INFO-VAX Tue, 16 Oct 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 566 Contents: Re: AEF's CONFIGURATOR was: Canadians flee Canadian socialized Hillary... Re: Bigger isn't always better! Re: Bigger isn't always better! Re: Bigger isn't always better! Re: Bigger isn't always better! Re: Bigger isn't always better! Re: Canadians flee Canadian socialized Hillary type healthcare for Re: Canadians flee Canadian socialized Hillary type healthcare for U.S. U.S.U.S. Re: CHECKSUM oddity? Re: DECnet Phase IV CONFIGURATOR Re: DECnet Phase IV CONFIGURATOR Re: Execute a command procedure from a detached process Re: SRVMISMATCH error fix available Re: still not convinced global warming a hoax? Re: still not convinced global warming a hoax? Re: still not convinced global warming a hoax? Re: still not convinced global warming a hoax? Re: still not convinced global warming a hoax? Re: TCPIP SMTP receiver issues (SYSTEM-F-NOLINKS) Re: TCPIP SMTP receiver issues (SYSTEM-F-NOLINKS) Re: TCPIP SMTP receiver issues (SYSTEM-F-NOLINKS) Re: www.hp.com/go/openvms is still toast ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Oct 2007 13:12:55 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: AEF's CONFIGURATOR was: Canadians flee Canadian socialized Hillary... Message-ID: <5njrmnFi8r97U2@mid.individual.net> In article , VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes: > In article <1192493842.925083.107110@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes: > {...snip...} >>I posted a quite on-topic question about the CONFIGURATOR and no one >>seems the slightest bit interested! >> >>You and other off-topic bashers and others are welcome to contribute >>to my CONFIGURATOR thread. > > What was the tread title? I've looked back with my news reader and I > do not see any mention of CONFIGURATOR. Subject: DECnet Phase IV CONFIGURATOR With one response so far. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 2007 07:42:15 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Bigger isn't always better! Message-ID: In article <5dc46$4713abf6$cef8887a$15826@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei writes: > VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote: >> When the time comes to need to update the OS on a running system, VMS is >> poised, with the loadable executive, to be modified to do so better than >> any of the other mainstream OSs. > > > Mr VAXman, what percentage of the VMS system manager population would > have skills required to patch the running system with XDELTA to modify a > device characteristic ? The skills of others aren't VAXman's fault. Personnaly I prefer the days when I could find those attributes via SDA and change them from the console via deposit/virtual. But my systems now are likely to be doing something that will notice a temporary halt. On my 11/780 the users just thought the system was being a little slow. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 2007 07:43:08 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Bigger isn't always better! Message-ID: In article <5nhr8uFi92g7U1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > > Sounds like a OS X Finder problem then. Solution to that is dump the > Mac and get a real computer. :-) > Generally shares show up as desktop icons. But carefull use of the terminal utility can get past that. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 2007 07:44:35 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Bigger isn't always better! Message-ID: In article <5nhua6FigdcpU1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > > Well, then I guess people here should stop pointing that out as one of the > big differences between Unix and VMS. :-) It's not the need to reboot, its the frequency. And we've all acknowledged UNIX' superiority over Windows in this matter. So be happy with the scraps we feed you. 8-) ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 2007 13:11:13 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Bigger isn't always better! Message-ID: <5njrjgFi8r97U1@mid.individual.net> In article , VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes: > In article <5nig92FhvbibU1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > {...snip...} >>I hope you weren't misled into thinking that I was talking just SMB >>when I said the Mac doesn't play well with others. It seems to do >>an equally bad job of things like WPA-Enterprise, Radius, well, pretty >>much anything wireless beyonf plain vanilla. And then we have had >>cases where trying to use IMAP resulted in trashing the users mailbox. >>Need I go on? No reason to bother. The Mac is religion and nothing >>could convince its users to try something more practical. Like some >>other OSes I can think of. (Of course, it is even funnier with the >>Mac as they started out with a working FreeBSD userland and then, for >>the most part, broke it.) > > I've setup mail using IMAP for some Mac client email accounts. No problems > I use WPA here from Linksys WAP and it is working well too. Enterprise or PSK? > > I'm surprised you are dissing unix. I'm not. I'm "dissing" the Mac that took functioning Unix and did everything it could to break it while trying to make people think it was "their OS" and not really Unix. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 2007 14:20:38 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Bigger isn't always better! Message-ID: <5njvlmFiiph0U1@mid.individual.net> In article , VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes: > In article <5njrjgFi8r97U1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >> >> >>In article , >> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes: >>> In article <5nig92FhvbibU1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >>> {...snip...} >>>>I hope you weren't misled into thinking that I was talking just SMB >>>>when I said the Mac doesn't play well with others. It seems to do >>>>an equally bad job of things like WPA-Enterprise, Radius, well, pretty >>>>much anything wireless beyonf plain vanilla. And then we have had >>>>cases where trying to use IMAP resulted in trashing the users mailbox. >>>>Need I go on? No reason to bother. The Mac is religion and nothing >>>>could convince its users to try something more practical. Like some >>>>other OSes I can think of. (Of course, it is even funnier with the >>>>Mac as they started out with a working FreeBSD userland and then, for >>>>the most part, broke it.) >>> >>> I've setup mail using IMAP for some Mac client email accounts. No problems >>> I use WPA here from Linksys WAP and it is working well too. >> >>Enterprise or PSK? > > Tell me of a WAP that has the Enterprise WPA and I will give it a go. We're running WAP54G's here. Or are you going to insist the it has to be totally inside and provide by the WAP? (Our radius is provided by Unix and uses the same user file as all of our systems here, Unix, Wireless, Windows. The only one that would have been out of the picture would have been the VMS box, if it was still here. > > Personally, it's been reported that it is relatively simple to crack > these wireless schemes so I don't use it for much more than streaming > my iTunes to my AirPort Express connected to my Bose Companion 3. WEP takes about 3 minutes. WPA takes longer. Our system changes keys about every 5 minutes so I doubt it is as insecure as you seem to think. > If > somebody really wants to crack my wireless, they'll get to listen to > my 128K internet radio stream which is certainly not going to bother > me all that much because they can tune it for free and listen at 56K. > bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 2007 07:47:12 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Canadians flee Canadian socialized Hillary type healthcare for Message-ID: In article , Ron Johnson writes: > > Viet Nam > Started by Eisenhower and heavily mis-managed by both LBJ and Nixon. Somehow I don't see that as a good thing for either party. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:05:09 +0930 From: Mark Daniel Subject: Re: Canadians flee Canadian socialized Hillary type healthcare for U.S. U.S.U.S. Message-ID: <13h8qf8ac0l6r1d@corp.supernews.com> Steven M. Schweda wrote: > From: Ron Johnson > > [... drivel omitted ...] > > Please explain what you believe is the purpose of comp.os.vms, and > how this material fits it. > > >>Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. >>Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! > > > Someone please find me a fish. $ EXIT 2928 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Steven M. Schweda sms@antinode-org > 382 South Warwick Street (+1) 651-699-9818 > Saint Paul MN 55105-2547 -- To anyone who questioned the effectiveness of the loyalty oaths, he replied that people who really did owe allegiance to their country would be proud to pledge it as often as he forced them to. [Joseph Heller; Catch-22] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:54:33 -0000 From: Hein RMS van den Heuvel Subject: Re: CHECKSUM oddity? Message-ID: <1192542873.238000.42110@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com> On Oct 15, 3:58 pm, Hein RMS van den Heuvel wrote: : > Cute. Checksum uses a simple XOR on the longword in the data records > for the file, adding in any odd remaining remaining bytes if present. > The backup redundancy group used that same formula resulting in the > same output for files being different (albeit in the header area). > > A similar confusion can arise from the fact that CHECKSUM (as well as > DIFFERENCE) use RECORD IO to get the data. So you can CONVERT and > indexed file to sequential and get no differences reported and get an > equal checksum where you and I know that the on disk bits for those > files are rather different. > Backup/compare finds those differences (very verbosely so) btw... OpenVMS 8.3 checksum addresses all of the above. See help text below. (Hartmut, thanks fr pointing that out !) Cheers, Hein. CHECKSUM /ALGORITHM /ALGORITHM=option /ALGORITHM=XOR (default) Selects the algorithm used for file checksums. The default is the XOR algorithm for data within records, as used by the previous Checksum utilities on OpenVMS Alpha and VAX systems. Options include: o CRC - A CRC-32 algorithm for all bytes within the file (possible record structures are ignored); this algorithm is also known as AUTODIN II, Ethernet, or FDDI CRC. o MD5 - The MD5 digest, as published by Ronald L. Rivest (RFC 1321), for all bytes within the file (possible record structures are ignored). o XOR - An XOR algorithm for all data, according to the record structure of the file. Hein. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 02:50:34 -0700 From: IanMiller Subject: Re: DECnet Phase IV CONFIGURATOR Message-ID: <1192528234.799624.56910@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com> On OpenVMS Alpha V8.3 STARTNET.COM still has THEN INSTALL ADD NICONFIG/ PRIVILEGES=(SYSNAM,LOG_IO) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 04:56:06 -0700 From: AEF Subject: Re: DECnet Phase IV CONFIGURATOR Message-ID: <1192535766.289260.15300@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com> On Oct 16, 5:50 am, IanMiller wrote: > On OpenVMS Alpha V8.3 STARTNET.COM still has > > THEN INSTALL ADD NICONFIG/ > PRIVILEGES=(SYSNAM,LOG_IO) Thanks for checking! Is there a chance that it doesn't need AUDIT priv anymore? I suspect not. Could it be that I'm the only one in the VMS universe who has actually bothered to get the thing working? Has no one ever reported this to VMS Engineering? AEF ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 2007 06:55:48 -0500 From: briggs@encompasserve.org Subject: Re: Execute a command procedure from a detached process Message-ID: In article <1192485201.923845.294680@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Neil Rieck writes: > On Oct 14, 6:56 pm, Neil Rieck wrote: >> On Oct 14, 11:16 am, "Richard B. Gilbert" >> wrote: > > *** repost *** > > $! > $! > $run sys$system:loginout - > /process_name ="Advocate_Srvr" - > /uic =[346,6] - > /noswap - > /noresource_wait - > /priv=all - > /input= CSMIS$com:advocate_server_init.com - > /output= CSMIS$log:advocate_server.out - > /ERROR= CSMIS$log:advocate_server.err - ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What is this? SYS$SYSTEM:LOGINOUT.EXE discards the pre-existing translation for SYS$ERROR (using it as a parameter in oddball cases such as DECNET connects) and arranges things so that the SYS$ERROR process permanent file always points to a copy of the SYS$OUTPUT process permanent file. $ run sys$system:loginout /auth /detach - /input=disk_user:[decuserve_user.briggs]test.com - /out=disk_user:[decuserve_user.briggs]test.log - /error=disk_user:[decuserve_user.briggs]test.err - %RUN-S-PROC_ID, identification of created process is 000E6375 $ type test.log This is test.com ORG_FILE_NAME = "EISNER$DRA3:[DECUSERVE_USER.BRIGGS]TEST.COM;20" ORG_FILE_NAME = "EISNER$DRA3:[DECUSERVE_USER.BRIGGS]TEST.LOG;4" ORG_FILE_NAME = "EISNER$DRA3:[DECUSERVE_USER.BRIGGS]TEST.LOG;4" $ type test.com $ write sys$output "This is test.com" $ ppf = "$sys$login:ppf" $ ppf sys$input $ show sym org_file_name $ ppf sys$output $ show sym org_file_name $ ppf sys$error $ show sym org_file_name $ exit ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 02:47:58 -0700 From: IanMiller Subject: Re: SRVMISMATCH error fix available Message-ID: <1192528078.661608.304640@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com> On Oct 15, 10:11 pm, "Main, Kerry" wrote: > > Did you also install VMS732_MONTOR-V0100? > No. It has not appeared (yet). ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:01:12 +0100 From: "Richard Brodie" Subject: Re: still not convinced global warming a hoax? Message-ID: "David J Dachtera" wrote in message news:47141695.7CEF387A@spam.comcast.net... > Folks here probably know how Greenland got its name. Yes, marketing. In the summer Eirik went to live in the land which he had discovered, and which he called Greenland, "Because," said he, "men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name." ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 2007 11:58:43 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: still not convinced global warming a hoax? Message-ID: <5njnbjFin4q3U1@mid.individual.net> In article , Ron Johnson writes: > On 10/15/07 17:00, Dr. Dweeb wrote: > [snip] >> >> Bjørn Lomberg asks why we shoot 500-1000 polar bears, and worry about them >> dying out from global warming? Maybe they are more threatened by us. Oh, I > > "Cultural sensitivity". Isn't that like the hunters around here who shoot deer in order to conserve them? :-) (Personally, I have no problem with hunting. But I wish they would stop calling it a sport. Chasing defenseless animals with high powered rifles is hardly sport. Now, if the hunters were going after each other, that would be sport.) bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:17:44 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: still not convinced global warming a hoax? Message-ID: <4714ABE8.7090807@comcast.net> Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article , > Ron Johnson writes: > >>On 10/15/07 17:00, Dr. Dweeb wrote: >>[snip] >> >>>Bjørn Lomberg asks why we shoot 500-1000 polar bears, and worry about them >>>dying out from global warming? Maybe they are more threatened by us. Oh, I >> >>"Cultural sensitivity". > > > Isn't that like the hunters around here who shoot deer in order to > conserve them? :-) > The problem is that man has just about wiped out the critters that prey on deer! If somebody didn't shoot them, or run into them with a motor vehicle, we would be asshole deep in deer! ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 2007 12:40:39 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: still not convinced global warming a hoax? Message-ID: <5njpq7Feqtl4U1@mid.individual.net> In article <47141695.7CEF387A@spam.comcast.net>, David J Dachtera writes: > Neil Rieck wrote: >> >> On Oct 12, 9:00 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob >> Koehler) wrote: >> > Congrats to Al Gore and the UN panel on the environment on the >> > Nobel Peace Prize. >> >> Some scientists predicted that the long sought after "North West >> Passage" would be permanently open sometime before 2015. Guess what? >> It opened last month. >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6995999.stm > > Folks here probably know how Greenland got its name. Greenland, hell.... Hasn't anyone here ever read aboiut what they find in core samples taken through the ice in Antarctica? > > Suffice it to say - circles are never-ending, and this is the next time around > this circle, one of many that comprise the cycles of this planet. But espousing that won't get you grant money to study Global Warming. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 2007 13:31:14 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: still not convinced global warming a hoax? Message-ID: <5njsp2Fi8r97U3@mid.individual.net> In article , Ron Johnson writes: > On 10/16/07 07:17, Richard B. Gilbert wrote: >> Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>> In article , >>> Ron Johnson writes: >>> >>>> On 10/15/07 17:00, Dr. Dweeb wrote: >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>>> Bjørn Lomberg asks why we shoot 500-1000 polar bears, and worry >>>>> about them dying out from global warming? Maybe they are more >>>>> threatened by us. Oh, I >>>> >>>> "Cultural sensitivity". >>> >>> >>> Isn't that like the hunters around here who shoot deer in order to >>> conserve them? :-) >>> >> >> The problem is that man has just about wiped out the critters that prey >> on deer! If somebody didn't shoot them, or run into them with a motor >> vehicle, we would be asshole deep in deer! > > Many places *are* ass-deep in deer. And Florida is ass-deep in > aligators. But you can't shoot them!! Of course, years ago I did my part. We had an alligator that lived in a small lake right on the main part of Ft. Gordon. My friends and I used to feed it. (actually, I think everyone fed it!!) Hamburgers, peanut-butter and jelly, french fries, potato chips. He's not there anymore. I assume he died of heart failure fropm all that cholesterol. :-) bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:01:52 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk Subject: Re: TCPIP SMTP receiver issues (SYSTEM-F-NOLINKS) Message-ID: In article , koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: >In article , david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: > >> In which case your firewall rules should be setup appropriately. > > You want me to buy a firewall for every box? You don't think I trust > users just because they're on the same LAN, do you? > Then run a firewall on the same box. If there isn't one you can run on the same box eg if your running DEC TCPIP services on VMS then that is an implementation issue to be raised with your vendor ie HP. It isn't a protocol issue !! David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 2007 07:37:20 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: TCPIP SMTP receiver issues (SYSTEM-F-NOLINKS) Message-ID: <+BIPwSSrnFIC@eisner.encompasserve.org> In article , Rich Alderson writes: > > The complaint you and the other DECnet users are lodging against TCP/IP as a > protocol stack are really only valid with respect to particular implementations > rather than with respect to the protocols themselves. It's not an implementation complaint. The DECnet protocol includes a layer of security that the TCP/IP protocol does not. This means an implementation can choose to not have it and be fully compliant with the existing protocol standard, something a DECnet stack cannot. So far the only implementations I've seen cited as having a comparable layer are Linux and TOPS-20. Good for them. There are a lot of Linux systems out there, but how many of them have turned on that option (I know my kids run their Linux boxes without it)? It looks it was mandatory in TOPS-20, but there aren't a lot of TOPS-20 systems on the internet anymore. My claim was protocol vs. protocol, not implmentation vs. implementation. Sure, lots of things can be done to tighten up TCP/IP, but they're not required parts of the protocol. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:44:01 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk Subject: Re: TCPIP SMTP receiver issues (SYSTEM-F-NOLINKS) Message-ID: In article <+BIPwSSrnFIC@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: >In article , Rich Alderson writes: >> >> The complaint you and the other DECnet users are lodging against TCP/IP as a >> protocol stack are really only valid with respect to particular implementations >> rather than with respect to the protocols themselves. > > It's not an implementation complaint. The DECnet protocol includes a > layer of security that the TCP/IP protocol does not. This means an > implementation can choose to not have it and be fully compliant with > the existing protocol standard, something a DECnet stack cannot. > > So far the only implementations I've seen cited as having a comparable > layer are Linux and TOPS-20. Good for them. There are a lot of > Linux systems out there, but how many of them have turned on that > option (I know my kids run their Linux boxes without it)? It looks > it was mandatory in TOPS-20, but there aren't a lot of TOPS-20 > systems on the internet anymore. > > My claim was protocol vs. protocol, not implmentation vs. > implementation. Sure, lots of things can be done to tighten up > TCP/IP, but they're not required parts of the protocol. But that is the problem with your whole comparison of DECNET versus TCPIP. DECNET and TCPIP are communication protocols. NCP or NCL which control how DECNET objects are setup and who can set them up are not part of the communication protocol they are implementation specific management structures. It would be entirely possible to implement a version of those DECNET management structures which would allow unprivileged users to setup DECNET objects This in itself would have no effect on the communication protocol. Other Decnet nodes communicating with such user created DECNET objects would not know that they had been setup by someone other than the system administrator. David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 07:50:44 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: www.hp.com/go/openvms is still toast Message-ID: <4714A594.1030000@comcast.net> Cluster-Karl wrote: > I reported it to HP and got a mail from Warren, it was a bad port and > has been fixed. > > Works now again... > > regards kalle > The hardware in question does not seem to be very reliable! I've been using the same router/switch (Linksys BEFR81) for five or six years now with out single failure. It cost me about $80. I suspect that the HP switch in question would cost me $1000 or more. ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.566 ************************