1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 15 Jul 2001	Volume 2001 : Issue 389       Contents:1 RE: 3 Reasons why VMS is alive and probably well+ 6 Backup problems: %BACKUP-F-CLOSOUT & -SYSTEM-F-INSFARG  booting diskless satellite fails$ Re: booting diskless satellite fails$ Re: Compaq as a technology leader???D Re: Compilers go to Intel, hobbyist, CSLG, etc. goes out the window?D Re: Compilers go to Intel, hobbyist, CSLG, etc. goes out the window? For giveaway: Vax 6000 cards Re: FUD  Re: IA64 Rocks My World  RE: IA64 Rocks My World  Re: IA64 Rocks My World  RE: IA64 Rocks My World  Re: IA64 Rocks My World ( Re: InfoServer (was: VMS V7.3 SPD Error)) Re: IPF already needs a face-lift for VMS ) Re: IPF already needs a face-lift for VMS ) Re: IPF already needs a face-lift for VMS ) Re: IPF already needs a face-lift for VMS ) Re: IPF already needs a face-lift for VMS  Re: Is there a WASD forum?+ Looking for BA356 8-bit personality modules . Re: Pathworks 6.0D on OpenVMS/vax 7.3 question$ RE: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64$ Re: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64$ RE: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64$ Re: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 23:29:46 -0400 + From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@compaq.com> : Subject: RE: 3 Reasons why VMS is alive and probably well+R Message-ID: <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4AD7F07@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>   Dave,    >>> Name one. <<<   9 I could name a number of the ones that I have talked to.    I As Fred pointed out, once the whole picture is explained then they (or at H least the ones I have talked to) seem satisfied and in a few cases, evenC glad to hear OpenVMS is getting ported to what will likely become a  mainstream HW platform.   G For those that think the initial IA64/OpenVMS servers may not be up the K required level, they feel that the EV7 servers will give them a backup plan % so they can move when they are ready.   I Heck, for manufacturing, the main current OS players are OpenVMS, Windows / NT, AIX and HPUX (with some Tru64) and Solaris.   I With the exception of Solaris, ALL of these OS's futures are targetted to @ run on IA64. That says quite a bit for protection of investment.  G For some initial quotes, check out the public Customer presentation at:  (half way down page)6 http://www.compaq.com/hps/ipf-enterprise/openvms.html    Regards,  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  Compaq Canada Inc. Professional Services  Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax  :  819-772-7036 Email: Kerry.Main@Compaq.com     -----Original Message-----6 From: David J. Dachtera [mailto:djesys.nospam@fsi.net] Sent: July 13, 2001 3:19 PM  To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com : Subject: Re: 3 Reasons why VMS is alive and probably well+     Fred Kleinsorge wrote: > C > David J. Dachtera wrote in message <3B4F05A4.75AF7B83@fsi.net>...  > D > >Here's the deal: the Q have, essentially, flipped the bird to VMSK > >customers outside of the niche market they've chosen for VMS (screw what J > >the market wants - it's what the vendor wants that matters: CommandmentE > >#1: "I Am The Lord, Thy Vendor - Thou Shalt Not Have False Vendors J > >Before Me!"). That means no new sales in dead markets like Chicago, andI > >existing customers in that status will likely jump ship in numbers not F > >seen since the mid-90's. No upgrades, no service contract renewals, > >NUTHIN'!  > >  >  > Way harsh Dave.    Prove me wrong.   < > IMHO you might have a case if we had said VMS wasn't being	 > ported.   H All customer hears is that Alpha is going away. You've lost them at thatD point - what you say after is just shouting upwind into a hurricane.  J > >Expecting anything other than a financial disaster is considerably less > >than realistic. > >  > K > The funny thing here is, there have been a lot of VMS customers that have  > been very happy about this.   	 Name one.   H I've been barking about VMS on Intel for years. So, yeah, I'm glad we'llA finally see it. Ten years too late, and much too late to save the H OpenVMS market here in Chicago, but better late than never, even if just+ so I can live long enough to see it happen.   / > Given the current Bush-driven economic slump, L > it may be hard to seperate out the impact in the next quarter, and while IH > think there will be one... but I think you are projecting a worst-case > scenerio.   H As I've said before, "Don't expect the worst, expect the best - but have2 a plan in case the worst shows up!" (Tony Robbins)  K > >To the Q in the audience who haven't already clicked "Next" for the next H > >unread message: it's nothing personal - your management has done thisJ > >to/for you. If there was something I could do to prevent it, I would doF > >it in a heartbeat. My hands are as tied as yours. If you are at allE > >concerned about your financial future, e-mail me privately, but be J > >prepared for a good three to five lean years until you can replace yourI > >current salary (though I've heard of it being done in as little as six  > >months!). > >  > J > As a OS developer friend of mine at Sun (no not Andrew ;-) told me once, the H > concepts are all the same, it's just the syntax.  If you can write O/S codeJ > for VMS, you can write it for UNIX, or for NT.  I don't think many of us are H > worried about becomming Windows application programmers for 1/4 of our > salaries.   H Actually, I'm looking forward to getting into a people-orinted business.H I've gone about as far as I'm gonna go in computing, and about as far as I wanna go.    --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  : Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page and Message Board: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   F This *IS* an OpenVMS-related newsgroup. So, a certain bias in postings is to be expected.  @ Feel free to exercise your rights of free speech and expression.  F However, attacks against individual posters, or groups of posters, are strongly discouraged.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 11:02:14 -0400 * From: Chuck Chopp <ChuckChopp@rtfmcsi.com>? Subject: Backup problems: %BACKUP-F-CLOSOUT & -SYSTEM-F-INSFARG + Message-ID: <3B505EF6.30B4EE39@rtfmcsi.com>   G The following error message occurred while BACKUP was writing some data % out to a saveset on a 4mm tape drive:    %BACKUP-S-COPIED, copied7 DRA1:[CFMSDATA_CFMSFY97.TCS.042099.142940]VICKROYD.APVE 	 NRV_CTL;2  %BACKUP-S-COPIED, copied7 DRA1:[CFMSDATA_CFMSFY97.TCS.042099.142940]VICKROYD.APVE 	 NRV_OPT;2  %BACKUP-S-COPIED, copied7 DRA1:[CFMSDATA_CFMSFY97.TCS.042099.142940]WILLIAMSEN.AP  VENRV_CTL;5  %BACKUP-S-COPIED, copied7 DRA1:[CFMSDATA_CFMSFY97.TCS.042099.142940]WILLIAMSEN.AP  VENRV_OPT;5 = %BACKUP-F-CLOSEOUT, error closing 4MM:[]SAV97.SAV;0 as output . -SYSTEM-F-INSFARG, insufficient call arguments    H A search of the OpenVMS FAQ, Ask The Wizard and Google turned up nothingF definitive regarding this problem.  One search hit on Google indicatedG one other person has experienced this problem in the last 1 to 2 years, D but no solutions to the problem were posted.  My first impression isE that it is a legitimate bug in the BACKUP utility [or some underlying E operating system component].  I reviewed the patches installed on the  system, too.  $ Here's the pertinent system details:  ( AlphaServer 2100 5/300, 3 CPUs installed OpenVMS Alpha v7.1  H The following patches are installed on the system as a result of variousF other problems that were encountered on the system in the past.  TheseF patches were recommended by Compaq tech support previously, and not in( connection with this particular problem.  
 ALPBACK05_071 
 ALPBASE02_071 
 ALPDISM01_071 
 ALPF11X03_071 
 ALPF11X06_071 
 ALPINIT01_071 
 ALPMOUN07_071 
 ALPMTAA01_071  ALPPTD02_071 ALPSYS20_071
 ALPSYSA01_071 
 ALPSYSI01_071   F I examined the existing downloadable patches and there does not appear, to be any updates to these existing patches.  H Does anybody have any idea if this behavior is a known problem for whichE there is a patch to remedy the problem?  Or are we off to Compaq tech  support land again?      TIA,   Chuck  -- Chuck Chopp   8 ChuckChopp@rtfmcsi.com            http://www.rtfmcsi.com0                                   ICQ # 22321532@ RTFM Consulting Services Inc.     864 801 2795 voice & voicemail2 103 Autumn Hill Road              864 801 2774 fax4 Greer, SC  29651                  800 774 0718 pager7                                   8007740718@skytel.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 20:21:05 -0400 ' From: Brian Hechinger <wonko@arkham.ws> ) Subject: booting diskless satellite fails 6 Message-ID: <20010714201942.L462@wintermute.arkham.ws>  M i don't have the VAXcluster manual, although i really wish i did, i'm sure it O would help me a lot.  the VMS System Manager's Guide is waste of perfectly good M trees unless you know what you are doing, more-so with the cluster stuff than * anything else, but it has its limited use.  > anyway, enough ranting, let's get down to the problem at hand.  ; from a diskless VAX that i'm trying to boot into a cluster:    Loading system software. (BOOT/R5:0 EZA0)     2..  -EZA0    1..0..    H %VAXcluster-I-SYSLOAD, system loaded from node EARTH (AA-00-04-00-01-04)  ; %VAXcluster-W-NOCONN, No connection to disk server          ; %VAXcluster-W-NOCONN, No connection to disk server          ; %VAXcluster-W-NOCONN, No connection to disk server          ; %VAXcluster-W-NOCONN, No connection to disk server          ; %VAXcluster-W-NOCONN, No connection to disk server          ; %VAXcluster-W-NOCONN, No connection to disk server          ; %VAXcluster-W-NOCONN, No connection to disk server          ; %VAXcluster-W-NOCONN, No connection to disk server          ; %VAXcluster-W-NOCONN, No connection to disk server          ; %VAXcluster-W-NOCONN, No connection to disk server          K %VAXcluster-F-CTRLERR, boot driver virtual circuit to SCSSYSTEM 0000 Failed  ?06 HLT INST         PC = 00007391  Restarting system software.  Failure.  M i looked this up on google and the ONLY thing i could find was a reference to A check the CLUSTER_AUTHORIZATION.DAT file.  well, it's there, and:   ) SYSMAN> CONFIG SHOW CLUSTER_AUTHORIZATION % Node EARTH:   Cluster group number: 1 $ Multicast address: AB-00-04-01-01-01  I hmmm, well, this is the boot server (SYSMAN being run on the bootserver). J should there be an entry for the satellite in there??  if so, how does one go about adding it?    NCP>SHOW KNOWN NODES   6 Known Node Volatile Summary as of 14-JUL-2001 20:20:56    Executor node = 1.1 (EARTH)    State                    = on 5 Identification           = DECnet-VAX V5.5,  VMS V5.5   C     Node           State      Active  Delay   Circuit     Next node #                               Links >  1.2 (MARS)                                   ISA-0          0  N is there something i'm missing that would be easy if i had the cluster manual?   thanks,    -brian   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 22:10:57 -0400 2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger)- Subject: Re: booting diskless satellite fails L Message-ID: <rdeininger-1407012210570001@user-2iveaik.dialup.mindspring.com>  F In article <20010714201942.L462@wintermute.arkham.ws>, Brian Hechinger <wonko@arkham.ws> wrote:  O > i don't have the VAXcluster manual, although i really wish i did, i'm sure it B > would help me a lot.  the VMS System Manager's Guide is waste of perfectly goodO > trees unless you know what you are doing, more-so with the cluster stuff than , > anything else, but it has its limited use.  P Yes, the System Manager's Manual really wants you to read the clustering manual.  % Fortunately, it is available on-line:   0    http://www.openvms.compaq.com:8000/index.html?    http://www.openvms.compaq.com:8000/73final/4477/4477PRO.HTML   @ > anyway, enough ranting, let's get down to the problem at hand.  G First, please tell us the OS version, the system name of the boot node, = and the system name of the intended satellite.  Just in case.       = > from a diskless VAX that i'm trying to boot into a cluster:  >  > Loading system software. > (BOOT/R5:0 EZA0) >  >   2..  > -EZA0 
 >   1..0.. >  > J > %VAXcluster-I-SYSLOAD, system loaded from node EARTH (AA-00-04-00-01-04)  J Ok, the satellite broadcast a request for an initial system load, and node EARTH responded.   > < > %VAXcluster-W-NOCONN, No connection to disk server          J Now the satellite can't access the server that's attached to the disk that? it thinks it should use.  This could well be a network problem.   I Or, if you've done something strange, you node EARTH might be sending the J initial load, but instructing the satellite to boot from some oddball disk that isn't available.   I If you ran cluster_config.com (or cluster_config_lan.com (see, you really H should tell us the VMS version)) and chose the "Add a satellite" option,I your boot server should be doing the "normal" simple thing.  That is, the I satellite should be booting from a different root on the same system disk G the boot server uses.  If you didn't run cluster_config, well, anything 
 could happen.        O > i looked this up on google and the ONLY thing i could find was a reference to C > check the CLUSTER_AUTHORIZATION.DAT file.  well, it's there, and:  > + > SYSMAN> CONFIG SHOW CLUSTER_AUTHORIZATION ' > Node EARTH:   Cluster group number: 1 & > Multicast address: AB-00-04-01-01-01  @ CLUSTER_AUTHORIZATION.DAT isn't (normally) involved in booting aD satellite.  It's mainly for security, to prevent unwanted nodes fromE joining a cluster.  A satellite has to have a known hardware ethernet 8 address, so there is no need for separate authorization.   > K > hmmm, well, this is the boot server (SYSMAN being run on the bootserver). L > should there be an entry for the satellite in there??  if so, how does one > go about adding it?   3 Yes, there should be a MOP entry for the satellite.    >  > NCP>SHOW KNOWN NODES >   8 > Known Node Volatile Summary as of 14-JUL-2001 20:20:56 >    > Executor node = 1.1 (EARTH)  >  > State                    = on 7 > Identification           = DECnet-VAX V5.5,  VMS V5.5  > E >     Node           State      Active  Delay   Circuit     Next node % >                               Links @ >  1.2 (MARS)                                   ISA-0          0 > P > is there something i'm missing that would be easy if i had the cluster manual?  I Yes, you are clearly missing something.  I don't see the solution off the D top of my head, since I've been using LAN (not DECnet) for MOP boots/ lately, and the details are somewhat different.    --   Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.com    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 05:01:02 GMT . From: "mulp" <michaelpettengill@earthlink.net>- Subject: Re: Compaq as a technology leader??? C Message-ID: <is947.4303$23.506134@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>   1 "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com> wrote in message 2 news:71I37.2705$l%.2134077@typhoon2.gnilink.net...K > > But look at much of the stuff that Compaq has done lately. They seem to  > makeF > > the "inspiration technology" : APPLE. In other words, they seem to inspire 7 > > themselves from Apple. (iPAQ, use of SCSI etc etc).  > J > Ah if one only really understand the WinTel world - both the iPAQ legacyF > free desktop and the iPAQ handheld are recent innovations within the WinTel
 > world...  9 I'm not questioning Compaq being innovative in marketing.   6 I question whether Compaq is innovative in technology.  G Is it being innovative to say "I want to build the first legacy PC like D Intel and Microsoft have been asking manufacturers to do for years"?  G DEC folk in Palo Alto wanted to have a way of plug and play human input K devices and came up with the basis for the USB architecture and design.  It L was offered as an open standard.  But it wasn't adopted generally because itL wasn't standard.  That Compaq is offering a PC that does what the folk in paB did for MIPS boxes a decade ago, and that Intel and Microsoft soonB supported, suggests to me how little power Compaq has over things.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:00:39 GMT 4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>M Subject: Re: Compilers go to Intel, hobbyist, CSLG, etc. goes out the window?e< Message-ID: <bN%37.9746$bj6.3361710@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>  < "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote in message! news:3B508546.334C3516@fsi.net...i > Bill Todd wrote:
 > > [snip]D > > Let's see how the people who answer the questionnaire feel about Compaq's$ > > 'responsiveness' in this matter. >,G > Sorry - I missed some posts along the way (local difficulties). Which  > questionnaire is that?  K A Twenty Questions IPF survey will be coming to URL near you Real Soon Now.e As in sometime later today!n   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 15:35:18 -0400M' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> M Subject: Re: Compilers go to Intel, hobbyist, CSLG, etc. goes out the window?l( Message-ID: <9iq6lt$bib$1@pyrite.mv.net>  < "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote in message! news:3B508546.334C3516@fsi.net...o > Bill Todd wrote:
 > > [snip]D > > Let's see how the people who answer the questionnaire feel about Compaq's$ > > 'responsiveness' in this matter. >eG > Sorry - I missed some posts along the way (local difficulties). Which- > questionnaire is that?  L Check Google for a July 13th thread started by Warren Spencer (and Terry hasG just set up a far more comprehensive survey at the tru64.org web site).l   - bill   >  > -- > David J. Dachtera7 > dba DJE Systems1 > http://www.djesys.com/ >e< > Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page and Message Board:! > http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/  >nH > This *IS* an OpenVMS-related newsgroup. So, a certain bias in postings > is to be expected. >eB > Feel free to exercise your rights of free speech and expression. >oH > However, attacks against individual posters, or groups of posters, are > strongly discouraged.6   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 20:59:58 GMTE7 From: 7h3_Fr13nd1y_P0rn06raph3r@salmahayeksknockers.edue% Subject: For giveaway: Vax 6000 cardsu; Message-ID: <ip247.32186$MO1.5131030@news0.telusplanet.net>   A I've got a couple of Vax 6000 cards here.   I believe one is tapenM controller, one CPU, and one memory, but it's beed a while since I ID'd them.s  * Its yours for free, shipping not included.       -- iM .............................................................................g  ;             "Become the change you wish to see in others." eK                                                            -Mahatma Gandhi.rM .............................................................................mM www.geocities.com/pentagon/bunker/1022                        daniel@swan.com@   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:19:26 GMTc4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> Subject: Re: FUD< Message-ID: <O2047.9749$bj6.3376858@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>  < "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote in message! news:3B5081EA.DC16BC27@fsi.net...c > "Terry C. Shannon" wrote: 
 > > [snip]- > > ... imagine how the Alpha salesforce musta	 > > feel!w > % > There's an "Alpha salesforce"???!!!e > " > They must be masters of stealth!  K There is in fact an Alpha salesforce. After all, somebody had to put on the J Alpha Diamond Forums, etc. The Alpha product line managers and Alpha salesG drivers I've dealt with were quite competent, but they faced a dauntingn/ obstacle: the Wintel-centric Compaq Contingent.    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:59:00 GMTe. From: "mulp" <michaelpettengill@earthlink.net>  Subject: Re: IA64 Rocks My WorldC Message-ID: <UD047.3302$23.401521@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>   7 "Alexis Cousein" <al@brussels.sgi.com> wrote in messageh) news:3B4FBD69.4070508@brussels.sgi.com...i
 > mulp wrote: J > > Instead, the focus should have switched to bringing in EV7/Marvel with some# > > more bandaid work on the GS140,aH > So -- were you suggesting Compaq should have entirely avoided making aI > viable largish platform for the entire EV6 generation of EVx processorsuH > and just used ES40 for the smaller systems and skipped straight to EV7 > for larger systems?t  F I'm saying that once wildfire's schedule became so delayed that it wasJ seriously interfering with moving resources from wildfire to other EV6 andJ EV7 related projects, and it was decided that no additional resources wereF going to be added to keep those other projects on track, then wildfire should have been cancelled.s  + When wildfire was conceived, it made sense.!  L Wildfire is an enhanced version of the ES40 and what adds all the complexityF is the need to connect switch asics together to increase the number ofG ports.  The DS20 uses one set of chips, the ES40 uses four sets.  ThoserJ asics were port limited because of the technology.   Wildfire started withF the same asic generation and scaled from there and the number of asicsJ exploded in large part because the additional states required spliting theI functions in the ES40 chips over multiple asics which required additionala asics to coordinate them all.   J Wildfire in the market a year earlier wouldn't have been better than it isD now but it would have met a real market need.  It would have allowedK reducing the effort spent on tlaser a year earlier, possibly eliminating anoL upgrade from that platform.  It probably would have save some accounts whichL were lost because tlaser couldn't handle them.  And wildfire resources would4 have been free to go onto other work a year earlier.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 17:34:35 -0400 + From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@compaq.com>/  Subject: RE: IA64 Rocks My WorldR Message-ID: <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF48DBF81@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>   Andrew,O  . Hey, you are back to the old fud stuff again..  > >>> You clearly don't understand the concept of relative size.K Tru64/OpenVMS/NSK do generate billions of dollars of revenue for Compaq buto Wintel generates more. >>>  I And you clearly have no idea of how a business person thinks. Most of the0J ones that I know think BILLIONS of dolars is a big thing no matter how you look at it.   H Somehow, I think shareholders would have the same view ie. products that< bring in BILLIONS in revenue is an important consideration.    Regards,  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  Compaq Canada Inc. Professional Servicesd Voice: 613-592-4660F Fax  :  819-772-7036 Email: Kerry.Main@Compaq.com     -----Original Message-----7 From: andrew harrison [mailto:andrew.nospam@uk.sun.com]; Sent: July 13, 2001 5:29 AM  To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com.  Subject: Re: IA64 Rocks My World     "Main, Kerry" wrote: > K > >>> Oh come on Kerry try to do better. Or ar you saying that Wintel boxes ( > that make up the vast majority of your' > revenues are in fact high margin.  <<i > G > Come on Andrew .. surely you are not going to say that the total NSK,n Tru64,K > and OpenVMS revenues are not as significant to Compaq as the Wintel stuffg ?i >    Define significant.h  C In numerical terms the Wintel systems drive more revenues than the sC combined NSK, Tru64 and OpenVMS revenues. Does this make them more g, significant to Compaq then NSK etc probably.  B Even you cannot deny that Compaq spends more on, talks more about B and focuses more on the Wintel space than they do on the combined  non Wintel systems.0  D And lets face it its only human nature, Compaq appear to lack visionA and strategy, if you know this isn't you strong point then isn't e: is easier to execute on someone elses vision and strategy.  B This is what Compaq have done all through their corporate history,= their present woes are based on that fact that there are now  > a number of vendors who are much better at executing MS/intels srategy than Compaq.    J > I know it suits your purpose to try and position these revenues as beingJ > insignificant, but surely BILLIONS of dollars is not  something that any( > company would view as insignificant .. >   : You clearly don't understand the concept of relative size. Tru64/OpenVMS/NSKh@ do generate billions of dollars of revenue for Compaq but Wintel
 generates  more.   G In the non Wintel server market Compaq generates billions of dollars ofw sales + but Compaqs competitors generate much more.   D And on the down side the billions of dollars of revenues that Compaq does  G generate in the non Wintel space require strategic thinking vision etc  C which the Wintel revenues do not. They also require R&D expenditure7 which F the Wintel revenues do not. In the Wintel space MS's license fees and C Intels processor prices include the R&D that Compaq do not need to g have to think about.     Regards- Andrew Harrison4 Enterprise IT Architectw   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:11:57 -0400 ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>y  Subject: Re: IA64 Rocks My World( Message-ID: <9iqfrn$gkh$1@pyrite.mv.net>  6 "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@compaq.com> wrote in messageL news:BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF48DBF81@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net...	 > Andrew,r >e0 > Hey, you are back to the old fud stuff again..  K Actually, not this time:  it was a reasonably insightful post (so I've left H it appended below so people can reassess it themselves if they want to),H whereas all you've got to offer are generalities - some of which clearly don't apply.   >l@ > >>> You clearly don't understand the concept of relative size.I > Tru64/OpenVMS/NSK do generate billions of dollars of revenue for Compaqo bute > Wintel generates more. >>> >VK > And you clearly have no idea of how a business person thinks. Most of theOL > ones that I know think BILLIONS of dolars is a big thing no matter how you
 > look at it.r  F Then you must know a lot of business people who don't control Compaq'sH actions, since the ones who do don't seem particularly interested in the Alpha business.e   > J > Somehow, I think shareholders would have the same view ie. products that= > bring in BILLIONS in revenue is an important consideration.   K It remains to be seen how shareholders will react.  But my guess is that ifOE your view of them is correct, Compaq's current management is history.T   - bill   >w
 > Regards, >, > Kerry Main > Senior ConsultantE > Compaq Canada Inc. > Professional Servicesu > Voice: 613-592-4660r > Fax  :  819-772-7036 > Email: Kerry.Main@Compaq.com >e >S > -----Original Message-----9 > From: andrew harrison [mailto:andrew.nospam@uk.sun.com]? > Sent: July 13, 2001 5:29 AMt > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.ComN" > Subject: Re: IA64 Rocks My World >  >o > "Main, Kerry" wrote: > >xG > > >>> Oh come on Kerry try to do better. Or ar you saying that Winteli boxes * > > that make up the vast majority of your) > > revenues are in fact high margin.  <<c > > I > > Come on Andrew .. surely you are not going to say that the total NSK,  > Tru64,G > > and OpenVMS revenues are not as significant to Compaq as the Wintel  stuff  > ?h > >e >u > Define significant.  > D > In numerical terms the Wintel systems drive more revenues than theD > combined NSK, Tru64 and OpenVMS revenues. Does this make them more. > significant to Compaq then NSK etc probably. >-C > Even you cannot deny that Compaq spends more on, talks more about C > and focuses more on the Wintel space than they do on the combinedg > non Wintel systems.r >:F > And lets face it its only human nature, Compaq appear to lack visionB > and strategy, if you know this isn't you strong point then isn't< > is easier to execute on someone elses vision and strategy. >eD > This is what Compaq have done all through their corporate history,> > their present woes are based on that fact that there are now@ > a number of vendors who are much better at executing MS/intels > srategy than Compaq. >: >wL > > I know it suits your purpose to try and position these revenues as beingL > > insignificant, but surely BILLIONS of dollars is not  something that any* > > company would view as insignificant .. > >r >n< > You clearly don't understand the concept of relative size. > Tru64/OpenVMS/NSK.B > do generate billions of dollars of revenue for Compaq but Wintel > generatest > more.  >oI > In the non Wintel server market Compaq generates billions of dollars of0 > sales - > but Compaqs competitors generate much more.o >EF > And on the down side the billions of dollars of revenues that Compaq > doesH > generate in the non Wintel space require strategic thinking vision etcE > which the Wintel revenues do not. They also require R&D expendituree > whichhG > the Wintel revenues do not. In the Wintel space MS's license fees and D > Intels processor prices include the R&D that Compaq do not need to > have to think about. >h > 	 > Regardsd > Andrew Harrisonh > Enterprise IT Architectm   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 22:51:47 -0400 + From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@compaq.com>u  Subject: RE: IA64 Rocks My WorldR Message-ID: <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4AD7F06@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>   Bill,g  J >>> Then you must know a lot of business people who don't control Compaq'sH actions, since the ones who do don't seem particularly interested in the Alpha business.<<<   re; Compaq's Actions ..k  L Again, so not to confuse anyone this with Compaq statements, - pure personal opinion follows..R  I While I have always been (and will remain) an Alpha fan, I do recognize -_  K When most Customers buy computer related technology, they do so to acquire:A. (in declining order of importance to the sale)  ( 1. Applications to solve business issuesL 2. Operating Systems to run applications and keep them available and secure.J 3. Servers to support the operating systems that support the applications.L 4. HW CPU, memory, storage and IO architectures that are integrated with the servers.  K There is now a definate trend towards "solutions" buying that includes fulleG support and integration with the operating system and applications intoo current environments.   I Heck, if pure performance was a mandatory requirement, Sun would not havem* anywhere near the market it currently has.  E So, while I and likely everyone else on this list, (with the possibleiC exception of one or two) would have liked to have seen better Alpha I marketing and support in the past, the current reality is that those days  are now behind us. 1  E Imho, Compaq has chosen to take the post EV7 $'s that would have beeneG required to keep up with what was perceived to be a declining margin of I difference in performance (and you can argue with the Eng folks that were L involved if you want on that point) and instead focus on the upper layers ofD the solution ie. Building Servers, Operating Systems and Application Integration.  I So, you can argue strategy all you want, but at the Compaq Exec level, it1E appears it was determined that, in the future, there is likely betterCD profits to be made in the upper levels of a solution ie. servers andJ application / operating systems integration than in the CPU chip business.  H At the end of the day, shareholders will have to judge whether this is a$ good strategy for the future or not.   Regards,  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultanti Compaq Canada Inc. Professional Servicesr Voice: 613-592-4660p Fax  :  819-772-7036 Email: Kerry.Main@Compaq.com     -----Original Message-----, From: Bill Todd [mailto:billtodd@foo.mv.com] Sent: July 14, 2001 6:12 PMa To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Comc  Subject: Re: IA64 Rocks My World      6 "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@compaq.com> wrote in messageL news:BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF48DBF81@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net...	 > Andrew,o >i0 > Hey, you are back to the old fud stuff again..  K Actually, not this time:  it was a reasonably insightful post (so I've left H it appended below so people can reassess it themselves if they want to),H whereas all you've got to offer are generalities - some of which clearly don't apply.   >p@ > >>> You clearly don't understand the concept of relative size.I > Tru64/OpenVMS/NSK do generate billions of dollars of revenue for Compaqo butS > Wintel generates more. >>> >eK > And you clearly have no idea of how a business person thinks. Most of thevL > ones that I know think BILLIONS of dolars is a big thing no matter how you
 > look at it.T  F Then you must know a lot of business people who don't control Compaq'sH actions, since the ones who do don't seem particularly interested in the Alpha business.h   >eJ > Somehow, I think shareholders would have the same view ie. products that= > bring in BILLIONS in revenue is an important consideration.   K It remains to be seen how shareholders will react.  But my guess is that ifoE your view of them is correct, Compaq's current management is history.m   - bill   >h
 > Regards, >f > Kerry Main > Senior Consultant  > Compaq Canada Inc. > Professional Servicesb > Voice: 613-592-4660u > Fax  :  819-772-7036 > Email: Kerry.Main@Compaq.com >- >- > -----Original Message-----9 > From: andrew harrison [mailto:andrew.nospam@uk.sun.com]o > Sent: July 13, 2001 5:29 AMe > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.ComG" > Subject: Re: IA64 Rocks My World >D >9 > "Main, Kerry" wrote: > > G > > >>> Oh come on Kerry try to do better. Or ar you saying that Wintel4 boxes5* > > that make up the vast majority of your) > > revenues are in fact high margin.  <<  > >uI > > Come on Andrew .. surely you are not going to say that the total NSK,  > Tru64,G > > and OpenVMS revenues are not as significant to Compaq as the Winteln stuffs > ?? > >h >  > Define significant.t >aD > In numerical terms the Wintel systems drive more revenues than theD > combined NSK, Tru64 and OpenVMS revenues. Does this make them more. > significant to Compaq then NSK etc probably. >wC > Even you cannot deny that Compaq spends more on, talks more aboutsC > and focuses more on the Wintel space than they do on the combinede > non Wintel systems.  > F > And lets face it its only human nature, Compaq appear to lack visionB > and strategy, if you know this isn't you strong point then isn't< > is easier to execute on someone elses vision and strategy. >oD > This is what Compaq have done all through their corporate history,> > their present woes are based on that fact that there are now@ > a number of vendors who are much better at executing MS/intels > srategy than Compaq. >0 >wL > > I know it suits your purpose to try and position these revenues as beingL > > insignificant, but surely BILLIONS of dollars is not  something that any* > > company would view as insignificant .. > >t >c< > You clearly don't understand the concept of relative size. > Tru64/OpenVMS/NSK.B > do generate billions of dollars of revenue for Compaq but Wintel > generates  > more.  > I > In the non Wintel server market Compaq generates billions of dollars of. > sales.- > but Compaqs competitors generate much more.. >.F > And on the down side the billions of dollars of revenues that Compaq > doesH > generate in the non Wintel space require strategic thinking vision etcE > which the Wintel revenues do not. They also require R&D expenditureF > whichgG > the Wintel revenues do not. In the Wintel space MS's license fees andeD > Intels processor prices include the R&D that Compaq do not need to > have to think about. >n >"	 > Regards  > Andrew Harrisonm > Enterprise IT Architectr   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 00:03:51 -0400y' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>i  Subject: Re: IA64 Rocks My World( Message-ID: <9ir4fg$t4l$1@pyrite.mv.net>  6 "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@compaq.com> wrote in messageL news:BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4AD7F06@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net...   ...b  H > There is now a definate trend towards "solutions" buying that includes fullI > support and integration with the operating system and applications intot > current environments.I  F And Compaq has just cut the head off its set of 'solutions' offerings.L Instead of becoming more like IBM (Capellas' stated direction in a couple of- recent statements), it's become more like CA.p   >eK > Heck, if pure performance was a mandatory requirement, Sun would not haveh, > anywhere near the market it currently has.  E As would also be the case if Compaq had anything like Sun's marketing J competence.  Or, worse, maybe it does, and all it had to do was be willing to apply it to Alpha.r   ...a  G > Imho, Compaq has chosen to take the post EV7 $'s that would have beeniI > required to keep up with what was perceived to be a declining margin ofnK > difference in performance (and you can argue with the Eng folks that werer% > involved if you want on that point)t  F I don't have to:  the only Alpha engineer we've actually heard from isI arguing on my side of this issue (as are more Bob Kaplow refers to in thei1 post responded to below - in case you missed it):s  4 news:4495ef1f.0107131853.68b45faa@posting.google.com   ...o  J > At the end of the day, shareholders will have to judge whether this is a& > good strategy for the future or not.  2 The customers will likely have some input as well.   - bill   >l
 > Regards, >i > Kerry Main > Senior Consultanta > Compaq Canada Inc. > Professional Servicesd > Voice: 613-592-4660t > Fax  :  819-772-7036 > Email: Kerry.Main@Compaq.com   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 23:47:26 -0500o% From: "Rich Jordan" <rjordan@mcs.net>a1 Subject: Re: InfoServer (was: VMS V7.3 SPD Error)i5 Message-ID: <Wb947.15561$j02.239011@news.goodnet.com>   K We wait with  breathless anticipation... please don't make us wait till they ipf port is finished though! :)a   Rich Jordan H rjordan@duodec.com (will forward to wherever I end up when mcs.net dies)  ! Hoff Hoffman wrote in message ...uK >In article <_il37.1268$IJ.153541@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "mulp"-) <michaelpettengill@earthlink.net> writes:0 >1 > .....0I >  The InfoServer client software for various platforms is on the OpenVMS I >  Freeware, and as soon as I can shake loose the keys for the InfoServeriH >  host options -- I have to get the code to generate these -- I'll postI >  them at the Freeware website.  (I finally have the clearance, just not6J >  enough cycles -- and I missed getting the keys onto the Freeware disk.) >l' > ---------------------------- #includea' <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------sK >      For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.coma+ > --------------------------- pure personalk# opinion ---------------------------w0 >   Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering hoffman#xdelta.zko.dec.com >    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:28:46 GMTiB From: Simon Clubley <simon_clubley@remove_me.excite.com-Earth.UFP>2 Subject: Re: IPF already needs a face-lift for VMS7 Message-ID: <yb047.19431$Kf3.251042@www.newsranger.com>;  , On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 19:47:48 GMT, in articleJ <009FEF3B.A15209E3@SendSpamHere.ORG>, Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman- wrote: >>} >In article <QAG37.18522$Kf3.242772@www.newsranger.com>, Simon Clubley <simon_clubley@remove_me.excite.com-Earth.UFP> writes:a >>M >>If I understand you correctly, and bearing in mind that I don't have accessaL >>to the VMS source listings, this means that a page that is writable by theL >>kernel only, but readable from user mode, cannot be represented in the IPF >>protection scheme. > 4 >You don't need access to the VMS source listings.   >pG >$ LIBRARY/MACRO/OUTPUT=SYS$OUTPUT SYS$LIBRARY:STARLET /EXTRACT=$PRTDEFK >c8 >will list the page protections available from VAX days. >,I >The protections are discussed in the I&DS and are visible if you look ateH >various structure and areas of VMS with an SDA SHOW {PROCESS/}PAGE com- >mand. a >a  K Thanks for the info. I knew that this was how it works on VAX, and thought,nM from the Alpha I&DS, that Alpha was the same, but after reading your message,tM I was now unsure that this _was_ how it worked on Alpha. (The IPF limitationsbN seem such a major area of incompatibility with Alpha, but nobody has commentedL on this before you, so I was wondering if Alpha VMS might have had to tackle! this issue already in some area.)e   >b >>, >>$ set response/mode=british_understatement >>= >>This would seem to be pretty fundamential to how VMS works.n >> >>$ set response/mode=normal >aC >Yeah.  I can think of one or two :) areas that might be affected. l   :-)   N The question now becomes: Are we going to see a decrease in VMS cross platformH compatibility when VMS is implemented on IPF, because limitations in theJ IPF architecture forces design tradeoffs that VMS has not had to deal with until now ?e  B I wonder what other IPF "features" are waiting to be discovered...   Simon.   -- i; Simon Clubley, simon_clubley@remove_me.excite.com-Earth.UFPrK Worrying idea #101: What if Microsoft goes into the Ada compiler business ?S   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 17:37:02 -0400o) From: "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca>e2 Subject: Re: IPF already needs a face-lift for VMS; Message-ID: <FY247.45716$RX6.3718150@news20.bellglobal.com>:  8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:r+vu102gWJeS@eisner.encompasserve.org...rJ > In article <OWK37.40397$RX6.3140276@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> writes:   > >5D > > Jean Luc Picard says "make it so" then some poor bastard down in( > > engineering has to create a miracle. > >l > # > (1)  See footnote... parody alertn >hA > Yeah... imagine the poor chaps that are sailing on the StarshipiD > Redmonian.  Wires everywhere, patches here, patches there and someB > kid went and slapped together a fix for the neutron retro-moduleB > and didn't write anything down and got off at the last port stopC > and never returned.  Meanwhile, Starship VMS has everything lined D > up code checked and well maintained.  Crew orderly , documentationA > in place and rules to be followed.  It isn't glamorous being onLA > a well run ship , (been there, done that... SSN-584) but it has  > its rewards. >a > Rob  >iI > (1)  Parody alert.. of course it isn't as bad as we imply at the Borg'stD > palace or they wouldn't be worth billions.  But VMS engineering is= > legendary and it isn't a fable you kids that are listening!h >   E Intel: We are the Borg. We will add your biological and technologicaliJ distinctiveness to our own. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile!  K Compaq: But our Alpha chip is faster and was created by free thinking humanw+ engineers who are not part of a collective.u  J Intel: Faster is irrelevant. Free thinking is irrelevant. The existence as% you know it is over. You must comply!y   Compaq: Okey-dokey!S  
 Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,w Ontario, Canada.! http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/ @ http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/compaq_memorial_site.html   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:01:26 -0400m) From: "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca>n2 Subject: Re: IPF already needs a face-lift for VMS; Message-ID: <wj347.45974$RX6.3726983@news20.bellglobal.com>   ? "Hoff Hoffman" <hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam> wrote in messaget, news:R8K37.714$rc5.47937@news.cpqcorp.net...J > In article <009FEF28.ED72735E@SendSpamHere.ORG>, system@SendSpamHere.ORG' (Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-) writes:tB > :Assuming the Itanium processor privilege levels of 0,1,2, and 3
 correspondI > :to kernel, executive, supervisor and user respectively, there are someK bigp> > :holes in the page protection scheme where VMS is concerned. >lH >   The OpenVMS Engineering exec team is aware of this, and expects thatI >   there is sufficient support within the existing IPF memory managementaI >   page protection design to implement the page protection settings thatyH >   are expected by OpenVMS itself, and by privileged-mode applications. >dK >   We (OpenVMS) presently appear to have several options that will provideiI >   the expected outer-mode read access to certain kernel-writable pages, " >   and we are investigating each. >t >e( >  ---------------------------- #include' <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------tL >       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.com, >  --------------------------- pure personal# opinion --------------------------- 1 >    Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineeringn hoffman#xdelta.zko.dec.com >/  - What bothers me about this situation is this:f  F 1. VAX and VMS were designed together and they complimented each otherL (processor modes, memory management protection schemes, etc). When Alpha wasK designed, DEC engineers made sure they had everything in the Alpha hardwarei@ necessary for existing software to work WITHOUT cutting corners.  J 2. Now it seems that OpenVMS engineers may need to shoe-horn the OS onto aK hardware architecture that may not be as complete as Alpha is (or VAX was).nH I've always had great respect for DEC engineering and if this port worksJ without cutting corners, then my hat will be off to you all because having= more hardware platforms for any software is always desirable.c  D p.s. Both PDP and VAX were designed with the intention that studentsG learning how to program in MACRO would crash their own sessions withoutoI affecting the OS or other users (the 1970's timeshare model). We all knowaK that this is not the case with IA-32 (make one mistake and you get the blueoH screen of death no matter which OS is running). It remains to be seen ifG more hardware protection schemes have been added to IA-64 for operatingsG systems to utilize, but right now I remain skeptical and you'll need tor/ prove it too me (and to my employer's company).w  
 Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,  Ontario, Canada.! http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/t   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 00:13:47 GMT = From: system@SendSpamHere.ORG (Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-)e2 Subject: Re: IPF already needs a face-lift for VMS0 Message-ID: <009FF029.F420CABF@SendSpamHere.ORG>  | In article <yb047.19431$Kf3.251042@www.newsranger.com>, Simon Clubley <simon_clubley@remove_me.excite.com-Earth.UFP> writes:- >On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 19:47:48 GMT, in articlesK ><009FEF3B.A15209E3@SendSpamHere.ORG>, Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman- wrote:i >>~ >>In article <QAG37.18522$Kf3.242772@www.newsranger.com>, Simon Clubley <simon_clubley@remove_me.excite.com-Earth.UFP> writes: >>>nN >>>If I understand you correctly, and bearing in mind that I don't have accessM >>>to the VMS source listings, this means that a page that is writable by theoM >>>kernel only, but readable from user mode, cannot be represented in the IPFy >>>protection scheme.r >>5 >>You don't need access to the VMS source listings.  o >>H >>$ LIBRARY/MACRO/OUTPUT=SYS$OUTPUT SYS$LIBRARY:STARLET /EXTRACT=$PRTDEF >>9 >>will list the page protections available from VAX days.u >>J >>The protections are discussed in the I&DS and are visible if you look atI >>various structure and areas of VMS with an SDA SHOW {PROCESS/}PAGE com-O >>mand.  >> >aL >Thanks for the info. I knew that this was how it works on VAX, and thought,N >from the Alpha I&DS, that Alpha was the same, but after reading your message,N >I was now unsure that this _was_ how it worked on Alpha. (The IPF limitationsO >seem such a major area of incompatibility with Alpha, but nobody has commentednM >on this before you, so I was wondering if Alpha VMS might have had to tacklea" >this issue already in some area.)  L On Alpha, one can specify the modes at which a page can be read and written.0 Read Protection: KESU     Write Protection: KESU  G So, for example, to implement UREW, the page protection is R: KESU W:KE    --O VAXman- OpenVMS APE certification number: AAA-0001     VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COMS            jJ   "And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery I   intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" -- Calvin & Hobbesa   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 00:25:51 GMTf= From: system@SendSpamHere.ORG (Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-)h2 Subject: Re: IPF already needs a face-lift for VMS0 Message-ID: <009FF02B.A3410C4F@SendSpamHere.ORG>  g In article <wj347.45974$RX6.3726983@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> writes:l >o@ >"Hoff Hoffman" <hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam> wrote in message- >news:R8K37.714$rc5.47937@news.cpqcorp.net...CK >> In article <009FEF28.ED72735E@SendSpamHere.ORG>, system@SendSpamHere.ORGa( >(Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-) writes:C >> :Assuming the Itanium processor privilege levels of 0,1,2, and 3a >correspond J >> :to kernel, executive, supervisor and user respectively, there are some >big? >> :holes in the page protection scheme where VMS is concerned.t >>I >>   The OpenVMS Engineering exec team is aware of this, and expects thataJ >>   there is sufficient support within the existing IPF memory managementJ >>   page protection design to implement the page protection settings thatI >>   are expected by OpenVMS itself, and by privileged-mode applications.m >>L >>   We (OpenVMS) presently appear to have several options that will provideJ >>   the expected outer-mode read access to certain kernel-writable pages,# >>   and we are investigating each.: >> >>) >>  ---------------------------- #includes( ><rtfaq.h> -----------------------------M >>       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.comS- >>  --------------------------- pure personalD$ >opinion ---------------------------2 >>    Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering >hoffman#xdelta.zko.dec.com  >> >m. >What bothers me about this situation is this: >iG >1. VAX and VMS were designed together and they complimented each othergM >(processor modes, memory management protection schemes, etc). When Alpha was L >designed, DEC engineers made sure they had everything in the Alpha hardwareA >necessary for existing software to work WITHOUT cutting corners.n > K >2. Now it seems that OpenVMS engineers may need to shoe-horn the OS onto aeL >hardware architecture that may not be as complete as Alpha is (or VAX was).I >I've always had great respect for DEC engineering and if this port workstK >without cutting corners, then my hat will be off to you all because havings> >more hardware platforms for any software is always desirable. > E >p.s. Both PDP and VAX were designed with the intention that studentseH >learning how to program in MACRO would crash their own sessions withoutJ >affecting the OS or other users (the 1970's timeshare model). We all knowL >that this is not the case with IA-32 (make one mistake and you get the blueI >screen of death no matter which OS is running). It remains to be seen ifuH >more hardware protection schemes have been added to IA-64 for operatingH >systems to utilize, but right now I remain skeptical and you'll need to0 >prove it too me (and to my employer's company).  H Stay tuned.  I'm perusing the IPF ARM in my *copious* free time and willG be reporting other shortcomings and pitfalls that I find in relation to I VMS "as we know it".  I would hate to have a port of VMS that echoes the s" refrain of a famous R.E.M. anthem.  I I was somewhat skeptical when the first vibrations of porting VMS to RISCeI were felt but when I got my first glimpse of the Alpha ARM, my skepticism J abated.  This time, however, it's different.  I've seen the IPF ARM and it is strange days indeed!u   --O VAXman- OpenVMS APE certification number: AAA-0001     VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COMl            nJ   "And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery I   intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" -- Calvin & HobbesI   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:14:26 -0400:- From: Michael Austin <miaustin@bellsouth.net>v# Subject: Re: Is there a WASD forum?r- Message-ID: <3B50C441.C8EC6588@bellsouth.net>    Doug Mallory wrote:i   > "D.Webb" wrote:n >si > > In article <3B4F2086.6BEDC582@Pachacamac.com>, Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Pachacamac.com> writes:w > > >D.t > > > I > > >PS: In case you do not know WASD, it *is* the ultimate VMS based WEBiJ > > >server, made in seven years :^) by a VMS expert for VMS, allowing CGI > > >scripting with... guess...o > > >s > > >s > > >DCL > > >g > > >t
 > > >(yes) > > >e" > > >Here: http://wasd.vsm.com.au/ > >a8 > > I thought that was the OSU Decthreads server      :) > >e; > > ( http://kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu/doc/serverinfo.html )n >u  i And if you want to make it "portable"  Use OpenVMS 7.2+ with Apache/Perl/Mod_Perl.  I have actually takengj PERL code written for a UNIX system and only had to make one change (ggrep -...to search/wind...).  I havei used most of the web servers for VMS including CERN (the first one), OSU, APACHE, PURVEYOR.  I even had arH DCL/SQL script that extracted data out of Rdb going back to version 5.1.     My 2c(USD) worth.a  $ Michael Austin    -- Still available2 DBA Consultant  -- Where did all the Rdb Shops go?     > >e > > David Webb > > VMS and unix team leader > > CCSS > > Middlesex University >sk > WASD is the best I have seen! OSU will not work on VMS 5.5-2 on a vax, but WASD will! It will work on any4& > VAX/AXP VMS level that I have tryed.a > I correctly run it on a microvax 3100 10e under 6.2 no problem! And yes.. DCL cgi scripting...!d   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 15:40:49 GMTn From: dittman@dittman.netl4 Subject: Looking for BA356 8-bit personality modulesA Message-ID: <5KZ37.27530$yb3.1082435@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com>6  8 Does anyone have any extra 8-bit personality modules for6 the BA356 wide shelf?  I need to connect a couple to a narrow controller. --   Eric Dittman dittman@dittman.netu   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 07:04:40 +0200j> From: "Jean-Francois Marchal" <jean-francois.marchal@x9000.fr>7 Subject: Re: Pathworks 6.0D on OpenVMS/vax 7.3 question . Message-ID: <9ir86o$noc$1@reader1.imaginet.fr>  # This may be a licensing problem ...dA Check your license on the PC (You can rename the pwliclm.dat filer> to force PWRK to acquire a new license). You should also checkA with admin/license ... some licenses might be improperly assigned ! to users that don't exist anymore   
 Jean-Franois   G "Freddy Meerwaldt" <frederik@freddym.org> a crit dans le message news:f> Pine.LNX.4.21.0107132031530.918-100000@firewall.freddym.org... > Hi!t >hG > I'm not often replying to my own post - but I have to (in this case).l >aG > > I've recently installed Pathworks 6.0D on a VAXstation 3100 runninge OpenVMS/vax 7.3.D > > I want to use it as a primary domain contoller in a high school.L > > I've set up the server properly(???) but every time I try to log on from? a Windows 98 machine into the Domain I get the following error:p > > 8 > > Network Device Type is incorrect - please try again. >e, > I know (at least) _where_ this comes from.K > I have defined a logon script (add user xyz /script=xyz.bat), which he is  > trying to execute.D > If I remove the script (/noscript), I can log in without problems.L > But I want to connect to the Network Share on the VAX I can't (the Network- > Device Type is incorrect problem persists).a@ > I've tried connecting from a Linux box but had no luck either.. > But on the Linux box I got more information:J > - The error mentioned above means, that I'm trying to mount a file share# > as a printer share or vice versa.u >rJ > I've tried creating my own share, but I can neither get to my own share, > nor to the NETLOGON share. >tC > So it seems the problem is related to sharing - not to the Domainu > Controlling... > Many thanks in advance,> > Freddy >h > --J > Geek Code 3.1: GCS s+: a--- C+++ UBOU+++ P-- E--- W++ N w--- V++ PGP- t? 5? tvU >YL > ==========================================================================F >  Frederik Meerwaldt  ICQ: 83045387  Homepage: http://www.freddym.orgE >  Bavaria/Germany              OpenVMS and Unix Howtos and much more K >  Solaris, HP/UX, AIX, NetBSD, OpenBSD, IRIX, Tru64, OpenVMS, Ultrix, BeOS. >k   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 16:03:43 -0400t+ From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@compaq.com>r- Subject: RE: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64wR Message-ID: <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4AD7F04@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>   Bill,p  5 >>> E.g., Kerry Main (VMS Ambassador from Canada).<<<s  A I understand you are frustrated with the decision that was taken.i  L There is obviously a lot of speculation as to what will be the real plans inG moving forward and as Fred, Hoff and other Eng folks have stated, theseeH plans and roadmaps will be unveiled as soon as Eng (VMS and HW) and Mgmt* determines they are comfortable with them.  I I think I have been pretty clear in any of my postings that we need to betK careful with pure speculation and wait for the real messages and roadmaps. e  K In the meantime, please do not try and misquote me and use any role I mighto3 have in Compaq to suit your own personal purposes. o   Thank you. o  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultantc Compaq Canada Inc. Professional Servicesr Voice: 613-592-4660i Fax  :  819-772-7036 Email: Kerry.Main@Compaq.com     -----Original Message-----, From: Bill Todd [mailto:billtodd@foo.mv.com] Sent: July 13, 2001 5:30 PMp To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.ComF- Subject: Re: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64       @ "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote in message, news:J2G37.693$rc5.47437@news.cpqcorp.net...   ..  > > We speculate all we want about how more EV8 would have cost,  F We don't have to speculate:  Winkler already provided a current annualK development cost figure - $300 million - which given the context appears tonI be an upper bound (eetimes having estimated it at about half that and our.% own Terry coming in at $250 million).h    or EV9.  H I don't know what EV9 would have cost (and suspect neither do you).  ButL that would have been a bridge to cross *after* making the effort to drive up? Alpha volumes (especially VMS volumes, since VMS was by far theaH most-neglected stepchild - and exactly what reason do we have to believe* that this won't continue to be the case?).  J The time to kill Alpha would have been *after* it had been determined whatL its market potential was, not before.  All we know now is that its potentialJ annual *profit* exceeded its annual development cost by well over an orderK of magnitude (since VMS/Tru64 profits appear to have been about an order ofdK magnitude higher than its annual development cost right now, depending uponbL which development cost figures you believe) - and that dropping it will haveK some significant short-term cost to its VMS and Tru64 platforms (the formeri. of which is hardly in any position to pay it).     Theh) > decision was made that it was too high.n   So we've heard.   %   And from what little I know of someeG > of what went on, this wasn't a pointy-haired boss driven analysis ando > decision.o  L I don't really care if it was decided by Martians.  What I've yet to hear is any rational basis for it.   >tK > I'd be more than a little suprised if Intel were to kill the IA64 ISA andaH > replace it with the Alpha ISA (not that I wouldn't be happy).  I think thisK > is just wishful thinking turned into idle speculation by Internet drones.F  . E.g., Kerry Main (VMS Ambassador from Canada).  J > Internally, we are planning to port to the IPF ISA, not to some mythical
 > hybrid ISA.a >wK > All I was trying to say here, is that by the time the transition happens,<H > during the EV7 lifetime, my guess is that IPF will be very competetive with5 > Alpha and Power, and the rest will all trail badly.o  G You said it quite clearly, and I responded.  Note that you're still notpF saying that Alpha couldn't retain a substantial performance lead if it1 continued on its previous schedule (and I agree).      If Intel and WindowsI > are driving volume on the processor and support giblets, it's likely tor have' > a substantial system price advantage.   J My impression was that EV7 had already inhaled most of the differentiatingL support giblets right into the processor chip.  In which case Alpha would beK in an excellent position to ride the volume economy-of-scale cost coattails ; of the rest of the board components, right along with IA64.e  J That leaves the per-processor cost differential.  At current Alpha volume,E Terry has credibly estimated Alpha's development-cost burden at about F $500/processor.  With any kind of marketing from Compaq, that at leastL halves.  Current IA64 per-processor development-cost burdens likely approachK the GNP of some small countries, and that situation won't improve that muchmK until McKinley starts shipping - at which point we'll at least start to see K just how much of a juggernaut IA64 really can be (of course, with Alpha outm of the way, that can't hurt).t  E But since the upper limit of IA64's per-processor advantage (with any K significant Alpha marketing) would have been $250, for the mid-range-and-upnF systems that are the meat-and-potatoes of Alpha sales the system priceJ difference is indetectible (vendors would pay more taking prospects out to dinner).  $   I think you underestimate how much! > they can push the speed of IPF.t  L And exactly what information do you base that on?  Does it take the existingK clocking problems IA64 has into account?  Does it allow for the differencestK between the architectures Intel has successfully speeded up and EPIC?  Does H it allow for the relatively higher difficulty in incorporating into EPICJ many of the techniques Intel has used (and Alpha has used/planned to use)?L Does it allow for the absence of a performance-enhancement roadmap for EPIC,I even in the relatively short term (as contrasted with the well-mapped-outt' "How we can get there" plan for Alpha)?o   >rK > I know in other forums/threads you have argued that IA64 will not replacet  > the IA32.  I tend to disagree.  I I've given some pretty good reasons for my opinion on this subject.  WhatnI have you got to offer besides the belief that Intel would like to migrate H people (an opinion I agree with) and that Microsoft would as well (a farL less tenable suggestion:  it's likely in Microsoft's interests not to, givenL the threat Linux poses if Microsoft abandons the existing IA32 platform base out there)?w  .   I think that Intel and MS will push the IA64K > down into the IA32 market.  Face it - nobody needed or wanted Windows 98,   J I did:  Win95 was flakier (though networking is still far from solid, it'sL at least better) and didn't support several things I was interested in (USB,F FAT32 - well, I bought a grey-market Win95 OSR2 to use as an upgrade).    orn > even W2K,c  J Businesses wanted Win2K because it's solider at things NT was a bit shakeyK about.  What they're having problems with are things like the impact of new " features such as Active Directory.    or worse WXP,  L And there's some indication that the market is balking here:  many customersK don't like the rental-software model and don't see any compelling reason toTK move there.  That's likely going to be on Microsoft's mind when considering J any other steps (e.g., abandoning the IA32 platform sales base) that might* hurt its income and yield market to Linux.  5  I'm still running W95 (grudgingly from W3.1) because J > I still have win16 apps around.  But even though I'm happy with stickingJ > with the buggy old (but predictable) W95, I will eventually be forced toI > abandon it.  Just like eventually the same thing will happen with IA32.s  L "Eventually" everything we know today will be history.  What matters is what we do in the interim.,  L But a migration to a different architecture is hardly "just like" a software upgrade.  Ask your customers.    - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 17:41:04 -0400 ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>m- Subject: Re: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64R( Message-ID: <9iqe1p$fj3$1@pyrite.mv.net>  6 "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@compaq.com> wrote in messageL news:BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4AD7F04@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net...   ...i  K > I think I have been pretty clear in any of my postings that we need to beaL > careful with pure speculation and wait for the real messages and roadmaps.  J I've seen a couple of such suggestions from you, but only *very* recently.G Whereas not at all long ago, we have posts from you like the following:a     6/26:   G "... it should be available on cheaper hardware IA64-2 (or whatever the<3 Alpha enhanced IA64 platform is called) platforms."h   And in another post:  H "Hey - it was a surprise to me as well, but Compaq has announced a majorF OpenVMS investment in porting it to a new combined Alpha/IA64 platformL (providing very fast EV7 AlphaServers until the new platform is ready) along& with its other mission critical OS's."     6/27:>  L "Even if the IA64-2 was late, would it not make sense to offer an EV7+ speedJ bump in the exact same manner as what HP did with their PA architecture ?"  / And in a separate (but rather repetitive) post:a  J "If IA64-2 were delayed, the EV7 work could be considered to be incompelte and a speed bump planned."  I And then, backing off a bit when I called your references to "IA64-2" andc? something like "a new combined Alpha/IA64 platform" 'bullshit':   J "The reference to IA64-2 is simply to reflect the fact that OpenVMS, Tru64K and NSK are not slated to be ported and run on todays intial release of the>A IA64 platform, but rather a followon version of the architecture.-  K "As stated numerous times in the releases, todays IA64 technologies will betI integrated and upgraded with Alpha technologies to allow these OS's to be- ported."    L Even as recently as 7/6 you were still suggesting that IA64 changes would be made for the VMS port:  F "The OpenVMS Eng folks have a great deal of experience in dealing withJ porting issues and mixed cluster support, so I am confident that with themK working closely with the Alpha EV8 team that is going to work with Intel on,K improving the Itanium architecture, any technical issues will be resolved."g    L Care to discuss those assertions (which we now see were purely speculations)
 with Fred?   > G > In the meantime, please do not try and misquote me and use any role I  mightr4 > have in Compaq to suit your own personal purposes.  K I don't have to misquote you, Kerry:  you provide plenty of material that IpK can use verbatim.  Would you like me to post some of the even more explicituF assertions about the Alpha content of future IA64 implementations that you've circulated via email?   - bill   >w > Thank you. >  > Kerry Main > Senior Consultanto > Compaq Canada Inc. > Professional Servicest > Voice: 613-592-4660  > Fax  :  819-772-7036 > Email: Kerry.Main@Compaq.com   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 21:35:00 -0400l+ From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@compaq.com>n- Subject: RE: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64eR Message-ID: <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4AD7F05@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>   Bill,w  7 re: what Fred stated vs what you think I have stated ..n  G Hey, you are picking up some of Andrews tricks - like trying to drive a G stake between what one person says and another in an attempt to somehowsK discredit both people. "He said", "you said", "Compaq said" .... hopefully,r6 this does not become a habit. It can be very annoying.  K Just so you don't go and continue running around saying "see what Compaq isR1 saying".. the following is pure personal opinion.t  J Perhaps I am missing something (and that is certainly possible) but, basedK on my understanding of what has been published publicly, the IPF plan is toPG integrate some Alpha (assume EV8 since that is the team going to Intel) 8 technologies into future generations of the IPF family.   
 Reference:D http://www.compaq.com/hps/ipf-enterprise/openvms.html (see "customer presentation" half way down)  	 Slide 10:-E - Compaq technology addition to ItaniumT Processor Family engineeringuL ensures the performance, availability, and scalability that are at the heart of Compaq 64-bit servers  	 Slide 18:lH - Optimizations transfer as Alpha compilers become the Itanium Processor Family standardD> - Single set of OpenVMS sources support both Alpha and Itanium  K My references to IA64-2 in previous replies were simply to reflect a future F generation (post Madison) of the IPF family which, based on the postedI public info (see presentation), and yes, my personal assumption, includesgK some tbd specific Alpha enhancements ie. what Intel calls "Next Generation" 5 after Madison in slide 12 of the above presentation. e   Could I be wrong ? Absolutely. .  J It would certainly not be the first time, and it will certainly not be the last either.  G >>> Even as recently as 7/6 you were still suggesting that IA64 changesN  would be made for the VMS port:"  I Re-read my answer. I stated that VMS Engineering would be able to resolvefK any technical difficulties by working with the HW folks. That does not mean  changes to an architecture.   K Geez, do you know of any OS Engineering team that does not have discussionsuH with the HW folks to discuss SW alternatives, adaptations, optimizations etc?  C However, as I have stated before, we need to wait until more formaliJ technical plans are in place to really understand what is happening. These: are the plans that Eng and Mgmt are currently working on.   K Lets not continue with the mental gymnastics and speculations, and wait for0 the formal technical plans.e   Regards,  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant- Compaq Canada Inc. Professional Services: Voice: 613-592-4660t Fax  :  819-772-7036 Email: Kerry.Main@Compaq.com     -----Original Message-----, From: Bill Todd [mailto:billtodd@foo.mv.com] Sent: July 14, 2001 5:41 PMa To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Comm- Subject: Re: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64n      6 "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@compaq.com> wrote in messageL news:BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4AD7F04@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net...   ..  K > I think I have been pretty clear in any of my postings that we need to bejL > careful with pure speculation and wait for the real messages and roadmaps.  J I've seen a couple of such suggestions from you, but only *very* recently.G Whereas not at all long ago, we have posts from you like the following:q     6/26:l  G "... it should be available on cheaper hardware IA64-2 (or whatever theb3 Alpha enhanced IA64 platform is called) platforms."m   And in another post:  H "Hey - it was a surprise to me as well, but Compaq has announced a majorF OpenVMS investment in porting it to a new combined Alpha/IA64 platformL (providing very fast EV7 AlphaServers until the new platform is ready) along& with its other mission critical OS's."     6/27:   L "Even if the IA64-2 was late, would it not make sense to offer an EV7+ speedJ bump in the exact same manner as what HP did with their PA architecture ?"  / And in a separate (but rather repetitive) post:c  J "If IA64-2 were delayed, the EV7 work could be considered to be incompelte and a speed bump planned."  I And then, backing off a bit when I called your references to "IA64-2" andl? something like "a new combined Alpha/IA64 platform" 'bullshit':g  J "The reference to IA64-2 is simply to reflect the fact that OpenVMS, Tru64K and NSK are not slated to be ported and run on todays intial release of thetA IA64 platform, but rather a followon version of the architecture.c  K "As stated numerous times in the releases, todays IA64 technologies will betI integrated and upgraded with Alpha technologies to allow these OS's to be  ported."    L Even as recently as 7/6 you were still suggesting that IA64 changes would be made for the VMS port:  F "The OpenVMS Eng folks have a great deal of experience in dealing withJ porting issues and mixed cluster support, so I am confident that with themK working closely with the Alpha EV8 team that is going to work with Intel onUK improving the Itanium architecture, any technical issues will be resolved."=    L Care to discuss those assertions (which we now see were purely speculations)
 with Fred?   > G > In the meantime, please do not try and misquote me and use any role IH mightn4 > have in Compaq to suit your own personal purposes.  K I don't have to misquote you, Kerry:  you provide plenty of material that IaK can use verbatim.  Would you like me to post some of the even more explicitcF assertions about the Alpha content of future IA64 implementations that you've circulated via email?   - bill   >e > Thank you. >> > Kerry Main > Senior Consultant( > Compaq Canada Inc. > Professional Servicesd > Voice: 613-592-4660h > Fax  :  819-772-7036 > Email: Kerry.Main@Compaq.com   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 23:49:16 -0400a' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>t- Subject: Re: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64 ( Message-ID: <9ir3k5$snt$1@pyrite.mv.net>  6 "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@compaq.com> wrote in messageL news:BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4AD7F05@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net... > Bill,o >n9 > re: what Fred stated vs what you think I have stated ..t >,I > Hey, you are picking up some of Andrews tricks - like trying to drive aqI > stake between what one person says and another in an attempt to somehowr > discredit both people.  I Not at all:  I respect Fred's technical credentials and integrity (thoughmL he's not exactly impartial in his support for what I suspect he views as the9 inevitable).  I don't feel at all the same way about you.o  
  "He said"   He did, indeed.:   , "you said"  F You did, indeed - multiple times, and well after I'd told you you were! wrong.  That's called propaganda.3   , "Compaq said" .... hopefully,.8 > this does not become a habit. It can be very annoying.   Then stop screwing up.  F As for your protestations about obtaining your information from CompaqJ announcements, I'll say the same thing I said over two weeks ago:  show usL an *Intel* document that specifies some plan to 'merge' any aspects of AlphaH into IA64 - Compaq can say anything (and often does), but Intel owns the/ architecture whose future you're talking about.h   - bill   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2001.389 ************************