INFO-VAX Sat, 12 Apr 2008 Volume 2008 : Issue 205 Contents: Re: analyze/audit options to display password Re: change password on node 1 from node 2 Re: Decnet IV Re: Longtime VMS system manager/programmer available Re: Longtime VMS system manager/programmer available Re: Longtime VMS system manager/programmer available Re: Longtime VMS system manager/programmer available Re: Longtime VMS system manager/programmer available Re: Longtime VMS system manager/programmer available Re: Longtime VMS system manager/programmer available Re: Longtime VMS system manager/programmer available Re: Longtime VMS system manager/programmer available RE: Longtime VMS system manager/programmer available Re: Mercurial on OpenVMS webserver Re: Mercurial on OpenVMS webserver Re: VMS advertising ! Re: VMS advertising ! RE: VMS advertising ! Re: VMS advertising ! Re: VMS advertising ! Re: VMS advertising ! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:09:39 +0200 From: "P. Sture" Subject: Re: analyze/audit options to display password Message-ID: In article , Ken.Fairfield@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 11, 10:56 am, "Peter Weaver" > wrote: > [...] > > $ search TCPIP$SSH_RUN.LOG;* 'sysrem_node /status /since=-06: > > $ number_of_times = f$integer(SEARCH$RECORDS_MATCHED) > [...] > > Very nice! At which VMS version and/or DCL ECO, did this > SEARCH$RECORDS_MATCHED appear? It's not mentioned > in the online DCL Dictionary, even for VMS 8.3-1H1. Are there > any other SEARCH$ symbols defined? > > There are countless routines where I could have used this rather > than, > > $ Search /Wind=0/Stat/Out= > > and reading back the tmp file. Sigh... > It's documented in Guy Peleg's Powerpoint "V8.3 New Features" presentation he gave in Brussels in early 2007. The presentations can be found on the front page at http://deathrow.vistech.net/ (If you don't have Powerpoint, drop me a private e-mail and I will see what I can do) Meanwhile, these are the symbols defined when /STATUS is used: $ sea sys$help:*.release_notes search$ %SEARCH-I-NOMATCHES, no strings matched $ show sym search* %DCL-W-UNDSYM, undefined symbol - check validity and spelling $ sea sys$help:*.release_notes search$/status Files searched: 175 Buffered I/O count: 705 Records searched: 204095 Direct I/O count: 230 Characters searched: 6684769 Page faults: 26 Records matched: 0 Elapsed CPU time: 0 00:00:01.50 Lines printed: 0 Elapsed time: 0 00:00:01.51 %SEARCH-I-NOMATCHES, no strings matched $ show sym search* SEARCH$CHARACTERS_SEARCHED = "6684769" SEARCH$FILES_SEARCHED = "175" SEARCH$LINES_PRINTED = "0" SEARCH$RECORDS_MATCHED = "0" SEARCH$RECORDS_SEARCHED = "204095" $ -- Paul Sture Sue's OpenVMS bookmarks: http://eisner.encompasserve.org/~sture/ovms-bookmarks.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:17:59 +0200 From: "Raf The Cat" Subject: Re: change password on node 1 from node 2 Message-ID: <48009a73$0$900$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> Sorry anton but he exists number of routine of call which are not researches in bookshops DCL I shall play better in term explanation next time Best regards Yves-laurent Richard systems engineering of digital equipment since 1983 "Bob Koehler" a écrit dans le message de news: 5dvEfgz3yRpz@eisner.encompasserve.org... > In article <20080411160017.GA3095@mech-aslap33.men.bris.ac.uk>, Anton > Shterenlikht writes: >> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 03:06:07PM +0200, Raf The Cat wrote: >>> hi hanton >>> >>> $ assign node2::sys$system:sysuaf.dat sysuaf >>> $ mc authorize mod ..... >> >> mc is not a DCL command, is it? I can't find any info on mc. > > MC is the unique abreviation that selects the MCR command. MCR was > the primary command langauge on RSX-11M/M+ as was once a supported > command language on VMS. > > MCR x can be taken as short for "run sys$system:x", but unlike the > run command, it allows command parameters. A path can be given to > override the default of sys$system:. > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:43:23 +0200 From: "P. Sture" Subject: Re: Decnet IV Message-ID: In article , "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote: > P. Sture wrote: > > In article , > > "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote: > > > >> Well, if he's like me, he finds NCP a real burden. The documentation > >> for DecNet V was a real disaster. The author was so damned proud of all > >> the layers, stacks, towers and all the rest of the garbage that I'm > >> not sure he ever did get around to telling me how to do the basic > >> management tasks. > >> > >> I wrestled with it when I absolutely had to and ran Phase IV otherwise. > >> All I ever wanted was DECnet over Ethernet but DECnet V assumed that I > >> needed to support everything from tin cans and string to satellite > >> links. Among other sins, it turned a simple thing like setting the > >> correct time into a horrendous task! > >> > >> I'm STILL running Phase IV, if only on my home machines. > > > > Sorry Richard, but you are out of date here. Agreed that the original > > documentation left much to be desired, but since more than a decade ago > > I have been happily running Phase V, and it really isn't so bad to > > understand once you get into the swing of it. > > > > My home machines are all I have now and all I've had for the last four > years. Phase IV does everything I need and I know how to accomplish the > few management tasks required. It's most unlikely now that I'll EVER > find another job as a System Manager. Where is the benefit to me? You have my sympathies, but your negativity about Phase V doesn't really help those of us who have to use it. > And BTW, where I wrote "NCP" above I think I meant NCL. Yes, I think you did, and I assumed that was the case. > And TCP/IP has effectively conquered the world anyway!! It became the > de facto standard while the professors were still debating! Indeed it did. -- Paul Sture Sue's OpenVMS bookmarks: http://eisner.encompasserve.org/~sture/ovms-bookmarks.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 03:26:19 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Longtime VMS system manager/programmer available Message-ID: <373f4$48006382$cef8887a$1505@TEKSAVVY.COM> Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > If nobody ever tried anything new, we'd still be chipping flint and > bashing JF with stone axes instead of words. The newer stuff doesn't necessarily work better. The fact that I am still here tends to show that words may be less effective than stone axes :-) I just installed some "BitTorrent" software, apparently written with a mixture of GCC and python. The thing consumes 100% of the cpu time given to it. All it does is transfer data. A properly witten program in C on an allmighty Microvax II would leave some spare CPU cycles. Kiddies are now so far detached from the machine through layers of software and middleware that they no longer have control over how their software actually runs. So all these newfangled tools end up creating software that is overlybloated, slower and not really using the CPU and OS intelligently. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 08:46:30 -0400 From: Bob Willard Subject: Re: Longtime VMS system manager/programmer available Message-ID: <5I-dncZvYv-WMp3VnZ2dnUVZ_q2hnZ2d@comcast.com> Tom Linden wrote: > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:26:54 -0700, Rob Brooks > wrote: > >> billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >> >>> If (and that's a real big if) they decided to port VMS to x86-64, who is >>> left to actually do it? Because of the lack of expertise in things like >>> BLISS and MACRO how much would have to be re-written nthat dreaded "C"? >>> If large portions were written in C by the current crop of programmers, >>> how much of VMS's stability and integrity would be damaged or destroyed? >> >> >> IF a port to a different architecture was done, it's almost a given that >> we would need to call in some hired guns to do things like port the BLISS >> compiler. >> >> It's not clear why this bizarre notion that only new, inexperienced >> VMS engineers program in C. Some of the more experienced members of >> VMS engineering are strong advocates of C. Anyone remember "Writing >> OpenVMS Alpha Device Drivers in C"? And that's a 12-year old book! >> >> Nonetheless, a complete rewrite of BLISS and MACRO into C would not >> likely be the best solution should the likely-never-to-happen port >> to a different architecture be undertaken. >> > VMS engineering has had brain-dead managment since the early 80's allowing > the engineers to experiment with all sorts of crap, including C. > > Oh, come on now; twice. 1.I won't argue about the quality of the senior managers who were responsible for VMS (i.e., Curly & Carly), but the lower ranks of VMS management included some rather sharp folks. 2.C, in its place, is pretty good. In particular, when C is used for stuff that would otherwise have been written in assembly language, C is IMHO just dandy. Have you had good luck writing device drivers in PL/I? -- Cheers, Bob ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 05:55:18 -0700 From: "Tom Linden" Subject: Re: Longtime VMS system manager/programmer available Message-ID: On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:05:37 -0700, Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > It's been said before but. . . THE LANGUAGE DOES NOT MAKE THE PROGRAM. > You don't have to write bad code in C, it's just easier to do so than it > really should be. You could write poor code in BLISS, you'd just have > to work a little harder to make it bad. You can write a buggy program > in ADA; you just have to work harder. . . . You don't get it, why write code using an inferior tool, you have to expend more effort and the code will be more difficult to maintain? It is about programming standards. > If nobody ever tried anything new, we'd still be chipping flint and > bashing JF with stone axes instead of words. I would hardly characterize C or Bliss as something 'new' They were retrograde when devised. -- PL/I for OpenVMS www.kednos.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 06:02:47 -0700 From: "Tom Linden" Subject: Re: Longtime VMS system manager/programmer available Message-ID: On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 05:46:30 -0700, Bob Willard wrote: > Tom Linden wrote: > >> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:26:54 -0700, Rob Brooks >> wrote: >> >>> billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >>> >>>> If (and that's a real big if) they decided to port VMS to x86-64, who >>>> is >>>> left to actually do it? Because of the lack of expertise in things >>>> like >>>> BLISS and MACRO how much would have to be re-written nthat dreaded >>>> "C"? >>>> If large portions were written in C by the current crop of >>>> programmers, >>>> how much of VMS's stability and integrity would be damaged or >>>> destroyed? >>> >>> >>> IF a port to a different architecture was done, it's almost a given >>> that >>> we would need to call in some hired guns to do things like port the >>> BLISS >>> compiler. >>> >>> It's not clear why this bizarre notion that only new, inexperienced >>> VMS engineers program in C. Some of the more experienced members of >>> VMS engineering are strong advocates of C. Anyone remember "Writing >>> OpenVMS Alpha Device Drivers in C"? And that's a 12-year old book! >>> >>> Nonetheless, a complete rewrite of BLISS and MACRO into C would not >>> likely be the best solution should the likely-never-to-happen port >>> to a different architecture be undertaken. >>> >> VMS engineering has had brain-dead managment since the early 80's >> allowing >> the engineers to experiment with all sorts of crap, including C. >> > > Oh, come on now; twice. > > 1.I won't argue about the quality of the senior managers who were > responsible > for VMS (i.e., Curly & Carly), but the lower ranks of VMS management > included some rather sharp folks. Sharp folks can build the wrong thing without seasoned direction, moreover part of software management is setting and maintaining standards, like SDL. > > 2.C, in its place, is pretty good. In particular, when C is used for > stuff > that would otherwise have been written in assembly language, C is IMHO > just dandy. Have you had good luck writing device drivers in PL/I? Maybe I am more familiar with C than you are with PL/I? I haven't had a need to do so, but I easily could, and have done so years ago for unix, including replacing some portions of the kernel. The tape driver on Primos was written in Fortran, BTW. -- PL/I for OpenVMS www.kednos.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 10:20:54 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Longtime VMS system manager/programmer available Message-ID: <4pqdnSg6vdvBWJ3VnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com> Tom Linden wrote: > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:05:37 -0700, Richard B. Gilbert > wrote: > >> It's been said before but. . . THE LANGUAGE DOES NOT MAKE THE >> PROGRAM. You don't have to write bad code in C, it's just easier to >> do so than it really should be. You could write poor code in BLISS, >> you'd just have to work a little harder to make it bad. You can write >> a buggy program in ADA; you just have to work harder. . . . > > You don't get it, why write code using an inferior tool, you have to expend > more effort and the code will be more difficult to maintain? It is about > programming standards. > Has everyone finally managed to agree on just what the "programming standards" should be? I've always tried to write code that could be understood and maintained by those who came after me. I don't know that I've succeeded but I've tried. . . . In the process, I've used at least seven different assembler languages, Fortran II, Fortran IV, Fortran 77, PL/1, C, DCL, sh, ksh, awk, and, perhaps, a few that I've forgotten. Generally, you have to use the tools that are available, whatever they might be. It has been a while since I looked at pricing but a Fortran compiler license for the VAX 11/750 used to cost $5,000 US. The price was approximately the same for ANY of the available compilers. This meant that you didn't always have the appropriate tool for the job; you had to "make do" with whatever was available. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:27:05 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: Longtime VMS system manager/programmer available Message-ID: On Apr 11, 10:05 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote: > Tom Linden wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:26:54 -0700, Rob Brooks > > wrote: > > >> billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > > >>> If (and that's a real big if) they decided to port VMS to x86-64, who is > >>> left to actually do it? Because of the lack of expertise in things like > >>> BLISS and MACRO how much would have to be re-written nthat dreaded "C"? > >>> If large portions were written in C by the current crop of programmers, > >>> how much of VMS's stability and integrity would be damaged or destroyed? > > >> IF a port to a different architecture was done, it's almost a given that > >> we would need to call in some hired guns to do things like port the BLISS > >> compiler. > > >> It's not clear why this bizarre notion that only new, inexperienced > >> VMS engineers program in C. Some of the more experienced members of > >> VMS engineering are strong advocates of C. Anyone remember "Writing > >> OpenVMS Alpha Device Drivers in C"? And that's a 12-year old book! > > >> Nonetheless, a complete rewrite of BLISS and MACRO into C would not > >> likely be the best solution should the likely-never-to-happen port > >> to a different architecture be undertaken. > > > VMS engineering has had brain-dead managment since the early 80's allowing > > the engineers to experiment with all sorts of crap, including C. > > It's been said before but. . . THE LANGUAGE DOES NOT MAKE THE PROGRAM. > You don't have to write bad code in C, it's just easier to do so than > it really should be. You could write poor code in BLISS, you'd just > have to work a little harder to make it bad. You can write a buggy > program in ADA; you just have to work harder. . . . > > If nobody ever tried anything new, we'd still be chipping flint and > bashing JF with stone axes instead of words. By the same token (whatever that means!), if you don't throw out those new things you tried that failed, you end up with bad stuff. (In physics we threw out phlogiston, n-rays, and the fifth force, e.g., because they turned out to be bogus. [I was right about the fifth force!] Scientists threw out cold fusion because it was bogus. And now there's software named after it! Way to go!) Maybe that's why we have the fastest hardware that's ever been made, supposedly doubling in speed every 18 months, yet still everything is slow. We have all these fancy programming tools like color-coded code editors (or whatever the hell they're called), visual this and visual that, and still end up with so much bad software. Yeah, marketing pressures are in part to blame, but so is ignorance. Web-page design is often awful. Why do they put important links in microscopic font ABOVE the title of the page? Who looks above the title anywhere else? Typography is not done well. Long lines are harder to read as the LaTeX manual tells us about one of the most elementary mistakes people make when doing their own typography. In general, lines should be no longer than 75 characters each. And then there's Microsoft software. Does anyone think PL/I could save them? Well, it might help a little, I'm not really sure. Of course you can screw things up even with the best tools. I've noticed at least some developers seem to think that the speed of hardware will somehow make up for poor algorithms and such. Some stuff I've seen generates thousands of error messages and these are sent to pages just because of a single thing that had gone wrong. I once received 600 page alerts because a single disk experienced 600 errors! And there was no way I could do a mass delete! AUUUUUGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Of course it's still better to use better tools, whatever is best suited to the job, etc. All right -- enough ranting. AEF ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 10:54:34 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Longtime VMS system manager/programmer available Message-ID: AEF wrote: > On Apr 11, 10:05 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" > wrote: >> Tom Linden wrote: >>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:26:54 -0700, Rob Brooks >>> wrote: >>>> billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >>>>> If (and that's a real big if) they decided to port VMS to x86-64, who is >>>>> left to actually do it? Because of the lack of expertise in things like >>>>> BLISS and MACRO how much would have to be re-written nthat dreaded "C"? >>>>> If large portions were written in C by the current crop of programmers, >>>>> how much of VMS's stability and integrity would be damaged or destroyed? >>>> IF a port to a different architecture was done, it's almost a given that >>>> we would need to call in some hired guns to do things like port the BLISS >>>> compiler. >>>> It's not clear why this bizarre notion that only new, inexperienced >>>> VMS engineers program in C. Some of the more experienced members of >>>> VMS engineering are strong advocates of C. Anyone remember "Writing >>>> OpenVMS Alpha Device Drivers in C"? And that's a 12-year old book! >>>> Nonetheless, a complete rewrite of BLISS and MACRO into C would not >>>> likely be the best solution should the likely-never-to-happen port >>>> to a different architecture be undertaken. >>> VMS engineering has had brain-dead managment since the early 80's allowing >>> the engineers to experiment with all sorts of crap, including C. >> It's been said before but. . . THE LANGUAGE DOES NOT MAKE THE PROGRAM. >> You don't have to write bad code in C, it's just easier to do so than >> it really should be. You could write poor code in BLISS, you'd just >> have to work a little harder to make it bad. You can write a buggy >> program in ADA; you just have to work harder. . . . >> >> If nobody ever tried anything new, we'd still be chipping flint and >> bashing JF with stone axes instead of words. > > > By the same token (whatever that means!), if you don't throw out those > new things you tried that failed, you end up with bad stuff. (In > physics we threw out phlogiston, n-rays, and the fifth force, e.g., > because they turned out to be bogus. [I was right about the fifth > force!] Scientists threw out cold fusion because it was bogus. And now > there's software named after it! Way to go!) Maybe that's why we have > the fastest hardware that's ever been made, supposedly doubling in > speed every 18 months, yet still everything is slow. If you build a faster computer, someone will build slower software to run on it. I've spent a substantial portion of my life waiting to get my prompt back!! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:02:37 -0700 From: "Tom Linden" Subject: Re: Longtime VMS system manager/programmer available Message-ID: On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:27:05 -0700, AEF wrote: > And then there's Microsoft software. Does anyone think PL/I could save > them? Well, it might help a little, I'm not really sure. Funny, you should bring that up, because I asked Cutler about 10 years ago if they had any interest in PL/I on NT, No. -- PL/I for OpenVMS www.kednos.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:11:02 -0700 From: "Tom Linden" Subject: Re: Longtime VMS system manager/programmer available Message-ID: On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:20:54 -0700, Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > Tom Linden wrote: >> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:05:37 -0700, Richard B. Gilbert >> wrote: >> >>> It's been said before but. . . THE LANGUAGE DOES NOT MAKE THE >>> PROGRAM. You don't have to write bad code in C, it's just easier to >>> do so than it really should be. You could write poor code in BLISS, >>> you'd just have to work a little harder to make it bad. You can write >>> a buggy program in ADA; you just have to work harder. . . . >> You don't get it, why write code using an inferior tool, you have to >> expend >> more effort and the code will be more difficult to maintain? It is >> about >> programming standards. >> > > Has everyone finally managed to agree on just what the "programming > standards" should be? I've always tried to write code that could be > understood and maintained by those who came after me. I don't know that > I've succeeded but I've tried. . . . In the process, I've used at least > seven different assembler languages, Fortran II, Fortran IV, Fortran 77, > PL/1, C, DCL, sh, ksh, awk, and, perhaps, a few that I've forgotten. I've got you beat, or maybe I remember the (names of) ones you have forgotten:-) > > Generally, you have to use the tools that are available, whatever they > might be. It has been a while since I looked at pricing but a Fortran > compiler license for the VAX 11/750 used to cost $5,000 US. The price > was approximately the same for ANY of the available compilers. This > meant that you didn't always have the appropriate tool for the job; you > had to "make do" with whatever was available. Sorry to belabor the point, but just because a compiler is expensive doesn't imply that using an inferior tool is the best choice, in fact, I would argue to the contrary. -- PL/I for OpenVMS www.kednos.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:16:10 +0000 From: "Main, Kerry" Subject: RE: Longtime VMS system manager/programmer available Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca] > Sent: April 10, 2008 6:44 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: Longtime VMS system manager/programmer available > > Jan-Erik S=F6derholm wrote: > > > Just as for any other server-OS on the planet, even 3270 > > on MVS is replaced by other client tools, web based or > > whatever. VMS is no different than any other server-OS > > in this regard. > > > OS that are relegated to server only stuff don't have much of a future. > Even Linux knows that to gain market traction, it needs to have a > modern > user interface. > JF - If you are talking about managing servers with GUI's, when was the last time you looked at any of the modern GUI tools to manage OpenVMS? - HP OpenVMS Systems Homepage (HP SMH) http://www.openvms.compaq.com/openvms/products/smh/index.html - OpenVMS System Management summary page: http://www.openvms.compaq.com/openvms/system_management.html - Availability Manager (OpenVMS or Windows host) http://www.openvms.compaq.com/openvms/products/availman/what.html - OpenVMS Management Station (Windows based UAF, disk, printers) http://www.openvms.compaq.com/openvms/products/argus/index.html (scroll down for sample screen shots) - WBEM based enhancements http://www.openvms.compaq.com/openvms/products/wbem/wbem_index.html - Distributed NetBeans (development tools & management) http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/products/ips/netbeans/distnb.html And btw, Microsoft is under a lot of pressure to come up with a better command line infrastructure right now as the feedback they received is that GUI's do not cut it for production environments e.g. large batch and reporting type environments. Regards Kerry Main Senior Consultant HP Services Canada Voice: 613-254-8911 Fax: 613-591-4477 kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT) OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:33:00 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Pi=E9ronne?= Subject: Re: Mercurial on OpenVMS webserver Message-ID: <480065ab$0$12073$426a74cc@news.free.fr> Jeffrey H. Coffield wrote: > Has anyone been able to get Mercurial to work with any web server on > OpenVMS? I have it working on Apache/Linux but the same configuration > with Apache on OpenVMS seems to have a disconnect in the way Apache > passes CGI data to Mercurial. > Mercurial run without any problem with WASD. I host on my site a few repositories without any problem (synchronized with VMS, Linux, Windows system). Currently my site is currently offline because my router has failed, expect to be online next week. > Using the server built into Mercurial would seem to require a separate > port for each project. > I'm not aware of such restriction but I will take a look if it's really a restiction of the embedded server. An example of a site serving many repositories from the URL (same server, same port): http://hg.enanocms.org/repos JFP ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:14:24 -0700 From: "Jeffrey H. Coffield" Subject: Re: Mercurial on OpenVMS webserver Message-ID: <5t3Mj.4643$GO4.3727@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net> Jean-François Piéronne wrote: > Jeffrey H. Coffield wrote: >> Has anyone been able to get Mercurial to work with any web server on >> OpenVMS? I have it working on Apache/Linux but the same configuration >> with Apache on OpenVMS seems to have a disconnect in the way Apache >> passes CGI data to Mercurial. >> > > Mercurial run without any problem with WASD. I host on my site a few > repositories without any problem (synchronized with VMS, Linux, Windows > system). > Currently my site is currently offline because my router has failed, > expect to be online next week. > >> Using the server built into Mercurial would seem to require a separate >> port for each project. >> > > I'm not aware of such restriction but I will take a look if it's really > a restiction of the embedded server. > An example of a site serving many repositories from the URL (same > server, same port): > http://hg.enanocms.org/repos > > > > JFP Thanks, I have had trouble getting to your site. I'll look at WASD. Do you have a sample configuration for Mercurial on WASD? Jeff C. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:38:46 +0200 From: "P. Sture" Subject: Re: VMS advertising ! Message-ID: In article <9d58f5a7-12b5-4e65-97de-e9641076fe94@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, DaveG wrote: > Old" customer relations, and I'm included in that group. But what > the heck, the name changed to OpenVMS how many years ago? At least > 10, probably more. According to the "VMS at 20" PDF, "Major Releases" appendix, the first mentions of OpenVMS are: OpenVMS/AXP V1.0 November 1992 - Alpha is here! and: OpenVMS/VAX V6.0 June 1993 -- Paul Sture Sue's OpenVMS bookmarks: http://eisner.encompasserve.org/~sture/ovms-bookmarks.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:02:56 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: VMS advertising ! Message-ID: <3c6ee$480096e1$cef8887a$32020@TEKSAVVY.COM> P. Sture wrote: > According to the "VMS at 20" PDF, "Major Releases" appendix, the first > mentions of OpenVMS are: > > OpenVMS/AXP V1.0 November 1992 - Alpha is here! > OpenVMS/VAX V6.0 June 1993 The name changed was done by Palmer who was intent on running VMS into the ground (and ended up doing the same with Digital). There is no respect for this name change since it is synonymous with a very dark period for VMS. It was also done based on a short term "trend of the day" and the word "open" has no meaning today. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:11:58 +0000 (UTC) From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) Subject: RE: VMS advertising ! Message-ID: In article <6UHROJoQYxKK@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: > In article , "Main, Kerry" writes: > > > > The official name is OpenVMS, so why would anyone bother protecting the nam= > > e "VMS?" > > Customer relations. It is neither necessary nor possible to protect a name such as "VMS" from being used in a completely different field. There is some automatic milking system for dairy cows which goes by the name "VMS". The deciding factor is whether it is possible to be confused. A good example is Apple Records and Apple Computers. There was no problem, until Apple Computers started dealing in music. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:13:21 +0000 (UTC) From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) Subject: Re: VMS advertising ! Message-ID: In article <3c6ee$480096e1$cef8887a$32020@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei writes: > There is no respect for this name change since it is synonymous with a > very dark period for VMS. It was also done based on a short term "trend > of the day" and the word "open" has no meaning today. There are lies, damned lies, and open systems. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:44:37 +0200 From: "P. Sture" Subject: Re: VMS advertising ! Message-ID: In article , helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote: > There are lies, damned lies, and open systems. LOL! -- Paul Sture Sue's OpenVMS bookmarks: http://eisner.encompasserve.org/~sture/ovms-bookmarks.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:23:09 +0100 From: "John Wallace" Subject: Re: VMS advertising ! Message-ID: "JF Mezei" wrote in message news:3c6ee$480096e1$cef8887a$32020@TEKSAVVY.COM... > P. Sture wrote: > > > According to the "VMS at 20" PDF, "Major Releases" appendix, the first > > mentions of OpenVMS are: > > > > OpenVMS/AXP V1.0 November 1992 - Alpha is here! > > OpenVMS/VAX V6.0 June 1993 > > > The name changed was done by Palmer who was intent on running VMS into > the ground (and ended up doing the same with Digital). > > There is no respect for this name change since it is synonymous with a > very dark period for VMS. It was also done based on a short term "trend > of the day" and the word "open" has no meaning today. "It was also done based on a short term "trend of the day" and the word "open" has no meaning today." To an extent. At the time the name change was done, there had been a trend over a matter of *years* for customer's Invitations To Tender and RFPs to specify "Open" systems, because at that time "proprietary" had become a Bad Thing. Vendor lock-in and such like was, understandably, not seen as desirable. So, DEC worked hard on its UNIX and its conformance to "open" standards, as well as its technical features. The technical end result wasn't bad at all, but the sales were less than stellar. In the world of VMS there was also substantial amount of work done on conformance to open standards. VMS POSIX was just one of the more visible aspects of that work, and the "Open" name change reflected the genuine changes that had gone on inside VMS. Whether it was something that customers would actually value was something that would only become clear later. Meanwhile, the customers whose had been demanding "Open" actually often went and bought Windows (and/or Oracle) or other equally proprietary stuff, especially once folk started talking about WNT = VMS++ (which was rubbish then and is demonstrably rubbish now but doesn't stop the myth circulating). Since then, "open" has been redefined somewhat, so we now have OpenSuSE and OpenSolaris and... The various UNIX-derivatives are still fragmented, still all fighting each other for the same turf when they should be united in offering a credible alternative to displace their common competitor. But despite the fragmentation the UNIX-derivatives are largely surviving, and some are being visibly marketed, and some are even growing in market visibility (who'd heard of Ubuntu three years ago?). If customers had really put their money where their RFPs were when their RFPs started talking about "open", we might have a different picture than the one we have today, where we have vendor lock-in to an extent never seen before; a proprietary monopoly monoculture in 99% of the IT market, with all the predictable snags that an uncontrolled global monopoly could bring (limited choice, ridiculous prices, poor quality products and services, dubious business practices...). 2p John ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2008.205 ************************