🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <91866@bu.edu>, TEWKSBURY@BUDSGA.BU.EDU (Chip Tewksbury) writes:
> How about adding a discussion group to this hierarchy dealing with issues
> surrounding VMS Posix?  It could be cover a broad range of topics dealing with
> issues such as:
> 
> 	1.  system management of a VMS Posix system
> 	2.  VMS Posix programming
> 	3.  Mixed DCL/ VMS-Posix usage
> 	4.  Useful VMS/POSIX tidbits
> 
> If that's a bit too broad for people's liking, a sub-sub-hierachies could be
> constructed. E.g.:   vmsnet.posix.sysadmin
> 				 .programming
> 				 .mixed_dcl_posix
> 		  		 .tidbits
> 
> What do you think?
> 			Chip Tewksbury.

How about having some discussions about VMS Posix in the main stream
heirarchies (comp.os.vms, or anywhere else in vmsnet), BEFORE we create groups
to discuss these things.  Once such discussions are reasonably active enough,
we can then decide to separate them into what ever groups might then be
appropriate.

--
Mark Pizzolato - INFO COMM Computer Consulting, Redwood City, Ca
PHONE:	(415)369-9366	UUCP:  decwrl!infopiz!mark or uunet!lupine!infopiz!mark
DOMAIN:	mark@infocomm.com

mark@infocomm.com writes:
> How about having some discussions about VMS Posix in the main stream
> heirarchies

Some discussion has already taken place a while ago in news.groups
about the creation of Posix group(s).  comp.unix.posix, etc...

It did obviously not lead to any solution, some contributors
brought as an argument that Posix is too close to Unix to need
separate groups (they're not wrong, both are really close).

-- 
Christophe Wolfhugel    |    Email: Christophe.Wolfhugel@univ-lyon1.fr
   "No keybord, press F1 to continue"

TEWKSBURY@BUDSGA.BU.EDU (Chip Tewksbury) writes:

#>How about adding a discussion group to this hierarchy dealing with issues
#>surrounding VMS Posix?  It could be cover a broad range of topics dealing with
#>issues such as:

I am in favor, but only for the subgroup vmsnet.posix.  I really don't see this
group increasing in volume for another year, when more people start discovering
VMS Posix, and when some of the bugs are resolved.
-- 
richard@npri6.npri.com  <Richard Head>
I've fallen and I can't reach my beer!

In article <14u80dINNbda@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr>, Christophe.Wolfhugel@univ-lyon1.fr (Christophe Wolfhugel) writes:
> mark@infocomm.com writes:
>> How about having some discussions about VMS Posix in the main stream
>> heirarchies
> 
> Some discussion has already taken place a while ago in news.groups
> about the creation of Posix group(s).  comp.unix.posix, etc...
> 
> It did obviously not lead to any solution, some contributors
> brought as an argument that Posix is too close to Unix to need
> separate groups (they're not wrong, both are really close).
> 

I disagree to a point here - if a user logs into the POSIX shell and never
touches DCL or VMS library functions, this is true, but a VMSNET.POSIX for the
discussion of VMS Posix, and how to interoperate between VMS and VMS Posix
(i.e. calling shell from DCL, DCL from shell, file name string scan hints and
kings, etc) would not be appropriate in the comp.unix heiarchy - in fact many
comp.unix folks may be offended by the mere presense of VMS'ers asking a bunch
of questions that are "irrelavent to a real UN*X system."

My vote would be for a VMSNET.POSIX, even if the traffic doesn't warrant it, it
would announce the category of questions, and may get more specific readership.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Fisher                      Realtime Software Specialist
Fisher@HIGHD.ENET.DEC.COM            Digital Equipment Corporation
                                     Ridgecrest, CA
*   This message reflects my own views/opinions, not those of my company    *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <1992Jul24.212411.13734@infocomm.com>, mark@infocomm.com writes:
> How about having some discussions about VMS Posix in the main stream
> heirarchies (comp.os.vms, or anywhere else in vmsnet), BEFORE we create groups
> to discuss these things.  Once such discussions are reasonably active enough,
> we can then decide to separate them into what ever groups might then be
> appropriate.

This makes some sense; however, sometimes the point of creating a new group
is to attract traffic that isn't there in the first place.  

	--- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA
uucp 'g' protocol guru and release coordinator, VMSnet (DECUS uucp) W.G., and 
Chair, VMS Programming and Internals Working Group, U.S. DECUS VAX Systems SIG 
Internet:  jeh@cmkrnl.com, hanrahan@eisner.decus.org, or jeh@crash.cts.com
Uucp:  ...{crash,eisner,uunet}!cmkrnl!jeh

In article <1992Jul27.142517.1@highd.enet.dec.com>, fisher@highd.enet.dec.com 
writes:
[stuf deleted...]
>I disagree to a point here - if a user logs into the POSIX shell and never
>touches DCL or VMS library functions, this is true, but a VMSNET.POSIX for the
>discussion of VMS Posix, and how to interoperate between VMS and VMS Posix
>(i.e. calling shell from DCL, DCL from shell, file name string scan hints and
>kings, etc) would not be appropriate in the comp.unix heiarchy - in fact many
>comp.unix folks may be offended by the mere presense of VMS'ers asking a bunch
>of questions that are "irrelavent to a real UN*X system."
>
>My vote would be for a VMSNET.POSIX, even if the traffic doesn't warrant it, it
>would announce the category of questions, and may get more specific readership.
> 
>-- 
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Lawrence Fisher                      Realtime Software Specialist
>Fisher@HIGHD.ENET.DEC.COM            Digital Equipment Corporation
>                                     Ridgecrest, CA
>*   This message reflects my own views/opinions, not those of my company    *
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree strongly with Mr. Fisher on this.
-steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Hespelt - Laboratory for Laser Energetics University of Rochester
                250 East River Rd. Rochester, NY  14623
fooz@lle.rochester.edu                                    (716) 275-5280
fooz@max.db1.cc.rochester.edu    _________________\|/_    Fax (716) 275-5960
                                                  /|\

In article <1992Jul24.212411.13734@infocomm.com>, mark@infocomm.com writes:
> In article <91866@bu.edu>, TEWKSBURY@BUDSGA.BU.EDU (Chip Tewksbury) writes:
>> How about adding a discussion group to this hierarchy dealing with issues
>> surrounding VMS Posix?  
>> 
>> What do you think?
> 
> How about having some discussions about VMS Posix in the main stream
> heirarchies (comp.os.vms, or anywhere else in vmsnet), BEFORE we create groups
               ===========
> to discuss these things.  Once such discussions are reasonably active enough,
> we can then decide to separate them into what ever groups might then be
> appropriate.
> 
AARGH!!!  The more stuff which can be kept OUT of comp.os.vms the better.
Perhaps someday it will die of obeisity, if we are lucky.
Break this stuff down into little groups where we can find what we want.
-- 
-- Vern Cole -- Systems Manager -- Utah Valley Community College --

In article <91866@bu.edu>, TEWKSBURY@BUDSGA.BU.EDU (Chip Tewksbury) writes:
>How about adding a discussion group to this hierarchy dealing with issues
>surrounding VMS Posix?  It could be cover a broad range of topics dealing with
>issues such as:
>
>	1.  system management of a VMS Posix system
>	2.  VMS Posix programming
>	3.  Mixed DCL/ VMS-Posix usage
>	4.  Useful VMS/POSIX tidbits

Sounds good to me (personally, that is).

>If that's a bit too broad for people's liking, a sub-sub-hierachies could be
>constructed. E.g.:   vmsnet.posix.sysadmin
>				 .programming
>				 .mixed_dcl_posix
>		  		 .tidbits

That would seem premature. Perhaps if DEC fixes the performance, and more people
start using POSIX, that will become more appropriate, but I expect it would
start as a low traffic group. We can split it later if need arises.

In article <1992Jul27.183222.602@cmkrnl.com>, jeh@cmkrnl.com writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.212411.13734@infocomm.com>, mark@infocomm.com writes:
>> How about having some discussions about VMS Posix in the main stream
>> heirarchies (comp.os.vms, or anywhere else in vmsnet), BEFORE we create 
>> groups to discuss these things. ...
>
>This makes some sense; however, sometimes the point of creating a new group
>is to attract traffic that isn't there in the first place.

I agree. Opinion seems to be quite positive so far, but not a lot of people have
posted. I'm personally inclined to create the group, because I think it is a
good idea. I mentioned the posibility long before POSIX was released, in fact.
So let's put it this way, I'll create it unless some posts start appearing to
oppose the idea. 
--
Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com>                   The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!rutgers!depot!mccall!tp)          615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041           Manhattan, KS 66502, USA

In article <1992Aug3.174946@mccall.com>, tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot) writes:
>>If that's a bit too broad for people's liking, a sub-sub-hierachies could be
>>constructed. E.g.:   vmsnet.posix.sysadmin
>>				 .programming
>>				 .mixed_dcl_posix
>>		  		 .tidbits
>
> That would seem premature. Perhaps if DEC fixes the performance, and more people
> start using POSIX, that will become more appropriate, but I expect it would
> start as a low traffic group. We can split it later if need arises.

HERE, HERE!!!

Also, it might actually encourage some people to really write posix conformant
programs if they start on a "pure" posix environment instead of some
combination of the typically confused Unix.

Have you tried to port anything?   Its sort of depressing.

How about any X apps?
Has anyone done anything to get Imake or xmkmf to work?


In article <1992Aug3.174946@mccall.com>, tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot) writes:
> So let's put it this way, I'll create it unless some posts start appearing to
> oppose the idea.

I'm not really against 1 group, just the concept of a WHOLE bunch of em.

So don't consider my post a dissenting opinion.  Go ahead a create it.

--
Mark Pizzolato - INFO COMM Computer Consulting, Redwood City, Ca
PHONE:	(415)369-9366	UUCP:  decwrl!infopiz!mark or uunet!lupine!infopiz!mark
DOMAIN:	mark@infocomm.com

In article <1992Aug3.185118.13992@infocomm.com>, mark@infocomm.com writes:
>
> Have you tried to port anything?   Its sort of depressing.

How depressing?

> 
> How about any X apps?
> Has anyone done anything to get Imake or xmkmf to work?

Hmm. Now that I have upgraded to VMS 5.5, I may get around to loading Posix
on friday. 

MITECH's product is currently VMS-only, so it would be amusing to see
how much trouble a posix-only port would be. Performance of fork()
and that sort of thing should NOT BE AN ISSUE, since we already assume
that stuff like SPAWN is fairly slow, and we know the difference between
writing stuff to a file (disk speed) and writing stuff to some kind
of shared memory.

In article <1992Aug3.185118.13992@infocomm.com>, mark@infocomm.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug3.174946@mccall.com>, tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot) writes:
>> That would seem premature. Perhaps if DEC fixes the performance, and more 
>> people
>> start using POSIX, that will become more appropriate, but I expect it would
>> start as a low traffic group. We can split it later if need arises.
>
>HERE, HERE!!!
>...

Save it for the group! :-) 

>I'm not really against 1 group, just the concept of a WHOLE bunch of em.

Sounds unanimous. I'll probably create it tomorrow, to allow time for those
overseas to comment if they don't want it.
--
Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com>                   The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!rutgers!depot!mccall!tp)          615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041           Manhattan, KS 66502, USA

In article <1992Aug3.174946@mccall.com>, tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot) writes...
> I agree. Opinion seems to be quite positive so far, but not a lot of people
> have posted. I'm personally inclined to create the group, because I think it
> is a good idea. I mentioned the posibility long before POSIX was released,
> in fact.  > So let's put it this way, I'll create it unless some posts start
> appearing to oppose the idea. 

     If the group is intended for dealing specifically with VMS POSIX--as
I think it should--then "vmsnet.vms-posix" would be a much better name.  The
name "vmsnet.posix" is too general, and is liable to attract inappropriate
cross-posts like vmsnet.employment does.

     If the proposed group is intended for dealing with POSIX in general,
that seems to be outside the scope of VMSnet.

		Pat Rankin, rankin@eql.caltech.edu

In article <4AUG199216043845@eql.caltech.edu>, rankin@eql.caltech.edu (Pat Rankin) writes:
> 
>      If the group is intended for dealing specifically with VMS POSIX--as
> I think it should--then "vmsnet.vms-posix" would be a much better name.  The
> name "vmsnet.posix" is too general, and is liable to attract inappropriate
> cross-posts like vmsnet.employment does.
> 
I'll second Pat's motion....

Hunter
------
Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University
goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET, 502-745-5251

In article <1992Aug5.073430.1927@wkuvx1.bitnet>, goathunter@wkuvx1.bitnet
writes:
>In article <4AUG199216043845@eql.caltech.edu>, rankin@eql.caltech.edu (Pat
>Rankin) writes:
>>      If the group is intended for dealing specifically with VMS POSIX--as
>> I think it should--then "vmsnet.vms-posix" would be a much better name.  The
>> name "vmsnet.posix" is too general, and is liable to attract inappropriate
>> cross-posts like vmsnet.employment does.
>I'll second Pat's motion....

All in favor say "AYE". It sounds good to me. Any objections to using this name
rather than vmsnet.posix?
--
Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com>                   The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!rutgers!depot!mccall!tp)          615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041           Manhattan, KS 66502, USA

In article <1992Aug6.084805@mccall.com>, tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot) writes:
> In article <1992Aug5.073430.1927@wkuvx1.bitnet>, goathunter@wkuvx1.bitnet
> writes:
>>In article <4AUG199216043845@eql.caltech.edu>, rankin@eql.caltech.edu (Pat
>>Rankin) writes:
>>>      If the group is intended for dealing specifically with VMS POSIX--as
>>> I think it should--then "vmsnet.vms-posix" would be a much better name.  The
>>> name "vmsnet.posix" is too general, [...]
> 
> All in favor say "AYE". It sounds good to me. Any objections to using this 
> name
> rather than vmsnet.posix?
> --
> Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com>

"NAY."

The name vmsnet.vms-posix sounds like it was invented by the 
department of redundency department.

General posix stuff should be in a comp.????.posix group.
VMS posix stuff goes in vmsnet.posix.  Even I could follow that logic.
Adding the extra "vms-" is fixing something that's not broken.

(Decus.posix.vms would make sense if there were a decus news domain, 
which there ain't.)

-- Vern Cole -- Systems Manager -- Utah Valley Community College --

In article <1992Aug6.141304.1@cc.uvcc.edu>, coleve@cc.uvcc.edu writes:
> 
> The name vmsnet.vms-posix sounds like it was invented by the 
> department of redundency department.
> 
> General posix stuff should be in a comp.????.posix group.
> VMS posix stuff goes in vmsnet.posix.  Even I could follow that logic.
> Adding the extra "vms-" is fixing something that's not broken.

You're assuming that vmsnet is strictly for VMS issues, which is incorrect. 
Witness the vmsnet.pdp-11 group.

> -- Vern Cole -- Systems Manager -- Utah Valley Community College --
-- 

Ed Wilts, BC Systems Corp., 4000 Seymour Place, Victoria, B.C., Canada, V8X 4S8
EWilts@Galaxy.Gov.BC.CA   |   Ed.Wilts@BCSystems.Gov.BC.CA   |   (604) 389-3430

In article <1992Aug6.084805@mccall.com>, tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot) writes:
>>> vmsnet.vms-posix

AYE.

Let me add another item to the informal charter for the group.

 * a way to coordinate the porting of various PD packages
   to vms-posix. 
   - as a way to say "I'm porting XMODEM version XYZ, anybody done it already?"
   - feedback on common gotcha's


Actually, the first thing on my list would be a port
of MIT X11 hacked up makefile stuff. Whats it called, IMAKE?

Not that the stuff is good for anything, but you
cannot submit programs to COMP.SOURCES.X without providing
certain things in certain formats, like an imakefile.
A bit tricky to test this stuff in a regular VMS environment.

In article <1992Aug6.084805@mccall.com>, tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot) writes:
> All in favor say "AYE". It sounds good to me. Any objections to using this name
> rather than vmsnet.posix?

I think vmsnet.vms-posix is unnecessarily long and serves no useful purpose. 
VMSnet.posix is fine.
-- 
   Don Roberts                   Internet:  don@beckman.com
   Beckman Instruments, Inc.     Phone:     714/961-3029
   2500 Harbor Bl. Mailstop X-12 FAX:       714/961-3351
   Fullerton, CA  92634          Disclaimer:  Blame me, not Beckman.
   People are as happy as they decide to be - A. Lincoln

In article <1992Aug6.141304.1@cc.uvcc.edu>, coleve@cc.uvcc.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug6.084805@mccall.com>, tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot) writes:
>>>In article <4AUG199216043845@eql.caltech.edu>, rankin@eql.caltech.edu (Pat
>>>Rankin) writes:
>>>>      If the group is intended for dealing specifically with VMS POSIX--as
>>>> I think it should--then "vmsnet.vms-posix" would be a much better name. 
>>>>>The name "vmsnet.posix" is too general, [...]
>>
>> All in favor say "AYE".
>"NAY."

I'm afraid the AYE's have it (many were emailed direct to me). Pat has a valid
point. While the name is seemingly redundant, remember that the amount of
non-vms stuff that may find its way under vmsnet is still a contentious issue.
To the extent that non-vms stuff does appear under vmsnet, vmsnet loses its
connotation as implying vms-related topics. Making it explicit in this way would
then be more important.

>General posix stuff should be in a comp.????.posix group.

Is there one? A search of my news.rc file for posix only turns up
vmsnet.vms-posix. Which makes it even more necessary to distinguish that this
group is for the VMS POSIX product, and not the POSIX standard(s).

Anyway, the group has been created now. If you'd like to propose changing the
name, feel free, and if there is a consensus that we should, we will.
--
Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com>                   The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!rutgers!depot!mccall!tp)          615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041           Manhattan, KS 66502, USA

In article <1992Aug4.081537@mccall.com>, tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot) writes:
> 
> Sounds unanimous. I'll probably create it tomorrow, to allow time for those
> overseas to comment if they don't want it.

In future *please* allow more time for us poor sod's overseas to reply.
This message (dated 4-aug-1992) arrived here in Denmark this morning 
(12-aug-1992) :-(

The checkgroup message (dated 7-aug-1992) arrived here 2 days ago and
the newgroup message arrived yesterday!!

I wonder what will dribble in in the next couple of days - where I was
supposed to reply by last wednesday ;-[

BTW: I am for creation of the vmsnet.posix or vmsnet.vms-posix or
vmsnet.<anything>posix group.

---
Henrik Tougaard             E-mail: ht@datani.dk
Datani A/S, Software Consultants
Copenhagen, Denmark         Only my own opinions........