INFO-VAX Thu, 09 Aug 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 433 Contents: Re: Easy DCL question PURGE vs. DELETE Re: Easy DCL question PURGE vs. DELETE Re: Easy DCL question PURGE vs. DELETE Re: Easy DCL question PURGE vs. DELETE Re: Easy DCL question PURGE vs. DELETE Re: Easy DCL question PURGE vs. DELETE Re: Easy DCL question PURGE vs. DELETE Re: Farewell Paul Repacholi Re: How can I create symbol thru Perl "system" command? Re: July the 4th Re: OpenVMS and Smart Array Controllers Re: OpenVMS and Smart Array Controllers Re: OpenVMS and Smart Array Controllers Re: OpenVMS and Smart Array Controllers Re: OpenVMS and Smart Array Controllers Re: Rexx for OpenVMS Re: VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion RE: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:38:13 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Easy DCL question PURGE vs. DELETE Message-ID: <46BA0D95.7070102@comcast.net> norm.raphael@metso.com wrote: > > > Doug Phillips wrote on 08/08/2007 12:10:27 PM: > > >>On Aug 7, 3:53 pm, norm.raph...@metso.com wrote: >> >>>Doug Phillips wrote on 08/07/2007 04:15:30 PM: >>> >>> >>>[snip >8] >>> >>>Aha! ...but that's illogical. No wonder folks are conflicted. >> >> >>Makes you wonder why the HP folks have been so silent on this (and not >>just here.) Seems like *someone* in-the-know would explain it if there >>is an explanation. Do you suppose there's been just such a debate as >>this going on internally? Is there a purge-gate cover-up conspiracy? >>(and JF's door opens.) Or, does no one in HP see it as an issue >>worth discussing? >> >> > > On fait ce q'on peut. > As M once remarked, "This is not the Berlitz School of Languages". Would you be so kind as to provide a "crib" for the monolingual among us? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 13:04:34 -0600 From: Keith Parris Subject: Re: Easy DCL question PURGE vs. DELETE Message-ID: Richard B. Gilbert wrote: >> On fait ce q'on peut. > > As M once remarked, "This is not the Berlitz School of Languages". Would > you be so kind as to provide a "crib" for the monolingual among us? With a little help from Altavista/Babelfish and Google, I'll guess that it means "One does what one can." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 15:02:05 -0400 From: norm.raphael@metso.com Subject: Re: Easy DCL question PURGE vs. DELETE Message-ID: "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote on 08/08/2007 02:38:13 PM: > norm.raphael@metso.com wrote: > > > > > > Doug Phillips wrote on 08/08/2007 12:10:27 PM: > > > > > >>On Aug 7, 3:53 pm, norm.raph...@metso.com wrote: > >> > >>>Doug Phillips wrote on 08/07/2007 04:15:30 PM: > >>> > >>> > >>>[snip >8] > >>> > >>>Aha! ...but that's illogical. No wonder folks are conflicted. > >> > >> > >>Makes you wonder why the HP folks have been so silent on this (and not > >>just here.) Seems like *someone* in-the-know would explain it if there > >>is an explanation. Do you suppose there's been just such a debate as > >>this going on internally? Is there a purge-gate cover-up conspiracy? > >>(and JF's door opens.) Or, does no one in HP see it as an issue > >>worth discussing? > >> > >> > > > > On fait ce q'on peut. > > > > As M once remarked, "This is not the Berlitz School of Languages". > Would you be so kind as to provide a "crib" for the monolingual among us? > Monolingual and semi-illiterate. Quote from Master of the Patna (IIRC) in Joseph Conrad's "Lord Jim" meaning "One does what one is able to do." or, loosely, "You do your best." (This from English, not French, literature. The captain happened to speak French.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 15:46:16 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Easy DCL question PURGE vs. DELETE Message-ID: <46BA1D88.1010505@comcast.net> norm.raphael@metso.com wrote: > > > "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote on 08/08/2007 02:38:13 > PM: > > >>norm.raphael@metso.com wrote: >> >>> >>>Doug Phillips wrote on 08/08/2007 12:10:27 PM: >>> >>> >>> >>>>On Aug 7, 3:53 pm, norm.raph...@metso.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Doug Phillips wrote on 08/07/2007 04:15:30 PM: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>[snip >8] >>>>> >>>>>Aha! ...but that's illogical. No wonder folks are conflicted. >>>> >>>> >>>>Makes you wonder why the HP folks have been so silent on this (and not >>>>just here.) Seems like *someone* in-the-know would explain it if there >>>>is an explanation. Do you suppose there's been just such a debate as >>>>this going on internally? Is there a purge-gate cover-up conspiracy? >>>>(and JF's door opens.) Or, does no one in HP see it as an issue >>>>worth discussing? >>>> >>>> >>> >>>On fait ce q'on peut. >>> >> >>As M once remarked, "This is not the Berlitz School of Languages". >>Would you be so kind as to provide a "crib" for the monolingual among us? >> > > > Monolingual and semi-illiterate. > > Quote from Master of the Patna (IIRC) in Joseph Conrad's "Lord Jim" > meaning "One does what one is able to do." or, loosely, "You do your best." > > (This from English, not French, literature. The captain happened to speak > French.) > That's one that I was never required to read. The "literature" that I was required to read was mostly so deadly dull that I was never moved to read any non-required literature. But I not only remember what M said, I also remember who he said it to! Hint: it was not James Bond! And actually I have a slight acquaintance with Spanish, German, Japanese, and Turkish though I am not fluent in any of them. For extra credit, what was M's full name and title? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 15:58:16 -0400 From: norm.raphael@metso.com Subject: Re: Easy DCL question PURGE vs. DELETE Message-ID: norm.raphael@metso.com wrote on 08/08/2007 03:02:05 PM: > > > > "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote on 08/08/2007 02:38:13 > PM: > > > norm.raphael@metso.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > Doug Phillips wrote on 08/08/2007 12:10:27 PM: > > > > > > > > >>On Aug 7, 3:53 pm, norm.raph...@metso.com wrote: > > >> > > >>>Doug Phillips wrote on 08/07/2007 04:15:30 PM: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>[snip >8] > > >>> > > >>>Aha! ...but that's illogical. No wonder folks are conflicted. > > >> > > >> > > >>Makes you wonder why the HP folks have been so silent on this (and not > > >>just here.) Seems like *someone* in-the-know would explain it if there > > >>is an explanation. Do you suppose there's been just such a debate as > > >>this going on internally? Is there a purge-gate cover-up conspiracy? > > >>(and JF's door opens.) Or, does no one in HP see it as an issue > > >>worth discussing? > > >> > > >> > > > > > > On fait ce q'on peut. > > > > > > > As M once remarked, "This is not the Berlitz School of Languages". > > Would you be so kind as to provide a "crib" for the monolingual among us? > > > > Monolingual and semi-illiterate. > > Quote from Master of the Patna (IIRC) in Joseph Conrad's "Lord Jim" > meaning "One does what one is able to do." or, loosely, "You do your best." More accurately: "One does what one can." Quote from a French Officer who boarded the Patna after she drifted and who stayed on board some 36 hours. (The Captain was German.) Those "little gray cells" sometimes distort recall. > > (This from English, not French, literature. The captain happened to speak > French.) > ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 2007 21:43:28 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Easy DCL question PURGE vs. DELETE Message-ID: <5huro0F3lmve4U1@mid.individual.net> In article , norm.raphael@metso.com writes: > > > > "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote on 08/08/2007 02:38:13 > PM: > >> norm.raphael@metso.com wrote: >> > >> > >> > Doug Phillips wrote on 08/08/2007 12:10:27 PM: >> > >> > >> >>On Aug 7, 3:53 pm, norm.raph...@metso.com wrote: >> >> >> >>>Doug Phillips wrote on 08/07/2007 04:15:30 PM: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>[snip >8] >> >>> >> >>>Aha! ...but that's illogical. No wonder folks are conflicted. >> >> >> >> >> >>Makes you wonder why the HP folks have been so silent on this (and not >> >>just here.) Seems like *someone* in-the-know would explain it if there >> >>is an explanation. Do you suppose there's been just such a debate as >> >>this going on internally? Is there a purge-gate cover-up conspiracy? >> >>(and JF's door opens.) Or, does no one in HP see it as an issue >> >>worth discussing? >> >> >> >> >> > >> > On fait ce q'on peut. >> > >> >> As M once remarked, "This is not the Berlitz School of Languages". >> Would you be so kind as to provide a "crib" for the monolingual among us? >> > > Monolingual and semi-illiterate. > > Quote from Master of the Patna (IIRC) in Joseph Conrad's "Lord Jim" > meaning "One does what one is able to do." or, loosely, "You do your best." > > (This from English, not French, literature. The captain happened to speak > French.) > Q; What do you call a person who speaks three languages? A: Tri-lingual. Q; What do you call a person who speaks two languages? A: Bi-lingual. Q; What do you call a person who only speaks one language? A: American. 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: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 07:18:17 +0200 From: "P. Sture" Subject: Re: Easy DCL question PURGE vs. DELETE Message-ID: In article , norm.raphael@metso.com wrote: > > > > > > > > On fait ce q'on peut. > > > > > > More accurately: "One does what one can." Quote from a French Officer who > boarded the Patna after she drifted and who stayed on board some 36 hours. > (The Captain was German.) Those "little gray cells" sometimes distort > recall. > > Talking of "little grey cells", mine would have written "qu'on" rather than "q'on". A Google search produces both forms, so which is the more correct French, or are both acceptable? -- Paul Sture Sue's OpenVMS bookmarks: http://eisner.encompasserve.org/~sture/ovms-bookmarks.html ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 2007 04:54:05 GMT From: "dave weatherall" Subject: Re: Farewell Paul Repacholi Message-ID: <5hvkvdF3ehp9eU1@mid.individual.net> mustang@NOSPAM.ucc.asn.au wrote: > Hello, > It is my sad duty to inform you all that our friend Paul Repacholi has > passed away. > Paul died in the wee hours of 15-JUL-2007 and was farewelled by family > and friends in a very dignified service today. > > Regards, > David Manchester. What a thing to find while I'm catching up after being off-line for nearly a month. I'm really sorry to hear this. My sympathies to his family. -- Cheers - Dave ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:51:27 -0500 From: "Craig A. Berry" Subject: Re: How can I create symbol thru Perl "system" command? Message-ID: In article <1186548668.918167.83920@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Hein RMS van den Heuvel wrote: > On Aug 8, 12:43 am, "John E. Malmberg" wrote: > > Perl does a LIB$FIND_FILE to obtain the image name that will be put in > > the MCR command. I suppose that dropping the version number could be > > done. I do not see why it would need to be restricted to installed images. > > Me neither. Just strip the version... more Unix like that way. My one caveat would be that we should only strip the version when it's not explicitly specified, but that shouldn't be too hard. The relevant bit would be in the setup_cmddsc function in [.vms]vms.c in the Perl distribution, most easily browsed here: http://public.activestate.com/cgi-bin/perlbrowse/f/vms/vms.c Patches welcome, but I may even get around to this myself someday. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:44:09 -0700 From: AEF Subject: Re: July the 4th Message-ID: <1186620249.987032.4480@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> On Aug 8, 11:18 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > In article <1186442318.376946.4...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes: > >On Aug 6, 11:12 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > >> In article <1186363007.921609.27...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes:>On Aug 5, 7:55 pm, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > >> >> In article <1186334184.382451.138...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes: > > >> >> >[...] > > >[...discussion about the document about Israeli "racism" omitted, but > >referred to below...] > > >> >> >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. > > >> >> Of course the Arab countries going to war to destroy the newly created Israel > >> >> was an agression - at least as defined by the UN charter (they were invading a > >> >> sovereign nation). > >> >> As far as the Arabs were concerned the very act of creating Israel was an > >> >> agression that was perpetrated by the UN. > > >> >Well, if the Wikipedia article is right, even the Soviets (not > >> >normally Jew-friendly, BTW) considered the Arab invasion into the > >> >fledgling Israel to be _illegal_ aggression. > > >> Can you not read - I agreed that it was an agression as defined by the UN > >> charter. If you want I'll say it's an illegal agression as defined by the UN > >> charter. Any invasion of a sovereign nation is an illegal agression as defined > >> by the UN charter unless sanctioned by the UN. > > >OK, maybe I missed it. But you seemed to be saying it was justified. > > Apartheid was legal in South Africa. My point was that even the Soviets thought it was, in their opinion, unjustified. Why else would they claim it was illegal? > (You may say that OK Apartheid was legal in South Africa but South Africa was > just one country whereas the legal status of Israel was defined by the " > world community" via the UN. However imagine for a minute that Hitler had won > the second world war and along with Japan and Italy and a few others had > setup his own new league of nations. Would you then be arguing that the Jews > outside his immediate control should meekly submit to rulings against them > because those rules were passed legally by that world community ?) Of course not. This is patently absurd. First of all, if Hitler had won WWII he wouldn't have let the Jews live long enough to fight back. And exactly how would they have fought back? They'd probably all be dead before the conquest was finished. You're drawing a parallel between Hitler and the world of 1947? OK, maybe you're saying that just because "the world" gave a small piece of land to the Zionists doesn't automatically make it right. Well, if that's the case, just say so. In fact, I don't think I ever made that claim. I only claimed it was very wrong for the Arabs to attack Israel in 1948 (not to forgive all the other attacks!). OK, I suppose there's some implication there. But your point doesn't automatically make it wrong, either. > The fact that some party decides something is legal doesn't change the > viewpoint of the other party if it seems grossly unfair to them. > Disputes are based upon viewpoints and justice as perceived > by the parties involved. > > (I'm certainly happy to accept that the UN created Israel legally - even if not > being an international lawyer it's assumption of the imperial colonial powers > necessary for such an act seems to sit rather uncomfortably with its > commitments in it's charter to self-determination. > ) > > As I said before both parties have valid arguments in favour of their viewpoint > - the legality of Israels establishment and the illegality of the agression > against it by the surrounding Arab nations are part of the Israeli viewpoint. > > I can just as easily argue the Israeli viewpoint but that would hardly be > much of a discussion since you are propounding that viewpoint. > (I say just as easily - but since one part of the Israeli viewpoint is based on > God having given them this land, as an atheist, I have problems supporting > that view but can understand it as a powerful part of their viewpoint.) Just to be clear, I don't make the God argument. Also, the religious Jews strongly fought the creation of Israel. "We have to wait for the Messiah" they cried. It was secular Jews who pushed for the creation of the state. (Of course it is the religious right wing who wants to build more and more settlements in the WB and wanted to stay in Gaza, etc. Ironic, huh?) > >> That doesn't alter the Arabs view that the UN action in creating Israel was > >> also an agression. > > >Why? It was under British rule at the time. That didn't bother them. > >ALL of it was under British rule. But if half of it is under Jewish > >rule, suddenly it's a problem. > > >> >> As I said before how would you react if an outside power such as the UN > >> >> suddenly gave your home to foreign refugees ? > > >Again a gross oversimplification. The US now has millions of illegal > >immigrants and many in our gov't want to give them amnesty which will > >only encourage millions more to come. But I certainly don't advocate > >killing any of them. > > >> >First of all, this is a gross oversimplification of what happened. I > >> >don't know all of what happened, but I know there is a lot more to it > >> >than you mention in your question. > > >> The only simplification is that I did not mention - as I have in another post - > >> the mass migration of Jewish refugees which started, in relatively few > >> numbers and peacefully , in the 1880s under the ottoman empire. This then > >> continued but turned into a flood under the British Mandate - particularly in > >> the 30s and illegally during the second world war - which severely upset the > >> local arab population. > > >> So for your benefit I will rephrase the question :- > > >> How would you react if your government allowed in tons of refugees to your home > >> state and then when their numbers had grown sufficiently high the UN decided > >> that your home state should now be split in two with half being given as a > >> homeland for these refugees and any of their distant relatives who wished to > >> come in the future ? > > >It wasn't their home state. It was under British rule. And if I were > >an Arab or Palestinian under such a situation I'd be thrilled just to > >have a state. Remember, the P's NEVER had their own state. If they > >would have accepted the partition, then they would have had their > >"home state". > > Until the British carved up the ottoman empire they were citizens of the > empire. The Arabs wanted the British out but they probably didn't really want > a Palestinian state as such - what they wanted and what lots of Arabs still > want is a single united Arab state, of which Palestine would have been a > province, comprising pretty much all of the Middle East ie the territory of > the ottoman empire. Before the first world war the whole of the Middle East was > the Arab's state as you put it. > Saying the Palestinians didn't have a state is like saying that Yorkshiremen > (those coming from the English county of Yorkshire) don't have a state. It's > true in the sense that Yorkshire is not a state but untrue in that it is part > of a larger entity - England and the UK. > Given the character of Yorkshiremen I can assure you that they would definitely > fight if someone gave half their county away. And at the same time given them the other half all to themselves, and the other non-parallel is that I think Yorkshirites have a lot more in common with Britons than the P's or Arabs do. And why are Yorkshireman supposed to be the gold standard for what to do in this type of situation? > >> >Regardless, I seriously doubt I'd call for an invasion if I were in > >> >that position. > > >> I already told you what I would expect with my picture of what Britain and > >> the republic of ireland would have done if the UN had planted a refugee > >> nation in Northern Ireland. Damn right I would have expected them to invade. > >> I cannot seriously imagine that the US population would allow some > >> international body or collection of nations to just setup a nation state on > >> US mainland territory. > > >Again, the big difference is that your analogies refer to people who > >already had their own soverign nations. The P's did not. They would > >have if they would have accepted the partition. The P's in Israel > >proper today are probably far better off than the P's in the WB and > >Gaza. > > The fact that following the first world war the British and French had carved > up the ottoman empire and the British were ruling as an occupying power had > little bearing upon how the Arabs viewed their ownership of land they had lived > on for uncounted generations. But when Palestine was split between the Jews and Arabs, suddenly it was a big deal. > >> >And why didn't the Arabs invade Palestine to capture it back from > >> >Britain? > > >> Britain was an imperial power still pretty much at the height of it's power > >> after world war I. The other arab nations were themselves newly created by the > >> British and French by their carving up of the ottoman empire. The new rulers of > >> these arab states were handpicked by the British and French. > >> In some cases the populations in these countries were beginning to form > >> nationalist movements aiming to kick the british and french out of their > >> countries and topple handpicked rulers but achieving those aims was far in the > >> future - and by then Britain's imperial power would be fading fast. > > >I think it would have been a net gain for all involved if the P's and > >neighboring Arab states had accepted the partition. > > >So you admit it's an illegal aggression yet you continue to try to > >justify it. > > You seem to think that somebody laying down a law irrespective of the effect of > that law on particular people means that those people should just meekly accept > it. Laws are man made. The history of civilisation is the fight against what > groups of people see as unjust laws. Then what's the point of laws? In the international arena, who is decide how just they are? Yes, people should fight against "unjust" laws. So they thought the creation of Israel was unjust. That's their opinion. Doesn't make it right. > If you had setup Israel almost anywhere in the world without the explicit > consent of the local population you would have had the same reaction. Anywhere else in the world would lose the parallel in that the inhabitants in the rest of the world have their own country. And I'm not convinced it would be the same reaction everywhere. Also, I'd like to point out that perhaps you don't give the S. African blacks enough credit for not slaughtering all the S. African whites. Many have been killed "in the spotlight of world attention". > However there were "good" reasons for setting it up in Palestine. > > The Jews were being persecuted in Europe and saw settling in Palestine as a > way to escape that persecution. From their point of view Palestine was the > chosen land given to them by God. Again, it was the SECULAR Jews who fought for the creation of Israel and the RELIGIOUS ones who fought very hard against it. > The world Zionist Organisations original strategy was to obtain the permission > of the Ottaman Sultan Abd-ul-Hamid II to allow systematic settlement in > Palestine. The good offices of the German emperor, Willhelm II, were sought but > nothing came of this. Instead the WZO pursued a strategy of building a homeland > through small-scale immigration. > Chaim Weizmann's invention of cordite was critical for the allies during world > war 1 and he gained influence with the British government and as leader of the > Zionist movement was instrumental in getting British government support in > the form of the Balfour declaration. > > From > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration%2C_1917#Text_develop... > > During the first meeting between Weizmann and Balfour in 1906, Balfour asked > what payment Weizmann would accept for use of his process and was told, "There > is only one thing I want: A national home for my people." Balfour asked > Weizmann why Palestine ? and Palestine alone ? should be the Zionist homeland. > "Anything else would be idolatry", Weizmann protested, adding: "Mr. Balfour, > supposing I was to offer you Paris instead of London, would you take it?" "But > Dr. Weizmann", Balfour retorted, "we have London", to which Weizmann rejoined, > "That is true, but we had Jerusalem when London was a marsh." > > Weizmann eventually received both monetary compensation for his discovery and > his place in history as first President of the state of Israel. [End of Wikipeida quote] > The declaration used the word home rather than state and specified that it's > establishment must not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing > non-jewish communities in Palestine". I believe, in Israel, all religions are allowed freedom to worship as they wish, as long as it doesn't involve unreasonable things like killing all the infidels. This was not the case when Jerusalem was under Arab control. Only Islam was allowed. > The limited settlement already begun in Palestine under the WZO plus the > Balfour declaration thus ensured where any contemplated Jewish homeland would > be setup. > The Nazis during the 1930s and the holocaust during the second world war then > made the setting up of such a homeland pretty much inevitable. > > (Whether the existence of Israel would really provide much protection to Jews > around the world against a future holocaust is somewhat open to debate since > just moving all the Jews in the US to Israel would double the size of Israel's > population.) At least there'd be a place for non-Israeli Jews to go if anti- Semitism starts rearing its ugly head and at least there'd be a state Jews could always depend upon for support. No, it doesn't guarantee the protection of each and every Jew in the world, but it's certainly better than not having a state. If Israel existed during WWII it could have joined the Allies. > Hence from the point of view of the Jews a Jewish homeland in Palestine had > been promised them both by God and by the British (and through their influence It was the SECULAR .... > the other main world powers - culminating in promises by the league of Nations > and UN). This homeland was from their viewpoint a necessity because of the > persecution they had been suffering especially later because of the holocaust. > From the Jewish point of view since the UN had promised them a homeland > it was setup legally. > > However since they did not agree to it but just had this nation forced upon > them the Palestinians had a rather different point of view and reacted > accordingly. You conveniently omit the fact that they were offered half for themselves and turned it down. If all of Palestine were given to the Jews, you'd have a better case. But you repeatedly keep ignoring that. > Both points of view are valid points of view. Noone is going to convince the > Israelis that their point of view is wrong - neither is anyone going to convince > the Palestinians and the surrounding Arab populations. > But to solve the problem both sides need to recognise the others point of view > and work towards a compromise position. The 1947 partition plan was such a compromise. > > David Webb > Security team leader > CCSS > Middlesex University AEF ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 14:00:37 -0400 From: "David Turner, Island Computers" Subject: Re: OpenVMS and Smart Array Controllers Message-ID: <13bk13m67mcls38@news.supernews.com> Well, eric, I have 20+ in stock David -- David B Turner Island Computers US Corp 2700 Gregory St, Suite 180 Savannah GA 31404 T: 877-6364332 x201 Intl: 001 912 447 6622 E: dturner@islandco.com F: 912 201 0402 W: http://www.islandco.com wrote in message news:1186590844.210436.256070@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On 8 Aug, 05:19, ditt...@dittman.net wrote: >> I notice the Smart Array 5302, 5304, 6402, 6404, and P400 >> controllers are supported on OpenVMS but the P600 is not. >> Was there a reason why support for the P600 wasn't added? >> >> I was looking at a way to add inexpensive large hard drives >> to my home systems and thought the P600 would be ideal since >> it works with SATA drives. I borrowed one to try and after >> adding the PCI ID to SYS$SYSTEM:USER_CONFIG.DAT it does work >> but not as a boot device. That's not a show-stopper for me >> as there are a couple of SCSI drives in the system that are >> used for the VMS system disk shadow set and a third hard >> drive that's the dump device/scratch disk. >> >> On the subject of using SATA disks with VMS: >> >> I also tried a LSISAS1068-based controller and it worked on >> my rx2620 with SATA drives with no changes to the system needed. >> The system will boot from the disk but it VMS crashes shortly >> into the boot. As with the P600 this isn't a problem for me >> since I can boot from SCSI disks. >> >> Neither option is supported but I don't have support on the >> systems. I did a lot of testing on the drives and didn't see >> any issues but I have the data backed up to tape. >> -- >> Eric Dittman >> ditt...@dittman.net > > In our experience at the moment, getting 5302A or 6402A cards is > rather a challenge. They're on a lead time of weeks rather than days > (i.e. like 6 weeks) if you can get them at all. :o( > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:45:21 GMT From: dittman@dittman.net Subject: Re: OpenVMS and Smart Array Controllers Message-ID: MattF wrote: > > On the subject of using SATA disks with VMS: > > > > I also tried a LSISAS1068-based controller and it worked on > > my rx2620 with SATA drives with no changes to the system needed. > > The system will boot from the disk but it VMS crashes shortly > > into the boot. As with the P600 this isn't a problem for me > > since I can boot from SCSI disks. > > > Out of curiousity, were the disks configured as a hardware RAID > volume? No. > (Playing around with VMware ESX - it would only accept SATA on the > 1068's if the controller had the disks configured as a RAID (anything) > volume - then the controllers 'logical volume' looks like SCSI to the > host) The individual drives look like SCSI to VMS. > Anyone know whether the LSISAS1068 cards work on Alpha? (seem to > remember driver was there in 8.3 last time I checked) > Unfortunately they're 3.3V only PCI-X cards so probably only something > newer like a DS15 with 3.3V PCI slots. I haven't tried on an Alpha. -- Eric Dittman dittman@dittman.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:58:20 GMT From: dittman@dittman.net Subject: Re: OpenVMS and Smart Array Controllers Message-ID: Robert Deininger wrote: > In article <7vbui.7695$dD3.456@trnddc07>, dittman@dittman.net wrote: > > I notice the Smart Array 5302, 5304, 6402, 6404, and P400 > > controllers are supported on OpenVMS but the P600 is not. > > Was there a reason why support for the P600 wasn't added? > Is P600 the PCI-X based SmartArray controller for SAS (and SATA) disks? > I don't have my secret decoder ring handy to translate the code names > (which I know) to product names (which I don't remember off the top). Yes. Which is why I was surprised it wasn't supported as there are quite a few existing Integrity systems with PCI-X slots. > If I'm thinking of the right card, the main factor in the decision was > to concentrate effort on fewer cards in order to get them ready for > market sooner. The PCI-Express card was chosen over the PCI-X card. I can understand this given your following comment on the controllers. > The SmartArray controllers are always a bit of a challenge for VMS (and > HP-UX and linux). Our workloads tend to uncover firmware problems that > don't matter in the Proliant environment where the controllers are first > introduced. These have to be diagnosed and fixed, and new FW gotten > into the supply chain and out to customers. Usually this happens a few > times before the card is ready to support. I've used an SA5304 in the past and I'm not surprised they are a challenge to VMS. Having to use ORCA or ACU to configure them is a bit of a pain. I noticed MSA$UTIL will configure them now but not having a system with an SA5304 loaded I can't confirm if that's easier (it doesn't like the P600, which is understandable as it's not supported). > There are known problems with older firmware on the controllers and > disks. If the HW came from the Proliant supply chain, it doesn't > necessarily have the right firmware. If it came from the Integrity > supply chain, recently, it should be right. Since you're providing your > own support, it's up to you to check, and upgrade the FW if necessary. It looks like it has the latest firmware but I can always reload. In any case, as it's not supported I'd rather use the much cheaper LSISAS1068 controller instead. > AFAIK, the P600 did NOT get FW fixes matching the ones that went into > it's relatives to permit VMS and Unix support. Windows and Linux are the only supported operating systems for the controller. > > I was looking at a way to add inexpensive large hard drives > > to my home systems and thought the P600 would be ideal since > > it works with SATA drives. I borrowed one to try and after > > adding the PCI ID to SYS$SYSTEM:USER_CONFIG.DAT it does work > > but not as a boot device. That's not a show-stopper for me > > as there are a couple of SCSI drives in the system that are > > used for the VMS system disk shadow set and a third hard > > drive that's the dump device/scratch disk. > You didn't specify: Integrity or Alpha? All bets are off on Alpha. Definitely Integrity. > > On the subject of using SATA disks with VMS: > > > > I also tried a LSISAS1068-based controller and it worked on > > my rx2620 with SATA drives with no changes to the system needed. > > The system will boot from the disk but it VMS crashes shortly > > into the boot. As with the P600 this isn't a problem for me > > since I can boot from SCSI disks. > Last I heard, in informal use, HP SATA drives work just as well as HP > SAS drives with these controllers. To maximize the likelihood of > success, make sure you have: > 1. VMS V8.3 with the latest patches. > 2. The latest FW and EFI driver for your controller. > 3. The latest FW for your disks. I have loaded the latest of everything. I suspect that the actual revision of the LSISAS1068 might be the issue. The one I have (a SAS3080X-HP) has an A1 rev. The latest firmware for the LSISAS1068 only supports the B0 and B1 revs. I'm going to keep my eye out for a controller with a newer rev. to test. Is the controller on the rx2660 and rx3600 integrated or on a separate board? > VMS hasn't formally qualified the SATA disks because the platform HW > teams haven't done so. Even if VMS did all the OS testing required, > there'd still be no supported systems to put the cards into. Understandable. > There could be FW problems lurking in the SATA disks that have been > fixed in the SAS disks. That's entirely possible. > At some point, Integrity servers and VMS may start supporting SATA disks. That would be nice. -- Eric Dittman dittman@dittman.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:10:02 GMT From: dittman@dittman.net Subject: Re: OpenVMS and Smart Array Controllers Message-ID: David Turner, Island Computers wrote: > Well, eric, I have 20+ in stock That was Steve that was having trouble finding them. -- Eric Dittman dittman@dittman.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 20:53:54 +0000 (UTC) From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: OpenVMS and Smart Array Controllers Message-ID: > I have loaded the latest of everything. I suspect that the actual > revision of the LSISAS1068 might be the issue. The one I have (a > SAS3080X-HP) has an A1 rev. The latest firmware for the LSISAS1068 > only supports the B0 and B1 revs. I'm going to keep my eye out for > a controller with a newer rev. to test. > Is the controller on the rx2660 and rx3600 integrated or on a > separate board? Speaking only to rx2660 hardware, and having installed a P400 into two, I can say I believe the LSImumble on the rx2660 is on the motherboard. I know it does not occupy the low-profile PCIe slot on the motherboard which gets enabled/used by the P400 when that is ordered. rick jones -- portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :) feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:23:35 -0700 From: "Tom Linden" Subject: Re: Rexx for OpenVMS Message-ID: On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 10:08:12 -0700, wrote: > It it worked REXX would have been a cool extension to DCL as Rexx has > this > unique feature of passing on unused strings return values to the command > prompt or the editor - or whereever Rexx was embedded into. Martin, do let us know when you have a working binary:-) -- PL/I for OpenVMS www.kednos.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:09:50 -0500 From: David J Dachtera Subject: Re: VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall Message-ID: <46BA5B4E.85D13C17@spam.comcast.net> Thomas Dickey wrote: > > David J Dachtera wrote: > > You'll want to look into SMG. See the following... > > >> but all of them are complex > > > Not much worse than "termcap" and "curses", really... > > ...but certainly far more limiting. If the terminal supports features > not explicitly in one of DEC's terminals, SMG doesn't support it. D'y'ever look at SYS$SYSTEM:SMGTERMS.TXT? Need support for a terminal not in there? Add what you need where you need it. ...just be aware that not everything you might expect use SMG actually does! -- 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: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 23:35:57 -0000 From: ultradwc@gmail.com Subject: Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion Message-ID: <1186616157.043786.47460@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com> On Aug 7, 12:57 pm, yyyc186 wrote: > On Aug 7, 11:40 am, JF Mezei wrote: > > > Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > > > I thought that was Sue! > > > Sue may be our champion and the only one within HP able to give us any > > hope, but she still isn't "HP" and still isn't allowed to send out a > > press release to the news wires, and still not able to do real marketing > > outside the installed base. Her hands are tied by Stallard/Livermore. > > And right now those two are busy pushing a chip the market never > (Titanic) needed along with an OS that never served a purpose (UX). I > never thought I would say this, but I look forward to IBM buying > OpenVMS. don't hold your breath ... read this response to an email I wrote several years ago ... http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10006 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:17:28 -0500 From: David J Dachtera Subject: Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion Message-ID: <46BA5D18.B9FD94A3@spam.comcast.net> Bill Gunshannon wrote: > > In article , > david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: > > In article <752c3$46b8b34e$cef8887a$5871@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei writes: > >>Bill Gunshannon wrote: > >>> Never gonna happen!!! HP will never sell it and IBM would never want it. > >> > >>As long as the idiot middle managers keep on brainwashing Hurd that they > >>can retain VMS customers and move them to HP-UX, then Hurd isn't going > >>to consider selling VMS. > >> > >>If, on the other hand, it would be made very clear to Hurd that those 2 > >>idiots are manipulating him and that not growing VMS means losing those > >>customers to competitors, then HP might see an advantage of selling VMS > >>to a friendly outfit. This way, HP gets some money from the sale of VMS > >>and its custormers and wouldn't be giving more market share to IBM/Sun. > > > > If VMS ran on industry standard x86-64 or on Power then just maybe IBM might be > > interested for the right price. But running on Itanic ? > > This concept has come up before but never really been asnwered. Why > would IBM want to see anything other than the final death of VMS? To open those doors which remain tightly locked by UN*X's inherent lack of security? > (And > they don't need top buy it for that, HP is doing just fine on it's own.) Common knowledge. (Only HP remains blissfully unaware of it.) > Where, exactly, do people here see a hole in IBM's offerings that could > be filled by VMS? See the VMS doc. set. > They already cover desktop to mainframe, what more > could they want that owning VMS would give them? Entry into those markets currently closed by VMS's foothold? Now - to flip that coin over: What could IBM bring to VMS that it currently lacks? - A return to virtualization (LPARS) - A return to marketing - A return to profitability - A return to a respectable market share Seems a marriage made in heaven! -- 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: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 20:22:20 -0500 From: "Paul Raulerson" Subject: RE: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion Message-ID: <005601c7da23$bb530840$31f918c0$@com> > > > If VMS ran on industry standard x86-64 or on Power then just maybe > IBM might be > > > interested for the right price. But running on Itanic ? > > > > This concept has come up before but never really been asnwered. Why > > would IBM want to see anything other than the final death of VMS? > > To open those doors which remain tightly locked by UN*X's inherent lack > of > security? To answer just this little snippet, UNIX security is not bad, and is roughly on par with VMS. You probably do not like to hear that, but it is. Most Unix break ins occur on Linux running on PC's operated by hobbyists. Not of data center machines. And to make that more specific, most Linux security breaches are centered around web services or disgruntled employees, not around virus issues and what not. In regard to the IBM question: IBM would not be interested in VMS because, to be brutally honest, VMS does not have anything IBM already does not have. And IBM has a lot that VMS does not have. A powerful lot indeed. If it ran on zSeries hardware they would snap it up though, because that is one more powerful mainframe operating system they could run. VMS can, and should, be a powerful competitor to IBM, and leaving all the rhetoric of Alpha vs. Itanium aside, HP is doing a really good job supporting it. If you don't believe that, you don't. For whatever reason, looking at Facts, like how much money HP spends on VMS or how much they have invested in it, or how they dumped HP3000 MPX/E but *kept* VMS, well... Said it before, go sell some systems; support will "magically" materialize. -Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: David J Dachtera [mailto:djesys.no@spam.comcast.net] > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 7:17 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal > champion > > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > > > > In article , > > david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: > > > In article <752c3$46b8b34e$cef8887a$5871@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei > writes: > > >>Bill Gunshannon wrote: > > >>> Never gonna happen!!! HP will never sell it and IBM would never > want it. > > >> > > >>As long as the idiot middle managers keep on brainwashing Hurd that > they > > >>can retain VMS customers and move them to HP-UX, then Hurd isn't > going > > >>to consider selling VMS. > > >> > > >>If, on the other hand, it would be made very clear to Hurd that > those 2 > > >>idiots are manipulating him and that not growing VMS means losing > those > > >>customers to competitors, then HP might see an advantage of selling > VMS > > >>to a friendly outfit. This way, HP gets some money from the sale of > VMS > > >>and its custormers and wouldn't be giving more market share to > IBM/Sun. > > > > > > If VMS ran on industry standard x86-64 or on Power then just maybe > IBM might be > > > interested for the right price. But running on Itanic ? > > > > This concept has come up before but never really been asnwered. Why > > would IBM want to see anything other than the final death of VMS? > > To open those doors which remain tightly locked by UN*X's inherent lack > of > security? > > > (And > > they don't need top buy it for that, HP is doing just fine on it's > own.) > > Common knowledge. (Only HP remains blissfully unaware of it.) > > > Where, exactly, do people here see a hole in IBM's offerings that > could > > be filled by VMS? > > See the VMS doc. set. > > > They already cover desktop to mainframe, what more > > could they want that owning VMS would give them? > > Entry into those markets currently closed by VMS's foothold? > > Now - to flip that coin over: > > What could IBM bring to VMS that it currently lacks? > > - A return to virtualization (LPARS) > - A return to marketing > - A return to profitability > - A return to a respectable market share > > Seems a marriage made in heaven! > > -- > 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/ ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.433 ************************