1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 27 Aug 2000	Volume 2000 : Issue 478       Contents:& Re:Dec's failing to get the PC market.' Re: Dec's failing to get the PC market. # Re: Disaster Tolerance - Terrorists # Re: Disaster Tolerance - Terrorists 2 Re: Here we go again - WTB/T/etc source listing CDP IP Multicast Group 'join': Determing IP address assigned to particular interface Re: is montagar down again? # RE: Pathworks - NT accounts problem $ Re: Portable GUIs (VMS+Windows-NT) ? Powered by VMS Re: Powered by VMS Re: Q: Why not (2^n)-bit?  Re: Q: Why not (2^n)-bit?  Re: Q: Why not (2^n)-bit?  Re: Q: Why not (2^n)-bit?  Re: Q: Why not (2^n)-bit?  Re: Q: Why not (2^n)-bit?  Re: Q: Why not (2^n)-bit?  RSH proxy problems, I think 
 Re: run *.com   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 18:54:19 +0000 + From: Ben Franchuk <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca> / Subject: Re:Dec's failing to get the PC market. , Message-ID: <39A6C0DB.BCFFF913@jetnet.ab.ca>  5 I think the reason DEC lost the PC market, is because 5 they stopped thinking in terms of computer components : and just in computer systems.When Dec entered the computerH market it made logic modules.Any company/school could buy the componentsH and make a computer,they wanted. In the 70's the same thing happend withG the microprocessors, you could build a system you wanted.Dec could sell < you a system but buy a PDP-XX chip never.IBM got into the PC; market with their APPLE II - clone (BASIC-16kb-tape) simply 9 because business users knew that they could have reliable A computer because IBM ( at a hefty fee) would be around to service & their computers and keep them running.   Ben. - > "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents...!  We borrow it from our children." F "24 bit CPU's R us" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 00:45:27 -0400 , From: taterskins@patriot.net (Ramon L. Tate)0 Subject: Re: Dec's failing to get the PC market.D Message-ID: <taterskins-ya023480002708000045270001@news.patriot.net>  9 In article <39A6C0DB.BCFFF913@jetnet.ab.ca>, Ben Franchuk  <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:   7 > I think the reason DEC lost the PC market, is because 7 > they stopped thinking in terms of computer components < > and just in computer systems.When Dec entered the computerJ > market it made logic modules.Any company/school could buy the componentsJ > and make a computer,they wanted. In the 70's the same thing happend withI > the microprocessors, you could build a system you wanted.Dec could sell > > you a system but buy a PDP-XX chip never.IBM got into the PC= > market with their APPLE II - clone (BASIC-16kb-tape) simply ; > because business users knew that they could have reliable C > computer because IBM ( at a hefty fee) would be around to service ( > their computers and keep them running. >  > Ben. > - @ > "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents...# >  We borrow it from our children." H > "24 bit CPU's R us" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html  G When the IBM PC was announced, the Director of the Division of Computer C Research and Technology (DCRT) at the National Institutes of Health J personally saw to it that about 20 (exact number missing from memory) wereE ordered and spread around the division just to see what they might be A useful for. Why? Well, we were, and still are, a moderately large H administrative IBM mainframe shop, so the prevailing opinion was that ifK IBM made it, it had to be worth something. Even though us techie types kept K saying to ourselves "why in the world did they do it THAT way", before long # IBM PCs were sitting on every desk.   G We also provided timesharing to the general scientific community with a K 3-processor DECsystem-10. When the 36-bit line was tossed down the tube, it I sure wasn't a VAX system that replaced it: the Un*x guys had been waiting C for their chance, and this was it. Granted, the "replacement" was a J top-of-the-line Convex system (with DECnet, no less), but the camel's head? was in the tent even though several of the most popular TOPS-10 ? applications were never ported nor were they even replaced with J semi-equivalents. Cold turkey, it was - after all, everyone just knew thatK Un*x was going to completely take over the world in a year or two......(the I Convex was swapped for an SGI multiprocessor system a few years ago). The J IBM is still there, and there are still several dozen VMS systems chugging# away in niches here and there, too.    --  
 Ramon L. Tate 	 Casa Maa = taterskins@patriot.net   "Skin" that "tater" before replying!    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:37:29 GMT - From: "Dave Pampreen" <davepampreen@home.com> , Subject: Re: Disaster Tolerance - Terrorists; Message-ID: <dUVp5.14730$QW4.189365@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com>   ! Maybe because it would be titled:   G "You may have lost your entire staff and facility, but VMS just kept on  going and going...":)    Dave    8 "Island Computers" <sales@islandco.com> wrote in message( news:sqfnv61gt9138@corp.supernews.com...; > SO... Why hasn't Compaq ever promoted this in their ads ?  >  > 0 > <Shane.F.Smith@Healthnet.com> wrote in message? > news:OF67E04BEE.F6167271-ON88256946.006E930B@HEALTHNET.COM...  > > L > > Not that I am aware of, and I believe most of the VMS sites in that areaI > > were customers of the company I worked for at the time. My office was  > about L > > a mile away, we lost windows (unfortunately, the wrong kind...). Our VMS > > ystems didn't even hiccup. > > 	 > > Shane  > >  > >  > >  > >  > > < > > Steve.Spires@yellowpages.co.uk on 08/25/2000 08:15:53 AM > >  > > To:   Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com  > > cc:  > > 1 > > Subject:  Re: Disaster Tolerance - Terrorists  > >  > > A > > Contact:   Tel: 3063  -  VSSG, 1st Floor, Bridge Street Plaza  > >  > > J > > I don't know for sure, but I would hazard a guess at it being when the IRA ; > > bombed the City of London to break their 'ceasefire'...  > >  > > Steve Spires > >  > >  > >  > > J > > robert_jm_barron@HOTMAIL.COM (Robert Barron) on 25/08/2000 03:00:38 PM > > $ > > To:        Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com/ > > cc:         (bcc: Steve Spires/YellowPages) L > > From:      robert_jm_barron@HOTMAIL.COM (Robert Barron), 25 August 2000, > > 3:00 > >            p.m.  > > # > > Disaster Tolerance - Terrorists  > >  > >  > >  > >  > > Hi, D > > Whiles reading "OpenVMS and NT Integration (for dummies)" I cameJ > > across a line on page 171 where they claim that due to a fiber ClusterF > > Interconnect, an OpenVMS application survived a terrorist bombing. > >  > > are any details available? > >  > > Thank you,	 > > Robet  > >  > >  > >  > >  > >  > >  > >  > >  > >  > >  > >  >  >    ------------------------------    Date: 26 Aug 2000 21:21:03 -05009 From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) , Subject: Re: Disaster Tolerance - Terrorists+ Message-ID: <5jPjPzazwu9r@eisner.decus.org>   ^ In article <sqfnv61gt9138@corp.supernews.com>, "Island Computers" <sales@islandco.com> writes:  A Many customers with critical operations are not looking for _any_ ! publicity about their operations.   ; > SO... Why hasn't Compaq ever promoted this in their ads ?  >  > 0 > <Shane.F.Smith@Healthnet.com> wrote in message? > news:OF67E04BEE.F6167271-ON88256946.006E930B@HEALTHNET.COM...  >>K >> Not that I am aware of, and I believe most of the VMS sites in that area H >> were customers of the company I worked for at the time. My office was > about K >> a mile away, we lost windows (unfortunately, the wrong kind...). Our VMS  >> ystems didn't even hiccup.  >> >> Shane >> >> >> >> >>; >> Steve.Spires@yellowpages.co.uk on 08/25/2000 08:15:53 AM  >> >> To:   Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com >> cc: >>0 >> Subject:  Re: Disaster Tolerance - Terrorists >> >>@ >> Contact:   Tel: 3063  -  VSSG, 1st Floor, Bridge Street Plaza >> >>M >> I don't know for sure, but I would hazard a guess at it being when the IRA : >> bombed the City of London to break their 'ceasefire'... >> >> Steve Spires  >> >> >> >>I >> robert_jm_barron@HOTMAIL.COM (Robert Barron) on 25/08/2000 03:00:38 PM  >># >> To:        Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com . >> cc:         (bcc: Steve Spires/YellowPages)K >> From:      robert_jm_barron@HOTMAIL.COM (Robert Barron), 25 August 2000,  >> 3:00  >>            p.m. >>" >> Disaster Tolerance - Terrorists >> >> >> >> >> Hi,C >> Whiles reading "OpenVMS and NT Integration (for dummies)" I came I >> across a line on page 171 where they claim that due to a fiber Cluster E >> Interconnect, an OpenVMS application survived a terrorist bombing.  >> >> are any details available?  >>
 >> Thank you,  >> Robet >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 04:39:59 +0100 $ From: Paul Sture <sture.ch@sture.ch>; Subject: Re: Here we go again - WTB/T/etc source listing CD + Message-ID: <VA.000000ae.02771eda@sture.ch>   7 In article <39A7C2C2.98A5C7E5@vrx.net>, Beyonder wrote:    Much snipped  : > No, I am not terribly interested in the I&DS (or is thatM > ID&S?) anyhow, I just want to look at the CD set, I'm curious, so shoot me.  > N Yet again, you are ignoring the recommendations of those who _do_ have access C to the listings, and still say that the I&DS is the best way to go.   4 Now then, to quote from your message of 10-Jul-2000:  ? "I'm looking for just about any version of the VMS source code, A microfiche or whatever format you have (although I really dislike H fiche), some sort of electronic version is preferred (CD, whatever). Any2 version from 3.1 to 7.2 (obviously) would be fine.  E Either to purchase or just to borrow for study. I have a one-time use  project I need this for."   N So you've got the fiche, and you didn't mind if it was as old as 3.1. Now you D want it on CD? Not just want, but INSIST YOU MUST HAVE IT, FOR FREE!  L I _could_ I suppose get my employers to provide me with what you are asking I for, and, if I justified it properly, they would gladly pay whatever the  K going rate is. Trouble is, I really cannot justify that expense to myself,  I let alone my seniors. And, as I have learnt from my esteemed peers here,  ) that's not my best starting point anyway.   M Please tell us about this "one-time use project". We are dying to know about   it...   J OTOH, your repeated insistence on having the thing on CD has been wearing I thin for quite some time now. At first I thought you were a student in a  ? quest for knowledge, but I see from your post of 22-June, that:   K "Wow I never knew the press was that bad, or the common thinking was. I've  M been using DEC equipment since 1976 and PACX communications, kermit has been  B there almost since the beginning of that (it's hard to remember)."  N So you definitely aren't a "newbie", used to scouring Linux sources, which is H what I had initially thought of you, given your repeated insistence and  having them.  H And then, there's your first post here that I have records of (6-April, H although the discussion started a little earlier), slagging off someone K called circuitsurgeon. That thread quickly degenerated into a rant on your  	 part too.   N Question: When did Mitnick get out of jail? Social engineering to get hold of + source code sounds a familiar theme here...  ___ 
 Paul Sture Switzerland    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:13:53 -0400 + From: Bill Meier <wmeierxxx@xxxnewsguy.com> Y Subject: IP Multicast Group 'join': Determing IP address assigned to particular interface 8 Message-ID: <ccigqskqu446rta4qprbj7f12tlai5br2g@4ax.com>  
 The problem:    N We've got multiple network interfaces on our Alphas with each interface having  a separate assigned IP address.   I In our configuration, the "second" (TCPIP device "WE1") interface on each F Alpha is always connected to our IP Multicast Routing enabled network.  N For a program to join a multicast group on other than the "default interface",= the IP address of the interface to be used must be specified.   M So: I'm looking for a good "node-independent" way for a program determine the K IP address of a particular interface so as to join multicast groups on that 
 interface.  # We're using VMS 7.2 and TCPIP V5.0A    Possibilities:  L 1. Somehow obtain the IP Address assigned to a particular TCPIP device (e.g.L "WE1") via a "C" system call. Is this possible ? (On second thought this mayL not be a good idea. Are the TCPIP device names different for different types of network cards ?).  K 2. Some DCL lexical call to get IP address for an interface. (I don't think  this is possible).  > 3. Do some DCL stuff to extract the IP address from "TCPIP sho interface".(ugh...)   L 4. Define a unique host name (something like <hostname>_MC in DNS/host_file)L for the multicast port. Have the Multicast client program translate the name to the IP address, etc.     5. (Other ideas are welcome ...)    
 Bill Meier   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 21:56:48 -0500 7 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@earthlink.net> $ Subject: Re: is montagar down again?- Message-ID: <39A88370.4028ABE2@earthlink.net>    Beyonder wrote:  > J > I've been trying to reach it since yesterday, and can't bring up the web > site.   % O.K. as of 21:56 CDT (US) via FSInet.    --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  : Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page and Message Board: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   H This *IS* comp.os.vms. So, a certain bias in postings is to be expected.  @ Feel free to exercise your rights of free speech and expression.  F However, attacks against individual posters, or groups of posters, are strongly discouraged.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 21:18:54 -0400 + From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@compaq.com> , Subject: RE: Pathworks - NT accounts problemJ Message-ID: <910612C07BCAD1119AF40000F86AF0D805284726@kaoexc4.kao.dec.com>   Ter,  = Just a WAG, but check the "Guest" account on the NT server...    Regards,  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant,
 Compaq Canada  Professional Services  Voice : 613-592-4660 FAX   : 819-772-7036 Email : kerry.main@compaq.com        -----Original Message-----< From: teroconnor@my-deja.com [mailto:teroconnor@my-deja.com]) Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 11:40 AM  To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com ( Subject: Pathworks - NT accounts problem    C We have a Pathworks v5.0f server on VMS 6.2-1h3. Windows95 and NTv4 & workstations can map to fileshares OK.F We have a WNTv4 server running a backup application and want to backupB fileshares from the Pathworks server. However when we try to map aD drive to the Pathworks fileshare from the NT server we get a messageG saying "an error occurred in network provider Microsoft Windows Network 1 error 2242:The password of this user has expired" E However the user account of the "servername" does not have an expired 4 password when viewed from "User manager for domains"@ has anyone seen such an occurance - any ideas on resolving this.   Ter       & Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:28:18 GMT + From: mike_myers@bellsouth.net (Mike Myers) - Subject: Re: Portable GUIs (VMS+Windows-NT) ? 6 Message-ID: <39a80b91.20003114@news.clt.bellsouth.net>  F WRQ purchased SuperNova and now renamed the cross platform development tool to Verastream.   = On 26 Aug 2000 08:50:10 -0400, jordan@lisa.gemair.com (Jordan  Henderson) wrote:   : >In article <39a6f538$1$lllp186$mr2ice@news.flashcom.com>,. > <yyyc186.illegaltospam_@flashcom.net> wrote:6 >>In <spqk458487v104@corp.supernews.com>, on 08/25/00 D >>   at 06:37 PM, "Jim Jennis" <jjennis@discovery.fuentez.com> said: >> >>I >>Isn't WRQ the symbol for what used to be/is Wind River Systems?  If so,  >>the library is Zinc. >> > H >No, I don't think so.  WRQ has been known by WRQ for years.  Their nameD >used to be Walker R.. Q... (I can't remember, which is probably why! >they simplified it to just WRQ.)  > H >I didn't know that they had a UI toolkit.  I was always quite impressedA >with their X-Windows Server for Windows and their Telnet client,n >Reflection. >u >>Roland >> >7 >-Jordan Henderson >jordan@greenapple.com   ------------------------------   Date: 27 Aug 2000 01:06:18 GMT# From: merefbast@aol.com (MerefBast)t Subject: Powered by VMS : Message-ID: <20000826210618.06476.00001543@ng-cj1.aol.com>      Hi.  9    I am putting together a comparison list of which majora< businesses and organizations use which operating systems for their web servers (atG? <http://www.OperatingSystems.net/system/internet/internet.htm>.:  /    So, I am asking for fans or users of OpenVMSeB to provide verifiable accounts of businesses or organizations that/ use VMS for their web servers. Verifiable meansW= something such as a URL to a web page on their site that says ? "powered by..." or e-mail from the web master or other employee-> of the business or organization. Major means easily and widely* recognizeable businesses or organizations.  5    Please send a courtesy copy of your information toC5 <MerefBast@aol.com> or <Author@OperatingSystems.net>.s      Thanks...   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 21:58:41 -0500u7 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@earthlink.net>k Subject: Re: Powered by VMSc- Message-ID: <39A883E1.90C7AB2E@earthlink.net>e   MerefBast wrote: >  >    Hi. > ; >    I am putting together a comparison list of which majori> > businesses and organizations use which operating systems for > their web servers (atiA > <http://www.OperatingSystems.net/system/internet/internet.htm>.m > 1 >    So, I am asking for fans or users of OpenVMSrD > to provide verifiable accounts of businesses or organizations that1 > use VMS for their web servers. Verifiable meanse? > something such as a URL to a web page on their site that saystA > "powered by..." or e-mail from the web master or other employee/@ > of the business or organization. Major means easily and widely, > recognizeable businesses or organizations. > 7 >    Please send a courtesy copy of your information toc7 > <MerefBast@aol.com> or <Author@OperatingSystems.net>.t >  >    Thanks...  0 Contact Mark Levy at FSInet, http://www.fsi.net/ -- B David J. Dachtera. dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  : Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page and Message Board: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   H This *IS* comp.os.vms. So, a certain bias in postings is to be expected.  @ Feel free to exercise your rights of free speech and expression.  F However, attacks against individual posters, or groups of posters, are strongly discouraged.    ------------------------------    Date: 26 Aug 2000 15:54:15 -0400/ From: jordan@lisa.gemair.com (Jordan Henderson)n" Subject: Re: Q: Why not (2^n)-bit?* Message-ID: <8o9797$t7e$1@lisa.gemair.com>  O In article <8o8ofo$i7o$1@pyrite.mv.net>, Bill Todd <billtodd@foo.mv.com> wrote:b >u; >Jordan Henderson <jordan@lisa.gemair.com> wrote in message % >news:8o8hht$aau$1@lisa.gemair.com...  >. >... > H >> I can't speak to this specific incident (the abandonment of all linesE >> except VAX and certain PDP-11s), but there was a discussion threadcB >> in comp.os.vms awhile back with people assigning various groupsI >> (the IBM people who came in in the late 70's/early 80's, the Honeywell 7 >> people, etc.  etc. etc.) for DEC's ultimate decline.  >>B >> C'mon people, that's lazy thinking.  That's exactly the kind ofC >> thinking that says that the neighborhood declined after <fill inlB >> your favorite group here> moved in.  It's scapegoating and it's( >> easy and it's almost certainly wrong. >tF >Or it could be your own analysis that's lazy.  The fact is that DEC'sH >approach to product direction changed significantly over a brief periodK >during the early '80s from a largely bottom-up approach to a top-down one.mI >This coincided with and/or closely followed continuing rapid growth, the-G >appearance of VAX/VMS, and the influx of a large number of people from M >Honeywell, IBM, and likely other identifiable sources I can't remember - all = >of which I suspect played some role in the direction change.  >v  < Well, Gordon Bell's narrowing of the product line seems like= a top-down approach to me.  You can hardly blame that on thisc= "influx".  Sure, people refugees from their failures at otheri> companies may well have contributed to the decline of DEC, but= was it the cause of the decline or the effect of the decline?e   Who can say?  > All I know is that it's convenient to blame a class of people.: It prevents us from looking at ourselves or people who we  admire.    >>A >> Remember, it was Ken Olsen who said that nobody would possibly  >> want a computer at home.i >pM >At a time, IIRC, when this was pretty unequivocably true.  It's too bad that-L >this specific instance of non-prescience (shared by most of the rest of theI >industry, IIRC - Apple was 'way too small to be a noticeable part of thedJ >industry back then, and didn't IBM initially develop the PC primarily forK >business use?) clings so conspicuously to a man whose accomplishments (ande% >earlier vision) were so significant.  >   C I believe the quote was something to the effect "Nobody will _ever_tC possibly want a computer at home.  What would they do with it?"  I hD also believe this was when he was asked about the fledgling hobbyist market (Imsai, etc.).E  E You could call it lack of prescience, I would call it lack of vision.   B IBM did target the PC at business, but it was in reaction to what = they saw could be done with the Apple II, Visicalc and early  < word processing.  They reacted swiftly to prevent Apple from< getting into their business accounts with machines more cost7 effective and capable than anything they then offerred.p  C DEC reacted much later with much more anemic offerrings.  Ken OlsenV? was clearly in control of the company in the early '80s, yet her? continued to miss the point of the desktop market.  By the time,D DEC had any serious offerings, the market was intensely competitive.A Also, under Olsen they never made the hard restructuring choices d> that could have made them a serious competitor in the desktop  market.s  ) >  And now we see that it was Gordon Belln@ >> who narrowed the product lines down to the point that DEC was? >> inflexible to the point that they were unable to change whenr! >> the market and technology did.b >_M >A generalization which does not seem to apply to the point under discussion: I >the market and technology changes that DEC failed to follow (or, better, H >lead) were not in directions that the 36-bit machines would have helped	 >address.c >s  @ I doubt the 36-bit machines would have been the future, but they> continued to have a role when DEC unceremoniously dumped them.  ? It's all about Customer Relationship Management.  If customers  C continue to reward you with profits for a given product, you should G continue to support it well.  But, if you see the product is ultimately:? a dead-end, you should also develop competitive products.  Whenn@ the customers are willing to change, you'll be there, the people; who served them so well in the past, with new products and pC services.  DEC in the mid 80's to the early-mid 90's was all about a< upsetting huge classes of customers while telling them that = there was a new technology that they should be using instead mB (DEC 10/20s => VAX, Ultrix => OSF/1, VMS => {DEC UNIX,WindowsNT}).  ; Yes, I include Ultrix => OSF/1 there.  Apperently, some BIG6> accounts were promised Ultrix on Alpha and DEC had it running,H even fielded field tests, but pulled the plug for 'strategic' reasons.  4 Those customers ultimately found other Unix vendors.   >>: >> Ken Olsen and Gordon Bell were hardly newcomers to DEC. >.L >No, but they were increasingly working with intermediate levels of managersD >who *were* relative newcomers, which is why I suspect that importedM >mind-sets may have played a part.  Both Olsen and Bell were *used* to taking M >input from the people who reported to them:  it was the inclination of thosePK >people to do the same with their own reports (and so on recursively) whichgK >changed, at a time when the size of DEC made it increasingly difficult for>? >lower-level contributors to influence Olsen and Bell directly.O >R  F If Olsen brought in bad people and listened to them, who's to blame?    G >That said, I can agree whole-heartedly with the rest of your comments.e >j >- billH >A >>? >> Personally, I think what killed DEC was arrogance.  They had.B >> been so successful with the "DEC way of doing things" that they? >> simply could not adjust their thinking to a new marketplace.  >>= >> Problem is, they really misidentified what the "DEC way of < >> doing things" actually was.  DECs success wasn't built on9 >> increased focus, but rather with chaos, with Engineers : >> free to build the absolute best products without regard! >> for some broad strategic plan.- >>> >> DEC became a company that felt that competition with itself< >> was a bad thing, when their success was built upon having: >> multiple overlapping product lines.  I'm concerned that< >> Compaq also has this mindset that they won't compete with: >> themselves.  IIRC, a Compaq person even said as much at" >> a DECUS conference awhile back. >>	 >> [snip]s >> >> -Jordan Henderson >> jordan@greenapple.com >  >    -Jordan Hendersoni jordan@greenapple.comi   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 21:01:45 GMTh% From: hg/jb <shsrms@bellatlantic.net>h" Subject: Re: Q: Why not (2^n)-bit?0 Message-ID: <39A83247.802A315F@bellatlantic.net>   Bill Todd wrote: > < > Jordan Henderson <jordan@lisa.gemair.com> wrote in message& > news:8o8hht$aau$1@lisa.gemair.com... >  > ...  > I > > I can't speak to this specific incident (the abandonment of all linesfF > > except VAX and certain PDP-11s), but there was a discussion threadC > > in comp.os.vms awhile back with people assigning various groupsuJ > > (the IBM people who came in in the late 70's/early 80's, the Honeywell8 > > people, etc.  etc. etc.) for DEC's ultimate decline. > > C > > C'mon people, that's lazy thinking.  That's exactly the kind offD > > thinking that says that the neighborhood declined after <fill inC > > your favorite group here> moved in.  It's scapegoating and it's ) > > easy and it's almost certainly wrong.n > G > Or it could be your own analysis that's lazy.  The fact is that DEC's I > approach to product direction changed significantly over a brief periodoL > during the early '80s from a largely bottom-up approach to a top-down one.J > This coincided with and/or closely followed continuing rapid growth, theH > appearance of VAX/VMS, and the influx of a large number of people fromN > Honeywell, IBM, and likely other identifiable sources I can't remember - all> > of which I suspect played some role in the direction change. >  > > B > > Remember, it was Ken Olsen who said that nobody would possibly > > want a computer at home. > N > At a time, IIRC, when this was pretty unequivocably true.  It's too bad thatM > this specific instance of non-prescience (shared by most of the rest of the J > industry, IIRC - Apple was 'way too small to be a noticeable part of theK > industry back then, and didn't IBM initially develop the PC primarily foruL > business use?) clings so conspicuously to a man whose accomplishments (and& > earlier vision) were so significant. Was it now?n; I was working on two projects with and for Ken at the time.eD One was a ceramic substrate PDP8 clone using the 6100.  this finallyD ended up as the DP78.  Original marketing estimate was we could sellF 10,000 DP78s if we could keep the manufacturing cost under 400 bucks. D Then reality set in....manufacturing cost was 98 bucks for the final% version.  I think we sold it for 498.b  D The other project was to power the clone from 48volt telephone power source. F it had hand set, dialpad, keyboard connector, modulator for TV output, and audio tape storage.": Intent was to incorporate into a phone. Can you say LKxx1?D This was stopped and we looked at an 11 (to be based on CMOS 11 chip4 later on) effort that fueled some of the T11 effort. So, unequivocably true?o Can you say GIGI?eF Radio shack asking to use a PDP 8 for home because all ofthe languages were available for it?@ Yeah, limited, but a good cheap entre....hmmmm...commodore what?F Perspective is interesting....I participated in the VMS thread. What IH said was there was a change in the focus when the Honeywell crew startedF coming in.  I said specifically, there was this thing called strategicE planning introduced.  I did not believe I needed to say that prior toeF the late 70s Ken and Stan had told us all that we needed to spend timeH with customers to understand their need. The intro of strategic planningG concepts, push toward just in time manufacturing and so on all added toc# but did not seal the demise of dec.sD The style change from unibus/omnibus with open specs to the BI et alD with proprietary, you gotta pay big bucks for a license added to theG mix.  the adds, jokingly but half in earnest  "..but we are digital and E you are not...." all added to an atmosphere...strategic planning, not  marketing, d just bob   > * >   And now we see that it was Gordon BellA > > who narrowed the product lines down to the point that DEC wast@ > > inflexible to the point that they were unable to change when" > > the market and technology did. > N > A generalization which does not seem to apply to the point under discussion:J > the market and technology changes that DEC failed to follow (or, better,I > lead) were not in directions that the 36-bit machines would have helpedp
 > address. >  > >n; > > Ken Olsen and Gordon Bell were hardly newcomers to DEC.  > M > No, but they were increasingly working with intermediate levels of managersoE > who *were* relative newcomers, which is why I suspect that imported-N > mind-sets may have played a part.  Both Olsen and Bell were *used* to takingN > input from the people who reported to them:  it was the inclination of thoseL > people to do the same with their own reports (and so on recursively) whichL > changed, at a time when the size of DEC made it increasingly difficult for@ > lower-level contributors to influence Olsen and Bell directly. > H > That said, I can agree whole-heartedly with the rest of your comments. >  > - bill >  > >a@ > > Personally, I think what killed DEC was arrogance.  They hadC > > been so successful with the "DEC way of doing things" that theyM@ > > simply could not adjust their thinking to a new marketplace. > >a> > > Problem is, they really misidentified what the "DEC way of= > > doing things" actually was.  DECs success wasn't built ong: > > increased focus, but rather with chaos, with Engineers; > > free to build the absolute best products without regarde" > > for some broad strategic plan. > >e? > > DEC became a company that felt that competition with itselfr= > > was a bad thing, when their success was built upon havings; > > multiple overlapping product lines.  I'm concerned that = > > Compaq also has this mindset that they won't compete witho; > > themselves.  IIRC, a Compaq person even said as much atr# > > a DECUS conference awhile back.a > >. > > >--/D > > >+-------------------------------------------------------------+D > > >|     Charles and Francis Richmond     <richmond@plano.net>   |D > > >+-------------------------------------------------------------+ > >3 > > -Jordan Hendersonl > > jordan@greenapple.comc   ------------------------------   Date: 26 Aug 2000 20:55:07 GMT( From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)" Subject: Re: Q: Why not (2^n)-bit?2 Message-ID: <8o9arb$2a14$1@citadel.in.taronga.com>  * In article <8o9797$t7e$1@lisa.gemair.com>,0 Jordan Henderson <jordan@lisa.gemair.com> wrote:C >(DEC 10/20s => VAX, Ultrix => OSF/1, VMS => {DEC UNIX,WindowsNT}).n   Alpha->Intel, OSF1^WTru64->NTo  , Sorry, I'm being preemptively cynical again.  M Oh yeh, dumping the nice DEC Hinotes and then realising there wasn't anything,# in the Armada line to replace them.n   --  # Rev. Peter da Silva, ULC.					WWFD?a  F "Be conservative in what you generate, and liberal in what you accept" 	-- Matthew 10:16 (l.trans)'   ------------------------------    Date: 26 Aug 2000 16:59:55 -07003 From: Eric Smith <eric-no-spam-for-me@brouhaha.com> " Subject: Re: Q: Why not (2^n)-bit?0 Message-ID: <qhvgwno9ok.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>  ' hg/jb <shsrms@bellatlantic.net> writes:e= > I was working on two projects with and for Ken at the time.tF > One was a ceramic substrate PDP8 clone using the 6100.  this finallyF > ended up as the DP78.  Original marketing estimate was we could sellH > 10,000 DP78s if we could keep the manufacturing cost under 400 bucks. F > Then reality set in....manufacturing cost was 98 bucks for the final' > version.  I think we sold it for 498.g  H So you're saying that you beat the cost requirement by a factor of four?; That sounds *quite* impressive to me.  How many units sold?a   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:48:43 -0400 ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>s" Subject: Re: Q: Why not (2^n)-bit?( Message-ID: <8o9oc0$ql2$1@pyrite.mv.net>  : Jordan Henderson <jordan@lisa.gemair.com> wrote in message$ news:8o9797$t7e$1@lisa.gemair.com...J > In article <8o8ofo$i7o$1@pyrite.mv.net>, Bill Todd <billtodd@foo.mv.com> wrote: > >-= > >Jordan Henderson <jordan@lisa.gemair.com> wrote in message0' > >news:8o8hht$aau$1@lisa.gemair.com...o > >e > >... > >kJ > >> I can't speak to this specific incident (the abandonment of all linesG > >> except VAX and certain PDP-11s), but there was a discussion threadmD > >> in comp.os.vms awhile back with people assigning various groupsK > >> (the IBM people who came in in the late 70's/early 80's, the Honeywelle9 > >> people, etc.  etc. etc.) for DEC's ultimate decline.s > >>D > >> C'mon people, that's lazy thinking.  That's exactly the kind ofE > >> thinking that says that the neighborhood declined after <fill inlD > >> your favorite group here> moved in.  It's scapegoating and it's* > >> easy and it's almost certainly wrong. > >sH > >Or it could be your own analysis that's lazy.  The fact is that DEC'sJ > >approach to product direction changed significantly over a brief periodH > >during the early '80s from a largely bottom-up approach to a top-down one.K > >This coincided with and/or closely followed continuing rapid growth, thehI > >appearance of VAX/VMS, and the influx of a large number of people fromdK > >Honeywell, IBM, and likely other identifiable sources I can't remember -p allw? > >of which I suspect played some role in the direction change.a > >p >i> > Well, Gordon Bell's narrowing of the product line seems like > a top-down approach to me.  K I'll admit some of the contents of the interview surprised me:  it was onlyyL today (after my previous post) that my server acquired the post with its URL- (repeated here in case anyone else missed it:nK http://research.microsoft.com/users/GBell/Bell_Smithsonian_Interview.htm ).g  L I had no idea that Gordon was planning a pogrom (if that's what it was:  theI included memo suggests something more like co-existence than replacement,sI and the rest of the interview suggests that Gordon's recollections may bekH colored by later events) as early as the end of 1978 - when VMS's marketE acceptance was far less dominant than it was a couple of years later.m  L Then again, one should not accept his assessment of his own influence purelyK at face value.  While he contributed centrally to DEC's success over a longoI period of time, he also had a definite reputation as a real flake ('loosetE cannon' is a rough synonym, in this case, and it certainly fit my ownlK impression from the one personal meeting I had with him on an issue relatednJ to the current topic but about which I can't locate the relevant documentsF that would allow me to be more precise) - and it was left to others toJ harvest the wheat and discard the chaff.  So to characterize the narrowingH of the product lines as *his* doing may well be inaccurate:  it was more5 likely the doing of others who bought into his ideas.h  #   You can hardly blame that on thisl > "influx".   H Actually, I can, quite easily, if those people replaced (or came betweenD Gordon and) the restraining influences who had filtered out his less estimable ideas in the past.  4   Sure, people refugees from their failures at other@ > companies may well have contributed to the decline of DEC, but? > was it the cause of the decline or the effect of the decline?  >p > Who can say? > @ > All I know is that it's convenient to blame a class of people.; > It prevents us from looking at ourselves or people who we 	 > admire.t  K It's also convenient to make generalizations based on one's own pet beliefsrF while discarding inconvenient but more direct evidence that happens to  conflict with those pet beliefs.  K Who can say?  I can, for one:  I was there and saw it happen (and of courseeI any other similar on-the-scene observer is welcome to chime in with theireD own version), and it sure appeared at the time to be the result of aA proliferation of middle/upper-middle management that isolated theaK decision-making mechanisms from the front-line engineers who had until thens interacted closely with them.a  K That this management population bears some of the blame for the change fromhK a customer-driven to a strategy-driven focus seems clear.  What's not clearpK is the degree to which the elimination of what had been a highly-successfulhK feedback loop was an innocent by-product of the increasing management depth I required to run an expanding corporation rather than the consequence of agL deliberate decision to pursue a 'strategy' - and if the latter, whether thisF decision was influenced by an influx of people used to such 'strategicJ thinking' (e.g., one of Bell's observations in the interview suggests thatG Olsen's behavior may have shifted in that direction based on a magazinep, interview - talk about chaotic influences!).   >f > >>C > >> Remember, it was Ken Olsen who said that nobody would possibly0 > >> want a computer at home.h > >nJ > >At a time, IIRC, when this was pretty unequivocably true.  It's too bad thatJ > >this specific instance of non-prescience (shared by most of the rest of theiK > >industry, IIRC - Apple was 'way too small to be a noticeable part of the L > >industry back then, and didn't IBM initially develop the PC primarily forH > >business use?) clings so conspicuously to a man whose accomplishments (and' > >earlier vision) were so significant.e > >  >hE > I believe the quote was something to the effect "Nobody will _ever_ D > possibly want a computer at home.  What would they do with it?"  IF > also believe this was when he was asked about the fledgling hobbyist > market (Imsai, etc.).  >pG > You could call it lack of prescience, I would call it lack of vision.u  H Hindsight's easy to get 20/20.  I find it ludicrous that people who haveF never contributed anything to the world remotely comparable to Olsen'sJ contributions - based indisputably on 'vision', technical and perhaps moreJ importantly managerial, that led DEC unfalteringly for over 20 years - canJ sit back smugly and criticize him for failing to foresee that increases inG approachability known at that time only to a handful of people at XeroxtF PARC, increases in manageability that would take many years to achieve= *after* the need for them had been demonstrated, decreases inmJ cost/performance of several orders of magnitude, and the emergence of a deH facto standard that allowed real volume to grow would converge to turn aK hobbyist market dependent on the same kinds and numbers of people who builtc; their own televisions from kits into something significant.   K You can call that lack of vision.  Given the circumstances of the time, I'm K more inclined to call the very few people who came anywhere near predicting E the PC revolution 'lucky as hell':  for most of them, it was simply a L personal enthusiasm that just happened to turn out to be the path the future took.s  J I *still* don't recall exactly when Olsen made the infamous statement (letJ alone its exact wording).  If he said it any time after the IBM PC hit theI market, then I'll retract my above defense of him; if he said it any timee? before 1979, then I'll stand by every word of it (and if it waseH significantly earlier, I don't really see how any fair-minded individual could disagree).   >dC > IBM did target the PC at business, but it was in reaction to whato> > they saw could be done with the Apple II, Visicalc and early> > word processing.  They reacted swiftly to prevent Apple from> > getting into their business accounts with machines more cost9 > effective and capable than anything they then offerred.   J My point was that, given that IBM felt the same way Olsen did - at a laterH date - even while building the product that would *make* the home marketL significant, Olsen's view was an eminently reasonable one.  So I fail to seeL how your comments above change this - if anything, they seem to suggest thatL *business* use was an important focus even for Apple, just as Olsen had said
 all along.   >mE > DEC reacted much later with much more anemic offerrings.  Ken OlsenuA > was clearly in control of the company in the early '80s, yet heh4 > continued to miss the point of the desktop market.  K No, he did not:  DEC, under his enthusiastic direction, dedicated somethingCD like $500 million to exactly that area in the 1981 - 1983 time frameL (roughly - it's from memory).  The main thing DEC failed to realize was thatI a de facto standard existed and that its options were to  1) jump on that K standard and try to add value to it and/or  2) compete with the standard ineI niches (business desktops were one) where synergy with other DEC productsoG had as much value as standardization.  Instead, DEC never quite built aaH compatible box and never gave up on the idea of incompatible competitionL across the board - and while this wasn't that clear early-on, it should have become clear after a while.h  
   By the time.F > DEC had any serious offerings, the market was intensely competitive.B > Also, under Olsen they never made the hard restructuring choices? > that could have made them a serious competitor in the desktopo	 > market.h  L Not sure what you mean by 'restructuring'.  Simply empowering a new businessK unit (with the right direction - e.g., build a compatible box and add valuenI in software and integration) would have been all it took:  that's the way J DEC had always succeeded.  The only 'hard choice' involved would have beenL the willingness to compete with low-end PDP-11s and, later, VAXen - but suchJ willingness had also been part of the DEC tradition, so still doesn't seem that 'hard' a choice.   I It's true that DEC had no idea how to build an inexpensive box back then,,I and that this constituted a major impediment.  But I'm not sure that's aneI issue addressable by 'restructuring' - and to suggest that DEC lacked thepJ *financial* resources to undertake the project (without 'restructuring' to  satisfy investors) is laughable.   >b+ > >  And now we see that it was Gordon BelltB > >> who narrowed the product lines down to the point that DEC wasA > >> inflexible to the point that they were unable to change whenh# > >> the market and technology did.p > >sC > >A generalization which does not seem to apply to the point under  discussion:MK > >the market and technology changes that DEC failed to follow (or, better,oJ > >lead) were not in directions that the 36-bit machines would have helped > >address.n > >  >aB > I doubt the 36-bit machines would have been the future, but they@ > continued to have a role when DEC unceremoniously dumped them.  I My point was that narrowing the product lines was not directly related toiI making DEC too inflexible "to change when the market and technology did":iI retention of the older products would not have helped DEC deal with thosel changes.   > @ > It's all about Customer Relationship Management.  If customersE > continue to reward you with profits for a given product, you should I > continue to support it well.  But, if you see the product is ultimatelypA > a dead-end, you should also develop competitive products.  WhentB > the customers are willing to change, you'll be there, the people< > who served them so well in the past, with new products andD > services.  DEC in the mid 80's to the early-mid 90's was all about= > upsetting huge classes of customers while telling them that.> > there was a new technology that they should be using insteadD > (DEC 10/20s => VAX, Ultrix => OSF/1, VMS => {DEC UNIX,WindowsNT}).  K I agree absolutely that this is the way I'd want a business I depended uponsK to run.  I'd even like to believe I'd have chosen to run DEC that way had IdI been in charge - and I'm damn sure the result would have been better (alle% other things being equal, of course).n  B On the other hand, I'm sure DEC could have gotten away (though notJ scot-free) with one, or even two, of these gaffes if it had otherwise been
 well-managed.c  E The 10/20 Jupiter fiasco was just the first (major) such blunder, and L arguably the most defensible.  What I remember was that when Jupiter startedH to jell it missed its time, performance, and cost targets by significantG margins, at which point DEC - which had continued to pursue this 36-bit,L development path over internal objections precisely to support the customersK dependent on that product line, even though it already considered that lineoG mature - finally said "Enough is enough!" and killed it (but kept 10/20iL software development moving forward for several years more).  Caveat lector:I I'm sure others have different understandings of what happened and freely,K admit that my own is purely hearsay (though hearsay from that time period).h   >p= > Yes, I include Ultrix => OSF/1 there.  Apperently, some BIGl@ > accounts were promised Ultrix on Alpha and DEC had it running,H > even fielded field tests, but pulled the plug for 'strategic' reasons.6 > Those customers ultimately found other Unix vendors. >p > >>< > >> Ken Olsen and Gordon Bell were hardly newcomers to DEC. > >eE > >No, but they were increasingly working with intermediate levels ofe managersF > >who *were* relative newcomers, which is why I suspect that importedH > >mind-sets may have played a part.  Both Olsen and Bell were *used* to takingI > >input from the people who reported to them:  it was the inclination ofr thoseeG > >people to do the same with their own reports (and so on recursively)e whichyI > >changed, at a time when the size of DEC made it increasingly difficultw forhA > >lower-level contributors to influence Olsen and Bell directly.  > >  >nF > If Olsen brought in bad people and listened to them, who's to blame?  J I think both parties are, and that's consistent with what I've been sayingH (and note that 'blame' is your word:  I've been discussing causes).  AndI characterizing the new people as 'bad' seems excessive:  they just didn'toI discard their baggage at the door and nobody relieved them of it and madeoL sure they were re-outfited - but that was never that formal a process at DEC0 anyway, it just sort of happened, up until then.   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 01:23:40 GMTh% From: hg/jb <shsrms@bellatlantic.net>a" Subject: Re: Q: Why not (2^n)-bit?0 Message-ID: <39A86FAC.863A6E87@bellatlantic.net>   Eric Smith wrote:- > ) > hg/jb <shsrms@bellatlantic.net> writes:l? > > I was working on two projects with and for Ken at the time.-H > > One was a ceramic substrate PDP8 clone using the 6100.  this finallyH > > ended up as the DP78.  Original marketing estimate was we could sellI > > 10,000 DP78s if we could keep the manufacturing cost under 400 bucks.)H > > Then reality set in....manufacturing cost was 98 bucks for the final) > > version.  I think we sold it for 498.l > J > So you're saying that you beat the cost requirement by a factor of four?= > That sounds *quite* impressive to me.  How many units sold?hE Ahh, the cost was beat ok, but marketing dropped the potential sales i: numbers down to about 1K, I don't know how many were sold.  > I wish I could recall the guy who did the 2780 package for it.> Imagine, a vt78 with 2780 emulation in it, with a full duplex,, all of 9600 baud, with HASP as a capability.  @ I had to go and cost reduce it - dropping the 6100, memory, etc.@ and really just setting up the 2652 USynRT chip to be accessibleG thru the parallel port of hte vt78.  I sent the specs to the programmerDB in Merrimac, he suggested a couple of changes, I delviered the hw,> in what seemed like half a day he had the application running.  ? I lost those brain cells somewhere - that recall his name - but6A he made it look easy! the hardware was no great shakes, honestly,iE just a little slick io decoder that set up access to the registers innD the chip.  His code was so tight the puppy was up and running solid  for the target show!!n just bob   ------------------------------    Date: 26 Aug 2000 22:08:14 -0400/ From: jordan@lisa.gemair.com (Jordan Henderson)u" Subject: Re: Q: Why not (2^n)-bit?* Message-ID: <8o9t6e$g8p$1@lisa.gemair.com>  O In article <8o9oc0$ql2$1@pyrite.mv.net>, Bill Todd <billtodd@foo.mv.com> wrote:v >m > L >That this management population bears some of the blame for the change from8                                                    ^^^^^L >a customer-driven to a strategy-driven focus seems clear.  What's not clearL >is the degree to which the elimination of what had been a highly-successfulL >feedback loop was an innocent by-product of the increasing management depthJ >required to run an expanding corporation rather than the consequence of aM >deliberate decision to pursue a 'strategy' - and if the latter, whether thisiG >decision was influenced by an influx of people used to such 'strategicaK >thinking' (e.g., one of Bell's observations in the interview suggests thathH >Olsen's behavior may have shifted in that direction based on a magazine- >interview - talk about chaotic influences!).  >t >[big snip]e >>D >> IBM did target the PC at business, but it was in reaction to what? >> they saw could be done with the Apple II, Visicalc and earlyn? >> word processing.  They reacted swiftly to prevent Apple fromO? >> getting into their business accounts with machines more costC: >> effective and capable than anything they then offerred. > K >My point was that, given that IBM felt the same way Olsen did - at a later I >date - even while building the product that would *make* the home market M >significant, Olsen's view was an eminently reasonable one.  So I fail to seeoM >how your comments above change this - if anything, they seem to suggest thattM >*business* use was an important focus even for Apple, just as Olsen had saidn >all along.i >   L While the IBM PC may have been primarily targetted at their business users, F it had to compete in a market where these computers were used at home.  C IBM knew that the computer would be used at home, and positioned itrE accordingly.  That's why the original IBM PC had the options of usingnF either a floppy drive or a casette tape drive.  The casette tape drive was primarily used in homes.   >>F >> DEC reacted much later with much more anemic offerrings.  Ken OlsenB >> was clearly in control of the company in the early '80s, yet he5 >> continued to miss the point of the desktop market.m >bL >No, he did not:  DEC, under his enthusiastic direction, dedicated somethingE >like $500 million to exactly that area in the 1981 - 1983 time frame M >(roughly - it's from memory).  The main thing DEC failed to realize was that J >a de facto standard existed and that its options were to  1) jump on thatL >standard and try to add value to it and/or  2) compete with the standard inJ >niches (business desktops were one) where synergy with other DEC productsH >had as much value as standardization.  Instead, DEC never quite built aI >compatible box and never gave up on the idea of incompatible competition M >across the board - and while this wasn't that clear early-on, it should have  >become clear after a while. >   D The failings you list are exactly what I meant by missing the point.   >  By the timeG >> DEC had any serious offerings, the market was intensely competitive. C >> Also, under Olsen they never made the hard restructuring choicesa@ >> that could have made them a serious competitor in the desktop
 >> market. >aM >Not sure what you mean by 'restructuring'.  Simply empowering a new business L >unit (with the right direction - e.g., build a compatible box and add valueJ >in software and integration) would have been all it took:  that's the wayK >DEC had always succeeded.  The only 'hard choice' involved would have beeniM >the willingness to compete with low-end PDP-11s and, later, VAXen - but suchrK >willingness had also been part of the DEC tradition, so still doesn't seemz >that 'hard' a choice. >eJ >It's true that DEC had no idea how to build an inexpensive box back then,J >and that this constituted a major impediment.  But I'm not sure that's anJ >issue addressable by 'restructuring' - and to suggest that DEC lacked theK >*financial* resources to undertake the project (without 'restructuring' tor! >satisfy investors) is laughable.a >r  H I meant that DEC wouldn't restructure themselves to sell into commodity H markets.  I wasn't using the term like it's more often used with respect to financial restructuring.h   >>, >> >  And now we see that it was Gordon BellC >> >> who narrowed the product lines down to the point that DEC wassB >> >> inflexible to the point that they were unable to change when$ >> >> the market and technology did. >> >D >> >A generalization which does not seem to apply to the point under >discussion:L >> >the market and technology changes that DEC failed to follow (or, better,K >> >lead) were not in directions that the 36-bit machines would have helpedw >> >address. >> > >>C >> I doubt the 36-bit machines would have been the future, but theyoA >> continued to have a role when DEC unceremoniously dumped them.v >hJ >My point was that narrowing the product lines was not directly related toJ >making DEC too inflexible "to change when the market and technology did":J >retention of the older products would not have helped DEC deal with those	 >changes.i >a  B Having too narrow a product line is the kind of inflexibility thatA doesn't permit you to compete.  It may not be that demand for thed@ 10s and 20s would have been a saving grace, but the company that@ abandons profitable products to overly narrow their product line> is the company hat is too inflexible to change when the market and technology does.   >[snip]  >eF >The 10/20 Jupiter fiasco was just the first (major) such blunder, andM >arguably the most defensible.  What I remember was that when Jupiter startedoI >to jell it missed its time, performance, and cost targets by significantsH >margins, at which point DEC - which had continued to pursue this 36-bitM >development path over internal objections precisely to support the customersaL >dependent on that product line, even though it already considered that lineH >mature - finally said "Enough is enough!" and killed it (but kept 10/20M >software development moving forward for several years more).  Caveat lector: J >I'm sure others have different understandings of what happened and freelyL >admit that my own is purely hearsay (though hearsay from that time period). >   ? Well, that is an important perspective.  Perhaps I've been too g< ready to believe everything I read.  I guess I've only read ? things from people who had a personal stake in the continuatione of 10s and 20s.s   >[snip]d >aK >I think both parties are, and that's consistent with what I've been sayinglI >(and note that 'blame' is your word:  I've been discussing causes).  AndrJ >characterizing the new people as 'bad' seems excessive:  they just didn'tJ >discard their baggage at the door and nobody relieved them of it and madeM >sure they were re-outfited - but that was never that formal a process at DECp1 >anyway, it just sort of happened, up until then.  >t  F Well, perhaps you're following me, but I do point out above where you 5 used the word 'blame' (the very top of this article).'  G I do have to admit that my perspective is one of a customer at the timecK and one who followed the computer industry press.  I might feel differentlylM if I had worked in DEC during the 70s and 80s.  On the other hand, you can be'3 _too_ close to see something for what it really is.c   >- bille >I >n >r   -Jordan Hendersonr jordan@greenapple.coml   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 00:06:37 GMTa" From: frere <frere@powersurfr.com>$ Subject: RSH proxy problems, I think. Message-ID: <39A85C68.7E3A5287@powersurfr.com>  C I can't seem to get RSH working on my new workstation. I retired mynG VAXstation and inherited and Alpha. I have several processes that do an H RSH to a remote site.  The thing is, I can telnet to the remote and evenG throw a window back. But when I try an RSH command (even a DIR listing)kD I get a message saying that access is denied (remote system). I haveG checked the UAF proxies, and the remote workstation security, but can'ttH see anything else to set up. Also if I put /PASSWORD on the RSH command,E the remote system asks for a password and the command works. I've nothG had any luck looking in the UCX manuals, DSNlink, the FAQ and even "AskpH the Wizard". If I have missed something in these things, please point it out.  
 Any ideas. Thanks.    Gord "frere" Moore frere@powersurfr.com   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:39:07 GMT8- From: "Dave Pampreen" <davepampreen@home.com>e Subject: Re: run *.com; Message-ID: <LVVp5.14731$QW4.189222@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com>o   How about simply:m   $ SUBMIT *  /LOG=MYLOG  / Then you would have a log of all of the damage!t   Dave    F "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam> wrote in message% news:2hRhz$DnbJ1p@eisner.decus.org...n= > In article <8o6558$qtp$1@goliat.eik.bme.hu>, FAZEKAS Mihalyg# <michael@goliat.eik.bme.hu> writes:mG > > How can i simply run all .COM file in current (or spec.) directory?t >oB > I think the first step would be to back all files up to tape :-)   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2000.478 ************************