INFO-VAX Tue, 17 Jun 2008 Volume 2008 : Issue 336 Contents: Re: Availability Digest reviews OpenVMS Clusters Re: Availability Digest reviews OpenVMS Clusters Re: Availability Digest reviews OpenVMS Clusters Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Cobol compilation hangs under vms 7-3 Re: Cobol compilation hangs under vms 7-3 Re: Determining display device for a process Re: Determining display device for a process RE: Determining display device for a process Re: FTP client: stripping version numbers and forcing lowercase on MPUT Re: Interesting job ad from HP Re: OpenVMS Alpha 8.4 release date and new functionality ? Re: OpenVMS Alpha 8.4 release date and new functionality ? Re: What is a Weendoze .CHM file? Re: What is a Weendoze .CHM file? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:48:56 -0700 (PDT) From: ewilts Subject: Re: Availability Digest reviews OpenVMS Clusters Message-ID: <8397eddf-942c-4f9b-9356-972e254cd17b@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> On Jun 16, 5:47 am, IanMiller wrote: > Availability Digest [http://www.availabilitydigest.com] (which covers > topics on Continuous Availabilty and the quest for 100% uptime) has > reviewed OpenVMS Clusters. > > The review describes OpenVMS Clusters and compares with other > clustering and active-active technologies and concludes "With these as > significant advantages, the author can think of no disadvantages of > OpenVMS clusters over today=92s contemporary cluster technology." The biggest disadvantage, of course, is that if a node fails, the processes on that node also fails. Depending on the application, this could be a minor hiccup or a major outage. VMS clustering isn't perfect, but it's the best that I've worked on. Tybalt> write sys$output f$getsyi("cluster_ftime") 30-MAY-1999 07:28:07.05 .../Ed -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA RHCE, BCFP, BCSD, SCSP, SCSE mailto:ewilts@ewilts.org ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 2008 14:28:01 -0500 From: BEGINcornelius@decuserve.orgEND (George Cornelius) Subject: Re: Availability Digest reviews OpenVMS Clusters Message-ID: Path: cornelius From: BEGINcornelius@decuserve.orgEND (George Cornelius) Newsgroups: comp.os.vms Subject: Re: Availability Digest reviews OpenVMS Clusters Message-ID: Date: 16 Jun 2008 14:26:01 -0500 References: <85699ca1-50a5-41fd-a6e1-16fe977dceea@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> <8397eddf-942c-4f9b-9356-972e254cd17b@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Organization: Encompasserve Lines: 19 In article <8397eddf-942c-4f9b-9356-972e254cd17b@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> , ewilts writes: > Tybalt> write sys$output f$getsyi("cluster_ftime") > 30-MAY-1999 07:28:07.05 $ write sys$output f$getsyi("cluster_ftime") 18-JUL-1998 23:22:54.77 Coming up on ten years. -- George Cornelius cornelius A T eisner D O T decus D O T org cornelius A T mayo D O T edu > .../Ed > -- > Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA > RHCE, BCFP, BCSD, SCSP, SCSE > mailto:ewilts@ewilts.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:20:24 -0700 (PDT) From: ewilts Subject: Re: Availability Digest reviews OpenVMS Clusters Message-ID: On Jun 16, 2:28 pm, BEGINcornel...@decuserve.orgEND (George Cornelius) wrote: > In article <8397eddf-942c-4f9b-9356-972e254cd...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> > , ewilts writes: > > > Tybalt> write sys$output f$getsyi("cluster_ftime") > > 30-MAY-1999 07:28:07.05 > > $ write sys$output f$getsyi("cluster_ftime") > 18-JUL-1998 23:22:54.77 > > Coming up on ten years. > > -- > George Cornelius cornelius A T eisner D O T decus D O T org > cornelius A T mayo D O T edu > > > .../Ed > > -- > > Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA > > RHCE, BCFP, BCSD, SCSP, SCSE > > mailto:ewi...@ewilts.org It must be the clean Minnesota air :-). 9+ for me and almost 10 for you. Any other state want to claim more than two 9+ years for cluster uptimes? .../Ed ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:58:48 -0600 From: Dan O'Reilly Subject: Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20080616114119.024c3cb8@raptor.psccos.com> At 11:24 AM 6/16/2008, AEF wrote: > > The point is, the use of taxes in the manner of those suggested by "carbon > > tax" is that it's fundamentally punitive in its nature, and it attempts to > > force technology. The free market dictates that change that is practical > > in its nature to implement (and yes, the reality is that $$$$ do enter in > > here, I'm already taxed more than enough) will be the driving force in > > changing to whatever the fuel of the future is. A carbon tax is simply a > > way to "legislate technology", or more appropriately, redistribute income. > >The point of "pollution taxes" is to reflect the costs to society that >aren't taken into account by the market. Pollution is a cost that >isn't included in the price. Would you really prefer a return to the >dirty air of the 60's? That was largely cured by gov't mandates on >pollution levels from car exhaust and industry. I just think that at >least in some cases a pollution tax is the better way to go to >accopmlish the same thing for reasons I already explained. I think that's a canard. There's no way this country would ever return to the pollution of the 60's. I agree the government played a big part in cleaning that up, but enough is enough. The government unfortunately doesn't believe the people are smart enough to know that cleaner is better. And they certainly don't know when to quit (the government, I mean). >Speaking of taxes, many tax deductions that help people who buy >houses, have capital gains income, have kids, use solar panels, and >zillion of other favored things are effectively punishing those who >don't, so why focus on pollution taxes whose purpose is to reflect the >true cost of polluting products and to minimize them with the greatest >possible efficiency? Because the market will take care of that WITHOUT the heavy hand of the government. Look at what's happening in the auto industry, if you need a really obvious example. Toyota has the Prius and what's going on? Tremendous profits from the Prius and terrible sales figures from their bigger V8 products. This is a DIRECT result of the marketplace speaking without the government forcing the issue. Why is it necessary to legislate what the market is demonstrably already taking care of? Same thing with houses: try to sell one that's less energy-efficient. Or appliances: who's selling more, the company with bad energy efficiency or the high-efficiency washer/driers? Again, all things largely being done because the marketplace is demanding it, not because of some government-mandated program! Let me throw one back at you: CF light bulbs. Technology legislated by the government, but legislation that never took into account what happens when you need to dispose of one, or you break one: POLLUTION that never was an issue with incandescent bulbs. How about legislated ethanol? It burns DIRTIER than the petroleum-based products it's supposed to replace, it takes a tremendous amount of money to distill, and it's having a demonstrable negative impact on food prices and supplies (and before someone says it, no, it's not the ONLY reason, but it's still a big part of it). What I'm saying is that if you want to REALLY screw something up, let the government legislate technology. >I was not posting a view on climate >change. I was simply pointing out what it would take to address it >(*if* it were true) and also the issue of fuel prices that people are >blaming on the oil companies when the true fault lies with supply and >demand, OPEC, and perhaps trader speculation. So we agree. I personally believe it's far more speculation than supply-and-demand. In fact, Wall Street traders are actually finally coming out and saying that. >I'm not aware of gov't telling anyone what and when to drive (though I >am aware of deductions and tax credits and taxes that encourage or >discourage use of certain products, having children, behavior, etc. I >tend to be libertarian on things when they truly do not cause harm to >others. The government will seldom come right out and outlaw anything. Take CAFE standards. I like my Jeep Grand Cherokee and I need it to get through the snows around here (a Prius won't do it!). Frankly, I also feel much safer in one than I would in a tin can. But the government is legislating that sort of vehicle away; not directly, but piece by piece by piece so soon Chrysler CAN'T build one. ------ +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ | Dan O'Reilly | "There are 10 types of people in this | | Principal Engineer | world: those who understand binary | | Process Software | and those who don't." | | http://www.process.com | | +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:03:22 -0400 From: Bob Willard Subject: Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Message-ID: <756dne5u-pp1N8vVnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@comcast.com> AEF wrote: > On Jun 16, 8:38 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob > Koehler) wrote: > >>In article , AEF writes: >> >> >> >> >>>My dad used to work for Exxon and just today he said that if we >>>allowed drilling in and near the U.S. we may well have more oil than >>>Saudi Arabia. (I don't recall the exact details.) >> >> Yeah, sure, maybe we could listen to what Disk Cheney has to say on >> the issue, too. > > > He was a research chemist and he knows what he's talking about. > > AEF I don't believe that Dick Cheney was ever a research chemist. After he flunked out of Yale, he got a BA and a MA in PolySci, then did some work on a PhD at U.Wis. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney) AFAICT, the closest Dick Cheney got to any research in chemistry was in 1962 and again in 1963, when he was arrested for DWI. -- Cheers, Bob ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:24:37 -0400 From: DrSlinky Subject: Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Message-ID: <4856afe5$0$11615$607ed4bc@cv.net> Dan O'Reilly wrote: > At 06:40 AM 6/16/2008, Bob Koehler wrote: >> In article <6.1.2.0.2.20080615212532.023b0788@raptor.psccos.com>, Dan >> O'Reilly writes: >> >> > Heck, the scientific community can't even agree on the idea >> > that there has even been global warming in the last 10 years >> >> If you're going to repeat these kind of blatant lies, you're not >> going to be a very entertaining troll. > > Well, you make my point. Anybody that doesn't agree with you is a > "blatant liar". I suggest you do more research at places other than > left-leaning sites to get more of a balance picture before throwing > labels around. > > Are you familiar with the recent NASA weather survey - the one the > hysteria mongers were supposed to use as "proof" - that basically threw > vast amounts of cold water on the climate change hysterics? I suppose > they're blatant liars as well? How about the Oregon Petition, signed by > more than 31,000 petitioners (scientists, et al)? Maybe the 1992 > Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming? The > Heidelberg Declaration? The Leipzig Declaration? Liars, all of them!!! > > > ------ > +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ > | Dan O'Reilly | "There are 10 types of people in this | > | Principal Engineer | world: those who understand binary | > | Process Software | and those who don't." | > | http://www.process.com | | > +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Declaration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidelberg_Appeal Would seem that the Oregon Petition is already of questionable quality. 9751 general engineers? That's more than a quarter of the signatories, and their specialty has nothing to do with the environmental sciences. Duplicate names, scientists with no recollection of ever signing such a petition, and a former Spice Girl. It would seem the validity of said petition is seriously in question. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:03:45 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Message-ID: On Jun 16, 1:58 pm, Dan O'Reilly wrote: > At 11:24 AM 6/16/2008, AEF wrote: > > > > The point is, the use of taxes in the manner of those suggested by "carbon > > > tax" is that it's fundamentally punitive in its nature, and it attempts to > > > force technology. The free market dictates that change that is practical > > > in its nature to implement (and yes, the reality is that $$$$ do enter in > > > here, I'm already taxed more than enough) will be the driving force in > > > changing to whatever the fuel of the future is. A carbon tax is simply a > > > way to "legislate technology", or more appropriately, redistribute income. > > >The point of "pollution taxes" is to reflect the costs to society that > >aren't taken into account by the market. Pollution is a cost that > >isn't included in the price. Would you really prefer a return to the > >dirty air of the 60's? That was largely cured by gov't mandates on > >pollution levels from car exhaust and industry. I just think that at > >least in some cases a pollution tax is the better way to go to > >accopmlish the same thing for reasons I already explained. > > I think that's a canard. There's no way this country would ever return to > the pollution of the 60's. I agree the government played a big part in > cleaning that up, but enough is enough. The government unfortunately > doesn't believe the people are smart enough to know that cleaner is > better. And they certainly don't know when to quit (the government, I mean). This is a bogus argument. Of course people know cleaner is better but who's going to be the first to spend hundreds of extra bucks on a new car hoping everyone else will? Would you? Return to 60's levels? What? The big advantage of the pollution tax method is that you avoid wasting huge amounts of money to make just a marginal gain. With this method, the business decides how much to reduce its emissions vs. how much it will have to pay the tax and they will shoot for the mix that gives them the lowest cost. I really wish I could refer you to my old economics textbook but I no longer have it. > > >Speaking of taxes, many tax deductions that help people who buy > >houses, have capital gains income, have kids, use solar panels, and > >zillion of other favored things are effectively punishing those who > >don't, so why focus on pollution taxes whose purpose is to reflect the > >true cost of polluting products and to minimize them with the greatest > >possible efficiency? > > Because the market will take care of that WITHOUT the heavy hand of the > government. Look at what's happening in the auto industry, if you need a > really obvious example. Toyota has the Prius and what's going > on? Tremendous profits from the Prius and terrible sales figures from > their bigger V8 products. This is a DIRECT result of the marketplace I read that profits on hybrids are not as great per vehicle as on SUV's. And Toyota and freinds also made plenty of SUV's. And hybrids wouldn't have sold nearly as much without encouragement from gov't. Didn't people get tax breaks for buying hybrids? Hybrids are much more expensive than similar non-hybrids. So who would buy them without some kind of break or having an obsession with being "cool first adopters"? > speaking without the government forcing the issue. Why is it necessary to > legislate what the market is demonstrably already taking care of? Same Because it's not taking care of it. People tend to buy the cheapest things, even if it costs them more in the long run. Look at CFL's, e.g. People are buying them now that they're must cheaper than initially. How did cars get seat belts and air bags? Market forces? They didn't and would have never happened that way. Oh, and CFL's were heavily pushed by Wal Mart, not the gov't. > thing with houses: try to sell one that's less energy-efficient. Or > appliances: who's selling more, the company with bad energy efficiency or > the high-efficiency washer/driers? Again, all things largely being done People buy plenty of not-so-efficient appliances for reasons I've already explained. > because the marketplace is demanding it, not because of some > government-mandated program! Have you heard of the U.S. patent office? Enforcement regarding counterfeit goods? The Fed? Police and firemen? Safety standards? (Look at increasing frequency of collpasing cranes in NYC, e.g.) FDIC insurance? Are these bad, evil things somehow? Need I go on? Sometimes the gov't does very badly. Take the subprime disaster. Increasingly lax regulations on finance is in large part to play. Market forces were all over the place and look what happened. You like the result? > > Let me throw one back at you: CF light bulbs. Technology legislated by the > government, but legislation that never took into account what happens when > you need to dispose of one, or you break one: POLLUTION that never was an > issue with incandescent bulbs. Boy, that tiny amount of Hg must be even worse than turning the planet into Venus! Hey, people have been using regular fluorescents for a long time and mercury thermometers (and breaking them!) and somehow we've gotten by. > How about legislated ethanol? It burns I agree that gov't blew it big time with this one. As I said, gov't does both smart and stupid things. And there's all the pork barrel spending and corruption. Well, things like that happen in the business world, too. Look at all the CEO's who ruin companies and walk away with hundreds of millions because they have "incesutous" relationships with the boards, having them in their pockets (or whatever the expression is). This is good? Enron, MCI/Worldcom, Tyco. These are things to like about business? What about the town in Montana that was economically destroyed by the local electric utilities' executives with the aid of Goldman Sachs? This is a good thing? What about the electricity traders who ripped off California holding its citizens captive to rolling blackouts and ever increasing rates. This is something good about business? (OK, both gov't and buisness were to blame for that one.) > DIRTIER than the petroleum-based products it's supposed to replace, it > takes a tremendous amount of money to distill, and it's having a > demonstrable negative impact on food prices and supplies (and before > someone says it, no, it's not the ONLY reason, but it's still a big part of > it). I couldn't agree more. I've always been against turning food into fuel. > > What I'm saying is that if you want to REALLY screw something up, let the > government legislate technology. You seem to be writing about the evils of gov't the same as what you accused Bob of doing about oil companies. You say: Oh, gov't, of course it's evil. But when Bob said the same about oil companies you were all over him. I sense a, uh ... lack of consistency here. > > >I was not posting a view on climate > >change. I was simply pointing out what it would take to address it > >(*if* it were true) and also the issue of fuel prices that people are > >blaming on the oil companies when the true fault lies with supply and > >demand, OPEC, and perhaps trader speculation. > > So we agree. I personally believe it's far more speculation than > supply-and-demand. In fact, Wall Street traders are actually finally > coming out and saying that. Well, I don't think we agree. I just don't think I'm in a position to judge whether global warming is really a serious threat or not and therefore I don't. > >I'm not aware of gov't telling anyone what and when to drive (though I > >am aware of deductions and tax credits and taxes that encourage or > >discourage use of certain products, having children, behavior, etc. I > >tend to be libertarian on things when they truly do not cause harm to > >others. > > The government will seldom come right out and outlaw anything. Take CAFE > standards. I like my Jeep Grand Cherokee and I need it to get through the > snows around here (a Prius won't do it!). Frankly, I also feel much safer And I like to sing, but I don't think you'd appreciate hearing it. So buy a Cherokee. What's stopping you? CAFE standards have been around for quite a while but that didn't stop anyone from buying SUV's. > in one than I would in a tin can. But the government is legislating that > sort of vehicle away; not directly, but piece by piece by piece so soon > Chrysler CAN'T build one. And how is this different from all the numerous tax incentives and decentives on other apsects of life? Do you take lots of tax deductions for various things? Would you sacrifice them so I, who can't take most of them, can be treated more fairly. I have no kids. Do you? If so, are you willing to pay my share of property taxes? Hey, businesses do plenty of stupid or bad things. The auto manufacturers repeatedly and consistenetly fought better pollution controls. They said it couldn't be done. Yet somehow they managed to do it. And it would have never happened with market forces. They also fought air bags tooth and nail. Now you can't sell a car without one. They also fought against other important safety standards. Would you prefer a world filled with snake-oil salesmen and such (well, one that's far worse than what we have with today's snake-oil salesmen!)? Gov't regulation can provide a level playing field or floor below which companies aren't allowed to go. This way the companies can compete without resorting to increasingly low tactics, products, rip offs, etc. Look at all the food poisonings happening: beef, spinach, lettuce(?), and now tomoatoes. I read that the FDA has been losing funds over the last 7 years or so. Could there be a connection? When you go to the store, how do you know when it says a quart of milk it really is a quart? Or the net weight of a can of soup or vegetables? Or is a gallon of gas really a gallon at the gas station? Would you prefer to be measuring the amounts of every single volume- or weight-based purchase you make? And what about medicines? How do you have any idea if they're safe and effective and have the claimed dosage? Are you going to conduct your own large randomized double-blind studies? Good luck. Banks fought the gov't mandate of $50 liability limits for people who lose their credit cards, yet the banks are milking poor people and making humoungous profits from these cards, which some argue would have never taken off without the $50 liability limit. I think banks should be reined in somewhat on such abusive practices. Just exactly how is the market going to accomplish that. Microsoft is a result of market forces, no? I could probably come up with even more examples but I already spent too much time on this. The gov't has no monopoly on stupidity and evil and buisness have no monopoly on genius and good. > > ------ > +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ > | Dan O'Reilly | "There are 10 types of people in this | > | Principal Engineer | world: those who understand binary | > | Process Software | and those who don't." | > |http://www.process.com | | > +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ AEF ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:08:03 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Message-ID: <64e611d0-ae34-4569-a55b-0fdb2a9ab2ab@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> On Jun 16, 9:43 am, Dan O'Reilly wrote: > At 07:28 AM 6/16/2008, AEF wrote: > > > > >On Jun 16, 8:38 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob > >Koehler) wrote: > > > In article > > , AEF > > writes: > > > > > My dad used to work for Exxon and just today he said that if we > > > > allowed drilling in and near the U.S. we may well have more oil than > > > > Saudi Arabia. (I don't recall the exact details.) > > > > Yeah, sure, maybe we could listen to what Disk Cheney has to say on > > > the issue, too. > > >He was a research chemist and he knows what he's talking about. As I > >said in my follow up post, the huge amount of oil I referred to is > >locked up as shale oil. If you can find a reputable source to refute > >that, please post it. And why would he lie to me about it? Your > >comment looks like an ad hominem attack to me. > > >He did much research in improving diesel and heating oil. He's not a > >PR man or anything like that. He's not an executive. He was a > >scientist/engineer in chemistry. > > Ah, but he is/was connected with "Big Oil", and of course, they're all > liars (as was pointed out to me). Note the reference to Dick Cheney > above. The arguments against all of this are purely political and > emotional in nature, and scientific proof to the contrary is never allowed. While I probably should have mentioned my dad's occupation as a research scientist/engineer, and perhaps shouldn't have posted without getting the details about it being shale oil that he was talking about, Bob still shouldn't have automatically assumed him to be like Dick Cheney. AEF > > ------ > +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ > | Dan O'Reilly | "There are 10 types of people in this | > | Principal Engineer | world: those who understand binary | > | Process Software | and those who don't." | > |http://www.process.com | | > +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:06:52 -0700 (PDT) From: ythefoe@gmail.com Subject: Cobol compilation hangs under vms 7-3 Message-ID: <6fc3e843-e2af-47ac-a522-4ee1258f9088@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Hello all, I have a very simple cobol program (hello world program), and I can not complile this under VMS 7-3; However it compiles correctly under 8-3 (so no syntax errors).... When I take a look at the compilation process it keeps on using CPU power, but it never ends :O) Any idea what the problem could be ? Licensing problems, a special authorizarion needed,.... I got the same behavior when I compiled another cobol program; that's why I did try it with a 'hello world' program in cobol PS: I created also a 'hello world' in C, and this compiles and links without a problem. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:04:55 GMT From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= Subject: Re: Cobol compilation hangs under vms 7-3 Message-ID: ythefoe@gmail.com wrote: > Hello all, > > I have a very simple cobol program (hello world program), and I can > not complile this under > VMS 7-3; However it compiles correctly under 8-3 (so no syntax > errors).... > > When I take a look at the compilation process it keeps on using CPU > power, but it never ends :O) > > Any idea what the problem could be ? Licensing problems, a special > authorizarion needed,.... > > I got the same behavior when I compiled another cobol program; that's > why I did try it with a 'hello world' program in cobol > > > PS: I created also a 'hello world' in C, and this compiles and links > without a problem. Compiler versions and actual terminal output ? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:55:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Bobby Subject: Re: Determining display device for a process Message-ID: <993759c4-3ba9-45d5-a945-f6f468394b15@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> I found a couple of ways around this using some built-in functionality of the display application itself. I am still curious as to whether the display device for a specific detached x-application can be determined the "owner/creator" of the process. Thanks again for the replies. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:20:56 -0700 From: Fred Bach Subject: Re: Determining display device for a process Message-ID: <48570368.8030506@triumf.ca> Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote: > Bobby wrote: >> I have a need to determine the device that an x-application is >> "displaying" to. The reason is that an x-application will be >> automatically loaded at user login, but should only be started once >> per display (i.e., once per x-server display). The logical decw >> $display points to the device, but how (can?) this value be retrieved >> for a specific process? I didn't see anything in the f$getjpi() >> function, but maybe I missed something. The same user account is used >> for multiple stations, so looking at the UIC for the owner of a >> process won't work. Any ideas would be appreciated. > > All logical name tables (incl the LNM$JOBxxxx tables) are > available to F$TRNLNM, if you have read access to them. > So one should be able to scan through the LNM$JOBxxx > tables for a specific "display". > > See : > SHOW LOG /STRU > SHOW LOG /TABLE=LNM$SYSTEM_DIRECTORY > SHOW LOG /TABLE=LNM$SYSTEM_DIRECTORY/DESCENDANTS > > Ex: > SHOW LOG /DESCENDANTS/TABLE=LNM$SYSTEM_DIRECTORY DECW$DISPLAY > will show all currently defined DEC-Windows displays > for all processes on the system. > > Output to a file and search for your actual device, or > make something up with PIPE or whatever... > > Regards, > Jan-Erik. Jan-Erik, This looks pretty interesting! Could you expand on this technique a little, please? One area of difficulty here is easily determining the graphics output screen for x-applications when we do a SET HOST from an X-window Decterm. Naturally we want the x-display for the session on the remote host to default to the device that was serving the x-decterm window from which we did the Set Host. I wonder if you, or anyone on cov, could walk us through what to do. Thanks. . fred bach . music at triumf dot c a ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:47:53 -0400 From: "Peter Weaver" Subject: RE: Determining display device for a process Message-ID: <019b01c8d013$ce482610$2802a8c0@CHARONLAP> >... > This looks pretty interesting! Could you expand on this > technique a little, please? One area of difficulty here is > easily determining the graphics output screen for x-applications > when we do a SET HOST from an X-window Decterm. Naturally we > want the x-display for the session on the remote host to default > to the device that was serving the x-decterm window from which > we did the Set Host. >... This sounds like a question that was asked here about 8 years ago. The link below might be of interest to you. http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.vms/browse_thread/thread/d4a9e70b4215 c7d8/6578e62012def1da?lnk=st&q=#6578e62012def1da Peter Weaver www.weaverconsulting.ca www.openvmsvirtualization.com www.vaxvirtualization.com www.alphavirtualization.com Winner of the 2007 OpenVMS.org Readers' Choice Award for System Management/Performance ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 2008 19:29:13 -0400 From: Rich Alderson Subject: Re: FTP client: stripping version numbers and forcing lowercase on MPUT Message-ID: Hein RMS van den Heuvel writes: > On Jun 12, 6:05=A0pm, Rich Alderson > wrote: >> Use "ls > .mic" to get a file with the names in it, use a decent text >> editor to copy the column of names, change the case and trim generation >> numbers, put the saved column at the line start, add a "mv " to the line >> start, save, and execute as a shell script. > Just use perl... > perl -e 'foreach (<*;*>) { if (/(.*);\d+$/){ rename $_, lc($1)}}' > <*;*> = Glob all files containing a ";" > foreach = return each glob result into variable $_ > /(.*);\d+$/ = Match (//) $_, remembering anything ((.*)) up to a > semicolon (;) in $1, if followed by decimal numbers (\d+) and the end ($) > If matched then rename with old = $_ and new is the lower case for the > remembered part before the ;. Works very nicely for VMS, so yes, I concur for the OP. (Not so good for TOPS-20, since the syntax is filename.ext.gen rather than filename.ext;gen. Could be done, but involves a little more Perl schratzing.) -- Rich Alderson "You get what anybody gets. You get a lifetime." news@alderson.users.panix.com --Death, of the Endless ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:01:44 -0400 From: "William Webb" Subject: Re: Interesting job ad from HP Message-ID: <8660a3a10806161401m42c4ed60tf486306b2e76401c@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:28 PM, JF Mezei wrote: > Bob Koehler wrote: > >> That meaning of realtime is something almost any system can handle. >> The amount of radiation used varies very little if the computer >> gets a few milliseconds behind. > > With advances in technooogy, I wonder how much still *really* needs true > real-time operating system. > > Consider the USA segment on the space station. It uses a military > equivalent of token passing slow network for the critical systems. The > thinking was that it provided predictable response time. But when you > consider today's ethernet, the variations in response time are probably > well below the actual time this military system has for its normal > operations. (aka: the ethernet would still be faster than the military > system even during bad times for the ethernet segment). > > The space station itself, as a vehicle, does not need "real time" > because even if everything fails, it continues in the same direction for > months. > > But the shuttle is a different story. Its computers date back from the > 1970s, and at that time, speed and memory constraints required very > smart coding design and true real time OS. But today, with 4ghz PCs, I > would venture to guess that even Windows might be able to handle the > job, provided the application software was well written and that you > didn't play space invadors game at the same time as the shuttle was > launching. > I read a great article about the software for the shuttle computers- and how it was done: Title is "They Write The Right Stuff" - you can look it up online. WWWebb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:27:55 -0400 From: "David Turner, Island Computers" Subject: Re: OpenVMS Alpha 8.4 release date and new functionality ? Message-ID: Is it true that VMS 8.4 comes with Internet Explorer 8 built in? ;0) -- David B Turner ============================================= Island Computers US Corp PO Box 86 Tybee GA 31328 Toll Free: 1-877 636 4332 x201, Mobile x251 Email: dturner@islandco.com International & Local: (001)- 404-806-7749 Fax: 912 786 8505 Web: www.islandco.com ============================================= "Simon Clubley" wrote in message news:G356SEIVYWla@eisner.encompasserve.org... > Does anyone have an idea of when OpenVMS 8.4 Alpha is likely to ship > and what kind of new functionality is likely to be in it ? > > I've found the slide on the Roadmap, but it's very vague on specifics > and I couldn't find anything else that addressed this. > > Thanks, > > Simon. > > -- > Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP > Microsoft: Bringing you 1980's technology to a 21st century world ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:49:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Rich Jordan Subject: Re: OpenVMS Alpha 8.4 release date and new functionality ? Message-ID: David Turner, Island Computers wrote: > Is it true that VMS 8.4 comes with Internet Explorer 8 built in? > > ;0) No, but it is true that OpenVMS V8.4 will be 'today' what Microsoft wants Windows NT V10.0 to be. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 2008 23:44:36 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: What is a Weendoze .CHM file? Message-ID: <6boc73F3c8ue5U1@mid.individual.net> In article , koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: > In article <6bjcqcF3brg2aU1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >> >> Just because it costs miney on Windows and can't be done on VMS doesn't >> mean there aren't more than adequate free solutions. > > It certainly can be done on VMS. Where do you think Tex was born? > And yes, I've done it. Well, I am assuming the way you said it I am supposed to beleive that TEX originated on VMS. Could be I suppose although my first guess would have been UNix. :-) In any event, TEX didn't then and as far as I Know doesn't now generate anything but DVI. You need additional filtes to convert from DVI to PS or PDF or any other non-native to TEX format. As many here have already told you, all you have to do on any modern Unix/Linux system is choose "Print to a PDF File" from whatever print manager you have installed. And some here have said that Windows can do it too. So, what are the options to the VMS PRINT command to make it generate PDF's? bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 2008 23:49:20 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: What is a Weendoze .CHM file? Message-ID: <6bocg0F3c8ue5U2@mid.individual.net> In article <6boc73F3c8ue5U1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > In article , > koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: >> In article <6bjcqcF3brg2aU1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >>> >>> Just because it costs miney on Windows and can't be done on VMS doesn't >>> mean there aren't more than adequate free solutions. >> >> It certainly can be done on VMS. Where do you think Tex was born? >> And yes, I've done it. > > Well, I am assuming the way you said it I am supposed to beleive that > TEX originated on VMS. Well, I would have been wrong. It was on TOPS-10 written in SAIL. So, what was your point? bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2008.336 ************************