[Info-vax] 8.4 and DECwindows CDE login box not coming up

Paul Sture nospam at sture.ch
Sun Jun 7 09:24:39 EDT 2015


On 2015-06-07, johnwallace4 at yahoo.co.uk <johnwallace4 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sunday, 7 June 2015 11:56:03 UTC+1, Paul Sture  wrote:
>> On 2015-06-07, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
>> <helbig at asclothestro.multivax.de> wrote:
>> > In article <YKCdnYYhW7pC4e7InZ2dnUU7-Q9i4p2d at supernews.com>, David
>> > Turner <islandcomputersuscorp at gmail.com> writes: 
>> >
>> >> The system DOES need a 15 unit base, 1050 motif or 1050 unit NAS150
>> >> Otherwise X will not come up
>> >
>> > Yes, but I'm sure that's in the hobbyist PAKs.
>> 
>> From the latest Hobbyist PAKs I received on 19-APR-2015 (Thanks John):
>> 
>> $ LICENSE REGISTER DW-MOTIF - 
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> /UNITS=0 - 
>> /TERMINATION_DATE=19-MAY-2016 - 
>> /ACTIVITY=CONSTANT=100 - 
>> 
>> It's probably worth noting this comment from the PAK file:
>> 
>> $!  Note: A change has been made so that if an existing license exists with
>> $!        no termination/release date or a termination/release date greater
>> $!        than (or equal to) the termination/release in this file, the PAK 
>> $!        in this file will not be loaded.
>> $!        %X107880D3  %SHOW-I-NOLICMATCH, no licenses match search criteria
>> $!        %X107880CB  %SHOW-I-NOLICENSE, no licenses exist
>> 
>> I.e. if you have a non-expiring PAK already on the system, the
>> corresponding Hobbyist PAK will not be applied.  One situation where
>> this could cause problems is where you bought a system which came with
>> workstation PAKs but the graphics controller died so the system thinks
>> it's now a server.  Removing the original workstation PAKs and
>> re-applying the Hobbyist PAKs would resolve this situation.  Vice versa
>> for a server system to which you added a graphics controller from your
>> stock of goodies.
>> 
>> I'm pretty sure that this isn't your problem Phillip, since inadequate
>> licenses make themselves known pretty emphatically at startup, but feel
>> it's worth pointing out in case it's baffling someone out there.
>> 
>
> Cheers for that.
>
> "inadequate licenses make themselves known pretty emphatically at startup"
>
> Usually, but not always. For example, suppose (say) DECW$startup is
> being run in batch (entirely reasonably). In the absence of a licence,
> the command procedure will fail, and there should be a batch logfile
> with the error message in it. That one's invisible unless someone looks
> for it. But in many cases that's OK because...
>
> There will probably also be an OPCOM message. In a cluster, where the
> workstation in question is a satellite, where will that message be
> visible, without explicitly looking for it?
>
> Obviously the answer is "it depends". If OPCOM is running and there
> is a logfile, which is a good idea when troubleshooting even if for
> some reason it's normally disabled, it should (?) be in there. But
> you have to look for it. It might also be on a physical console
> somewhere. Or in a hobbyist environment, it might not.

There's another gotcha in there with operator logfile creation on Alphas
with a graphics console.  The default starting IIRC with V6.2 was that
if a graphics console was present, workstation status would be assumed
and no operator.log would be created.

At the time, 4100 systems with graphics consoles were selling quite well
(they were very handy for reading the documentation CDs for those of us
still running mainly on VTs) but folks were putting them in as servers,
where the lack of an operator logfile was inappropriate.  Thinking back,
I don't recall coming across more than one Alpha 4100 system which was
headless, and that particular example was two systems in one cabinet
with redundant (almost) everything so probably a custom model rather
than one straight off the price list.

> It's VMS. The evidence we're looking for is usually there, somewhere,
> unless it's deliberately been turned off.

Or left off by an inappropriate default.

-- 
I don't know what the language of the year 2000 will look like, but I
know it will be called Fortran.                    -- Tony Hoare 1982



More information about the Info-vax mailing list