DHASKIN@CLARKU.BITNET.UUCP (12/18/86)
Forwarded. Please answer directly to this person, since he is not on the list. Harold ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- (Well, it seems to have stopped snowing...) Are you or do you know of any VMS system people or programmers (that's not to say that programmers aren't people...) who are doing any work with LATplus software? To briefly describe the situation: when one logs in via the LAT, your 'physical' terminal name is arbitrarily assigned -- of the form LTAxxxx:, where xxxx is, for all intents and purposes, an unpredictable integer. There is no indication of the terminal server name (DECserver 100s in this case, but I don't think it would matter) to which your terminal is physically attached, let alone the port name or number. Unfortunately, like most institutions, we have certain usernames that we would like to restrict to certain terminals -- our student operators and consultants, among others. You can get the server and port info through the LAT control program (LATCP.EXE) but of course one needs CMKRNL to run that... I think that's a kludge (see next paragraph). I spoke to the TSC in Colorado and they said support would be coming (I hinted that additional codes to $GETDVI would be neat, and they're also talking about having LTAxxx: names assigned to server ports), but it would not be soon... actually, he mentioned somewhere off with VMS 5.0... One of the solutions I had and TSC concurred was to spawn a privileged subprocess which could run LATCP to get the info and return it to the parent. We're starting work on that now. ->My question: has anyone encountered this and what have they done about it? Any and all help would be much appreciated. Thanks, Denis W. Haskin Office of Information Systems Clark University Bitnet: DHASKIN@CLARKU Subquestion: is there a distribution list on this or any other net for VMS and/or VAX issues? With the number of VAXes out there in academia, I was surprised there wasn't one on bitnet... this is actually not quite an appropriate request for LIAISON, strictly speaking.