INFO-VAX Sat, 21 Jun 2008 Volume 2008 : Issue 344 Contents: Re: ACME Authentication issues when LDAP server is down. Re: DEC slighted in filesystem 'opinion' Re: DEC slighted in filesystem 'opinion' Re: How things change for VMS Re: How things change for VMS KZPEA ID question Re: KZPEA ID question Re: KZPEA ID question Re: KZPEA ID question Re: LMF and abandonned products Re: LMF and abandonned products Re: LMF and abandonned products Re: LMF and abandonned products Re: LMF and abandonned products Re: Very cool Ethernet speedup on OpenVMS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:28:23 -0600 From: "Michael D. Ober" Subject: Re: ACME Authentication issues when LDAP server is down. Message-ID: "Malcolm Dunnett" wrote in message news:485bc201$1@flight... > DaveG wrote: > >>> Is there no way to force an authentication to occur immediately using >>> the VMS DOI in the case where the LDAP DOI is failing due to the LDAP >>> server not being available? >> >> Sounds like something to make VMS support/engineering aware of. >> > Did that (logged a support case). The response was : > > "Engineering has acknowledged the behavior you are reporting, and has > also stated that it's currently correct, expected behavior. They also > will be looking into modifying the behavior in future releases to address > these issues." > > In may be "correct", but it's certainly not robust. Mike Ober. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 2008 15:21:07 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: DEC slighted in filesystem 'opinion' Message-ID: <6TkhWSEttJqF@eisner.encompasserve.org> In article , "John Smith" writes: > > Silent data corruption is common - only you don't know it - because the > corruption shows up as other problems, like missing DLLs. How can you tell that the Microsoft file system is silently corrupting your data when Microsoft applications are already doing such a good job of same? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:32:40 -0400 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= Subject: Re: DEC slighted in filesystem 'opinion' Message-ID: <485c6849$0$90262$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> John Smith wrote: > http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=335&tag=nl.e539 > > Apple announces ZFS on Snow Leopard zfs is not new. There are a lot of hype about the fact that it is 128 bit. But it is actually only 64 bit with room in the on disk format for 128 bit. > Finally, a modern file system on a consumer OS There are plenty of modern file systems on Linux. > As if Grand Central weren't enough bad news for Microsoft, now they have ZFS > to contend with. Building a reliable, high-performance file system takes > years and Microsoft doesn't have years to respond. MS seems happy about NTFS. I don't even think they want to respond. > Microsoft's NTFS is 20 year old technology borrowed from DEC. Fine for small > disks and puny CPUs. Not so great for today's data intensive systems and > applications. NTFS is not borrowed from DEC. And are used in some rather big configs. > Silent data corruption is common - only you don't know it - because the > corruption shows up as other problems, like missing DLLs. That is not a general problem. If you see it, then find the problem on your system and fix it. Arne ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:41:04 -0400 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= Subject: Re: How things change for VMS Message-ID: <485c6a41$0$90263$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article , > Michael Kraemer writes: >> John Smith schrieb: >>> I was looking for a citation on-line for a computer crime case which occured >>> in the late 1970's (I think) and stumbled upon this site >>> http://www.phrack.org/issues.html?issue=6&id=12 >>> >>> and a short way into the web page there is a section entitled >>> >>> CONNECTED NODES AS OF 10/05/88 >>> TOTAL NODES = 2491 >>> which lists all the known connected nodes on the internet as of that date >>> and the operating system running on each node. >>> >> Are you sure these are "internet" (i.e. TCP/IP) nodes ? >> I recognize some of my organization's nodes of that time, >> but I'm pretty sure that neither the IBM nor the DEC boxes >> had "internet" access at that time. >> The names look more like Bitnet/Earn nodes. > > It's BITNET. I found both of our old nodes listed. VMS was a major > player in BITNET, as was IBM. I have often wished I could get a copy > of the source for the old BITNET software. It would make a nice > addition to the museum I still hope to set up someday. :-) Ah - the days before university systems got hidden behind firewalls. The BITNET software (JNET on VMS at least) allowed you to list logged in users at any node and send them interactive messages and send files. You could suddenly be pinged from someone around the globe. So much fun. IM of the 1980's ! Arne ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:01:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Hein RMS van den Heuvel Subject: Re: How things change for VMS Message-ID: <09424c75-a374-4997-bde2-86925290b9cd@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> On Jun 19, 3:58=A0am, Oswald wrote: > On 19 jun, 07:27, "Bart.Z...@gmail.com" wrote: > > > This is NOT a list of internet connected nodes, but a list of Bitnet/ > > Earn connected nodes. > > > Regards, > > > Bart Zorn > > Hoi Bart, > > Remeber this one: > > HDETUD5 =A0 Tech Hoogeschool Delft =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0VMS 4 4 > > :-) > > Oswald Ha die Oswald! And I remember: HMARL5 U Limburg VMS 4 Worked once or twice on that system while working for Digital Utrecht in the early 80's My brother (Bart) also worked there (still does) I used to send him DECNET routed Email as: RHEA::DECWRL::"SYVAXVDH @HMARL%.BITNET" I also seem to remember HLSDNLxx DNL Leidschendam fwiw, Hein. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:31:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Rich Jordan Subject: KZPEA ID question Message-ID: <6ace5117-429c-4df0-a6e4-51964e583f4b@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> Picked up a Compaq labelled 39160 U160-LVD SCSI card. The back label shows the following: Part number: 30-56150-03 Serial Number: SG13200xxx Rev: B01 The front shows: ASC-39160/ CPQ-HSD 1861100 D 0132 The controller chip is an AIC-7899G and the firmware (I think) chip is labelled: 1833323 r A 6700 (c) 1999 v2.55.0 Is this a real KZPEA or the "generic" Compaq peecee variant? The part number 30-56150-03 does show up in a KZPEA release note (http:// h18002.www1.hp.com/alphaserver/download/ek-kzpea-rn-d01.pdf) as VMS compatible but this unit refused to boot or allow disk access in a DS10L with current firmware. You can see the two channels (reported as AIC 7899, not as KZPEA), and the disk attached to the one channel, but attempt to boot it, or attempt to access the drive after booting from another disk or the V8.3 CD gives device offline errors with known good disks. Cables and terminators are OK too (tried two of each). The BIOS runs with RUN BIOS PKA0 and the card settings were nominal, plus I reset them to default and retried resetting the individual channel and ID based on the model of disk being tried; same results. I'm going to try it in a different DS10L tonight. Thanks for any info. Rich ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:51:25 -0500 (CDT) From: sms@antinode.info (Steven M. Schweda) Subject: Re: KZPEA ID question Message-ID: <08062016512532_20200492@antinode.info> From: Rich Jordan > Is this a real KZPEA or the "generic" Compaq peecee variant? [...] Does the VMS driver like it? > [...] but this unit refused to boot or allow disk access in a > DS10L with current firmware. Where "refused" means what, exactly? If you're getting the "%PKx0, OFFLINE. ROM Checksum read error." complaint, then the driver hates it, and it's not a VMS-compatible card. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Steven M. Schweda sms@antinode-info 382 South Warwick Street (+1) 651-699-9818 Saint Paul MN 55105-2547 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:36:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Rich Jordan Subject: Re: KZPEA ID question Message-ID: <4f310d40-5ef1-428b-b52a-43ce9f483333@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> On Jun 20, 4:51=A0pm, s...@antinode.info (Steven M. Schweda) wrote: > From: Rich Jordan > > > Is this a real KZPEA or the "generic" Compaq peecee variant? =A0[...] > > =A0 =A0Does the VMS driver like it? > > > [...] but this unit refused to boot or allow disk access in a > > DS10L with current firmware. > > =A0 =A0Where "refused" means what, exactly? =A0If you're getting the "%PK= x0, > OFFLINE. =A0ROM Checksum read error." complaint, then the driver hates it= , > and it's not a VMS-compatible card. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > =A0 =A0Steven M. Schweda =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 sms@antinode-info > =A0 =A0382 South Warwick Street =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(+1) 651-699-9818 > =A0 =A0Saint Paul =A0MN =A055105-2547 Unfortunately I didn't have time to record everything; I had to quicktest the card during about a 20 minute downtime. Definitely not getting ROM checksum errors, and as mentioned the BIOS runs. The console initially sees the card and the drive(s), properly identifying both. When I tried to boot one drive (narrow IBM connected via narrow/wide adapter, terminated by the drive) it failed on reading the boot block and the drive disappeared (but PKA was still online). After INITing the drive re-appeared but was still not usable. When I tried a Fujitsu U160 drive with a U160 terminator (and good cables) it reported a read error on the boot block, but the drive remained visible to the console. When I booted the CD (V8.3) the drive and PKA/PKB were online, but attempting the mount reported drive offline errors. At that point I had to restore the system (using both of these drives connected via a KZPBA-CA adapter, with proper termination) and all was well. I'm taking the card home to try on one of my own boxes; I have a spare Fujitsu drive and the cables so I'll get the full error messages. I'm really hoping someone can ID the card as a real, VMS compliant KZPEA or not before I go through too much trouble though. Thanks for responding! Rich ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:31:52 -0500 (CDT) From: sms@antinode.info (Steven M. Schweda) Subject: Re: KZPEA ID question Message-ID: <08062021315247_20200492@antinode.info> From: Rich Jordan > The console initially sees the card and the drive(s), properly > identifying both. The console is almost always happy. VMS may or may not be. > When I tried to boot one drive (narrow IBM connected via narrow/wide > adapter, terminated by the drive) it failed on reading the boot block > and the drive disappeared (but PKA was still online). After INITing > the drive re-appeared but was still not usable. > > When I tried a Fujitsu U160 drive with a U160 terminator (and good > cables) it reported a read error on the boot block, but the drive > remained visible to the console. > > When I booted the CD (V8.3) the drive and PKA/PKB were online, but > attempting the mount reported drive offline errors. If VMS says that the PK device is online, then you should have a VMS-compatible card. (With the non-VMS-compatible card, the PK device is left offline.) Then, if the DK/MK devices don't work, I'd suspect the usual cables and termination. (A bad card is possible, but not the most likely thing.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Steven M. Schweda sms@antinode-info 382 South Warwick Street (+1) 651-699-9818 Saint Paul MN 55105-2547 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:34:07 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: LMF and abandonned products Message-ID: JF Mezei wrote: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > >> No pandora's box. It is flat out illegal. Just like faking licenses >> for VMS or Windows or MS Office. > > Ok, just for the sake of discussion here. Say company X writes a piece > of software that was last updated in 1990. Company X has since gone out > of business. > > Wouldn't copyright eventually expire on said piece of software and it > would then become fair game to start to use it without paying a licence ? > > > OK, lets take a theoretical case of VAX-Book. It is sold to SSI > technologies in the 1990s. Since then, SSI hasn't developped it, but > remains in business due to other products. > > What does SSI have to do to keep "ownership" of VAX-Book and prevent the > copyright from lapsing ? Just fill out some form every 5 years ? ISTR that copyright is good for fifty years or the life of the author, whichever is greater. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 00:44:04 GMT From: Roger Ivie Subject: Re: LMF and abandonned products Message-ID: On 2008-06-20, Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > ISTR that copyright is good for fifty years or the life of the author, > whichever is greater. I was under the impression that it's currently something like 75 years *after the death* of the author. This is why Steamboat Willie has not yet lapsed into the public domain. -- roger ivie rivie@ridgenet.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:34:21 -0400 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= Subject: Re: LMF and abandonned products Message-ID: <485c68ad$0$90267$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Michael Kraemer wrote: > Bill Gunshannon schrieb: >> It would be illegal and I would hope there is no one here stupid enough >> to tell how to do it in a public forum. There is no such thing as >> "abandoned" software. > > who cares about abandoned software. Get real. Anyone that does not want to get sued by HP's. Arne ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 03:52:04 +0000 (UTC) From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Subject: Re: LMF and abandonned products Message-ID: Roger Ivie writes: >On 2008-06-20, Richard B. Gilbert wrote: >> ISTR that copyright is good for fifty years or the life of the author, >> whichever is greater. >I was under the impression that it's currently something like 75 years >*after the death* of the author. It is something like that *now* for works created after a certain date. They changed the copyright law. For works created before that date, it's a shorter period, something like 50 years from the time of creation. >This is why Steamboat Willie has not yet lapsed into the public domain. Steamboat Willie was created before the copyright law was changed, and would be in the public domain. (did you ever notice things like DVDs full of old cartoons in the $1 bin at bargain stores? The cartoons themselves are in the public domain so the mfgr only has to pay for the CD and packaging it) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:19:09 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: LMF and abandonned products Message-ID: <485c90e6$0$7255$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Michael Moroney wrote: > It is something like that *now* for works created after a certain date. > They changed the copyright law. For works created before that date, > it's a shorter period, something like 50 years from the time of creation. If the company that owns the rights to some software is wound down without selling any of its remaining assets because they are considered worthless, is there anyone left to enforce the copyright on those products ? In the case of a book, the writer would likely have surviving family who would inherit the rights, or perjaps the publisher would get the upon death of writer. But in the case of a small company that just stops existing, it isn't obvious what happens to copyrights. Does the copyright law differentiate between somoene "copying a book" and a company starting to publish the book and sell it without permission ? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:22:07 -0400 From: "William Webb" Subject: Re: Very cool Ethernet speedup on OpenVMS Message-ID: <8660a3a10806201822w30732241pacddb04a602c2ff5@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:37 PM, ewilts wrote: > On Jun 18, 10:50 am, "Richard B. Gilbert" > wrote: >> The network guy is TWICE an idiot. It's usually NOT a good idea to >> force speed and duplex settings. Except when dealing with certain VERY >> old (ten or more years) hardware, autonegotiation of speed and duplex >> settings is the way to go. > > I disagree and if you read the NetBackup mailing list, you'll see > regular reports of people who also disagree with you. The rule of > thumb I follow is: > For 100mbps, FORCE the speed AND the duplex on BOTH ends of the > connection > For GigE, autonegotiate > > It hasn't failed me, and I've seen a LOT of issues with autonegotation > on 100Mbps ports failing to negotiate the duplex. It seems to work, > but performance really, really sucks. > >> Ten, or more, years ago there was an ambiguity in the standard for >> autonegotiation. Cisco Systems interpreted it one way while Digital >> Equipment Corporation interpreted it the other way. Forcing the setting >> was the only way to get 100 Full Duplex. >> >> The ambiguity was resolved long ago but there is still some old hardware >> out there. . . . > > Current Cisco switches and current Ethernet adapters still have issues > at 100Mbps. > > There is NO disadvantage to forcing speed and duplex at 100Mbps. > There are potential disadvantages to autonegotiating. Why take a > chance? > > .../Ed > As one who's in the midst of a very large Alpha to Integrity migration, we've had numerous discussions with VMS Engineering about this, including some of the seven remaining TCP/IP mavens down in Oz. The party line is that don't set it to autonegotiate on Alpha, but do set it thusly on I64. and that goes double for the GigE ports. Best regards, WWWebb ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2008.344 ************************