INFO-VAX Sat, 22 Dec 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 700 Contents: Re: "snapshot" backup and HBVS Re: OT: Merry Christmas to c.o.v. ! Re: quick question Re: quick question Re: quick question Re: quick question Re: quick question Re: quick question Re: Samba Gains Legal Access to Microsoft Network File Protocols Re: Volume label. Re: Volume label. Re: Volume label. Re: Volume label. Re: Volume label. Re: X-windows: MAC server on VMS client ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:29:50 +0000 (UTC) From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) Subject: Re: "snapshot" backup and HBVS Message-ID: In article , Keith Parris writes: > 2) Do a BACKUP/PHYSICAL from that disk to two more disk drives of at > least the same size. Would take too much time. > As long as this nightly Full-Copy doesn't take more than an hour or two > to complete, it seems like it might possibly meet your needs, since the > Full-Copy would be occurring outside Production and during off-hours. See above. > And support for more than 3 members in a shadowset is not as improbable > as it once was. What version of VMS will introduce that? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:25:44 -0800 (PST) From: Neil Rieck Subject: Re: OT: Merry Christmas to c.o.v. ! Message-ID: <35a3498f-fce2-47f4-b54a-6f8068a9af7c@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> On Dec 21, 3:48=A0am, JF Mezei wrote: > Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all readers of c.o.v. (1) > > May this festive season bring you lots of snow (2), joy, happiness in > your family. > > May the next 12 months bring you success with your challenges and > endeavours. > > > Disclaimer: > > (1) If you are offended by the expression "Merry Christmas", then > substitute it with "Happy Holidays". If your culture's calendar doesn't > end on Dec 31, then disregard the "Happy New Year" expression. No > offense meant to anyone for whom those wishes may be derogatory. > > (2) For those in southern hemisphere, read "sun and fun at the beach" > instead of "snow". > > No animals were harmed in the making of the announcement. > > Any use of the word "man" or "mankind" is meant to apply equally to all > sexes. > > This message has a very low carbon footprint. Only one fart was produced > while typing it. > \ > Only one fart? :-) Seriously now, were has the time gone? Happy holidays to all no matter what your personal beliefs or cultural observances. Let's all hope/pray for world piece in 2008. Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge, Ontario, Canada. http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:30:59 -0800 (PST) From: AEF Subject: Re: quick question Message-ID: <0fc8cc19-b2f4-4699-8a55-e78f61a99176@x29g2000prg.googlegroups.com> On Dec 20, 3:46 pm, Malcolm Dunnett wrote: > Michael Kraemer wrote: > >> The only other episode I can recall offhand in which this type of > >> thing happens is The Changeling (Nomad). The end of the show where > >> Kirk talks Nomad into self-destruction is absolutely brilliant. What > >> other episodes am I forgetting? There's Landru (Are you of the > >> body? :-) but I think they just used their phasers on it. > > >> AEF > > > ISTR a similar episode where the computer was talked into > > the task of calculating PI up to the last digit ... > > It was kind of exorcism because some daemon had taken over the main computer. > > Wasn't there also an episode (Mudd's Women?) where they disabled > some female androids by feeding them a logical conundrum? Ah, yes. Pretty stupid androids, eh? Still, a fun episode! Not quite the same as convincing one to commit suicide, and in this case it was the entire main cast, not just Kirk, but close enough! AEF ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:31:53 -0800 (PST) From: AEF Subject: Re: quick question Message-ID: On Dec 20, 3:50 pm, norm.raph...@metso.com wrote: > AEF wrote on 12/20/2007 03:19:01 PM: > > > > > On Dec 20, 11:44 am, m.krae...@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) wrote: > > > In article > googlegroups.com>, > > > > AEF writes: > > > > On Dec 20, 9:30 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob > > > > Koehler) wrote: > > > > > In article , Malcolm Dunnett > > > > writes: > > > > > > > Yeah, but it was no match for Bill Shatner!!!!! > > > > > > JTK had a habit of talking computers into commiting suicide. > Maybe > > > > > we should let him loose in Redmond. > > > > > The only other episode I can recall offhand in which this type of > > > > thing happens is The Changeling (Nomad). The end of the show where > > > > Kirk talks Nomad into self-destruction is absolutely brilliant. What > > > > other episodes am I forgetting? There's Landru (Are you of the > > > > body? :-) but I think they just used their phasers on it. > > > > > AEF > > > > ISTR a similar episode where the computer was talked into > > > the task of calculating PI up to the last digit ... > > > It was kind of exorcism because some daemon had taken over the > > main computer. > > > Yes, I remember this one. It was where Scotty was repeatedly caught > > with the murder weapon of a "Jack the Ripper"-type monster. > > > > But I also STR a later episode where the (newer) computer was > > > smart enough to recognize that this is a mission impossible > > > and refused to do it. > > > This must be from one of the spin-off series. I've seen only a very > > few episodes of them. > > > AEF > > There was the M5 Unit that took over the ship and Kirk got it to > "commit suicide" for it's sins by shutting down so it could be destroyed > by attacking federation ships that broke off the attack. That's the one that started this discussion! MI5 somehow mutated into M5. > > There was the Harry Mudd android episode where he and spock got the > controller android to try and solve a paradox that overloaded it. Yes. AEF ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:33:19 -0800 (PST) From: AEF Subject: Re: quick question Message-ID: <30681912-a644-49ef-b68a-fa1033d090cf@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com> On Dec 21, 9:47 pm, David J Dachtera wrote: > Malcolm Dunnett wrote: > > > Michael Kraemer wrote: > > >> The only other episode I can recall offhand in which this type of > > >> thing happens is The Changeling (Nomad). The end of the show where > > >> Kirk talks Nomad into self-destruction is absolutely brilliant. What > > >> other episodes am I forgetting? There's Landru (Are you of the > > >> body? :-) but I think they just used their phasers on it. > > > >> AEF > > > > ISTR a similar episode where the computer was talked into > > > the task of calculating PI up to the last digit ... > > > It was kind of exorcism because some daemon had taken over the main computer. > > > Wasn't there also an episode (Mudd's Women?) where they disabled > > some female androids by feeding them a logical conundrum? > > That one is titled, "I, Mudd". After doing their shtick(sp?), Scotty and > the Doctor curtsy as part of the gag. Exactly. There was another episode entitled Mudd's Women. That one had the miners in search of beautiful women who took some strange beauty pills. > > David J Dachtera > DJE Systems AEF ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:12:15 -0500 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: quick question Message-ID: <476d1b6e$0$4341$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> AEF wrote: > That's the one that started this discussion! MI5 somehow mutated into > M5. And it's all Sue's fault for starting this OT topic... She can't accuse us of being off topic anymore since she is just as guilty as us :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:56:52 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk Subject: Re: quick question Message-ID: In article <476C7ADA.E961864B@spam.comcast.net>, David J Dachtera writes: >Malcolm Dunnett wrote: >> >> Michael Kraemer wrote: >> >> The only other episode I can recall offhand in which this type of >> >> thing happens is The Changeling (Nomad). The end of the show where >> >> Kirk talks Nomad into self-destruction is absolutely brilliant. What >> >> other episodes am I forgetting? There's Landru (Are you of the >> >> body? :-) but I think they just used their phasers on it. >> >> Kirk's destructive effect on computer systems has it's own webpage see http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Induced_self-destruction ( and No Landru was destroyed by Kirk showing that it had violated it's own directive by harming the "body" by allowing the civilisation to stagnate. ) David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University >> >> AEF >> > >> > ISTR a similar episode where the computer was talked into >> > the task of calculating PI up to the last digit ... >> > It was kind of exorcism because some daemon had taken over the main computer. >> >> Wasn't there also an episode (Mudd's Women?) where they disabled >> some female androids by feeding them a logical conundrum? > >That one is titled, "I, Mudd". After doing their shtick(sp?), Scotty and >the Doctor curtsy as part of the gag. > >David J Dachtera >DJE Systems ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:33:31 -0800 (PST) From: Neil Rieck Subject: Re: quick question Message-ID: <324ecb11-1db5-48d1-9073-6ea8124828e1@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com> On Dec 19, 4:36=A0am, JF Mezei wrote: > Sue wrote: > > Can somone tell me what M15 is and what it has to do with VMS. =A0I am > > sorry I just do not know. > > sue > > MI-5 is the UK equivalent of your FBI. (aka: domestic security) > > MI-6 is the UK equivalent of yor CIA/NSA/whatever other 3 letter > acronym. (James Bond works for MI-6) > Incase anyone cares, "MI" stands for "Military Intelligence" (I apologize if you are now laughing uncontrollably) Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge, Ontario, Canada. http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:42:23 -0800 (PST) From: AEF Subject: Re: Samba Gains Legal Access to Microsoft Network File Protocols Message-ID: <2cf4250d-91ee-407e-99e8-5679fc7b089f@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com> On Dec 21, 1:44 pm, "Main, Kerry" wrote: > All, > > This might be of interest to this newsgroup. > > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2239112,00.asp > "Samba and the Software Freedom Law Center sign an agreement with Microsoft that gives > them full access to Microsoft's server protocols." > > "On Dec. 20, the Samba Group and the Software Freedom Law Center announced a deal with > Microsoft that places all of Microsoft's network protocols needed for programs to work with > Windows Server into the hands of the newly formed Protocol Freedom Information > Foundation. > > The PFIF is a U.S.-based nonprofit corporation. It will make Microsoft's server network protocol > documentation available to open-source developers such as Samba, which creates programs > for Windows Server interoperability, and private companies. This information is provided > under an NDA (nondisclosure agreement) and developers must agree to the NDA before > gaining access to the documentation." > > [snip .. see url for rest of article] > > Regards > > Kerry Main > Senior Consultant > HP Services Canada > Voice: 613-592-4660 > Fax: 613-591-4477 > kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom > (remove the DOT's and AT) > > OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works. Hmmm. I believe I once commented on how, if HP decided to destroy OpenVMS source files, that the gov't should step in and save them. Some here scolded me for that, and I retracted. Is this somehow different in that respect? Is anyone who "scolded" me for that against this? AEF ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:24:39 +0000 (UTC) From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) Subject: Re: Volume label. Message-ID: In article , AEF writes: > I don't understand this comment. If I do SHOW LOG WEB$DISK and I get > USER$DISK, then I know that WEB$DISK is supposed to be USER$DISK. If I > use your method, then all I see upon running SHOW LOG is the final > translation and I then have no clue that it is supposed to be whatever > USER$DISK is. For example, consider SYS$SYSROOT, SYS$SPECIFIC, and SYS > $COMMON. By running SHOW LOGICAL on all of these, it is not clear > whether SYS$SPECIFIC is the same as the first equivalence name of SYS > $SYSROOT by design or coincidence. In fact, people have several times > here asked why SYS$SYSROOT wasn't defined to be SYS$SPECIFIC, SYS > $COMMON. (Can you answer that?) Didn't you answer that here a while back? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:26:18 +0000 (UTC) From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) Subject: Re: Volume label. Message-ID: In article <476bda4f$0$22049$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes: > > $define/system/exec/trans=(conc,terminal) $mydisk 'f$trnlnm("$DISK2") > > $define/system/exec/trabs=(conc) $mydisk $DISK2 > > in cases where you want to: > > > $define/system/trans=(conc,term) $myroot 'f$trnlnm("$mydisk")'[myroot.] > > The first case will work. The second case won't work because $myroot > will point to $disk2 which won't translate to whatever disk drive it is > pointing to. Yes. However, if you really need to define a (CONC,TERM) logical name, I would recommend writing a procedure which uses F$PARSE, NOCONCEAL etc to define it properly whatever parameter is passed to it. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:28:00 +0000 (UTC) From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) Subject: Re: Volume label. Message-ID: In article , AEF writes: > On Dec 21, 12:17 pm, JF Mezei wrote: > > AEF wrote: > > > The second case won't work because you forgot to include the trailing > > > colon and because you didn't omit "term" in the command that defines > > > $MYROOT. > > > > Which is my point. If you want to define a logical that behaves exactly > > like that of the logical created when you mount a drive, you need to > > have it translate directly because that logical might be used in > > situations where it is translated to form a new "translation=terminal" > > logical. > > First of all, when you DEFINE or logical name you should ***ALWAYS***, > ***ALWAYS***, ***ALWAYS*** include a trailing colon (after apostrophe > substitution) in the equivalence name if it is a file-oriented device > or a logical name that iteratively translates to any valid subset (or > all) of a full file-spec. Period. Shouldn't that be "colon"? :-) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:18:42 -0800 (PST) From: AEF Subject: Re: Volume label. Message-ID: <199c0995-ef26-4ceb-9c9b-4891f3c19f14@p19g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> On Dec 22, 6:24 am, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig--- remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote: > In article > , AEF > > writes: > > I don't understand this comment. If I do SHOW LOG WEB$DISK and I get > > USER$DISK, then I know that WEB$DISK is supposed to be USER$DISK. If I > > use your method, then all I see upon running SHOW LOG is the final > > translation and I then have no clue that it is supposed to be whatever > > USER$DISK is. For example, consider SYS$SYSROOT, SYS$SPECIFIC, and SYS > > $COMMON. By running SHOW LOGICAL on all of these, it is not clear > > whether SYS$SPECIFIC is the same as the first equivalence name of SYS > > $SYSROOT by design or coincidence. In fact, people have several times > > here asked why SYS$SYSROOT wasn't defined to be SYS$SPECIFIC, SYS > > $COMMON. (Can you answer that?) > > Didn't you answer that here a while back? No. What I did do was explain what was behind the confusion of why SYS $SYSROOT appears to take two roles: (1) A logical name translating to the search list SYS$SPECIFIC (or the translation of SYS$SPECIFIC, which is effectively the same thing, of course), SYS$COMMON (2) Part of the header of the SYS$SPECIFIC portion of the output of a DIRECTORY command that has SYS$SYSROOT (implied or otherwise) as part of its argument. I never said why VMS uses SYS$SPECIFIC's translation when constructing SYS$SYSROOT instead of just the name SYS$SPECIFIC itself. I suspect either something in the boot process makes it easier that way or someone at DEC just wanted to do it that way (I think Hoff once stated a preference for that style, e.g.) or something else. I never saw a convincing definitive answer to this. There *was* the issue of why the first equivalence name of SYS$SYSROOT (SYS$SPECIFIC) is concealed and the answer to THAT was so that you get SYS$SYSROOT instead of the translation of SYS$SPECIFIC when you PARSE it. And I have to give credit to someone else (I forget whom) for that. And it is for this reason that even if you did explicitly use the name SYS$SPECIFIC in constructing SYS$SYSROOT, you'd still need it to be concealed and you'd still get the same "confusing" DIRECTORY SYS $SYSROOT... output. But it would make it more obvious to the uninitiated what SYS$SYSROOT is when running the command SHOW LOGICAL SYS$SYSROOT, except for the "confusing" DIRECTORY SYS$SYSROOT... output, of course. AEF ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:27:31 -0800 (PST) From: AEF Subject: Re: Volume label. Message-ID: <4f065429-003a-460c-b0b7-63ad8756f2cf@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> On Dec 22, 6:26 am, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig--- remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote: > In article <476bda4f$0$22049$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei > > writes: > > > $define/system/exec/trans=(conc,terminal) $mydisk 'f$trnlnm("$DISK2") > > > $define/system/exec/trabs=(conc) $mydisk $DISK2 > > > in cases where you want to: > > > > $define/system/trans=(conc,term) $myroot 'f$trnlnm("$mydisk")'[myroot.] > > > The first case will work. The second case won't work because $myroot > > will point to $disk2 which won't translate to whatever disk drive it is > > pointing to. > > Yes. However, if you really need to define a (CONC,TERM) logical name, > I would recommend writing a procedure which uses F$PARSE, NOCONCEAL etc > to define it properly whatever parameter is passed to it. WHY would you ever "really need" to do this? The purpose of "terminal" is to stop logical name translation when a "terminal" equivalence name is encountered. You don't need "terminal" in and of itself. You only need it when you have to stop logical name translation. If you're equivalence name contains a logical name, you need to NOT make that equivalence name "terminal". Remember: CONC and TERM are attributes of equivalence names, not logical names. For example, SYS$SYSROOT translates to a search string containing a terminal equivalence name followed by a non-terminal one. So you can't say that SYS$SYSROOT is "terminal" or not. It translates to equivalence names of both types. AEF AEF ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:04:13 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: X-windows: MAC server on VMS client Message-ID: In article , healyzh@aracnet.com writes: > > >VAXman- wrote: >> I gave up on the X11 Apple was shipping and purchased a third party's >> X11 server for the Powerbook -- eXodus from http://powerlan-usa.com > >How well is that working, and what architecture/os release are you running >it on? I am more than a little concerned about its long term viability. I >must agree that Apple's X11 is more than a little pathetic at times, >however, I don't believe eXodus has been updated since 2003 (about the time >Apple released theirs). Powerbook running Tiger (10.4.11). I think PowerLan gave up on new releases, wrongly, because Apple released their version of X11. I'd like to see eXodus on a new MacBook Pro but I do not believe they (PowerLan) can be convinced to built it for the intel based Macs. -- 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 ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.700 ************************