INFO-VAX Mon, 23 Apr 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 222 Contents: Re: 64-bit: Intel Unveils New x86 Microarchitecture Re: 64-bit: Intel Unveils New x86 Microarchitecture Re: DCL Magic? Re: DCL Magic? Re: DELETE feature with Re: DELETE feature with Re: How to configure DECnet-over-IP only? 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) Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Re: mozilla thunderbird on VMS Re: Mysterious BUGCHECK while booting 7.3-1 on DEC2000 Re: Mysterious BUGCHECK while booting 7.3-1 on DEC2000 Re: Mysterious BUGCHECK while booting 7.3-1 on DEC2000 Re: Mysterious BUGCHECK while booting 7.3-1 on DEC2000 OPCOM on VAX Oracle 10.2.0.2 Standard Edition available for VMS Re: Problem with DCPS 2.6 VAX install from CD-ROM Re: Still no TFTP client? Re: Still no TFTP client? Re: Still no TFTP client? Re: Still no TFTP client? Re: Still no TFTP client? Re: Still no TFTP client? Re: Still no TFTP client? Re: Still no TFTP client? Re: Still no TFTP client? Re: Still no TFTP client? Re: Still no TFTP client? Re: Still no TFTP client? Re: VMS Alpha to Itanium port Re: [OT] If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Re: [OT] If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Re: [TCPIP V5.6] Still no TFTP client? Re: [TCPIP V5.6] Still no TFTP client? Re: [TCPIP V5.6] Still no TFTP client? Re: [TCPIP V5.6] Still no TFTP client? Re: [TCPIP V5.6] Still no TFTP client? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Apr 2007 08:00:45 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: 64-bit: Intel Unveils New x86 Microarchitecture Message-ID: In article <_YpWh.7071$3P3.3265@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Michael D. Ober" writes: > > The IA 64 (Itanic) architecture is deader than the Alpha. At least the > lessons learned in the Alpha are showing up in mass market processors in the > x86/x64 line from Intel and AMD. Didn't you know? The next major release of IA-64 will be a SIMH derived emulator which loads on power on into the unannounced EV10. It promises to make up for 2/3 of the existing IA-64 performance gap. HP is keeping this secret so that you don't try to load VMS or Tru64 natively on the EV10, that would be a serious threat to the HP-UX market. If they're smart, HP folks will open the bidding between AMD and Intel as to who gets to market the IA-32 version of the emulation. But HP hasn't done anything smart in quite a while. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:36:35 +0800 From: Paul Repacholi Subject: Re: 64-bit: Intel Unveils New x86 Microarchitecture Message-ID: <87vefnje64.fsf@k9.prep.synonet.com> koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: > In article <_YpWh.7071$3P3.3265@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Michael D. Ober" writes: >> The IA 64 (Itanic) architecture is deader than the Alpha. At least the >> lessons learned in the Alpha are showing up in mass market processors in the >> x86/x64 line from Intel and AMD. > Didn't you know? The next major release of IA-64 will be a SIMH > derived emulator which loads on power on into the unannounced EV10. > It promises to make up for 2/3 of the existing IA-64 performance gap. Well untel is dumping the Hudson fab, so it will be instructive to see where the engineers end up, if there are any left... ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 2007 07:51:28 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: DCL Magic? Message-ID: <$2twky1tZzoV@eisner.encompasserve.org> In article , Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson writes: > Hi, > > Does DCL have hooks that execute before running a command (after > reading it) and before printing the prompt? > > In unix, I use zsh's precmd() and preexec() functions for this to > display the current working directory and the executing command in the > terminal title bar. > > That is, I'd like to display the current DEFAULT and NODE name in the > title, as well as the currently executing ... is job the term? There are no hooks to do what you want, other than unsupported hacks that you can find. Folks who really want to automagically update the prompt based on the current default directory generally do so via a .COM file and a symbol, such as SD, which points to it; and use the latter to change defaults. Putting static data, such as the node name in the prompt is a trivial exersize in f$getsyi and "set prompt". Updating the title bar of an DECterm is basically the same problem, but if you're using different terminal emulators and/or different X servers you may find not all of them implement the DECterm escape sequences which make this trivial, you may have to write some X11 code and it may vary or be inaccessable on some terminal emulators or X servers. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:46:26 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: DCL Magic? Message-ID: <00A66925.7CDCDCF9@SendSpamHere.ORG> In article <$2twky1tZzoV@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: > > >In article , Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson writes: >> Hi, >> >> Does DCL have hooks that execute before running a command (after >> reading it) and before printing the prompt? >> >> In unix, I use zsh's precmd() and preexec() functions for this to >> display the current working directory and the executing command in the >> terminal title bar. >> >> That is, I'd like to display the current DEFAULT and NODE name in the >> title, as well as the currently executing ... is job the term? > > There are no hooks to do what you want, other than unsupported hacks > that you can find. Folks who really want to automagically update the > prompt based on the current default directory generally do so via a > .COM file and a symbol, such as SD, which points to it; and use the > latter to change defaults. What happens when a program called SYS$SETDDIR() and then drops out to DCL where the default was set in the program? > Putting static data, such as the node name in the prompt is a trivial > exersize in f$getsyi and "set prompt". > > Updating the title bar of an DECterm is basically the same problem, but > if you're using different terminal emulators and/or different X servers > you may find not all of them implement the DECterm escape sequences > which make this trivial, you may have to write some X11 code and it > may vary or be inaccessable on some terminal emulators or X servers. When I wrote XPDNT, I made it "extensible" for this reason. -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:02:45 +0200 From: JOUKJ Subject: Re: DELETE feature with Message-ID: <462C5A15.30801@hrem.nano.tudelft.nl> JF Mezei wrote: > OK, maybe I am the nly one who didn't know this... > > But at least with VMS 8.3, doing a during a large wildcard > DELETE command will display the name of the file currently being deleted. > > Neat feature. > > > But what I would really like to see would be delayed deletion of .DIR > file until after the files inside that directory have been deleted. This > way, one could do a clean delete of a directory tree without generating > a bunch of security alarms. Did you ever look at the DFU/delete/tree to delete a directory tree? see http://www.digiater.nl/dfu.html Jouk ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 2007 15:22:59 +0200 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER) Subject: Re: DELETE feature with Message-ID: <462ccf53$1@news.langstoeger.at> In article <54412$462c54e0$cef8887a$19906@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei writes: >OK, maybe I am the nly one who didn't know this... > >But at least with VMS 8.3, doing a during a large wildcard >DELETE command will display the name of the file currently being deleted. > >Neat feature. I wonder if it finally is able to spit out all (remaining) DELETE-I-FILDEL messages, after being interrupted by a ^C (Cancel <===> ^Y Interrupt). If I delete in the wrong location (thanks to SYMLINK ;-) and I (notice it immediately and) cancel the delete, there *are* files deleted that I don't know of (and have to check with my old/inexistent backup to find out ;-). -- Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER Network and OpenVMS system specialist E-mail peter@langstoeger.at A-1030 VIENNA AUSTRIA I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 2007 03:44:05 -0700 From: etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk Subject: Re: How to configure DECnet-over-IP only? Message-ID: <1177325045.210256.98150@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> Unless it's changed (and it may well have done), you certainly used to HAVE to include the LOCAL address tower in DECnet Plus configuration, whether or not you wanted to use it. The answer would then be to only have your own DECnet address in the address tower, having other systems registered only in the UCX host database. Steve On 22 Apr, 18:22, p...@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER) wrote: > In article <1177235531.763247.246...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Volker Halle writes: > > >just try to disable and delete the routing circuit and the csma-cd > >station and/or remove the appropriate commands from the NET$*.NCL > >files. > > This is what I just did (after I saw the %NET$CONFIGURE-F-NODEVICECONF abort) > > Is this the way to go (or is there a NET$CONFIGURE method I overlooked)? > > TIA > > -- > Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER > Network and OpenVMS system specialist > E-mail p...@langstoeger.at > A-1030 VIENNA AUSTRIA I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 07:43:55 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk Subject: Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: In article <1177202025.607971.235270@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, genius@marblecliff.com writes: >On Apr 21, 3:59 pm, "Dr. Dweeb" wrote: >> gen...@marblecliff.com wrote: >> >http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55273 >> >> Dr . Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to >> people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an >> observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to >> Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The >> following >> is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, which was posted on >> the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative: >> >> Dear Dr. Laura: >> Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have >> learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as >> many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, >> for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to >> be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, >> regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them. >> >> 1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a >> pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They >> claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? >> >> 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus >> 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? >> >> 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her >> period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I >> tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence. >> >> 4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and >> female, >> provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine >> claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify - >> why can't I own Canadians? >> >> 5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 >> clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill >> him myself? >> >> 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an >> abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I >> don't agree. Can you settle this? >> >> 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a >> defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my >> vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? >> >> 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair >> around >> their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How >> should they die? >> >> 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me >> unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? >> >> 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different >> crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two >> different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse >> and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble >> of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't >> we just burn them to death at a >> private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? >> (Lev. 20:14) >> >> I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you >> can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and >> unchanging. >> >> Your devoted fan, >> Jim > >different group of people (jews) different time period ... > >when Christ died and rose again all of that changed ... >He became the sacrifice for sins so that was no longer >required ... > >if you want to study jewish law under Moses, then >you need to sign up for a bible study group at a >church or a class at a Christian or jewish university ... > Obviously not all of old testament law was changed when Christ died and was resurrected eg 10 commandments etc Hence how can you decide which old testament laws no longer apply ? Can you provide explicit statements in the New Testament which repeal/alter the above statements in Leviticus ? Another interesting old testament statement is Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. which is of course the statement which resulted in the Medieval burning of witches. Are we nowadays wrong not to be seeking out witches and killing them ? After all if they don't exist why would God have put such an explicit statement in the Bible ? Also obviously the death and resurrection of Christ did not repeal this command since it was still being acted upon so long after Christ's resurrection. David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:00:35 +0100 From: "Richard Brodie" Subject: Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: "AEF" wrote in message news:1177292050.770272.203480@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > Like I've posted twice already, it's "Thou shalt not murder". Capice? In more modern translations, sure; not in the King James though. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:41:45 +0200 From: "P. Sture" Subject: Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: In article , "Tom Linden" wrote: > 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 ... Isn't thee also the accusative form? > These were largely germanic as is evident by the concomitant conjugation Obviously, but since "Ich liebe Dich" uses the accusative, how do you arrive at "How do I love thee ..." being dative? OK enough, let's take this one off line :-) -- Paul Sture ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:43:05 +0200 From: "P. Sture" Subject: Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: In article <1177289397.165542.126780@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, genius@marblecliff.com wrote: > 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 ... But who is doing the choosing of which applies to whom? -- Paul Sture ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 2007 04:55:41 -0700 From: genius@marblecliff.com Subject: Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: <1177329341.647352.50420@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> On Apr 23, 7:36 am, Doc wrote: > "P. Sture" wrote innews:paul.sture.nospam-3E720A.11430523042007@mac.sture.ch: > > > > > > > In article <1177289397.165542.126...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > gen...@marblecliff.com wrote: > > >> 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 ... > > > But who is doing the choosing of which applies to whom? > > It takes a genius to do that, luckily we have one to hand. > > Beat your children with a rod if they irritate you. Don't dare stone an > adulterer, that's so old-fashioned nowadays. > > So... Sticks are okay - but stones aren't. > > Incidentally, you need to read some of the drivel Boob believes. Listed > here,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture. > > Neither wonder he thinks Europeans are evil, according to that some > fruit-loop theologian postulated in the 70s that the seven headed monster > with ten horns was the European Union. > > Admittedly, a belief that those who believe will escape a "tribulation" > prior to the second coming explains a lot. It would explain why Boob > doesn't care about the planet, he's not planning on staying on it when > things get bad. Gawd is gonna lift him up into heaven. Praise the lard! > > Nutty Fundamentalist Christians (and they are not alone in this) have > believed the return of Christ was imminent since the time of the > apostles. They all appear to want to see the Earth and all unbelievers > wiped out and look forward to it because they've spent their lives > feeling morally superior because they believe in the same ghosts as > millions of other people. > > Doc.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - 2 Peter 3 vs 3:4 "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:44:29 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: <00A6690C.11D4F6DD@SendSpamHere.ORG> In article , "Tom Linden" writes: > > >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. Mea culpa. I'm not accustomed to writing in ye olde English. -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 06:08:33 -0700 From: "Tom Linden" Subject: Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 02:41:45 -0700, P. Sture wrote: > In article , > "Tom Linden" wrote: > >> 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 ... > > Isn't thee also the accusative form? > >> These were largely germanic as is evident by the concomitant conjugation > > Obviously, but since "Ich liebe Dich" uses the accusative, how do you > arrive at "How do I love thee ..." being dative? > > OK enough, let's take this one off line :-) > My error. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:00:20 -0700 From: David Mathog Subject: Re: If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: genius@marblecliff.com wrote: > from Proverbs King James Version > > 13:24 "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him > chasteneth him betimes" You're misinterpreting this text, here God orders all faithful men to participate in homosexual incestuous child molestation. It's a common mistake, reading "rod" literally to mean "a stick", and not as the euphemism God originally intended. If you don't believe me, ask him, I'm sure he'll be happy to correct your error. Regards, David Mathog ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 2007 01:27:19 -0700 From: Ian Miller Subject: Re: mozilla thunderbird on VMS Message-ID: <1177316839.616890.4160@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> I see that the HP VMS roadmap shows the next browser on VMS being based on firefox. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:06:17 -0400 From: "FredK" Subject: Re: Mysterious BUGCHECK while booting 7.3-1 on DEC2000 Message-ID: "John DeRosa" wrote in message news:q37k23di6pskmlbdhuhu5a3cpt9pi8h9bo@4ax.com... > On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:09:17 -0400, "FredK" > wrote: > >>On the Jensen, the firmware wasn't written by the guys in Marlboro, it was >>written by guys in England. > > Not correct, and not complete... > > The SRM console was written by the engineering team in Ayr, Scotland. > Calling them "guys in England" is fighting words. :-) > Brain fart on my part :-) How are ya John? Long time... > The ARC firmware (a.k.a. NT firmware or NT console) originated in the > source code for the ARC console on a MIPS workstation written by > Microsoft engineers, and then ported to the Jensen by the engineering > team in DECwest, Bellevue, WA, USA. > Yup. I still have the "specs" and the bruises from working on Bob Supniks "Console Unification" team. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:12:55 -0400 From: "FredK" Subject: Re: Mysterious BUGCHECK while booting 7.3-1 on DEC2000 Message-ID: "Rambo" wrote in message news:1177175236.046518.189840@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> Well, I can tell you what happened, but can only speculate on why. >> >> The crash occured in the interrupt dispatch code trying to service a >> console >> interrupt. A critical data structure - the sysgen configuration >> datablock >> (SYSG) pointer in OPA$AR_CRB is not filled in. So the system crashed >> when >> it fetched a zero pointer and then tried to access the structure. >> The cell is filled in by OPDRIVER during initialization, and I'm going to >> take a wild guess as to what happened... > > Makes sense: i did run AUTOGEN when the unsupported S3 card was inside > (see my Mozilla memory post) and maybe that messed up OPADRIVER state. > The catch is, that Jensen works only when I throw out the graphics, > and crashes > when I put one back (ironically, it was working perfectly well with > that one before > I tried S3). > >> I would replace the unsupported S3 928 with a "supported" card. A Compaq >> QVISION for example - which is what the system originally shipped with. > > Yep, a 1024/E is coming my way, will try to run and fix it. > One other thing to try is to run the ECU. The QVision is something that the FW will recognize even if it is fully reset with no ECU run. Anything else needs a valid ECU entry. Autogen probably isn't the culprit here... it is something in the configuration state of the console. As to your comment about running V8.3 - for the most part we never remove the code that supported the old systems - we just don't update it or support it. Providing you have enough memory, it might work fine. I've got V8.3 on my Tadpole. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:06:11 -0700 From: John DeRosa Subject: Re: Mysterious BUGCHECK while booting 7.3-1 on DEC2000 Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:06:17 -0400, "FredK" wrote: > >"John DeRosa" wrote in message >news:q37k23di6pskmlbdhuhu5a3cpt9pi8h9bo@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:09:17 -0400, "FredK" >> wrote: >> >>>On the Jensen, the firmware wasn't written by the guys in Marlboro, it was >>>written by guys in England. >> >> Not correct, and not complete... >> >> The SRM console was written by the engineering team in Ayr, Scotland. >> Calling them "guys in England" is fighting words. :-) >> > >Brain fart on my part :-) How are ya John? Long time... Ya know, I saw your username but didn't know if you were _that_ Fred. :-) I'm good. What's with the dec.com email address? Is that for real? > >> The ARC firmware (a.k.a. NT firmware or NT console) originated in the >> source code for the ARC console on a MIPS workstation written by >> Microsoft engineers, and then ported to the Jensen by the engineering >> team in DECwest, Bellevue, WA, USA. >> > >Yup. I still have the "specs" and the bruises from working on Bob Supniks >"Console Unification" team. Ah, memories. I remember a phone call from a shall-be-nameless individual, asking me if the ARC console was going to obey SRM Chapter 6. I said, "No." "Why not?" "Because I don't want to. And Dave Cutler doesn't want to." Or words to that effect. The other person found the remainder of the conversation to be equally unsatisfying. Boy, was that fun. I still get a smile on my face. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:50:32 -0400 From: "FredK" Subject: Re: Mysterious BUGCHECK while booting 7.3-1 on DEC2000 Message-ID: "John DeRosa" wrote in message news:aiip23hg58606n55afv9oan2ivp6cao2l1@4ax.com... > On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:06:17 -0400, "FredK" > wrote: >>> >> >>Brain fart on my part :-) How are ya John? Long time... > > Ya know, I saw your username but didn't know if you were _that_ Fred. > :-) I'm good. What's with the dec.com email address? Is that for > real? > It's me. But the mail address is bogus to keep the spammers at bay. Getting anyone at hp is easy if you can spell their name... just first name dot lastname at hp dot com. > > I remember a phone call from a shall-be-nameless individual, asking me > if the ARC console was going to obey SRM Chapter 6. I said, "No." > "Why not?" "Because I don't want to. And Dave Cutler doesn't want > to." Or words to that effect. > > The other person found the remainder of the conversation to be equally > unsatisfying. > > Boy, was that fun. I still get a smile on my face. Let me take a guess... Stephen? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 07:49:10 -0700 From: "Tom Linden" Subject: OPCOM on VAX Message-ID: When I log in, one of the windows that presents is OPCOM, which has the question Do you want to quit this window Y/N ?: If I respond 'n' (without apostophes of course) it quits the window. Why? How do you manually launch the window? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:38:28 -0700 From: "Malcolm Dunnett" Subject: Oracle 10.2.0.2 Standard Edition available for VMS Message-ID: <462ceea1$1@flight> In case anyone but me cares: Oracle 10.2.0.2 Standard Edition is now available for VMS on Alpha and Itanium. It's implemented by installing Enterprise Edition first and then layering a patch on top that disables EE only features. It's patch number 5918466 for Alpha and number 5918474 for Itanium. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:02:52 -0400 From: Paul Anderson Subject: Re: Problem with DCPS 2.6 VAX install from CD-ROM Message-ID: In article , Vance Haemmerle wrote: > I found a defect with the PCSI install of VAX DCPS 2.6. I tried to > install it on a VAX running VMS 7.2 and DCPS 2.2. Soon after the > start of the installation, after it was checking the system > environment, it had an error, an undefined symbol "NUMBER_OF_NODES", > and then terminated. It is our intention to allow DCPS installations from the CD. This problem has been reported before but we were never able to reproduce it, perhaps for the lack of details you provided. We'll hopefully get this fixed for V2.7. As mentioned, you can copy the kit to a writable disk as a workaround so you can install V2.6. Paul -- Paul Anderson OpenVMS Engineering Hewlett-Packard Company ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 2007 02:24:36 -0700 From: Ian Miller Subject: Re: Still no TFTP client? Message-ID: <1177320276.057360.31550@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> I'm curious what you would use a TFTP client on VMS for ? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:16:32 -0400 From: sol gongola Subject: Re: Still no TFTP client? Message-ID: Ian Miller wrote: > I'm curious what you would use a TFTP client on VMS for ? > > > Why a tftp client at all or why specifically on VMS. Tftp is part of the suite of tcpip generally available. It is used fore quick file transfers to hardware devices such as routers within environments where security is already taken care of such as on the "secure" side of a firewall. We want it on VMS because it is available on any other unix type or windows platform and we want VMS to not start "not having" things that others have so that naysayers can give another excuse for not using VMS. There already are enough excuses. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 2007 12:49:30 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Still no TFTP client? Message-ID: <593oaqF2jgv67U1@mid.individual.net> In article , sol gongola writes: > Ian Miller wrote: >> I'm curious what you would use a TFTP client on VMS for ? >> >> >> > Why a tftp client at all or why specifically on VMS. > > Tftp is part of the suite of tcpip generally available. Yes, but it dates back to a time when you could trust people on your network not to access things they weren't supposed to. > It is used fore quick file transfers to hardware devices > such as routers within environments where security is > already taken care of such as on the "secure" side of a > firewall. One, it is not particularly faster than any other method of file transfer. Two, there is no "secure" side of a firewall. Current security experts will tell you that attacks come from inside your organization as well as outside. > > We want it on VMS because it is available on any other > unix type or windows platform and we want VMS to not > start "not having" things that others have so that > naysayers can give another excuse for not using VMS. > There already are enough excuses. No Unix admin in his right mind would actually run the tftp server. There are just too many secure ways of accomplishing anything it can. I even (successfully) argued against one of the professors here using TFTP in his Cisco based Networking Course even though many of the examples of Cisco on the Web show TFTP for moving configs, DHCP Leases and other things. I demonstrated how the same can be handled just as easily with real FTP eliminating the need for running a server that would let anyone change configs or use your machine just like a peer-to-peer (Kazaa style) machine for distributing things like warez. 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: 23 Apr 2007 05:49:12 -0700 From: Ian Miller Subject: Re: Still no TFTP client? Message-ID: <1177332552.014535.90020@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> HP TCPIP Services for OpenVMS already has a TFTP server. What I don't understand is why a VMS system needs a TFTP client. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:08:23 -0500 From: Dan Foster Subject: Re: Still no TFTP client? Message-ID: In article <593oaqF2jgv67U1@mid.individual.net>, Bill Gunshannon wrote: > > One, it is not particularly faster than any other method of file transfer. It's rather slow because of use of a small block size and a simple UDP-based acknowledgement mechanism. TCP with far bigger blocks and sliding windows is far faster as well as provides better access control. > Two, there is no "secure" side of a firewall. Current security experts > will tell you that attacks come from inside your organization as well as > outside. Yep. > No Unix admin in his right mind would actually run the tftp server. > There are just too many secure ways of accomplishing anything it can. > > I even (successfully) argued against one of the professors here using > TFTP in his Cisco based Networking Course even though many of the > examples of Cisco on the Web show TFTP for moving configs, DHCP Leases How do you handle it with older network equipment which ONLY supports TFTP? In some places, folks don't have wheelbarrows of cash to junk otherwise functional (and locked down) devices. > and other things. I demonstrated how the same can be handled just as > easily with real FTP eliminating the need for running a server that would > let anyone change configs or use your machine just like a peer-to-peer > (Kazaa style) machine for distributing things like warez. TFTP wouldn't be my first choice, either, but *can* be secured to some reasonable degree without resulting in these cited issues. -Dan ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 2007 13:29:15 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Still no TFTP client? Message-ID: <593qlbF2jre29U1@mid.individual.net> In article , Dan Foster writes: > In article <593oaqF2jgv67U1@mid.individual.net>, Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> >> One, it is not particularly faster than any other method of file transfer. > > It's rather slow because of use of a small block size and a simple > UDP-based acknowledgement mechanism. TCP with far bigger blocks and > sliding windows is far faster as well as provides better access control. > >> Two, there is no "secure" side of a firewall. Current security experts >> will tell you that attacks come from inside your organization as well as >> outside. > > Yep. > >> No Unix admin in his right mind would actually run the tftp server. >> There are just too many secure ways of accomplishing anything it can. >> >> I even (successfully) argued against one of the professors here using >> TFTP in his Cisco based Networking Course even though many of the >> examples of Cisco on the Web show TFTP for moving configs, DHCP Leases > > How do you handle it with older network equipment which ONLY supports > TFTP? In some places, folks don't have wheelbarrows of cash to junk > otherwise functional (and locked down) devices. Like what? I certainly don't have "wheelbarrows of cash" and nothing I have "requires" tftp. > >> and other things. I demonstrated how the same can be handled just as >> easily with real FTP eliminating the need for running a server that would >> let anyone change configs or use your machine just like a peer-to-peer >> (Kazaa style) machine for distributing things like warez. > > TFTP wouldn't be my first choice, either, but *can* be secured to some > reasonable degree without resulting in these cited issues. Other than through security by obscurity (ie. if I don't tell you I am running a tftp server you probably won't find it) how would you secure tftp? There's a reason why they call it "trivial". :-) 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: 23 Apr 2007 15:32:08 +0200 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER) Subject: Re: Still no TFTP client? Message-ID: <462cd178$1@news.langstoeger.at> In article <1177320276.057360.31550@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Ian Miller writes: >I'm curious what you would use a TFTP client on VMS for ? Check if the TFTP server where the router, ... should have written their dump is the culprit (not writable, not working at all) or the router, ... Just to name the last occurence ;-) What is the problem with having a client? Even M$ (SHUDDER) has a TFTP client included. And my TCPware system also has one ;-) Do you enter to your TCPIP/UCX system (into SYLOGIN.COM perhaps): $ tftp :== WRITE SYS$OUTPUT "No TFTP client on UCX/TCPIP" -- Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER Network and OpenVMS system specialist E-mail peter@langstoeger.at A-1030 VIENNA AUSTRIA I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 07:55:25 -0600 From: Mark Berryman Subject: Re: Still no TFTP client? Message-ID: <462c585f@mvb.saic.com> Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article , > Dan Foster writes: >> In article <593oaqF2jgv67U1@mid.individual.net>, Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>> One, it is not particularly faster than any other method of file transfer. >> It's rather slow because of use of a small block size and a simple >> UDP-based acknowledgement mechanism. TCP with far bigger blocks and >> sliding windows is far faster as well as provides better access control. >> >>> Two, there is no "secure" side of a firewall. Current security experts >>> will tell you that attacks come from inside your organization as well as >>> outside. >> Yep. >> >>> No Unix admin in his right mind would actually run the tftp server. >>> There are just too many secure ways of accomplishing anything it can. >>> >>> I even (successfully) argued against one of the professors here using >>> TFTP in his Cisco based Networking Course even though many of the >>> examples of Cisco on the Web show TFTP for moving configs, DHCP Leases >> How do you handle it with older network equipment which ONLY supports >> TFTP? In some places, folks don't have wheelbarrows of cash to junk >> otherwise functional (and locked down) devices. > > Like what? I certainly don't have "wheelbarrows of cash" and nothing I > have "requires" tftp. > >>> and other things. I demonstrated how the same can be handled just as >>> easily with real FTP eliminating the need for running a server that would >>> let anyone change configs or use your machine just like a peer-to-peer >>> (Kazaa style) machine for distributing things like warez. >> TFTP wouldn't be my first choice, either, but *can* be secured to some >> reasonable degree without resulting in these cited issues. > > Other than through security by obscurity (ie. if I don't tell you > I am running a tftp server you probably won't find it) how would > you secure tftp? There's a reason why they call it "trivial". :-) Using the Multinet TFTP server: 1. It only serves out the directory tree you specifically define for it (a major issue with most Unix implementations). 2. It can only read those files with World Read access. 3. It will only write to a file that already exists and has World Write access. 4. Limit the server to respond only to a defined set of hosts or subnets (functionality built into the Multinet equivalent of inetd). 5. Log all connections, both successful and rejected. We have hundreds of network infrastructure devices on our network that share only TFTP as the common download/upload protocol (although newer devices do add support other protocols we cannot swap the older one out just for that reason). We have supported out network devices with TFTP servers configured as above for many years without issue. Multinet also includes a TFTP client which I have used on occasion, mainly to test a newly configured TFTP server. Mark Berryman ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 2007 14:26:36 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Still no TFTP client? Message-ID: <593u0sF2j5361U1@mid.individual.net> In article <462c585f@mvb.saic.com>, Mark Berryman writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> In article , >> Dan Foster writes: >>> In article <593oaqF2jgv67U1@mid.individual.net>, Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>>> One, it is not particularly faster than any other method of file transfer. >>> It's rather slow because of use of a small block size and a simple >>> UDP-based acknowledgement mechanism. TCP with far bigger blocks and >>> sliding windows is far faster as well as provides better access control. >>> >>>> Two, there is no "secure" side of a firewall. Current security experts >>>> will tell you that attacks come from inside your organization as well as >>>> outside. >>> Yep. >>> >>>> No Unix admin in his right mind would actually run the tftp server. >>>> There are just too many secure ways of accomplishing anything it can. >>>> >>>> I even (successfully) argued against one of the professors here using >>>> TFTP in his Cisco based Networking Course even though many of the >>>> examples of Cisco on the Web show TFTP for moving configs, DHCP Leases >>> How do you handle it with older network equipment which ONLY supports >>> TFTP? In some places, folks don't have wheelbarrows of cash to junk >>> otherwise functional (and locked down) devices. >> >> Like what? I certainly don't have "wheelbarrows of cash" and nothing I >> have "requires" tftp. >> >>>> and other things. I demonstrated how the same can be handled just as >>>> easily with real FTP eliminating the need for running a server that would >>>> let anyone change configs or use your machine just like a peer-to-peer >>>> (Kazaa style) machine for distributing things like warez. >>> TFTP wouldn't be my first choice, either, but *can* be secured to some >>> reasonable degree without resulting in these cited issues. >> >> Other than through security by obscurity (ie. if I don't tell you >> I am running a tftp server you probably won't find it) how would >> you secure tftp? There's a reason why they call it "trivial". :-) > > Using the Multinet TFTP server: > > 1. It only serves out the directory tree you specifically define for it > (a major issue with most Unix implementations). How so? I have never seen any tftp server on any Unix system that served up anything but the directory tree you set. > 2. It can only read those files with World Read access. Probably because with no authentication there is no user or group. Duh... > 3. It will only write to a file that already exists and has World Write > access. Which means either you can't write the files either or anyone can. One way is non-functional and the other a security hole. > 4. Limit the server to respond only to a defined set of hosts or subnets > (functionality built into the Multinet equivalent of inetd). Well, that's one plus, but what about spoofing? > 5. Log all connections, both successful and rejected. Trying to lock the barndoor after the horse has run away. > > We have hundreds of network infrastructure devices on our network that > share only TFTP as the common download/upload protocol See above. If you can upload, so can anybody. How do you guarantee the integritry of the files? Do you use this for your configs? Might as well put them up on the local bulletinboard at the mall. > (although newer > devices do add support other protocols we cannot swap the older one out > just for that reason). We have supported out network devices with TFTP > servers configured as above for many years without issue. And many Unix systems ran happily for years without even passwords. But I wouldn't try it today. > > Multinet also includes a TFTP client which I have used on occasion, > mainly to test a newly configured TFTP server. > I'm gald things are working for you, but I wouldn't even consider running a tftp server again. I was very happy when Cisco made it unnecessary providing a secure way of moving data. Now, if they would just move to fully encrypted protocols for averything. 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: 23 Apr 2007 11:00:00 -0500 From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Subject: Re: Still no TFTP client? Message-ID: In article <593u0sF2j5361U1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > In article <462c585f@mvb.saic.com>, > Mark Berryman writes: >> 2. It can only read those files with World Read access. > > Probably because with no authentication there is no user or group. Duh... I believe the point is that the program in question made the proper design choice, and went to the extra work to _not_ give access to files owned by the UIC under which the program is running. >> 3. It will only write to a file that already exists and has World Write >> access. > > Which means either you can't write the files either or anyone can. One > way is non-functional and the other a security hole. People signing up for TFTP have agreed to the lack of authentication. What they likely do _not_ want is the ability for a stranger to fill their disk. So long as TFTP provides no "directory" capability, the "anyone" who wants to write a file must know the name. >> 4. Limit the server to respond only to a defined set of hosts or subnets >> (functionality built into the Multinet equivalent of inetd). > > Well, that's one plus, but what about spoofing? Wouldn't files stored on the server get sent back to the real host, making the attack useless? Perhaps the protocol allows storing a file through spoofing, but to what end ? >> 5. Log all connections, both successful and rejected. > > Trying to lock the barndoor after the horse has run away. Auditing is a very important tool. > I'm gald things are working for you, but I wouldn't even consider > running a tftp server again. I am not attracted to TFTP, but the implementation design points listed above seem good, given the TFTP protocol. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:06:31 -0600 From: Mark Berryman Subject: Re: Still no TFTP client? Message-ID: <462c852a@mvb.saic.com> Bill Gunshannon wrote: [some text deleted] >>> Other than through security by obscurity (ie. if I don't tell you >>> I am running a tftp server you probably won't find it) how would >>> you secure tftp? There's a reason why they call it "trivial". :-) >> Using the Multinet TFTP server: >> >> 1. It only serves out the directory tree you specifically define for it >> (a major issue with most Unix implementations). > > How so? I have never seen any tftp server on any Unix system that served > up anything but the directory tree you set. Then you are somewhat limited in your experience. I have definitely seen this many times and I expect you could find examples with a simple web search. Granted, sometimes the issue was caused by a simple typo in the configuration file (a typo that simple shouldn't open up your whole system but that is a different issue). However, there are other times that this is caused by this being the default configuration. >> 2. It can only read those files with World Read access. > > Probably because with no authentication there is no user or group. Duh... Hardly. NOTHING runs on VMS without an associated UIC. The server simply enforces this documented restriction. Without world read access, the TFTP server will not touch the file. >> 3. It will only write to a file that already exists and has World Write >> access. > > Which means either you can't write the files either or anyone can. One > way is non-functional and the other a security hole. Again, hardly. You are assuming that the file must always be there and always be world writable. Such is not the case. In one application I have it works as follows: 1. Application creates necessary file. 2. Application sends SNMP command to network device telling it to write its config to this file name. 3. Application waits for the TFTP operation to complete (via SNMP query) then copies configuration to config directory. Think of having to know the name of the file being used here as being the same as having to know the password to write to this account. >> 4. Limit the server to respond only to a defined set of hosts or subnets >> (functionality built into the Multinet equivalent of inetd). > > Well, that's one plus, but what about spoofing? Can't be done. All of our routers are properly configured to prevent spoofing and our network devices use addresses that are not legitimate for a host (and, thus, are blocked by the anti-spoofing settings). >> 5. Log all connections, both successful and rejected. > > Trying to lock the barndoor after the horse has run away. Hmm, are you trying to claim that security audits are useless? The log files prove the fact that only legitimate TFTP requests are being honored and we know when bogus TFTP transactions are being attempted and we know where they are coming from and we know that they have been successfully deterred. >> We have hundreds of network infrastructure devices on our network that >> share only TFTP as the common download/upload protocol > > See above. If you can upload, so can anybody. How do you guarantee > the integritry of the files? Do you use this for your configs? Might > as well put them up on the local bulletinboard at the mall. See above. I can upload, but "anybody" can't. I gave one example of why this is so. There are others. >> (although newer >> devices do add support other protocols we cannot swap the older one out >> just for that reason). We have supported out network devices with TFTP >> servers configured as above for many years without issue. > > And many Unix systems ran happily for years without even passwords. But > I wouldn't try it today. The two situations are not even close to corresponding. Among other things, a system without a password grants access to absolutely everything on that system or to what that system has access to. My TFTP server grants access to exactly what I have authorized it to and nothing else. >> Multinet also includes a TFTP client which I have used on occasion, >> mainly to test a newly configured TFTP server. >> > > I'm gald things are working for you, but I wouldn't even consider > running a tftp server again. Then I guess it is a good thing you are not in charge of a large network with a wide variety of network devices. > I was very happy when Cisco made it > unnecessary providing a secure way of moving data. Now, if they > would just move to fully encrypted protocols for averything. There are still some situations where one cannot use secure protocols with Cisco, not the least of which is that you must pay for a license for an encrypting image in order to support them. There are other vendors who do not support secure transfer as well. It is really nice if you can say "if you can transfer only with TFTP then I won't do any transfers with you". I do not have that luxury. Mark Berryman ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 2007 17:36:59 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Still no TFTP client? Message-ID: <59495rF2j2lojU1@mid.individual.net> In article , Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes: > In article <593u0sF2j5361U1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >> In article <462c585f@mvb.saic.com>, >> Mark Berryman writes: > >>> 2. It can only read those files with World Read access. >> >> Probably because with no authentication there is no user or group. Duh... > > I believe the point is that the program in question made the proper > design choice, and went to the extra work to _not_ give access to > files owned by the UIC under which the program is running. But it does give access to files owned by the UIC under which the program is running. It gives access to any file with "World Read access". ANd that is the required level of access for you, me, or joe down the hall. In other words, it's all or nothing. Not a particularly good security model. Andone based on a time when the social norms were very different and I could trust you an djoe down the hall to leave stuff that isn't yours alone. > >>> 3. It will only write to a file that already exists and has World Write >>> access. >> >> Which means either you can't write the files either or anyone can. One >> way is non-functional and the other a security hole. > > People signing up for TFTP have agreed to the lack of authentication. Of course they have. And when it was first introduced that was a workable paradigm. today however....... > What they likely do _not_ want is the ability for a stranger to fill > their disk. But they can. :-) > > So long as TFTP provides no "directory" capability, the "anyone" who > wants to write a file must know the name. Security by obscurity. Another really bad security model. Let me give you a hint. Cisco used to use TFTP for loading configs and IOS's. How hard do you think it was to get the names of the files? > >>> 4. Limit the server to respond only to a defined set of hosts or subnets >>> (functionality built into the Multinet equivalent of inetd). >> >> Well, that's one plus, but what about spoofing? > > Wouldn't files stored on the server get sent back to the real host, > making the attack useless? No attack is useless. It is of value to the attacker, even if only for bragging rights among his ffreinds. > Perhaps the protocol allows storing a file > through spoofing, but to what end ? DOS. Let's see how full we can make your disk. > >>> 5. Log all connections, both successful and rejected. >> >> Trying to lock the barndoor after the horse has run away. > > Auditing is a very important tool. Yes, but it is also reactive. While knowing you have been hacked is better than not knowing, not giving them a door in the first place is much better. > >> I'm gald things are working for you, but I wouldn't even consider >> running a tftp server again. > > I am not attracted to TFTP, but the implementation design points > listed above seem good, given the TFTP protocol. True, but as I was saying, it is the protocol itself that is flawed (by todays standards) and under our current social culture it just seems like way too much of a risk to even consider taking. And, with all the bragging that VMS people do about the security of their OS I am amazed that anyone running VMS would even consider allowing it on their network, much less on their VMS machine itself. 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, 23 Apr 2007 10:18:24 -0400 From: "Syltrem" Subject: Re: VMS Alpha to Itanium port Message-ID: <132pg1ht13vf81a@corp.supernews.com> "Chris Townley" wrote in message news:1176404160.877981.239430@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > Just suddenly had the concept of porting a legacy in house application > from Alpha to Integrity given to me. > > Currently running VMS 6.2 on Alpha - application consists of some 3500 > modules Basic, with a smattering of C and macro code. This is an > application I know well, and have been maintaining/developing for some > years. However the oprogrammingh tyeam that took it in-house some 12 > years ago is now just me. > > I wont even look at the macro - if it doesnt run out of the box, I > rewrite as required, and there is nothing fancy in the C > > However the main area will be the basic. Has anyone any ideas what > issues are likely? > > TIA > -- > Chris > Hi I ported mostly subroutines (many linked to one big shareable image) , and some executables. I did not have problems. Only thing is, I have a Basic USEROPEN routine that coule return the file creation date and protection info, but this one no longer compiles. This is true on Alpha and IA64. You may be missing some of the stuff in BASIC$STARLET.TLB if you use that. For instance $IMPDEF was missing. For my USEROPEN, that's where the problem lies... they changed the definitions to XABDET, XABDATDEF, etc somewhere between now and 10 years ago when I last compiled the program (when migrating from VAX to Alpha). If you have a useropen routine that works, I would gladly have it :-) I still have to get the one I have to work (a bit complicated and not enough time...). Good luck with your porting. Syltrem No zulu in my email ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 2007 11:36:25 GMT From: Doc Subject: Re: [OT] If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: "P. Sture" wrote in news:paul.sture.nospam-3E720A.11430523042007@mac.sture.ch: > In article <1177289397.165542.126780@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > genius@marblecliff.com wrote: > >> 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 ... > > But who is doing the choosing of which applies to whom? It takes a genius to do that, luckily we have one to hand. Beat your children with a rod if they irritate you. Don't dare stone an adulterer, that's so old-fashioned nowadays. So... Sticks are okay - but stones aren't. Incidentally, you need to read some of the drivel Boob believes. Listed here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture. Neither wonder he thinks Europeans are evil, according to that some fruit-loop theologian postulated in the 70s that the seven headed monster with ten horns was the European Union. Admittedly, a belief that those who believe will escape a "tribulation" prior to the second coming explains a lot. It would explain why Boob doesn't care about the planet, he's not planning on staying on it when things get bad. Gawd is gonna lift him up into heaven. Praise the lard! Nutty Fundamentalist Christians (and they are not alone in this) have believed the return of Christ was imminent since the time of the apostles. They all appear to want to see the Earth and all unbelievers wiped out and look forward to it because they've spent their lives feeling morally superior because they believe in the same ghosts as millions of other people. Doc. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:00:25 -0400 From: Bill Todd Subject: Re: [OT] If you live in California, get out now! (Part 2) Message-ID: Doc wrote: ... some > fruit-loop theologian postulated in the 70s that the seven headed monster > with ten horns was the European Union. Wow - serendipity strikes again: that must be why their exchange rates aren't relevant to GDP comparisons - their devilish currency isn't acceptable in God's Country, hence has no value. ... They all appear to want to see the Earth and all unbelievers > wiped out I'm afraid that I have to admit to feeling similarly about neocons (i.e., that the only good neocon is a dead neocon), and since the 1998 impeachment debacle I've been inclined to extend that sentiment to *all* Republicans (I'm certainly a fan of Lincoln's, but then he is indisputably a Republican of the dead persuasion) and more recently even to a lot of Democrats. But if that puts me into the same category as the likes of boob, perhaps I'll need to reconsider that position. For that matter, it's never been one I've been all that comfortable with, but in times of war (and I do believe that we're at war with such aggressive incompetents, at least until they've been sufficiently beaten back not to constitute a continuing menace) sensibilities sometimes need to take a back seat. - bill ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:35:30 +0400 From: "Ruslan R. Laishev" Subject: Re: [TCPIP V5.6] Still no TFTP client? Message-ID: Hello, Peter! If you need a TFTP client, there is a simple one: http://starlet.deltatel.ru/~laishev/work/tftp/ Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER wrote: > Is this correct that there is still no TFTP client in the most current > version V5.6 of TCPIP/UCX product included? > > TIA > -- + WBR, OpenVMS [Sys|Net] HardWorker ............. Skype: SysMan-One + Delta Telecom JSC, IMT-MC-450(CDMA2000) cellular operator Russia,191119,St.Petersburg,Transportny per. 3 Cel: +7 (812) 716-3222 +http://starlet.deltatelecom.ru ............. Frying on OpenVMS only + ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 2007 12:13:05 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: [TCPIP V5.6] Still no TFTP client? Message-ID: <593m6hF2hv04hU1@mid.individual.net> In article , "Ruslan R. Laishev" writes: > Hello, Peter! > > If you need a TFTP client, there is a simple one: > http://starlet.deltatel.ru/~laishev/work/tftp/ > The only thing wrong with using a TFTP Client is that you have to also have a TFTP Server running somewhere. :-( 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, 23 Apr 2007 14:43:42 +0200 From: "P. Sture" Subject: Re: [TCPIP V5.6] Still no TFTP client? Message-ID: In article <593m6hF2hv04hU1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: > In article , > "Ruslan R. Laishev" > writes: > > Hello, Peter! > > > > If you need a TFTP client, there is a simple one: > > http://starlet.deltatel.ru/~laishev/work/tftp/ > > > > The only thing wrong with using a TFTP Client is that you have to also > have a TFTP Server running somewhere. :-( > > bill TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS has a TFTP server. However, I don't know how it compares with other implementations, so would ask someone else to comment on that. -- Paul Sture ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 2007 12:51:51 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: [TCPIP V5.6] Still no TFTP client? Message-ID: <593of7F2jgv67U2@mid.individual.net> In article , "P. Sture" writes: > In article <593m6hF2hv04hU1@mid.individual.net>, > bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: > >> In article , >> "Ruslan R. Laishev" >> writes: >> > Hello, Peter! >> > >> > If you need a TFTP client, there is a simple one: >> > http://starlet.deltatel.ru/~laishev/work/tftp/ >> > >> >> The only thing wrong with using a TFTP Client is that you have to also >> have a TFTP Server running somewhere. :-( >> >> bill > > TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS has a TFTP server. However, I don't know how > it compares with other implementations, so would ask someone else to > comment on that. > TFTP has no usernames or passwords. Why would anyone who has any concern about security (that's all VMS Admins, right?) agree to run it on their machine? 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, 23 Apr 2007 08:03:34 -0500 From: Dan Foster Subject: Re: [TCPIP V5.6] Still no TFTP client? Message-ID: In article , P. Sture wrote: > > TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS has a TFTP server. However, I don't know how > it compares with other implementations, so would ask someone else to > comment on that. If it supports RFC 2348 (which supports file sizes greater than 32 MB), it's probably good. The TFTP server on my older non-VMS platforms doesn't support this; newer non-VMS platforms does. -Dan ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.222 ************************