INFO-VAX Sun, 09 Dec 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 673 Contents: Re: Apache 2, Multiple Tomcat (5.5.9) instances on OpenVMS Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Power supply Re: Power supply Re: Power supply Re: Unix for VMS guys Re: Unix for VMS guys Re: Unix for VMS guys Re: Unix for VMS guys Re: Unix for VMS guys Re: Unix for VMS guys ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:32:54 -0500 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= Subject: Re: Apache 2, Multiple Tomcat (5.5.9) instances on OpenVMS Message-ID: <475b29a1$0$90269$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> bcole@emjmetals.com wrote: > On Dec 6, 5:41 pm, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> After thinking a bit about it then I can not come up with a >> mod_jk2 solution to do that mapping. >> >> It would not work well anyway if you app outputs links that >> include context path. >> >> If you do not deploy many apps you can define the contexts >> explicit and specify a path as /dev/app1 . > > Thanks for the info. I guess I am concerned a bit about switching to > "mod_jk" from "mod_jk2" since it does not seem to be the default which > HP pushes when setting up this stuff on OpenVMS. It kind of makes me > concerned about how up to date the "mod_jk.exe" port is but it looks > like it should be at least worth trying out. Note that mod_jk does not solve the link problem. Why don't you use a virtual host on Apache and forward to two different Tomcat instances instead of messing with the path ? Arne ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:31:33 +0100 From: Michael Kraemer Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: JF Mezei schrieb: > So, If Digital existed today and decided to participate in that project, > I am sure they could build a very low cost vax or even alpha. They weren't able to build a cost- and speed-competitive VAX back then when it would have been essential for their own survival. So why should they be able to do so for just a "humanitarian" project ? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 22:38:24 +0000 (UTC) From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: In article , JF Mezei writes: > Right now, Linux is being used for the "One Laptop per Child" projects > around the world. Whenever I hear about this nonsense, I wish all of these self-appointed gurus would read Cliff Stoll. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:47:06 -0500 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: <475B1EEA.9020907@comcast.net> Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote: > In article , JF Mezei > writes: > > >>Right now, Linux is being used for the "One Laptop per Child" projects >>around the world. > > > Whenever I hear about this nonsense, I wish all of these self-appointed > gurus would read Cliff Stoll. > Do you mean "The Cuckoo's Egg"? A great book, but how is it relevant? (I'm not familiar with "One Laptop per Child".) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:53:33 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Uusim=E4ki?= Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: <475b1fc7$0$3217$9b536df3@news.fv.fi> Michael Kraemer wrote: > Uusimäki schrieb: > >> >> In mid 90's there was built a AlphaBook, as you surely know, but for >> some reason it never became popular. > > Price ? > There were also SparcBooks, PA-RISC books and RS/6000s as ThinkPads, > running their respective UNIX, > but they did not take off because they simply were too expensive > for the average user. > Most probably, yes. I don't remember the exact prices, but I don't think the price difference between a X86 laptop and an AlphaBook was so huge. IIRC the high end X86 laptops were also expensive at that time. But, like I mentioned, there would have probably been a better market if the VMS-enabled laptops were created a lot earlier - maybe in late 80's. Regards, Kari ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:16:35 -0500 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: Michael Kraemer wrote: > They weren't able to build a cost- and speed-competitive VAX > back then when it would have been essential for their own survival. > So why should they be able to do so for just a "humanitarian" project ? It isn't that they weren't "able". It is that their management decisions didn't result in low cost competitively priced machines. I am sure Digital Equipment Corporation had the brains and ability to produce competitive equipment had top management tasked its troups to make it so. My original point was that because VMS engineers had managed to prevent bloat over the years, VMS would now be considered a great OS for those resource-limited OLPC laptops. And if VMS had been made available on a viable platform, its limited footprint would have also made it quite interesting for lots of embedded applications. Imagine if Nokia had chosen VMS as kernel for its handsets instead of buying the leftovers from PSION's OS. Consider VMS still able to run on a 16 meg all-mighty Microvax II. I think my phone requires more memory to boot :-) In terms of profits: This laptop project is a humanitarian project. A company that charges a reduced price for parts gets to claim humanitarian donation and gets the pR benefits for it. If Microsoft succeeds in shoving windows down kids' throats, do you really think that it will charge a fee for those windows licences ? It will be all PR for microsoft, the ability to claim Microsoft is using its wealth to help poor kids etc etc. (There is nothing wrong with this, just pointing out that large copration participating in this endeavour do so not for profit, but as humanitarian aid). ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:19:29 -0500 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: <13ce4$475b2683$cef8887a$5430@TEKSAVVY.COM> Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote: > Whenever I hear about this nonsense, I wish all of these self-appointed > gurus would read Cliff Stoll. > So what do those OLPC laptops run then ? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:30:14 -0500 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: <475b2900$0$90269$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> JF Mezei wrote: > So what do those OLPC laptops run then ? They do run Linux. More specifically a Fedora variant. Arne ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:56:00 +0100 From: Michael Kraemer Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: Uusimäki schrieb: > Most probably, yes. I don't remember the exact prices, but I don't think > the price difference between a X86 laptop and an AlphaBook was so huge. > IIRC the high end X86 laptops were also expensive at that time. Given the very limited number of units produced (a few thousands), the various UNIX/RISC-based notebooks were for sure way more expensive than an x86 notebook. I don't have numbers for the alpha, but I doubt it would be much different from a comparable IBM Thinkpad 850/860 running AIX, for example. These beasts started at $12000 for the lowest model (about 1995). (I got mine for some $150 last year :-) ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 2007 01:17:33 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: <5s0u1dF16h4t1U1@mid.individual.net> In article , helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) writes: > In article , JF Mezei > writes: > >> Right now, Linux is being used for the "One Laptop per Child" projects >> around the world. > > Whenever I hear about this nonsense, I wish all of these self-appointed > gurus would read Cliff Stoll. Why? I can't think of anyone in the industry more clueless. Just because he was able to write and sell a book. Heck, so did Al Gore. Next you'll be saying Cliff Stoll should get a Nobel Prize..... 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: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 21:17:25 -0800 (PST) From: AEF Subject: Re: OT: One Laptop per Child Message-ID: On Dec 8, 10:27 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: > In article <0cb14cd4-c2c7-41c6-be7c-c07bc6dc8...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.= com>, > AEF writes: > > > > > On Dec 8, 7:31 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: > >> In article <475a7ef1$0$27828$9b536...@news.fv.fi>, > >> Uusim=E4ki writes: > > >> > JF Mezei wrote: > >> >> Right now, Linux is being used for the "One Laptop per Child" projec= ts > >> >> around the world. > > >> >> Microsoft, not wanting to be left out, has setup a team of 40 people= > >> >> trying to fit Windows and office on 1gig (they can't) so now they wi= ll > >> >> pay for flash cards and the hardware needed to be added on the cheap= > >> >> laptops, and they still are having problems fitting the bloat that i= s > >> >> Windows onto those cards. And they will also need to update the lapt= op's > >> >> firmware to support booting from the additional flashcards. > > >> >> Just imagine if many years ago, VMS management had listened to Mr > >> >> Dachtera and ported VMS to the then 32 bit 8086. Today, they could l= oad>> >> VMS on those laptops with space to spare simply because VMS enginee= rs > >> >> have always been fairly mature, efficient and frugal in system resou= rces > >> >> needed to run their software. It would have paid off big time if VMS= had > >> >> been selected to be the OS of choice for those laptops all around th= e > >> >> world. (put in Mosaic, update MAIL and DECWRITE and you're set). > > >> >> It, way too late now, of course. > > >> >> But it is interesting to see Microsoft struggle with this and hopefu= lly>> >> they will fail and millions of kids around the world will learn Lin= ux first. > > >> > Quite so, but it wouldn't have been too much of an effort to convert > >> > e.g. the VAXstation 4000-VLC into a laptop case. There was about > >> > everything needed on a main board with only one daughter card (the > >> > graphichs card). If the SIMM sockets would have been inclined, it wou= ld > >> > have been ready for putting into a laptop case. > >> > I think it would have been better to make a VAX laptop than trying to= > >> > fit VMS on every other possible hardware combination. That would neve= r > >> > have made it worth while. There is way too much work and the result > >> > would be too uncertain. > > >> > In mid 90's there was built a AlphaBook, as you surely know, but for > >> > some reason it never became popular. IMHO the reason was exactly what= > >> > you mentioned; VMS vas not made available early enough on laptops. > > >> BUt it would have lacked the most important part needed for this > >> program. A price low enough to give away a million of them. The > >> recently released EeePC is $300-400 and it is not part of this > >> program because it is being sold at a profit. You can figure the > >> likely real cost from this. What would a VAX laptop or an Alphabook > >> cost? And we need not even go into the shortcomings of VMS for a > >> project like this. > > >> bill > > >> -- > >> Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wol= ves>> b...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > >> University of Scranton | > >> Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include > > The problem with this argument is that it is comparing apples to > > oranges. > > How so? Because you're ignoring the premise of the argument. Quoting from the original post: "Just imagine if many years ago, VMS management had listened to Mr Dachtera and ported VMS to the then 32 bit 8086. Today, they could load VMS on those laptops with space to spare simply because VMS engineers have always been fairly mature, efficient and frugal in system resources needed to run their software. It would have paid off big time if VMS had been selected to be the OS of choice for those laptops all around the world. (put in Mosaic, update MAIL and DECWRITE and you're set). It, way too late now, of course. " You talk about VAX and Alpha laptops. He's talking about 8086 (or whatever the hell the stupid architecture is called). He's talking about if it had been done way back. > > > Are regular Linux or Windows or Mac laptops currently cheap > > enough to give away? NO! > > OLPC is not giving away "regular Linux or Windows or Mac laptops" > it is giving away OLPC Laptops. My ASUS EeePC IS a "regular Linux" > laptop and it can run Windows as well. And, even with the need to > make a profit it is selling for less than $400. Real cost is probably > in the neighborhood of around $200. But you spoke of VAX and Alpha laptops. Not what would have been "8086" (OWTHTSAIC) laptops running VMS. You keep comparing to what VMS would cost if done now instead of what it would have cost if it were ported to WTHTAIC long ago. That's apples to oranges. > > > That's apples to apples (and Apples!). The > > question how much it would cost if one went through the same procedure > > to make cheap VMS laptops. > > Well, if you want to be pedantic, I can run VMS on my EeePC. Just load > SIMH and then load VMS. The question being who would want to? It would > definitely not fit the criteria for the OLPC program. Again you're comparing to present VMS, not to VMS according to the original premise. > > > Remember, while these laptops are very > > cheap and have some capabilities regular laptops lack, they are very > > limited compared to regular laptops in other ways. > > I would need to look at the actual specs for the OLPC laptops, but I > really can't see where they would be lacking any needed funtionality. > My cheap EeePC has all the capabilities of my IBM Thinkpad and comes > pre-configured to do a lot of things that took considerable adjustment > to do on the Thinkpad. I saw the report on 60 minutes about it. I think it was very limited in some respects. You can't put CD's in it. There's no hard drive. No bays or ports. Lots of stuff like that is missing, I think. I don't know anything about the EeePC, however, as this is the first I've heard of it. > > > And keep in mind > > the assumption that VMS would have already been ported to the > > appropriate architecture, etc., etc., You can't assume what would it > > cost to do this now. That was not the point. (Another level of apples > > to oranges!). > > Just what shortcomings were you thinking of? > > The total lack of a usable interface and the necessary applications for > it to be usable by the target audience. Again comparing to present VMS instead of what VMS would have been according to the original premise. > > bill > > -- > Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves= > b...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > University of Scranton | > Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include AEF ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 22:01:06 GMT From: reed@forge.{fe}.net (Brian ) Subject: Power supply Message-ID: I have a Digital CD tower that had 7 CD drives in it, I bought several years ago. I don't see a number on it though. I've used it for putting extra drives in. It appears the power supply died. It says it is a TOPOWER TOP300SS power supply. I didn't dig up much on the internet trying to find one. It appears to be an AT type supply, but has an extra 12-pin connector on it going to the tower. I'm not sure what this is for though, as it doesn't appear the tower itself needs power. Does anyone have any information about it, either where to get one, what the outputs are, can I get by without the extra 12-pin connector? Can I use a regular supply and connect it in? If anyone has any information, or pointers, that would be appreciated. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 09:12:08 +1100 From: Jim Duff Subject: Re: Power supply Message-ID: <475b16b9$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au> Brian wrote: > I have a Digital CD tower that had 7 CD drives in it, I bought several years ago. > I don't see a number on it though. I've used it for putting extra drives in. > It appears the power supply died. It says it is a TOPOWER TOP300SS power supply. > I didn't dig up much on the internet trying to find one. It appears to be > an AT type supply, but has an extra 12-pin connector on it going to the tower. > I'm not sure what this is for though, as it doesn't appear the tower itself needs power. > > Does anyone have any information about it, either where to get one, what the > outputs are, can I get by without the extra 12-pin connector? Can I use a > regular supply and connect it in? > > If anyone has any information, or pointers, that would be appreciated. Perhaps you should try the manufacturer: http://www.topower.com/pwr_at.html Jim. -- www.eight-cubed.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 22:27:20 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: Power supply Message-ID: In article , reed@forge.{fe}.net (Brian ) writes: > > > >I have a Digital CD tower that had 7 CD drives in it, I bought several years ago. >I don't see a number on it though. I've used it for putting extra drives in. >It appears the power supply died. It says it is a TOPOWER TOP300SS power supply. >I didn't dig up much on the internet trying to find one. It appears to be >an AT type supply, but has an extra 12-pin connector on it going to the tower. >I'm not sure what this is for though, as it doesn't appear the tower itself needs power. > >Does anyone have any information about it, either where to get one, what the >outputs are, can I get by without the extra 12-pin connector? Can I use a >regular supply and connect it in? > >If anyone has any information, or pointers, that would be appreciated. I could swear I used a standard PeeCee power supply replacement when one of my InfoTower's had a power supply that gave up its ghost. If you really need specs on the output of the various connectors, I sup- pose I could meter each on one of mine and provide you with some numbers. -- 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, 08 Dec 2007 14:29:56 -0500 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Unix for VMS guys Message-ID: <475AF0B4.3040801@comcast.net> Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article <475A08B7.80707@comcast.net>, > "Richard B. Gilbert" writes: > >>Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> >>>Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>Richard B. Gilbert wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>RUN AUTHORIZE vi /etc/passwd >>>>> >>>>And the example above would be akin to using EDT to change entries in >>>>SYSUAF. >>> >>> >>>Not quite. EDT would ruin SYSUAF.DAT every time. I am sure vi passwd >>>would succeed in most cases. >>> >>>Arne >>> >> >>I think Bill is coming from a data center/large server environment >>whereas I'm coming from a small server/workstation environment. >> >>If you have a couple of thousand users with three or four hundred logged >>on at any one time, vi /etc/password would be a very dangerous thing to do! >> >>In a workstation environment vi /etc/password is not a terribly >>dangerous thing to do. Those, BTW, are the circumstances under which I >>learned to do it that way. > > > What does the size of the datacenter have to do with wether or not you > do something the right way or the wrong way? If you want to exit your > password file there are proper tools to do it. "vipw" has been around > since 1980 (introduced in BSD 4.0). In a modern system, linux, BSD, > Solaris, IRIX, HPUX, AIX, whatever. If you "vi /etc/passwd" you will > very likely trash your system as that is only the public presentation > of the password file and not where the real data is actually kept. The > real password file is going to be "master.passwd" or "shadow". And > hand editing either of these will leave your /etc/passwd out of sync > which is likely to cause all kinds of headaches. > > Oh, I just looked at what you wrote above and your actually right. > "vi /etc/password" is going to be harmless. It is also going to be > useless as all it will do is create a file called "/etc/password" if > you save youe work when your done. Cause there is no such file. :-) > Pardon my fumble minded typing. I meant /etc/passwd. I will continue to do things my way and leave you to your lonely perfection! ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 2007 19:54:17 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Unix for VMS guys Message-ID: <5s0b38F16lrlaU1@mid.individual.net> In article <475AF0B4.3040801@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> In article <475A08B7.80707@comcast.net>, >> "Richard B. Gilbert" writes: >> >>>Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> >>>>Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>Richard B. Gilbert wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>RUN AUTHORIZE vi /etc/passwd >>>>>> >>>>>And the example above would be akin to using EDT to change entries in >>>>>SYSUAF. >>>> >>>> >>>>Not quite. EDT would ruin SYSUAF.DAT every time. I am sure vi passwd >>>>would succeed in most cases. >>>> >>>>Arne >>>> >>> >>>I think Bill is coming from a data center/large server environment >>>whereas I'm coming from a small server/workstation environment. >>> >>>If you have a couple of thousand users with three or four hundred logged >>>on at any one time, vi /etc/password would be a very dangerous thing to do! >>> >>>In a workstation environment vi /etc/password is not a terribly >>>dangerous thing to do. Those, BTW, are the circumstances under which I >>>learned to do it that way. >> >> >> What does the size of the datacenter have to do with wether or not you >> do something the right way or the wrong way? If you want to exit your >> password file there are proper tools to do it. "vipw" has been around >> since 1980 (introduced in BSD 4.0). In a modern system, linux, BSD, >> Solaris, IRIX, HPUX, AIX, whatever. If you "vi /etc/passwd" you will >> very likely trash your system as that is only the public presentation >> of the password file and not where the real data is actually kept. The >> real password file is going to be "master.passwd" or "shadow". And >> hand editing either of these will leave your /etc/passwd out of sync >> which is likely to cause all kinds of headaches. >> >> Oh, I just looked at what you wrote above and your actually right. >> "vi /etc/password" is going to be harmless. It is also going to be >> useless as all it will do is create a file called "/etc/password" if >> you save youe work when your done. Cause there is no such file. :-) >> > > Pardon my fumble minded typing. I meant /etc/passwd. > > I will continue to do things my way and leave you to your lonely perfection! Did you even read what I wrote? /etc/passwd doesn't contain the password file, at least not anything that passes for Unix/Linux today. Unless you are still working with SunOS or Ultrix, you can't "vi /etc/passwd". But, that's OK, you just keep doing it your way. :-) 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: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 16:02:11 -0500 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Unix for VMS guys Message-ID: <475B0653.1090004@comcast.net> Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article <475AF0B4.3040801@comcast.net>, > "Richard B. Gilbert" writes: > >>Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> >>>In article <475A08B7.80707@comcast.net>, >>> "Richard B. Gilbert" writes: >>> >>> >>>>Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>Richard B. Gilbert wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>RUN AUTHORIZE vi /etc/passwd >>>>>>> >>>>>>And the example above would be akin to using EDT to change entries in >>>>>>SYSUAF. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Not quite. EDT would ruin SYSUAF.DAT every time. I am sure vi passwd >>>>>would succeed in most cases. >>>>> >>>>>Arne >>>>> >>>> >>>>I think Bill is coming from a data center/large server environment >>>>whereas I'm coming from a small server/workstation environment. >>>> >>>>If you have a couple of thousand users with three or four hundred logged >>>>on at any one time, vi /etc/password would be a very dangerous thing to do! >>>> >>>>In a workstation environment vi /etc/password is not a terribly >>>>dangerous thing to do. Those, BTW, are the circumstances under which I >>>>learned to do it that way. >>> >>> >>>What does the size of the datacenter have to do with wether or not you >>>do something the right way or the wrong way? If you want to exit your >>>password file there are proper tools to do it. "vipw" has been around >>>since 1980 (introduced in BSD 4.0). In a modern system, linux, BSD, >>>Solaris, IRIX, HPUX, AIX, whatever. If you "vi /etc/passwd" you will >>>very likely trash your system as that is only the public presentation >>>of the password file and not where the real data is actually kept. The >>>real password file is going to be "master.passwd" or "shadow". And >>>hand editing either of these will leave your /etc/passwd out of sync >>>which is likely to cause all kinds of headaches. >>> >>>Oh, I just looked at what you wrote above and your actually right. >>>"vi /etc/password" is going to be harmless. It is also going to be >>>useless as all it will do is create a file called "/etc/password" if >>>you save youe work when your done. Cause there is no such file. :-) >>> >> >>Pardon my fumble minded typing. I meant /etc/passwd. >> >>I will continue to do things my way and leave you to your lonely perfection! > > > Did you even read what I wrote? /etc/passwd doesn't contain the password > file, at least not anything that passes for Unix/Linux today. Unless you > are still working with SunOS or Ultrix, you can't "vi /etc/passwd". But, > that's OK, you just keep doing it your way. :-) > > bill > > I AM still working with SunOS; Solaris 10 as it's known these days. It does have /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow. The last time I looked at my RedHat 3 box it too had a /etc/passwd file. It has been many years since I worked with IRIX but at IRIX v5 it had /etc/passwd; I haven't seen a more recent version though if Silicon Graphics or a successor is still in business there probably have been a good many releases since then. It has been about thirteen years since I saw a copy of Ultrix; I believe that DEC changed the name to True64 ten or fifteen years ago. AIRC, Ultrix/True 64 was one of the first Unices to provide a program specifically designed to manage the password file. I don't recall if it was still called /etc/passwd. I just checked one of my Solaris 10 workstations. It has a program called vipw for editing /etc/passwd. It's just a wrapper that locks /etc/passwd and invokes vi to edit it. I'm uncertain what good "locking" the password file does since the last time I looked Solaris did not enforce mandatory locking. It has been a while since I looked so it may have changed. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 21:53:29 -0500 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= Subject: Re: Unix for VMS guys Message-ID: <475b58a3$0$90276$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article <4759f8d2$0$90265$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, > Arne Vajhøj writes: >> Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote: >>>>> RUN AUTHORIZE vi /etc/passwd >>> And the example above would be akin to using EDT to change entries in >>> SYSUAF. >> Not quite. EDT would ruin SYSUAF.DAT every time. I am sure vi passwd >> would succeed in most cases. > > A very bad assumption as it only takes on failure for disaster. The cost of something happening does not effect the probability of it happening. It is a fact that using EDT on SYSUAF.DAT would ruin it every time. It is a fact that vi passwd will work in some cases. Arne ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 21:58:55 -0500 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= Subject: Re: Unix for VMS guys Message-ID: <475b59eb$0$90276$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Bill Gunshannon wrote: > Did you even read what I wrote? /etc/passwd doesn't contain the password > file, at least not anything that passes for Unix/Linux today. Unless you > are still working with SunOS or Ultrix, you can't "vi /etc/passwd". But, > that's OK, you just keep doing it your way. :-) You most certainly can vi /etc/passwd. I just did on my Linux box (Centos 4.5 and kernel 2.6.9 is not latest and greatest but newer than Ultrix). The password is not in that file. But nobody in this thread has claimed so. After editing /etc/passwd you need to use passwd to set the password. Arne ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 22:07:08 -0500 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= Subject: Re: Unix for VMS guys Message-ID: <475b5bd8$0$90268$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Bill Gunshannon wrote: > And Unix can have commands named whatever you like and in whatever > language suits your fancy. Tandy used to ship a shell with their > XENIX systems that had all the MSDOS commands. I once wrote a shell > that presented the menu system familiar to UCSD-Pascal users and worked > just like it. that's one of Unix strengths. You can easily make it > look like anything you want. Even VMS, if anyone really wanted it to > look like that!! Most OS's will allow you to have commands as you want if you write your own shell and command executables. I guess the reason that it is not done more and is not a success when done is that command verbs and qualifiers (to use VMS terminology) is just part of what people want. The shell is not completely decoupled from the rest of the system. Arne ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.673 ************************