INFO-VAX Sat, 21 Jun 2008 Volume 2008 : Issue 345 Contents: Re: ACME Authentication issues when LDAP server is down. Re: DEC slighted in filesystem 'opinion' Re: LMF and abandonned products Re: LMF and abandonned products Re: LMF and abandonned products Re: Very cool Ethernet speedup on OpenVMS Wanted: VAX4000-400/500/600 KA675/680/690 CPU Module ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 06:02:18 -0600 From: "Michael D. Ober" Subject: Re: ACME Authentication issues when LDAP server is down. Message-ID: "Michael D. Ober" wrote in message news:eK-dnQ-92OjE6MHVnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@earthlink.com... > "Malcolm Dunnett" wrote in message > news:485bc201$1@flight... >> DaveG wrote: >> >>>> Is there no way to force an authentication to occur immediately using >>>> the VMS DOI in the case where the LDAP DOI is failing due to the LDAP >>>> server not being available? >>> >>> Sounds like something to make VMS support/engineering aware of. >>> >> Did that (logged a support case). The response was : >> >> "Engineering has acknowledged the behavior you are reporting, and has >> also stated that it's currently correct, expected behavior. They also >> will be looking into modifying the behavior in future releases to address >> these issues." >> >> > In may be "correct", but it's certainly not robust. > > Mike Ober. > Actually, after some thought, it isn't "correct" either. A "correct" solution would take the user's actual requirement of the login subsystem always working and never hanging into account, which means that multiple LDAP servers, or even quick and transparent fallback to the VMS UAF for authorization (without having to use the /LOCAL switch on the userid) would be a "correct" solution. VMS Engineering's answer falls into the category of be "technically correct but totally useless." Mike. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 02:55:34 -0700 (PDT) From: johnwallace4@gmail.com Subject: Re: DEC slighted in filesystem 'opinion' Message-ID: On Jun 21, 3:32 am, Arne Vajh=F8j wrote: > John Smith wrote: > >http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=3D335&tag=3Dnl.e539 > > > Apple announces ZFS on Snow Leopard > > zfs is not new. > > There are a lot of hype about the fact that it is 128 bit. But > it is actually only 64 bit with room in the on disk format for > 128 bit. > > > Finally, a modern file system on a consumer OS > > There are plenty of modern file systems on Linux. > > > As if Grand Central weren't enough bad news for Microsoft, now they hav= e ZFS > > to contend with. Building a reliable, high-performance file system take= s > > years and Microsoft doesn't have years to respond. > > MS seems happy about NTFS. I don't even think they want to respond. > > > Microsoft's NTFS is 20 year old technology borrowed from DEC. Fine for = small > > disks and puny CPUs. Not so great for today's data intensive systems an= d > > applications. > > NTFS is not borrowed from DEC. > > And are used in some rather big configs. > > > Silent data corruption is common - only you don't know it - because the > > corruption shows up as other problems, like missing DLLs. > > That is not a general problem. > > If you see it, then find the problem on your system and fix it. > > Arne Have MS fixed the silent file system corruption problem on their ridiculous Home Server yet (the bug finally admitted to in December 2007 though it had been around since Home Server first shipped, and had been discussed since October)? How long did it take for MS to find and fix the problem ("on their system", there's no one else in the "Home Server file system broken" picture)? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946676 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 06:51:18 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: LMF and abandonned products Message-ID: JF Mezei wrote: > Michael Moroney wrote: > >> It is something like that *now* for works created after a certain date. >> They changed the copyright law. For works created before that date, >> it's a shorter period, something like 50 years from the time of creation. > > If the company that owns the rights to some software is wound down > without selling any of its remaining assets because they are considered > worthless, is there anyone left to enforce the copyright on those products ? > > In the case of a book, the writer would likely have surviving family who > would inherit the rights, or perjaps the publisher would get the upon > death of writer. > > But in the case of a small company that just stops existing, it isn't > obvious what happens to copyrights. > > Does the copyright law differentiate between somoene "copying a book" > and a company starting to publish the book and sell it without permission ? Copyright law makes provisions for something called "fair use". You can't copy an entire copyrighted work but you CAN reproduce small portions with proper attribution. You are well advised to consult a lawyer before you reproduce and publish ANY portion of a copyrighted work. Or, of course, you can write a letter to the owner requesting permission to use some portion or all of the work. If you get written permission, you're okay. Copyright survives the author. You could not, for example, go back through the archives of Info-VAX/comp.os.vms and publish "The Wit and Wisdom of Carl J. Lydick" without permission from Carl's estate. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 04:22:53 -0700 (PDT) From: pos Subject: Re: LMF and abandonned products Message-ID: <3611aa05-fcea-4dfe-8c34-96a6f2f17f67@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com> On Jun 21, 4:52=A0am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > Roger Ivie writes: > >On 2008-06-20, Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > >> ISTR that copyright is good for fifty years or the life of the author, > >> whichever is greater. > >I was under the impression that it's currently something like 75 years > >*after the death* of the author. > > It is something like that *now* for works created after a certain date. > They changed the copyright law. =A0For works created before that date, > it's a shorter period, something like 50 years from the time of creation. > > >This is why Steamboat Willie has not yet lapsed into the public domain. > > Steamboat Willie was created before the copyright law was changed, and > would be in the public domain. =A0(did you ever notice things like DVDs f= ull > of old cartoons in the $1 bin at bargain stores? =A0The cartoons themselv= es > are in the public domain so the mfgr only has to pay for the CD and > packaging it) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 04:28:04 -0700 (PDT) From: pos Subject: Re: LMF and abandonned products Message-ID: >>Anyone that does not want to get sued by HP's. OK, last time I checked, HP were still using DEC Document to produce their OpenVMS documentation (Some HP software development groups use Framemaker btw). A DEC Document license could be either issued by DEC or issued by TTI. So what to HP do to get licenses then? I am still trying to buy one, I even have found the old kit (AXPBIN CD 3) by the way. The license is not on hobbiest but was on deccampus. HP cannot help, and I only want to do the right thing...... sigh. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 03:04:52 -0700 (PDT) From: johnwallace4@gmail.com Subject: Re: Very cool Ethernet speedup on OpenVMS Message-ID: On Jun 21, 2:22 am, "William Webb" wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:37 PM, ewilts wrote: > > On Jun 18, 10:50 am, "Richard B. Gilbert" > > wrote: > >> The network guy is TWICE an idiot. It's usually NOT a good idea to > >> force speed and duplex settings. Except when dealing with certain VERY > >> old (ten or more years) hardware, autonegotiation of speed and duplex > >> settings is the way to go. > > > I disagree and if you read the NetBackup mailing list, you'll see > > regular reports of people who also disagree with you. The rule of > > thumb I follow is: > > For 100mbps, FORCE the speed AND the duplex on BOTH ends of the > > connection > > For GigE, autonegotiate > > > It hasn't failed me, and I've seen a LOT of issues with autonegotation > > on 100Mbps ports failing to negotiate the duplex. It seems to work, > > but performance really, really sucks. > > >> Ten, or more, years ago there was an ambiguity in the standard for > >> autonegotiation. Cisco Systems interpreted it one way while Digital > >> Equipment Corporation interpreted it the other way. Forcing the setting > >> was the only way to get 100 Full Duplex. > > >> The ambiguity was resolved long ago but there is still some old hardware > >> out there. . . . > > > Current Cisco switches and current Ethernet adapters still have issues > > at 100Mbps. > > > There is NO disadvantage to forcing speed and duplex at 100Mbps. > > There are potential disadvantages to autonegotiating. Why take a > > chance? > > > .../Ed > > As one who's in the midst of a very large Alpha to Integrity > migration, we've had numerous discussions with VMS Engineering about > this, including some of the seven remaining TCP/IP mavens down in Oz. > > The party line is that don't set it to autonegotiate on Alpha, but do > set it thusly on I64. and that goes double for the GigE ports. > > Best regards, > > WWWebb Was the logic behind that explained? I'd have been less surprised by something that read "don't set it to auto on DEC-based NICs but do set it to auto on Intel-based NICs", based on the likely age of the physical layer implementation on the card (no, I don't have a magic decoder ring to identify which is which...). Obviously lots of Alpha kit has DEC-based NICs and I64 kit has Intel-based NICs but aren't there a few grey areas where crossovers may have occured? This is a lower level problem than TCP/IP, though they may well be amongst the more frequent victims when it doesn't work right. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:09:43 -0700 (PDT) From: vaxorcist Subject: Wanted: VAX4000-400/500/600 KA675/680/690 CPU Module Message-ID: <45bd81d0-f4c3-4455-9bbf-c9f5385a45aa@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Help, the central server of my VAX/VMS-Cluster has died (apoplectic stroke)! Now I'm urgently looking for a VAX4000-400/500/600 KA675/680/690 CPU module (will trade for other DEC hardware or moderate payment; hobbyist use only). Furthermore I'm looking for DSSI disks and tapes as well as KFQSA DSSI- QBus adapters. Many thanks to all those who consider giving away parts from their unused / stocked DEC hardware! Regards, Ulli P.S. I live in Germany ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2008.345 ************************