 Now we know why you left :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 08:07:04 +0300 ; From: "Guy Peleg" <guy.peleg@remove_this_header@bruden.com> 1 Subject: Re: Alpha/V8.3/Backup/Control-T/BUGCHECK 9 Message-ID: <4503906d$0$19678$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>   : "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message& news:45035D82.74C08A9E@teksavvy.com... > Guy Peleg wrote:9 > > I find it hard to believe that BACKUP is the culprit.  >  > I > Yeah ! yeah ! says the guy fleeing VMS engineering just before his bugs " > make it to the customers !!!!!!! > 6 > Now we know why you left :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)   I'm Busted ! ;-)       --  = Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com & Warning: Do not use Ultimate-Anonymity3 They are worthless spamers that are running a scam.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 08:06:31 +0300 ; From: "Guy Peleg" <guy.peleg@remove_this_header@bruden.com> 1 Subject: Re: Alpha/V8.3/Backup/Control-T/BUGCHECK 9 Message-ID: <4503906c$0$19678$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>   : "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message& news:45035D82.74C08A9E@teksavvy.com... > Guy Peleg wrote:9 > > I find it hard to believe that BACKUP is the culprit.  >  > I > Yeah ! yeah ! says the guy fleeing VMS engineering just before his bugs " > make it to the customers !!!!!!! > 6 > Now we know why you left :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)   I'm busted ;-)       --  = Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com & Warning: Do not use Ultimate-Anonymity3 They are worthless spamers that are running a scam.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 16:49:15 -0400 , From: Hoff Hoffman <hoff-remove-this@hp.com>< Subject: Re: Bugcheck 3C4 Alpha 7.2-2 $audit_event User Mode* Message-ID: <450328cb@usenet01.boi.hp.com>   Richard Maher wrote: > Hi Steve,  > L > Yeah I'll be with ya in a minute - everyone's a bit keen today! The damageJ > (to me) is done, a work around (bugfix) is in place, a hacker needs priv: > (audit) to cause trouble and all's right with the world.    K    The immediate broad-brush sorting applied within OpenVMS engineering is  J "privileged crasher" versus "non-privileged crasher".  (And arguably, the O construct referred to as a "privilege" is misnamed, too, as it might better be  + termed a "responsibility".  But I digress.)   O    A privileged user can crash the OpenVMS system.  There are a gazillion ways  G to do that, including several fully supported ways to crash the system.   O    Now as for this case.  This particular API issue does need to be addressed,  G as a simple coding mistake such as this one should not trigger a crash.   D >>    And would this be a call to auditing from within a UWSS image? > G > No, this is a detached User-Mode server process that *is* talking via M > mailboxes with UWSSs in unprivileged user-process context. As I said, there I > used to be a nsa$_chain there and then there wasn't, so a zero longword  > saved the day.  N    The first testing was performed on V7.3-2, as that's the closest supported C release.  Next up is loading V7.2-2 for a look at that environment.   N > Thanks for the effort of all involved. Maybe it's what binary itemlist codesN > the trailing ascii data in my working-storage translate to? Had a quick lookM > at the source but couldn't waste any more time as it started to peel onions K > with exe$ and nsa$ ratholes. Interesting(?) that other item list services L > return a all encompassing ss$_badparam when there is an itemlist issue butM > $audit_event has about 5 statii. (No common itemlist validation source code  > then?)  Q    If the itemlist has "junk" after it, it may well be something downstream from  7 the missing terminator that is the actual trigger here.   L > PS. Yes, I am deliberately using an initialization routine to give you theH > shits. (I think our relationship has moved to an unhealthy plateau :-)  N    Our discussions here are, well, cute.  Variously even entertaining.  But I O digress.  May we return to addressing the particular problem you are reporting  J here?   I'd like to get to the bottom of that matter, and get the problem & reproduced and the auditing API fixed.   ------------------------------   Date: 9 Sep 2006 21:55:52 -0700 / From: "Volker Halle" <volker_halle@hotmail.com> A Subject: DISMOUNT foreign tape crashes with VMS83A_ADDENDUM-V0100 B Message-ID: <1157864152.373437.12040@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>  4 OpenVMS engineering has acknowledged this problem inC VMS83A_ADDENDUM-V0100 and is going to provide a new IO_ROUTINES.EXE E image on monday - you need to log a support call with your HP support 6 center. See the above entry in the ITRC OpenVMS forum.  E I would also expect the VMS83A_ADDENDUM-V0100 patch to be put on hold . and a new version to be released quite soon...   --- , Volker Halle, Invenate GmbH, OpenVMS Support  # An OpenVMS crashdump analysis a day $ makes the Windows headaches go away.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 16:23:50 -0400 , From: Hoff Hoffman <hoff-remove-this@hp.com>0 Subject: Re: Encrypted backup questions/concepts* Message-ID: <450322d5@usenet01.boi.hp.com>   Rich Jordan wrote:  C >      Is Ask the Wizard 9820 what you're referring too as detailed H > directions?  We don't have a magnetic disk 'to spare' on most systems;G > there's either only one (nonremoveable) disk or the data disk doesn't I > have free space to spare for installation of a copy of the OS.  However D > where we do have a sizeable data disk, thats certainly a very good	 > option.  > D >      Something to play with this weekend.  I still don't have V8.3B > media but I can certainly test as much as possible with V8.2 and > layered products.     M    Ask The Wizard (9820) is a greatly reduced version of the documentation I  Q provided for the recording-related part of the OpenVMS V8.3 EFT -- documentation  O which wasn't incorporated into the released V8.3 documentation for reasons not   germane to this discussion.   N    If you were in the V8.3 EFT and still have the related mail, pull down the E add-on recording kit that was announced during the EFT, and pull the  O documentation out of the PCSI kit.  When last I looked, the PCSI kit was still   at the cited location.  M    An extended version of the information in (9820) and derived from the EFT  P materials will serve as the basis of an article on this topic I'm submitting to Q the next OpenVMS Technical Journal.  I have found the documentation in this area  % -- from any source -- is rather weak.   Q    Given that used StorageWorks 36 GB disk bricks are going for circa US$100 and  O often less (depending on the particular mounting options), I'd scrounge a SCSI  ) disk or two.  (CD and DVD media is slow.)    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 20:35:53 -0400 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>/ Subject: Re: HP announces new Integrity servers G Message-ID: <WoSdnY4WtNZ0wJ7YnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com>    Main, Kerry wrote: >> -----Original Message----- 3 >> From: Bill Todd [mailto:billtodd@metrocast.net]  " >> Sent: September 9, 2006 1:33 AM >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com2 >> Subject: Re: HP announces new Integrity servers >> >> Main, Kerry wrote:  >>>> -----Original Message----- 5 >>>> From: Bill Todd [mailto:billtodd@metrocast.net]  $ >>>> Sent: September 8, 2006 5:53 PM >>>> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com4 >>>> Subject: Re: HP announces new Integrity servers >>>> >>>> FredK wrote:  >>> [snip ...] >>> 6 >>>>> Cool.  How fast does VMS run on the Power5+ 4+M?@ >>>> I'm not sure how that would be relevant to this sub-topic,  >>>> unless HP is ; >>>> actually touting price/performance metrics for VMS on   >> Superdome (see 9 >>>> above context).  That would be great, since I can't   >> remember the last  = >>>> time VMS's owners bothered to benchmark anything on VMS.  >>>>: >>>> Of course, if VMS were to be ported to a platform as  >>>> estimable as POWER A >>>> (if that's what you were obliquely referring to) that would   >>>> be nice as = >>>> well (though I'd have to suggest that porting to x86-64   >>>> should likely be  >>>> a higher priority). >>>> >>>> - bill  >>>>@ >>> Yep, all those CIO's and CEO's can't wait to add to the CPU  >> glut that >>> they already have.H >> Au contraire:  what they'd *like* to be able to do is standardize on F >> x86-64, and indeed as that's becoming increasingly possible that's I >> exactly what they seem to be doing as a consequence (though there's a  > >> lot of lag in the high end, given product lifetimes there). >> > 5 > Sigh .. How many times does it need to be repeated?  > B > Customers are looking for supported, stable and highly available# > solutions to run their business.   > J > The ones making the business decisions are not burning up their meetings# > talking about techie chip stuff.    G Exactly:  they are looking at *standardizing* (for reasons of cost and  H support complexity that have nothing to do with 'techie chip stuff') on I the *least expensive viable solution*.  And beyond any shadow of a doubt  ? that's x86-64 in any situation where that solution *is* viable.   I That's up to 64 Xeon cores *today* in IBM's X3 line, up to 32 Xeon cores  I from Unisys, up to 8 Xeon cores from HP.  Up to 16 Opteron cores *today*  G from Sun, up to 8 Opteron cores from HP and IBM).  Large enough in the  C case of Xeon for all but the very small niche of those whose needs  I exceed 64-core systems (and they'll be able to get more from x86-64 next  F year, when Opteron will start supporting 32-core systems effectively; G IBM's X3 systems may actually support 128-core configurations as early  H as the end of this year if Intel ships quad-core Xeon modules by then), E and reliable enough for just about anyone who doesn't require *real*  . fault-tolerant redundantly-executing hardware.   ...   @ >>> Its probably worth providing this link again for reflection:6 >>> http://www.itjungle.com/tug/tug102005-story04.html7 >>> "Stop Arguing About Cars and Start Managing Fleets" E >> What an interesting citation for someone who purports to be a VMS  ? >> advocate.  That article states clearly, multiple times, and   >> in multiple  
 >> ways, that  >>? >> "We find ourselves living in a world of parity; at least as   >> far as Unix, I >> OS/400, and VMS servers are concerned. What I mean by this is that as  ? >> far as base technology goes, we have a level playing field.   >> The Windows  < >> and Linux operating systems have made some progress, but  >> still have to  A >> make up some ground in terms of scalability, availability and   >> workload A >> management in order to compete head-to-head with the dominant  : >> Unixes--Solaris, AIX, and HP-UX--or IBM's OS/400-based  >> iSeries platform A >> or Hewlett-Packard's OpenVMS platform, which may as well both   >> be Unix in B >> terms of its uptime, resiliency, security, and sophistication." >>@ >> Think (if you are capable) of what that means:  that even as  >> of today no  @ >> one needs VMS at all (given that just-as-good Unix expertise  >> is so much ? >> easier to come by), that increasingly no one needs anything   >> but x86-64 @ >> (as scalable and reliable solutions on that platform already  >> exist up to  I >> quite reasonable system sizes - 64 cores from IBM, 16 - 32 cores from  @ >> multiple sources for Opteron, and even larger configurations  >> on the way = >> for both), and that standardizing on that single platform   >> (with all its  ; >> commodity volume/cost advantages and upon which can run   >> high-end Unix in 1 >> the form or Solaris, dirt-common Windows, and   >> intermediate-level Linux)  - >> thus has become something of a no-brainer.  >> > I > Mmm... OpenVMS can certainly hold its own as those running banks, stock C > exchanges, chip manufacturing and major health institutions know.   E Not for *new* users, it can't:  there's no pool of expertise to draw  G from, because virtually all of that expertise has moved elsewhere save  K for that which is still in place (and aging rapidly) from the days or yore.   F Not exactly a recipe for growth, or for long-term confidence that its H vendor will continue to do much to keep it even as competitive as it is  today.   > F > But feel free to keep harping on the techie Mhz and Ghz cool-aid ..   I You're the only one trying to divert the conversation in that direction,  G Kerry:  I didn't say a word about *anything* technical, just about the  H kinds of high-level management issues that appeal to - well, high-level @ management that makes the final decisions, as the article noted.   > ? >> Of course, some people might dispute some of the underlying   >> assumptions in the above  >  > You think?  E The point, as I made clear in the continuation of that sentence that  C you've even quoted just below, was that you cited an article which  E directly stated that VMS no longer enjoyed any notable advantages as  I support for your position.  Are you withdrawing that recommendation now,  E or do you just want to pick and choose which portions of the article  B people should consider authoritative and which they should ignore?   > ; >> , but they follow very directly from combining your own  C >> repetitive droning with the content of the article which you've  I >> recommended we reflect upon.  As the adage goes, "Be careful what you   >> wish for..."  >>	 >> - bill  >> > E > The point of the article was that businesses are no longer focussed I > solely on the techie cool-aid of the day. They are looking for HA, very G > secure solutions and ways to make their existing IT environments much  > more cost effective.    A And for the vast majority that way is fast becoming (if it isn't  A already) x86-64, for the reasons I've noted.  Only the intrinsic  G time-lag associated with higher-end transitions is making the movement  F to this platform less than blindingly obvious to even the most biased C observer (though of course that wouldn't keep people like you from  H desperately spinning out the line that black is white to anyone foolish  enough to listen).   > G > And remember that the initial server HW costs are one of the smallest ! > components of the overall cost.   H Exactly:  that's why platforms with dwindling popularity are generating C dwindling interest, while despite their limitations platforms like  ' Windows and Linux are growing robustly.   I Between legacy platforms that people choose only when they have no other  I (short-term) choice, and robustly-developed platforms that people choose  C whenever those platforms can meet their needs, which do you really  B believe have the better prospects?  If the owners of those legacy E platforms had been a lot more aggressive in keeping them current and  G competitive, the situation might have been very different - but that's  % water under the bridge at this point.    > ; > Imho, as an example of the importance of benchmarks today   G Why do you continue to try to divert the conversation and set up straw  H men?  (That was a rhetorical question, of course:  anyone who knows you . at all understands very well why you do that.)  I When you're on the losing side of an argument, continuing to bluster for  @ the benefit of the audience just gives them more opportunity to D understand how full of shit you really are.  This is not doing your B employer any favors:  just as with the current BoD fiasco, they'd I probably prefer just to minimize all conversation about the issue - they  D don't need to convince those who already understand and are already B flocking to the *real* 'industry-standard' solutions that HP will E happily sell them, and would just as soon those who don't understand  I remain in the dark and continue to pay through the nose for their legacy  
 cash cows.  D Not that there are likely to be all that many people here who still I don't understand, of course:  most of those who felt they had any viable  E alternative to VMS have either left already or are waiting for their  K current systems to become inadequate while alternatives continue to mature.    - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 20:43:05 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> / Subject: Re: HP announces new Integrity servers , Message-ID: <45035F8C.B412C8AE@teksavvy.com>   "Main, Kerry" wrote:B > Customers are looking for supported, stable and highly available" > solutions to run their business. > J > The ones making the business decisions are not burning up their meetings" > talking about techie chip stuff.    F The architecture an OS runs on, especially VMS, is very important. VMS= customers have lived though the broken promises of Alpha, its E euthanasia, and the broken promises of IA64 which never panned out as E "industry standard, commodity" chip. And there are many press outlets , which make mention of IA64's upcoming death.  A Customers want to build on an architecture whose future is not in D question. Like it or not, IA64's future is not certain. It is not an) asset for VMS, it is a liability for VMS.   H Moving to the 8086 removes all the fears about long term availability of@ systems, and garantees that VMS run on the most competitive chip@ available from multiple vendors and especially sicne this is THEE architecture that vendors (chip and systems) are measured against, so B this is where there is constant and very strong motivation to keep improving it ASAP.  G IA64 is still trying to catch up, and the cadence of new releases keeps H being lowered while we hear Intel promising the cadence of 8086 releasesD is to be increased.  Unless Intel announces major investment in IA64G with increase engineering resources and faster cadence of releases, the * writing is very much on the wall for this.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 16:53:10 -0400 , From: Hoff Hoffman <hoff-remove-this@hp.com>G Subject: Re: Inner-Mode initi-routines, mailbox i/o channels, and privs * Message-ID: <450329b5@usenet01.boi.hp.com>   Richard Maher wrote:  A    I'd likely look to use an identifier; to avoid the privileges.   N > 1) Having assigned the cmd_chan channel in Exec Mode, why do I first have toJ > $setprv to SYSPRV before being able to do a $QIO on that chan while *in* > Exec Mode?  (    EXEC and KERNEL have implicit SETPRV.  : > 2) Why doesn't the *last* asynchronous read need SYSPRV?  C    Donno.  If it's in the same mode as the channel, I'd expect not.   M > 3) Why doesn't a subsequent UWSS routine also need to up privileges to do a  > QIO?  N    Channels are mode specific.  Once opened, any I/O from the particular mode  can perform I/O.  K > 4) Given 2 and 3, I automatically assumed that I'd left on SYSPRV and the L > elevated state was persisting, but I've checked the process privileges and > they are still at /NOALL  Q    There are multiple privilege masks.  Did you check the running (enabled) mask?   H > 5) I tried other asynchronous i/o but they still seemed to need SYSPRV  F    Outer-mode code can't (by default) access more-privileged channels.  N > 6) Writes from Exec Mode rundown handler and Asynch reads from EXEC ASTs all2 > work at ambient (I swear it's zilch!) privileges      Which is expected.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 08:03:40 +0800 3 From: "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> & Subject: OK, Here 'tis! (Example code)1 Message-ID: <edvkit$3nl$1@news-02.connect.com.au>   J See following link for more details and the code that was crashing my box.H (Drop that terminating longword from audit_list in auth_serv.cob and letI me know how you get on. If you can't reproduce it I'll give it another go 	 on 7.2-2)   L http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?threadId=1058548   Regards Richard Maher   9 "Hoff Hoffman" <hoff-remove-this@hp.com> wrote in message $ news:45017226@usenet01.boi.hp.com... > Richard Maher wrote: > H > > FYI, If you forget to terminate the itemlist to $audit_event you can crash + > > your system. Several times actually :-(  > E >    The CLUE CRASH output or a pointer to the system crashdump file,  please?  > G >    Attempts to reproduce this locally have (to date) failed, so there 
 appears toD > be somewhat more to the necessary run-time context than a straight$ > itemlist-related processing error. > C >    And would this be a call to auditing from within a UWSS image?    ------------------------------  $ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:46:06 -0400/ From: "William Webb" <william.w.webb@gmail.com> Y Subject: Re: OT - running IE in Windows (was:Re: Thoughts on the book: DEC is dead, long  I Message-ID: <8660a3a10609091746w57e05dc7l28396c8945619680@mail.gmail.com>    On 9/5/06, Bart Z. Lederman 6 <lederman@star.enet.dec.disable-junk-email.com> wrote: > In article <FA60F2C4B72A584DBFC6091F6A2B8684019BCAC9@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>, "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> writes: > >>J > >> What about DELETE EXPLORER.EXE or whatever executable is invoked when4 > >> you start that Microsoft thing that does HTTP ? > >> > > 6 > >Try it and see what happens on your Windows system. > >  > < > If some recent news reports are true, this may be possible< > in Korea, and some other countries now or soon.  To settle> > government legal actions, Microsoft is apparently unbundling > the browser from the OS. > > > Please notice I started this message off with the word "IF". >  > Bart.  >   5 But what happens there won't necessarily happen here.   C Are you willing to use the Chinese or Korean versions of Windows in  order to avoid IE?   WWWebb   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:39:39 +0200 0 From: "Peter \"Firefly\" Lund" <firefly@diku.dk>> Subject: Re: OT: IA64's speed beaten by orders of magnitude...; Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0609100038400.25248@ask.diku.dk>   / On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 prep@prep.synonet.com wrote:   F > Where do you spend your summers Bob? You know that the 100F standard4 > come from the rectal temperature of a Reindeer? ;)  ? Fresh horseblood has apparently also been used for calibration.   @ Thermometry must really have been rocket science back then... ;)   -Peter   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 17:03:34 -0400 , From: Hoff Hoffman <hoff-remove-this@hp.com>0 Subject: Re: Pseudo-Device Driver example needed* Message-ID: <45032c26@usenet01.boi.hp.com>   Richard Maher wrote:  F > I would like an example of a pseudo-device driver that will allow an( > unprivileged user ... Do you have one?  J    Search for "zeacp" for how to generate the structures you need; for an J example of a the baseline pseudo-driver and ACP.  (That's from an old and I out-of-print book by Jamie Hanarahan and Lee Leahy, but the examples are  3 licensed for and have been posted around the 'net.)   O    And as for the specific question, I expect we can certainly negotiate for a  L full source code for a particular application such as authentication, I and M various others could very likely create and provide an example or a solution  N tailored to your requirements.  (I don't happen to have the requested example P available to provide to you.  But based on zeacp or similar, I expect you could K create one -- outside of the pseudo-driver and the ACP interface, it's all  / user-mode code and user-mode coding, after all.   N    There was an earlier discussion around launching a debugger for a detached N process -- I used a similar technique for the local "mount" routine; the code H that launched the ACP.  The "mount" code created a DECterm, and aimed a  debug-mode ACP at it.    ------------------------------  $ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 16:33:03 -0400) From: "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> * Subject: Re: SAMBA 3.0 (CIFS) with TCPware< Message-ID: <4503237e$0$24197$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>  5 "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> wrote in message  6 news:4502e940$0$24180$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > J Oops! I must have blown a neuron or two cuz the current CIFS release is E   3.0.10. Sorry for any confusion.  = http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/docs/openvms_notes_cifs.html 
 Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,  Ontario, Canada.! http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 23:40:00 +0100 0 From: Tony Arnold <tony.arnold@manchester.ac.uk>; Subject: Re: VAX 4000/600 free to good home - Manchester UK = Message-ID: <pan.2006.09.09.22.39.55.737201@manchester.ac.uk>   H Wow, what a lot of interest this posting generated, not only here in the news group but also privately.  J Had several offers, but the first person to offer came and took it away onE Thursday. He is one of the few people I know of who has built a three ; architecture cluster, so I reckon it's gone to a good home!   F BTW, the machine only had 256MB, which is still an insane amount for aG VAX. Originally, it had two extra cabinets with a total of about 9 DSSI I disks. I disposed of these cabinets and their disks some time ago. It was J used at one time to run payroll and other administrative applications in aI small University here in the UK. I had to INIT/ERASE all the disks before 1 I was allowed to take it out of its machine room!    Regards, Tony.   6 On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:43:07 +0100, Tony Arnold wrote:  K > I have a VAX 4000 model 600 surplus to requirements which I would like to K > see go to a good home rather than be scrapped. I'm in Manchester, UK. The J > machine is rather bulky, so any takers would have to come and collect it$ > or arrange shipping at their cost. > H > It has something like 512MB of memory and three DSSI disks and a TK-70K > drive all mounted in the same chassis. I don't have access to the machine E > right now, so I'm going by memory here. Actual specification may be  > different. > L > The only known fault that I am aware of is that I get error messages aboutJ > the fuse having blown on one of the DSSI channels. I've not been able to > locate said fuse so far! >  > There are no manuals with it.  > H > If anyone is interested then please contact me personally by e-mail atI > tony.arnold@manchester.ac.uk. I no longer subscribe to these groups, so ' > I'm unlikely to see a response there.  > 
 > Regards, > Tony.    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.496 ************************                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      dbm_file.pme >>> 150 IMAGE retrieve of /disk$misc/decus/freewarev70/perl/perl-5_8_4-vmsaxp-7_2-1/lib/memoize/anydbm_file.pm (1376 bytes) started.9 >>> 226 Transfer completed.  672 (8) bytes transferred.eH <<< CWD /disk$misc/decus/freewarev70/perl/perl-5_8_4-vmsaxp-7_2-1/lib/U >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/freewarev70/perl/perl-5_8_4-vmsaxp-7_2-1/lib.I
 <<< noop >>> 200 No-operation OK.H <<< CWD /disk$misc/decus/freewarev70/perl/perl-5_8_4-vmsaxp-7_2-1/lib/U >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/freewarev70/perl/perl-5_8_4-vmsaxp-7_2-1/lib.f	 <<< PWDp_ >>> 257 "/disk$misc/decus/freewarev70/perl/perl-5_8_4-vmsaxp-7_2-1/lib" is current directory.cP <<< CWD /disk$misc/decus/freewarev70/perl/perl-5_8_4-vmsaxp-7_2-1/lib/memoize/] >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/freewarev70/perl/perl-5_8_4-vmsaxp-7_2-1/lib/memoize._ <<< TYPE I >>> 200 Type I ok.
 <<< PASV@ >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,12,104,18,83) <<< SIZE expire.pm >>> 213 12089c <<< RE