INFO-VAX Mon, 23 Apr 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 221 Contents: DHCP and RAW socket and C Re: FC HBA for zx2000 Re: FC HBA for zx2000 Re: FC HBA for zx2000 Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) mozilla thunderbird on VMS Re: mozilla thunderbird on VMS OMAPI Re: relative directories Vintage Computer Festival Midwest 3.0: July 14-15, West Layatette, IN, USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Apr 2007 13:56:24 -0700 From: sudhi.nr@gmail.com Subject: DHCP and RAW socket and C Message-ID: <1177275384.025291.221140@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Hi This is my first post and am a newbie to network programming. My currrent assignment is concerned with DHCP client server programming and need some help with that. I need to request two IP addresses on the client side from the server. I have a single LAN card and the request is sent from client on the same LAN card. The first request contains the preffered IP address and the MAc address and is sent using sendto() function inside another function send_packet(). The second request contains a preffered IP address and a third parth MAC address(not the same address on which the client is working). In sendto() function i get a message "such a device does not exist". Not surprised by that, but i need to get this working. Ne ideas from ne one. I heard i can use RAW sockets instead of Datagram. Will this put the card in promiscous mode? Is this a solution? http://www.isc.org/index.pl?/sw/dhcp/ This is the code im using at the client and server side to run the daemons. Pls help Thanks in advance ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:07:59 +0200 From: "Martin Vorlaender" Subject: Re: FC HBA for zx2000 Message-ID: Tom Linden wrote: > Also have newer HP HBAs, FCA2684, would that work? > > Which begs a new question, how do you run wwidmgr on Itanium? See Appendix D of the OpenVMS Update and Installation Manual: http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/83final/ba322_90045/apds02.html HTH, Martin -- One OS to rule them all | Martin Vorlaender | OpenVMS rules! One OS to find them | work: mv@pdv-systeme.de One OS to bring them all | http://www.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/ And in the Darkness bind them.| home: martin.vorlaender@t-online.de ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:10:01 GMT From: "Malcolm Dunnett" Subject: Re: FC HBA for zx2000 Message-ID: "Tom Linden" wrote in message news:op.tq61eoaatte90l@hyrrokkin... |I use Emulex LP8000 in my Alphas. Anybody know if it will work in | | HP TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS Industry Standard 64 Version V5.6 | on an HP zx2000 (900MHz/1.5MB) running OpenVMS V8.3 The LP8000 is not supported on Itanium I use QLogic QLA234x adapters in my Itaniums. They're not cheap - probably a few hundred dollars for the single channel version on eBay (whereas LP8000s typically cost $10 or $20 these days. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 07:26:24 +0200 From: Jur van der Burg <"vdburg at hotmail dot com"> Subject: Re: FC HBA for zx2000 Message-ID: <462c43af$0$325$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> The LP8000 is not officially supported on Itanium, but it will work. The drivers are there (I use one in my home system). Jur. Tom Linden wrote, On 22-4-2007 18:29: > I use Emulex LP8000 in my Alphas. Anybody know if it will work in > > HP TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS Industry Standard 64 Version V5.6 > on an HP zx2000 (900MHz/1.5MB) running OpenVMS V8.3 > > Also have newer HP HBAs, FCA2684, would that work? > > Which begs a new question, how do you run wwidmgr on Itanium? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:00:53 +0200 From: "P. Sture" Subject: Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: In article , "Tom Linden" wrote: > On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 04:50:45 -0700, VAXman- <@SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote: > > > In article <07042018595203_202002DA@antinode.org>, sms@antinode.org > > (Steven M. Schweda) writes: > >> > >> > >> From: genius@marblecliff.com > >> > >>> from Proverbs King James Version > >>> [...] > >>> IF YOU LOVE YOUR CHILDREN, YOU WILL CORRECT > >>> THEM THE WAY GOD SAYS TO! > >> > >> As you seem to be an expert on such things, perhaps you should > >> consider how your God would suggest (command?) that an adult should > >> correct an apparent child who continues to post inappropriate religious > >> drool to a VMS news group. > > > > ...and god spaketh unto the bretheren of comp.os.vms and commandeth: > > > > Bob, Thou hast blastphemed the comp.os.vms newsgroup. Ye shall be > > remanded to Weendoze and Weendoze newsgroups for all eternity. > > > Thou is singular, ye is plural. http://alt-usage-english.org/pronoun_paradigms.html has a conjugation table at bottom of the page. But also note the following paragraph: 'You may have been told that "thou" and "thee" were for familiar use, and "you" and "ye" were formal. This was not true originally, but it was true for about two centuries, roughly 1450-1650, including Shakespeare's time. The previously plural "you" was used in the singular to signify politeness and respect, which left "thou" and "thee" for all the other singular uses, ranging from endearing intimacy to bitter rudeness. Eventually, the politer "you" drove out nearly all uses of "thee" and "thou"; they survived mostly in poetry and religion.' -- Paul Sture ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:10:44 +0200 From: "P. Sture" Subject: Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: In article <1177246624.245272.235660@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, genius@marblecliff.com wrote: > On Apr 21, 8:42 pm, JF Mezei wrote: > > gen...@marblecliff.com wrote: > > > different group of people (jews) different time period ... > > > > Dear Mr Genius, > > > > You cannot selectively use portions of the old testament that fit your > > agenda, and then claim the old testament doesn't apply to christians. > > Dear Mr. Ignorant, > > I did not say it was not relevant ... the 10 commandments > still are, but many of the old testament laws and customs > were specific to the jewish people, not the gentiles ... > > the recommendations and principles that God stated are, > but Christ has freed us from the old law because He > frees us from sin ... So the 5 separate verses from Proverbs you quoted earlier about beating your offspring with a rod don't apply to: a) gentiles b) anyone who believes that Christ free them from sin It looks as though California are doing the right right on that one. -- Paul Sture ------------------------------ Date: 22 Apr 2007 17:49:57 -0700 From: genius@marblecliff.com Subject: Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: <1177289397.165542.126780@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> On Apr 22, 2:10 pm, "P. Sture" wrote: > In article <1177246624.245272.235...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gen...@marblecliff.com wrote: > > On Apr 21, 8:42 pm, JF Mezei wrote: > > > gen...@marblecliff.com wrote: > > > > different group of people (jews) different time period ... > > > > Dear Mr Genius, > > > > You cannot selectively use portions of the old testament that fit your > > > agenda, and then claim the old testament doesn't apply to christians. > > > Dear Mr. Ignorant, > > > I did not say it was not relevant ... the 10 commandments > > still are, but many of the old testament laws and customs > > were specific to the jewish people, not the gentiles ... > > > the recommendations and principles that God stated are, > > but Christ has freed us from the old law because He > > frees us from sin ... > > So the 5 separate verses from Proverbs you quoted earlier about beating > your offspring with a rod don't apply to: > > a) gentiles > b) anyone who believes that Christ free them from sin > > It looks as though California are doing the right right on that one. > > -- > Paul Sture- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - basic principles apply to EVERYONE, but there were certain things at that time specific to jews ... ------------------------------ Date: 22 Apr 2007 18:34:10 -0700 From: AEF Subject: Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: <1177292050.770272.203480@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> On Apr 21, 6:13 pm, JF Mezei wrote: [...] > > I have never really read the old testament except the major stories like > god giving Moses the 10 commandments. But this leviticus stuff is really > out there. > [...] > > I have 0 idea where this "Leviticus" thing came from. Perhaps he heard > the story from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from a > distant cousin who may have heard it from someone who had once met > Abraham ? Say what? You're starting to sound like an idiot. > > Another one;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2017:15 > ## > 15 be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He > must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, > one who is not a brother Israelite. > ## > > According to this, wouldn't all world leaders be required to be > israelites ? And no american jew or christian would be allowed to vote > for a non-israelite candidate for presidency. So the USA constitution is > against the old testament since it requires a presidential candidate to > be USA born (and perhaps will allow Austrian born ones ina few years). This is for the Israelites. If you haven't read it properly, you cannot comment on it. Capice? > This is actually funny to read this. Sorry, but those translations > really cannot be taken seriously and anyone taking them at their own > words is really naive. > > In fairness though, many of the rules seem to be founded on good > hygiene. Not having sex with animals for instance would reduce incidence > of some nasty virus being transmitted from animals to humans. Sodomy > could probably also be placed in this category since it too increases > risk of skin tears and hence catching something the other has. (but this > applies to male-female sex just as much, so I don't see why one should > tranliterate sodomy with homosexuality which the right-wingers tend to > do in the USA). > > But MORE IMPORTANTLY: > > I have seen many passages where if one , then one must > be put to death. I cannot understand this at all since one of the 10 > commandements is "thou shalt not kill". (or whatever spelling/wording is > used). Like I've posted twice already, it's "Thou shalt not murder". Capice? > Sorry, but it seems to me that those passages that discuss killing of > humans if they stray from correct behaviour goes against "prime > directives" and I cannot accept that God would issue the 10 commandments > and then issue rules that would contradict one of those commandments. Like I've posted twice already, it's "Thou shalt not murder". Capice? > Looking at that internet bible, it explains that they changed "thou > shall not kill" to "thou shall not murder". So, translators can decide > on a whim to change the meaning of a commandement in a fraily dramatic > way ? (I guess this was to allow the USA to continue to claim its death > penalty is not against the bible). I don't believe it. There's a lot of bogus stuff on the Web. OTOH: Translations from the archaic Hebrew are difficult. Some of the words are totally unknown. [...] There are plenty of valid criticisms of the Bible, but you haven't hit upon any of them! AEF ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:24:00 -0400 From: "Neil Rieck" Subject: Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: <462c1a63$0$16314$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> wrote in message news:1177203921.789997.157490@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 21, 6:13 pm, JF Mezei wrote: > [...snip...] > > Adam lived to be over 900 years old ... many old testament > people lived very long because of the garden of eden ... the > tree of life was there and when they ate the apple they were > banned from it, but its effects lingered for generations ... > God finally settles and states that an average age for a > man would be 70 years ... so Abraham and others living beyond > 100 years was common ... > The bible was passed on in an oral tradition until the Jews were taken into captivity in Babylon (approx 570 BCE) so I think it is safe to say that no one lived past 120. There is no archaeological record of the bible before this time But if you are looking for confirmation from the bible then look to Genesis 6 "My Spirit will not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; yet will his days be one hundred twenty years." This same chapter also talks about angels having sex with human women then producing a race of giants so I'm not sure if any of it can be taken seriously. [...snip...] >> If apostles now rule it is OK to eat rabbit, but the old testament says >> it is "unclean", which rule takes precedence ? The order presumably >> issued by God to abraham in old testament, or some decision made by some >> apostle in order to increase the marketability of the new christian >> religion to new areas like the roman empire ? > Meat from cloven-hoof was labelled unclean but this is partly due to the fact that ancient Judea had no refrigeration technology. Today they are strict Jews who still will not eat pork while some more liberal Jews will eat it (although they call it white beef). The word "Kosher" has changed quite a bit over time. It once only meant "salted" (necessary when no refrigeration is available) but today means inspected for signs of disease and tumours (but all meat is now inspected), properly bleed, and finally blessed by prayer. p.s. this information comes from time working for a Canadian meat packer in 1973 the summer I got out of college. Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge, Ontario, Canada. http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/ -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:04:51 -0700 From: "Tom Linden" Subject: Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:00:53 -0700, P. Sture wrote: > In article , > "Tom Linden" wrote: > >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 04:50:45 -0700, VAXman- <@SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote: >> >> > In article <07042018595203_202002DA@antinode.org>, sms@antinode.org >> > (Steven M. Schweda) writes: >> >> >> >> >> >> From: genius@marblecliff.com >> >> >> >>> from Proverbs King James Version >> >>> [...] >> >>> IF YOU LOVE YOUR CHILDREN, YOU WILL CORRECT >> >>> THEM THE WAY GOD SAYS TO! >> >> >> >> As you seem to be an expert on such things, perhaps you should >> >> consider how your God would suggest (command?) that an adult should >> >> correct an apparent child who continues to post inappropriate >> religious >> >> drool to a VMS news group. >> > >> > ...and god spaketh unto the bretheren of comp.os.vms and commandeth: >> > >> > Bob, Thou hast blastphemed the comp.os.vms newsgroup. Ye shall be >> > remanded to Weendoze and Weendoze newsgroups for all eternity. >> > >> Thou is singular, ye is plural. > > http://alt-usage-english.org/pronoun_paradigms.html > > has a conjugation table at bottom of the page. But also note the > following paragraph: > > 'You may have been told that "thou" and "thee" were for familiar use, > and "you" and "ye" were formal. This was not true originally, but it was > true for about two centuries, roughly 1450-1650, including Shakespeare's > time. The previously plural "you" was used in the singular to signify > politeness and respect, which left "thou" and "thee" for all the other > singular uses, ranging from endearing intimacy to bitter rudeness. > Eventually, the politer "you" drove out nearly all uses of "thee" and > "thou"; they survived mostly in poetry and religion.' > I don't believe that is quite accurate, thee was dative case, as in How shall compare thee to a summers day, or even Browning, How do I love thee ... These were largely germanic as is evident by the concomitant conjugation -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ------------------------------ Date: 22 Apr 2007 12:28:17 -0700 From: Ian Miller Subject: mozilla thunderbird on VMS Message-ID: <1177270097.769358.199930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> there appear to be hints in the sources that thunderbird 2.0.0 builds on VMS. Can anyone confirm this? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:36:35 +0200 From: Dirk Munk Subject: Re: mozilla thunderbird on VMS Message-ID: Ian Miller wrote: > there appear to be hints in the sources that thunderbird 2.0.0 builds > on VMS. Can anyone confirm this? > Maybe these hints are part of code that was/is shared between Thunderbird and Mozilla classic. The latter application has been renamed to SeaMonkey, has been further developed, and is also available on the Mozilla web site. I hope it will be ported to OpenVMS. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Apr 2007 13:58:20 -0700 From: yannifan Subject: OMAPI Message-ID: <1177275500.399248.73160@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> Hi Im programming in DHCP server client setup and have come across OMAPI objects and functions like interface_reference(), interface_allocate(), etc. Would like to know wats the significance of these. Thanks ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:48:00 -0500 From: "Craig A. Berry" Subject: Re: relative directories Message-ID: In article <02nwFcO9mOX+@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote: > In article <1175790380.954215.73310@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, "coltrane" > writes: > > I imagine this question must come up ofter but I have not seen an > > answer. > > Is it possible to either reference files in a directory using a > > relative path? > > Or is it possible to just reference a relative path. > > Yes, such as > > $open test [-.b]a.c > $read test line > $close test > > The VMS realtive file syntax is valid no matter what you're doing > with the file. It's implemented by the file system which doesn't > care at that level what you're doing with the file. Which has odd implications here and there. For example, $ set default [-.foo.-.bar] is equivalent to $ set default [-.bar] Both put you in a bar directory that is a sibling of the current directory. or $ set default [.foo.-] leaves you exactly where you are. A subdirectory segment consisting solely of minus signs just eats backwards as many levels as there are minus signs. Not that you'd normally want to use directory specs with self-canceling subdirectory segments in them, but if you need to process these yourself for some reason, it's something to be aware of. The example I'm cogitating at the moment is taking a wildcard input path that is relative and returning an expanded but still relative path. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:47:21 +0000 (UTC) From: Patrick Finnegan Subject: Vintage Computer Festival Midwest 3.0: July 14-15, West Layatette, IN, USA Message-ID: ANNOUNCEMENT: for immediate release The third annual Vintage Computer Festival Midwest will be held again this year at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, USA. The VCF is an event celebrating computing history with speakers and exhibits, and is supported almost entirely by hobbyists. As before, there will be a small vendor section, including consignment sales. The event will be a two-day event for the first time, this year, and will be from 10am until 6pm on Saturday and Sunday, July 14th and 15th. Ticket prices will be $5/day, with children 17 and under having free admission. For more details, including how to be an exhibitor, vendor, attendee, speaker, etc, please see the following URL, or contact me (Patrick Finnegan) @ vcfmw at computer-refuge.org. We are currently looking for speakers for this year's event, so if you're interested in talking about a vintage computing subject, please let me know! http://www.vintage.org/2007/midwest/ Thanks go to the Purdue University Rosen Center for Advanced Computing for their support of the show. Please come and help make this show a success! Pat ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.221 ************************