INFO-VAX Sat, 24 Mar 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 165 Contents: 2nd RFD: remove news.software.anu-news (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS) Re: ENOUGH! Re: FTPS Server for OpenVMS (Also posted to the ITRC) Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Re: Not on latest Roadmap: OpenVMS VAX Version 8.x "under investigation" Re: Not on latest Roadmap: OpenVMS VAX Version 8.x "under investigation" Re: Not on latest Roadmap: OpenVMS VAX Version 8.x "under investigation" Re: Not on latest Roadmap: OpenVMS VAX Version 8.x "under investigation" Re: Not on latest Roadmap: OpenVMS VAX Version 8.x "under investigation" Re: Not on latest Roadmap: OpenVMS VAX Version 8.x "under investigation" Re: OT: 216 Billion Americans Squirrels Are Scientifically Illiterate Re: OT: 216 Billion Americans Squirrels Are Scientifically Illiterate Re: OT: 216 Billion Americans Squirrels Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part 36) Re: OT: 216 Billion Americans Squirrels Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part 36) Re: OT: 216 Billion Americans Squirrels Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part 36) Re: REQUE select jobs to another que for execution Re: Willing to bet this is Windows at its best Re: Willing to bet this is Windows at its best Re: Willing to bet this is Windows at its best Re: Willing to bet this is Windows at its best ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:10:05 -0500 From: The Big-8 Management Board Subject: 2nd RFD: remove news.software.anu-news (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS) Message-ID: REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) remove news.software.anu-news This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) to remove the unmoderated newsgroup news.software.anu-news. PROCEDURE: The B8MB plans to begin voting on this proposal after five days. Please offer any final discussion or comments before the end of this waiting period. Voting may take up to one week (7 days); a result will be posted following the end of the voting period. All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.proposals. The full group removal procedure is documented here: http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:rmgroup SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: No comments were received. RATIONALE: remove news.software.anu-news The newsgroup news.software.anu-news has not had any on-topic messages since November 2005, at which point there was a two-article thread. The FAQ was last updated 24-Aug-1998 and last posted to the group 16-July-2004. Discussion of ANU news is appropriate in the comp.os.vms newsgroup and the two on-topic messages mentioned above were crossposted to that group, so it may be that the answer came from there rather than news.software.anu-news. ANU News is mentioned in an October 2006 thread in comp.os.vms that is not crossposted to news.software.anu-news. HISTORY: News.software.anu-news was created in July, 1989 <4171@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> to discuss a news server package from Australian University. It was active until the late 1990s, at which point year-2000 issues were discovered in the software. A year-2000 compliant version was made available in February 2000 but by then almost all use of the software had ceased. DISTRIBUTION: This document has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups news.groups.proposals news.software.anu-news comp.os.vms CHARTER: Newsgroup line: news.software.anu-news VMS Usenet software from Australian National Univ. No formal charter is available. PROPONENT: Steve Bonine CHANGE HISTORY: 2007-03-09 1st RFD 2007-03-23 2nd RFD/LCC ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 2007 12:49:34 -0500 From: clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley) Subject: Re: ENOUGH! Message-ID: <34UAm8nu+GdM@eisner.encompasserve.org> In article <1174669619.632792.35790@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, genius@marblecliff.com writes: > > sorry, that address goes to no where but the bit bucket ... > It's clearly not obvious to you, so I will point out that people don't care about usernames within a domain. It's the fact that you include an employer's domain within the From: line of your personal responses that many employers would consider to be highly inappropriate. I wish you had a valid email address so that I didn't have to clutter up COV pointing this out to you. Simon. -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP Microsoft: Bringing you 1980's technology to a 21st century world ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 2007 14:29:00 -0700 From: rwaldicott@gmail.com Subject: Re: FTPS Server for OpenVMS (Also posted to the ITRC) Message-ID: <1174685340.228871.218580@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> On Mar 21, 3:22 pm, "roger" wrote: > Yes, we are still in need of anFTPSServerfor OpenVMS that runs > under HP's TCPIP stack and uses HP openSSL library. We need aserver > not a client. For the client side I have found: KERMIT and CURL. My > company may be willing to let me port one of the open sourceFTPs > servers to OpenVMS; we have considered one of the following: vsftpd - > used on red hat linux, PureFtp, or ProFTPd. Before we do this I have > several questions: > > 1. Is OpenVMS engineering working on anFTPsserver? I don't want to > take on a possibly many month project if someone is already working on > it. > > 2. Is there anyone out there needing anFTPSserverwho might want to > share development effort. I would do the majority of the work, but it > might be nice to have some help. Not sure if this would work for you but you may consider going a platform independent route with Java v.s. trying to port something over. JSCAPE Secure FTP Server is a platform independent FTP/S server that runs on Windows, Linux, UNIX, Solaris and Mac OS X platforms. http://www.jscape.com/secureftpserver/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 01:50:01 -0400 From: Bill Todd Subject: Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Message-ID: John Wallace wrote: ... > I put gas or heating oil, at a rate equivalent to 1 kilowatts input power, > into a typical central heating boiler (you call them "furnaces"?) and a good > part of the power input goes up the chimney (flue?). Efficiency maybe 40-70% > depending on various factors (though modern condensing boilers allegedly do > rather better than 90%). You'd have to get into furnaces approaching antique vintage to find efficiencies in the '40-70%' range (my grandfather's house had one around the middle of the last century - it was approaching antique status even then). Modern furnaces have efficiencies significantly above 80%, with condensing models (as you noted) significantly above 90%. The main reasons for not using electric heat (at least in any climate where any significant amount of heating is required: if you only need it on the occasional winter night, its low installation cost may adequately offset its higher energy cost) are a) where it comes from (mostly from nonrenewable resources, though some fortunate areas are exceptions), b) conversion efficiency (also more an issue when it is generated from nonrenewable resources that could better be used directly inside the home - otherwise, it's just a cost-per-unit-heating issue, and hydro-generated electricity can be fairly competitive), and distribution costs and losses. The net result is that oil/gas-generated electric heat can't compete with oil/gas home furnaces (where 80+% - 90+% of the energy produced by burning the fuel winds up as house heat). If you have to use electric heat, the most efficient way to do so may be as radiant heat sources (as I just mentioned elsewhere here) - even better, radiant sources that are only activated when there are people near them (of course, the air temperature still needs to meet a basic comfort threshold, but that can easily be far lower than what would be comfortable if the air temperature alone was relied upon to provide comfort). - bill ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 01:54:29 -0400 From: Bill Todd Subject: Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Message-ID: Malcolm Dunnett wrote: > "JF Mezei" wrote in message > news:c412e$4602f31a$cef8887a$25472@TEKSAVVY.COM... > >> If you use a heat pump for instance, on average, each kilowatt of work >> brings in 3 kilowatts of heat. If an incadescent generates 1 kilowatt of >> heat for each kilowatt produced (minus a tiny bit for the actual light), >> it is less efficient than a heat pump. So switching to fluorescent bulbs >> does same money because you then rely on a much more energy efficient >> heating device (the heat pump). > > Yes, but in the case where one doesn't have a heat pump but rather > electric > heaters aren't you just exchanging one electrical heat source for another. Indeed - when what you *ought* to be doing is exchanging *both* for better options (unless your electricity is generated from hydro sources). ... FWIW heat pumps are getting a bad > reputation > here in BC because they are so noisy. Municipalities are considering banning > them. Hey, care and airplanes are noisy too. So are children. Let's ban 'em all, rather than fix the problem (in the case of our devices) or recognize it as a necessary annoyance. - bill ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:55:48 +0100 From: Paul Sture Subject: Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Message-ID: In article <1174648146.607308.325290@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, "Andrew" wrote: > A condensing Gas or Oil fired boiler (furnace for the American > Speakers) is typically 85% + efficient at turning fossil fuel into > heat. Older boilers are generally 50-60% efficient so replacing them > is always a good idea anyway. Coincidentally, in my response to a post made by John Wallace I touched on the relative efficiency of gas vs electricity for heating the home. > Assuming your electricity comes from fossil fuel generation then it is > less than 50% efficient and thats without transmission losses. According to my geography teacher when I was in my early teens, one coal fired power station in the UK was about 13% efficient. That figure stuck in my mind. On a recent Sunday afternoon stroll down my local riverbank, I came across a hydroelectric project which should be finished some time this year. The figures were quite impressive, and I really don't mind my tax money going in that direction. > > I was tempted to draw some comparisons between VMS and fossils but > managed to stop myself. > No, you didn't manage to stop yourself :-) PS. Your previous comment about insulating your home reminded me that my father put loft insulation in back in the early sixties, and cavity wall insulation a few years later. Our house was always the last one in the road to have snow on the roof after a thaw. I hope you see similar benefits from your endeavours. -- Paul Sture ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:15:00 +0100 From: Paul Sture Subject: Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Message-ID: In article , cook@wvnvms.wvnet.edu (George Cook) wrote: > In article <1174604838.162226.306110@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, "AEF" > writes: > > On Mar 22, 1:13 pm, "John Wallace" > > wrote: > >> "Paul Anderson" wrote in message > >> > >> news:paul.anderson-401C2D.12171122032007@usenet01.boi.hp.com... > >> > >> > Except your heating system is more efficient at heating the air than > >> > incandescent light bulbs. > >> > >> How does that work then? > >> > >> I put 1 kilowatt of electric power into a light, any kind of light, > >> tungsten, carbon arc, CFL, I get 1 kilowatt of heat in the room. > >> Efficiency > >> 100%. > >> > >> I put gas or heating oil, at a rate equivalent to 1 kilowatts input power, > >> into a typical central heating boiler (you call them "furnaces"?) and a > >> good > >> part of the power input goes up the chimney (flue?). Efficiency maybe > >> 40-70% > >> depending on various factors (though modern condensing boilers allegedly > >> do > >> rather better than 90%). > > > > Is it really that low? 40-70%? I'd guess it's much higher. > > The efficiency of a modern non-condensing gas/oil hot water or steam > boiler is usually in the range of 80-87% (70% or less would not have > been uncommon in the past). The condensing boiler I put in a while back > is rated 92% (98% for low temp applications like driveway heating). > > Gas/oil domestic hot water heaters are another matter. Their efficiency > ranges from 48% to 67% except for very, very high end models. This is > the reason I just recently replaced mine with an indirect-fired model > connected to the boiler. > Sorry, but I cannot resist commenting on the absurdity of seeking an efficient boiler _and_ heating your driveway. -- Paul Sture ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 2007 16:09:50 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Message-ID: In article <1174662371.415143.240850@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, mdeblis@hotmail.com writes: > > Downside is initial cost - the system is not cheap to install, but has > NO maintenance requirement for 25 years (except for general cheap > commodity items such as circulation pumps etc.), and for every 1KW in, > it produces 4.5-7KW out - repay time is about 4 years and in the UK > we get a GBP 1500 (USD 3000) free grant as it counts as a solar > powered system (but with out the very nasty visual impact and other > more major drawbacks of solar panels) I'm wondering what that initial cost was and how it compares to an "air borne" heat pump. The only ground source heat pump I know of in Maryland was a custom job done at the cost of a few million dollars. None of the HVAC contractors around here even carry them. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 2007 16:18:19 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Message-ID: <30tc2ckhRgLv@eisner.encompasserve.org> In article , Paul Sture writes: > > From the personal experience of trying to keep a house warm and seeing > the bills, gas is more appropriate than electricity. It is also better > for cooking, because the heat is instantaneous - consider boiling an egg > or making some toast, where it takes time for the electric version to > heat up. Around here heat pumps cost just a little more than gas to heat a house, and both of those cheaper than oil. Yet I know folks who swear they'll never get off oil heat. As far as cooking, you could start another religious war with that. I only like gas for boiling water. For all the slower cooking I find the even low heat of electric much more workable than the single intense ring of gas, no matter how thick the bottom of the pot. Gas always burns at the same high temperature, you can change how much heat is generated, but not at what temperature. A thick bottom helps a lot but I still end up with that scorch ring when I'm trying to cook something slow. Electric is slower at boiling a big pot of water, it just won't generate as much heat as gas (on any real stove I've had access to), but you can actually change the temperature at which heat is generated. And if you change your cooking habits to turn on the burner first, it cuts in the the delay for any cooking other than large boiled pots of water. If I had a choice I'd have one gas burner just for that, and the rest would be electric. Such stoves are actually made, but we don't have any gas in the nieghborhood. Of course, we have no use for a CO detector, either. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 2007 15:41:18 -0700 From: "AEF" Subject: Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Message-ID: <1174689678.390639.70560@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> On Mar 23, 5:18 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote: > In article , Paul Sture writes: > > > > > From the personal experience of trying to keep a house warm and seeing > > the bills, gas is more appropriate than electricity. It is also better > > for cooking, because the heat is instantaneous - consider boiling an egg > > or making some toast, where it takes time for the electric version to > > heat up. > > Around here heat pumps cost just a little more than gas to heat a > house, and both of those cheaper than oil. Yet I know folks who > swear they'll never get off oil heat. > As far as cooking, you could start another religious war with that. > I only like gas for boiling water. For all the slower cooking I find > the even low heat of electric much more workable than the single > intense ring of gas, no matter how thick the bottom of the pot. > > Gas always burns at the same high temperature, you can change how > much heat is generated, but not at what temperature. A thick bottom > helps a lot but I still end up with that scorch ring when I'm trying > to cook something slow. Hmmm. I greatly prefer gas for all stove-top cooking. You can turn it up or down and not have to wait for it to heat up or cool off. If you're using electric, and you find you suddenly need to turn it down quickly, you also have to remove the pot because of all the latent heat. And you also have immediate visual feedback as to how high it's turned up. I never had the trouble you had with scorch rings. Have you had this problem on different units? Some burners are much better than others. Oh, the other problem I have with electric burners is that they're often too big. I see most people unnecessarily put pots on a burner that's too big so a lot of the heat escapes around the pot. I've never seen that problem with gas burners. And some pots are smaller than the smallest burners, so you can't help but waste energy. > > Electric is slower at boiling a big pot of water, it just won't > generate as much heat as gas (on any real stove I've had access to), > but you can actually change the temperature at which heat is generated. > And if you change your cooking habits to turn on the burner first, > it cuts in the the delay for any cooking other than large boiled > pots of water. If I had a choice I'd have one gas burner just for > that, and the rest would be electric. > > Such stoves are actually made, but we don't have any gas in the > nieghborhood. Of course, we have no use for a CO detector, either. AEF ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 2007 15:46:29 -0700 From: "AEF" Subject: Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Message-ID: <1174689989.458123.293550@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> On Mar 23, 6:41 pm, "AEF" wrote: > On Mar 23, 5:18 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob [...] > > Oh, the other problem I have with electric burners is that they're > often too big. I see most people unnecessarily put pots on a burner > that's too big so a lot of the heat escapes around the pot. I've never > seen that problem with gas burners. And some pots are smaller than the > smallest burners, so you can't help but waste energy. Oh, correction. Yes, I've seen, a couple of times, the flames reach beyond the pot a little. But you can turn it down. [...] AEF ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 2007 16:05:56 -0700 From: mdeblis@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Message-ID: <1174691156.244657.129660@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com> On 23 Mar, 21:09, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote: > In article <1174662371.415143.240...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, mdeb...@hotmail.com writes: > > > Downside is initial cost - the system is not cheap to install, but has > > NO maintenance requirement for 25 years (except for general cheap > > commodity items such as circulation pumps etc.), and for every 1KW in, > > it produces 4.5-7KW out - repay time is about 4 years and in the UK > > we get a GBP 1500 (USD 3000) free grant as it counts as a solar > > powered system (but with out the very nasty visual impact and other > > more major drawbacks of solar panels) > > I'm wondering what that initial cost was and how it compares to > an "air borne" heat pump. > > The only ground source heat pump I know of in Maryland was a custom > job done at the cost of a few million dollars. None of the HVAC > contractors around here even carry them. The initial cost was about USD 16000 (GBP 8000) - that includes all the underfloor work & plumbing, which we would have had to do anyway whatever heating system we went for. The cost over and above an oil- fired condensing boiler is about GBP 4000, of which we get back GBP 1500 in grants. There was also the small matter of 3 x 55mtr trenches in one of the lawns which has taken a year to get back to something like normal (there's 600mts of pipework down there) - about GBP 700 for the groundworks + something for the pain & suffering of having part of the garden a bit messed up. Something over 90% of all new build in Sweden has these sorts of systems - it's far from rocket science, very reliable, and very good - it's just not made the jump across the pond much - here, they are pretty much "off the shelf" - the people we bought off in the UK are now selling well over 100 / month. We are lucky also in having a three phase power supply, so we can use a 3 phase compressor in the heat pump - that adds another 5 - 7% efficiency to the system (so we are told). It's really small, quiet, and rather magical! Mike ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 21:34:54 -0400 From: Bill Todd Subject: Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Message-ID: <8NidnXV0baqiHZnbnZ2dnUVZ_uOmnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com> Bob Koehler wrote: > In article , Paul Sture writes: >> From the personal experience of trying to keep a house warm and seeing >> the bills, gas is more appropriate than electricity. It is also better >> for cooking, because the heat is instantaneous - consider boiling an egg >> or making some toast, where it takes time for the electric version to >> heat up. > > Around here heat pumps cost just a little more than gas to heat a > house, and both of those cheaper than oil. Yet I know folks who > swear they'll never get off oil heat. Costs vary depending on location. We chose gas (propane) because it tends to be a bit cleaner to use (initial equipment cost was also lower for us), and at the time it was at least nearly cost-competitive with oil (cost about 3/4 as much per gallon while generating only about 2/3 as much heat per gallon). However, price changes since then have brought it much closer to oil's per-gallon costs - at least around here: if we had to use a lot of it, we'd notice the difference. Of course, if your community has public gas-line service to your home the cost probably goes down quite a bit. (A ground-water heat pump was not a very viable option, since here in the Granite State - and in particular on our property - the ledge often breaks the surface and seldom is even as deeply covered as the frost line. As I noted earlier, we spent our first 13 years heating with wood, but that does get kind of old after a while - or perhaps I just did.) - bill ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:33:14 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Message-ID: <8a3e2$46048df2$cef8887a$2290@TEKSAVVY.COM> AEF wrote: > Hmmm. I greatly prefer gas for all stove-top cooking. And I prefer TPU for editing. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 05:22:50 GMT From: John Santos Subject: Re: Gore brainwashing world to ban the light bulb! Message-ID: Andrew wrote: > On 23 Mar, 03:15, John Santos wrote: > >>Andrew wrote: >> >>>On 22 Mar, 12:00, b...@instantwhip.com wrote: >> >>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54822 >> >>>>here is an excerpt of one UK citizen who has some common sense ... >> >>>>One United Kingdom consumer, however, said there will be >>>>difficulties: >> >>>>"If we all start using eco bulbs then I suggest we all start using >>>>night vision goggles, because the eco bulbs are useless," wrote Peter >>>>H., from London. "The box told me that it gave out the same level of >>>>light. The box was WRONG. I tried them. The bulbs were terrible, I >>>>could barely see to the other side of the room. >> >>>>"It could save you money on your bills but you would spend the rest >>>>off (sic) your life in and out of hospital because you don't have >>>>fluorescent walls and furniture," he continued. "Save yourself a trip >>>>to the hospital, use normal bulbs. >> >>>>Among the plans being developed, too, there is no mention of how to >>>>handle the mercury from old fluorescent bulbs. Mercury, a highly >>>>persistent and toxic chemical, can build up to dangerous >>>>concentrations in fish, wildlife, and human beings. >> >>>Bob. >> >>>A tiny bit of science here. Burning fossil fuels produces mercury as a >>>toxic by product. Incandescent light bulbs use 5-7x the fuel to >>>produce the same light output as a CFL (which does contain mercury). >>>Because of this a number of reports have concluded that replacing >>>Incandescent light bulbs with CFL's will REDUCE the amount of mercury >>>released into the environment even if every CFL is smashed in a >>>landfill rather than recycled. It is also currently possible to >>>recycle CFL's so that they do not release any mercury into the >>>environment, the same is not true of fossil fuel based power >>>generation. >> >>>So in other words this is just uninformed FUD where the status quo >>>being advocated is much worse than the apparently terrible CFL. >> >>>Let me repeat this for you in case you have misunderstood. Reducing >>>mercury emissions is actually a CFL strong point and it is not a >>>reason to buy Incandescent light bulbs. >> >>>The post you refer to is idiotic. I only use CFL's (actually I have 2 >>>incandescent bulbs because I cannot get a CFL to fit the light) yes >>>they take 10 seconds to produce their full output and yes some of the >>>older units used to take longer but that is the only drawback to >>>CFL's. Brightness is not an issue though you cannot fit them to a >>>dimmer switch. >> >>Actually, I saw some CFL's that claimed to be dimmer-compatible in >>Home Depot last week. They only had one size, listed as 5-15 Watts >>equivalent or so (i.e. very dim), and I couldn't find the actual >>wattage used on the package. They seemed to be intended for use >>in chandeliers, and came with a small (candelabra-size) base and >>an adapter so they could be screwed into standard-size sockets. >> >>There was no mention of them on the big overhead sign describing >>the different sizes and types of bulbs, and of course being the >>BORG, no employees knew anything about them. >> > > > The only ones I have seen appear to have multiple tubes, you turn the > light on once and 4 tubes ignite, turn it off and on again and 3 > ignite etc down to 1 and then back up to 4. They were available in a > range of sizes but it seemed like a bit of a kludge to me. > They had those as well (they've been available for several years), as a direct replacement for what are called in the US "3-way bulbs." They have two contacts on the bottom and two filaments instead of one. Usually 50W & 100W or 40W and 60W filaments (in the incandescent version.) The switch and socket are designed with multiple positions to provide power to one, the other, and then both contacts, so you have 3 brightness choices. I have on such CFL in a lamp designed for a 3-way incandescent bulb. (Strangely, the sequence with the CFL bulb is off-dim-bright-medium-off instead of off-dim-medium-bright-off, but the info on the package indicates this is the way it is supposed to work. I've been meaning to look at it closely some time to see if I can figure out why it acts this way. The 3-way incandescents are easy to figure out.) But the dimmer-compatible CFL's seem to be intended for use with real dimmers, which use a continuously variable sliding or rotary rheostat to control the voltage and hence the brightness. I googled around a bit to try to find out more about these CFL's, but didn't come up with much. The General Electric web site says they make them, but I couldn't find specific models and brightnesses. I didn't come across any other manufacturer's web sites in the 1st 10 pages of google output and called it quits. There was also some mention of dimmers specifically designed to work with CFL's. [snip] > Regards > Andrew -- John Santos Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539 ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 2007 18:21:23 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Not on latest Roadmap: OpenVMS VAX Version 8.x "under investigation" Message-ID: <56ik53F29lthoU1@mid.individual.net> In article , - writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> In article , >> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: >>> They should realise that that is a self defeating strategy. I'm sure that >>> we are pretty typical in that we are planning on moving ALL our Unix systems >>> to Linux starting with our Tru64 systems. >> >> Just out of curiosity, did you ever consider one of the BSD's (in particular >> FreeBSD) instead of Linux? If not, why not? And, if so, why did you choose >> Linux over BSD? Not trying to start YARW (Yet Another Religious War) but >> really interested in why people who are used to using the best would pick >> the obviously inferior choice when moving to a free Unix. >> >> bill >> > > Of course you're not interested in a flame war; which is why you posted > such a provocative question. As hard as you may find it to believe, I am not interested in a flame war. I truly do not understand why people (especially businesses) choose a much more inferior product with a much more restrictive license. I work with both of them (and a number of comercial versions of Unix as well) and I know from experience some of the difficulties caused by using Linux. He answered my question. Oracle. Now I guess the question becomes why does Oracle not provide a version for BSD but I don't know if I can find anyone at Oracle to ask. My guess is it comes down to something we aare all much too familiar with here. Marketing vs lack of marketing. Linux gets hyped to high heaven and the guys doing BSD choose to just sit back and play in near total obscurity. Something about a lamp under a bushel comes to mind. Stealth marketing works as well for BSD as it does for VMS. > Here is a useful starting point: > http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux4.php I am not interested in rants. I was interested in hearing from someone who's opinion I can trust as to why, specifically, they chose one over the other. And, as I said, he answered that question. No flame war. 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: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:00:20 -0700 From: - Subject: Re: Not on latest Roadmap: OpenVMS VAX Version 8.x "under investigation" Message-ID: Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article , > - writes: >> Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>> In article , >>> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: >>>> They should realise that that is a self defeating strategy. I'm sure that >>>> we are pretty typical in that we are planning on moving ALL our Unix systems >>>> to Linux starting with our Tru64 systems. >>> Just out of curiosity, did you ever consider one of the BSD's (in particular >>> FreeBSD) instead of Linux? If not, why not? And, if so, why did you choose >>> Linux over BSD? Not trying to start YARW (Yet Another Religious War) but >>> really interested in why people who are used to using the best would pick >>> the obviously inferior choice when moving to a free Unix. >>> >>> bill >>> >> Of course you're not interested in a flame war; which is why you posted >> such a provocative question. > > As hard as you may find it to believe, I am not interested in a flame > war. I truly do not understand why people (especially businesses) > choose a much more inferior product with a much more restrictive > license. I work with both of them (and a number of comercial versions > of Unix as well) and I know from experience some of the difficulties > caused by using Linux. > > He answered my question. Oracle. Now I guess the question becomes > why does Oracle not provide a version for BSD but I don't know if > I can find anyone at Oracle to ask. > > My guess is it comes down to something we aare all much too familiar > with here. Marketing vs lack of marketing. Linux gets hyped to high > heaven and the guys doing BSD choose to just sit back and play in > near total obscurity. Something about a lamp under a bushel comes > to mind. Stealth marketing works as well for BSD as it does for VMS. > >> Here is a useful starting point: >> http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux4.php > > I am not interested in rants. I was interested in hearing from someone > who's opinion I can trust as to why, specifically, they chose one over > the other. And, as I said, he answered that question. No flame war. > > bill > Well, if you'd /actually read the reference/ you'd see that it's not a rant. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:15:30 -0700 From: - Subject: Re: Not on latest Roadmap: OpenVMS VAX Version 8.x "under investigation" Message-ID: Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article , > - writes: >> Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>> In article , >>> - writes: >>>> Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>>>> In article , >>>>> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: >>>>>> They should realise that that is a self defeating strategy. I'm sure that >>>>>> we are pretty typical in that we are planning on moving ALL our Unix systems >>>>>> to Linux starting with our Tru64 systems. >>>>> Just out of curiosity, did you ever consider one of the BSD's (in particular >>>>> FreeBSD) instead of Linux? If not, why not? And, if so, why did you choose >>>>> Linux over BSD? Not trying to start YARW (Yet Another Religious War) but >>>>> really interested in why people who are used to using the best would pick >>>>> the obviously inferior choice when moving to a free Unix. >>>>> >>>>> bill >>>>> >>>> Of course you're not interested in a flame war; which is why you posted >>>> such a provocative question. >>> As hard as you may find it to believe, I am not interested in a flame >>> war. I truly do not understand why people (especially businesses) >>> choose a much more inferior product with a much more restrictive >>> license. I work with both of them (and a number of comercial versions >>> of Unix as well) and I know from experience some of the difficulties >>> caused by using Linux. >>> >>> He answered my question. Oracle. Now I guess the question becomes >>> why does Oracle not provide a version for BSD but I don't know if >>> I can find anyone at Oracle to ask. >>> >>> My guess is it comes down to something we aare all much too familiar >>> with here. Marketing vs lack of marketing. Linux gets hyped to high >>> heaven and the guys doing BSD choose to just sit back and play in >>> near total obscurity. Something about a lamp under a bushel comes >>> to mind. Stealth marketing works as well for BSD as it does for VMS. >>> >>>> Here is a useful starting point: >>>> http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux4.php >>> I am not interested in rants. I was interested in hearing from someone >>> who's opinion I can trust as to why, specifically, they chose one over >>> the other. And, as I said, he answered that question. No flame war. >>> >>> bill >>> >> Well, if you'd /actually read the reference/ you'd see that it's not a rant. > > Maybe so, but it is by someone I don't know which means I can place no > value on it. I asked soemone here on c.o.v who I have seen many posts > from and trust the professional opinion of. Big difference. Just like > there are a lot of people here who's opinions I trust over professionals > like Gartner. The value of an opinion is tempered by the trust in the > person holding it. > > bill > The value of an opinion is tempered by the respect you hold for that person. If you don't respect that person, you don't respect their point of view. So do the research. You asked a question in a deliberately provocative way. Then added spiteful protestations to the contrary, and a profound disrespect for other points of view. If you /actually read the article/ you'd see that it's a cogent description of why one would choose *BSD /over/ Linux. You're obviously not one to let facts get in the way of an argument. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 2007 21:43:48 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Not on latest Roadmap: OpenVMS VAX Version 8.x "under investigation" Message-ID: <56j00kF29jue6U3@mid.individual.net> In article , - writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> In article , >> - writes: >>> Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>>> In article , >>>> - writes: >>>>> Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>>>>> In article , >>>>>> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: >>>>>>> They should realise that that is a self defeating strategy. I'm sure that >>>>>>> we are pretty typical in that we are planning on moving ALL our Unix systems >>>>>>> to Linux starting with our Tru64 systems. >>>>>> Just out of curiosity, did you ever consider one of the BSD's (in particular >>>>>> FreeBSD) instead of Linux? If not, why not? And, if so, why did you choose >>>>>> Linux over BSD? Not trying to start YARW (Yet Another Religious War) but >>>>>> really interested in why people who are used to using the best would pick >>>>>> the obviously inferior choice when moving to a free Unix. >>>>>> >>>>>> bill >>>>>> >>>>> Of course you're not interested in a flame war; which is why you posted >>>>> such a provocative question. >>>> As hard as you may find it to believe, I am not interested in a flame >>>> war. I truly do not understand why people (especially businesses) >>>> choose a much more inferior product with a much more restrictive >>>> license. I work with both of them (and a number of comercial versions >>>> of Unix as well) and I know from experience some of the difficulties >>>> caused by using Linux. >>>> >>>> He answered my question. Oracle. Now I guess the question becomes >>>> why does Oracle not provide a version for BSD but I don't know if >>>> I can find anyone at Oracle to ask. >>>> >>>> My guess is it comes down to something we aare all much too familiar >>>> with here. Marketing vs lack of marketing. Linux gets hyped to high >>>> heaven and the guys doing BSD choose to just sit back and play in >>>> near total obscurity. Something about a lamp under a bushel comes >>>> to mind. Stealth marketing works as well for BSD as it does for VMS. >>>> >>>>> Here is a useful starting point: >>>>> http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux4.php >>>> I am not interested in rants. I was interested in hearing from someone >>>> who's opinion I can trust as to why, specifically, they chose one over >>>> the other. And, as I said, he answered that question. No flame war. >>>> >>>> bill >>>> >>> Well, if you'd /actually read the reference/ you'd see that it's not a rant. >> >> Maybe so, but it is by someone I don't know which means I can place no >> value on it. I asked soemone here on c.o.v who I have seen many posts >> from and trust the professional opinion of. Big difference. Just like >> there are a lot of people here who's opinions I trust over professionals >> like Gartner. The value of an opinion is tempered by the trust in the >> person holding it. >> >> bill >> > > The value of an opinion is tempered by the respect you hold for that > person. If you don't respect that person, you don't respect their point > of view. > > So do the research. You asked a question in a deliberately provocative > way. I asked three straight out questions. I can;t think of any way to ask the same questions with maiing it less likely I would get the information I was looking for. I don't see how asking simple questions like that can be provocative. And, considering that the person I asked simply answered the questions and in a manner that gave me precisely the information I needed, I guess he didn't see them as provocative. > Then added spiteful protestations to the contrary, and a profound > disrespect for other points of view. > > If you /actually read the article/ you'd see that it's a cogent > description of why one would choose *BSD /over/ Linux. I don't get your point. It doesn't matter which side of the argument the writer is on if I don't know them and therefore don't trust them. I am sure I could find lots of peo[le who share my opinions of lots of things, right and wrong. I wasn't looking for someone to regurgitate what I alread know. I wanted specific information from someone involved in making the decision right now. And I got it. > You're obviously not one to let facts get in the way of an argument. I don't understand this either. I was looking for information. I got it. You seem to be the only one looking for an argument. And at this point I wouldn't ask you because based on this conversation I would not place high value on your opinion on this particular subject because you seem to have an axe to grind. David has shown no bias one way or the other in the past so there had to be a real reason behind their choice. There was. Oracle. End of story. That was the information I wanted. And I thank David for that information. 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: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:08:54 -0700 From: - Subject: Re: Not on latest Roadmap: OpenVMS VAX Version 8.x "under investigation" Message-ID: Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article , > - writes: >> Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>> In article , >>> - writes: >>>> Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>>>> In article , >>>>> - writes: >>>>>> Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>>>>>> In article , >>>>>>> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: >>>>>>>> They should realise that that is a self defeating strategy. I'm sure that >>>>>>>> we are pretty typical in that we are planning on moving ALL our Unix systems >>>>>>>> to Linux starting with our Tru64 systems. >>>>>>> Just out of curiosity, did you ever consider one of the BSD's (in particular >>>>>>> FreeBSD) instead of Linux? If not, why not? And, if so, why did you choose >>>>>>> Linux over BSD? Not trying to start YARW (Yet Another Religious War) but >>>>>>> really interested in why people who are used to using the best would pick >>>>>>> the obviously inferior choice when moving to a free Unix. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> bill >>>>>>> >>>>>> Of course you're not interested in a flame war; which is why you posted >>>>>> such a provocative question. >>>>> As hard as you may find it to believe, I am not interested in a flame >>>>> war. I truly do not understand why people (especially businesses) >>>>> choose a much more inferior product with a much more restrictive >>>>> license. I work with both of them (and a number of comercial versions >>>>> of Unix as well) and I know from experience some of the difficulties >>>>> caused by using Linux. >>>>> >>>>> He answered my question. Oracle. Now I guess the question becomes >>>>> why does Oracle not provide a version for BSD but I don't know if >>>>> I can find anyone at Oracle to ask. >>>>> >>>>> My guess is it comes down to something we aare all much too familiar >>>>> with here. Marketing vs lack of marketing. Linux gets hyped to high >>>>> heaven and the guys doing BSD choose to just sit back and play in >>>>> near total obscurity. Something about a lamp under a bushel comes >>>>> to mind. Stealth marketing works as well for BSD as it does for VMS. >>>>> >>>>>> Here is a useful starting point: >>>>>> http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux4.php >>>>> I am not interested in rants. I was interested in hearing from someone >>>>> who's opinion I can trust as to why, specifically, they chose one over >>>>> the other. And, as I said, he answered that question. No flame war. >>>>> >>>>> bill >>>>> >>>> Well, if you'd /actually read the reference/ you'd see that it's not a rant. >>> Maybe so, but it is by someone I don't know which means I can place no >>> value on it. I asked soemone here on c.o.v who I have seen many posts >>> from and trust the professional opinion of. Big difference. Just like >>> there are a lot of people here who's opinions I trust over professionals >>> like Gartner. The value of an opinion is tempered by the trust in the >>> person holding it. >>> >>> bill >>> >> The value of an opinion is tempered by the respect you hold for that >> person. If you don't respect that person, you don't respect their point >> of view. >> >> So do the research. You asked a question in a deliberately provocative >> way. > > I asked three straight out questions. I can;t think of any way to ask > the same questions with maiing it less likely I would get the information > I was looking for. I don't see how asking simple questions like that can > be provocative. And, considering that the person I asked simply answered > the questions and in a manner that gave me precisely the information I > needed, I guess he didn't see them as provocative. > >> Then added spiteful protestations to the contrary, and a profound >> disrespect for other points of view. >> >> If you /actually read the article/ you'd see that it's a cogent >> description of why one would choose *BSD /over/ Linux. > > I don't get your point. It doesn't matter which side of the argument > the writer is on if I don't know them and therefore don't trust them. > I am sure I could find lots of peo[le who share my opinions of lots of > things, right and wrong. I wasn't looking for someone to regurgitate > what I alread know. I wanted specific information from someone involved > in making the decision right now. And I got it. > >> You're obviously not one to let facts get in the way of an argument. > > I don't understand this either. I was looking for information. I got > it. You seem to be the only one looking for an argument. And at this > point I wouldn't ask you because based on this conversation I would not > place high value on your opinion on this particular subject because you > seem to have an axe to grind. David has shown no bias one way or the > other in the past so there had to be a real reason behind their choice. > There was. Oracle. End of story. That was the information I wanted. > And I thank David for that information. > > bill > It's quite simple. When you say: "... but really interested in why people who are used to using the best would pick the obviously inferior choice when moving to a free Unix." You're not asking for unbiased information. You're not /really/ interested. You /ask this/, but /want that/. You still haven't read the article, have you? ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 2007 23:21:22 GMT From: Doc Subject: Re: Not on latest Roadmap: OpenVMS VAX Version 8.x "under investigation" Message-ID: - wrote in news:eu1mj0$pte$1@aioe.org: > It's quite simple. When you say: > "... but really interested in why people who are used to using the > best would pick the obviously inferior choice when moving to a free > Unix." > > You're not asking for unbiased information. You're not /really/ > interested. You /ask this/, but /want that/. You still haven't read > the article, have you? I've read the article, had you pointed it out as an interesting discussion of the pros and cons of using Linux versus BSD you would have got more readers. Bill does not come across as looking for a fight, in fact I've seen two posts where he's said that his question has been answered. You seem to be the person looking for room 7A. Doc. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:10:02 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: OT: 216 Billion Americans Squirrels Are Scientifically Illiterate Message-ID: Bob Koehler wrote: > Do you really still think of China as "developing"? What do they need > to do to step out of that magic label, export airliners (they're > working on that, right now they make lots of parts for Boeing and > Airbus)? I agree with the above. But it is still technically a developping nation. It will take leadership from its leading trading partners (EU and USA) to get it to admit that it a developped nation and as such is expected to abide by the various pollution treaties. Right now, China is riding on the advantages of its "developing nation" status even though it is no longer such. And the USA cannot start telling China to clean up its energy production while the USA administration continues to deny that pollution is harming the planet. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:38:54 -0400 From: Bill Todd Subject: Re: OT: 216 Billion Americans Squirrels Are Scientifically Illiterate Message-ID: Bob Koehler wrote: > In article , JF Mezei writes: >> Until the civilised world convinces the USA to curb its emissions and stop >> building SUVs, the civilised world doesn't have a chance to convince China, >> India and the developping world to also curb their emissions. > > Do you really still think of China as "developing"? What do they need > to do to step out of that magic label, export airliners (they're > working on that, right now they make lots of parts for Boeing and > Airbus)? The fact that China can export airliners does not necessarily prove that is should be considered 'developed': it's so large that it could do so even if 90+% of its population were still living in medieval conditions. My impression is that the vast majority of China's population is still at best in transition to 'developed' status, but I'd be happy to listen to someone who actually knew something about the subject. - bill ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 2007 17:57:44 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: OT: 216 Billion Americans Squirrels Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part 36) Message-ID: <56iionF299eqcU1@mid.individual.net> In article <1174665317.173628.319350@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, "Andrew" writes: > > No, the problem in the US is that Diesel engines are unpopular > possibly because most of the US car makers attempts to introduce oil > burners resulted in cars that were so "c**p" that no one would buy > them. Oh B**LC**P. Wether the American car companies make them or not is irrelevant. Other companies make them but fail to make them generally available over here. One of the best cars I ever owned was a Volvo 340 GL Diesel. More compfortable than a Cadilac. Good on fuel. Great on the highway. And not the problem in winter that one traditionally hears about diesels. But rare. I'll bet Volvo didn't ship as many as 100 to the US. As for the American manufacturers. I really don't remember seeing any Diesel production cars offered so this could easily have been a niche the Europeans or Pacific Rim companies cold have filled. Just like they did with sportscars (the only real american sportscars are the Corvette and the Ford GT, both way out of the price range of the average american.) As for the quality of american diesels, nothing can hold a candle to a Cummings. But the only non-commercial vehicles that have them are pick-up trucks. > The other problem was that until recently very few people in the > US gave any attention to fuel consumption at all and your petrol > prices were low. Actually, the problem is not that they don't pay it any attention, it's that they have little if any control over it. You, yourself said that German SUV's get better gas mileage. but not whent hey ship them over here. I would love to burn less gas. That is one of the reasons why, at the age of 57, I am going back to riding a motorcycle. Where I work is n ot going to suddenly move closer to my house so how far I drive every week is fixed. If the price of gas doubled tomorrow I still have to drive here every day. Don't believe everything you see on american television. Even if they don't believe in GW or live in a place where air pollution is a problem, all americans want to save more money to spend on fun things rather then the everyday trip to work. Reporter: Are you going to cut down on your gas usage as the price continues to rise? Customer in gas station: Well, it's really pretty hard on my wallet, But I have to go to work everyday so what am I supposed to do? I'll continue to drive just like I do now. What makes the evening news. Reporter: Are you going to cut down on your gas usage as the price continues to rise? Customer in gas station: I'll continue to drive just like I do now. It's not just the rich and famous that get qouted out of context. > > A badly designed diesel engine in a car is much nastier to drive than > a petrol equivalent and the US car industry long adept at producing > not terribly good cars made things worse by putting badly designed > diesel engines in them. More B**LC**P. > > In Europe petrol prices are higher Yeah, that's your government screwing you with really high taxes cause the cost per barrel is the same and it doesn't have to be shipped as far to get to you. Not something I would be proud of. > and there is a long history of > developing well designed Diesel engines many so good that you cannot > tell the difference between them and a petrol unit except that the > Diesel engines produce much more torque which is a good thing. Oh yeah, really well designed. I have known many people with VW Diesels that spend more time in the shop than on the road. And smoke like chimneys. And then there was the guy that lived in the apartmetn by me in Rheindahlen, Germany who kept a spare battery for his Mercedes Diesel in his apartment cause ti usually took both of them to start it in the winter. One to warm it up and the other to crank the engine and fire up the ignition. (You do know how big and heavy a battery for a Mercedes Diesel is, don't you?) > They > also tend to last a very long time again a characteristic not much > valued in the US until recently. I'll bet there are a lot more cars from the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's on the road over here than here are over there. You really don't know very much about america and americans, do you? You need to watch less tellie and do more traveling. 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: 23 Mar 2007 16:05:33 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: OT: 216 Billion Americans Squirrels Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part 36) Message-ID: In article <56iionF299eqcU1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > In article <1174665317.173628.319350@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > "Andrew" writes: >> >> No, the problem in the US is that Diesel engines are unpopular >> possibly because most of the US car makers attempts to introduce oil >> burners resulted in cars that were so "c**p" that no one would buy >> them. > > Oh B**LC**P. Wether the American car companies make them or not is > irrelevant. The theory is that car makers from all over the world don't sell diesels in the US because nobody will buy them, and nobody buys them because GM made such PoS diesels in the 70s. The truth is that if I go into a dealer who could have diesels, there's a three to six month wait to get one, just like the Prius used to have. Most Americans just aren't going to spend a lot of money and wait a lot of time for a technology they're not familiar with. I grew up with diesels, but when I look around for a diesel available in a car I might like to have, only VW seems to make in the styles and price range I could be interested in, and thier reliability reputation is still low for me. I'll wait and see if my brother's VW diesel works out. Now, if I could have had a choice between gas, diesel, and hybrid on that Civic I just bought I'd have been much more likely to spring for the extra money for the diesel than for the hybrid. At least the gas model I settled for is getting 30 mph. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 2007 21:18:17 GMT From: Doc Subject: Re: OT: 216 Billion Americans Squirrels Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part 36) Message-ID: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote in news:FE13Z0zsVHZF@eisner.encompasserve.org: > Now, if I could have had a choice between gas, diesel, and hybrid > on that Civic I just bought I'd have been much more likely to > spring for the extra money for the diesel than for the hybrid. At > least the gas model I settled for is getting 30 mph. I'd hope it was doing more than 30mph when you wanted. :) As to 30 mpg, is it an automatic? Doc. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 2007 12:21:50 -0700 From: "flamingomn@hotmail.com" Subject: Re: REQUE select jobs to another que for execution Message-ID: <1174677710.802450.280900@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com> On Feb 26, 7:24 pm, dool...@snowy.net.au wrote: > On Feb 27, 8:16 am, "flaming...@hotmail.com" > wrote:> hi. > > > i'm looking for a simple DCL: .com that will to the following: > > > 1. look for all jobs in a queue that start with ELG > > 2. requeue JUST those jobs to anothter specified queue. > > > thanks. > > > ann > > This one requeues retained jobs from one queue to another > you can adapt it for your purpose (watch for line-wrap) > Phil > > $!RQ.COM - P1=SOURCE QUEUE P2=DESTINATION QUEUE > $ SET ON > $ SET CONTROL=(T,Y) > $ ON ERROR THEN GOTO ERROR_EXIT > $ ON CONTROL_Y THEN GOTO ERROR_EXIT > $ TEMP = F$GETQUI("") > $QLOOP: > $ QNAME = F$GETQUI("DISPLAY_QUEUE","QUEUE_NAME","*") > $ IF QNAME .EQS. "" THEN GOTO DONE > $ IF QNAME .NES. "''P1'" THEN GOTO QLOOP > $JLOOP: > $ RETAINED = F$GETQUI("DISPLAY_JOB","JOB_RETAINED",,"ALL_JOBS") > $ IF RETAINED .EQS. "" THEN GOTO DONE > $ IF RETAINED .NES. "TRUE" THEN GOTO JLOOP > $ ENTRY = F > $GETQUI("DISPLAY_JOB","ENTRY_NUMBER",,"FREEZE_CONTEXT,ALL_JOBS") > $ SET ENTRY 'ENTRY' /REQUEUE='P2' > $ SET ENTRY 'ENTRY' /RELEASE > $ GOTO JLOOP > $DONE: > $ EXIT > $ERROR_EXIT: > $ STAT = $STATUS > $ SAY "Error" > $ SAY F$MESSAGE(STAT) > $ EXIT THANKS. I'll give it a try. Ann ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 2007 15:51:09 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Willing to bet this is Windows at its best Message-ID: In article <56i13jF297a6jU1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > > What applications are your users running that require root privs? > Do you even realize haow badly designed such an application would > have to be? Custom applications that require root to start/stop because that's the only way the implimenter knows how to use his DBMS. Yes, I know all commercial DBMS have a better way. COTS applications that are started under root so that it can internally suid to a specific uid. No, I don't know why it doesn't just run as that user to begin with. Systems, as I said before, that get hosed up and have to be rebooted. Sure, a sudo script, or a Linux with ctrl-alt-del would be solutions, but they're not in place. Systems with custom kernel extensions to communicate with custom hardware that hoses up. Only root can reload the kernel extension. These are just a few examples. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 2007 15:54:24 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Willing to bet this is Windows at its best Message-ID: <2BzAH55bO6dG@eisner.encompasserve.org> In article <56i1e2F297a6jU2@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > > Would you accept reboot as a legitimate option on your VMS machines? > Even after all the people here who talk about VSM machines that run > for years? We have those. Cheaper to reboot the VAX than fix the application, especially when millions of dollars of custom hardware that almost works is in place. We also have lots of applications that need nothing more dangerous than SYSLCK. And users that have only NETMBX, TMPMBX, and SYSLCK. And operations folks who only need OPER and READALL so they can do things like a backup. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 2007 21:28:43 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Willing to bet this is Windows at its best Message-ID: <56iv4aF29jue6U1@mid.individual.net> In article , koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: > In article <56i13jF297a6jU1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >> >> What applications are your users running that require root privs? >> Do you even realize haow badly designed such an application would >> have to be? > > Custom applications that require root to start/stop because > that's the only way the implimenter knows how to use his DBMS. > > Yes, I know all commercial DBMS have a better way. > > COTS applications that are started under root so that it can > internally suid to a specific uid. No, I don't know why it doesn't > just run as that user to begin with. > > Systems, as I said before, that get hosed up and have to be rebooted. > Sure, a sudo script, or a Linux with ctrl-alt-del would be solutions, > but they're not in place. > > Systems with custom kernel extensions to communicate with custom > hardware that hoses up. Only root can reload the kernel extension. > > These are just a few examples. None of which are Unix's fault or have anything to do with any possible shortcoming of Unix. I could easily write equally bad garbage for VMS. The proper solution is to fix the program, not blame the OS. 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: 23 Mar 2007 15:28:46 -0700 From: "AEF" Subject: Re: Willing to bet this is Windows at its best Message-ID: <1174688926.805259.173310@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> On Mar 22, 9:02 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote: > In article <4601874D.7050...@comcast.net>, "Richard B. gilbert" writes: > > > > > DSC?? Talk about ancient history!! > > > Well I hope we have all learned something in the last twenty years. My > > operators never did a backup on their own! I wrote and scheduled the > > batch jobs that did backups; the operators just mounted the tapes. > > And then there was the "system manager" who tried to delete a > satellite boot root: > > don't do this> set default sys$sysdevice:[sys12] > don't do this> delete [...]*.*;* > > Which failed when it could no longer find delete.exe. VMS has been considerably improved since then. With V6.2, you can keep on deleting, even after DELETE.EXE has been deleted! ;-) [Professional deleter. Closed test system. Do not attempt at home or on a production server!!! Not for the faint-of-heart.] $ DIREC/SIZE/DATE/PROT SYS$SYSTEM:DELETE.EXE Directory SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE] DELETE.EXE;1 28 15-MAY-1995 11:00:13.16 (RWED,RWED,RWED,RE) Total of 1 file, 28 blocks. $ SET DEF SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE] $ DEL *.*;* %DELETE-I-FILDEL, SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]ACC.EXE;1 deleted (72 blocks) %DELETE-I-FILDEL, SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]ACLEDT.EXE;1 deleted (9 blocks) %DELETE-I-FILDEL, SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]AGEN$FEEDBACK.EXE;1 deleted (27 blocks) %DELETE-I-FILDEL, SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]ANALAUDIT.EXE;1 deleted (225 blocks) %DELETE-I-FILDEL, SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]ANALIMDMP.EXE;1 deleted (54 blocks) %DELETE-I-FILDEL, SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]ANALYZBAD.EXE;1 deleted (27 blocks) . . . %DELETE-I-FILDEL, SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]DECW$MKFONTDIR.EXE;1 deleted (18 blocks) %DELETE-I-FILDEL, SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]DECW$SERVER_MAIN.EXE;1 deleted (9 blocks) %DELETE-I-FILDEL, SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]DECW$SETSHODIS.EXE;1 deleted (18 blocks) %DELETE-I-FILDEL, SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]DELETE.EXE;1 deleted (36 blocks) %DELETE-W-FILNOTDEL, error deleting SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]DFU.EXE;1 -RMS-E-PRV, insufficient privilege or file protection violation %DELETE-I-FILDEL, SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]DIFF.EXE;1 deleted (36 blocks) %DELETE-I-FILDEL, SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]DIRECTORY.EXE;1 deleted (126 blocks) . . . ! [Good thing BYPASS wasn't enabled or I would have lost DFU.EXE!!! ;-] . . . %DELETE-I-FILDEL, SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]VPM.EXE;1 deleted (27 blocks) %DELETE-I-FILDEL, SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]VSMDRIVER.EXE;1 deleted (90 blocks) %DELETE-I-FILDEL, SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]WP.EXE;1 deleted (36 blocks) %DELETE-I-FILDEL, SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]WPCORP_PTR51_BACKGROUND_SMB.EXE;1 deleted ( 9 blocks) %DELETE-I-FILDEL, SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]WRITEBOOT.EXE;1 deleted (18 blocks) %DELETE-I-FILDEL, SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]XFLOADER.EXE;1 deleted (9 blocks) %DELETE-I-TOTAL, 364 files deleted (38754 blocks) And DELETE still works in subsequent commands: $ DEL SYS$MANAGER:LOGIN.COM; %DELETE-I-FILDEL, SYS$COMMON:[SYSMGR]LOGIN.COM;18 deleted (9 blocks) $ DEL SYS$MANAGER:SYLOGIN.COM; %DELETE-I-FILDEL, SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR]SYLOGIN.COM;9 deleted (18 blocks) $ DEL SYS$MANAGER:SYLOGIN.COM;* %DELETE-I-FILDEL, SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR]SYLOGIN.COM;8 deleted (18 blocks) %DELETE-I-FILDEL, SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR]SYLOGIN.COM;7 deleted (18 blocks) . . . (Yes, DEL is a symbol for DELETE/LOG!.) AEF ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.165 ************************