INFO-VAX Sun, 05 Aug 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 426 Contents: Re: DECNET on IA64 ? Re: Easy DCL question PURGE vs. DELETE Re: Easy DCL question PURGE vs. DELETE Re: July the 4th Re: July the 4th RE: Kerry needs a news reader Re: Kerry needs a news reader RE: Stay on Alpha forever? Re: Stay on Alpha forever? Re: Stay on Alpha forever? YAEQ: Yet Another Editor Question Re: YAEQ: Yet Another Editor Question Re: YAEQ: Yet Another Editor Question RE: YAEQ: Yet Another Editor Question ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Aug 2007 06:49:26 -0500 From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Subject: Re: DECNET on IA64 ? Message-ID: In article , "Colin Butcher" writes: > Phase IV exists on IA64. Works fine. > > However, Phase V really does do a better job, especially with multiple NICs > and multiple LANs. But Phase IV does a better job on security, with SET EXECUTOR DEFAULT ACCESS NONE This fulfills the requirements of United States NIST SP 800-53 SC-7 (5): The information system denies network traffic by default and allows network traffic by exception (i.e., deny all, permit by exception). But before 800-53 ever existed, it was still good security. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 09:46:25 -0700 From: AEF Subject: Re: Easy DCL question PURGE vs. DELETE Message-ID: <1186332385.642777.19250@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> I actually did some snipping here, but it's still pretty long, but all the important points are made early in the post. The rest is just detailed response and further elaboration of said points. On Aug 4, 4:42 pm, Doug Phillips wrote: > Sorry again, but this time for the length of the post. > > On Aug 4, 12:58 pm, AEF wrote: > > > On Aug 4, 12:55 pm, Doug Phillips wrote: > > > > On Aug 4, 8:50 am, AEF wrote: > > > > > On Aug 3, 5:49 pm, Doug Phillips wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 3, 3:46 pm, AEF 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. > > > I can see it both ways. The advantage of the current way is that you > > can delete all files older than a certain time except that the current > > version is always kept. How would you do this with your desired > > algorithm? > > There is *no* advantage to the current action of /keep. It does *not* > do what you describe above, as has been demonstrated here and > elsewhere --- unless you're allowing the definition of "current > version" to fall outside of the list of files that should be selected > by the filespec and its qualifiers. Yes it does, and yes, the current version often falls outside the "selected" versions of the file. The current version is the version with the highest version number, ignoring the selection criteria. In fact, the current version is always the highest version number of all the versions of a file regardless even of the command used. The current version is what you get when you specify ";" as the version number. Try DIR BLAH.TMP;/ BEFORE=1-JUN-1900 on a file and see what you get: %DIRECT-W-NOFILES, no files found Therefore, the current version may or may not be among the versions that satisfy the selection qualifiers. This is obviously why you've completely misunderstood me on this issue. Now I think the simplest way to summarize this is that PURGE currently uses the current version as the first file to be kept no matter what qualifiers you add to the command. And this counts toward the value supplied to /KEEP. So even though it deletes all your old versions that satisfy your selection qualfiers, it still makes absolutely sure to keep one version, that version being the current version. And that is /KEEP=1, of course. It will, of course, keep all other versions that don't satisfy the selection qualifiers, but those don't count toward /KEEP. I would surmise that in your way of looking at it you only need to add the current version to the set of files to be considered for deletion to the set of versions that satisfy your selection qualifiers (if it's not already included) and then everything will make sense to you. IOW, by default, PURGE always keeps the current version. And by default, / KEEP=1 is assumed. These are considered the same by the code. Therefore, the current version is included in the keep count. The remainder of this post is just details responding to the quoted post. > > To be more explicit, let's use the example above. Suppose I want to > > get rid of all files older than 16:37:07, except to not delete the > > current version even if it too is older. I can do > > Which do you consider the "current version"?? BLAH.TMP;9 No matter what the PURGE command is, no matter what qualifiers you attach to it, the current version in this example is BLAH.TMP;9. Always. How can an intermediate version be current? It can't, and therefore isn't. > > $ PURGE BLAH.TMP /BEFORE=16:37:07 > > By your command, purge should *ignore* all files named BLAH.TMP that > are dated *on or since* 16:37:07, as well as all files with any other > name that might reside within the current directory. So BLAH.TMP;9 and > BLAH.TMP;8 should be completely ignored --- just as a file named > BLAH.BLAH and all other files not matching your request should be > ignored. > > That means you are selecting these files for purge to process: > > 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 > > By your command, purge should keep the highest version of the selected > files, and purge the rest. > > That leaves BLAH.TMP;7 as the only remaining file that matches your > specification. No, because the current version is BLAH.TMP;9. > If you do a DIR BLAH.TMP after the purge, you should see: > > 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 > > That is, two files that you didn't specify in your purge command, and > the "most current" version of the one you did. We're both confusing what each of us means by current and most- current. > If you want purge to delete files that don't match your specs & > qualifiers, then that's beyond my understanding. Becuase you've misunderstood what I mean by most-current version. BLAH.TMP;7 is not the most-current version; ;9 is. Actually, I don't like the term most-current here because it is causing problems. The current version is ;9, no matter what command you consider. If I want to read or execute a file, and I don't supply the version number (which, of course, is by far the most common means of reference) then the highest-numbered version of ALL versions of a file is what is used. If you want to refer to the highest-numbered version from a set of files that may or may not include the current version, please instead say "highest-numbered version from the set" (or in this case, the highest-numbered version from the versions that satisfy the selection qualifiers) instead of current or most-current. Thanks! What I want to do is the following: Suppose I have a directory with many different files and many versions of each file. Now, suppose I want to delete all old versions (non-current versions) that are older than a certain time. With the current VMS command, I can do it. I can't do it if they rewrite it to work your way (at least not easily -- I'd have to explicitly list the name, type and version number of each file I don't want to delete, in which case I may as well use PURGE/CONFIRM). Example 2: ONE.TMP;4 18:00 ONE.TMP;3 17:00 ONE.TMP;2 16:00 TWO.TMP;8 14:00 TWO.TMP;3 13:00 TWO.TMP;1 12:00 THREE.TMP;8 17:00 THREE.TMP;6 15:00 THREE.TMP;1 10:00 Now suppose I want to PURGE this directory but only delete _old_ versions older than 16:30. This would leave the following: ONE.TMP;4 18:00 ONE.TMP;3 17:00 TWO.TMP;8 14:00 THREE.TMP;8 17:00 Note that TWO.TMP;8 is older than 16:30, but it was saved because I used PURGE. Had I used DELETE it would be gone! NOW do you understand what I'm trying to do? I can easily do this with the current version of PURGE. I can't do this with your version of PURGE unless you add the possibility of /KEEP=0 which I would consider to be a rather bizarre option for a PURGE command. I want to delete all versions of all files that are older than a specified time except those versions that are current versions of their respective files. This way I save all current versions but delete all old versions that are before the specified time. By the current version of a file I ALWAYS mean the highest-numbered version from among ALL versions the file, not just those that match the other selection qualifiers. If I wanted to save one additional version of each file I would add /KEEP=2. This is consistent with the current version always contributing to the keep count. > > and versions 7 thru 5 will be deleted. You can't do that with your > > desired algorithm. You can counter by saying, well you should use > > DELETE. > > I will! If you want to DELETE files, use the DELETE command. If you > want to PURGE files, use the PURGE command. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME > COMMAND. (excuse me, I'll try to use my indoor voice from now on;) Relax, dude. Chill out. Take your shoes off. Sit a spell. Y'all come back now! Hey, they both call DELETE.EXE! :-) > > Well I can counter by saying suppose I want to do the same > > command except using the time 17:00 but be sure the current version is > > unconditionally not deleted: > > > $ PURGE BLAH.TMP /BEFORE=17 > > > Now, all versions satisfy the criterion but the first one is kept. > > This way I can freely construct commands like this and be sure that I > > always leave the current version intact. There is no way to do this > > with the algorithm you prefer without an unreaonable amount of pain. > > That would work the same as if you didn't use the /before. All > existing BLAH.TMP files match your request, so all except the highest > will be purged. What are you asking? Sorry, I didn't mean this in the context of my first example. I meant it to show, _in general_, that if I err, by using PURGE I at least don't risk losing the current version as I would if I use DELETE. > > If you don't like the current algorithm you can always just add one to > > the number you would otherwise supply to the /KEEP qualifier. But if > > your algorithm is implemented there is not way, short of writing a > > multi-line DCL procedure (or a painful /EXCLUDE qualifier), to do what > > I want as described just above. > > You'd really accept that? "HELP PURGE /KEEP --- To keep 3 versions of > a file, specify /KEEP=4" ?? Sorry, there's something about that that > just seems wrong. It actually keeps more than that even. If you have 9 versions of a file, and 6 of them are older than your /BEFORE time, the PURGE will keep 3 versions, which is 2 more than 1. But the current version always contributes to the keep count and the highest-numbered versions that satisfy the selection qualifiers also contribute of the keep count. [...] > > > I see it this way: > > > $ PURGE ! Delete all but the current version > > [of each unique filename.ext in the current directory] Right > > > $ PURGE/BEFORE=time ! Consider the same versions for deletion as in > > PURGE, but delete only the versions that meet the /BEFORE=time > > criterion. > > Wrong. It should consider only the files that the command specifies: > those dated /before=time. It should ignore *all* other files > regardless of their name, version, age, color, religion, creed, > national origin,....(sorry, mind wandered there for a bit.) You are > wanting PURGE to act like DELETE --- and, btw, DELETE, DIR, COPY, > BACKUP, RENAME,... only consider the files you specify, and I wouldn't > want it any other way. I finally understand your point of view now that I know that by "current version" you mean the highest version from among the versions that satisfy the selection qualifiers. I think the confusion here stems from one or both of us sloppily using "current", "most-current", and "highest-numbered version" interchangeably. Under no circumstances would I ever consider an intermediate version the current version. >From this, I believe, stems all or most of the misunderstanding between us on this issue. I agree that there's good logic behind your way. (I still find PURGE/ BEFORE=time leaving one matching version left if it's not the current version rather odd, but both ways have their odd points.) But there's good logic behind the current way, too. [...] > > > > 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 doc is ambigiuous for /KEEP. I already proved this. > > I don't think the doc is ambiguous, and I don't find any "proof" in > your statements. We disagree. I still find the description of /KEEP ambiguous and it's even worse when you consider the possibility of adding the selection qualifiers. > > > 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. > > > It depends on what you mean by "file". > > Okay, Bill Clinton;-) Good one! :-) SBNQLOL I think it would help to define file and version here: file - name.typ, of which there are various versions version - name.typ;n Or better: FILE.TMP;3, FILE.TMP;2, FILE.TMP;1 are the three *versions* of the file called FILE.TMP!. So, name.typ;1, name.typ;2, ..., name.typ;n, are the n versions of the file name.typ. File here should mean the family of versions with the same dev, dir, name, and type. If you use file to also mean version (and after all, each version *is* a file, and that's certainly valid and useful for other things), then it will only further cloud the issue under discussion. So for this discussion, can we agree to do this? For this discussion, you PURGE files, but you DELETE versions (both in the context of using the PURGE command). Okay? > > I can have multiple versions of > > one file. That use of file means one file. But each version is itself > > a "file", but in another sense, which then means multiple files. > > Besides, /BEFORE "selects" which versions can be deleted. The > > parameter "specifies" which files are to be PURGEd. > > No. The parameter specifies which files should be considered by the > purge command. Anywhere from zero to many files might be actually > purged. > Put a * or % wild-card in the file spec someplace and think about how > that fits what you say. A wildcard specifies files, not versions. You can't specify the version field with the PURGE command, much less with a wildcard! > > > The /KEEP says how many of the SELECTED files should be kept if more > > > than that number exist. The default is one. > > > That's not what the doc says. The doc says this: > > > /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. > > Other than the word count and perspective (selected vs specified) how > does what I said contradict the doc? That's not the point. The point is that other actions are possible that also don't contradict the doc. You can keep fewer versions than what you said and the number kept will still be less than the maximum. Hence the ambiguity. IOW, if I say to you that I will at some point bring you a maximum of 4 apples, all you know is that I will bring somewhere between zero and four apples. That's not good enough. It would be much better if the doc said this instead (ignoring the possibility of adding selection qualifiers for now): /KEEP=number-of-versions The n highest versions of each of the specified files will be kept unless there are fewer than n versions for a particular file, in which case all versions of that file will kept. If you do not include the / KEEP qualifier, all but the highest-numbered version of each of the specified files are deleted from the directory. Thus the default value for number-of-versions is 1. This is what I would call a sufficiently precise description of what PURGE does when you don't specify selection qualifiers. selection qualifiers - /CREATED /MODIFIED /EXPIRED /BACKUP /SINCE / BEFORE /BY_OWNER > It the perspective? Here: the purge command should "select" only the > files that you "specify." Clearer? Nope, not clear at all. I have no idea what this means. > > It's too vague to be of any use. Besides, you specify with the > > parameter. The qualifiers select, not specify. > > To me, it reads clear and precise. I think you're just refusing to > accept it. See above. [...] [...I'm snipping a few paragraphs here because somehow they've become an incomprehensible mess...] > > And here we disagree. And we will always disagree on this. > > Um. On what do you disagree here? That /KEEP *doesn't* mean keep??? I thought I explained the motivation for the current behavior. I'll try again. $ PURGE parameter means delete all but the current versions of files matching the parameter. $ PURGE parameter /KEEP=1 is the same because the default value for /KEEP is 1. $ PURGE parameter /KEEP=n means keep n-1 more versions of each file than /KEEP=1, keeping the versions with the highest possible version numbers. $ PURGE parameter /BEFORE=time deletes all non-current versions that are before 'time'. $ PURGE parameter /BEFORE=time /KEEP=1 does the same. $ PURGE parameter /BEFORE=time /KEEP=n means keep n-1 more versions than /KEEP=1, keeping the versions with the highest possible version numbers. It is the fact that the author of PURGE chose to make $ PURGE parameter /BEFORE=time work the way I described (to delete _all_ old versions [non-current versions] of the specified files that satisfy the selection qualifiers) combined with the fact that 1 is the default value for / KEEP that brings about the current behavior. So if you simply include the current version in the keep count, all makes sense. And since the most important thing PURGE does is to not delete the current version, it makes sense that the current version contribute to the keep count. You don't like this because combining /KEEP=1 with selection qualifiers will sometimes not leave a file that matches your selection qualifiers. Also, you want to keep n versions from among those files that match the selection qualifiers. I'm fine with that as a reasonable algorithm. The only problem with it is that it doesn't permit you to do the particular type of operation I described way above (in Example 2) in which I want to delete all old versions that satisfy the selection qualifiers (again, not deleting any current versions of files that satisfy the selection qualifiers). I have to admit that back in the mid 1980's when I first started using VMS, I too was surprised by PURGE/KEEP/BEFORE. But I started with the assumption that what PURGE did was somehow "correct" -- or at least one of several reasonable possibilities -- and experimented and analyzed the situation. I found that PURGE/BEFORE would delete all old versions of files that satisfied the /BEFORE qualifier. I thought that made sense. Then I realized that the default was /KEEP=1 even in that case and that naturally /KEEP=2 would keep only one of the old versions that satisfied the /BEFORE qualifier, basically because 2 is one more than 1. So I assumed that the version of the file that is one version higher than the highest old version that satisfied the /BEFORE qualifier counted as one kept. Or you can consider the current version to be that 1st to-be-kept file, which I now think is a better way to look at it. I mean, PURGE *always* keeps the current version, so why not include it in the count? I need to do an example here. Example 3: > > > > > > Directory SYS$SYSDEVICE:[TEST] > > > > > > > BLAH.TMP;9 3-AUG-2007 16:37:08.15 > > > > > > BLAH.TMP;8 3-AUG-2007 16:37:07.53 > > > > > > BLAH.TMP;7 3-AUG-2007 16:37:06.78 > > > > > > BLAH.TMP;6 3-AUG-2007 16:37:06.07 > > > > > > BLAH.TMP;5 3-AUG-2007 16:37:05.33 > > > > > > BLAH.TMP;4 3-AUG-2007 16:37:04.50 > > > > > > BLAH.TMP;3 3-AUG-2007 16:37:03.68 > > > > > > BLAH.TMP;2 3-AUG-2007 16:37:02.80 > > > > > > BLAH.TMP;1 3-AUG-2007 16:37:01.68 So doing PURGE/BEFORE=16:37:06 would leave > > > > > > Directory SYS$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 and version ;6 would count as one version for /KEEP (by my original thinking back in the mid-80;s -- I now think it makes more sense to consider ;9 to be the first version to be kept). Specifying n instead of 1 would then keep n-1 more of the highest-numbered versions that satisfy the /BEFORE qualifier. This makes sense since /KEEP=n should keep n-1 more versions than /KEEP=1. Right? So /KEEP=1 means keep the current version and /KEEP=n means keep the current version and n-1 more highest-numbered versions. > > So use /KEEP=2 and you'll get what you want. If the algorithm of PURGE > > is changed to what you want it to be then I won't be able to do what I > > want without writing a multiline DCL procedure. > > I still don't follow this, and I don't find anyplace where you've > actually explained it clearly. I'm explaining it clearly here! So now you agree that the doc isn't clear, eh? ;-) > > > 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. > > > But commands like DELETE/BEFORE='time' risk the deletion of all > > versions of a file. So I can't use DELETE without having to look at > > the version number(s) I wish to keep and putting it(them) in the > > exclude qualifier, which would only work if only one file is > > specified. If multiple files are specified then I don't think you > > could do it even with /EXCLUDE without explicitly typing out the full > > name, type, and version number of each and every version I want to > > keep (because there's no sticky-default action with /EXCLUDE!). What a > > pain! It's much easier to use /KEEP=2 if you want to do it your way. > > Sorry. Don't follow that at all. Same reason. You misunderstood what I meant by current version. How can you possibly call any intermediate version the current version? There's current, and then there's most-current, which are not the same, but perhaps are being assumed synonymous by one or both of us. I think most-current is a problematic term here and should be avoided. > > > 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. > > > I'm struggling because I find it difficult to put my thoughts into > > words. And I'm trying to be precise and explicit because words such as > > earlier, older, file, version, etc. are not precise enough. I'm also > > hoping that some variation of my explanation will make my point of > > view clear to you. > > Sorry. I haven't gotten it yet. Again, current version meant different things to us. > > No, the doc is not clear and precise. If I just told you to get me a > > maximum of three apples, how many will you bring? That's precise? "Oh, > > get me anywhere from zero to three apples, okay?" That's what the > > description of /KEEP is saying. > > To completely satisfy the command: > > "Bring me a maximum of three apples, peon" > "Yes, Sire, oh Gracious One. I am forever your humble servant." (bow, > bow, bow, turn, leave room, run to the larder) > > If there are three or more apples I would bring you three apples. > If there are fewer than three apples, I would bring you however many > there are. > That means that if there are no apples, I couldn't bring you any, but > I would never bring you more than the three (MAX) that you requested. > > Bringing fewer than 3, though, might cost me my head so I'd probably > pop out to the grocer and resupply the larder. I don't think the PURGE > command should do that, however. > > ;-) OK, so you should now see why I find the description for /KEEP ambiguous. > > > 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: > > > > ######################################################## > > > > > > [...] > > > 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$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR] > > > > PT.TMP;5 1-JAN-2000 01:00:31.11 1-JAN-2000 01:01:31.11 [SYSTEM] > > > PT.TMP;4 2-JAN-2000 01:00:30.99 2-JAN-2000 01:01:30.99 [1,1] > > > PT.TMP;2 4-JAN-2000 01:00:30.78 4-JAN-2000 01:01:30.78 [SYSTEM] > > > PT.TMP;1 5-JAN-2000 01:00:30.64 5-JAN-2000 01:01:30.64 [SYSTEM] > > > > Total of 4 files. > > > See? There's too little whitespace. It clutters the visual field of > > the mind and makes concentrating all that more difficult. Highly > > unreadable. > > In Google, there is an option to switch to fixed font. Click on > Options up in the colored title bar and you should find it. I hope > that helps. I found that by accident one day. My Google Groups already shows it in fixed-width font but I still find it a struggle to read as there is only one space between different fields as there is only one space between the date and time, making it a cluttered mess!!! And why was /date=(c,m) specified? That only clutters things up even more! Certainly not the clearest way to make a point! [...] > > > I think I have narrowed the conditions necessary to exhibit bug. > > > > Some definitions: > > > > Selection set: The set of files that meet the filespec and qualifiers. > > > > Statement of problem: > > > > If the highest version of a specific device:[directory]file.type is > > > not a member of the selection set, and /keep versions > 1, then one > > > less file is kept than specified by the /keep qualifier. > > > > Expected cause: from source listings: [V732.DELETE.LIS]PURGE.LIS > > > (which was more handy than 8.3) > > > > In routine purge_ods2_files, at line 931 there is a check for a change > > > in device, directory, name or type. If there is change, then in line > > > 936 the versions (matching purge selection) is unconditionally set to > > > 1, i.e. no check is made to see if this meets the requirements of the > > > common qualifiers. If it isn't the highest version, then the routine > > > purge_this_file is called. purge_this_file calls DEL$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. I have no idea what this paragraph means. If there is a change in the device, directory, name, or type, then certainly we've hit upon the current version, right? What does "the versions [...] is unconditionally set to 1" mean? What is "the versions"? Then, "if it isn't the highest version" (I assume this mean my version of "current version") means that the current version is included in the keep count, which, since PURGE is going through effort to keep the current version, includes it in the keep count. Please, the quoted paragraph above is a complete nightmare to interpret. I don't know which is worse, the doc's description of /KEEP or this! > > > [...] > > > > > > #################################################### > > > > I believe this was formally reported to HP. I do not know its current > > > status. > > > Same thing, different color. All the same arguments apply. If you > > don't like it use /KEEP=2. > > ??????? > Read it again. Hopefully the fixed font option helped. He *did* say / > KEEP=2 and it only kept ONE! My friend, that's a bug whether you > accept it or not. But the current version also counts as one and then one plus one equals 2. > > If you respond, please address my arguments instead of repeating > > yours. I tried to repeat only the portions of my post you didn't > > address. OK, maybe I'm just as guilty. > > I've tried. I hope we can still be friends 'cause I doubt anyone else > is going to speak to us after all of these long posts we seem to > generate:-) I'm frustrated, but not angry. Apparently the main sticking point is that we had very different ideas of what "current version" means. To me, PURGE means, above all else, make sure you keep at least the highest-numbered version. When I execute or read a file without specifying its version number, it will always run the current version. And that's because the default for a missing version-number spec is ";" (see my second paragraph way, way above). (Does anyone actually have command procedures that run explicitly specified intermediate versions?) So "my current version" is far more important than any intermediate version. How can an intermediate version ever be the current version? Come to think of it, I find the term "most-current" to be somewhat nonsensical. You're current or you're not. I accept your version as a reasonable possibility (except I'd miss a certain capability that PURGE currently has). We only disagree whether my version is a reasonable alternative or not. But you have to admit the "my version" (the current VMS version) has a capability that yours doesn't! > > I said I can see it both ways. I prefer "my way" and you prefer "your > > way". When done my way, you need only add 1 to whatever you supply to > > the /KEEP qualifier when using other qualifiers. With your way I have > > to go through a lot of pain to delete all versions that match the > > selection qualifiers except to keep the current version > > unconditionally. Why do you want to make it so painful for me? > > I don't want to do anything other than have a command work the way it > says it should. Whatever. AEF ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 10:33:02 -0700 From: AEF Subject: Re: Easy DCL question PURGE vs. DELETE Message-ID: <1186335182.092908.259740@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> On Aug 5, 12:46 pm, AEF wrote: [...] > > Apparently the main sticking point is that we had very different ideas > of what "current version" means. To me, PURGE means, above all else, > make sure you keep at least the highest-numbered version. When I Sorry, replace "highest-numbered version" with "current version". I mean here the highest-numbered version of ALL the versions of the file in question, irrespective of any selection qualifiers that might be present. This is the raison d'etre for the PURGE command. And this version, the current version, always contributes to the keep count. > execute or read a file without specifying its version number, it will > always run the current version. And that's because the default for a > missing version-number spec is ";" (see my second paragraph way, way > above). (Does anyone actually have command procedures that run > explicitly specified intermediate versions?) So "my current version" > is far more important than any intermediate version. How can an > intermediate version ever be the current version? Come to think of it, > I find the term "most-current" to be somewhat nonsensical. You're > current or you're not. [...] "Back to a Paul Lynde question" -- Peter Marshall on the original version of "The Hollywood Squares" AEF ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 15:48:21 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk Subject: Re: July the 4th Message-ID: In article <46B3DA00.9BED3F39@spam.comcast.net>, David J Dachtera writes: >AEF wrote: >> >> On Aug 1, 10:16 pm, David J Dachtera >> wrote: >> > [snip] >> > Talk about having a backbone and actually believing in something worth >> > defending. >> >> I'll try one more stab at it. >> >> Based on previous (-to-9/11) experience, the most likely outcome of a >> hijacking would be that most passengers would live and the plane WOULD >> NOT be flown into a building or similar. > >Under what circumstances would it be appropriate to apply such probability >theories in a situation involving psychotic, suicidal/homicidal criminals intent >upon commiting the gravest of crimes/sins? > >> 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. > History shows most airplane hijackings did not result in the death of all the passengers. If you were one of the few Israelis (or sometimes Americans) on a flight containing lots of other nationalities then you had more to fear since you might end up at the head of the list being threatened with being shot to demonstrate the seriousness of the hijackers demands. But otherwise you were probably in more danger after the plane landed ie if the plane was stormed in an attempt to rescue you. Upto 9/11 plane hijackers didn't tend to be suicidal - just willing to die if necessary. Although the US government had had reports in the late 90s about the possibility of planes being crashed into buildings the public had no such knowledge. David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University >M----- F---, man, are you even listening to yourself? > >> People make mistakes. They have heart attacks and strokes. This will >> cause occasional failures. Get used to it. Are you perfect? > >WTF does that have to do with anything? > >> Defending what? Vigilante-ism? > >Duty, courage and honor. Look 'em up if you need to. > >They are used to defend freedom, liberty and the innocent. > >I'll expend no further effort to this pursuit. I'd do better trying to describe >color to someone who was born blind. > >-- >David J Dachtera >dba DJE Systems >http://www.djesys.com/ > >Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page >http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/ > >Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: >http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/ > >Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: >http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/ > >Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: >http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 10:16:24 -0700 From: AEF Subject: Re: July the 4th Message-ID: <1186334184.382451.138290@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> On Aug 2, 7:44 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > In article <1186010329.495752.168...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes: > > >On Aug 1, 6:15 pm, Dirk Munk wrote: > >> Ron Johnson wrote: > >> > On 07/30/07 02:15, Dirk Munk wrote: > >> >> JF Mezei wrote: > >> >>> AEF wrote: [...] > > >> By the way, did you know that not even all Jews are treated equal in > >> Israel? There are 'classes' of Jews, it all depends where your family > >> came from. Did they come from some poor underdeveloped country, and they > >> hardly had any education? Then you are a second class Jew I'm afraid. > > >Never heard of this. Can you elaborate? Just exactly how are they > >treated differently? > > see for instance > > http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/093.html > > (This is mostly about the Palestinians but you can ignore that if you wish and > look towards the end about the stratification of Jewish society. Ethiopian and > Yemeni Jews being at the bottom of Jewish society). This is one person's view. I find the complaint of disproportionate force ridiculous. Police use disproportinate force all the time. And disproportionate use of force is the norm in the world in all sorts of situations. Only when it is exercised by Israel does anyone complain. And if the P's are so poorly armed compared to the I's, why are they still attacking? Foolish except for generating PR. It would be like a cornered suspect throwing rocks at the police and some bystanders. The police would shoot to kill (or at least to incapacitate) and everyone would be grateful for it. The document demonstrates its severe one-sideness with this comment: "However, by means of the 1947-48 war, Israel took over even greater expanses of land and forcibly expelled about 750,000 Palestinians. This travesty was the basis for the official founding of the Israeli state in 1948." Hello? Israel didn't start this war. And it is by no means a settled fact of history about these expulsions. Could it be that some P's were expelled because they were fighting against the Israelis? And why were so many P's (or Arabs) NOT expelled? This makes me doubt everything else in the article. It is only one person's view and it is clearly not a neutral view. I find this interesting quote from Wikipedia. Yeah, it's Wikipedia, but it's at least as good at the interview you referecned: Israel, the US and the Soviets called the Arab states' entry into Palestine illegal aggression, UN secretary general Trygve Lie characterized it as "the first armed aggression which the world had seen since the end of the [Second World] War." China broadly backed the Arab claims. Both sides increased their manpower over the following months, but the Israeli advantage grew steadily as a result of the progressive mobilization of Israeli society and the influx of an average of 10,300 immigrants each month. So even the Soviets called it agression!!! Not exactly the most Jew- friendly place!!! So is Phyliss Bennis claiming the Israelis tricked the neighboring Arab countries into attacking Israel in a ploy to get more land? Those Jews are so crafty, eh? ;-) Looks like extreme bias to me! >----o----< Hey, people are treated differently by the US Gov't based on wealth and race. > David Webb > Security team leader > CCSS > Middlesex University> AEF ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 14:16:04 +0000 From: "Main, Kerry" Subject: RE: Kerry needs a news reader Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Johnson [mailto:ron.l.johnson@cox.net] > Sent: August 4, 2007 9:01 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: Kerry needs a news reader > [snip...] > > Oh and yeah, the convention was that almost always, your own > > contributions had to be more lines than the amount of quoted text. > > > > But then again, I don't live in the same universe and all of you so > it > > may be quite different in your universe. > > You and I live in the same universe. Except that you're Canadian. > > Help America Fight The Canadians! > Everyone hates Canadians. > You surrender pronto, or we'll level Toronto. > > -- > 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! Face it .. the US will soon be Canada's 11th province. About the only thing that has not been settled is how to tell those in Texa= s that they have to give up their 14 guns per household and that they need = to learn to speak French. Other than perhaps convincing US folks to give up on baseball and football = to learn hockey, the rest should go smoothly. :-) 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. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 12:10:00 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: Kerry needs a news reader Message-ID: On 08/05/07 09:16, Main, Kerry wrote: >> -----Original Message----- From: Ron Johnson >> [mailto:ron.l.johnson@cox.net] Sent: August 4, 2007 9:01 PM To: >> Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com Subject: Re: Kerry needs a news reader >> > > [snip...] > >>> Oh and yeah, the convention was that almost always, your own >>> contributions had to be more lines than the amount of quoted >>> text. >>> >>> But then again, I don't live in the same universe and all of >>> you so >> it >>> may be quite different in your universe. >> You and I live in the same universe. Except that you're >> Canadian. >> >> Help America Fight The Canadians! Everyone hates Canadians. You >> surrender pronto, or we'll level Toronto. >> > > Face it .. the US will soon be Canada's 11th province. > > About the only thing that has not been settled is how to tell > those in Texas that they have to give up their 14 guns per I read one time that Canada has more guns per capita than the US does. Don't know if it's true, and it might not be anymore, but I wouldn't be surprised if at one time (back before the 1980s) it was true. > household and that they need to learn to speak French. Swine will fly out our collective rectum before that happens. Besides, we'll be Mexico's 32nd thru 81st states. > Other than perhaps convincing US folks to give up on baseball and > football to learn hockey, the rest should go smoothly. Toronto Blue Jays? Canadian Football League? -- 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: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 15:22:59 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk Subject: RE: Stay on Alpha forever? Message-ID: In article , "Main, Kerry" writes: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca] >> Sent: August 3, 2007 3:20 PM >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com >> Subject: Re: Stay on Alpha forever? >> >> Keith Parris wrote: >> > Greg Jordan's OpenVMS Performance Update session from HPTF 2007 shows >> > the rx7640 and rx8640 have higher memory bandwidth than the GS-1280, >> and >> > the rx2600, rx2620, rx3600, and rx4640 have higher memory bandwidth >> than >> > the ES45 (the rx3600 actually has about twice the memory bandwidth of >> > the ES45). >> >> Sorry for my memory failures (no EEC or Parity in my bio memory pack), >> but is VMS qalified to sun on Superdomes yet ? Last I heard, they made >> it run on those C class wintel blade server enclosures that also >> support >> IA64 cards. Don't recall hearing about VMS on superdomes. >> >> If not yet available on superdomes, I am curious about why, what sort >> of >> technical architecture would prevent VMS from taking advantage of a >> Superdome. Or is it purely a political decision to not allow VMS to >> take >> better advantage of a superdome vs HP-UX ? > >OpenVMS is supported on Superdomes and has been for some time now (as I rec= >all officially supported since OpenVMS V8.2-1). > Unfortunately Galaxy support wasn't ported to Itanium for superdomes. David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University >Customers have been buying as well. > >http://h18000.www1.hp.com/info/XAV12X/XAV12XPF.PDF (V8.3 SPD) > >http://www.shannonknowshpc.com/stories.php?story=3D04/01/13/3323598 (older = >story that discusses Superdomes running with clustering on VMS V8.1.) > >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. > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:11:24 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Stay on Alpha forever? Message-ID: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > Unfortunately Galaxy support wasn't ported to Itanium for superdomes. So, what sort of functionality exists for VMS on Superdomes ? Can it have just one instance using all CPUs ? Is there some hard partitioning where VMS can exist as totally separate instances that are totally unaware of each other ? Is there dynamic reallocation of CPU capabilities (to give one instance more power when needed ?) or does that need a reboot ? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 17:30:45 +0000 (UTC) From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Subject: Re: Stay on Alpha forever? Message-ID: JF Mezei writes: >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: >> Unfortunately Galaxy support wasn't ported to Itanium for superdomes. > Is there some hard partitioning >where VMS can exist as totally separate instances that are totally >unaware of each other ? >Is there dynamic reallocation of CPU capabilities (to give one instance >more power when needed ?) or does that need a reboot ? That's Galaxy, which David mentioned doesn't exist yet (ever?) for Itanic. VMS/Galaxy may require all VMS instances be part of the same cluster (which excludes the 'totally unaware' part), I don't remember. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 10:13:30 -0500 From: "Paul Raulerson" Subject: YAEQ: Yet Another Editor Question Message-ID: <000001c7d773$2ea848e0$8bf8daa0$@com> How does one go about stringing multiple editor commands together and binding them to say, a function key. I would like to modify the behavior of the exit key so that it only exists the current buffer displayed on the screen, while still asking to save it if necessary before dropping it. I admit, being an ISPF/XEDIT bigot here, I routinely have two, three, or more files open in the same editor session and cut and paste between them. But my fingers forget what my brain tells 'em, and I keep finding myself closing out an entire editing session, instead of just the one file I am interested in closing. :) Also, it would be nice to be able to hit NEW and have it ask for a file, it currently says it does not take any arguments. Thanks -Paul ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:08:03 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: YAEQ: Yet Another Editor Question Message-ID: <7e7ce$46b603f6$cef8887a$7263@TEKSAVVY.COM> Paul Raulerson wrote: > How does one go about stringing multiple editor commands together and > binding them to say, a function key. DIR SYS$EXAMPLES:*.TPU This will give you tons of examples. You create your TPU commands, put them in a file such as sys$login:TPU$COMMAND.TPU and then in your login.com, DEFINE TPU$COMMAND SYS$LOGIN:TPU$COMMAND.TPU Whenever you start the editors, those commands gets executed. example: define_key (eve$$kt_return + "eve_two_windows", KP2, "Split window"); Now, you can create your own functions, and instead of "eve_two_windows", call your own function that does multiple things to your liking. For a one shot deal while editing: [DO] LEARN then do your key sequences, press and then press the key you want defined. Then, whenever you press that key, the key sequence gets done again. This is extremely powerful. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 12:11:25 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: YAEQ: Yet Another Editor Question Message-ID: <1xnti.60962$5y.54393@newsfe18.lga> On 08/05/07 10:13, Paul Raulerson wrote: > How does one go about stringing multiple editor commands together and > binding them to say, a function key. > > I would like to modify the behavior of the exit key so that it only exists > the current buffer displayed on the screen, while still asking to save it if > necessary before dropping it. I admit, being an ISPF/XEDIT bigot here, I > routinely have two, three, or more files open in the same editor session and > cut and paste between them. > > But my fingers forget what my brain tells 'em, and I keep finding myself > closing out an entire editing session, instead of just the one file I am > interested in closing. :) > > Also, it would be nice to be able to hit NEW and have it ask for a file, it > currently says it does not take any arguments. You've got to first tell us which editor you are using. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 12:42:19 -0500 From: "Paul Raulerson" Subject: RE: YAEQ: Yet Another Editor Question Message-ID: <000301c7d787$f920ed70$eb62c850$@com> > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Johnson [mailto:ron.l.johnson@cox.net] > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 12:11 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: YAEQ: Yet Another Editor Question > > On 08/05/07 10:13, Paul Raulerson wrote: > > How does one go about stringing multiple editor commands together and > > binding them to say, a function key. > > > > I would like to modify the behavior of the exit key so that it only > exists > > the current buffer displayed on the screen, while still asking to > save it if > > necessary before dropping it. I admit, being an ISPF/XEDIT bigot > here, I > > routinely have two, three, or more files open in the same editor > session and > > cut and paste between them. > > > > But my fingers forget what my brain tells 'em, and I keep finding > myself > > closing out an entire editing session, instead of just the one file I > am > > interested in closing. :) > > > > Also, it would be nice to be able to hit NEW and have it ask for a > file, it > > currently says it does not take any arguments. > > You've got to first tell us which editor you are using. > Sorry - the default editor for 8.3- EVE. I have most of the defines I want in an EVE$INIT.EVE file, but looks like I will have to LISP a bit over to the TPU commands file that JFM referenced in a previous message. -Paul ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.426 ************************