INFO-VAX Mon, 06 Oct 2008 Volume 2008 : Issue 539 Contents: Re: Elvis is dead - get over it! Re: Elvis is dead - get over it! Re: GNU Diffutils (2.8.7) for VMS Re: GNU Diffutils (2.8.7) for VMS Re: New browser for OpenVMS in field test, Itanium only so far Re: New browser for OpenVMS in field test, Itanium only so far Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 21:16:01 -0400 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= Subject: Re: Elvis is dead - get over it! Message-ID: <48e966ce$0$90275$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > Digital/Compaq told the companies writing database applications not to write > them for VMS. VMS was just for the backend database. > Digital/Compaqs view was that Windows was for the client, Unix was for the > application layer and the secure VMS was for the backend database. As I recall it then it was NT for app tier as well back in the "Palmer days". Arne ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 21:20:18 -0400 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= Subject: Re: Elvis is dead - get over it! Message-ID: <48e967ce$0$90275$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> JF Mezei wrote: > What if you have an important remaining customer who has stated that > they require GTK and some other middleware ? Porting a browser is the > perfect project to not only port that middleware to VMS, but also to > test it by compiling a browser with it before you hand it over to the > customer. GTK is not middleware. > Just because YOU don't see a need for that software doesn't mean that > there isn't a business need for it. Desktop apps for VMS are not big business. > Besides, this is a small cost to be able to give the C.O.V. peanut > gallery some good news so that we stop "HP is killing VMS" messages for > a few weeks. If they do it smart, then it should not cost much (see previous post for a definition of smart). Arne ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 17:26:26 -0500 From: "Craig A. Berry" Subject: Re: GNU Diffutils (2.8.7) for VMS Message-ID: Steven M. Schweda wrote: > Anyone with a burning desire to use GNU Diffutils (cmp, diff, diff3, > sdiff) on a VMS system, might wish to consider this attempt: > > http://antinode.info/dec/sw/diffutils.html > > I'm not claiming any particular level of quality, but it seems to do > some basic stuff well enough for me. Me too. Thanks for taking the time to put the kit together. I use GNU diff frequently and think I will finally replace the 2.7.2 version I've been depending on for some years. I did notice this kit does not honor DECC$ARGV_PARSE_STYLE and DECC$EFS_CASE_PRESERVE, though setting extended parse gets the same behavior. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:48:31 -0500 (CDT) From: sms@antinode.info (Steven M. Schweda) Subject: Re: GNU Diffutils (2.8.7) for VMS Message-ID: <08100521483179_202004A1@antinode.info> From: "Craig A. Berry" > Steven M. Schweda wrote: > > Anyone with a burning desire to use GNU Diffutils (cmp, diff, diff3, > > sdiff) on a VMS system, might wish to consider this attempt: > > > > http://antinode.info/dec/sw/diffutils.html > > > > I'm not claiming any particular level of quality, but it seems to do > > some basic stuff well enough for me. > > Me too. Thanks for taking the time to put the kit together. Nice of you to say so. > I use GNU > diff frequently and think I will finally replace the 2.7.2 version I've > been depending on for some years. I did notice this kit does not honor > DECC$ARGV_PARSE_STYLE and DECC$EFS_CASE_PRESERVE, though setting > extended parse gets the same behavior. Right about the DECC$various logical names. [.VMSLIB]VMS.C contains the same chunk of code I always use to set some of the DECC$various things in a LIB$INITIALIZE routine. They're named in an array, so, if you're willing (and able) to compile the source, you can adjust as desired (add, subtract, override) pretty easily. DECC$ARGV_PARSE_STYLE may be the only one which really needs to be in LIB$INITIALIZE, but it's convenient to do them all together. It's so easy to tack this stuff onto any normal application that I'm always annoyed by HP-supplied software which doesn't do it (SSH, for example). I've gotten quite accustomed to not quoting upper-case-containing command-line options (like "-V") on my own code, so it's always a disappointment when some lame HP product can't handle it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Steven M. Schweda sms@antinode-info 382 South Warwick Street (+1) 651-699-9818 Saint Paul MN 55105-2547 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:54:47 -0400 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= Subject: Re: New browser for OpenVMS in field test, Itanium only so far Message-ID: <48e961d5$0$90268$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Tom Linden wrote: > On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:31:28 -0700, JF Mezei >> As to whether new development of Seamonkey on VMS might come to Alpha, >> this is an interesting question. If this is still beta, I could >> understand that it would be on a single platform, and once beta is done, >> they may cross compile the whole kit and kaboodle onto Alpha. (building >> the beast is very involved and requires a whole lot of middleware not >> only for the code, but also to modify/generate code for that platform. > > Why on earth would VMS engr spend the resources to do this, I mean who > really > gives a tinkers damn? And while we're at it, drop CSWB, we have WASD, > which > is far better supported. CSWS ? I agree that web browser for VMS should be a very low priority. They are not exactly selling many VMS boxes for the desktop. But I also think that they could get a browser relative cheap if they did it smart. A HP branded browser with closed source maintained by HP is not the smart way. Get the low level patches to build a standard FireFox on VMS into the standard source code and let people build the new versions themselves. I doubt it will be that often a new FF version requires something new at the OS close level. And even id it did happen, then some non-HP VMS users could actually fix it. I strongly disagree regarding CSWS. Web servers are a must have today. And I am a bit skeptical about WASD being able to replace CSWS for all purposes. Some users may have specific requirements for Apache modules. Arne ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 21:02:56 -0400 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= Subject: Re: New browser for OpenVMS in field test, Itanium only so far Message-ID: <48e963be$0$90275$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> urbancamo wrote: > Is the source code not available for the OpenVMS port? I am assuming > that the mozilla licensing requires the source code to be published > for derivatives, but I could be wrong. Mozilla licensing is a nightmare. The code is under triple license: GPL, LGPL and MPL. If they take it under GPL, then everything in the EXE must be open sources. If they take it under LGPL or MPL then modifications to the open source code must be open source, but separate software can be kept closed source. Arne ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 12:01:56 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street Message-ID: On Oct 3, 12:42 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote: > AEF wrote: > > On Oct 3, 5:30 am, "David Weatherall" wrote: > >> Neil Rieck wrote: > > >> > > >>> For the longest time, people in the financial sector claimed they are > >>> smart while the rest of us are dumb. (Try getting an official > >>> explanation of "derivatives" without the usual insider lingo and > >>> you'll see what I mean). So it turns out that these people are not as > >>> smart as they claim, which is not the same as criminal (lthough we do > >>> have crimes involving criminal damage to society or its citizens). > >>> Some people say this mess was created (in part) by the synoptic view > >>> of Alan Greenspan who was repeatedly warned about the sub-prime bubble > >>> in 2002. But Greenspan knew better... > >>>http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09192008/profile.html(besure to > >>> watch the video) > >>> Other people say this mess was caused (in part) by people clinging to > >>> their ideologies rather than meeting in the middle after a diplomatic > >>> dialog followed by debate. > >>>http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09262008/watch.html(besure to > >>> watch the video) > >>> If this crisis brings the Western-world together in a dialog about why > >>> we are running stock markets like casinos, then this crisis might be a > >>> good thing. > > > No, because there are too many innocent losers. There are many people > > are losing their homes and others losing equity (due to all the newly > > empty homes near them). Also, many businesses are losing customers. > > And then there is the potentially, if not likely, big cost to > > taxpayers. No, not a good thing. > > INNOCENT?? I doubt it very much! When you buy a house and mortgage it, > you are supposed to know that you must make monthly payments of X > dollars per month for Y years. You are supposed to have an income > sufficient to make those payments as well as feed your family, pay > taxes, health care, etc, etc. The customary penalty for failure to pay > is to lose the house! The agreement you sign says all this and, by > signing your name, you agree to it. > > Nothing guarantees the resale value of your new home! The selling price > will depend on the condition of the property, the current market, the > availability of credit, the property taxes that must be paid, the > condition of neighboring property, etc, etc. To say that the resale > value will fluctuate can be one of those major understatements. . . . > > The current "crisis" appears to be the result of poor judgment on the > part of just about everyone involved. People seem to have purchased > homes and taken mortgages at the limit of, or somewhat beyond, their > ability to pay. Loan officers appear to have given insufficient weight > to the borrower's present and future ability to pay the interest and > principal! They also appear to have ignored the possible changes in the > market value of the property securing the loan! I think some of them probably did these bad loans because they got to pass them off to someone else. So I think it's a combination of poor judgment and malfeasance. > "Not a good thing!" is a statement I think we can all agree with. AEF ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 12:08:30 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street Message-ID: On Oct 3, 10:44 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote: > AEF wrote: > > On Oct 3, 12:42 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" > > wrote: > >> AEF wrote: > >>> On Oct 3, 5:30 am, "David Weatherall" wrote: > >>>> Neil Rieck wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> For the longest time, people in the financial sector claimed they are > >>>>> smart while the rest of us are dumb. (Try getting an official > > > > Richard, > > > There is an Op-ed in today's New York Times called "The Borrowers" by > > Bethany McLean. She blames more or less everyone involved (although to > > different degrees and in different ways and with different gains and > > losses . . . ). But while describing all the bad things that > > homeowners did she adds the following parenthetical remark: "Those who > > were lied to by bookers about the reset rates on adjustable-rate > > mortgages and other elements of their loans are in a different > > category." > > Those people appear, to me, to have failed to read and understand what > they agreed to. It does not matter, legally, what they were told. The > important parts were all in writing! If you are planning to buy a > house, I strongly recommend that you pay a lawyer to help you understand > the fine points! It could save you much pain and more money than you > paid the lawyer! So what if the lawyer made a mistake? So what if the home buyer did carefully read everything and miscalulated? OK, that's still a mistake, but not as bad as not reading the agreement or having a lawyer read it. > > I have bought two houses and have taken and retired two mortgages. I > made very sure that I understood what I was doing and could service and > retire the mortgages. > > Having paid for mine myself, I resent being expected, as a tax payer, to > pay for other people's mistakes! > > -- > draco vulgaris So con-men are totally innocent? I'd put more blame on them than the home buyers, but if you feel differently, fine. BTW, do you actually read entire prospectuses? Just curious. But you also benefit from others mistakes. Take lotto, for example. BTW, I resent a lot of things as a taxpayer. Every deduction someone else gets that I don't get is some of my money going to help them. For example: I, as a renter, am effectively subsidizing people who get tax deductions for -- ta da! -- buying houses. And this isn't even a mistake; it is a deliberate tax law. And you, as a home-buyer, benefited (twice in your case!). Are you going to give me back my share? I doubt it. And then there are the property taxes I pay for other people's children (I have none). Do you have kids? Then people like me are supporting your kids. Resent the home-buyers' mistakes if you want, but you also benefit from others' mispent money and some of the tax decutions they don't get and the excess property taxes they pay. And then there's the possible $25 billion bailout for the American auto-makers, and other similar stuff. AEF ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 15:44:40 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street Message-ID: AEF wrote: > On Oct 3, 10:44 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" > wrote: >> AEF wrote: >>> On Oct 3, 12:42 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" >>> wrote: >>>> AEF wrote: >>>>> On Oct 3, 5:30 am, "David Weatherall" wrote: >>>>>> Neil Rieck wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> For the longest time, people in the financial sector claimed they are >>>>>>> smart while the rest of us are dumb. (Try getting an official >> >> >>> Richard, >>> There is an Op-ed in today's New York Times called "The Borrowers" by >>> Bethany McLean. She blames more or less everyone involved (although to >>> different degrees and in different ways and with different gains and >>> losses . . . ). But while describing all the bad things that >>> homeowners did she adds the following parenthetical remark: "Those who >>> were lied to by bookers about the reset rates on adjustable-rate >>> mortgages and other elements of their loans are in a different >>> category." >> Those people appear, to me, to have failed to read and understand what >> they agreed to. It does not matter, legally, what they were told. The >> important parts were all in writing! If you are planning to buy a >> house, I strongly recommend that you pay a lawyer to help you understand >> the fine points! It could save you much pain and more money than you >> paid the lawyer! > > So what if the lawyer made a mistake? > > So what if the home buyer did carefully read everything and > miscalulated? OK, that's still a mistake, but not as bad as not > reading the agreement or having a lawyer read it. > >> I have bought two houses and have taken and retired two mortgages. I >> made very sure that I understood what I was doing and could service and >> retire the mortgages. >> >> Having paid for mine myself, I resent being expected, as a tax payer, to >> pay for other people's mistakes! >> >> -- >> draco vulgaris > > So con-men are totally innocent? I'd put more blame on them than the > home buyers, but if you feel differently, fine. BTW, do you actually > read entire prospectuses? Just curious. > > But you also benefit from others mistakes. Take lotto, for example. > > BTW, I resent a lot of things as a taxpayer. Every deduction someone > else gets that I don't get is some of my money going to help them. For > example: I, as a renter, am effectively subsidizing people who get tax > deductions for -- ta da! -- buying houses. And this isn't even a > mistake; it is a deliberate tax law. And you, as a home-buyer, > benefited (twice in your case!). So? Renting vs. buying is a choice. You chose one way and I another! FWIW, I was a renter for about ten years after I got out of the army. > Are you going to give me back my > share? I doubt it. And then there are the property taxes I pay for > other people's children (I have none). Having children is a choice. You and I chose to have none. > Do you have kids? Then people > like me are supporting your kids. Resent the home-buyers' mistakes if > you want, but you also benefit from others' mispent money and some of > the tax decutions they don't get and the excess property taxes they > pay. And then there's the possible $25 billion bailout for the > American auto-makers, and other similar stuff. Educating children is an investment. Educated children will be able to support themselves and their families. You don't have to look too far to see what happens when children do not get an education. They can't read so they don't teach their children the rudiments by reading to them! They are those people who live in the slums and support themselves by robbing convenience stores and selling drugs to each other! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 18:46:51 -0700 (PDT) From: AEF Subject: Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street Message-ID: <9d877643-45e5-47b8-aae4-eda1d4f8030e@t42g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> On Oct 5, 4:44 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote: > AEF wrote: > > On Oct 3, 10:44 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" > > wrote: > >> AEF wrote: > >>> On Oct 3, 12:42 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" > >>> wrote: > >>>> AEF wrote: > >>>>> On Oct 3, 5:30 am, "David Weatherall" wrote: > >>>>>> Neil Rieck wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> For the longest time, people in the financial sector claimed they are > >>>>>>> smart while the rest of us are dumb. (Try getting an official > >> > > >>> Richard, > >>> There is an Op-ed in today's New York Times called "The Borrowers" by > >>> Bethany McLean. She blames more or less everyone involved (although to > >>> different degrees and in different ways and with different gains and > >>> losses . . . ). But while describing all the bad things that > >>> homeowners did she adds the following parenthetical remark: "Those who > >>> were lied to by bookers about the reset rates on adjustable-rate > >>> mortgages and other elements of their loans are in a different > >>> category." > >> Those people appear, to me, to have failed to read and understand what > >> they agreed to. It does not matter, legally, what they were told. The > >> important parts were all in writing! If you are planning to buy a > >> house, I strongly recommend that you pay a lawyer to help you understand > >> the fine points! It could save you much pain and more money than you > >> paid the lawyer! > > > So what if the lawyer made a mistake? > > > So what if the home buyer did carefully read everything and > > miscalulated? OK, that's still a mistake, but not as bad as not > > reading the agreement or having a lawyer read it. > > >> I have bought two houses and have taken and retired two mortgages. I > >> made very sure that I understood what I was doing and could service and > >> retire the mortgages. > > >> Having paid for mine myself, I resent being expected, as a tax payer, to > >> pay for other people's mistakes! > > >> -- > >> draco vulgaris > > > So con-men are totally innocent? I'd put more blame on them than the > > home buyers, but if you feel differently, fine. BTW, do you actually > > read entire prospectuses? Just curious. > > > But you also benefit from others mistakes. Take lotto, for example. > > > BTW, I resent a lot of things as a taxpayer. Every deduction someone > > else gets that I don't get is some of my money going to help them. For > > example: I, as a renter, am effectively subsidizing people who get tax > > deductions for -- ta da! -- buying houses. And this isn't even a > > mistake; it is a deliberate tax law. And you, as a home-buyer, > > benefited (twice in your case!). > > So? Renting vs. buying is a choice. You chose one way and I another! > FWIW, I was a renter for about ten years after I got out of the army. Are you serious? Some people will never be able to buy a house. And their odds are made worse by having to pay extra taxes to those who do. The tax deduction is not my choice. Buying or renting is only a chioce by those who can afford either. > > > Are you going to give me back my > > share? I doubt it. And then there are the property taxes I pay for > > other people's children (I have none). > > Having children is a choice. You and I chose to have none. Buying a nice stereo is also a choice, but I don't ask those who don't buy one to chip in for mine. Buying an expensive car. . . . > > Do you have kids? Then people > > like me are supporting your kids. Resent the home-buyers' mistakes if > > you want, but you also benefit from others' mispent money and some of > > the tax decutions they don't get and the excess property taxes they > > pay. And then there's the possible $25 billion bailout for the > > American auto-makers, and other similar stuff. > > Educating children is an investment. Educated children will be able to > support themselves and their families. You don't have to look too far > to see what happens when children do not get an education. Fine, but why should it be on my dime? They'll still get educated, but I won't have to chip in for it. If that's really what it takes to educate kids, then fine -- I'll be happy to chip in. But the same could be true of your contribution to the bailout. > > They can't read so they don't teach their children the rudiments by > reading to them! They are those people who live in the slums and > support themselves by robbing convenience stores and selling drugs to > each other! So if childless people don't chip in, kids will all be illiterate? I don't think so. Supposedly, the bailout is needed to prevent financial calamity which would make things much worse for all involved. If that is the case, your resentment is over something that is negligible compared to the rest of the financial crisis. The subprime crisis is just a pawn in the big picture. It was Wall Street who turned it into the gigantic metastasizing mess we're in now. Without that, it wouldn't have become such a big problem. No one want to reward people who behaved badly in all this, but almost everyone, both left and right, both liberal and conservative, think the bailout is needed to keep things from getting even worse. If you should resent anyone it's Wall St. When you buy food at the supermarket, do you weigh everything? No, you don't. So if you buy a can of soup that says its net weight is 19 oz., but it's really only 15 oz., whose fault is it? If you buy 15 gallons of gas, but you get only 10 because you didn't measure it before putting it in your tank, whose fault is it? Things aren't always black and white. Don't complain about having to help others when you yourself are benefiting from others in a similar way. AEF ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2008.539 ************************