[Info-vax] Problem with Filezilla connecting to OpenVMS

[VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG]

In article <pur31h$bom$1 at dont-email.me>, Dave Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>On 12/12/2018 7:28 AM, VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> In article <pupbma$nv6$1 at dont-email.me>, Dave Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>>> On 12/11/2018 3:11 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 12/11/2018 2:58 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>> On 12/11/2018 2:30 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/11/2018 1:40 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>>>> Our users require SYSLCK.  On VAX it was simple, for me.  On Alpha it
>>>>>>> was much harder, for me.  Ok, Dave's a dummy.  It was still much
>>>>>>> harder for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just note that per HPE manual SYSLCK is a "System: Potential to
>>>>>> interfere with normal system operation" priv.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.  It's also the method for locking a file or record.  Without
>>>>> that, you'd have chaos, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> RMS uses the DLM.
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> But RMS runs in EXEC mode and does not require any privs for users.
>>>>
>>>>> Rdb uses the DLM.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know exactly what RDB. But I would expect a user
>>>> without SYSLCK to be able to use it.
>>>>
>>>>> I use the DLM.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many use the DLM.
>>>>
>>>> Everybody use DLM.
>>>>
>>>> But it is more rare to see its use result in users needing
>>>> SYSLCK.
>>>>
>>>> Arne
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nor do my users have SYSLCK.  The database code uses the UWSS to ENQ and
>>> DEQ system level locks.
>>>
>>> But, back to the issue of getting the job done.  When we first ported to
>>> Alpha, I was unable to get the locking working in the manner used on the
>>> VAX, specifically, EXEC mode transfer vectors, I think it was called.
>>> The boss wasn't ready to shut down operations, and so for a while all
>>> users had SYSLCK priv.  I wasn't happy with it, but, it sure beat the
>>> alternative.  In time the UWSS replaced that poor practice.
>>
>> One could still use/write UWSS (aka, privilege vectors) on Alpha.  The
>> semantics to specify one, however, were changed because the original on
>> VAX relied on program/code offsets.
>
>Yes, but for whatever reason, I just could not "get it".  I did try for 
>quite a while.  I finally had to find a "wizard" to help out. 
>Truthfully, I still don't really understand it.

You never asked me. ;)

FWIW, if you've done it correctly, you should now be able to build your
application for the Itanium too.

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker    VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.