INFO-VAX Mon, 03 Dec 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 662 Contents: Re: 20+ year old encrypted source code Re: 20+ year old encrypted source code Andromeda Disk Controller Re: comp.os.vms to ITRC gateway ? Re: comp.os.vms to ITRC gateway ? Re: Itanium / Integrity question Re: Latest TCPware DRIVERS patch seems to break inbound DECnet Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer Re: Singapore Server Rescue Re: Singapore Server Rescue Re: Singapore Server Rescue Re: Singapore Server Rescue The Bottom Line About SEO Companies Web Based Disk Usage Display Xming as an X Window System display server [was Re: X11 in a browser?] Re: Xming as an X Window System display server [was Re: X11 in a browser?] brows ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Dec 2007 14:05:25 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: 20+ year old encrypted source code Message-ID: <5rigp5F14vl2oU2@mid.individual.net> In article <47537cd1$0$90276$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj writes: > Richard B. Gilbert wrote: >> ISTR that some BASIC interpreters allowed you to encrypt the source! It >> seemed like a dumb thing to do and I never tried it. . . . > > I did in the early DOS days. > > It was a type of protection of the source code in an interpreted > context. > I don't remember any of the original microcomputer BASIC's that encrypted their source. Almost all of them used "tokenization" of all reserved words which may have looked like encryption as it was definitely not ASCII. 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: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 18:54:30 +0000 (UTC) From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Subject: Re: 20+ year old encrypted source code Message-ID: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >In article <47537cd1$0$90276$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, > Arne Vajhøj writes: >> Richard B. Gilbert wrote: >>> ISTR that some BASIC interpreters allowed you to encrypt the source! It >>> seemed like a dumb thing to do and I never tried it. . . . >> >> I did in the early DOS days. >> >> It was a type of protection of the source code in an interpreted >> context. >> >I don't remember any of the original microcomputer BASIC's that >encrypted their source. Almost all of them used "tokenization" >of all reserved words which may have looked like encryption as >it was definitely not ASCII. Yes, that was done to save a few valuable bytes on disk or memory, not for encryption. I suspect "tokenized" BASIC would have recognizable code or text, particularly the rest of a PRINT statement, so the unrecognizable code is unlikely "tokenized" BASIC code. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Dec 2007 18:14:13 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Andromeda Disk Controller Message-ID: <5rivblF1525hjU2@mid.individual.net> I asked this over ont he PDP-11 group but just remembered that these modules work on the VAX (under VMS, no less) as well so I thought I woud ask over here, too. Is anyone here familiar with these disk controllers? Is there any chance someone here has the little modules for connecting the hard disks or floppies to one? Was there a different one for 8" floppies and does anyone have nay of these? And lastly, as an afterthought, id there a chance someone even has some of these controllers they want to get rid of? I have never used one on a VAX running VMS, but the more I think about it the more interesting the concept becomes. 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: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 01:18:59 -0800 (PST) From: Rob Subject: Re: comp.os.vms to ITRC gateway ? Message-ID: On Dec 2, 9:49 am, JF Mezei wrote: > OK, some middle of the night in very cold weather just before a snow > storm idea: > > Conceptually, how about a c.o.v to ITRC gateway, similar to the info-vax > gateway ? Posts made on any one of those gets propagated to the other ? > > Granted, the ITRC moderators would have a bigger jobs of deleting all > the posts they judge to be inappropriate on an HP site, but in the end, > it would reduce the fragmentation of an already small community. > > Perhaps the ITRC gateway could be unidirectional (ITRC to c.o.v.) which > would eliminate the moderation work, but still allow people to benefit > from whatever disscussions happen over there (and especially since such > would get archived as c.o.v. posts in deja news (google). > > Just an idea. ITRC requires a login, so it would be very difficult to get the security sorted. Besides that, there's a lot of rubbish on comp.vms, where the ITRC is generally much cleaner and to the point. I personally wouldn't want to see the two mixed. Rob. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 02:37:38 -0800 (PST) From: johnwallace4@gmail.com Subject: Re: comp.os.vms to ITRC gateway ? Message-ID: On Dec 3, 9:18 am, Rob wrote: > On Dec 2, 9:49 am, JF Mezei wrote: > > > > > OK, some middle of the night in very cold weather just before a snow > > storm idea: > > > Conceptually, how about a c.o.v to ITRC gateway, similar to the info-vax > > gateway ? Posts made on any one of those gets propagated to the other ? > > > Granted, the ITRC moderators would have a bigger jobs of deleting all > > the posts they judge to be inappropriate on an HP site, but in the end, > > it would reduce the fragmentation of an already small community. > > > Perhaps the ITRC gateway could be unidirectional (ITRC to c.o.v.) which > > would eliminate the moderation work, but still allow people to benefit > > from whatever disscussions happen over there (and especially since such > > would get archived as c.o.v. posts in deja news (google). > > > Just an idea. > > ITRC requires a login, so it would be very difficult to get the > security sorted. > > Besides that, there's a lot of rubbish on comp.vms, where the ITRC is > generally much cleaner and to the point. I personally wouldn't want to > see the two mixed. > > Rob. How about a daily digest then? I'm one of the ones who find the "look and feel", and in particular the self-congratulatory "points make prizes" aspects, of ITRC more than a little offputting. To the extent that I don't bother with ITRC any more. Obviously I wouldn't necessarily have much to contribute in comparison with some of the famous names who are there but whose wisdom is not in comp.os.vms, but (a) they have things I can learn from (b) just occasionally I may have (acceptable) things to contribute. And that's not happening for me at the moment. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Dec 2007 14:13:48 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Itanium / Integrity question Message-ID: <5rih8sF14vl2oU3@mid.individual.net> In article <4752DA1A.3080909@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" writes: > Main, Kerry wrote: >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: John Wallace [mailto:johnwallace4@yahoo.spam.co.uk] >>>Sent: December 2, 2007 8:21 AM >>>To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com >>>Subject: Re: Itanium / Integrity question >>> >>> >>>"Main, Kerry" wrote in message >>>news:C72D63EB292C9E49AED23F705C61957BDEBA56B1FE@G1W0487.americas.hpqcor >>>p.net... >>> >> >> [snip..] >> >> >> >>>(sorry for odd formatting, Kerry's client and mine can't seem to agree >>>on >>>quoting). >>> >> >> >> As fyi, just when I thought I had my Outback client tuned for this NG, my entire >> laptop gets ripped off in Montreal (vehicle broken into). >> >> What a painful experience that is. > > > Kerry, > > For your next Lap, I've read of software that will "call the police" as > soon as a stolen laptop is connected to a network. And you think the bad guys wouldn't know about this? Reminds me of the story told by a guy from California who was awaken early one morning by his car alarm. He got to the window just in time to see them rolling his Porsche 911 Carrera into the back of tractor trailer and closing the doors, thus effectively blocking the signal from his LoJack. The police told him it was likely that by the time the re-opened those doors the carr was little more than a whole bunch of boxed up parts ready for sale. > I never checked it > out because mine is not worth stealing and if someone did me that favor > I certainly wouldn't want to have the laptop recovered. At this time of year it is much more likely they are not x-raying trunks looking for laptops (wouldn't an x-ray machine with a signal strong enough to penetrate the steel of most cars also erase the disk or even trash the electronics of the laptop?) but just breaking into them looking for Wii, Playstation, Garmin and other high value Christmas presents. 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: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 03:02:10 -0800 (PST) From: adamwilliam@gmail.com Subject: Re: Latest TCPware DRIVERS patch seems to break inbound DECnet Message-ID: <1db58e55-00bc-4fdf-afac-2b6825378d99@o42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> On Nov 13, 2:12 am, John Santos wrote: > Heads-up to all... Have just realised we have the same problem after patch upgrades at the weekend. Will look into the fix you describe above, but was wondering if Process have been in touch regarding this issue? I cant see anything on their site and the patches installed were only downloaded at the weekend. Many thanks! Adam ------------------------------ Date: 3 Dec 2007 13:59:33 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer Message-ID: <5rige5F14vl2oU1@mid.individual.net> In article , david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: > In article <5redcaF14d6hgU1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >>In article , >> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: >>> In article <5ragurF139h2rU1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >>>>In article <2e0f3$474fc65d$cef8887a$6850@teksavvy.com>, >>>> JF Mezei writes: >>>>> Dr. Dweeb wrote: >>>>>> Can someone give me one, clear, unequivocal reason why manned space flight >>>>>> out of earth's orbit in any way justifies its cost relative to unmanned >>>>>> missions (which are massively less expensive) to other solar system bodies? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When Christopher Columbus set out, he was hoping to find a way to india >>>>> by going west. He didn't find what he was looking for. But he found >>>>> something totally unexpected. >>>> >>>>Hardly. Christopher Columbus was much closer to NASA than most people >>>>give him credit for. He knew there was no direct westerly path to India. >>> >>> In that case he either had inside information that America existed (there have >>> I believe been claims that he had seen a Map which might have been produced by >>> previous Viking explorers) or he was suicidal. If he had no knowledge of >>> America's existence and knew there was noway for him to reach India then what >>> was he trying to do ? The money he "conned" out of the Spanish wouldn't do >>> him much good in Davey Jone's Locker. >>> >>>>He conned Spain into financing a junket that could not possibly accomplish >>>>what he told them it would. Either that, or he was truly the biggest >>>>idiot the world has ever seen. >> >>The map was located in Turkey and supposedly there are records of his >>having had access to it. In any event, you basicly agreed with me >>completely. He was either an idiot or a con-man. Take your pick. > > Ah, so by con-man you were actually meaning that he had inside knowledge of the > existance of America (from the Map) and conned the spanish monarchs by planning > to reach that target whilst telling them he was going to India. > How does that tie in with your "closer to NASA" ? > As far as I am aware NASA has always striven to reach it's stated astronomical > targets ie Earth Orbit, Moon , building of space station, > robotic exploration of outer planets etc > Unless of course you believe that the moon landings were faked ? No, not faked, just a tremendous waste of time and money. 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: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 00:59:08 -0800 (PST) From: "winston19842005@yahoo.com" Subject: Re: Singapore Server Rescue Message-ID: <86eca6f1-1e13-49dd-8688-0cb9d375a0f0@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> On Dec 2, 5:25 am, Michael Kraemer wrote: > JF Mezei schrieb: > > > I should remind you that the PDP-11 was probably superior to the 8086 at > > the time. And when you consider that Intel has been able to bring the > > 8086 from a lousy toy controller into a respectable enterprise 64 bit > > architecture that still commands the market despite the RISC and EPIC > > attempts at ousting it, it is wrong to assume that sticking with PDP-11 > > architecture would have doomed Digital. > > the big difference was that the 8086 was a single chip solution > which could be produced relatively cheap in masses. > It could be sold to the masses and be incorporated in a lot > of industrial designs. OTOH, the PDP-11 I remember is a bulky > device, looking like a dinosaur. In fact it was, > since it belongs to an earlier step of IT evolution than > the microprocessor. If DEC had squeezed it into a single chip > and mass-marketed it in a timely (and non-proprietary) manner, > they might have got away with it for some time. You know, TI was able to put a 990 on a single chip, the 9900. Its instruction set will look familiar to a PDP-11 assembly programmer. What really was the drawback here was TI had horrible operating systems compared to DEC. Too bad DEC didn't put the PDP-11 on a single chip. Didn't the Data General Nova or Eclipse, weren't they pretty much PDP knock-offs? Which PDP? Were they single chip? I worked with these two once, one running Basic (Nova) the Eclipse, I think, was only used by me to do sort/merge on customer lists... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 03:03:57 -0800 (PST) From: johnwallace4@gmail.com Subject: Re: Singapore Server Rescue Message-ID: On Dec 3, 8:59 am, "winston19842...@yahoo.com" wrote: > On Dec 2, 5:25 am, Michael Kraemer wrote: > > > > > JF Mezei schrieb: > > > > I should remind you that the PDP-11 was probably superior to the 8086 at > > > the time. And when you consider that Intel has been able to bring the > > > 8086 from a lousy toy controller into a respectable enterprise 64 bit > > > architecture that still commands the market despite the RISC and EPIC > > > attempts at ousting it, it is wrong to assume that sticking with PDP-11 > > > architecture would have doomed Digital. > > > the big difference was that the 8086 was a single chip solution > > which could be produced relatively cheap in masses. > > It could be sold to the masses and be incorporated in a lot > > of industrial designs. OTOH, the PDP-11 I remember is a bulky > > device, looking like a dinosaur. In fact it was, > > since it belongs to an earlier step of IT evolution than > > the microprocessor. If DEC had squeezed it into a single chip > > and mass-marketed it in a timely (and non-proprietary) manner, > > they might have got away with it for some time. > > You know, TI was able to put a 990 on a single chip, the 9900. > Its instruction set will look familiar to a PDP-11 assembly > programmer. > What really was the drawback here was TI had horrible operating > systems compared to DEC. > > Too bad DEC didn't put the PDP-11 on a single chip. > > Didn't the Data General Nova or Eclipse, weren't they pretty much PDP > knock-offs? Which PDP? Were they single chip? I worked with these two > once, one running Basic (Nova) the Eclipse, I think, was only used by > me to do sort/merge on customer lists... The 9900 could still give me nightmares if I got close to one. Afaik the 9900 is still flying RB211 aero engines (fortunately without an OS, from TI or elsewhere). I wouldn't describe the 9900 architecture as particularly similar to a PDP11. If you want "conceptually" similar, compare the NatSemi 16000/32000 with what a clean-sheet updated VAX instruction set might have looked like. The NS16000/32000 were even more obscure than the recently-mentioned Z8000, which was another nightmare of an instruction set. I'm also not at all convinced that the 8086 was ever a "single chip" solution (the Z80 might have been, the 8085 might have been, but the original 8086?) though obviously it did end up being cheap in volume. Anyway... DEC did put the PDP-11 pretty much on a single chip. Twice, that I know of. Take a T-11 chip and some memory and a few other bits and you've got a highly integrated low end PDP11 on a dual height Qbus card (some may know the card as a Falcon). Not very fast, but just what was needed to go in the back of a VT103 for (for example) low end RT11 systems. Add a serial line to a bigger PDP with a Tu58 emulator connected to a logical disk, and your VT103 becomes a diskless, slow, but flexible PDP11; not that different in concept from a diskless VAXstation 2000, just a generation earlier. Much more useful were the various J11 family members; they weren't quite single chip but had the architecture of most of an 11/70 (and the performance, in later days) in two chips (three if you specifically wanted FPP). 11/53, 11/73, 11/74 etc were based on the J11. Iirc think the Pro380 was J11 based too. What is it that makes DEC marketing "proprietary" (and thus "bad") and Intel marketing "industry standard" (even when it isn't) and thus "good"? Does history have any lessons here for the current generation? More T11 and J11 info: http://simh.trailing-edge.com/dsarchive.html Dinosaurs'r'us John ------------------------------ Date: 3 Dec 2007 14:29:43 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Singapore Server Rescue Message-ID: <5rii6mF14vl2oU4@mid.individual.net> In article , Michael Kraemer writes: > JF Mezei schrieb: > >> I should remind you that the PDP-11 was probably superior to the 8086 at >> the time. And when you consider that Intel has been able to bring the >> 8086 from a lousy toy controller into a respectable enterprise 64 bit >> architecture that still commands the market despite the RISC and EPIC >> attempts at ousting it, it is wrong to assume that sticking with PDP-11 >> architecture would have doomed Digital. > > the big difference was that the 8086 was a single chip solution > which could be produced relatively cheap in masses. > It could be sold to the masses and be incorporated in a lot > of industrial designs. OTOH, the PDP-11 I remember is a bulky > device, looking like a dinosaur. In fact it was, > since it belongs to an earlier step of IT evolution than > the microprocessor. If DEC had squeezed it into a single chip > and mass-marketed it in a timely (and non-proprietary) manner, > they might have got away with it for some time. How many chips in the PDP-11 CPU used on the Strobe Data Osprey? bill > >> Digital refused to compete at the low end not because it couldn't but >> because it didn't want its highly lucrative ricgh customers to stop >> buying the old expensicve dinausors and start buying the better lower >> priced machines. As a result of wanting to retain a few high end >> customers, Digital priced itself out of the market. > > DEC didn't manage the "divide and conquer" strategy, > which IBM did (and does) very well. > IBM sells low-end as well as high-end equipment, > whatever the customers want, with the one not > necessarily cannibalizing the other. > This worked out even in the times when "downsizing" > and "open systems" were the motd. > Of course they lost a lot of mainframe business > back then, but they also had a replacement solution > (the RS/6000) ready for prime time to catch at least > part of the lost sales. And they had no problems > to sell equipment spanning two orders of magnitude > in raw price/performance to their respective customer base. > >> DEC didn't have a single vision in late 1980s. It had different >> departments with their own pet projects (VAX 9000, N-vax, prism and >> later alpha). Those competed for funding and attention. >> >> Alpha won the internal PR war and convinced the powers that VAX was a >> dead end bla bla bla bla and got the funding to go ahead. Meanwhile, >> the vax group kept on working with N-VAX and came out with pretty >> impressive speed improvements (proving wrong the Alpha guys' premise >> that VAX was a dead end). > > It may have been impressive for the VAX camp, > but it wasn't when compared to the contemporary RISC camp. > A VS4000-90 runs at what, 80+x MHz ? > This might be sufficient for the less power hungry, > but certainly wasn't for the typical audience in technical > and academic computing (which once was DECs main turf, > rather than banks and such). > At the same time (1992), RISC designs were already above 100 MHz, > executing at least 1 instruction per cycle. Surely people here realize that comparing clock speeds is totally meaningless. I doubt a 100 Mhz RISC system is functionally as fast as an 80 Mhz VAX. > >> I am not so sure that there was a objective debate within all of DEC on >> whether VAX was really a dead end or whether it could be improved to >> remain competitive. > > Look at the other CISC design with tragic fate, the 68K. It is likely that the 68K died because they opted not to be the one used for the IBM PC (they did have first shot) and the sheer size of the created market made Intel (which had one foot int he grave at the time) a success instead of another blank page in IT history. > Even a dedicated chip maker like Motorola couldn't evolve > it beyond the 50MHz mark. Yes, but it could have. Imagine a world where the IBM PC was Motorola based and not Intel based. :-) > >> And at that time, even if VAX wasn't as fast, DEC could have simply >> priced its machine accordingly and remain in the game. The 8086s back >> then weren't too quick either, yet they priced themselve low enough to >> gain market share and look at where they are now. > > Unlike DEC's architectures they were designed to be produced in > masses and sold over the counter to everybody right from the start. Well, while that may have been Intel's dream, it was only the use by IBM that kept the company from vanishing. At the time IBM decided on using Intel the company was all but dead. IBM bought a majority share of them so they could guarantee they would get first choice on sales. Something Motorola would not guarantee. > > When I recollect the 1990/91 price lists, > a reasonably equipped VS3176 workplace > should have costed 10 to 15 kDEM ($5000..$8000) max to be competitive > with a contemporary RISC machine, i.e. RS/6000 > (or DECstation, for that matter). In fact, > the price was about 3 times higher, even after including > all kinds of discounts and OEM equipment. > I'm not sure if DEC could have afforded > to offer their main hardware at the price of > a somewhat better X-terminal. > In fact, it may well be that a contemporary > 88k-driven X-terminal had more compute power > than those poor VAXen. Sadly, we will never know. But it is fun to speculate on how things could have been. :-) 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: 3 Dec 2007 14:38:49 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Singapore Server Rescue Message-ID: <5riinpF14vl2oU5@mid.individual.net> In article <4752D250.7050409@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" writes: > Michael Kraemer wrote: >> JF Mezei schrieb: >> >>> I should remind you that the PDP-11 was probably superior to the 8086 >>> at the time. And when you consider that Intel has been able to bring >>> the 8086 from a lousy toy controller into a respectable enterprise 64 >>> bit architecture that still commands the market despite the RISC and > >> When I recollect the 1990/91 price lists, >> a reasonably equipped VS3176 workplace >> should have costed 10 to 15 kDEM ($5000..$8000) max to be competitive >> with a contemporary RISC machine, i.e. RS/6000 >> (or DECstation, for that matter). In fact, >> the price was about 3 times higher, even after including >> all kinds of discounts and OEM equipment. >> I'm not sure if DEC could have afforded >> to offer their main hardware at the price of >> a somewhat better X-terminal. > > > DEC might have had a real problem offering competitive prices. It was > an obvious move and I suspect that it was never made because it couldn't > be done. DEC had never before had to worry about the costs of producing > their products but the world was changing and DEC failed to change with > it. DEC designed/built just about everything from scratch while its > competitors used standard designs and components to the maximum possible > extent. Apple ][? Lisa? Macintosh? > With DEC, no two systems used the same case, power supply, > fans, or anything else until very late in the game. One example was > disk mounting hardware; there were about twenty different models of each > of the early RZ series disks. The difference was. . . . THE MOUNTING > HARDWARE. DEC could not even come up with a standard way to attach a > 3-1/2" disk drive to a case. (This was before StorageWorks!) > > I remember my DEC Rainbow (I bought it used for about 20% of DEC's "list > price". DEC wanted something like $700 for 256K of RAM chips. I bought > and installed brand-X for around $32. It worked like a champ for as > long as I had the Rainbow. That was true of others of the time. Raw 6146's could be bought for a fraction of the price of a memory upgrade for any of Tandy's micros. Same for disk drives. And even disk and RS232 controllers were being done after-market for less. And, then there was the IBM PS/2. The Memory was manufactured by Kingston. You could buy it directly from them or you could buy it from IBM in a "Blue" box for 4-5 time the price. (And many companies, Blue Cross locally, insisted on "real" IBM memory.) > DEC wanted $2200 for a 20 MB 5-1/4" disk > drive. I bought brand-X for $300. DEC had totally lost contact with > reality!!! Same was true of other products. SGI and HP sold re-badged drives for unbelievable mark-ups. For some people having "certified" machines made this the only valid path. DEC was just following the business. I believe the demise of all of this was the mass-market IBM PC which had it's price kept artificially low until it had market saturation at which point there was really nothing it's potential competitors could have done. Like MS, it may have a lot more to do with un-fair and un-ethical business practices than any real superiority of the products involved. 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: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 04:03:37 -0800 (PST) From: r2e8t02p Subject: The Bottom Line About SEO Companies Message-ID: <126a2f86-882e-44e3-b66c-0ae8a22261c7@t47g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> The truth of the matter is that I had a struggling media company and was on my last 6 months of business untill I bit the bullet and payed an seo firm to get me where i wanted to be on search engines. http://www.atomicsearchengineoptimization.com/Monthy_plan_rates-seo-services.htmlWith in 2 months I had first page organic results and they delivered on every key term I wanted so here they are http://www.atomicsearchengineoptimization.com or you can go straight to their contct page to get a great free report and a friendly call back. http://www.atomicsearchengineoptimization.com/Monthy_plan_rates-seo-services.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 11:19:45 -0500 From: "Ken Robinson" Subject: Web Based Disk Usage Display Message-ID: <7dd80f60712030819m2507824ar9ece7660690233e6@mail.gmail.com> Inspired by JF's cell phone cluster monitor, I wrote a "quick & dirty" web based disk usage display using PHP and a little bit of DCL. The display shows the amount of free space on the disks in both ASCII and with a bar graph. It is not dynamic (yet). I plan to make it more dynamic so it will be able to indicate when the amount of free space on a disk changes. The PHP script needs to be run on a web host that has TCP connectivity with the VMS nodes that are to be monitored, it does not have to be run on a VMS web host, but it does run fine on VMS. The PHP script gets the disk usage from the following DCL procedure which needs to be set up as a TCP/IP service: $ set noon $ set nover $ open/write out sys$net $ lf[0,8] = 10 $dl: $ nd = f$dev("*d*:","disk") $ if nd .eqs. "" $ then $ close out $ exit $ endif $ if .not. f$getd(nd,"mnt") then goto dl $ mb = f$getd(nd,"maxblock") $ fb = f$getd(nd,"freeblocks") $ write out "''nd', ''mb', ''fb'''lf'" $ goto dl Here is the PHP script (HTML code) -- No Javascript is used in this procedure. VMS Cluster Disk Usage ' . 'Disk Usage
' . date('l, F j, Y \a\t g:i A') . ''; foreach ($nodes as $node) { $du = array(); $tmp[] = '
' . strtoupper($node) . '

'; $fp = fsockopen($node,$socket_num); while (!feof($fp)) $du[] = fgets($fp,80); fclose($fp); $du = array_map('trim',$du); foreach ($du as $line) { if (substr($line,0,1) == '_') { $usage = explode(',',$line); $pct_free = ($usage[2]/$usage[1]) * 100; $bkgnd = 'lime'; if ($pct_free < $yellow_pct) $bkgnd = 'yellow'; if ($pct_free < $red_pct) $bkgnd = 'red'; $bar_width = 80 * ($pct_free/100); $tmp[] = '
'; $tmp[] = '' . str_replace('_','',$usage[0]) . ', ' . number_format($pct_free,2) . '% Free'; $tmp[] = ' '; $tmp[] = '
'; } } $tmp[] = '

'; } echo implode("\n",$tmp)."\n"; ?> If the formatting gets screwed up by GMail, please contact me. If the web page doesn't look right (lines wrapping in weird places, maximize the size of the browser page. I've tested this in both Firefox and MSIE7. Ken Robinson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:36:31 +1030 From: daniel Subject: Xming as an X Window System display server [was Re: X11 in a browser?] Message-ID: <13l7aop7jq5dm1d@corp.supernews.com> Mark Daniel wrote: > Larry Kilgallen wrote: > >> In article , david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk >> writes: >> >>> In article <473F4E4A.5040201@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" >>> writes: >> >> >> >>>> Since the user could almost certainly get PC software that will >>>> handle X windows for $400-$600 that's probably the way to go. If he >>>> needs fifty or a hundred copies of the PC software, that could get a >>>> little expensive and it might actually be worth writing a web >>>> interface. >>>> >>> >>> Alternatively if the user is not averse to using public domain >>> software on his >>> PCs then he could use the free Xming X windows software see >>> >>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/xmng >>> >>> and >>> >>> http://www.straightrunning.com/XmingNotes/ >> >> >> >> What if the customer needs some third alternative to: >> >> a) pay money >> >> b) get it for free >> >> ? :-) > > > With Xming you can do both/either. Note the donation link > > http://www.straightrunning.com/XmingNotes/#sect-16 > > (In fact it would appear you cannot obtain the latest release without > donating!) > > Seriously ... I evaluated the Cygwin/X package some time ago and found > it unusable for my purposes. I have been using X-Win32 > > http://www.starnet.com/products/xwin32/ > > with great satisfaction for some time now but an alternative, which > licence doesn't regularly expire, would be serious contender. I just > downloaded the Xming package, have installed it, and am composing the > VMS Mozilla newsreader reply using it as the X-Window Server. > > First impressions: fast, lightweight, stable (at least it hasn't crashed > yet with five DECterms and one Mozilla running; I also ran up DECwindows > Mail, clock, etc., just to check) and seems to be handling the keyboard > mapping from PC to VT-style for TPU., etc., adequately (with a little > xmodmap-ing in my LOGIN.COM). http://www.straightrunning.com/XmingNotes/ Impressions after running the public domain release 6.9.0.31 (not the latest) for a fortnight: fast, lightweight and very stable (in over 14 days of continuous use with DECterms and Mozilla not one problem). Keyboard mapping (as described above) fine. Three button mouse support and cut-and-paste fine. The default is to run without backing store which (even on my LAN) exhibits a little latency in refreshing various panes on something like Mozilla. Enabling backing store by starting Xming with the additional switches +bs -wm (in the 'target' field of the Xming desktop shortcut) remedies this - but unfortunately is buggy (at least in my public domain release). Some components of some application 'get lost' after using it for a while (e.g. DECterm pull-down menus; you can still pull them down - if you can find them :-) > My only gripe so far (and this is one that also criticises VMS' > 'detached' application creation infrastructure) is the lack of what I > would call a real application launcher (X-Win32's is superb). It's a > bit of a pain SSHing to the VMS box to launch (detached) DECterms and > having to maintain them for applications such as Mozilla. Still, with a > little judicous command-prompt batch programming that might be made less > irksome. Application launch remains a little cumbersome. I have a couple of elementary batch icons to ssh sessions on my VMS systems. This has worked well enough for the evaluation. > If there's any interest I'll report back after using it for a period. All-in-all, for the hard currency spent on it, and with the caveat I'm not a power X Window System user, I'd give it two thumbs up. The documentation claims it can be copied to removeable media (e.g. USB drive, iPod) and without installation on the underlying PC be used as a stand-alone X Window System display environment. Might try that next. > -- > In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a > really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would > actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them > again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, > because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it > happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that > happened in politics or religion. > [Carl Sagan; The Demon Haunted World] -- I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true. [Carl Sagan; The Burden Of Skepticism] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:40:17 +1030 From: Mark Daniel Subject: Re: Xming as an X Window System display server [was Re: X11 in a browser?] brows Message-ID: <13l7avr597co7ab@corp.supernews.com> My ISP has been having some NNTP server issues :-) > Mark Daniel wrote: > >> Larry Kilgallen wrote: >> >>> In article , david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk >>> writes: >>> >>>> In article <473F4E4A.5040201@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" >>>> writes: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> Since the user could almost certainly get PC software that will >>>>> handle X windows for $400-$600 that's probably the way to go. If >>>>> he needs fifty or a hundred copies of the PC software, that could >>>>> get a little expensive and it might actually be worth writing a web >>>>> interface. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Alternatively if the user is not averse to using public domain >>>> software on his >>>> PCs then he could use the free Xming X windows software see >>>> >>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/xmng >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> http://www.straightrunning.com/XmingNotes/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> What if the customer needs some third alternative to: >>> >>> a) pay money >>> >>> b) get it for free >>> >>> ? :-) >> >> >> >> With Xming you can do both/either. Note the donation link >> >> http://www.straightrunning.com/XmingNotes/#sect-16 >> >> (In fact it would appear you cannot obtain the latest release without >> donating!) >> >> Seriously ... I evaluated the Cygwin/X package some time ago and found >> it unusable for my purposes. I have been using X-Win32 >> >> http://www.starnet.com/products/xwin32/ >> >> with great satisfaction for some time now but an alternative, which >> licence doesn't regularly expire, would be serious contender. I just >> downloaded the Xming package, have installed it, and am composing the >> VMS Mozilla newsreader reply using it as the X-Window Server. >> >> First impressions: fast, lightweight, stable (at least it hasn't >> crashed yet with five DECterms and one Mozilla running; I also ran up >> DECwindows Mail, clock, etc., just to check) and seems to be handling >> the keyboard mapping from PC to VT-style for TPU., etc., adequately >> (with a little xmodmap-ing in my LOGIN.COM). > > > http://www.straightrunning.com/XmingNotes/ > > Impressions after running the public domain release 6.9.0.31 (not the > latest) for a fortnight: fast, lightweight and very stable (in over 14 > days of continuous use with DECterms and Mozilla not one problem). > Keyboard mapping (as described above) fine. Three button mouse support > and cut-and-paste fine. The default is to run without backing store > which (even on my LAN) exhibits a little latency in refreshing various > panes on something like Mozilla. Enabling backing store by starting > Xming with the additional switches > > +bs -wm > > (in the 'target' field of the Xming desktop shortcut) remedies this - > but unfortunately is buggy (at least in my public domain release). Some > components of some application 'get lost' after using it for a while > (e.g. DECterm pull-down menus; you can still pull them down - if you can > find them :-) > >> My only gripe so far (and this is one that also criticises VMS' >> 'detached' application creation infrastructure) is the lack of what I >> would call a real application launcher (X-Win32's is superb). It's a >> bit of a pain SSHing to the VMS box to launch (detached) DECterms and >> having to maintain them for applications such as Mozilla. Still, with >> a little judicous command-prompt batch programming that might be made >> less irksome. > > > Application launch remains a little cumbersome. I have a couple of > elementary batch icons to ssh sessions on my VMS systems. This has > worked well enough for the evaluation. > >> If there's any interest I'll report back after using it for a period. > > > All-in-all, for the hard currency spent on it, and with the caveat I'm > not a power X Window System user, I'd give it two thumbs up. > > The documentation claims it can be copied to removeable media (e.g. USB > drive, iPod) and without installation on the underlying PC be used as a > stand-alone X Window System display environment. Might try that next. > >> -- >> In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a >> really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would >> actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them >> again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, >> because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it >> happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that >> happened in politics or religion. >> [Carl Sagan; The Demon Haunted World] > > > -- > I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. > And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science > has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being > true. [Carl Sagan; The Burden Of Skepticism] ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.662 ************************