INFO-VAX Sat, 04 Aug 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 424
Contents:
Re: decnet only works one way ?
Re: DLTIV in SDLT Drive
Re: Duplicate posts
Re: Duplicate posts (was: Is VMSONE.COM off the air permanently?)
Re: Easy DCL question PURGE vs. DELETE
Re: Easy DCL question PURGE vs. DELETE
How can I create symbol thru Perl "system" command?
Re: Is VMSONE.COM off the air permanently?
Re: July the 4th
Re: Kerry needs a news readerRe: Stay on Alpha forever?
Re: terminal servers, X-terminals in upgrade to Integrity
Re: terminal servers, X-terminals in upgrade to Integrity
Re: terminal servers, X-terminals in upgrade to Integrity
Re: VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall
Re: VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 04:41:06 -0700
From: Volker Halle <volker_halle@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: decnet only works one way ?
Message-ID: <1186227666.701785.295400@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
Carmine,
I would guess, that nodeA does NOT run with a DECnet Phase IV address
on any of it's routing circuits.
If you succesfully SET HOST nodeB from nodeA, this creates an entry in
the end-node cache for nodeA on nodeB. Then you can SET HOST nodeA
from nodeB. But the entry in the end-node cache expires after some
time and then you get your host unreachable error again.
Check the network configuration on nodeA. Make sure the DECnet IV
address specified is correct and unique. Make sure to only start ONE
routing circuit with the Phase IV address on the same LAN segment.
$ SHOW DEV/FULL Exc0 will show you the current MAC address for each
LAN adapter (on V8.3). Does any LAN adapter have a AA-00-04-00-xx-xx
DECnet Phase IV MAC address ?
Volker.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 06:45:35 -0500
From: Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>
Subject: Re: DLTIV in SDLT Drive
Message-ID: <AFZsi.134814$LE1.54835@newsfe13.lga>
On 08/03/07 15:50, dittman@dittman.net wrote:
> healyzh@aracnet.com wrote:
>> David Turner, Island Computers <dturner@no-spam-islandco.com> wrote:
>>> Before I tell my customer he has messed up his tape drive He tried backing
>>> up to a DLTIV tape in a SDLT1 tape drive) I was wondering if I am correct
>>> in the assumption that you can only READ DLTIV and not write to them.
>
>>> I don't really want to try this here as they are still not yet cheap.
>
>>> Comments?!?
>
>> Correct, and SDLT220 drive can only read a DLT IV tape. For SDLT320 and
>> newer drives you can't read DLT IV media.
>
> According to Quantum you can read DLT IV media in a SDLT320 drive. I've
> read there are issues with reading DLT IV media in SDLT320 drives with
> old firmware so upgrading to a newer firmware might be necessary.
Hi, Eric!!!!!!!
Alan is getting STK to upgrade the firmware in the TTDC L40. Not
that I knew that TTDC has an L40. I thought the only jukeboxen
attached to EPS1 and NYEZ02 were L700s.
--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 09:23:01 -0500
From: Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Duplicate posts
Message-ID: <aZ%si.18$Pv4.0@newsfe19.lga>
On 08/04/07 08:21, Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> In article <6AYsi.1604$mG2.574@newsfe12.lga>, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
>> In article <f8q1p5$138u$2@pyrite.mv.net>, Stephen Hoffman <Hoff@HoffmanLabs-RemoveThis-.Org> writes:
>
>>> The likely owner of the box has been pinged.
>> This is weird. Hoff posted this a few days ago and again it appears.
>> Somebody has a problematic news server as I've seen numerous postings
>> reappear in the past few weeks. I wonder if this is due to the prob-
>> lems google was having and, perhaps, is still experiencing.
>
> Over the years this has been a common problem in this newsgroup and
> others. I believe the root cause is likely a protocol deficiency
> allowing errant news servers anywhere to corrupt the group.
Microsoft nntp servers, no doubt. Or FreeBSD. Yeah, that's it:
Evil FreeBSD.
--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
------------------------------
Date: 4 Aug 2007 08:21:24 -0500
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: Duplicate posts (was: Is VMSONE.COM off the air permanently?)
Message-ID: <n2hjBZI$vFWI@eisner.encompasserve.org>
In article <6AYsi.1604$mG2.574@newsfe12.lga>, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
> In article <f8q1p5$138u$2@pyrite.mv.net>, Stephen Hoffman <Hoff@HoffmanLabs-RemoveThis-.Org> writes:
>> The likely owner of the box has been pinged.
>
> This is weird. Hoff posted this a few days ago and again it appears.
> Somebody has a problematic news server as I've seen numerous postings
> reappear in the past few weeks. I wonder if this is due to the prob-
> lems google was having and, perhaps, is still experiencing.
Over the years this has been a common problem in this newsgroup and
others. I believe the root cause is likely a protocol deficiency
allowing errant news servers anywhere to corrupt the group.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 06:50:22 -0700
From: AEF <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Easy DCL question PURGE vs. DELETE
Message-ID: <1186235422.992779.38980@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 3, 5:49 pm, Doug Phillips <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 3:46 pm, AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 3, 3:58 pm, Doug Phillips <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 3, 2:18 pm, AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 3, 3:02 pm, Doug Phillips <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 3, 12:34 pm, AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > (My PURG and DEL symbols include /LOG, of course.)
>
> > > > > There was a discussion about PURGE's inconsistencies in ITRC not too
> > > > > long ago.
>
> > > > > <http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?
> > > > > threadId=1093051>
>
> > > > > Don't know if they've been addressed yet or not.
>
> > > > I'll have to read that thread more carefully later. The fonts are not
> > > > very readable for the DCL output.
>
> > > No comprende. You seem to be using:
>
> > > X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:
> > > 1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070725 Firefox/2.0.0.6
>
> > > and the page is:
>
> > > <meta http-equiv="Content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
>
> > > It looks fine in my Firefox, even when I use IE Tab to switch the view
> > > to Internet Exposer. How are is the font displaying for you?
>
> > > > I don't think there's a bug. It's always worked as I have described.
>
> > > It's always (afaik) worked wrong (imo & that of a few notable others.)
>
> > It "displays" correctly, but it's a hard-to-read font. All the DCL
> > output has almost zero whitespace. I really prefer fixed-width font
> > for DCL output. Proportional makes my head spin.
>
> > How is it a bug?
>
> > $ DIR/WID=FILE=15/NOSIZE
>
> > Directory SYS$SYSDEVICE:[TEST]
>
> > BLAH.TMP;9 3-AUG-2007 16:37:08.15
> > BLAH.TMP;8 3-AUG-2007 16:37:07.53
> > BLAH.TMP;7 3-AUG-2007 16:37:06.78
> > BLAH.TMP;6 3-AUG-2007 16:37:06.07
> > BLAH.TMP;5 3-AUG-2007 16:37:05.33
> > BLAH.TMP;4 3-AUG-2007 16:37:04.50
> > BLAH.TMP;3 3-AUG-2007 16:37:03.68
> > BLAH.TMP;2 3-AUG-2007 16:37:02.80
> > BLAH.TMP;1 3-AUG-2007 16:37:01.68
>
> > Total of 9 files.
> > $
>
> > What would you expect for
>
> > A $ PURGE BLAH.TMP /BEFORE=16:37:06
> > B $ PURGE BLAH.TMP /BEFORE=16:37:06 /KEEP=1
> > C $ PURGE BLAH.TMP /BEFORE=16:37:06 /KEEP=2
> > D $ PURGE BLAH.TMP /BEFORE=16:37:06 /KEEP=3
>
> For each of those, I would expect that if I did
>
> $ DIR/BEFORE=16:37:06
>
> I would see the same files that PURGE would select for consideration;
>
> BLAH.TMP;5 3-AUG-2007 16:37:05.33
> BLAH.TMP;4 3-AUG-2007 16:37:04.50
> BLAH.TMP;3 3-AUG-2007 16:37:03.68
> BLAH.TMP;2 3-AUG-2007 16:37:02.80
> BLAH.TMP;1 3-AUG-2007 16:37:01.68
>
> For your example A & B, I would expect to end up with:
>
> BLAH.TMP;9 3-AUG-2007 16:37:08.15
> BLAH.TMP;8 3-AUG-2007 16:37:07.53
> BLAH.TMP;7 3-AUG-2007 16:37:06.78
> BLAH.TMP;6 3-AUG-2007 16:37:06.07
> BLAH.TMP;5 3-AUG-2007 16:37:05.33
Hmmm. Since ;5 is before the time given to /BEFORE, and since it is
not the highest version, I'd expect it to be deleted. Why would you
expect ;5 to remain?
Already we're in disagreement. OK.
Definition: A file is an "old version" if it is not the current (or
highest-numbered) version. In my example versions 1 through 8 would be
all the "old versions" with 9 being the current version. I'm just
trying to be sufficiently precise here.
There are various ways to mix /KEEP and /BEFORE. One could apply /
KEEP=n first, mark those n files as keepers, and then delete any
others that are timestamped before the specified time t0. That's one
way to do it -- method 1. OK. Method 2: The way you appear to favor is
that we look at the files that are timestamped as being before time
t0, and apply /KEEP=n solely within those. The third way is what VMS
does -- method 3.
There is the following disadvantage with your way: Suppose I want to
delete all _old versions_ older than t0. How would I do it with your
method? You'd have to specify PURGE/BEFORE=t0/KEEP=0. Now just what
would /KEEP=0 mean without a time-based qualifier? Explicitly, what
would PURGE/KEEP=0 mean? You'd have to special-case it and give a fun
error message such as "0 invalid for /KEEP without /BEFORE". So you
either lose the ability to do this or you have to special-case it and
display an "interesting" error message. Also, your way amounts to two
different definitions of "/KEEP=n": One meaning applying to all
versions and the other applying only to _old versions_. And I would
find it somewhat disconcerting to see /KEEP=0 in a command that by its
very raison d'etre is supposed to always keep at least one version!
The VMS way is the following: PURGE/BEFORE=t0 means to delete all _old
versions_ that are before t0. Isn't that the most straightforward
interpretation of that? Since /KEEP=1 is the default, the command
PURGE/BEFORE=t0 is then equivalent to the command PURGE/BEFORE=t0/
KEEP=1. That makes sense, right? Then higher values for /KEEP simply
keep that many more versions. No inconsistent definitions of /KEEP=n,
no special-casing /KEEP=0, no disconcerting variations such as PURGE/
KEEP=0, and you can easily delete all _old versions_ older than t0
without even having to _know_ about /KEEP.
Another way to look at it: The current version is always exempt from
deletion by the PURGE command. Right? So it can delete only _old
versions_. Since /KEEP=1 is the default, this means that PURGE and
PURGE/KEEP=1 are equivalent. Now we can add /BEFORE=t0 to qualify
which of the _old versions_ we wish to delete and /KEEP=1 is already
busy saving the current version, so if t0 is recent enough, all the
_old versions_ will be deleted. That makes sense, right? Now, what to
do with /KEEP=n? Well, keep n-1 more versions than we would with /
KEEP=1.
Yet another way to look at it: /KEEP=n means to keep the n-1 most
current versions from the set of files that would be deleted
otherwise. There: Very simple and concise!
OK, you may not like it. But that is the algorithm VMS uses and it has
its own logic and some advantages (as I described above).
> For C, I would expect to still have those, plus BLAH.TMP;4
> For D, I would expect to also still have BLAH.TMP;3
>
> I would expect that files ;8 and ;7 would be ignored because they are
> "AFTER" the date qualification.
>
> That's what the documentation says, and that's what help says, but
> that's not how it works.
I comment on the documentation below.
> > Since the default is /KEEP=1, I'd expect B to be the same as A
>
> > For C, since 2 is one more than 1, I'd expect PURGE to keep one more
> > file. This is in fact what happens:
>
> > $ PURGE/LOG BLAH.TMP /BEFORE=16:37:06 /KEEP=3
> > %PURGE-I-FILPURG, SYS$SYSDEVICE:[TEST]BLAH.TMP;3 deleted (0 blocks)
> > %PURGE-I-FILPURG, SYS$SYSDEVICE:[TEST]BLAH.TMP;2 deleted (0 blocks)
> > %PURGE-I-FILPURG, SYS$SYSDEVICE:[TEST]BLAH.TMP;1 deleted (0 blocks)
> > %PURGE-I-TOTAL, 3 files deleted (0 blocks)
>
> It should *not* have deleted BLAH.TMP;3 You told it to keep 3 files
> dated before 16:37:06 but it only kept 2.
Actually, it kept 6. There were 9 files originally, and 3 were
deleted. So that leaves 6.
> > $ PURGE/LOG BLAH.TMP /BEFORE=16:37:06 /KEEP=2
> > %PURGE-I-FILPURG, SYS$SYSDEVICE:[TEST]BLAH.TMP;4 deleted (0 blocks)
>
> > $ PURGE/LOG BLAH.TMP /BEFORE=16:37:06 /KEEP=1
> > %PURGE-I-FILPURG, SYS$SYSDEVICE:[TEST]BLAH.TMP;5 deleted (0 blocks)
>
> > $ PURGE/LOG BLAH.TMP /BEFORE=16:37:06
> > %PURGE-I-NOFILPURG, no files purged
>
> > $
>
> > How is this a bug?
>
> It didn't keep the number of files you asked it to. How is this *not*
> a bug?
Actually, it kept more. See above.
> > It's also consistent with the VMS philosophy of erring on the side of
>
> It does not work according to it's documentation, nor is it consistent
> with any other command's /before /since usage.
OK. Let's look at the documentation:
/KEEP=number-of-versions
Specifies the maximum number of versions of the specified files to be
retained in the directory. If you do not include the /KEEP qualifier,
all but the highest numbered version of the specified files are
deleted from the directory.
What the hell is this supposed to mean? It doesn't make any sense! It
is ambiguous at best. Suppose I told you to bring me a maximum of 3
apples. You could bring any number from 0 to 3 and you've done as I've
asked. So the documentation is messed up. Also, if you have 9 versions
of a file, and you specify something like PURGE/KEEP=3/BEFORE=20-
NOV-1858, PURGE is going to keep all 9 versions, right? Now nine is
more than three, right? And if 3 is the maximum number of versions to
keep, it kept more than three, right? Thus a contradiction even with
your method! It is the doc's description of /KEEP that is definitely a
"bug".
Please notice that missing file-spec fields are not consistent in
their behavior from one command to another. In some commands a
particular missing field is a wildcard; in others, not. Sticky
defaults are also inconsistent from one command to another. So you
should be upset about these, too.
More from the doc:
Description
The PURGE command deletes earlier versions of files. The PURGE
command never deletes all versions of any file. By default, the PURGE
command keeps only the highest version of a file. If you do not
include a file specification with the PURGE command, all files in the
current directory are affected by the purge.
[Even this lacks the required precision. Earlier versions of a file? I
could have the highest-numbered version older than the lower versions,
right? So earlier has to be interpreted as "not current".]
/BEFORE[=time]
Selects only those files dated prior to the specified time. You can
specify time as absolute time, as a combination of absolute and delta
times, or as one of the following keywords: BOOT, LOGIN, TODAY
(default), TOMORROW, or YESTERDAY. Specify one of the following
qualifiers with the /BEFORE qualifier to indicate the time attribute
to be used as the basis for selection: /BACKUP, /CREATED (default), /
EXPIRED, or /MODIFIED.
OK, so if I do PURGE/BEFORE=t0, then I'd expect all files dated before
t0 to be deleted, except that the highest version is never deleted.
Where from this does it say that the highest version of the versions
dated before t0 will be kept? This is why I don't understand why you
think BLAH.TMP;5 should be kept in case A. Method 3 is a natural
generalization of this, or at least one possible generalization.
> As I quoted in the ITRC thread;
>
> Help /keep says: "Specifies the maximum number of versions of the
> __specified_ _files__ to be retained in the directory."
> (_emphasis mine)
This is ambiguous at best. It is not specific enough to determine what
to do. It needs to be rewritten from scratch. Even "specified files"
is ambiguous. You can have 'file' meaning as it would in saying there
are many versions of a 'file' (note, file is singular here) or you
could have it mean that each version of the 'file' is a 'file'. I
favor the former because the PURGE command deletes old versions of a
file. It doesn't delete old versions of old versions. You specify the
files to be purged in the parameter. Note that you can't include a
version number in the parameter. [I'd continue here but this is
degenerating into semantics hell.]
Actually, upon rereading the /KEEP description I think the former
makes more sense. You can't have more than one version of a version!
Each version is its own version! So if you insist on it meaning the
latter, you get "Specifies the maximum number of versions of the
specified versions to be retained in the directory". Well, I suppose
you can draw the following parallel: Specifies the maximum number of
apples of the specified apples to be retained in the basket. Yeah, I
suppose it makes sense that way, too. But my main point is that it is
ambiguous.
> Help /before says:
> "Selects only those files dated prior to the specified time."
And so it does. Can you show me an example where PURGE/BEFORE=t0
deletes files that are dated before t0? And wouldn't this mean to
delete BLAH.TMP;5 in case A (as long as it is not the highest version
number, of course)?
Note also that the /BEFORE qualifier doesn't specify, it selects! (If
you're going to point out specifies and selects, than I can say this.)
Note that you PURGE a file meaning a name.typ !. You DELETE a version,
meaning a name.typ;n.
> The /before does not modify the /keep, it qualifies the files being
> selected; i.e. it defines the _specified_files_.
That's one possible interpretation, but not the only one. VMS
interprets /KEEP=n as to keep the most current n-1 more files that
wouldn't have been deleted otherwise. Suppose you do /KEEP=n/BEFORE=t0
instead of /BEFORE=t0/KEEP=n? In this case, /KEEP comes before /
BEFORE. My point here is that I don't see why you insist that one
possible order is the only or "right" way. Of course the order of the
qualifiers here doesn't matter to VMS, which only further supports my
point.
> > not deleting data. The proposed alternatives would often delete more
> > files. For someone used to the current algorithm, that would be a
> > surprise!
Oops. I was wrong here. ... Never mind.
>
> The surprise is that this command is broken and has been for so long.
It depends on which algorithm you prefer. If you were writing the
code, would you add /KEEP=0 and how would you special-case it for
when /BEFORE is not specified? When you actually write the code it can
give you more insight into the problem because it forces you to fully
think through the problem. So I usually start, at least, by assuming
the code is correct, unless there's some blatant flaw. (OK, you may
think this is an obvious flaw, so it's subjective. But if I run
DIRECTORY and it deletes files -- that's what I'm talking about for a
blatant flaw.)
You can gripe about _something_ with all 3 methods. But with method 3
(VMS), you can easily do a particular task that you cannot do with
method 2 (yours). And you can simply add 1 to the number you give to /
KEEP to do what you want. So the VMS method is the most versatile and
doesn't require knowing about /KEEP to use /BEFORE.
So, in summary, the VMS developers chose PURG/BEFORE=t0 to delete all
_old versions_ of file whose time stamp is before t0. Then they
decided that /KEEP=1 is the default /KEEP behavior, and that /KEEP=n
would keep n-1 more files than that, always choosing the highest-
version numbers to keep.
Note that if the files are not always in descending chronological
order! If they are in reverse order, this entire discussion applies
to /SINCE instead of /BEFORE. If they are in mixed order, then PURGE/
BEFORE or PURGE/SINCE will delete all _old versions_ meeting its spec
and adding /KEEP=n to that will cause it to keep n-1 more highest
versions.
> This has been discussed in ITRC and I don't know why your browser is
> displaying the fonts wrong.
Well, I think the correct text is displayed. But there isn't enough
whitespace in the DCL output examples and none of it is in fixed-width
fonts. I mean I can read it, but it is a struggle compared to what it
should be. It's a little like trying to read SHUTDOWN.COM,
AUTOGEN.COM, or VMSINSTAL.COM. It's as if it had been run through
DCL_DIET, but not quite as bad. Everything is there correctly, but
it's much harder to read than it should be. Moreover, computer output
should be in fixed-width fonts, period.
And NO, I am not going to go through fix-the-font hell in either IE or
Firefox. Both suck in this respect, at least when I tried a few years
ago, mostly to fix how Google Groups displayed posts and to improve
the appearance of www.wundergound.com on Firefox. And Firefox was
worse! It's still bizarre. Look at it! What a mess! Trying to fix
fonts in a either of these browsers is a super PITA!!!
NO! I won't do it. I'm passing on fix-the-font hell. You're welcome to
stop by and fix it for me, however. :-)
AEF
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 09:55:02 -0700
From: Doug Phillips <dphill46@netscape.net>
Subject: Re: Easy DCL question PURGE vs. DELETE
Message-ID: <1186246502.670139.156770@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
*Sorry if this posts twice; Google told me that it posted
successfully, then told me it hadn't yet posted when I tried to leave
the page:-( a Google-Gurgle? )
On Aug 4, 8:50 am, AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 5:49 pm, Doug Phillips <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 3, 3:46 pm, AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
[...]
>
> > > How is it a bug?
>
> > > $ DIR/WID=FILE=15/NOSIZE
>
> > > Directory SYS$SYSDEVICE:[TEST]
>
> > > BLAH.TMP;9 3-AUG-2007 16:37:08.15
> > > BLAH.TMP;8 3-AUG-2007 16:37:07.53
> > > BLAH.TMP;7 3-AUG-2007 16:37:06.78
> > > BLAH.TMP;6 3-AUG-2007 16:37:06.07
> > > BLAH.TMP;5 3-AUG-2007 16:37:05.33
> > > BLAH.TMP;4 3-AUG-2007 16:37:04.50
> > > BLAH.TMP;3 3-AUG-2007 16:37:03.68
> > > BLAH.TMP;2 3-AUG-2007 16:37:02.80
> > > BLAH.TMP;1 3-AUG-2007 16:37:01.68
>
> > > Total of 9 files.
> > > $
>
> > > What would you expect for
>
> > > A $ PURGE BLAH.TMP /BEFORE=16:37:06
> > > B $ PURGE BLAH.TMP /BEFORE=16:37:06 /KEEP=1
> > > C $ PURGE BLAH.TMP /BEFORE=16:37:06 /KEEP=2
> > > D $ PURGE BLAH.TMP /BEFORE=16:37:06 /KEEP=3
>
> > For each of those, I would expect that if I did
>
> > $ DIR/BEFORE=16:37:06
>
> > I would see the same files that PURGE would select for consideration;
>
> > BLAH.TMP;5 3-AUG-2007 16:37:05.33
> > BLAH.TMP;4 3-AUG-2007 16:37:04.50
> > BLAH.TMP;3 3-AUG-2007 16:37:03.68
> > BLAH.TMP;2 3-AUG-2007 16:37:02.80
> > BLAH.TMP;1 3-AUG-2007 16:37:01.68
>
> > For your example A & B, I would expect to end up with:
>
> > BLAH.TMP;9 3-AUG-2007 16:37:08.15
> > BLAH.TMP;8 3-AUG-2007 16:37:07.53
> > BLAH.TMP;7 3-AUG-2007 16:37:06.78
> > BLAH.TMP;6 3-AUG-2007 16:37:06.07
> > BLAH.TMP;5 3-AUG-2007 16:37:05.33
>
> Hmmm. Since ;5 is before the time given to /BEFORE, and since it is
> not the highest version, I'd expect it to be deleted. Why would you
> expect ;5 to remain?
>
Because the command is PURGE, *not* DELETE. Purge is supposed to keep
the highest (to a maximum of the specified number of) version(s) of
the *specified* files if any files match the selection criteria. The
default is the _specified_file(s)_ with the highest version number(s).
If you want to DELETE the files, then use DELETE. PURGE is *not*
DELETE.
> Already we're in disagreement. OK.
>
How unusual;-)
There's no way I'm going to quote your entire novella of a post(;-))),
but I'll try to address some of your confusion. You might have to go
back and reread your own post to understand some of the points I'm
addressing.
> There are various ways to mix /KEEP and /BEFORE. One could apply /
> KEEP=n first, mark those n files as keepers, and then delete any
> others that are timestamped before the specified time t0. That's one
> way to do it -- method 1. OK. Method 2: The way you appear to favor is
> that we look at the files that are timestamped as being before time
> t0, and apply /KEEP=n solely within those. The third way is what VMS
> does -- method 3.
>
There is no "my way". There is no "mix" of /KEEP and /BEFORE. These
PURGE qualifiers are precisely explained in the HELP and the Doc's.
You are fighting those definitions trying to find an explanation that
fits how the command malfunctions. You are trying to apply the logic
of the DELETE command to PURGE. PURGE is not DELETE!
The /BEFORE qualifier is a FILE SELECTOR. It says select files dated
before this date. That's the way /BEFORE works in this command and all
of the other DCL commands where it's used. That is as simple as it
gets.
The /KEEP says how many of the SELECTED files should be kept if more
than that number exist. The default is one. Purge removes any files
with version numbers lower than the files you tell it to keep (by spec
or default, always at least one if at least one file is selected.) It
says *nothing* about how many files should be purged (deleted, if you
prefer.) It says how many should be *kept*. That's also as simple as
it gets. PURGE, by definition, should *always* keep at least ONE of
the files selected by the file spec and all other file selection
qualifiers that you provide, if any exist, and it should keep the
number of files you specify if that many exist. /KEEP means keep, not
delete.
There should be no way for purge to delete every *selected* file.
That's what DELETE is for, and because DELETE can remove all versions
of files, it requires a more precise file spec. Again, PURGE is not
DELETE.
I guess I can only keep repeating what the documentation says, because
that's the way it *should* work. But, that's not the way it works.
In reading everything you've written, I see you struggling. Your
attempted "simplifications" show you are fighting the fact that the
way PURGE works is not the way it was intended to work. PURGE is *NOT*
DELETE. If you read the HELP and the doc's again, keeping that fact in
mind, I think you'll see that the explanations are clear and precise.
In the ITRC discussion, Jon Pinkley demonstrated that the bug is not
limited to the /BEFORE qualifier. I hope he doesn't mind if I quote
some of his post here:
########################################################
<quote Jon Pinkley; http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?threadId=1093051>
[...]
This discussion has convinced me that the behavior should be as you
describe, since the "selected files" should be the set of files
selected by the filespec and the qualifiers. The bug in purge is not
limited to /before as is demonstrated by the following:
$ show system/noproc ! not portable ...
OpenVMS V8.3 on node SIGMA 23-FEB-2007 22:23:30.28 Uptime 1 00:56:43
$ analyze/image/select=(id,link) sys$system:delete.exe; ! not portable
SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]DELETE.EXE;1
"X-05"
29-JUN-2006 18:18:42.45
$ directory/own/date=(cre,mod) pt.tmp;*
Directory SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR]
PT.TMP;5 1-JAN-2000 01:00:31.11 1-JAN-2000 01:01:31.11 [SYSTEM]
PT.TMP;4 2-JAN-2000 01:00:30.99 2-JAN-2000 01:01:30.99 [1,1]
PT.TMP;3 3-JAN-2000 01:00:30.88 3-JAN-2000 01:01:30.88 [1,1]
PT.TMP;2 4-JAN-2000 01:00:30.78 4-JAN-2000 01:01:30.78 [SYSTEM]
PT.TMP;1 5-JAN-2000 01:00:30.64 5-JAN-2000 01:01:30.64 [SYSTEM]
Total of 5 files.
$ purge/keep=2/by_own=[1,1]/log pt.tmp
%PURGE-I-FILPURG, SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR]PT.TMP;3 deleted (0 blocks)
$ directory/own/date=(cre,mod) pt.tmp;*
Directory SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR]
PT.TMP;5 1-JAN-2000 01:00:31.11 1-JAN-2000 01:01:31.11 [SYSTEM]
PT.TMP;4 2-JAN-2000 01:00:30.99 2-JAN-2000 01:01:30.99 [1,1]
PT.TMP;2 4-JAN-2000 01:00:30.78 4-JAN-2000 01:01:30.78 [SYSTEM]
PT.TMP;1 5-JAN-2000 01:00:30.64 5-JAN-2000 01:01:30.64 [SYSTEM]
Total of 4 files.
I have tested this on 7.2-2, 7.3-2 and 8.3, they all show this
behavior. Including reproducer as attachment.
I think I have narrowed the conditions necessary to exhibit bug.
Some definitions:
Selection set: The set of files that meet the filespec and qualifiers.
Statement of problem:
If the highest version of a specific device:[directory]file.type is
not a member of the selection set, and /keep versions > 1, then one
less file is kept than specified by the /keep qualifier.
Expected cause: from source listings: [V732.DELETE.LIS]PURGE.LIS
(which was more handy than 8.3)
In routine purge_ods2_files, at line 931 there is a check for a change
in device, directory, name or type. If there is change, then in line
936 the versions (matching purge selection) is unconditionally set to
1, i.e. no check is made to see if this meets the requirements of the
common qualifiers. If it isn't the highest version, then the routine
purge_this_file is called. purge_this_file calls DEL$MATCH_FILENAME
which checks if the file matches the selection criteria, and if so
increments the versions seen, and if gtr than the specified /keep
versions, deletes the file.
[...]
</quote>
####################################################
I believe this was formally reported to HP. I do not know its current
status.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 10:06:38 -0700
From: ed_lin <ed_sushien_lin@yahoo.com>
Subject: How can I create symbol thru Perl "system" command?
Message-ID: <1186247198.258201.124460@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
Hi,
I have a simple script running perl 5 alpha vms 7.2, I never succeed
in creating any smbol thru perl system command. What did I do wrong?
Appreciate if anyone can share some idea. (the exe is a cobol binary
which needs to accept command line argument, that's why I need to
create a symbol like this..)
#!/usr/bin/perl
system("ED_PROG :== $WSUSER1:[CSM.ED_COBOL]NEW_LOT_ALI.EXE");
# I suspect the $ needs to be scaped, actually I couldn't even create
any symbol no matter how simple it is.
system("EASY_ONE :== show time");
# Both gave me symbol undefine message if I tried to execute the
script.
fyi: I also post same message in Yahoo group.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 10:31:30 GMT
From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG
Subject: Re: Is VMSONE.COM off the air permanently?
Message-ID: <6AYsi.1604$mG2.574@newsfe12.lga>
In article <f8q1p5$138u$2@pyrite.mv.net>, Stephen Hoffman <Hoff@HoffmanLabs-RemoveThis-.Org> writes:
>
>
>Rich Jordan wrote:
>> Is VMSONE.COM gone for good? For the past couple of weeks I've been
>> unable to get to it (connections time out), and at least one post in
>> June noted it was not reachable.
>
>
> The likely owner of the box has been pinged.
In article <f8q1p5$138u$2@pyrite.mv.net>, Stephen Hoffman <Hoff@HoffmanLabs-RemoveThis-.Org> writes:
>
>
>Rich Jordan wrote:
>> Is VMSONE.COM gone for good? For the past couple of weeks I've been
>> unable to get to it (connections time out), and at least one post in
>> June noted it was not reachable.
>
>
> The likely owner of the box has been pinged.
This is weird. Hoff posted this a few days ago and again it appears.
Somebody has a problematic news server as I've seen numerous postings
reappear in the past few weeks. I wonder if this is due to the prob-
lems google was having and, perhaps, is still experiencing.
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
"Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"
http://tmesis.com/drat.html
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 07:00:20 -0500
From: Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>
Subject: Re: July the 4th
Message-ID: <pTZsi.53352$5y.47759@newsfe18.lga>
On 08/03/07 20:44, David J Dachtera wrote:
> AEF wrote:
[snip]
>
>> Since the outcome of fighting
>> them would likely result in a crash landing, killing all, it would be
>> prudent, BASED ON THE KNOWLEDGE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME, to NOT attack
>> the hijackers.
>
> Oh, yeah right. They'll just land the plane, put everyone off, then take off
> again to go commit their heinous acts.
>
> M----- F---, man, are you even listening to yourself?
Actually, AEF is *slightly* correct.
Yes, Islamists had been individually blowing themselves up, and
occasionally (trying to or succeeding in) blowing airplanes and
hijacking planes and ships, pushing the occasional Jewish-American
overboard.
Before 9/11, though, they had not yet succeeded in trying to use
airplanes as Ohka-like manned cruise missiles.
HOWEVER!!!! Ramzi Yousef and Al-Qaeda planned to bomb 11 US-bound
airliners in 1995. Lessons learned in that failed plot were used by
the 9/11 planners.
--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 07:12:47 -0500
From: Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Kerry needs a news readerRe: Stay on Alpha forever?
Message-ID: <43_si.53429$5y.51760@newsfe18.lga>
Linux Thunderbird in nntp mode does properly wrap your 02 Aug 2007
14:17:47 +0000 post. Because it's quoted-printable, though, it
wraps at "window width", not at column 72/76/whatever. Not a
problem for a GUI user, just a comment.
However... *Something* is causing some paragraphs in posts by
users-of-Outlook to be strung out in one long continuous line. If
the problem isn't "Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable",
then it might be:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Whatever the cause, 75% of our computing problems (except Info-VAX
threading) would be solved if people stopped using MSFT products,
and another 20% if people who don't enjoy computers would stop using
them.
On 08/03/07 20:19, Paul Raulerson wrote:
> I just went to all the trouble of pulling the same message down, from a
> blasted newsgroup no less, under SuSE 10.2 using tin and guess what? It
> formatted just fine - even under a text based console window. Same under
> Firefox.
>
> Could it be you are using an ancient version or something?
> -Paul
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: healyzh@aracnet.com [mailto:healyzh@aracnet.com]
>> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 12:42 PM
>> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
>> Subject: Re: Kerry needs a news readerRe: Stay on Alpha forever?
>>
>> Paul Raulerson <paul@raulersons.com> wrote:
>>> For example, I've yet to see one of Kerry's messages that does *not*
>>> format nicely, on any of the machines I use. I even looked at it
>> using tin
>>> on a Linux box connecting to a newsgroup, and saw no issues.
>> BTW, I'm reading this message using 'tin' on Linux, and it most
>> definitely
>> did not format nicely. Parts of words started at the end of one line
>> and
>> finished at the beginning of another.
>>
>> Zane
>
>
--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 04:13:59 -0700
From: Bob Gezelter <gezelter@rlgsc.com>
Subject: Re: terminal servers, X-terminals in upgrade to Integrity
Message-ID: <1186226039.823055.243560@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 3, 10:27 am, tadamsmar <tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We have some Xyplex Maxserver 1600s. Xyplex was apparently bought by
> MRV.
>
> And, we have some old Tektronics X-terminals that are no longer
> supported by Tektronics.
>
> These upload from and communicate with Alphas running OpenVMS.
>
> I wonder if these will work if I upgrade to Integrity Servers?
>
> I can find any of the products or vendors listed in the HP application
> status report:
>
> http://h71000.www7.hp.com/solutions/matrix/partner_s.html
>
> which seems to indicate that I would not be able to install on
> Integrity Servers. But the files for upload are the only thing
> installed, I think. Alpha already had support for the communication
> protocols, I think.
>
> But if I have all the files from the Alpha in place on Integrity, and
> if Integrity supports the devices, then in theory they should work.
>
> Right, wrong, or depends?
tadamsmar,
As has been said, LAT and MOP are supported on Itanium. While I am not
an HP (or historic Compaq or Digital employee), as a long time member
of the community, it has not been any of the companies' policy to
publish a compatibility list of third party products.
Will it work with Integrity servers? In the cases of transports and
downline loading, highly likely. This support has been basically been
recompiled, not rewritten. As always, verification is recommended.
- Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com
- Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 15:22:58 GMT
From: "John E. Malmberg" <wb8tyw@qsl.network>
Subject: Re: terminal servers, X-terminals in upgrade to Integrity
Message-ID: <mR0ti.51151$Fc.31705@attbi_s21>
FredK wrote:
>
> Try to set it up the same way as you would on an Alpha... of course it
> doesn't help you much if you can't get access to an Itanium. I can't help
> with that - but others who read here might be able to.
Hello Fred,
I have found an issue with an ancient copy of Reflection/X which appears
to actually be a VMS DECWindows / DECTerm issue.
None of the DECTerm bold fonts at 100dpi are the correct size on my PC.
According to the logs and diagnostic messages, a big part of the problem
is that the bold fonts being requested by the DECTerm do not exist on
the DS10, and are not in any of the Font alias files for a fallback.
I have font serving enabled on the DS10, and have verified that it is
working. Before I activated it, Mozilla did not look very good.
So apparently inside DECWindows-Motif, something is providing its own
ailias to make the DECTerm fonts work.
This is on:
DEC AXPVMS DWMOTIF V1.6
DEC AXPVMS DWMOTIF_ECO02 V1.6
DEC AXPVMS OPENVMS V8.3
Can you find out what bold fonts are that are being requested by
DECterms and what bold fonts are actually used?
That would allow me to edit the local Reflection/X font alias files.
Thanks,
-John
wb8tyw@qsl.network
Personal Opinion Only
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 15:44:52 GMT
From: "John E. Malmberg" <wb8tyw@qsl.network>
Subject: Re: terminal servers, X-terminals in upgrade to Integrity
Message-ID: <U91ti.33872$Xa3.21864@attbi_s22>
tadamsmar wrote:
> We have some Xyplex Maxserver 1600s. Xyplex was apparently bought by
> MRV.
>
> And, we have some old Tektronics X-terminals that are no longer
> supported by Tektronics.
>
> These upload from and communicate with Alphas running OpenVMS.
>
> I wonder if these will work if I upgrade to Integrity Servers?
>
> I can find any of the products or vendors listed in the HP application
> status report:
>
> http://h71000.www7.hp.com/solutions/matrix/partner_s.html
>
> which seems to indicate that I would not be able to install on
> Integrity Servers. But the files for upload are the only thing
> installed, I think. Alpha already had support for the communication
> protocols, I think.
>
> But if I have all the files from the Alpha in place on Integrity, and
> if Integrity supports the devices, then in theory they should work.
>
> Right, wrong, or depends?
As you have been told, it depends.
Many of the third party terminal servers and most of the third party
X-Terminals were also designed to be used with UNIX in shops that had no
VMS at all.
While the early DECServers required a MOP download on boot to function,
most of the 3rd party terminal servers did not.
They only needed entries in the LANCP/DECNET Phase IV data base to allow
management tools to talk to them, and also could use MOP to upgrade
their firmware. Most of the third party terminal servers could use
alternate programs to update their firmware.
I seem to remember having a Xyplex at one time, and I do not remember if
it really needed a MOP download.
The third party decservers supported TCP/IP long before DECServers did.
So there is a chance that the only thing that you need to do to use your
Xyplex on an Integrity VMS system is to make sure that the LAT protocol
is started.
As far as managing it, you may need to use a console terminal port on
it, or manually use LANCP commands to connect to it. It may also allow
TCP/IP to be used to manage it, once a TCPIP address is assigned.
I would recommend searching for a online manual for it, or checking to
see if you can find out how UNIX users manage the device via TCP/IP.
As far as X-terminals go, they were usually designed for UNIX, and
usally will work in a TCP/IP only environment. Current TCP/IP and
DECW-Motif both support TCP/IP including font servers.
Older VMS versions did not provide that complete support using TCP/IP
and third party X-11 servers that wanted the VMS market would put their
own helper servers on the VMS systems to compensate.
So it is likely that if you configure your X-terminals to treat VMS as a
UNIX host and just use TCP/IP, they should just work, unless they need
fonts served. In that case all you may need to do is turn on the font
server on VMS in the DECW$PRIVATE_SERVER_STARTUP.COM (check my
spelling), as it is off by default, and set up the X-terminal to use it
via TCP/IP just as if it were UNIX.
And you do not have to wait to get a I64 system to verify all of this,
because the ALPHA works the same way.
-John
wb8tyw@qsl.network
Personal Opinion Only
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 07:22:08 -0500
From: Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>
Subject: Re: VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall
Message-ID: <Rb_si.53455$5y.7659@newsfe18.lga>
On 08/03/07 16:10, Doug Phillips wrote:
[snip]
>
> B) Flexibility: You can make it small enough to embed in a toaster or
> large enough to run a data center. Much of its often-discussed
> "weakness" is the due to its flexibility.
Or a pack of gum. http://www.gumstix.com/
Or a wrist watch. But that was 7 years ago, so I'm sure it would be
thinner and more powerful now.
http://www.research.ibm.com/trl/projects/ngm/wp10_e.htm
http://www.freeos.com/articles/3800
http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT9330943155.html
--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 10:41:05 -0700
From: Doug Phillips <dphill46@netscape.net>
Subject: Re: VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall
Message-ID: <1186249265.118183.71710@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 3, 8:47 pm, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> In article <46B3C8FA.1000...@comcast.net>,
> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>
>
> > Doug Phillips wrote:
> >> On Aug 3, 3:06 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
> >>>>In article <46B3275C.70...@comcast.net>,
> >>>> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> >>>>>Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
> >>>>>>In article <vwo3quDbQ...@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
> >>>>>> koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>
> >>>>>>>In article <1186097570.039629.170...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Doug Phillips <dphil...@netscape.net> writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>Many of which run *nix, but are single-purpose appliances and who
> >>>>>>>>cares what they run as long as they do the job.
>
> >>>>>>> Yes, but you can get those which aren't. (I know an entire
> >>>>>>> infrastructure protected by firewalls running on Solaris, I sure
> >>>>>>> hope they keep up the OS patch level.)
>
> >>>>>>Why? There is no access to raw Solaris for outsiders to attack (unless
> >>>>>>you are talking about homegrown firewalls rather than commercial offerings).
>
> >>>>><snip>
>
> >>>>>Not true! Unpatched Solaris 8, 8, & 10 with Telnet enabled has a bug
> >>>>>which will allow an attacker to log in as "bin".
>
> >>>>And you are assuming that the vendor would not gtell them to turn off
> >>>>telnet. I have had telnet turned off on every server box of any kind
> >>>>for years. I doubt any commercial firewall relies on telnet for access.
>
> >>>>>Solaris isn't as easy as Windows but it does have vulnerabilities!
> >>>>>There are a lot of things you can do to "lock it down" but it is by no
> >>>>>means "secure"!
>
> >>>>You guys keep telling yourselves that. Meanwhile, Unix is still
> >>>>growing market share and VMS is shrinking. Seems the rest of the
> >>>>industry just doesn't seem to have as many problems with it as
> >>>>the VMS community.
>
> >>>>bill
>
> >>>Do you suppose that the reason Unix is growing and VMS is shrinking
> >>>might happen to have more to do with marketing than with technical merit?
>
> >> A) Exposure & availability: *nix doesn't need heavy marketing because
> >> so many companies sell some brand of *nix. Everyone has already heard
> >> about *nix and all a company needs to to is mention it, not explain
> >> what it is. You can spend from nearly $.00 to big-money and get a *nix
> >> for whatever purpose you want. If you don't like Brand A, you can get
> >> Brand B, C, D, E, ...
>
> >> B) Flexibility: You can make it small enough to embed in a toaster or
> >> large enough to run a data center. Much of its often-discussed
> >> "weakness" is the due to its flexibility.
> >> If you accept that all complex code is likely to have bugs, then
> >> you should also accept that the more people there are who use the code
> >> and the more different things they use it for, the more likely it is
> >> that a bug will be exposed.
>
> >>>Both get the job done, both have their strengths and both have
> >>>weaknesses. I run VMS, Solaris, RHEL, and Windows XP at home. Windows
> >>>gets the most usage because that's where the applications are: Quicken,
> >>>TurboTax, FamilyTreeMaker, etc, etc. VMS and Solaris each do things I
> >>>can't do with Windows or do them better or more easily than Windows.
>
> >> C) Applications, applications, applications, applications,...
>
> >> It's the applications! (seems I've heard that before;-)
>
> > The "common wisdom" is, "pick the applications you want to run and then
> > buy the platform they run on". Sometimes an app is available on
> > multiple platforms and you get a choice.
>
> > Once upon a time, Digital published a book that listed the applications
> > available for VMS. The book was a thick one and listed thousands of
> > applications.
>
> Actually, I still have that book. I also have the equivalent for the
> PDP-11. Why do I say "rquivalent"? Because it was two books and had
> a lot more entries than the one for VMS. Looks like it was long before
> the dreaded VAX -> Alpha migration when Digital lost sight of why people
> buy computers in the first place.
>
I just last month pitched all of my old books -- a friend took the DEC
Reference Guide set for the nice genuine imitation leather binders,
and has told me she's actually started reading some of it -- the
"about Digital" parts, anyway. I think the set had been kept current
thru about '87 or so.
Even pitched some old DEC Professionals and a few other mag's from
that era that were buried under some old yellowing green-bar program
listings. Hard to do, but moving makes one face some realities that
outweigh nostalgia.
>
> > I'd also guess that if you want to run an application on VMS these days
> > you either use a legacy application that's still supported by the vendor
> > or you "roll your own"!
>
> And there are less and less people everyday "rolling their own"!!!
>
Because they don't have to. We used to spend time building a lot of
software tools before any major programming project. Today, there's
already a tool for just about anything you want to do. Building tools
takes a lot of time, and that is demonstrated nowhere more clearly
than when a company decides to build a radical new chip with a brand
new instruction set. How much time is wasted recreating software tools
when they could be using the plethora of existing tools to advance
their product, rather than catching back up to where they were --- and
how many things are not moved forward simply because of that wasted
time? (I think that's a rhetorical question:-)
------------------------------
End of INFO-VAX 2007.424
************************