1 INFO-VAX	Sat, 08 Dec 2001	Volume 2001 : Issue 682       Contents: Compaq after merger-failure  Re: Compilers and Alpha  Re: DEC is DEAD  gnu tar for VMS 4 Re: How to implement Login Fails for Open VMS on VAX" Re: HP Foundations - let them know" Re: HP Foundations - let them know" Re: HP Foundations - let them know" Re: HP Foundations - let them know" Re: HP Foundations - let them know% Re: Installing ssh server on OpenVMS? 3 Re: It you say it often enough does it become fact? 3 Re: It you say it often enough does it become fact? 3 Re: It you say it often enough does it become fact? 3 Re: It you say it often enough does it become fact? 3 Re: It you say it often enough does it become fact? 3 Re: It you say it often enough does it become fact? 3 Re: It you say it often enough does it become fact? 3 Re: It you say it often enough does it become fact? 3 Re: It you say it often enough does it become fact?  Re: Linus' view on VMS RE: Linus' view on VMS; Re: Looking for Digital Serial Number Identication Resource ( Re: manuals (was RE: Linus' view on VMS)( Re: manuals (was RE: Linus' view on VMS) Re: On the Bright Side... . Re: OT: Andrew Harrison : Alive & Still At SUN9 Re: Packard Foundation Tells Merger Urgers to "Paq it In" 9 Re: Packard Foundation Tells Merger Urgers to "Paq it In" 9 Re: Packard Foundation Tells Merger Urgers to "Paq it In" 9 Re: Packard Foundation Tells Merger Urgers to "Paq it In" 9 Re: Packard Foundation Tells Merger Urgers to "Paq it In" 9 Re: Packard Foundation Tells Merger Urgers to "Paq it In" 9 Re: Packard Foundation Tells Merger Urgers to "Paq it In" 9 Re: Packard Foundation Tells Merger Urgers to "Paq it In" 9 Re: Packard Foundation Tells Merger Urgers to "Paq it In" 9 Re: Packard Foundation Tells Merger Urgers to "Paq it In" 9 Re: Packard Foundation Tells Merger Urgers to "Paq it In"  Re: RECALL does not work Re: Socket limits  Re: The demise of compaq Re: The demise of compaq Re: The demise of compaq RE: The demise of compaq Re: The demise of compaq Re: The demise of compaq Re: The demise of compaq Re: The demise of compaq Re: The demise of compaq Re: The demise of compaq Re: The demise of compaq Re: The demise of compaq1 Tru64.org Flash Poll on Merger "Pearl Harbor Day"   Re: tubes (was: RE: DEC is DEAD)  RE: tubes (was: RE: DEC is DEAD)  Re: tubes (was: RE: DEC is DEAD)F Re: VMS Effort (Was: Microsoft Pyramid Collapses Enron and Hewlett Pac  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 13:28:33 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> $ Subject: Compaq after merger-failure, Message-ID: <3C125BCA.2416EB45@videotron.ca>  M Is it possible that Compaq might continue business as usual after the failure  of the merger ?   M With Tru64 and alpha dead, Compaq would only have Tandem and wintel (with VMS  hidden in basement).  7 Could Compaq really revive Tru64 with any credibility ?   N Isn't it more likely that a post non-merger Compaq would just sell off the nonK strategic assets and focus on its wintel business to make it profitable and J stop being distracted by those pesky vms loyalists who demand respect from Compaq ?  J Just looking at the system engineers. Do you really believe that the fancyM Wilfire system builders would be of any use to Windows when Windows is pretty G much limited to those proliant boxes with just a few processors in them N without any of the fancy structures and shared resources that one woudl expect in a wildfire ?   J I woukld tend to think that the Alpha system engineers would not being anyN value to the current crop of wintel systems engineers since their skills would. not be applicable to systems that run windows.  M It would be like asking the guys who design the transmissions for cruise ship I drive shafts to go help someone design gear shifters for a kid's bicycle.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 13:22:16 -0500 * From: John Reagan <john.reagan@compaq.com>  Subject: Re: Compilers and Alpha) Message-ID: <3C125A58.2070801@compaq.com>    JF Mezei wrote:   O > With Compaq no longer having compilers of its own, but with Alpha tentatively N > getting a couple more boosts/changes, it is fair to state that the compilersO > available on alpha-VMS will no longer get tweaked to generate code that takes * > advantage of the new features of alpha ? > P > What about EV7 ? Will Compaq still update its Alpha compilers for EV7 or is itO > too late with the ex-digital compiler engineers having been sold as slaves to 	 > Intel ?  > O > Without updated compilers, it is fair to state that a proportion of the alpha P > enhancements that are still supposeldy to come will not be taken advantage of,M > thereby further narrowing the gap between alpha and that intel ia64 thing ?  >   F And to add to what Steve said, not all of the compiler people will be 5 going to Intel.  I'm not going to Intel for instance.          --   John Reagan ' Compaq Pascal/{A|I}MACRO Project Leader    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 14:23:39 GMT " From: Art Rice <arice@myhouse.org> Subject: Re: DEC is DEAD8 Message-ID: <LnpQ7.493$Qv.135878@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>   Nick de Smith wrote:  > > bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote in message* > news:<9uj6oa$1uj7$3@info.cs.uofs.edu>...H >> Bad example.  I don't know of any local ATV system that doesn't use aI >> solid-state (MOSFET) final and I would imagine the same is true of the  >> commercial stations as well.  > D > The Crystal Palace BBC transmitter in London has 2 400KW (yes, 400C > kilowatt each) output valves. They are each in cabinets about 6ft G > high, and force water water cooled. The feed out from them is about 8 G > inches in diameter, and also water cooled - the core is a 2inch solid G > copper conductor. The cabinets have windows so you can see the valves 4 > and the water churning over them. Very impressive. > E > Many years ago, an aerial short caused a standing wave in the feed, E > and the cable burnt out every half wavelength. The valves survived.  >  > Use mosfets? I think not ;-) > H > I believe this is the most powerful non-military single transmitter in > Europe (800KW continuous)... >  > Nick > J Ours had those big old tubes.  The Copper core was about 3 feet tall. the J rest looked like an upside down cows udder.  i.e. the teets pointedt up.  H any time a lizard would get accross the contacts, the transmitter would 0 overload and automatically switch to the backup.   --   Art Rice, Tandem Admin Special Data Processing Corp ----------------------------L All opinions are my own and do not reflect the views of the above mentioned 	 employer.    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 08:32:36 GMT > From: David Schwartz <salsagroupie.removethispart@bigfoot.com> Subject: gnu tar for VMS8 Message-ID: <m6j31uk1fnspoq1m1b9r9t6gto91u6pf9a@4ax.com>  F I have some very large tarfiles that are not readable by VMS tar. I'veA tried downloading a "new" vmstar from the Compaq OpenVMS freeware B site, and also gotten the latest VMS tar (V3.4-1) from the ProcessE Software VMS archive. All fail with the same error, when doing either A a test (-t) or extract (-x), after partially processing the file:   @ ----------     0/0        101 Dec 31 16:00:00 1969 ././@LongLink2 tar: directory checksum error for <long file path>  B The file I'm trying to extract was created with gnu tar on a LinuxA system. I'm told this is a known incompatibility, and that tar on C Solaris has the same problem.  I copied the file to a Linux system, E and gnu tar can read it, so the file is not corrupted. Recreating the A file as several smaller files has proved to be time consuming and : cumbersome, and it won't help me with the next large file.   Is there a VMS port of Gnu tar?    ------------------------------   Date: 8 Dec 2001 04:59 CST' From: carl@gerg.tamu.edu (Carl Perkins) = Subject: Re: How to implement Login Fails for Open VMS on VAX , Message-ID: <8DEC200104595584@gerg.tamu.edu>  2 Edd Blackburn - Stout <EDD@INGENSYS.ORG> writes...: }On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 08:44 , Naidu V.T. wrote: }> Hi, }>J }> I had problem in implementing Login Fails in Open VMS, I want the login? }> fails to be set for 3 attempts. If the user tried 3 attempts K }> Then his account has to be locked. How to implement this in Open VMS 7.1 - }> on VAX.I tried checking all the options in  }> UAF>  }> NAIDU V.T5 }> Naidu@ohitelecom.com <mailto:Naidu@ohitelecom.com>  } I }Have a look at the system parameters (Set in MODPARAMS.DAT) and look up  
 }on SYSGEN }  }The params you want are:  }  }LGI_BRK_LIM=3 }LGI_BRK_DISUSER=1 } G }!! BE CAREFUL WITH THE ABOVE - IT WILL DISUSER THE ACCOUNT MAKING DoS   }VERY EASY!  }Edd  G Yep. If the system is on the internet, just about anybody on the entire J planet can lock you out of your account with just a few seconds of typing.   --- Carl   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 09:21:39 +0100 1 From: John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch> + Subject: Re: HP Foundations - let them know 5 Message-ID: <3C11CD93.5BFF84BF@swissonline.delete.ch>    "Terry C. Shannon" wrote:  > < > "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message/ > news:HdqgrgSG1Ff3@eisner.encompasserve.org... J > > In article <sMaQ7.7087$Sj1.2389559@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>, "Terry C.. > Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> writes: > > G > > > One share of CPQ stock is worth a thousand lines of Usenet posts.  > > 0 > > So now Terry says the stock is worthless :-) > G > No, but it's below ten bucks a share again. Somehow I don't think the H > trustees of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation spend much time inN > comp.os.vms. Then again, with MPE being put out to pasture, ya never know...    F Or were our discussions here and with our cross-port partners just theB slighest bit more effective at getting a message out than Compaq'sG "stealth marketing" approach for Alpha ?  Perhaps readers here took the ! advice to contact the Foundation.   G I'm not saying we made a huge contribution but it wouldn't take much to  exceed Compaq's efforts.  ;-)      John McL   ------------------------------   Date: 8 Dec 2001 07:16:34 -0600 - From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) + Subject: Re: HP Foundations - let them know 3 Message-ID: <Cq$NSvjeaET6@eisner.encompasserve.org>   [ In article <3C1193A3.53645447@fsi.net>, "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> writes:  > Fred Kleinsorge wrote: >>  G >> So Bill, have you spoken to a "significant portion of our enterprise  >> customer base"? >>  5 >> Or does that mean you, and 3 other guys in c.o.v.?  > = > Geez, Fred! I truly believed you knew better than that. I'm  > disappointed...  > H > Seems to me "a significant portion of its enterprise customer base" isD > represented by regular posters here including, but not limited to,H > Cerner, Abbott Labs, Sunquest, Nortel, Argonne, Comdisco, to name mostC > of the few that I am aware of outside of the DoD and the academic E > community. I'll let the posts that have gone through this newsgroup  > group speak for themselves.   E Looking at those posts then, we see a log of "I don't speak on behalf @ of XYZcorp" and a lot of posts from email addresses that are not) attributed to the organizations involved.   @ Private views of individuals explicitly _not_ representing theirC organizations hardly count as the "customer base" for those outfits 	 you list.    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 14:34:16 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> + Subject: Re: HP Foundations - let them know < Message-ID: <IxpQ7.21012$pa1.7428628@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>   > G > Looking at those posts then, we see a log of "I don't speak on behalf B > of XYZcorp" and a lot of posts from email addresses that are not+ > attributed to the organizations involved.  > B > Private views of individuals explicitly _not_ representing theirE > organizations hardly count as the "customer base" for those outfits  > you list.   > I post on behalf of my company, of which I am President & CEO.4 We service the banking/securities trading community.J I choose not to disclose my correct e-mail address because I don't like to get spammed.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 14:29:05 GMT 4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>+ Subject: Re: HP Foundations - let them know < Message-ID: <RspQ7.7478$Sj1.2967555@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>  : "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message- news:Cq$NSvjeaET6@eisner.encompasserve.org... = > In article <3C1193A3.53645447@fsi.net>, "David J. Dachtera"  <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> writes:   J > > Seems to me "a significant portion of its enterprise customer base" isF > > represented by regular posters here including, but not limited to,J > > Cerner, Abbott Labs, Sunquest, Nortel, Argonne, Comdisco, to name mostE > > of the few that I am aware of outside of the DoD and the academic G > > community. I'll let the posts that have gone through this newsgroup  > > group speak for themselves.  > G > Looking at those posts then, we see a log of "I don't speak on behalf B > of XYZcorp" and a lot of posts from email addresses that are not+ > attributed to the organizations involved.  > B > Private views of individuals explicitly _not_ representing theirE > organizations hardly count as the "customer base" for those outfits  > you list.   K Good point. Take it a step further. The vast majority of the individuals in G the aforementioned category are diehard VMS loyalists (nothing wrong in E that!). Yet in some cases their employers are migrating away from VMS H (something wrong in that, but that's another story). In such cases it isL arguable that the opinions of the loyalists have little impact on the pointy0 headed bosses who make the purchasing decisions.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 11:43:29 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> + Subject: Re: HP Foundations - let them know , Message-ID: <3C124331.CC4D1BA0@videotron.ca>   "Terry C. Shannon" wrote: G > that!). Yet in some cases their employers are migrating away from VMS J > (something wrong in that, but that's another story). In such cases it isN > arguable that the opinions of the loyalists have little impact on the pointy2 > headed bosses who make the purchasing decisions.  K But the feedback from those loyalists provides an insight on what arguments I former VMS customers have used to justify moving away from VMS. Should an F organisation responsible for VMS ever wish to revive the product, thatN information would be extremely valuable because its first task would be to fix VMS's image.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 09:36:51 +0100 2 From: martin@radiogaga.harz.de (Martin Vorlaender). Subject: Re: Installing ssh server on OpenVMS?; Message-ID: <3c11d123.524144494f47414741@radiogaga.harz.de>   K Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr (winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU) wrote: 7 > Kevin.Beauchamp@ualberta.ca (Kevin Beauchamp) writes: I > However, you should find out what TCP/IP product you're using.  If it's 1 > Multinet, and if you can upgrade to 4.3 or 4.4,   , 4.3 is current, with 4.4 being in beta test.   > an official supported G > SSH 2.0 server is included in the package, and you won't have to mess ! > with compilation, OpenSSL, etc.    4.3 has SSH v1, 4.4 has SSH v2.   4 > > - Are there any alternatives (portable OpenSSH)? > L > As far as I know, only the Multinet product (which is, I think, a licensed  > port of the F-Secure product).  I TCPware 5.6 (to be released in the summer of 2002) will have SSH v2, too.    cu,    Martin  F Disclaimer: My company PDV-SYSTEME is a german distributor for Process) Software, makers of TCPware and MultiNet.  --  J One OS to rule them all       | Martin Vorlaender  |  VMS & WNT programmer7 One OS to find them           | work: mv@pdv-systeme.de J One OS to bring them all      |   http://www.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/> And in the Darkness bind them.| home: martin@radiogaga.harz.de   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 07:12:14 GMT * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>< Subject: Re: It you say it often enough does it become fact?> Message-ID: <h3jQ7.132818$YD.11488352@news2.aus1.giganews.com>  1 "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com> wrote in messagep( news:u1370e1q7g9c5@corp.supernews.com...   ...M  L > Bill understand this is why I have major problems with your postings.  YouH > make several assumptions above and then state the $1.5 billion as fact  J If you take physics seriously, you will find that 'facts' just don't exist9 at all.  But in the real world, they're a useful fiction.y  I The $800 million VMS-related profit is as close to fact as one can get intE the current context, unless one assumes that Compaq was lying when iteF presented the figure.  The VMS and Tru64 revenues and growth rates areL similarly Compaq-stated 'facts' (well, we get VMS's from Terry, but it seemsH fairly safe to assume that he got it from Compaq).  Hardware pricing andK margins for both systems are similar, and software pricing for Tru64 may ate< times have been lower than VMS but not by a dramatic amount.  L So while we can't establish *exactly* what profits Tru64 made, we can make aI *very* educated guess.  If someone wants to quibble with that guess, then J it's incumbent on them to come up with at least as good an explanation forH some other figure.  As for Tandem's profit, the evidence is sparser, butL Terry has frequently cited its margins as comparable to VMS's and, again, we% know from Compaq what its revenue is.n  L You're going to have to accept that people with a reason to be interested inI such things are going to draw conclusions based on the best evidence theyiK have available to them, whether you like it or not.  If you don't like whatrK that evidence suggests, you'd be better advised to dig up other evidence tosH contradict it rather than to keep bleating "But it's not *conclusive*!":I even though the remaining VMS customers seem to have the patience of Job, K expecting them to wait until VMS has been formally buried before they start J considering alternatives (in system, vendor, or vendor management) is just not realistic.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 02:43:58 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>p< Subject: Re: It you say it often enough does it become fact?, Message-ID: <3C11C4B3.1D4D48E2@videotron.ca>   Jeff Killeen wrote: = >  The issue is over the last 8 quarters I don't see the data @ > to prove that Alpha servers were dramatically more profitable.  J Of course you don't see the data. When a company or organisation must cookL statistics to justify/support some decision, they will usually start to hideM the real numbers quite some time before the decision is made public, this way33 there isn't any handy refernce to the real numbers.   D If Compaq made public some numbers that showed that Alpha was highlyN profitable, then when Compaq announced the murder of Alpha, shareholders wouldN have cried foul. But since Compaq cleaverly bundled real enterprise stuff withH glorified desktops-wintel-in-a-rack, when Alpha was killed, shareholders! probably just sad "Alpha what ?".a  K If Alpha was losing money, then you bet that Compaq would have ensured thateG Alpha's numbers were public so that its murder decision would have beenl understood and justified.e   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 09:44:30 +0100o1 From: John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch>l< Subject: Re: It you say it often enough does it become fact?5 Message-ID: <3C11D2EE.F5F92DB9@swissonline.delete.ch>s   Jeff Killeen wrote:x > J > Least anyone reading Todd's response think I was questioning the revenueM > figure I wasn't.  It was the profit figure.  I am not claiming that OVMS iscM > not profitable.  The issue is over the last 8 quarters I don't see the datad@ > to prove that Alpha servers were dramatically more profitable.   Jeff,v  > The problem is the accounting segments now used by Compaq veryG effectively mask the contributions and expenses made by any one product D line, with the probable exception of "Global Services" (carbon-basedD processors !)  For figures about the respective products you need toD carefully monitor statements made by Compaq and this is where Bill's+ references to slide presentations comes in.r  D If you look back to 1998, 99 and 2000 you will find that one segmentF grouping was used, but in April 2001 this was revised (?) and what had@ been Consumer PCs and Commercial PCs are now lumped together as D "Access", with some of the high(er)-end Proliant servers moving intoG "Enterprise".  Compaq showed us the figures for the previous 5 quarters B under this new segmentation, but somehow $697 million of Year 2000 income suddenly disappeared.  H In the timeframe 98-00, Enterprise was made up of Himalya, Tru64 and VMSE so the $4289 billion income (and revenue of about $38 billion) across68 this time, is actually split across these product lines.  G From what I recall seeing of Compaq's statements, the figures that they E offered for the product line they were discussing was not outside thetC realms of possibility (ie. looked like thy were talking of a fairly18 acceptable breakdown when all products were considered).    E I've got the relevant information from the 98-00 Annuals and the 2001 D quarterly statements into Excel were I've also broken them down withB return-on-investment, percentage r-o-i, percentage contribution toG overall totals and so on.  (This is where I get the figures to show whysF the low-end emphasis is so financialy foolish.)  If you want a copy of  the spreadsheets, just email me.  H As for your question about why VMS is not being promoted if it brings inF so much money, I can only repeat the words that Terry has used on more  than one occasion - Why indeed ?     John McLean    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 12:39:47 GMTi4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>< Subject: Re: It you say it often enough does it become fact?< Message-ID: <nSnQ7.7256$Sj1.2899978@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>  > "John McLean" <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch> wrote in message/ news:3C11D2EE.F5F92DB9@swissonline.delete.ch...  >  >s > Jeff Killeen wrote:; > > L > > Least anyone reading Todd's response think I was questioning the revenueL > > figure I wasn't.  It was the profit figure.  I am not claiming that OVMS isJ > > not profitable.  The issue is over the last 8 quarters I don't see the dataB > > to prove that Alpha servers were dramatically more profitable. >h > Jeff,s >h@ > The problem is the accounting segments now used by Compaq veryI > effectively mask the contributions and expenses made by any one product-F > line, with the probable exception of "Global Services" (carbon-based > processors !)e  K Compaq's "New Math" does indeed make life difficult for anyone who's trying1' to figure out the company's financials!s   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 14:29:04 GMTD# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>@< Subject: Re: It you say it often enough does it become fact?< Message-ID: <QspQ7.20973$pa1.7423310@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>  > "John McLean" <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch> wrote in message/ news:3C11D2EE.F5F92DB9@swissonline.delete.ch...e >l >aJ > As for your question about why VMS is not being promoted if it brings inH > so much money, I can only repeat the words that Terry has used on more" > than one occasion - Why indeed ? >c >y  < Does the phrase "executive management moron" strike a chord?  D Compaq would rather sell Wintel server farms that are a nightmare toF administer, than to sell their customers what is appropriate for theirH business needs. You have to remember the original rationalization of theD Compaq/Digital deal - bulk up in PC's and services. Enterprise classC hardware and o/s'es were things they thought belonged in the attic.t  J The biggest problem they have is one of perception - who would believe anyF marketing or statement of direction type commentary coming from CompaqJ senior management these days? It's not the fault of the product...hell, byG the definition of the popular press, OS390 and S/390 are niche products 2 too - yet nobody is suggesting that they are dead.  J The only way I see around this is to take any 'commitment Compaq says theyF are going to make regarding VMS/Tru64/NSK & Alpha is to reduce it to aK binding contract with penalty clauses. Maybe the annual budget for the nextdJ 5 years of these efforts is spun into a wholly owned subsidiary that has aK 50/50 split on its board of Compaq and customer directors (arms-length fromhI anyone who has been on the Digital/Compaq boards, and certainly none from.J Houston!!). Perhaps this, or some equally inventive way can be used to putE the brakes on the worst instincts of Compaq management and be used to J engender a renewed sense of trust among current and prospective customers.I Think of it as a Linux-type community spirit in the context of structuredu development and real marketing.   I Something like this might convince 3rd-party software vendors to rekindle,L their interests in VMS too. I have spoken in the past with Dale Howard aboutK an active effort to encourage many 3rd-party developers to develop with VMS4L in mind - not just vendors on the scale of Oracle, etc... Fully-funded 'bootI camps' for 3rd-party developers, etc.... We all hunt around for 3rd-partyc; stuff, and there just isn't the selection there used to be.p  J VMS/Alpha/Tru64/NSK are suffering because of bonehead management decisionsF at the highest level in DEC/Compaq, not ones at the engineering level.J Surround engineering with committed and fully-funded marketing efforts andJ sane executive & senior management. Then VMS/Alpha/Tru64/NSK can sink/swimI on the merits of the products, and not because some executives in Houstono* are making decisions based on tarot cards.   ------------------------------   Date: 8 Dec 2001 10:15:58 -0600 - From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)m< Subject: Re: It you say it often enough does it become fact?3 Message-ID: <RN6nZziThsgM@eisner.encompasserve.org>e  s In article <nSnQ7.7256$Sj1.2899978@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>, "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> writes:t > @ > "John McLean" <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch> wrote in message1 > news:3C11D2EE.F5F92DB9@swissonline.delete.ch...r  A >> The problem is the accounting segments now used by Compaq veryiJ >> effectively mask the contributions and expenses made by any one productG >> line, with the probable exception of "Global Services" (carbon-basedp >> processors !) > M > Compaq's "New Math" does indeed make life difficult for anyone who's tryingo) > to figure out the company's financials!?  C I don't follow such things, but my understandinf of history is thateC obfuscation has been the goal of corporate reporting ever since thei  government started requiring it.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 15:09:32 GMTg4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>< Subject: Re: It you say it often enough does it become fact?< Message-ID: <M2qQ7.7489$Sj1.2992103@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>  . "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in message6 news:QspQ7.20973$pa1.7423310@news3.rdc1.on.home.com... >m@ > "John McLean" <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch> wrote in message1 > news:3C11D2EE.F5F92DB9@swissonline.delete.ch...o > >i > >rL > > As for your question about why VMS is not being promoted if it brings inJ > > so much money, I can only repeat the words that Terry has used on more$ > > than one occasion - Why indeed ? > >t > >o >i> > Does the phrase "executive management moron" strike a chord? >:F > Compaq would rather sell Wintel server farms that are a nightmare toH > administer, than to sell their customers what is appropriate for theirJ > business needs. You have to remember the original rationalization of theF > Compaq/Digital deal - bulk up in PC's and services. Enterprise classE > hardware and o/s'es were things they thought belonged in the attic.  >w  L That's a matter of interpretation... Eckhard Pfeiffer explicitly stated thatD he wanted to extend Compaq into the enterprise marketplace, which is9 consistent with the firm's earlier acquisition of Tandem.s  J Of course, it all depends on what the meaning of the word "enterprise" is.L There is a contingent at CPQ who believes that Wintel = enterprise, and they5 have the 8-way ProLiant proof points to back them up.   I And the slow uptake of Windows 2000 Datacenter Edition, etc, to challengea their assertions.o  K I believe much of the problem lies with the mindset of some of the folks ina Houston.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 18:07:53 +0100e1 From: John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch> < Subject: Re: It you say it often enough does it become fact?5 Message-ID: <3C1248E9.EAA8B7DA@swissonline.delete.ch>s   John Smith wrote:e >   & > Maybe the annual budget for the nextL > 5 years of these efforts is spun into a wholly owned subsidiary that has aM > 50/50 split on its board of Compaq and customer directors (arms-length fromaK > anyone who has been on the Digital/Compaq boards, and certainly none fromr
 > Houston!!).   H Sounds like those in control at Compaq need to be altered and the poorlyB performing product lines be deleted before the basic issues can be fixed.  F You might say Control-Alt-Delete and the problem should be gone.   ;-)     John McLeanv   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 17:18:13 GMTa* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>< Subject: Re: It you say it often enough does it become fact?B Message-ID: <pXrQ7.173026$uB.21297134@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  . "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in message6 news:QspQ7.20973$pa1.7423310@news3.rdc1.on.home.com... >s@ > "John McLean" <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch> wrote in message1 > news:3C11D2EE.F5F92DB9@swissonline.delete.ch...a > >t > >mL > > As for your question about why VMS is not being promoted if it brings inJ > > so much money, I can only repeat the words that Terry has used on more$ > > than one occasion - Why indeed ? > >j > >R >H> > Does the phrase "executive management moron" strike a chord? >oF > Compaq would rather sell Wintel server farms that are a nightmare toH > administer, than to sell their customers what is appropriate for theirJ > business needs. You have to remember the original rationalization of theF > Compaq/Digital deal - bulk up in PC's and services. Enterprise classE > hardware and o/s'es were things they thought belonged in the attic.v >sL > The biggest problem they have is one of perception - who would believe anyH > marketing or statement of direction type commentary coming from CompaqL > senior management these days? It's not the fault of the product...hell, byI > the definition of the popular press, OS390 and S/390 are niche products-4 > too - yet nobody is suggesting that they are dead. >rL > The only way I see around this is to take any 'commitment Compaq says theyH > are going to make regarding VMS/Tru64/NSK & Alpha is to reduce it to a( > binding contract with penalty clauses.  J Do most people really want to do business with a vendor they distrust thatK much?  Another instance of treating the symptoms rather than the underlying.H sickness:  instead of applying Band-Aids all over the company and hopingL they'll keep enough blood inside it to keep it alive, replace the management and let real healing begin.g   - bill   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 08:46:14 -0500 From: William_Bochnik@acml.com Subject: Re: Linus' view on VMSO> Message-ID: <OFEE5F3CB9.86BBDDF7-ON85256B1C.004B93F6@acml.com>  ; not to get caught up in this holy war, but UNIX does have a 0 similar ambiguity - never heard of sparse files?      u                                                                                                                      eu                     young_r@encompa                                                                                  nu                     sserve.org                     To:  Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com                                        ru                                                    cc:                                                               au                     12/04/2001             Subject:     Re: Linus' view on VMS                                       iu                     01:31 PM                                                                                         eu                     Please respond                                                                                   iu                     to young_r                                                                                        u                                                                                                                      hu                                                                                                                      C      8 In article <3C0D1303.714055AE@caltech.edu>, David Mathog <mathog@caltech.edu> writes: > John Laird wrote:s! >>  He was not impressed in 1990:r >>A >> "It was a horrible operating system..."  "It was hard to use."q "You4 >> couldn't easily figure out how large a file was." > > > Old Linus just dropped about 5 pegs in my estimation.  I can forgive thet > firstm= > two statements since they are completely subjective but thei third is > simply ridiculous.> > It usually takes even the dimmest Unix user only a minute or two to > realize that DIR; > is used instead of ls on VMS, and then it's a complete noe brainer to get > to< > HELP DIR to see what the command line options are for that command.  In > fact, on RH 6.2rA > (and for all I know all other Linuxes) there's actually a "dir"n commande > which acts justc > like "ls". >w= > Maybe he meant figure out how large a file was inside a DCL 
 procedure? > In that case> > the learning curve is very slightly steeper since you had to know enough  > to use the > proper lexical function. >'  ;      Having fought almost all the Unix wars there was/is to  fight, I'veoA      seen this battle before too.  Not knowing exactly what Linusn meant,?      he might just be referring to dir/size and dir/size=all...a Unix!      doesn't have that ambiguity.o  !      Here is kilobytes and bytes:v  
      $ ls -lsn  @ 1072 -rw-r--r--   1 root     system   1094925 Aug 21 15:56 a.zip  '      1072 kilobytes and 10494925 bytes.   4      In VMS, how many blocks are you *really* using?        $ dire/date/size=allocatedo  = L.L;44                     0/0        28-NOV-2001 15:11:05.47.= L.L;43                     2/17       28-SEP-2001 16:21:45.91 = L.L;42                     2/17       28-SEP-2001 16:18:53.42   >      Two or 17?  Well 17 actually... well then you better make sure5      you look at allocated blocks then!  How pitiful!   @      You get second hand stories from frightened Unixphiles that have?      had to actually log on and use a VMS system and often theyp best:      they can come up with is some screwy snipe.  Figures.                       Robi          F ______________________________________________________________________;  The information contained in this transmission may containu@ privileged and confidential information and is intended only forA the use of the person(s) name above.  If you are not the intendedl= recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering 3 this message to the intended recipient, any review,a@ dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication? is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient,-A please contact the sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy # all copies of the original message.j   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 14:48:11 GMT1" From: Art Rice <arice@myhouse.org> Subject: RE: Linus' view on VMS 8 Message-ID: <KKpQ7.584$Qv.152077@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>   Dan Allen wrote:   > L > The "argument" was centered around Linus's problem finding the "size" of aI > file in VMS.  So we're guessing what Linus had in mind.  If it was justoG > the an issue of the EOF count in the last used block then we have one J > (minor) problem. However the size issue that (IME) most commonly bothers > Unix programmers isaK > the "data content length" issue.  How many bytes am I going to get when Il > READL > the file! This you CANNOT (in general) get without reading the file!  ThisI > can be a very real problem when implementing UNIX developed TCP network  > applications (LPD fordG > example) that must send a byte count header before they send the fileiJ > data.  In the past I've dealt with the problem by using callable CONVERTF > to make a temporary stream file from the original (since this is the" > format commonly defined by theseK > types of applications).  Now file size and data content length match justd > as they do in Unix.  > A > Of course Linus had no interest in any of VMS's non-stream filel > organizations sinceeH > they are not supported by Unix.  After all a user written indexed-fileL > application is easily cobbled up by any (every) Unix programmer that needs' > one ;-) (oops my VMS slip is showing)y >  > Dans >  >> -----Original Message----- ; >> From: Bill Gunshannon [mailto:bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu] * >> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 9:36 AM >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com" >> Subject: Re: Linus' view on VMS >> y >>  2 >> In article <1011205110619.39582B@Ives.egh.com>,& >>  John Santos <JOHN@egh.com> writes: >> |>l >> |> Define "size".  :-)9 >> A# >> I think Webster already has. :-)m >> i >> |> C >> |> Do you mean, the size in bytes when converted to viewable (ora >> |> printable) text format?o >>  I >> Of course not.  Converting  a file to "viewable (or printable)" formathI >> changes the contents of the file (especially if it's for a PS printer)pG >> and has nothing to do with the what the DIR (or ls) command returns.e >>  F >> |>               Of course, this is only meaningful for text files. >>  J >> As long as your talking about converting, as above, no it doesn't.  But9 >> it still has nothing to do with the original argument.4 >> iI >> |>                                                                  Do J >> |> you include the <CR>'s after each line that are necessary to displayJ >> |> the file correctly on a printer or terminal, or only the <LF>'s that >> |> Unix stores on disk? >> 5E >> What it takes to print the text correctly depends very much on the H >> printer being used.  Many printers used inthe pre-PC days had optionsE >> to allow the printer to add the <LF> when it received the <CR> andtF >> thus the printer drivers knew to never send <LF> characters in textE >> files.  But that doesn't change the fact that the size of the filelE >> is the size of the file.  You don't add the characters it takes toeD >> print them and you don't subtract characters contained inthe file= >> just because you don't agree with the OSes file structure.  >>  H >> |>                      (In other words, the Unix size is wrong, too;H >> |> you have to scan the file to find how many lines there are and add@ >> |> one byte for each line to account for the missing <CR>'s.) >> eG >> Why??  What does that have to do with the size of the file??  Do youuH >> think printing is the only thing you do with a text file??  How aboutG >> source code??  Does the OS have to add those missing <CR>'s in orders >> to compile it?? >> t >> |> E >> |> Of course, Unix doesn't distinguish binary from text files, butr >>  H >> Probably because at the lowest level, all files are just binary data.E >> It is applications that place meaning on the contents, not the OS,e >> s< >> |> you only want to do the above counting for text files. >> |> D >> |> BTW, what about text files that are not in ASCII?  (Unicode orK >> |> something fancy like pdf or postscript or M$'s notion of a text file,o >> |> Word)? >> u< >> And here is where your argument above really falls apart. >> t >> o >> |> G >> |> This is also true on Unix, if the network protocol wants <CR><LF>oF >> |> delimited records, which many do.  (I don't remember what POP or >> |> SMTP uses.)o >>  E >> Like I said above, the apllication decides the format, not the OS.  >> cK >> Size is size, without external intervention to try and make it somethingt
 >> it is not.. >> l >> bill   A The same DOS and UNIX users bitch about file size on Tandem also. K Just so happens that on Tandems, the whole is also greater than the sum of nG it's parts.  So to speak  EXCEPT for unstructured files that have been a( imported from other, non-Tandem systems.   --   Art Rice, Tandem Admin Special Data Processing Corp ----------------------------L All opinions are my own and do not reflect the views of the above mentioned 	 employer.b   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:23:50 -05000 From: "Island Computers" <dbturner@islandco.com>D Subject: Re: Looking for Digital Serial Number Identication Resource/ Message-ID: <u14ikp3v3kdqde@news.supernews.com>   J SO what did DEC manufacture in Galway, NOrthern Ireland and what was their" prefix for product serial numbers?   DT         -- David Turner   We sell Alpha systems & partsr http://www.islandco.com  sales@islandco.com Island Computers US Corp.o 2700 Gregory Streetw Savannah GA 31404n Tel: 912 447 6622t Fax: 912 201 0096e= Hoff Hoffman <hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam> wrote in message , news:sIWi7.901$bB1.41939@news.cpqcorp.net...K > In article <DKBi7.123$p81.87382@typhoon1.gnilink.net>, "John Fredrickson"u! <jafred@bellatlantic.net> writes:v >pI >   Follow-ups set to comp.os.vms, to try to reduce the cross-postings...  > J > :I have yet to get it to display anything. The graphics card is a Maxtor VGA, > F >   You might not get get anything with that widget.  Try removing it. >nH > :but when I attached the system to a monitor, keyboard, and mouse, the unitI > :powers up but displays no video. I also tried disconnecting the mouse,cF > :keyboard, and monitor and connected a VT420 to the serial COM ports insteado. > :(9600,N,8,1), but again obtained no output. > H >   I'd *guess* you are seeing the results of a graphics controller thatH >   is not supported by OpenVMS -- each one of these widgets tends to be4 >   a just enough different to screw up the drivers. >@ > ..8 > :When I get a console prompt, I'll learn for about it. >p >n( >  ---------------------------- #include' <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------JL >       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.com, >  --------------------------- pure personal# opinion --------------------------- 1 >    Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineeringi hoffman#xdelta.zko.dec.com >y   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 14:53:24 GMTc" From: Art Rice <arice@myhouse.org>1 Subject: Re: manuals (was RE: Linus' view on VMS)l8 Message-ID: <EPpQ7.628$Qv.155800@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>   Jan-Erik Sderholm wrote:w  4 > Personaly I find teh PDF versions better than both; > bookreader and HTML. Prints nice, and unsing an "industryc > standard" reader.a >  > Jan-Erik Sderholm.- >   I Except that Compaq is offering more and more as "Web Resource"  i.e. HTML    -- " Art Rice, Tandem Admin Special Data Processing Corp ----------------------------L All opinions are my own and do not reflect the views of the above mentioned 	 employer.o   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 19:56:44 +0100m= From: Jan-Erik =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=F6derholm?= <noone@dummy.com>r1 Subject: Re: manuals (was RE: Linus' view on VMS)e) Message-ID: <3C12626C.B58396E0@dummy.com>   B Hm, If you check http://www.openvms.compaq.com:8000/, the big newsB in the 7.3 column, is that more or less every manual also now haveB a PDF version. 7.1 and 7.2 commes only in HTML. This does not look< like "more and more as ""Web Resource""  i.e. HTML" to me...   Jan-Erik Sderholm.e   Art Rice wrote:  >  > Jan-Erik Sderholm wrote:  > 6 > > Personaly I find teh PDF versions better than both= > > bookreader and HTML. Prints nice, and unsing an "industryt > > standard" reader.g > >d > > Jan-Erik Sderholm.  > >c > K > Except that Compaq is offering more and more as "Web Resource"  i.e. HTMLt >  > -- > Art Rice, Tandem Admin > Special Data Processing Corp > ----------------------------M > All opinions are my own and do not reflect the views of the above mentionedt > employer.e   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 02:36:13 -0500n- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>n" Subject: Re: On the Bright Side..., Message-ID: <3C11C2E3.5E6F42B5@videotron.ca>   "Terry C. Shannon" wrote:e > K > HP's MPE may well have been a victim of merger-related collateral damage,g0 > but VMS apparently has escaped a similar fate.  M I would refrain from making such a statement until a year after the merger is- consumed or rejected.    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 14:13:58 GMTd" From: Art Rice <arice@myhouse.org>7 Subject: Re: OT: Andrew Harrison : Alive & Still At SUNE8 Message-ID: <GepQ7.471$Qv.129435@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>   Arne Vajhj wrote:   > Jerry Leslie wrote: - > #OT: Andrew Harrison : Alive & Still At SUNoF >> I got a reply from Andrew from an email to Andrew.Harrison@Sun.COM. >  > Good for him ! > B >> He's switched offices and doesn't have access to a NNTP server. >  > Good for us !! >  > :-)  >  > Arne > 0 Poor guy.  He's missing all the fud.  Errrr fun.   -- r Art Rice, Tandem Admin Special Data Processing Corp ----------------------------L All opinions are my own and do not reflect the views of the above mentioned 	 employer.    ------------------------------  $ Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 02:12:34 -0500& From: "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com>B Subject: Re: Packard Foundation Tells Merger Urgers to "Paq it In"/ Message-ID: <u13fb7ao4qebc0@corp.supernews.com>g  5 "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messages8 news:xMiQ7.132731$YD.11480303@news2.aus1.giganews.com...J > I'm no financial wizard, but isn't a major problem from the viewpoint of HPJ > stockholders the effective dilution of value of their stock by virtue of then@ > fact that the amount of new HP stock issued to existing Compaq stockholdersA > would greatly exceed the value of the assets (both physical andsK > revenue-producing) that HP would be acquiring?  HP (and its stock) may beoG > sick, but Compaq (and its stock) seems about to expire - and while HPt might L > want to renegotiate the stock-exchange rate downwards, Compaq stockholders. > might have a thing or two to say about that. >tH > It still looks like both companies would be worth more separately thanJ > together if they acquired competent management - though it remains to beK > seen whether Curly & Co. have dealt Compaq a fatal blow regardless of whoe > might take over.  L What is being claimed is that the printer business is incredibly profitable.K Rather than being something like 45% of HP's business printers would becomeeG 25%.  This means 75% of HP's business would now be much higher risk andp
 lower return.   2 Printers have been generating most of the profits.  F In reality the best deal for HP stockholders would be to split off theL printer business.  Of course the computer company that would remain would beI by some estimates in worse shape than Compaq.  HP's computer business hasbK the same types of structural problems Compaq's - it is nether a cost leader  or a service leader...   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 02:56:58 -0500p- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>eB Subject: Re: Packard Foundation Tells Merger Urgers to "Paq it In", Message-ID: <3C11C7BF.D5A96AB0@videotron.ca>   Bill Todd wrote:J > Eliminating a competitor is a good deal only if it doesn't bankrupt you:H > eliminating Compaq might well do HP a lot more harm than good, both in0 > purchase price and subsequent effort expended.  I Come to think of it, perhaps Carly is smarter than we think. Consider the K scenario where she convinces a gullible Curly to accept the deal. Then, she N gets Curly to start to cannabalise Compaq's assets right away. Meanwhile, some" major shareholders block the deal.  K What is left ? An intact HP. And a seriously weakened Compaq, devoid of its K former Digital assets except for a weak VMS. It wouldn't take much to drive I Compaq out to bankrupcy, especially since they are stupid enough to be so L blind to the fact that their wintel business isn't what brings in the money.  I So when you think about it, HP need not really buy Compaq to get rid of a L competitor.  Compaq has already begun to cannabalise itself out of existence8 and I think it has gone beyond the point of no return.    M Without HP, Compaq is stuck without a unix and without an enterprise chip. It N donated its compilers to Intel and guess who will benefit most: HP since HP is0 going to be the primary user of that IA64 thing.  - I think that Carly is smarter than she looks.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 09:16:27 +0100 1 From: John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch> B Subject: Re: Packard Foundation Tells Merger Urgers to "Paq it In"5 Message-ID: <3C11CC5B.BB38CD53@swissonline.delete.ch>@   JF Mezei wrote:  >  > "Terry C. Shannon" wrote:eF > > The merger has also been seen as a referendum on the leadership ofJ > > Hewlett-Packard Chief Executive Carly Fiorina, who has spearheaded the > > plan...g > P > Unfortunatly, Curly would get to keep his job if the merger fails. InterestingO > that there doesn't seem to be any opposition coming from Compaq shareholders.sL > I guess they have already written off their investment in Compaq and wouldI > rather get stock in HP than in a stagnating company without leadership.   D Well, only HP has this kind of public activity going on.  I think ifH Compaq had a similar situation of the families of the originators of theC company then we would see pretty much the same kind of interest ande discussion.   E I'm pleased by the outcome but right now for HP it is the loss of onefA major battle, not necessarily the whole war.  The merger might be F "re-evaluated" by sides, or there might be a sudden rush of pro-merger) material spewing forth from both parties.f  @ This news has made my weekend but next week is a whole new week.     John McLeanI   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 09:46:51 +0100e1 From: John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch>nB Subject: Re: Packard Foundation Tells Merger Urgers to "Paq it In"5 Message-ID: <3C11D37B.5DCF5D91@swissonline.delete.ch>2   Jeff Killeen wrote:  >  ...  > I > It is interesting speculation as to what could save the deal.  The mostIF > obvious gambit would be to spin off the Consumer products into a newI > Company.  It would solve in single action what the regulators seem most.J > interested in plus make the analysts happy while keeping the core of the > deal intact...  A But if Compaq did that there would be no need to merge.  Mind youlB dead-wood can be awfully expensive to remove from your property...     John McL   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 11:49:40 +0100h1 From: John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch> B Subject: Re: Packard Foundation Tells Merger Urgers to "Paq it In"5 Message-ID: <3C11F044.D80BEE17@swissonline.delete.ch>    Jeff Killeen wrote:_ > J > HP and Compaq have a steep uphill road.  Between the 2 families about 17L > percent of the stock is under their control.  Add miscellaneous shares whoL > have said they will vote no that means that about 20 percent of shares areL > on record as saying they will vote no.  That means HP/CPQ need to get 62.5K > percent of the remaining shares to vote yes.  That is going to be hard too > do...i  H And there's the very powerful influence that the rejections will have on the remaining voters.a  F I've read the report compiled for Walter Hewlett because it was in the? EDGAR filings of the SEC.  What struck me in particular was theaG thoroughness of the report and the fact that it was compiled from inputuB from a variety of parties who don't appear to have a strong vested; interest one way or the other (as indeed they shouldn't).  n  H It will be very difficult for other voters to ignore such a high-quality report.'  H The consensus of many analysts is that merger failure will mean curtainsE for Carly.  I just wonder how much splashback we'll see in the CompaqH camp.t     John McLeant   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 11:16:48 -0500& From: "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com>B Subject: Re: Packard Foundation Tells Merger Urgers to "Paq it In"/ Message-ID: <u14f7nt32ip20f@corp.supernews.com>r  9 > But if Compaq did that there would be no need to merge.   H Compaq has a serious Unix problem they need to fix.  Prior to the mergerJ announcement it was a level 4-5 problem.  After what they said about Tru64D and market share during the merger announcement it is now a level 10L problem.  They sent the ISV community a clear negative message.  Unix marketJ share was flagged 18 months ago by Compaq senior management as a strategic problem.  J Compaq has 3 ways I can see to become a credible Unix player now that theyF have trashed the reputation of Tru64 as a viable commercial product...   1) Merge  I 2) License another vendor's Unix  (Sun, IBM, or HP) and offer value addedt# extensions (e.g. better clustering)s  ( 3) Offer value added extension for Linux   #2 and #3 mean lower margins.s  
 > Mind youD > dead-wood can be awfully expensive to remove from your property...   MooT  K You take the Pavilion and Presario lines and create Gateway II spinning the J new company off to the shareholders - or if you can sucker Gateway into it spinning it off to Gateway.e  K I don't think (read opinion) the Pavilion or Presario lines would be viable K by themselves because they would still be competing against each other.  IflL they were spun off together it would remove some of the competitive pressureE at the retail level.  Off course regulators will look at that but thefH regulators might very well be convinced that if they block it both lines8 will die which means in the end even less competition...    > "John McLean" <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch> wrote in message/ news:3C11D37B.5DCF5D91@swissonline.delete.ch...n >  >t > Jeff Killeen wrote:n > >d > ...t > >iK > > It is interesting speculation as to what could save the deal.  The most H > > obvious gambit would be to spin off the Consumer products into a newK > > Company.  It would solve in single action what the regulators seem most L > > interested in plus make the analysts happy while keeping the core of the > > deal intact... >dC > But if Compaq did that there would be no need to merge.  Mind youiD > dead-wood can be awfully expensive to remove from your property... >n > 
 > John McL   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 11:18:54 -0500& From: "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com>B Subject: Re: Packard Foundation Tells Merger Urgers to "Paq it In"/ Message-ID: <u14fbhtiglk55f@corp.supernews.com>p  H > I've read the report compiled for Walter Hewlett because it was in the  D Since you have read it - did he claim somewhere in there that Compaq services wasn't profitable?s  > "John McLean" <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch> wrote in message/ news:3C11F044.D80BEE17@swissonline.delete.ch...  >e > Jeff Killeen wrote:n > > L > > HP and Compaq have a steep uphill road.  Between the 2 families about 17J > > percent of the stock is under their control.  Add miscellaneous shares wholJ > > have said they will vote no that means that about 20 percent of shares are I > > on record as saying they will vote no.  That means HP/CPQ need to gett 62.5J > > percent of the remaining shares to vote yes.  That is going to be hard to	 > > do...e >sJ > And there's the very powerful influence that the rejections will have on > the remaining voters.o >nH > I've read the report compiled for Walter Hewlett because it was in theA > EDGAR filings of the SEC.  What struck me in particular was thenI > thoroughness of the report and the fact that it was compiled from input?D > from a variety of parties who don't appear to have a strong vested; > interest one way or the other (as indeed they shouldn't).e >rJ > It will be very difficult for other voters to ignore such a high-quality	 > report.w > J > The consensus of many analysts is that merger failure will mean curtainsG > for Carly.  I just wonder how much splashback we'll see in the Compaqe > camp.t >r >n
 > John McLeanh   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 11:55:55 -0500b- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> B Subject: Re: Packard Foundation Tells Merger Urgers to "Paq it In", Message-ID: <3C12461A.380827E1@videotron.ca>   Jeff Killeen wrote:mL > Compaq has 3 ways I can see to become a credible Unix player now that theyH > have trashed the reputation of Tru64 as a viable commercial product... > 
 > 1) MergeK > 2) License another vendor's Unix  (Sun, IBM, or HP) and offer value added-% > extensions (e.g. better clustering):* > 3) Offer value added extension for Linux    N Over the past few years, a few companies were simply cannabalised because someI of the more active shareholders saw more value in breaking up the companya> selling individual pieces than keeping the company as a whole.  H One such company was Spar Aerospace in canada (builders of the Shuttle'sL robotic arm and many satellites). Some corporate raiders bought enough stockJ to influence the company and all that is left of Spar now is some aircraftM part maintenance stuff which used to be a small part of what Spar used to be. K Many of it former parts were sold as individual itesm to various companies.7G (the robotics part was spun off as MD Robotics and is owned by McDonald L Dewitler. Some of the satellite business is now EMS. (not sure who owns it).  I Another example is what used to be canada's largest corporation. It splitdL itself into a gazillion pieces handed over to shareholders. Canadian PacificM is just a shell company now. CP Rail is independant, so is the CP Hotels, the K mines, the wood , trucking, ships etc are all independant of each other, non+ longer making a huge transportation empire.a  H Perhaps the Compaq board might see greater value to shareholders if theyH simply sold Compaq off as separate pieces. Essentially liquidate Compaq.  L Considering the self-inflicted wounds that began June 25, I am not sure thatN Compaq has any other choice. It is a write-off in the true enterprise businessG except for Tandem, and it can't seem to get its act together for the PCn! business to compete against Dell.i  M > You take the Pavilion and Presario lines and create Gateway II spinning thesL > new company off to the shareholders - or if you can sucker Gateway into it > spinning it off to Gateway.-  H No. Compaq worked so hard to service Intel's derrire in order to obtainI "preferential" treatment by Intel. Selling the unit that makes the volume0J purchases of Intel gear would leave the remaining Compaq with a low volumeI purchaser of Intel gear and would pay through the roof for its IA64 junk.a   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 17:04:40 GMTh* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>B Subject: Re: Packard Foundation Tells Merger Urgers to "Paq it In"B Message-ID: <IKrQ7.172775$uB.21285590@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  1 "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com> wrote in message ) news:u14fbhtiglk55f@corp.supernews.com...sJ > > I've read the report compiled for Walter Hewlett because it was in the >eF > Since you have read it - did he claim somewhere in there that Compaq > services wasn't profitable?   F I haven't yet read it (though have it downloaded and plan to), but theE synopsis offered in one or more articles said that the problem wasn't-F profitability per se but the fact that Compaq services revenue was tooC dependent on simple product maintenance rather than focusing on thelK out-sourced consulting kinds of work that IBM's service organization excelsLF at.  This also would likely make it more sensitive to any reduction in7 enterprise sales resulting from the June 25th decision.    - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 17:11:11 GMTa* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>B Subject: Re: Packard Foundation Tells Merger Urgers to "Paq it In"> Message-ID: <PQrQ7.137616$YD.11710969@news2.aus1.giganews.com>  1 "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com> wrote in messager) news:u14f7nt32ip20f@corp.supernews.com...s; > > But if Compaq did that there would be no need to merge.m >wJ > Compaq has a serious Unix problem they need to fix.  Prior to the mergerL > announcement it was a level 4-5 problem.  After what they said about Tru64F > and market share during the merger announcement it is now a level 10G > problem.  They sent the ISV community a clear negative message.  Unixo marketL > share was flagged 18 months ago by Compaq senior management as a strategic
 > problem. >aL > Compaq has 3 ways I can see to become a credible Unix player now that theyH > have trashed the reputation of Tru64 as a viable commercial product... >-
 > 1) Merge >-K > 2) License another vendor's Unix  (Sun, IBM, or HP) and offer value added>% > extensions (e.g. better clustering)i >&* > 3) Offer value added extension for Linux >5 > #2 and #3 mean lower margins.V  D I think you're still confusing symptoms with the underlying disease:+ treating the symptoms won't help that much.f  I Compaq's actions indeed caused severe damage to the credibility of Tru64,wJ but why anyone would choose to purchase some other flavor of Unix from theK same yo-yos who screwed them over Tru64 is not at all clear.  Replace thoseuL yo-yos with competent management, and Tru64 remains nearly as viable as everL (modulo people's willingness to accept IPF as a substitute for Alpha, unlessI Alpha is also resurrected - but that's a largely independent issue), with,K the same advantages that it's had right along that helped it gain ground onR its competition.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 18:54:37 +0100m1 From: John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch> B Subject: Re: Packard Foundation Tells Merger Urgers to "Paq it In"5 Message-ID: <3C1253DC.77ED906F@swissonline.delete.ch>o   Jeff Killeen wrote:  > J > > I've read the report compiled for Walter Hewlett because it was in the > F > Since you have read it - did he claim somewhere in there that Compaq > services wasn't profitable?e  F I assume that you are talking about "Global Services" in your questionD and the answer is No, not really.  IIRC he was concerned that Compaq wasn't very strong in services.-  F His major arguments were repeated again in at least one of the reportsE that I read about the Foundation saying No, but I've spent 10 minutesa5 searching and I can't find the report(s) in question.o  D Walter was quoted in various reports (probably syndicated) as sayingF "The combination would dramatically increase the Company's exposure toF the unattractive PC business,..." but there was also mention somewhereB about Compaq's exposure to the low-margin low-end server business.  H His other big beef was that the price that HP was going to pay was not aB true reflection of the current stockprice of Compaq and the latestF estimates of Compaq's future earnings are substantially less than wereB estimated when the merger was announced (which was before CPQ's Q3" financial statement was released).     John McL   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 10:16:13 +0100o( From: Paul Sture <paul.sture@bluewin.ch>! Subject: Re: RECALL does not workp- Message-ID: <VA.000004d9.d80e3aea@bluewin.ch>e  K In article <01KBJY21L6KM9125K1@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com>, Phillip Helbig   wrote:K > > P.S.: One more thing to love about VMS.  The ability to load huge fileso@ > > (100 megabytes+) into the text editor.  Don't think I could  > >  do that in MS Word!   > ) > Another advantage of EDT over EVE!  :-)d > E Errrm. How many 100 MB files do you have which have a) less than 65K  5 records and b) record length not exceeding 255 bytes?d  F As ever between EDT and EVE, each have their strengths over the other. ___h
 Paul Sture Switzerland    ------------------------------   Date: 8 Dec 2001 07:17:59 -0600h- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)m Subject: Re: Socket limits3 Message-ID: <15rN3rF97fmq@eisner.encompasserve.org>h  Q In article <3C11863C.2584804@mail.com>, "C.W.Holeman II" <cwhii@mail.com> writes:gH > It appears to me that the VAXELN TCP/IP socket implementation has the  > following limits:p > 3 >     o listen() has a maximum queue length of one.t= >     o A maximum of four UDP messages are buffered per port.e> >     o There is a maximum of 64 sockets & files open per job. > H > I have not used any other socket implementations. How do these compare	 > to VMS?t   measly   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 10:16:13 +0100i( From: Paul Sture <paul.sture@bluewin.ch>! Subject: Re: The demise of compaql- Message-ID: <VA.000004da.d80e3af4@bluewin.ch>P  F In article <GM353MDQo591@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Marty Kuhrt wrote:u > In article <OzNP7.2909$Sj1.1498822@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>, "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> writes:m > > ; > > "IsraelRT" <israelrt@optushome.com.au> wrote in messaged6 > > news:cfui0uguh2kbfv5osu3sicrernlhhtunba@4ax.com...7 > >> On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:43:02 -0800, "Jack Peacock"i! > >> <peacock@simconv.com> wrote:w > >>M > >> >I have to agree.  It's pointless now to bemoan the demise of the Alpha.e > > ForkI > >> >all it's technical merit it didn't pull in enough dollars to remain  > > viable.t3 > >> >There's no guarantee the Itanium will either.l > >>J > >> Now that Compaq looks like going belly up soon ( under the impacts ofI > >> Michael Dell and the soon-to-be-aborted merger with HP ) it is all a  > >> bit academic anyway.g > > 8 > > At least one press organ seems to think otherwise... > > K > > TheStreet.com... Compaq Can Survive -- Maybe Even Thrive -- Without H-Pd > >  > > By Tish Williams > > Senior Writerg > > 12/06/2001 09:09 AM ESTw > > M > > Compaq's (CPQ:NYSE - news - commentary - research - analysis) friends arey; > > readying the support network in case it gets dumped....o > >  > @ > Compaq has friends?  Who are these friends?  Who would come toA > their aid if HP dropped the merger and it looked like CPQ wouldl@ > go under?  CPQ would be like a piranha that gets injured.  OneA > minute a part of the pack, then just a pink cloud of the pieces-* > that couldn't be digested by the others. > C > I doubt M$oft would care if CPQ disappeared.  On the contrary, ifu? > CPQ went under M$oft could pickup VMS and it's engineers and    > finally have an enterprise OS.  J Yeuch. For a taste of how to develop software the M$ style, have a look atN http://www.softwaremarketsolution.com which features an interview by a certainG Joel Spolsky. Don't read this after eating. His website is also full ofl
 arrogance.   ___ 
 Paul Sture Switzerlandm   ------------------------------   Date: 8 Dec 2001 09:54:11 GMTe) From: leslie@clio.rice.edu (Jerry Leslie)m! Subject: Re: The demise of compaq ' Message-ID: <9uso03$ci4$1@joe.rice.edu>f  ) Paul Sture (paul.sture@bluewin.ch) wrote:.E : For a taste of how to develop software the M$ style, have a look at0G : http://www.softwaremarketsolution.com which features an interview by uG : a certain Joel Spolsky. Don't read this after eating. His website is - : also full of arrogance.s :i  G   "SMS: Joel, what, in your opinion, is the single greatest developmenth%    sin a software company can commit?   I    Joel: Deciding to completely rewrite your product from scratch, on thewF    theory that all your code is messy and bug prone and is bloated andB    needs to be completely rethought and rebuild from ground zero."   I think I'll stick with:  + "Plan to throw one away; you will, anyhow." % "The Mythical Man-Month", Fred Brooksh  F   "SMS: Yes, but isn't such code tight and small? Don't products built0    this way avoid the dreaded "bloatware" label?  F    Joel: Don't get me started! If you're a software company, there are@    lots of great business reasons to love bloatware. For one, ifF    programmers don't have to worry about how large their code is, theyI    can ship it sooner. And that means you get more features, and featureseI    make users' lives better (if they use them) and don't usually hurt (ifo@    they don't). As a user, if your software vendor stops, beforeI    shipping, and spends two months squeezing the code down to make it 50%uH    smaller, the net benefit to you is going to be imperceptible, but youE    went for two months without new features that you needed, and THAT 	    hurt."e  9 Thanks for the warning against reading this after eating.e  @ Bloated code means more code that can break later on, as well as  increasing the costs of testing.  < A discussion between Joel Spolsky and Boris Beizer would be  a pay-for-view event.f  4 --Jerry Leslie     (my opinions are strictly my own)   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 11:33:48 +0100e1 From: John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch>h! Subject: Re: The demise of compaqe5 Message-ID: <3C11EC8C.E98CA5A3@swissonline.delete.ch>h   Paul Sture wrote:r >  ...n > L > Yeuch. For a taste of how to develop software the M$ style, have a look atP > http://www.softwaremarketsolution.com which features an interview by a certainI > Joel Spolsky. Don't read this after eating. His website is also full of  > arrogance.  ; And while on the subject of Microsoft, check out The Reg atvE http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23274.html where a 15 year oldi: girl asked Bill gates some very probing questions like ...  F "Your company is now a household name but some people claim you have a7 monopoly on the IT industry. How do you react to that?"a  C "How did you take the news that Microsoft were going to be taken tot" court over the supposed monopoly?"  D "On the subject of success, what do you think of the way some people7 seem to dislike the success you've had with Microsoft?"     D Bill's replies were probably the prototype for Microsoft's Ducking & Weaving(tm) version 1.0.   Quite amusing !r     John McLeana   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 14:40:54 GMT " From: Art Rice <arice@myhouse.org>! Subject: RE: The demise of compaq 8 Message-ID: <WDpQ7.571$Qv.147600@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>   Christopher Smith wrote:   >> -----Original Message----- 7 >> From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca]  >  >> Christopher Smith wrote:t >> > You forgot Tandem, JF. :) > > >> Sorry. You're right. Tandem has stuff that simply cannot be >> allowed to die.> >> Ironic isn't it, that a small company making fault tolerant >> system cannot bel@ >> allowed to die because its customers are far too important... > L > Small, yes, but because of the unusual nature of the systems they produce,J > they literally _own_ the market which they service.  Very much like Cray > inH > its day.  There is, very seriously, no substitute.  Compaq could learnF > something from either company if they'd like to make niche products. > 
 > Regards, >  > Chrisr > , Never actually seen Compaq willing to learn.   -- e Art Rice, Tandem Admin Special Data Processing Corp ----------------------------L All opinions are my own and do not reflect the views of the above mentioned 	 employer.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 17:19:58 +0100a, From: Toon Moene <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl>! Subject: Re: The demise of compaq 4 Message-ID: <3C123DAE.14169811@moene.indiv.nluug.nl>   Bill Gunshannon wrote: > . > In article <3C100B2C.270C5F32@videotron.ca>,2 >  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> writes: > |> "Terry C. Shannon" wrote:N > |> > I don't know what technical expertise the CPQ board possesses, but I'llP > |> > betcha each and every member can read a spreadsheet and follow the money. > |>Q > |> But if the spreadsheet is made by Winkler and makes it look like it is those S > |> wintel servers that generate all the profits instead of VMS, Tandem and Tru64,tQ > |> then those board members will still not have a clue of what relaly generatesa > |> profits at Compaq.  > J > Just out of curiosity, if that was done to influence the decision of the% > BOD, wouldn't it constitute fraud??o  1 Well, you know, perhaps HP starts to have a clue:y  3 (From the NY Times front page - i.e., the Web one):l  6 "The family foundation that is the largest shareholder2 of Hewlett-Packard, said it would vote against the! proposal to buy Compaq Computer."m  ( It's all about trust, not anti-trust :-)   -- sG Toon Moene - mailto:toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phoneto: +31 346 214290-6 Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The NetherlandsG Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.htmlRE Join GNU Fortran 95: http://g95.sourceforge.net/ (under construction)3   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 15:11:07 GMTy4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>! Subject: Re: The demise of compaq < Message-ID: <f4qQ7.7491$Sj1.2993272@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>  / "Art Rice" <arice@myhouse.org> wrote in message 2 news:WDpQ7.571$Qv.147600@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...  . > Never actually seen Compaq willing to learn.  I December 7, 1941 sure as hell was a wake-up call for the United States ofe America.  K One wonders if December 7, 2001 will fill Compaq with a similar (albeit note so terrible) resolve.    ------------------------------   Date: 8 Dec 2001 09:02:00 -0800o0 From: keith.cayemberg@conti.de (Keith Cayemberg)! Subject: Re: The demise of compaqr= Message-ID: <3a65a5c8.0112080901.370ed473@posting.google.com>d  _ "del cecchi" <dcecchi@msn.com> wrote in message news:<qwWP7.618$Lk3.18741@eagle.america.net>...tI > Comments below, not that I represent IBM.  This is the most arrogant BS  > I have heard in a while. > E I don't represent IBM either, I just work for them. However, claiming B arrogance here presumes the Terry's statements contain some degree" of boasting above the known facts.  J > And Terry ought to be ashamed for crossposting to comp.arch.  (followups
 > trimmed) >  > del cecchi > @ > "John McLean" <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch> wrote in message1 > news:3C0FBFED.5270EC12@swissonline.delete.ch...r > >g > >p > > "Terry C. Shannon" wrote:c > > >, >  ... > > >kI > > > Whether or not IBM would WANT the reservation is best known to IBM,e >  but) > > > nothing would surprise me any more.p > > >aG > > > If Compaq were to divest itself of VMS (therefore jumping off thei >  ship withG > > > a Wintel boat anchor tied firmly to its corporate neck) IBM might 
 >  well provei% > > > to be a safe harbor for the OS.f > >n > > I figure that IBM would get  > >oH > > 1.  a top class operating system with all the RAS stuff that we hear >  so 9 > > much about and that the competitors struggle to matche > I > Just what IBM needs, another server operating system to join the 4 or 5n > they already have.  F IBM hasn't had too much trouble making money with them either over theA last few decades. Is IBM bigger and more stable than 20 years agos9 or not? The recession has hardly made IBM sneeze so far. nA GM also does pretty well producing more than one type of vehicle. A The widespread sentiment "There can only be one winner/survivor!"-@ promoted by industry journalists, marketdroids and spin-FUDstersD is ridiculous (i.e. Unix will wipe out OS/370, Windows will wipe out= OS/390, Unix will wipe out OS/390, Linux will wipe out Z-OS).n   > >1C > > 2.  access to clustering technology which they might be able to  >  transferg2 > > to their various proprietary operating systems > I > Yup, AS400, SP, AIX, and Z/OS need to be taught clustering by VMS.  And - > then they could teach Grandma to suck eggs.q  D From a totally scientific view, I personally agree with Terry here. C Please study the computing model and internals of OpenVMS clusters,r@ then compare with it's competitors. I have done this, and I have
 learned toF greatly respect the elegant and practical design of the VMS engineers.? Your statement above, only prove's to me you either don't fullyk
 understandD OpenVMS clustering or don't understand the great range of techniques? which the word "clustering" is today inprecisely applied to. Toh@ fully explain the differences would require that I take the timeD to write a book here. So forgive me if I don't go into great detail,) I also have a job for which I'm paid for.t  D The cluster capabilities (and many other RAS&S related techniques of OpenVMS)F are as unmatched today as they were in 1984. But, integrating the VMS @ techniques and feature set of VMS on top of, instead of with the originalE design of a competing OS generally leads to a less capable comparablyeE "top heavy" design that to some degree conflicts with previous design  goalsbD and features. The attempts by various OS teams to include aspects ofE VMS clustering features have met with varying degrees of success, but D invariably never reach the coherence and efficiency of the original. InF clustering history has repeated itself several times. Parallel SysplexA and Tru64 Clusters are both examples of this. Their resources aretA not as fully shared among the nodes, can't support as many nodes c@ efficiently in a fully shared modus, and in trying to do so thenF don't reach the quality and stability of service of OpenVMS in several othere> OS aspects such as fine-grained security and disaster-tolerant
 stability.4 If you want to criticise OpenVMS on clustering, thenF your are definitely on VMS' home turf, where it reigns as "King of the> Clusters" in a class of it's own. The idea of adapting another? OS to include VMS capabilities should be just a small matter ofo programmingoE (as evidently believed by many unqualified managers and journalists) l
 is a myth.   > >hI > > 3.  a customer base that produces profits maybe close to $1 billion aaI > > year on expenses of maybe $6 billion. (It's very hard to separate VMSa5 > > from the other stuff in the "Enterprise" segment)e > H > So the gross margin is 16 percent?  Pretty poor, compared to IBM gross > margin.  See annual report.t > @ First of all, how well IBM already does is irrelevent. Profit is profit! A And if you would carefully read, the 16% refers to the enterprise.B systems segment, not OpenVMS alone. I have seen the figure of $800B million profit on a turnover of about 3.9 billion for VMS the past year. That makes a 20% margin. a > > G > > 4.  a customer base on a proprietary system and that means (a) they E > > won't easily desert and (b) they are not scared by the idea of itw >  being > > proprietaryu > H > A dying system.  Where is the future?  IBM has OS/400 and Z/OS alreadyH > which cover the VMS niche like a blanket.    Sure, they would get some) > customer base but could they hold them.e > >aA The 20% margin shown above is a much better performance than mostn
 supposedlyD "living" products during the past dreadful year. For a dead product, VMSiC is perfoming a pretty funky "Zombie Boogie" toward new features anda; platforms (both Alpha and Itanium) while financing the truet loser(s) in the Compaq family.  E > > 5.  a market that is ripe for consultants (and this area is a bigo	 >  earners > > for IBM)B > What would the consultants be for?  Migrating from VMS to a live > operating system?n >  > >wD > > If IBM could take VMS and Tandem then they've really sewn up the* > > high-reliability markets like banking. > : > Got 390.  Parallel Sysplex.  Got HA version of P series. > >o  0 Most successful operating systems have developedC their individual strengths and have their reason for being. People,a? businesses and markets have an incredible diversity in problemseC and needs to be met. The world is big enough to support more than a0B few solutions. Z-OS's strengths are in virtual machine technology,B VMS's strengths go in the direction of resource management (pleaseC read Tannenbaum's OS primer, chapter one, for clarification on thisg: other aspects that define the role of an operating system.F The clustering methods you mention above are clearly posess subsets of therF capabilities of OpenVMS Clusters in terms of the scalability reachableF for the highest level fully Reliably Available resource Functionality F with Stability and Security. The others offer a lot, but not nearly as much as OpenVMS in it's niche.  1 Please compare the following aspects of clusters.r  F  - degree, class and quality of (symmetrically) fully shared resourcesA  - quality of the Single System Image and consistency of the Name< SpaceC9  - RAS, security and functionality of cluster file systems;  - efficiency, grainyness, flexibility (objects that can bet locked/shared)E    and functionality (locking model) of the distributed lock manager f-    and stability of reaction to losing nodes.aB  - cluster recovery time by node failure, identification of failed node.e@  - RAS and balancing aspects and variety of simultaneous cluster
 interconnectscE  - number of nodes practical and possible in a fully shared resources  modus   @ It is clear that non-shared resource clusters are a subet of theC functionality of a fully-shared cluster, it's the easy way to claim@D clustering functionality without really improving the sophisticationE of the OS. Today, any two computers connected with a network seems tooB qualify as a non-shared resource cluster. OpenVMS can do this too.     A I haven't even begun to discuss the wonders of the OpenVMS GalaxysE technology. If you think it's just a copy of OS/390's virtual machine1@ capabilities, then you also haven't understood Galaxy. Galaxy is@ completely different, it's resource oriented not virtual machine orientedC (read that Tannenbaum chapter again). It is the first real solution A to the scalability vs. parallelizability problems between SMP andt@ MPP models of computing. APMP is a truly new model for computingD requiring an original new resource locking/coordination method that = is an extension of the OpenVMS clustering model. With it, thea
 capability@ and scalability bottlenecks of MPP and SMP for a large class of ' business relevant problems have fallen.u  E OpenVMS is truly the most underestimated and misunderstood IT product  on the market today.   > >0J > > Wouldn't I smile if the regulators said okay but on the condition thatG > > they sold some of their other assets and IBM said "Okay, we'll selle >  our > > PC business."   ;-)q > ' > May do that anyway.  no money in PCs.u  C Yup, no great money in paper clips either, still rather useful, and  still D being produced. No talk yet of the "death of the paper clip" either.   > >p > >f > > John McLeanu   Keith Cayembergt Senior Consultantc ICA GmbH, Hannover   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 17:22:04 GMTe" From: Art Rice <arice@myhouse.org>! Subject: Re: The demise of compaqe9 Message-ID: <0%rQ7.1308$Qv.261073@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>t   Terry C. Shannon wrote:w   >h/ >> Never actually seen Compaq willing to learn.r > K > December 7, 1941 sure as hell was a wake-up call for the United States ofd
 > America. > I > One wonders if December 7, 2001 will fill Compaq with a similar (albeitn > not so terrible) resolve.- >   I guess time (history) will tell      -- e Art Rice, Tandem Admin Special Data Processing Corp ----------------------------L All opinions are my own and do not reflect the views of the above mentioned 	 employer.    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 17:46:12 GMTf* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>! Subject: Re: The demise of compaqs@ Message-ID: <ElsQ7.28687$C8.1674640@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  = "Keith Cayemberg" <keith.cayemberg@conti.de> wrote in messagei7 news:3a65a5c8.0112080901.370ed473@posting.google.com... 1 > "del cecchi" <dcecchi@msn.com> wrote in message / news:<qwWP7.618$Lk3.18741@eagle.america.net>...tK > > Comments below, not that I represent IBM.  This is the most arrogant BSl > > I have heard in a while. > >oG > I don't represent IBM either, I just work for them. However, claiminglD > arrogance here presumes the Terry's statements contain some degree$ > of boasting above the known facts.  C I suspect that the arrogance del was referring to may have been the G suggestion (from multiple posters) that IBM was technology-deficient in C clustering and needed to acquire VMS to learn about it, rather thano4 suggesting that VMS's clustering was not worthwhile.  J Otherwise, thanks for your superb critique of VMS's abilities w.r.t. otherL industry cluster products.  VMS indeed offers unique strengths (though otherF approaches have decreased the *functional* gap in many areas) and withK competent management could fill not only its current niches but expand into 0 other areas that value robustness and stability.  I If Compaq were broken up for parts then it would be at least feasible fornI IBM to acquire VMS and many of the people who support it (in the field as I well as in Nashua).  But VMS's current health is fragile and a transitionwK might make it more so, at least temporarily - so a better solution might be ( to repair rather than replace its owner.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 18:57:30 +0100-1 From: John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch>0! Subject: Re: The demise of compaqs5 Message-ID: <3C12548A.26FAC0FA@swissonline.delete.ch>    "Terry C. Shannon" wrote:3 > 1 > "Art Rice" <arice@myhouse.org> wrote in messagen4 > news:WDpQ7.571$Qv.147600@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net... > 0 > > Never actually seen Compaq willing to learn. > K > December 7, 1941 sure as hell was a wake-up call for the United States ofe
 > America. > M > One wonders if December 7, 2001 will fill Compaq with a similar (albeit not  > so terrible) resolve.R     Not according to Winkler !   FromF http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/011208/business_tech_compaq_hewlett_dc_2.html  ...n  H ``I think Compaq has a great strategy and if there were no HP we'd stillF have a great strategy going forward,'' Compaq executive vice president> of global business units Michael Winkler said in an interview.  D ``While we look like we may be somewhat beleaguered from a financial? standpoint, the fact is we have generated positive cash for six   consecutive quarters,'' he said.  D Winkler said, Compaq is further along in switching to a direct salesH model for retail that will mirror Dell's. As part of that move, he said,E the company's inventories of PCs will decrease as it moves production : from its own factories to those run by an outside company.  F ``We've been reinventing our business model on the volume model in the? PCs and that's only starting to come to fruition with the plantoH closings, so I feel good about the Compaq business irrespective of HP,''	 he added.      ... and a bit more   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 19:07:33 +0100 1 From: John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch>l! Subject: Re: The demise of compaqs5 Message-ID: <3C1256E5.D50D05E2@swissonline.delete.ch>r   Keith Cayemberg wrote: > a > "del cecchi" <dcecchi@msn.com> wrote in message news:<qwWP7.618$Lk3.18741@eagle.america.net>...wK > > Comments below, not that I represent IBM.  This is the most arrogant BSr > > I have heard in a while. > >.G > I don't represent IBM either, I just work for them. However, claimingaD > arrogance here presumes the Terry's statements contain some degree$ > of boasting above the known facts.    H Except it wasn't Terry ... as I told del cecchi.  It was me, moi, mich. G If it's correct, then it's mine. If it is a heap of s**t, merde or miste then it's mine too  :-)-   John  L > > And Terry ought to be ashamed for crossposting to comp.arch.  (followups > > trimmed) > >n > > del cecchi > >:B > > "John McLean" <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch> wrote in message3 > > news:3C0FBFED.5270EC12@swissonline.delete.ch...< > > >C > > >3 > > > "Terry C. Shannon" wrote:m > > > >n ...d' > > > > to be a safe harbor for the OS.n > > >:! > > > I figure that IBM would getl > > >i > > >    Terry has > > > >u   I have > > >  @ I know it's not your fault.  Del started it.  Maybe he needs sixD operators to run the system so that he can run the COUNT program (in batch mode)  ;-)     John   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 13:14:37 -0500T- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>l! Subject: Re: The demise of compaqe, Message-ID: <3C125887.6066A230@videotron.ca>   Bill Todd wrote:E > I suspect that the arrogance del was referring to may have been thetI > suggestion (from multiple posters) that IBM was technology-deficient inoE > clustering and needed to acquire VMS to learn about it, rather thani6 > suggesting that VMS's clustering was not worthwhile.  N Everyone is defficient compared to VMS in clustering. If IBM is to buy VMS, itI won't be to integrate it with AIX, OS400 or MVS, it will be to add to itsnI product portfolio. And you can bet that IBM would visit the key ISVs thatTR provide the software for VMS and get them to make serious commitments to continue.  I If IBM currently has no lottery business, then getting VMS would give IBM L customers it currently doesn't have any product offerings for. Don't look at& the technology, look at the customers.  H If IBM's major differentiation is the service business, then look at theL service business. IBM doesn't really care if the call is for a VMS , Unix orK MVS system, as long as the customer pays for a service contract. And if thesM remaining VMS customers are the types who are willing to pay to get top notchlA service, then IBM would be more than happy to get such customers.2  M And at this point in time, I think that customers would be more than happy to-K go to IBM since they have been tossed around, screwed around and lied to bye. the previous owners of VMS in the last decade.  D IBM's mainframes have their sets of applications, VMS has its set ofC applications, and the two don't really have much in common anymore.<  L The big question is whether IBM might see VMS as a strategic asset and startJ to try to expand its horizons at the expense of its dog OS-400.  VMS might? remain a niche player under IBM, but at least it would be safe.    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 15:24:32 GMTb4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>: Subject: Tru64.org Flash Poll on Merger "Pearl Harbor Day"< Message-ID: <QgqQ7.7497$Sj1.3002542@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>  L Got an opinion about the December 7 Development in the HWP-CPQ Merger story? Why not pay a visit to3 www.tru64.org and weigh in on the following survey:   I In light of the announcement that the David and Lucile Packard Foundationt will not support HP'suC proposed acquisition of Compaq, do you believe the proposed merger:f   -  Is likely to succeed    - May or may not succeed  
 - It's toast!r     -- Terry C. Shannon Consultant and Publisher Shannon Knows Compaq% Director at Large, Encompass US, Inc.   email: terryshannon@mediaone.net3 Web (info on SKC):  www.acersoft.com, www.tru64.orgA   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 14:27:45 GMTu" From: Art Rice <arice@myhouse.org>) Subject: Re: tubes (was: RE: DEC is DEAD)o8 Message-ID: <BrpQ7.522$Qv.138388@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>   Miles O'Neal wrote:n  7 > Tim Llewellyn  <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:e > |Phillip Helbig wrote: > |> gL > |> > Most (probably more than 99%) of televisions still have at least one.K > |> > As do a very high percentage of computers for the very same reason. t
 > |> > :-) > |>  I > |> One area where tubes are still preferred to transistors is in guitarsL > |> amplifiers.  The idea here is NOT high-fidelity; the tubes and speakers. > |> contribute substantially to the sound.... > |iH > |Actually these days there are a lot of tube amp simulators, DSP basedE > |digital devices that sound like tube amps. Not a valve to be seen.a > , > And a lot of people don;t think they (yet). > sound that much like tube amps.  Tube guitar+ > amps aren't any more dead today than they 
 > you are. >  > -Miles > ; Except they cost a lot more than they did in the 60's.  :>(u   -- d Art Rice, Tandem Admin Special Data Processing Corp ----------------------------L All opinions are my own and do not reflect the views of the above mentioned 	 employer.    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 14:34:31 GMT " From: Art Rice <arice@myhouse.org>) Subject: RE: tubes (was: RE: DEC is DEAD)e8 Message-ID: <XxpQ7.569$Qv.142517@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>   WILLIAM WEBB wrote:    >  > ****Like Milli Vanilli?u >  > -----Original Message-----1 > From: Info-VAX-Request@Mvb.Saic.Com at INTERNETt, > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 7:11 AMD > To: Webb, William W Raleigh, NC; Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com at INTERNET+ > Subject: RE: tubes (was: RE: DEC is DEAD)  >  > H >> Actually these days there are a lot of tube amp simulators, DSP basedE >> digital devices that sound like tube amps. Not a valve to be seen.l >  > Kind of like Charon-VAX?  :-)e > I > I believe one of the first was Tom Scholz's Rockman.  "Get rid of thosebC > towers of 19-inch racks and get the same sound from a small box".f > H > Somehow, I think the groupies are more impressed by the stacks of Real > Tube Amplifiers. > < > ****It wouldn't surprise me of some heavy-metal gods theseC > days just have them for show, with the sound actually coming froms > somewhere else.****o BARBARIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   -- s Art Rice, Tandem Admin Special Data Processing Corp ----------------------------L All opinions are my own and do not reflect the views of the above mentioned 	 employer.i   ------------------------------   Date: 8 Dec 2001 11:22:38 -0600u% From: meo@gort.rru.com (Miles O'Neal) ) Subject: Re: tubes (was: RE: DEC is DEAD)i' Message-ID: <9uti8u$pgk$1@gort.rru.com>e  & Art Rice  <a.rice3@verizon.net> wrote:- |> And a lot of people don;t think they (yet)p/ |> sound that much like tube amps.  Tube guitarl, |> amps aren't any more dead today than they |> you are.e |> d	 |> -Milesq |> i< |Except they cost a lot more than they did in the 60's.  :>(  + They what?  Tube amps?  Depends on what you - buy.  And when you adust for inflation, there 1 are some that are cheaper than what was availabler in the 60s!s   -Miles   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 12:19:20 +0100p( From: Paul Sture <paul.sture@bluewin.ch>O Subject: Re: VMS Effort (Was: Microsoft Pyramid Collapses Enron and Hewlett Paci- Message-ID: <VA.000004db.d87ef28c@bluewin.ch>,  J In article <VgqP7.519$Xx2.89415@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, Jeff Killeen wrote:7 > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message > > news:B%cP7.245757$dk.16561028@bin1.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > C > > "Hoff Hoffman" <hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam> wrote in message(/ > > news:ombP7.125$BK1.2931@news.cpqcorp.net...e > >s > > ...t > >eJ > > >   There are specific individuals that are (often repeatedly) posting > veryN > > >   specific and strongly-held opinions to this and to other newsgroup andM > > >   to various websites, and I foresee little or nothing that anyone here  > at/ > > >   Compaq can do to change these opinions.n > >nN > > Then your perception is remarkably limited.  Or perhaps you meant that youM > > foresee little or nothing that anyone at Compaq *will* do to change those 4 > > opinions, which is an entirely different matter. > N > I believe 99% of the IT professionals, who are actual OVMS customer for whomL > this more that a debating exercise, will make rational business decisions.N > If Compaq delivers a viable port to the ISV's very early in 2003 Compaq willC > find those rational business decisions break in Compaq's favor...  >iM Count me amongst the 99%. I also believe it would be gross negligence on our  < part to assume blindly that all will go according to plan.    O When the CEO of HP talks publicly of "burning boats" and "no backup plan", the eL rational business decision maker in me says we should consider reducing our F exposure to a business run by someone so clearly at odds with our own D philosphy of keeping our options open and having backup strategies.   C > I agree with Hoff that for most the best response will be a port.' >SK Could be. The trouble is that a lot of us have already fought very hard to hM keep VMS because we see its benefits for our organizations. Past and present eM opponents already rubbing their hands in glee at what has happened, bringing sM in the rather emotional factor of feeling let down. I would imagine many are uN seriously considering how to reduce their exposure to a company that within 5 N weeks of assuring us, very publicly, that we have a platform to last into the N next decade, tells us we are faced with a port starting in the next couple of  years or so.  N Part of rational business decisions is reducing exposure to risk. I'll repeat G from an earlier message that the _perception_ of risk is all important.f ___i
 Paul Sture Switzerlandt   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2001.682 ************************   and stability of reaction to losing nodes.aB  - cluster recovery time by node failure, identification of failed node.e@  - RAS and balancing aspects and variety of simultaneous clu