INFO-VAX Thu, 03 Jul 2008 Volume 2008 : Issue 369 Contents: Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Re: Symbol Substitution Mystery Re: Symbol Substitution Mystery Re: TAM (Terminal Access Monitor) Re: Tru64 file system source code now open source Re: Tru64 file system source code now open source Re: Tru64 file system source code now open source Re: Tru64 file system source code now open source Re: Tru64 file system source code now open source [Related topic] Question about NTP.CONF master and local-master commands command ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 02:58:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Keith Cayemberg Subject: Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Message-ID: <681e0038-e924-43cb-ac4f-4bc4f15f4f0b@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> On Jul 2, 2:13 am, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote: > In article <1cab9383-de95-40d6-af61-236f55d82...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups= .com>, Doug Phillips writes: > > > > >On Jul 1, 5:23 pm, ultra...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Jul 1, 1:17 am, JF Mezei wrote: > > >> > This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it. > > >88 > > >(JF, I think Doctor Who a few regenerations ago explained why this > >wouldn't work.) > > >> Only God is eternal and controls time ... a day is as 1000 years to > >> Him ... > > >That's not what god told me but I'll ask him again just to be sure. He > >might have to ask his god who created his universe, though, and his > >god might have to ask his god who'll have to ask his god who'll have > >to ask.... ah, forget about it. It doesn't look like we'd ever get a > >definitive answer. (Or did you think god created himself?) > > >Now I suppose someone will bring up quantum mechanics -- OH NO! Bob > >Koehler already did! > > I think that the string theorists have this debate all tied up. > > -- > VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)C= OM > > "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" > > http://tmesis.com/drat.html Yes, they have "tied it up" into possibly infinite variations of 11 or 26 dimensional Gordian Knot (or is that a G=F6delian Knot?) providing enough added variables to the Standard Model that they can finally represent not only one, but many Unified Field Theories. However nobody knows which one has anything to do with reality, or whether the added dimensions are real or simply a mathematical expediency explaining nothing. Unraveling the multidimensional Gordian Knot does not appear likely with the energy densities available to man-made devices. The use of visible natural high-energy phenomena in neighboring star-systems or galaxies come closer to the needed energy- levels. Despite CERN's ambitious LHC project the extended future of experimental quantum mechanical physics research will likely be increasingly dependent on astronomical observation rather than localized particle collisions. String theorists are really more busy unraveling their "Gordian Knots" than theorizing "who" tied the knots in the first place. Probably the ultimate solution will be something similar to Alexander the Great's solution to the Gordian Knot. Use the Sword to cut through it. By this I mean a completely different logical approach which identifies a much more simple Unified Field Theory. In this regard I also have a couple ideas. :-) To get this discussion (about time travel and determinacy) a little more on topic, I propose reviewing the ideas presented by a former DEC engineer James P. Hogan in his book "Thrice Upon a Time", in which a DEC PDP 22/30 is used in sending messages into the past or future by manipulation of time traveling quanta. His take on the time paradox was that time is not serial and a person affecting himself in the past effectively cuts their own timeline and creates a new one. Here Hogan allows that events from "potential" futures can be experienced without the events actually taking place. For him "Free Will" and Heiseburgische Indeterminancy reign supreme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrice_Upon_a_Time http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Thrice-Upon-a-Time I found not only the use of a DEC machine amusing, but also the clever use of a previously unused memory area of the machine to extend messages further back in time over multiple hops to prevent the roots of a world disaster occurring earlier than the machine would otherwise be able to communicate. Cheers! Keith Cayemberg P.S. Hogan's ideas are not identical to mine, and I will also make no attempt to defend them. ------------------------------ Date: 03 Jul 2008 16:10:42 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Message-ID: <486cfa02$0$7335$607ed4bc@cv.net> In article <681e0038-e924-43cb-ac4f-4bc4f15f4f0b@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Keith Cayemberg writes: >On Jul 2, 2:13 am, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote: >> In article <1cab9383-de95-40d6-af61-236f55d82...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups= >..com>, Doug Phillips writes: >> >> >> >> >On Jul 1, 5:23 pm, ultra...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Jul 1, 1:17 am, JF Mezei wrote: >> >> >> > This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it. >> >> >88 >> >> >(JF, I think Doctor Who a few regenerations ago explained why this >> >wouldn't work.) >> >> >> Only God is eternal and controls time ... a day is as 1000 years to >> >> Him ... >> >> >That's not what god told me but I'll ask him again just to be sure. He >> >might have to ask his god who created his universe, though, and his >> >god might have to ask his god who'll have to ask his god who'll have >> >to ask.... ah, forget about it. It doesn't look like we'd ever get a >> >definitive answer. (Or did you think god created himself?) >> >> >Now I suppose someone will bring up quantum mechanics -- OH NO! Bob >> >Koehler already did! >> >> I think that the string theorists have this debate all tied up. >> >> -- >> VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)C= >OM >> >> "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" >> >> http://tmesis.com/drat.html > >Yes, they have "tied it up" into possibly infinite variations of 11 or >26 dimensional Gordian Knot (or is that a G=F6delian Knot?) providing >enough added variables to the Standard Model that they can finally >represent not only one, but many Unified Field Theories. However >nobody knows which one has anything to do with reality, or whether the >added dimensions are real or simply a mathematical expediency >explaining nothing. Unraveling the multidimensional Gordian Knot does >not appear likely with the energy densities available to man-made >devices. The use of visible natural high-energy phenomena in >neighboring star-systems or galaxies come closer to the needed energy- >levels. Despite CERN's ambitious LHC project the extended future of >experimental quantum mechanical physics research will likely be >increasingly dependent on astronomical observation rather than >localized particle collisions. > >String theorists are really more busy unraveling their "Gordian Knots" >than theorizing "who" tied the knots in the first place. > >Probably the ultimate solution will be something similar to Alexander >the Great's solution to the Gordian Knot. > >Use the Sword to cut through it. > >By this I mean a completely different logical approach which >identifies a much more simple Unified Field Theory. In this regard I >also have a couple ideas. :-) > >To get this discussion (about time travel and determinacy) a little >more on topic, I propose reviewing the ideas presented by a former DEC >engineer James P. Hogan in his book "Thrice Upon a Time", in which a >DEC PDP 22/30 is used in sending messages into the past or future by >manipulation of time traveling quanta. His take on the time paradox >was that time is not serial and a person affecting himself in the past >effectively cuts their own timeline and creates a new one. Here Hogan >allows that events from "potential" futures can be experienced without >the events actually taking place. For him "Free Will" and >Heiseburgische Indeterminancy reign supreme. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrice_Upon_a_Time >http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Thrice-Upon-a-Time > >I found not only the use of a DEC machine amusing, but also the clever >use of a previously unused memory area of the machine to extend >messages further back in time over multiple hops to prevent the roots >of a world disaster occurring earlier than the machine would >otherwise be able to communicate. > >Cheers! > >Keith Cayemberg Keith, my comment was intended to be humorous. I am no fan of the crazy zany string theories. It seems to me that they've created a mathematical pseudo-reality that, when certain boundary conditions are applied, distill out the current accepted physics. They have yet to actually predict anything substantial to substantiate their validity which any good theory would provide. -- 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: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:24:49 -0700 From: "Tom Linden" Subject: Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Message-ID: On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:10:42 -0700, VAXman- <@SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote: > Keith, my comment was intended to be humorous. I am no fan of the > crazy zany string theories. It seems to me that they've created a > mathematical pseudo-reality that, when certain boundary conditions > are applied, distill out the current accepted physics. They have > yet to actually predict anything substantial to substantiate their > validity which any good theory would provide. > Theoretical Physics _IS_ a model of reality. I think it is time to dust off Kant. -- PL/I for OpenVMS www.kednos.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 10:05:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Phillips Subject: Re: OT: Disturbing thoughts on creation of the universe Message-ID: <10e78fcd-57a1-40ca-8a6d-987121434b83@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> On Jul 3, 11:10 am, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote: > In article <681e0038-e924-43cb-ac4f-4bc4f15f4...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Keith Cayemberg writes: > > > > >On Jul 2, 2:13 am, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote: > >> In article <1cab9383-de95-40d6-af61-236f55d82...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups= > >..com>, Doug Phillips writes: > > >> >On Jul 1, 5:23 pm, ultra...@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> On Jul 1, 1:17 am, JF Mezei wrote: > > >> >> > This is VERY OT. But so strange I can't resist posting it. > > >> >88 > > >> >(JF, I think Doctor Who a few regenerations ago explained why this > >> >wouldn't work.) > > >> >> Only God is eternal and controls time ... a day is as 1000 years to > >> >> Him ... > > >> >That's not what god told me but I'll ask him again just to be sure. He > >> >might have to ask his god who created his universe, though, and his > >> >god might have to ask his god who'll have to ask his god who'll have > >> >to ask.... ah, forget about it. It doesn't look like we'd ever get a > >> >definitive answer. (Or did you think god created himself?) > > >> >Now I suppose someone will bring up quantum mechanics -- OH NO! Bob > >> >Koehler already did! > > >> I think that the string theorists have this debate all tied up. > > >> -- > >> VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)C= > >OM > > >> "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" > > >>http://tmesis.com/drat.html > > >Yes, they have "tied it up" into possibly infinite variations of 11 or > >26 dimensional Gordian Knot (or is that a G=F6delian Knot?) providing > >enough added variables to the Standard Model that they can finally > >represent not only one, but many Unified Field Theories. However > >nobody knows which one has anything to do with reality, or whether the > >added dimensions are real or simply a mathematical expediency > >explaining nothing. Unraveling the multidimensional Gordian Knot does > >not appear likely with the energy densities available to man-made > >devices. The use of visible natural high-energy phenomena in > >neighboring star-systems or galaxies come closer to the needed energy- > >levels. Despite CERN's ambitious LHC project the extended future of > >experimental quantum mechanical physics research will likely be > >increasingly dependent on astronomical observation rather than > >localized particle collisions. > > >String theorists are really more busy unraveling their "Gordian Knots" > >than theorizing "who" tied the knots in the first place. > > >Probably the ultimate solution will be something similar to Alexander > >the Great's solution to the Gordian Knot. > > >Use the Sword to cut through it. > > >By this I mean a completely different logical approach which > >identifies a much more simple Unified Field Theory. In this regard I > >also have a couple ideas. :-) > > >To get this discussion (about time travel and determinacy) a little > >more on topic, I propose reviewing the ideas presented by a former DEC > >engineer James P. Hogan in his book "Thrice Upon a Time", in which a > >DEC PDP 22/30 is used in sending messages into the past or future by > >manipulation of time traveling quanta. His take on the time paradox > >was that time is not serial and a person affecting himself in the past > >effectively cuts their own timeline and creates a new one. Here Hogan > >allows that events from "potential" futures can be experienced without > >the events actually taking place. For him "Free Will" and > >Heiseburgische Indeterminancy reign supreme. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrice_Upon_a_Time > >http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Thrice-Upon-a-Time > > >I found not only the use of a DEC machine amusing, but also the clever > >use of a previously unused memory area of the machine to extend > >messages further back in time over multiple hops to prevent the roots > >of a world disaster occurring earlier than the machine would > >otherwise be able to communicate. > > >Cheers! > > >Keith Cayemberg > > Keith, my comment was intended to be humorous. I am no fan of the > crazy zany string theories. It seems to me that they've created a > mathematical pseudo-reality that, when certain boundary conditions > are applied, distill out the current accepted physics. They have > yet to actually predict anything substantial to substantiate their > validity which any good theory would provide. > I asked my nonlinear dynamics alternative-worlds theorist friend about it tomorrow and she said they'd get back to me last week when we return from Brazil. I believe everything she says because it never makes any sense so it must be right. Guide for the humor impaired: :-| :-/ :-) :-D ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 05:17:22 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: Symbol Substitution Mystery Message-ID: On Jul 2, 10:04 pm, David J Dachtera wrote: > AEF wrote: > > > On Jun 28, 2:18 pm, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig--- > > remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote: > > > In article > > > <23a60f13-6a0a-44df-adbd-fb9a62a14...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, Doug > > > [...] > > > > I'm pretty sure that, at least if the expressions are legal DCL > > > expressions, everything works as expected. If anyone has a particular > > > example which is unclear, please post just that example. > > > I've given this whole issue some more thought and I think I have a > > clearer, better explanation, but I won't have time to post it until > > the weekend. > > > But I'd like to quickly comment on the legality of some of the given > > expressions. > > > DCL> WC WSO 'F$STRING('ZERO')' > > %DCL-W-EXPSYN, invalid expression syntax - check operators and > > operands > > "F$STRING"( (the value between the two apostrophes) is not a valid > symbol name or a valid expression since it would require at least a > closing paren. (")") to complete the syntax. > > "ZERO" is a valid symbol name, cannot be processed due to the previous > error. > > ")" (the value between the next two apostrophes) is not a valid symbol > name or a valid expression. > > > DCL> > > DCL> WC WSO "''F$STRING('ZERO')'" > > %DCL-W-EXPSYN, invalid expression syntax - check operators and > > operands > > > I believe both of these are illegal because F$STRING() expects either > > a string (enclosed in quotation marks), a symbol, a valid expression, > > or another lexical function as its argument. But here we have 'ZERO', > > which isn't any of the acceptable types of arguments just given. > > Therefore the expressions above are illegal. > > Well, technically, I would expect that it is DCL's parser that is > expecting the correct syntax, not any specific function. What a mess it > would be if each lexical had to re-invent DCL's parsing wheel! (This > ain't UN*X, after all. ;-)) > > D.J.D. [ WSO :== WRITE SYS$OUTPUT ] I believe you're on the right track, although I still think $ WSO F$STRING('ZERO') is still illegal per se. The only reason it works in this case is that apostrophe substitution ignores F$xxx as you say and therefore this expression becomes $ WSO F$STRING(ONE) during phase 1 of DCL command parsing and lexical evaluation occurs later during phase 3. Now $ WSO 'F$STRING('ZERO')' and $ WSO "''F$STRING('ZERO')'" don't work either because 'ZERO' is an invalid argument or because DCL attempts to substitute for F$STRING( as you say. If you can provide an example that eliminates one of these guesses then please post it. I may have more to say on this tonight or tomorrow. AEF ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 06:34:00 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: Symbol Substitution Mystery Message-ID: On Jul 3, 8:17 am, AEF wrote: > On Jul 2, 10:04 pm, David J Dachtera > wrote: > > > > > AEF wrote: > > > > On Jun 28, 2:18 pm, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig--- > > > remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote: > > > > In article > > > > <23a60f13-6a0a-44df-adbd-fb9a62a14...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, Doug > > > > [...] > > > > > I'm pretty sure that, at least if the expressions are legal DCL > > > > expressions, everything works as expected. If anyone has a particular > > > > example which is unclear, please post just that example. > > > > I've given this whole issue some more thought and I think I have a > > > clearer, better explanation, but I won't have time to post it until > > > the weekend. > > > > But I'd like to quickly comment on the legality of some of the given > > > expressions. > > > > DCL> WC WSO 'F$STRING('ZERO')' > > > %DCL-W-EXPSYN, invalid expression syntax - check operators and > > > operands > > > "F$STRING"( (the value between the two apostrophes) is not a valid > > symbol name or a valid expression since it would require at least a > > closing paren. (")") to complete the syntax. > > > "ZERO" is a valid symbol name, cannot be processed due to the previous > > error. > > > ")" (the value between the next two apostrophes) is not a valid symbol > > name or a valid expression. > > > > DCL> > > > DCL> WC WSO "''F$STRING('ZERO')'" > > > %DCL-W-EXPSYN, invalid expression syntax - check operators and > > > operands > > > > I believe both of these are illegal because F$STRING() expects either > > > a string (enclosed in quotation marks), a symbol, a valid expression, > > > or another lexical function as its argument. But here we have 'ZERO', > > > which isn't any of the acceptable types of arguments just given. > > > Therefore the expressions above are illegal. > > > Well, technically, I would expect that it is DCL's parser that is > > expecting the correct syntax, not any specific function. What a mess it > > would be if each lexical had to re-invent DCL's parsing wheel! (This > > ain't UN*X, after all. ;-)) > > > D.J.D. > > [ WSO :== WRITE SYS$OUTPUT ] > > I believe you're on the right track, although I still think > > $ WSO F$STRING('ZERO') I meant the expression F$STRING('ZERO') > is still illegal per se. The only reason it works in this case is that > apostrophe substitution ignores F$xxx as you say and therefore this > expression becomes > > $ WSO F$STRING(ONE) > > during phase 1 of DCL command parsing and lexical evaluation occurs > later during phase 3. [...] AEF ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:19:22 GMT From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= Subject: Re: TAM (Terminal Access Monitor) Message-ID: Johnny Billquist wrote: > Jan-Erik Söderholm skrev: >> I'm supporting a VMS environment where something >> called TAM, Terminal Access Mmonitor, is used. >> It's a screen/forms/terminal tool to manage VT >> terminals. The available docs are from Digital >> and dated 1981-something. >> >> I'm mainly interested in if this tool had any >> wider usage within the VMS community. >> >> Google didn't know anything about it, b.t.w. >> >> Jan-Erik. > > I have a tape with TAM for RSX here. It looks like something locally > done at Digital Sweden, but I haven't properly looked through all the > stuff in there. > > Johnny > Yes, that sounds more like the TAM that's used at the site I'm supporting. In this case VMS on Alpha. My guess is that this TAM-thing would be a "Itanium-problem"... :-) Jan-Erik. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:38:19 +0200 From: Michael Kraemer Subject: Re: Tru64 file system source code now open source Message-ID: ChrisQ schrieb: > At the time that it was being seriously developed, 5 or more years ago, > it was streets ahead of solaris. In all kinds of ways that made it easier > for the user and administrator. For example, the choice of sysv or bsd > environments, filesystems, device support, networking. Programming, for > example: ansi C compiler bundled with the distribution, DEC Unices still coming with a C (but not C++) compiler is indeed a singularity in Unix-Land and of course welcome. But with modern Unices there's no necessity to recompile the kernel, so the C-compiler disappeared and has to be ordered as a separate product. Only HP-UX has a crippled (== useless) cc left to "build the kernel". > all the headers > and libraries for X etc where you would expect to find them and it was R6, > unlike solaris, where you needed to put loads of links in place to > compile X applications. Don't think so. I never had problems of this kind. In fact it is HP-UX which doesn't come with X11/Motif headers, which is quite a nuisance. In former times you even had to order them separately as part of a codeword-secured "Developers Toolkit", nowadays you can at least download them from HP's website. > I only used hp-ux briefly as a user, but remember it being > hard work, with little added value and nothing where you would expect to > find it. Depends on your expectations. > May be better now, but iirc, hp-ux originally came from the > remains of Apollo Domain, No. HP-UX has its own roots. Apollo was absorbed by HP around 1989, and guess what, Domain disappeared soon after. Sounds familiar ? > which always was a bit odd. Sure. As is VMS. Domain isn't really Unix, just similar. > Tru64 was written > from the start to be a modern, secure, 3nd generation unix, But it came way too late, just as Alpha. > but I > guess it was never a possibility that hp would dump their own product, no surprise here. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:25:39 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Tru64 file system source code now open source Message-ID: <486cb741$0$15580$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Bob Harris wrote: > Going to Field Test, polishing the code, resolving the active > bugs, and releasing the product is what didn't happen. We were > demoing the technology running on HP-UX. Confidence and moral was > high that we would finish, that is until the last month or so when > we knew they were going to lay us off. I had no idea it had gone that far. But it was always clear to me that when they announced the end of Tru64 on HP-UX, it was really about striking a deal with Veritas or whatever the company was. I wonder how much they will contribute to the blonde bimbo's election campaign. At this time, would Veritas have felt threathened by the Tru64 file system ? Could this have resulted in Veritas losing much business ? If so, Veritas may have given the blonde bimbo a deal she could refuse in exchange for killing the porting of Tru64 to HP-UX. In terms of technical stuff, was endianness an issue that consumed much time for the port ? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:30:57 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Tru64 file system source code now open source Message-ID: <486cb87d$0$15580$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Michael Kraemer wrote: > But with modern Unices there's no necessity to recompile the kernel, > so the C-compiler disappeared and has to be ordered as a separate > product. Only HP-UX has a crippled (== useless) cc left to > "build the kernel". OS-X is a modern Unix and it comes with C as well as "objective C" as part of the developer installation (comes on the same DVD). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 12:04:40 +0000 (UTC) From: m.kraemer@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) Subject: Re: Tru64 file system source code now open source Message-ID: In article <486cb87d$0$15580$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes: > > OS-X is a modern Unix and it comes with C as well as "objective C" as > part of the developer installation (comes on the same DVD). IIRC it didn't "come" with the OS, I had to download all developer stuff from Apple's web pages. But that was for 10.3.9, maybe it has changed since. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:31:22 -0700 From: "Tom Linden" Subject: Re: Tru64 file system source code now open source Message-ID: On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:38:19 -0700, Michael Kraemer wrote: > No. HP-UX has its own roots. Apollo was absorbed by HP > around 1989, and guess what, Domain disappeared soon after. > Sounds familiar ? HP-UX has strong roots in BSD. HP, Apollo and Digital were all founding members of OSF which was to have standardised on the Mach (?) kernel, but I think internal politics in HP won out and they did their own dilletante version, proabaly Motif was about the only thing trhey used out of OSF. -- PL/I for OpenVMS www.kednos.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 09:10:39 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: [Related topic] Question about NTP.CONF master and local-master commands command Message-ID: Hello, [Also posted to vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.tcpware.] What is the point of the local-master and master commands? Can't you just use the server command to point nodes to the "local-master"? Suppose I have a fleet of VAX systems in London and another in NYC and a non-VMS NTP server in our NYC office. Can't I just have each London VAX point to a particular London VAX and have that particular London VAX point to a set of VAX systems in NYC or even our NTP server (which is NOT a VAX system). And then if the WAN goes down, all the London VAX systems would then sync off the "local-master" London VAX? local-master in London (node A): server NYC VAX system NY1 prefer server NYC VAX system NY2 local-master in London (node A): server NYC VAX (or NYC NTP source) Other London VAX systems: server node-A prefer server node-B NY1 and NY2: server non-VAX NTP-system Wouldn't this work? Why would I need a local-master or master commands anywhere, and if so where and how? Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I've been looking on the net and in the FM and still don't see the point. BTW, I'm running TCPware 5.3-3. Thanks! AEF ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2008.369 ************************