INFO-VAX Mon, 16 Jun 2008 Volume 2008 : Issue 335 Contents: Availability Digest reviews OpenVMS Clusters Re: Availability Digest reviews OpenVMS Clusters Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Determining display device for a process Re: Determining display device for a process Re: Determining display device for a process Re: Determining display device for a process Re: Determining display device for a process Re: Determining display device for a process Re: How to read a damaged TK50 tape Re: Interesting job ad from HP Re: What happened to VAXeln after DEC stopped selling it ? Re: What is a Weendoze .CHM file? Re: What is a Weendoze .CHM file? Re: What is a Weendoze .CHM file? Re: What is a Weendoze .CHM file? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:47:26 -0700 (PDT) From: IanMiller Subject: Availability Digest reviews OpenVMS Clusters Message-ID: <85699ca1-50a5-41fd-a6e1-16fe977dceea@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> Availability Digest [http://www.availabilitydigest.com] (which covers topics on Continuous Availabilty and the quest for 100% uptime) has reviewed OpenVMS Clusters. The review describes OpenVMS Clusters and compares with other clustering and active-active technologies and concludes "With these as significant advantages, the author can think of no disadvantages of OpenVMS clusters over today=92s contemporary cluster technology." Read the review in the Availability Digest June 2008 edition http://www.availabilitydigest.com/digests/v03_i06/0306_digest.htm Hopefully this will bring the 'Gold Standard' of clusters to the attention of more people. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 2008 12:07:50 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: Availability Digest reviews OpenVMS Clusters Message-ID: <48565796$0$7316$607ed4bc@cv.net> In article <85699ca1-50a5-41fd-a6e1-16fe977dceea@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, IanMiller writes: >Availability Digest [http://www.availabilitydigest.com] (which covers >topics on Continuous Availabilty and the quest for 100% uptime) has >reviewed OpenVMS Clusters. > >The review describes OpenVMS Clusters and compares with other >clustering and active-active technologies and concludes "With these as >significant advantages, the author can think of no disadvantages of >OpenVMS clusters over today=92s contemporary cluster technology." > >Read the review in the Availability Digest June 2008 edition >http://www.availabilitydigest.com/digests/v03_i06/0306_digest.htm > >Hopefully this will bring the 'Gold Standard' of clusters to the >attention of more people. Not, IMHO, if HP continues to refer to it as "fail-over" technology. -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" http://tmesis.com/drat.html ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 2008 07:38:54 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Message-ID: In article , AEF writes: > > My dad used to work for Exxon and just today he said that if we > allowed drilling in and near the U.S. we may well have more oil than > Saudi Arabia. (I don't recall the exact details.) Yeah, sure, maybe we could listen to what Disk Cheney has to say on the issue, too. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 2008 07:40:44 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Message-ID: In article <6.1.2.0.2.20080615212532.023b0788@raptor.psccos.com>, Dan O'Reilly writes: > Heck, the scientific community can't even agree on the idea > that there has even been global warming in the last 10 years If you're going to repeat these kind of blatant lies, you're not going to be a very entertaining troll. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:11:17 -0600 From: Dan O'Reilly Subject: Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20080616070046.024ff088@raptor.psccos.com> At 06:40 AM 6/16/2008, Bob Koehler wrote: >In article <6.1.2.0.2.20080615212532.023b0788@raptor.psccos.com>, Dan >O'Reilly writes: > > > Heck, the scientific community can't even agree on the idea > > that there has even been global warming in the last 10 years > > If you're going to repeat these kind of blatant lies, you're not > going to be a very entertaining troll. Well, you make my point. Anybody that doesn't agree with you is a "blatant liar". I suggest you do more research at places other than left-leaning sites to get more of a balance picture before throwing labels around. Are you familiar with the recent NASA weather survey - the one the hysteria mongers were supposed to use as "proof" - that basically threw vast amounts of cold water on the climate change hysterics? I suppose they're blatant liars as well? How about the Oregon Petition, signed by more than 31,000 petitioners (scientists, et al)? Maybe the 1992 Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming? The Heidelberg Declaration? The Leipzig Declaration? Liars, all of them!!! ------ +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ | Dan O'Reilly | "There are 10 types of people in this | | Principal Engineer | world: those who understand binary | | Process Software | and those who don't." | | http://www.process.com | | +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 06:28:26 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Message-ID: On Jun 16, 8:38 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote: > In article , AEF writes: > > > > > My dad used to work for Exxon and just today he said that if we > > allowed drilling in and near the U.S. we may well have more oil than > > Saudi Arabia. (I don't recall the exact details.) > > Yeah, sure, maybe we could listen to what Disk Cheney has to say on > the issue, too. He was a research chemist and he knows what he's talking about. As I said in my follow up post, the huge amount of oil I referred to is locked up as shale oil. If you can find a reputable source to refute that, please post it. And why would he lie to me about it? Your comment looks like an ad hominem attack to me. He did much research in improving diesel and heating oil. He's not a PR man or anything like that. He's not an executive. He was a scientist/engineer in chemistry. AEF ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 06:42:26 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Message-ID: On Jun 15, 11:40 pm, Dan O'Reilly wrote: > At 06:54 PM 6/15/2008, AEF wrote: > > >OTOH, if global warming is really as bad as some say it is, then there > >is no hope unless some major breakthrough in technology occurs. With > >current technology it would be economically devastating for the world. > >Either way it's a catastrophe. Still, I think a carbon tax would be > >the best strategy, or best hope (based on the aforementioned > >assumption, of course). > > Of course, the basic assuming you're making is that there's even a problem > to begin with. Heck, the scientific community can't even agree on the idea I said ASSUMING that. I didn't say it was true. ASSUME FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT .NE. I SAID IT WAS TRUE. Please. > that there has even been global warming in the last 10 years, nor can they > say with any kind of certainty that man has anything to do with it, or that > there's anything that can be done that man could actually do to "fix" it > (assuming it's broken in the first place). Furthermore, who's to say that > the current state of the climate is even the optimum (i.e., "natural") one? I never made any comments ever in c.o.v. saying that global warming was definitely a problem (AFAICR). > > There is vast amounts of evidence that points to continual climate change > in cycles that last hundreds of years, raising the distinct possibility, if > not probability, that this is simply one of those cycles, and nothing man > has one or can do will alter that. However, the global warming (oops, > sorry, the PC term now is "climate change") fanatics have blinders to > anything outside of the "this MUST be man-made" postulate, and therefore > the historic scientific evidence is simply to be ignored. I never said anything agreeing or disagreeing with this. My point was what would and wouldn't work IF global warming were a real problem. I didn't say it was. You're barking up the wrong tree, so to speak. > > This "carbon credit" or "carbon tax" thing is simply a MASSIVE money grab > on behalf of the government and would do nothing more than to lay waste to > the global economy - and specifically, that of the US. But of course, > that's the idea. Let's penalize the US, but allow India/China/Russia/etc > to pollute at will and damn the cost! After all, it's our fault for being > a successful economy in the first place, so we deserve it! Well, a unilateral tax wouldn't work, of course; it would have to be global. The great thing about such a tax is economic. I read about this as a pollution tax in an economics course. The idea is that instead of mandating certain levels, you tax it and let the business decide whether it's cheaper for them to reduce the emissions or to pay the tax, or how much to reduce and pay a reduced tax (the tax would be proportional to the amount of emitted pollutant). Then you adjust the tax to achieve the global levels of the undesired element. This way you avoid a huge waste of effort. Suppose it costs $1 million to reduce emissions to 1.1 arbitrary units, but $1 billion to reduce it to 1.0 of the same units. With an arbitrary cap of 1.0, a huge amount of money is wasted to bring it from 1.1 to 1.0. Obviously it would be better not to waste all that money just for such a small improvement. (This is just an example of the idea with arbitrary numbers. It is not meant to be a real-world example. IIRC, a real-world example is the pricing of parking in some city whose name I forget. They adjusted the parking rates to achieve a goal and it worked fine.) So you get much more efficiency this way. The question then becomes what to do with the collected tax. Some suggested to use it to subsidize alternative- energy research and/or to reduce other taxes. I'm all ears if you have a better way. And this is assuming there is a problem, AND I'M NOT SAYING THERE IS OR ISN'T A PROBLEM. I'M UNDECIDED ON IT, OKAY? I SIMPLY ASSUMING IT ***ONLY*** FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT. I thought I made that clear before. > > It's beyond my comprehension that anybody could actually believe the > government could control the climate that occurs ****NATURALLY**** - let > alone natural business cycles (see "USSR" and "five-year plans")! And, of You're making an assumption contrary to the one I made simply for the sake of argument. Are you trolling, perhaps? > course, it begs the question: who are they going to tax when the next > Krakatoa/Vesuvius/Mount St Helens occurs - the largest polluters in history > by a wide margin? And, of course, there are MASSIVE amounts of pollutants > being released every day in the geysers of Yellowstone. Surely there must > be a way to make somebody pay for that! Again, your missing my point. On purpose, perhaps? > > Yep, that all sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But no more so than the > government telling us how we can get around, what we can drive, how we use > energy, how we produce energy, etc.. Or how we not rob people, kill people, not rip off people, not enforce patent laws, not build roads, etc., etc., etc. Yeah, the horrors of effective gov't! ;-) > > ------ > +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ > | Dan O'Reilly | "There are 10 types of people in this | > | Principal Engineer | world: those who understand binary | > | Process Software | and those who don't." | > |http://www.process.com | | > +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ AEF ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:43:11 -0600 From: Dan O'Reilly Subject: Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20080616074042.024b0d98@raptor.psccos.com> At 07:28 AM 6/16/2008, AEF wrote: >On Jun 16, 8:38 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob >Koehler) wrote: > > In article > , AEF > writes: > > > > > > > > > My dad used to work for Exxon and just today he said that if we > > > allowed drilling in and near the U.S. we may well have more oil than > > > Saudi Arabia. (I don't recall the exact details.) > > > > Yeah, sure, maybe we could listen to what Disk Cheney has to say on > > the issue, too. > >He was a research chemist and he knows what he's talking about. As I >said in my follow up post, the huge amount of oil I referred to is >locked up as shale oil. If you can find a reputable source to refute >that, please post it. And why would he lie to me about it? Your >comment looks like an ad hominem attack to me. > >He did much research in improving diesel and heating oil. He's not a >PR man or anything like that. He's not an executive. He was a >scientist/engineer in chemistry. Ah, but he is/was connected with "Big Oil", and of course, they're all liars (as was pointed out to me). Note the reference to Dick Cheney above. The arguments against all of this are purely political and emotional in nature, and scientific proof to the contrary is never allowed. ------ +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ | Dan O'Reilly | "There are 10 types of people in this | | Principal Engineer | world: those who understand binary | | Process Software | and those who don't." | | http://www.process.com | | +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:15:08 -0600 From: Dan O'Reilly Subject: Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20080616075620.0252d7c8@raptor.psccos.com> At 07:42 AM 6/16/2008, AEF wrote: >On Jun 15, 11:40 pm, Dan O'Reilly wrote: > > At 06:54 PM 6/15/2008, AEF wrote: > > > > >OTOH, if global warming is really as bad as some say it is, then there > > >is no hope unless some major breakthrough in technology occurs. With > > >current technology it would be economically devastating for the world. > > >Either way it's a catastrophe. Still, I think a carbon tax would be > > >the best strategy, or best hope (based on the aforementioned > > >assumption, of course). > > > > Of course, the basic assuming you're making is that there's even a problem > > to begin with. Heck, the scientific community can't even agree on the idea > >I said ASSUMING that. I didn't say it was true. ASSUME FOR THE SAKE OF >ARGUMENT .NE. I SAID IT WAS TRUE. Please. How about "assume for the sake of argument it's false", just for a change...? You need a thicker skin. This wasn't an attack on you, so please don't take it personally. > > that there has even been global warming in the last 10 years, nor can they > > say with any kind of certainty that man has anything to do with it, or that > > there's anything that can be done that man could actually do to "fix" it > > (assuming it's broken in the first place). Furthermore, who's to say that > > the current state of the climate is even the optimum (i.e., "natural") one? > >I never made any comments ever in c.o.v. saying that global warming >was definitely a problem (AFAICR). ..and I never said you did. But enough people have that I feel it's necessary to present the opposing view that never seems to be heard around here. > > This "carbon credit" or "carbon tax" thing is simply a MASSIVE money grab > > on behalf of the government and would do nothing more than to lay waste to > > the global economy - and specifically, that of the US. But of course, > > that's the idea. Let's penalize the US, but allow India/China/Russia/etc > > to pollute at will and damn the cost! After all, it's our fault for being > > a successful economy in the first place, so we deserve it! > >Well, a unilateral tax wouldn't work, of course; it would have to be >global. The great thing about such a tax is economic. I read about >The question then becomes what to do with >the collected tax. Some suggested to use it to subsidize alternative- >energy research and/or to reduce other taxes. I'm all ears if you have >a better way. And this is assuming there is a problem, AND I'M NOT >SAYING THERE IS OR ISN'T A PROBLEM. I'M UNDECIDED ON IT, OKAY? I >SIMPLY ASSUMING IT ***ONLY*** FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT. I thought I >made that clear before. The point is, the use of taxes in the manner of those suggested by "carbon tax" is that it's fundamentally punitive in its nature, and it attempts to force technology. The free market dictates that change that is practical in its nature to implement (and yes, the reality is that $$$$ do enter in here, I'm already taxed more than enough) will be the driving force in changing to whatever the fuel of the future is. A carbon tax is simply a way to "legislate technology", or more appropriately, redistribute income. > > It's beyond my comprehension that anybody could actually believe the > > government could control the climate that occurs ****NATURALLY**** - let > > alone natural business cycles (see "USSR" and "five-year plans")! And, of > >You're making an assumption contrary to the one I made simply for the >sake of argument. Are you trolling, perhaps? No, not trolling - you were taking this personally when it wasn't directed at you personally. Simply posting another view of so-called climate change. I realize it's not popular among the PC crowd, but theirs is not the only valid point of view, regardless of how much they believe it is. Too many people believe this whole thing is cut-and-dried, with no possibility the fundamental junk science upon which this is founded (see: "Gore, Al") may be incorrect. Trolling is a deliberate attempt to foment argument for the sake of argument, which is not my desire. > > course, it begs the question: who are they going to tax when the next > > Krakatoa/Vesuvius/Mount St Helens occurs - the largest polluters in history > > by a wide margin? And, of course, there are MASSIVE amounts of pollutants > > being released every day in the geysers of Yellowstone. Surely there must > > be a way to make somebody pay for that! > >Again, your missing my point. On purpose, perhaps? No, you're taking it personally, which wasn't the intent. There are WAY too many people, as I've said above, who've bought the whole package hook, line and sinker. Those of us who don't quite believe everything we're told by the left-leaning climate change proponents would like to see more of the "suppose it's NOT true" argument that never seems to get any reasonable air-time. The idea that "man is killing the planet" is preposterous on its face value, as natural occurrences are responsible for FAR more pollution than man could ever do. > > Yep, that all sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But no more so than the > > government telling us how we can get around, what we can drive, how we use > > energy, how we produce energy, etc.. > >Or how we not rob people, kill people, not rip off people, not enforce >patent laws, not build roads, etc., etc., etc. Yeah, the horrors of >effective gov't! ;-) Yes, the government can raise armies to protect us, come up with laws against murder and stealing (except when they're called "carbon taxes"), the whole thing. But telling me what I can drive, when I can drive, etc, simply goes against the grain of this country's history. I'm not quite ready to become a drone. ------ +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ | Dan O'Reilly | "There are 10 types of people in this | | Principal Engineer | world: those who understand binary | | Process Software | and those who don't." | | http://www.process.com | | +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:24:27 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil" Message-ID: <79ad211f-9550-4d31-b828-4aa38668f734@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> On Jun 16, 10:15 am, Dan O'Reilly wrote: > At 07:42 AM 6/16/2008, AEF wrote: > > >On Jun 15, 11:40 pm, Dan O'Reilly wrote: > > > At 06:54 PM 6/15/2008, AEF wrote: > > > > >OTOH, if global warming is really as bad as some say it is, then there > > > >is no hope unless some major breakthrough in technology occurs. With > > > >current technology it would be economically devastating for the world. > > > >Either way it's a catastrophe. Still, I think a carbon tax would be > > > >the best strategy, or best hope (based on the aforementioned > > > >assumption, of course). > > > > Of course, the basic assuming you're making is that there's even a problem > > > to begin with. Heck, the scientific community can't even agree on the idea > > >I said ASSUMING that. I didn't say it was true. ASSUME FOR THE SAKE OF > >ARGUMENT .NE. I SAID IT WAS TRUE. Please. > > How about "assume for the sake of argument it's false", just for a > change...? You need a thicker skin. This wasn't an attack on you, so > please don't take it personally. Well, it sure looked like one! You were responding to my post and directly to my paragraphs. > > > that there has even been global warming in the last 10 years, nor can they > > > say with any kind of certainty that man has anything to do with it, or that > > > there's anything that can be done that man could actually do to "fix" it > > > (assuming it's broken in the first place). Furthermore, who's to say that > > > the current state of the climate is even the optimum (i.e., "natural") one? > > >I never made any comments ever in c.o.v. saying that global warming > >was definitely a problem (AFAICR). > > ..and I never said you did. But enough people have that I feel it's > necessary to present the opposing view that never seems to be heard around > here. Fine, but don't take it out on me! > > > > > > This "carbon credit" or "carbon tax" thing is simply a MASSIVE money grab > > > on behalf of the government and would do nothing more than to lay waste to > > > the global economy - and specifically, that of the US. But of course, > > > that's the idea. Let's penalize the US, but allow India/China/Russia/etc > > > to pollute at will and damn the cost! After all, it's our fault for being > > > a successful economy in the first place, so we deserve it! > > >Well, a unilateral tax wouldn't work, of course; it would have to be > >global. The great thing about such a tax is economic. I read about > >The question then becomes what to do with > >the collected tax. Some suggested to use it to subsidize alternative- > >energy research and/or to reduce other taxes. I'm all ears if you have > >a better way. And this is assuming there is a problem, AND I'M NOT > >SAYING THERE IS OR ISN'T A PROBLEM. I'M UNDECIDED ON IT, OKAY? I > >SIMPLY ASSUMING IT ***ONLY*** FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT. I thought I > >made that clear before. > > The point is, the use of taxes in the manner of those suggested by "carbon > tax" is that it's fundamentally punitive in its nature, and it attempts to > force technology. The free market dictates that change that is practical > in its nature to implement (and yes, the reality is that $$$$ do enter in > here, I'm already taxed more than enough) will be the driving force in > changing to whatever the fuel of the future is. A carbon tax is simply a > way to "legislate technology", or more appropriately, redistribute income. The point of "pollution taxes" is to reflect the costs to society that aren't taken into account by the market. Pollution is a cost that isn't included in the price. Would you really prefer a return to the dirty air of the 60's? That was largely cured by gov't mandates on pollution levels from car exhaust and industry. I just think that at least in some cases a pollution tax is the better way to go to accopmlish the same thing for reasons I already explained. Speaking of taxes, many tax deductions that help people who buy houses, have capital gains income, have kids, use solar panels, and zillion of other favored things are effectively punishing those who don't, so why focus on pollution taxes whose purpose is to reflect the true cost of polluting products and to minimize them with the greatest possible efficiency? > > > It's beyond my comprehension that anybody could actually believe the > > > government could control the climate that occurs ****NATURALLY**** - let > > > alone natural business cycles (see "USSR" and "five-year plans")! And, of > > >You're making an assumption contrary to the one I made simply for the > >sake of argument. Are you trolling, perhaps? > > No, not trolling - you were taking this personally when it wasn't directed > at you personally. Simply posting another view of so-called climate > change. I realize it's not popular among the PC crowd, but theirs is not > the only valid point of view, regardless of how much they believe it > is. Too many people believe this whole thing is cut-and-dried, with no > possibility the fundamental junk science upon which this is founded (see: > "Gore, Al") may be incorrect. Trolling is a deliberate attempt to foment > argument for the sake of argument, which is not my desire. Well, sometimes these things turn out to be wrong (n-rays, cold fusion, the fifth force [I was right about the fifth force!]. But sometimes they turn out to be right (special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution). I was not posting a view on climate change. I was simply pointing out what it would take to address it (*if* it were true) and also the issue of fuel prices that people are blaming on the oil companies when the true fault lies with supply and demand, OPEC, and perhaps trader speculation. > > > > course, it begs the question: who are they going to tax when the next > > > Krakatoa/Vesuvius/Mount St Helens occurs - the largest polluters in history > > > by a wide margin? And, of course, there are MASSIVE amounts of pollutants > > > being released every day in the geysers of Yellowstone. Surely there must > > > be a way to make somebody pay for that! > > >Again, your missing my point. On purpose, perhaps? > > No, you're taking it personally, which wasn't the intent. There are WAY > too many people, as I've said above, who've bought the whole package hook, > line and sinker. Those of us who don't quite believe everything we're told Uh, I get your point. You're saying that too many people have come to treat global warming as God-given truth. OK, I got it. I am not familiar enough with the actual science of it to make an informed decision and act accordingly. > by the left-leaning climate change proponents would like to see more of the > "suppose it's NOT true" argument that never seems to get any reasonable > air-time. The idea that "man is killing the planet" is preposterous on its > face value, as natural occurrences are responsible for FAR more pollution > than man could ever do. Well, that was actually part of my point, though not obvious. I said that to address the SUPPOSED problem, it would take measures that would cause severe harm to the world economy, and that also implies what a waste it would be to do that if global warming were not a problem. > > > Yep, that all sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But no more so than the > > > government telling us how we can get around, what we can drive, how we use > > > energy, how we produce energy, etc.. > > >Or how we not rob people, kill people, not rip off people, not enforce > >patent laws, not build roads, etc., etc., etc. Yeah, the horrors of > >effective gov't! ;-) > > Yes, the government can raise armies to protect us, come up with laws > against murder and stealing (except when they're called "carbon taxes"), > the whole thing. But telling me what I can drive, when I can drive, etc, > simply goes against the grain of this country's history. I'm not quite > ready to become a drone. I'm not aware of gov't telling anyone what and when to drive (though I am aware of deductions and tax credits and taxes that encourage or discourage use of certain products, having children, behavior, etc. I tend to be libertarian on things when they truly do not cause harm to others. AEF > > ------ > +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ > | Dan O'Reilly | "There are 10 types of people in this | > | Principal Engineer | world: those who understand binary | > | Process Software | and those who don't." | > |http://www.process.com | | > +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:30:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Bobby Subject: Determining display device for a process Message-ID: I have a need to determine the device that an x-application is "displaying" to. The reason is that an x-application will be automatically loaded at user login, but should only be started once per display (i.e., once per x-server display). The logical decw $display points to the device, but how (can?) this value be retrieved for a specific process? I didn't see anything in the f$getjpi() function, but maybe I missed something. The same user account is used for multiple stations, so looking at the UIC for the owner of a process won't work. Any ideas would be appreciated. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:21:53 GMT From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= Subject: Re: Determining display device for a process Message-ID: Bobby wrote: > I have a need to determine the device that an x-application is > "displaying" to. The reason is that an x-application will be > automatically loaded at user login, but should only be started once > per display (i.e., once per x-server display). The logical decw > $display points to the device, but how (can?) this value be retrieved > for a specific process? I didn't see anything in the f$getjpi() > function, but maybe I missed something. The same user account is used > for multiple stations, so looking at the UIC for the owner of a > process won't work. Any ideas would be appreciated. All logical name tables (incl the LNM$JOBxxxx tables) are available to F$TRNLNM, if you have read access to them. So one should be able to scan through the LNM$JOBxxx tables for a specific "display". See : SHOW LOG /STRU SHOW LOG /TABLE=LNM$SYSTEM_DIRECTORY SHOW LOG /TABLE=LNM$SYSTEM_DIRECTORY/DESCENDANTS Ex: SHOW LOG /DESCENDANTS/TABLE=LNM$SYSTEM_DIRECTORY DECW$DISPLAY will show all currently defined DEC-Windows displays for all processes on the system. Output to a file and search for your actual device, or make something up with PIPE or whatever... Regards, Jan-Erik. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:27:01 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Determining display device for a process Message-ID: Bobby wrote: > I have a need to determine the device that an x-application is > "displaying" to. The reason is that an x-application will be > automatically loaded at user login, but should only be started once > per display (i.e., once per x-server display). The logical decw > $display points to the device, but how (can?) this value be retrieved > for a specific process? I didn't see anything in the f$getjpi() > function, but maybe I missed something. The same user account is used > for multiple stations, so looking at the UIC for the owner of a > process won't work. Any ideas would be appreciated. Where do you want to retrieve it FROM?? If you are talking about your own process, the $ SHOW LOGICAL should to it. There's also a LIB$ function that will return the translation, if there is one. By default, logical names are process private. You can have "job" logical names that are accessible from a process tree. There are "group" and "system" tables as well. If you want to translate a logical name that does not belong to your process tree you may find it difficult or impossible. If your security permits it, ANY process can pop a window on your display! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:36:10 GMT From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= Subject: Re: Determining display device for a process Message-ID: Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > By default, logical names are process private. You can have "job" > logical names that are accessible from a process tree. There are > "group" and "system" tables as well. If you want to translate a logical > name that does not belong to your process tree you may find it difficult > or impossible. Well, it's "only" a security question. Any process can read any table on the system (using SHO LOG or F$TRNLNM) giving that it can (is alolowed to) read the table. It's not particular difficult but can be impossible, if you can't read the table. Jan-Erik. > > If your security permits it, ANY process can pop a window on your display! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:29:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Bobby Subject: Re: Determining display device for a process Message-ID: <757a9441-f41f-4b39-8c5f-05b98ffd3320@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> Thanks for the replies. I better understand the logical tables now and see how to generate a listing for all of the tables that the process has read access to, but I'm uncertain about how to do what I'm trying to accomplish. An example will probably help to show what I'm trying to do: Example: User "me" creates a process that displays a clock onto a virtual DECWindows device (named wsa10). A separate DECTerm is created by user "me" on the same terminal, which also points to device wsa10. Since only one clock is wanted per user terminal, the login procedure wants to see if there is already a decw$clock running on the users workstation (in this case, device wsa10). If there is, then a new decw $clock process shouldn't be started. I'm not actually working with a clock application, but the concept is the same. Is this possible to do? Thanks again for the help. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 2008 12:30:56 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Determining display device for a process Message-ID: In article , Bobby writes: > I have a need to determine the device that an x-application is > "displaying" to. The reason is that an x-application will be > automatically loaded at user login, but should only be started once > per display (i.e., once per x-server display). The logical decw > $display points to the device, but how (can?) this value be retrieved > for a specific process? Any logical name can be translated by calling sys$trnlnm, or its RTL convenience routine lib$get_logical. If your programming in C, C++, and such, you can call getenv(). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:36:51 +0200 From: "P. Sture" Subject: Re: How to read a damaged TK50 tape Message-ID: In article <4fSdnQ3NFuUdK9LVRVnygwA@posted.plusnet>, baldrick wrote: > Robert Jarratt wrote: > > I am attempting to read a tape that may be physically damaged in a few > > places. It contains a backup saveset and I get some parity errors when > > trying to read it. I would like to recover what I can. What is the best way > > to do this with VMS? > > Just wanted to add this to the thread... > > If you have old tapes stored in a cool and unknown humidity environment, > you would find it is well worth holding them in a warm and dry location > (circa 40-50 degrees C) for at least 24 hours prior to attempting to > read them. > > I find that an airing cupboard with a hot water tank is quite suitable. > 60 degrees C is probably the maximum you'd consider. > > I've had a few TK's (TK50 and TK70) jam in drives, and this process > helps no end. It is also known as baking and it was designed to address > a particular troublesome tape formulation but in my experience it holds > with most long term stored tape. I also leave the tapes in the dry warm > environment for several days before I try to use them. because my airing > cupboard is at the lower end of the temp scale I leave the tapes in for > a few days. > > it won't fix "damaged" but it could help reduce the collective problems > that prevent successful reading. > > Google "baking tapes" > For valuable company data, I would recommend using a firm which specialises in recovering data from old tapes. They know how long to "bake" tapes for and have specialist equipment and know how, including information pertaining to tapes from a given supplier (e.g. XYZ Corps produced a bad batch of tapes in 19nn). -- Paul Sture ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 2008 07:28:34 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Interesting job ad from HP Message-ID: In article <4852f0f4$0$31243$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes: > > Same with Windows. If you remove all the crud that runs in foreground > and background of windows, wouldn't its kernel behave properly ? Isn't > the kernel fairly similar to VMS in that a process with priority higher > than a certain number doesn't get interrupted ? No. Neither of those OS implement process scheduling that blocks interrupts. And any resemblance between the Windows kernel and the VMS kernel is strictly limited to gthe I/OI subsystem, where the resemblance is faint enough. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 2008 07:20:16 -0500 From: clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley) Subject: Re: What happened to VAXeln after DEC stopped selling it ? Message-ID: In article <96d2b474-97d1-4d1c-812e-c23b6843fc82@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, johnwallace4@gmail.com writes: > On Jun 13, 8:16 pm, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP > (Simon Clubley) wrote: >> Does anyone know what happened to VAXeln ? >> >> Was it released into the community, just discontinued, or sold on to a >> third party ? >> >> The reason I was asking is that I am curious to find out more about it. >> I've found the Bookreader type manuals at >> >> http://www.sysworks.com.au/swadm_dat_root/cddoc04jan1/VAXELN_41.html >> >> and >> http://www.sysworks.com.au/swadm_dat_root/vaxdocdec96/d33vza11.html >> >> Does anyone know if the manuals are available online in a more friendly >> format ? >> >> In case anyone's curious, this is just for personal interest; I would like >> to know more about it's internal design. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Simon. >> >> -- >> Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP >> Microsoft: Bringing you 1980's technology to a 21st century world > > How about "sold to a third party" *and* "discontinued" ? > [snip detailed history of VAXELN, post DEC] Thanks for taking the time to post this history; it answers all my questions. > > If you have a VAX (real or emulated) as host, and a VAX as target > (dunno if emulated ones work, as VAXELN has hardware-specific boot and > kernel requirements), and access to the VAXELN kit, you might find > that there is no PAK required to use the toolkit on the host, and none > on the target either. Obviously you could only legitimately do that if > you had a licence. > No, I don't have a license, so now that I know that it wasn't made freely available after DEC disposed of it, that's not a path that I am going to go down. I'll stick with reading the online documentation that I found. > > I might have more info available, subject to varying amounts of > latency. Real time response not guaranteed. > Thanks for the offer, but this isn't necessary. I was just looking at it out of personal curiosity to see what facilities it offered and what it's development environment was; the online documentation will be good enough for that. > Where are you geographically? There may be expertise available > locally; e.g. Germany had several good VAXELN people inside and > outside DEC. > I'm in the UK (North Yorkshire to be precise), but as I mentioned above, I was just curious about VAXELN; I don't have any systems running it. Thanks for the detailed response you gave, Simon. -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP Microsoft: Bringing you 1980's technology to a 21st century world ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 2008 07:35:38 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: What is a Weendoze .CHM file? Message-ID: In article , "Richard B. Gilbert" writes: > > I don't know about HTML but generating PDF usually costs money. There > MAY be freeware tools but I haven't heard of them! I never paid a penny for LaTex. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 2008 07:36:43 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: What is a Weendoze .CHM file? Message-ID: In article <6bjcqcF3brg2aU1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > > Just because it costs miney on Windows and can't be done on VMS doesn't > mean there aren't more than adequate free solutions. It certainly can be done on VMS. Where do you think Tex was born? And yes, I've done it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:11:51 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: What is a Weendoze .CHM file? Message-ID: <4sKdnZEZfterHsvVnZ2dnUVZ_oPinZ2d@comcast.com> Bob Koehler wrote: > In article , "Richard B. Gilbert" writes: >> I don't know about HTML but generating PDF usually costs money. There >> MAY be freeware tools but I haven't heard of them! > > > I never paid a penny for LaTex. > It's been years since I used LaTex. When I did, I don't believe it generated PDF. I'm at least ten years out-of-date in this regard and many things may have changed while I wasn't looking. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 2008 12:26:50 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: What is a Weendoze .CHM file? Message-ID: In article <4sKdnZEZfterHsvVnZ2dnUVZ_oPinZ2d@comcast.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert" writes: > > It's been years since I used LaTex. When I did, I don't believe it > generated PDF. I'm at least ten years out-of-date in this regard and > many things may have changed while I wasn't looking. Strictly speaeking, LaTex still generates DVI. But it's been more than a decade since free DVI to PDF and DVI to PS tools were made available, which means you no longer have to buy a DVI to printer converter. ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2008.335 ************************