1 INFO-VAX	Wed, 18 Jul 2001	Volume 2001 : Issue 395       Contents:. A equivalent "daemon" for SYSLOGD in OpenVMS ?2 Re: A equivalent "daemon" for SYSLOGD in OpenVMS ? Re: Alpha - Intel and VMS 5 Re: Alpha fiasco looses $30M deal to IBM in Singapore 5 Re: Alpha fiasco looses $30M deal to IBM in Singapore ( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( RE: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate( Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate, Re: Ancient VMS distributions for hobbyists?, Re: Ancient VMS distributions for hobbyists?* ANNOUNCE: xmcd 3.0 pl1 X11/Motif CD player) Anyone using SQLassist and RS/1 together? ! Re: Attunity Connect and Oracle 8 ! Re: Attunity Connect and Oracle 8 ! Re: Basic questions from a newbie + Re: Check out the Wall Street Journal today + Re: Check out the Wall Street Journal today + Re: Check out the Wall Street Journal today + Re: Check out the Wall Street Journal today + Re: Check out the Wall Street Journal today + Re: Check out the Wall Street Journal today + Re: Check out the Wall Street Journal today # Compaq & Encompass Event in Atlanta ! Re: Compaq have committed suicide ! Re: Compaq have committed suicide $ Re: Compaq proves their incompetence2 Re: Compaq's Road to IPF: A Twenty-Question SurveyD Re: Compilers go to Intel, hobbyist, CSLG, etc. goes out the window?2 Re: DCL code will break in Alpha -> IPF migration?2 Re: DCL code will break in Alpha -> IPF migration?, DEC C Doc of lib$routines.h and descriptor.h0 Re: DEC C Doc of lib$routines.h and descriptor.hA Re: DEC-Intel lawsuit (was: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate) A Re: DEC-Intel lawsuit (was: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate)   Re: Full port of VMS to Itanium.) Re: Help - Get OpenVMS screen data by ASP  IA64 Discussion stuff  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: IA64 volume and low-end dominance  Re: InfoServer Re: ISV's and VMS future Re: ISV's and VMS future5 Re: Need help with data recovery on failed volume set 5 Re: Need help with data recovery on failed volume set 5 Re: Need help with data recovery on failed volume set  Re: No chance for OpenVMS B Re: OpenVMS on IPF (was re: IPF already needs a face-lift for VMS)B Re: OpenVMS on IPF (was re: IPF already needs a face-lift for VMS)B Re: OpenVMS on IPF (was re: IPF already needs a face-lift for VMS)B Re: OpenVMS on IPF (was re: IPF already needs a face-lift for VMS)B Re: OpenVMS on IPF (was re: IPF already needs a face-lift for VMS) Re: Optical Drive for OpenVMS  Oracle dead on VMS?  Re: Oracle dead on VMS?  Re: OT: Dr Who. " Re: Penance for Compaq's VMS sins?" Re: Penance for Compaq's VMS sins?" Re: Penance for Compaq's VMS sins?A Re: Possibly a dumb question on TCPIP settings for 2 IP Addresses  Re: RA7x series disks  Re: RA7x series disks  Re: RA7x series disks  Remote Console Re: Remote Console9 Rescheduled OpenVMS Diamond Forum for Northern California = Re: Rescheduled OpenVMS Diamond Forum for Northern California = Re: Rescheduled OpenVMS Diamond Forum for Northern California 8 Re: Returning a value from a C program to a DCL variable8 Re: Returning a value from a C program to a DCL variableI Re: ScanMail Message: To Sender,sensitive content found and action taken.  Re: SS$_GSDFULL ( Re: Sun's take on Compaq's announcement.$ Re: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64$ Re: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64$ Re: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64$ Re: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64$ Re: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64$ Re: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64$ Re: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64- What will Microsoft do about Compaq / Intel ? 1 Re: What will Microsoft do about Compaq / Intel ? 1 Re: What will Microsoft do about Compaq / Intel ? 1 Re: What will Microsoft do about Compaq / Intel ?  What's a DCL kind of guy to do? ) [DWMOTIF V1.2-6] VAX EURO patch missing ? & [MOTIF V1.2-6] XDM no longer working ?* Re: [MOTIF V1.2-6] XDM no longer working ?* Re: [MOTIF V1.2-6] XDM no longer working ?  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 17 Jul 2001 14:45:28 -07000 From: fabio.becherini@ufrgs.br (Fabio Becherini)7 Subject: A equivalent "daemon" for SYSLOGD in OpenVMS ? : Message-ID: <70cf0643.0107171345.845ee@posting.google.com>   Hi !  %         The environment that we have:   9   DIGITAL TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS Alpha Version V5.0A 1   on a AlphaServer 800 5/500 running OpenVMS V7.2   3         In Unix there is a daemon called "syslogd", -         I think it's similar to OPCOM in VMS, #         but I'm not shure about it.   3         For those of you that "live" in the two OS, ,         VMS and Unix, is it possible to have(         our "very_secure_openvms_system"(         logging in the events of several4         Unix machines, acting as a "syslog server" ?           Best regards,   3                            Fabio.Becherini@ufrgs.br    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:31:47 GMT 2 From: hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam (Hoff Hoffman); Subject: Re: A equivalent "daemon" for SYSLOGD in OpenVMS ? 2 Message-ID: <n1357.901$rc5.63492@news.cpqcorp.net>  m In article <70cf0643.0107171345.845ee@posting.google.com>, fabio.becherini@ufrgs.br (Fabio Becherini) writes:   4 :        In Unix there is a daemon called "syslogd",  G   A syslogd tool is available for OpenVMS, try a [insert your favorite  G   search engine URL here] search -- you should have no trouble finding  E   one of the webservers that offers up the tool with a string such as    "syslogd vms" or some such...   N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------N       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.com    N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------L    Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoffman#xdelta.zko.dec.com   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:19:44 -0600  From: yyyc186@mindspring.com" Subject: Re: Alpha - Intel and VMS; Message-ID: <3b551c9b$2$lllp186$mr2ice@nntp.mindspring.com>   9 In <wan37.633$rc5.42459@news.cpqcorp.net>, on 07/12/2001  B    at 03:48 PM, "Sue Skonetski" <susan.skonetski@compaq.com> said:  B >I just wanted to let you know that at CETS there will be sessionsD >covering the decision around this decision and the Compaq corporateI >roadmaps.  Dave Fenwick will be doing this session, additionally the VMS F >(Clair Grant and Hoff) and Tru64 group will be doing sessions as well> >around the port.  These are bound to be interesting sessions.    I /action Ponders:  Tru64 and a roadmap....is this the gas station bathroom > listed as "avoid at all costs" on the Ammoco Restroom Roadmap?   Roland --  ; -----------------------------------------------------------  yyyc186@mindspring.com; -----------------------------------------------------------    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:23:53 -0400 2 From: "Sue Skonetski" <susan.skonetski@compaq.com>> Subject: Re: Alpha fiasco looses $30M deal to IBM in Singapore2 Message-ID: <KV257.900$rc5.63403@news.cpqcorp.net>  2 Just letting everyone know that this was not true. It was a rumor/    Sue     4 "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> wrote in message4 news:I0g27.5585$gb6.1031322@news20.bellglobal.com...J > Compaq looses $30M deal to IBM (in Singapore) because of Alpha's demise? > ) > http://www.theinquirer.net/09070107.htm  > J > If this fact is true and more deals fall through, then Capellas could goE > down in flames at the next shareholder's meeting (but with a golden K > parachute the size of the Alpha Microprocessor Division's annual budget).  I I > still don't understand why Compaq didn't decide to support/develop both L > Alpha and IA-64 (eg. HP: PA-RISC and IA-xx, IBM: PowerPC and IA-xx, etc.). > K > Mikey: It's not too late to change your mind about killing Alpha! You can H > save face by saying that this is the recommendation of the newly hired > marketing consultants. >  >  > Neil Rieck > Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,  > Ontario, Canada.# > http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/ B > http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/compaq_memorial_site.html >  >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 01:56:43 -0400 2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger)> Subject: Re: Alpha fiasco looses $30M deal to IBM in SingaporeL Message-ID: <rdeininger-1807010156440001@user-2iveb1s.dialup.mindspring.com>  B In article <KV257.900$rc5.63403@news.cpqcorp.net>, "Sue Skonetski"# <susan.skonetski@compaq.com> wrote:   4 > Just letting everyone know that this was not true. > It was a rumor/    Thanks for stepping on it!  C The inquirer did publish a quasi-retraction a few days later, which   someone (Terry?) mentioned here.  E Strangely, there was much less discussion here of the retraction than I there was of the original rumor.  I guess that's why sleazy rumor-mongers  are so successfull.    --   Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.com    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:59:48 GMT ( From: jeffreyb@gwu.edu (Jeffrey Boulier)1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate 3 Message-ID: <o2%47.212$We7.2194@grover.nit.gwu.edu>   ( In article <3b54659d@news.kapsch.co.at>,+ Peter LANGSTOEGER <eplan@kapsch.net> wrote:  >Agreed./ >But if it happens, then it is too late for Q ! 8 >Migrate VMS again to POWER ? Nobody will wait for it...  I I wouldn't be surprised if they did. VMS customers tend to be locked into G VMS. OS migration is painful, architecture migration is a heck of a lot ? less so. Numerous other operating systems have been forced into B incompatible CPU migrations in rapid succession because they choseH processors on the losing side of the performance wars; e.g. Stratus VOS J found itself on the i860 (?) before moving to the HP-PA, and DG/UX was on   the 88K before escaping to IA32.  @ An alternative is the path taken by Wang and a few other of the I traditional mainframe/minicomputer vendors; keep your current processor,  K but stop chasing the performance curve. Every so often do a shrink, or add  I something newfangled like an L2 cache, and charge a heap of money for it.   J I think that Digital for a while took both options with VMS -- didn't theyF produce at least one "extra" generation of VAX after they released theK Alpha? The PDP-11 and PDP-10 lines found themselves with choice #2, and as  J a matter of fact I think that XKL is still making its TOAD PDP-10 clones, F and there is at least one company out there producing blindingly fast D PDP-11-on-a-PC-card systems. Or at least relatively blindingly fast.  F Then there is the completely idiotic PR1ME approach, which was to keepE attempting to produce a processor somewhere close to the leading edge F until nearly bankrupt, then give up entirely. This left a fairly largeH 50-series customer base, who would probably have been willing to pay forF upgraded systems, up the creek without a paddle. [And given there wereH more than enough customers that they made PrimeOS Y2k compliant 10 yearsE later, I think we can say definitively that completely abandoning the < hardware was a stupid move without being accused of armchair quarterbacking.]   			Yours Truly,  			Jeffrey Boulier --   Community Source & Support   ------=>Prometheus<=------   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:27:39 -0400 ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> 1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate ( Message-ID: <9j23bb$pte$1@pyrite.mv.net>  ? "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote in message 4 news:_z_47.423$N21.426680@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net... > 9 > "Peter LANGSTOEGER" <eplan@kapsch.net> wrote in message $ > news:3b54727f@news.kapsch.co.at...   ...   4 > > Choosing INTEL or IBM shouldn't be the question.% > > Choosing Alpha or INTEL should be ? > > and the answer should have been "my own platform of course"  > >  > J > I agree, but the combination of nearly a decade of marketing malfeasance and I > strategic blunders led to an economically unsustainable Alpha business.   G Terry, Compaq's own numbers prove that the above is a complete crock of L shit, and every time you try to shovel it out I'll be there to remind peopleG of this.  I'm really disgusted by the actions of Compaq's apologists in H promulgating its Big Lie(s), and I suspect I'm by no means alone in this
 sentiment.  I The only possible scenario under which it would be true is if one assumed K *continued* marketing neglect of Alpha and its systems.  That was something 8 100% under Compaq's control, and hence no justification.   > G > With Alpha off the RISC playing field, the question is, "who's next?"   8 For many Alpha customers, I suspect the answer is "IBM".   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:33:31 -0400 ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> 1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate ( Message-ID: <9j23mb$qet$1@pyrite.mv.net>  ? "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote in message 4 news:0NZ47.391$N21.400942@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...   ...    > A fitting obituary indeed!  J And one major reason many of us hope soon to be dancing on Compaq's grave.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:10:30 -0400 ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> 1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate ( Message-ID: <9j25rn$s3d$1@pyrite.mv.net>  @ "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote in message, news:uAY47.847$rc5.60851@news.cpqcorp.net...J > The most dominant CPU architecture in the world is arguably the ugliest,4 > least loved architecture ever developed - the x86. > 1 > Sparc sucks, and Sun sells 'em by the boatload.   K Makes you wonder what Compaq could have done with Alpha had it applied even / a fraction of its vaunted marketing competence.   E Which was my point:  Alpha could have had significantly more than its J already-profitable market share had Compaq had any interest in making thatK happen.  Which makes it obvious that the decision to drop Alpha had nothing  to do with profitability.   A Conspiracy theorists favor an evil alliance aimed at Wintel world ; domination, with Compaq as the faithful (to Wintel, anyway) @ rider-of-the-coattails.  I tend to chalk it up to simple (thoughK stupifyingly utter) incompetence - total failure to understand the value of L technology they did not wish to deal with coupled with the perceived comfortE of returning to their earlier existence as a mere box-assembler.  The L phase-out of BCSD and transfer of responsibility to ISSG would be consistentJ with either explanation (I think that's public knowledge now; if not, I'll5 let my source decide whether to expose *his* source).e   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:19:20 -0400o' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>l1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicatee( Message-ID: <9j26c9$sbn$1@pyrite.mv.net>  ? "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote in messageo4 news:VTZ47.394$N21.404592@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...   ...l  J > Complexity is another issue. Piling wider issue and SMT on top of out of> > order execution makes for a daunting architectural exercise.  E Which elegantly leverages the synergies between OOO and SMT, has been K carefully scoped out for years now, and is (or was) nearing completion.  AslK contrasted with trying to cruft all this onto an architecture that up until 8 now has been heading in an entirely different direction.    To proceed andiH > succeed with EV8, Compaq would have required incremental staffing and, quiteu# > likely, a waiver of Murphy's Law.c  F Bullshit.  Not to mention that to 'proceed and succeed' with a shotgunK marriage of EPIC and Alpha's SMT work in anything less than triple the timenK it would have taken to get EV8 out the door will require a Fucking Miracle.h   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 20:19:04 GMTh= From: system@SendSpamHere.ORG (Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-)c1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicatee0 Message-ID: <009FF264.A8D2DBB3@SendSpamHere.ORG>  q In article <0NZ47.391$N21.400942@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>, "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> writes:e >eK >"Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-" <system@SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote in messagea+ >news:009FF22B.42FD96BE@SendSpamHere.ORG...  >> >J >> >Alpha won a great many hearts, from what we've seen on Usenet over the >pastlJ >> >few weeks.  What it lacked were anything like commensurate sales - and >thatlJ >> >was not Alpha's fault, but its owner's for lackadaisical marketing and >(as0 >> >we now know) highly-questionable commitment. >>K >> I have a clipping from a magazine called "Computer World" that was givennL >> to my by a friend.  It's dated September 19, 1994 and the column title isK >> "Alpha may not win, but it's the best".  The author of this article backa >> then predicted: >>L >> "Despite its many strengths, Alpha may be the case of superior technologyK >>  that does not win out.  It is carrying the millstone of Digital's busi-cK >>  ness problems as it tries to win new adherents.  But win, lose or draw,oJ >>  the principles around which Alpha was built will continue to influence' >>  computer design for years to come."a >>I >> Gee, there was a lot of truth in that one paragraph.  Alpha influenced K >> Pentium design via intel's patent rip-offs.  Digital's business problemsiK >> -- which are also Compaq's -- have succeeded in killing off the greatestlI >> technology going.  Alpha, already in 1994, had won the hearts of thoselK >> using it and it was the envy of those not using it or producing it!  So,i2 >> let's stop trying to denegrate it posthumously. >> >  >A fitting obituary indeed!n >e >i >r
 Thanks Terry.e --O VAXman- OpenVMS APE certification number: AAA-0001     VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COMl            tJ   "And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery I   intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" -- Calvin & Hobbes    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:42:41 -0400 ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>m1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate ' Message-ID: <9j27o2$9f$1@pyrite.mv.net>   @ "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote in message, news:ovY47.845$rc5.60834@news.cpqcorp.net...L > If I had been part of the Alpha chip design team, I would feel exactly theF > same way.  I would be absolutely sure that we could have kept up our > performance lead.a  E Then where do you suppose Compaq got the idea that its engineers were , telling them something completely different?  0 'Fabrication' indeed seems the appropriate term.  6   I guess the question must have come down to "at what > cost".  L Only if you first assume Compaq was lying about being able to keep up at all' (not a very difficult assumption, IMO).o  G And when you then examine the costs, the major one appears to have beenoK continuing to depend on a core competence that Compaq was not eager to own,r' rather than any issue of profitability.s   > F > Look at how long it took to get the 1GHz CPU's out there.  It wasn't becausepJ > the Alpha deigners couldn't design it.  Look how long it took to get EV6 outuL > there to begin with.  Look how long it's taken to get the initial EV7s out@ > there - it's not because Pete and his team couldn't design it.  C No - it appears mostly to have been due to non-technical managementnJ incompetence:  shuffles, layoffs, far from reassuring levels of commitment( causing good people to leave in disgust.  F Again, mostly from factors completely under Compaq's control.  And yetI *still* Alpha remains at the top of the performance heap, and shows everylB sign of having been able to remain there - if Compaq wanted it to.     What's the. > cost per-chip going to be for EV7?  For EV8?  H Most serious businesses place a greater emphasis on profit.  And there'sJ every indication that EV7 and EV8 would have been highly profitable, givenL any effort at all to market them - especially when compared with the profits= likely to be generated from the fraction of customers who areM  7 a) willing to stick with Compaq at all after this *and*i  J b) willing to accept the prospect of a lower-performance hardware platform) than they could have had with Alpha *and*-  L c) willing to commit their businesses to operating systems with, at least inF the short term, a shrinking user base (since until the ports have beenH completed new business will come only from customers willing to purchase! already-declared-dying hardware).I   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:54:47 -0400r- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>s1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicates, Message-ID: <3B54A616.C42F79E7@videotron.ca>   Robert Deininger wrote: G > In a decade or two, some company that's currently tiny and obscure is L > going to stomp microsoft into the dirt, unless microsoft changes its ways.  N That had been predicted of IBM. IBM may no longer have a monopoly status as itM used to have for computing, but it is still the largest computer maker in the % world and still quite alive and well.   I It is wishfull thinking to hope that Micrososft will just go away. CompaqfE knows this and this is why they are so closely allied with Microsoft.s  L Microsoft also has a lot of staying power. They flopped big time with WinCE,F but they kept going at it and now they have a version that is actuallyL palatable and making strong gains. Strong enough that PSION, the british PDAP maker recently announced it was dropping out of consumer PDA market alltogether.  M The same is bound to happen with NT. They will eventually have a version thathH is good enough to be trustable for enterprise applications. And only theN strongest competitors will stay in the race with the smaller niche market ones
 dropping out.o   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:01:19 -0400-- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>-1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicatea, Message-ID: <3B54A79E.959F3A54@videotron.ca>   "Terry C. Shannon" wrote:-I > Compaq's decision to go with IPF reflects their philosophy that the CPUiD > won't be the key differentiator in future systems. We shall see...  G Add to the list: compilers.  Had Compaq kept the compilers, then CompaqnJ products would have had an advantage due to the supposedly better compilerN technology at Compaq. But with Intel now in charge of the compilers,  it is toJ be assumed that all users of IA64, whether HP, Compaq or Dell will benefit3 from the Intel compilers (formerly Digital/Compaq).d    L Were Digital compilers truly better than Microsoft's ? Or was that just formN Digital attempt at justifying the price of its compilers that were an order of# magnitude higher than Microsoft's ?.   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 20:56:34 GMT 4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicatey: Message-ID: <6E157.557$N21.527125@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>  J "Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-" <system@SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote in message* news:009FF264.A8D2DBB3@SendSpamHere.ORG...F > In article <0NZ47.391$N21.400942@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>, "Terry C., Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> writes: > >4E > >"Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-" <system@SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote inu messages- > >news:009FF22B.42FD96BE@SendSpamHere.ORG...y > >> >L > >> >Alpha won a great many hearts, from what we've seen on Usenet over the > >pastoL > >> >few weeks.  What it lacked were anything like commensurate sales - and > >thatuL > >> >was not Alpha's fault, but its owner's for lackadaisical marketing and > >(as2 > >> >we now know) highly-questionable commitment. > >>G > >> I have a clipping from a magazine called "Computer World" that waso givenDK > >> to my by a friend.  It's dated September 19, 1994 and the column titlec isH > >> "Alpha may not win, but it's the best".  The author of this article back > >> then predicted: > >>C > >> "Despite its many strengths, Alpha may be the case of superioro
 technologyG > >>  that does not win out.  It is carrying the millstone of Digital'sa busi- G > >>  ness problems as it tries to win new adherents.  But win, lose orn draw,CL > >>  the principles around which Alpha was built will continue to influence) > >>  computer design for years to come."  > >>K > >> Gee, there was a lot of truth in that one paragraph.  Alpha influencedmD > >> Pentium design via intel's patent rip-offs.  Digital's business problemsD > >> -- which are also Compaq's -- have succeeded in killing off the greatestK > >> technology going.  Alpha, already in 1994, had won the hearts of thosenH > >> using it and it was the envy of those not using it or producing it! So,e4 > >> let's stop trying to denegrate it posthumously. > >> > >f > >A fitting obituary indeed!r > >d  L Hey, I liked Alpha right from the get-go. And like many participants in thisK forum, I long ago decided that the light at the end of the Alpha tunnel wasaI the headlamp of an oncoming locomotive. And I can cite plenty of writing,r4 speculating, and raving that will support this fact.  I Why did the marketing and strategy sucketh mightily? Well, I can't compeluK Pesatori or Strecker to 'fess up, but a complete and honest accounting fromAL these individuals would shed much light on DECpaq's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.<  I The June 25 announcement was a bolt out of the blue. Sure, I was NDA'd onAD June 21, but I was out there singing the praises of Alpha as late as mid-May.  2 Please, Sir, may I have another helping of CROW???  L Having consumed multiple platesful of crow, not to mention a few side orders of Humble Pie, what's next?i  H I am convinced that economic realities rendered Alpha a lost cause. ThisH didn't have to be the case, but IMHO the sins of Bill Stecker and Enrico6 Pesatori rendered the June 25 announcement inevitable.  C In addition, I question the manner in which Compaq communicated its L decision. Throwing down the gauntlet and killing Alpha BEFORE an alternative% architecture emerged is risky indeed.o  E SKC subscribers have been apprised of the rationale for the decision.n  F Whatever, EV7 and Marvel are a done deal. The VMS and Tru64 folks seemI confident that they can deal with the consolidation. The same can be saidpD for the system architects who are working on the post-Marvel system.  K S*t t happens  You can either deal with it or you can rant and rave. I haverG a solution to the "JFs" of the world, it's called KILLFILE the whiners.i  H And once you've dealt with the peanut gallery, why not figure out what's, next for VMS? My subscribers certainly know!   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:04:51 -0400m( From: Hamlyn Mootoo <univms@bigfoot.com>1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicateo+ Message-ID: <3B54A873.704A97CC@bigfoot.com>    JF Mezei wrote:r >  > Robert Deininger wrote:nI > > In a decade or two, some company that's currently tiny and obscure isrN > > going to stomp microsoft into the dirt, unless microsoft changes its ways. > P > That had been predicted of IBM. IBM may no longer have a monopoly status as itO > used to have for computing, but it is still the largest computer maker in thei' > world and still quite alive and well.d > D If you recall IBM nearly bought it back in the mid-90's.  I rememberB when IBM stock fell from $200 to below $50 in a matter of months. G Gerstner saved IBM from itself, and was smart enough not to get trapped 	 by Billy.1B IBM has Gerstner, Microsoft has shithead. Shithead is no Gerstner. And Gerstner is no shithead!!a  E P.S. I fondly remember when it was announced that IBM was to take a 9CE Billion dollar charge to earnings to get its restructuring over with,3A the stock actually went up that day.  No other company's stock ineG history has ever taken a 9 Billion dollar charge to earnings and had it   stock go UP on the announcement.   HM   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Jul 2001 23:11:00 +0200* From: Robert Harley <harley@asti.inria.fr>1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicatea+ Message-ID: <rz7puazgt23.fsf@asti.inria.fr>n  6 "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> writes:A > [... more rationalizing of Compaq's decision to dump Alpha ...]t  G Just how strong were those mind-bending beams they used on you Terry???i   R    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:25:50 -0400n' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>g1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicatee( Message-ID: <9j2a8v$2ko$1@pyrite.mv.net>  ? "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote in messaged4 news:6E157.557$N21.527125@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...   ...h  I > Hey, I liked Alpha right from the get-go. And like many participants inA thisI > forum, I long ago decided that the light at the end of the Alpha tunnela wasoK > the headlamp of an oncoming locomotive. And I can cite plenty of writing,-6 > speculating, and raving that will support this fact.  I And yet you say just below that you were singing Alpha's praises right upcE until a couple of months ago.  So which is it:  you were deliberatelyeI misleading people then about Alpha's viability, or your perception took aoE sudden shift coincident with Compaq's decision (kind of funny, that)?    > K > Why did the marketing and strategy sucketh mightily? Well, I can't compel-H > Pesatori or Strecker to 'fess up, but a complete and honest accounting fromG > these individuals would shed much light on DECpaq's ability to snatchm defeat > from the jaws of victory.y  E Strecker certainly wouldn't have much to say about why *Compaq* nevermD capitalized upon the opportunity Alpha presented it with.  And whileK Pesatori makes a convenient scapegoat both before and after the acquisitionhE (especially convenient since beating on him doesn't reflect poorly onmL Compaq's *current* management...), the party I'd really like to hear from isI Pfeiffer, since my suspicion is that he might have made far better use ofh Alpha than his replacement has.v   > K > The June 25 announcement was a bolt out of the blue. Sure, I was NDA'd onaF > June 21, but I was out there singing the praises of Alpha as late as
 > mid-May. >l4 > Please, Sir, may I have another helping of CROW??? >yG > Having consumed multiple platesful of crow, not to mention a few sideh orders > of Humble Pie, what's next?w  H How about admitting that the problem wasn't with Alpha, but with Compaq?K And not something made inevitable long ago, but subject to correction righth: up until last month?  That would at least be a good start.   >cE > I am convinced that economic realities rendered Alpha a lost cause..  H Convinced now, so you say.  Why weren't you convinced last May:  nothing6 substantive changed between then and the announcement?    Thise > didn't have to be the case,c   You got that 100% right.  -  but IMHO the sins of Bill Stecker and Enrico-8 > Pesatori rendered the June 25 announcement inevitable.  L This is getting tiresome, but those sins happened long ago now:  WHY weren't& you saying this well before June 25th?   >eE > In addition, I question the manner in which Compaq communicated its B > decision. Throwing down the gauntlet and killing Alpha BEFORE an alternativen' > architecture emerged is risky indeed.n  $ 'Risky' doesn't quite do it justice.   > G > SKC subscribers have been apprised of the rationale for the decision.e >eH > Whatever, EV7 and Marvel are a done deal. The VMS and Tru64 folks seemK > confident that they can deal with the consolidation. The same can be saidtF > for the system architects who are working on the post-Marvel system. >rH > S*t t happens  You can either deal with it or you can rant and rave. I haveI > a solution to the "JFs" of the world, it's called KILLFILE the whiners.   K I have a solution for the Compaq's of the world:  instead of just acceptingaL their incompetence (and unbelievable arrogance in assuming that accepting itJ is the *only* choice their customers have), raise enough hell to throw outI the bastards responsible and replace them with people willing to move theM0 corporation in the direction its customers want.  K That concept is called 'accountability', in case you haven't encountered itD before.6   - bill   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Jul 2001 23:16:20 +0200* From: Robert Harley <harley@asti.inria.fr>1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate + Message-ID: <rz7ofqjgst7.fsf@asti.inria.fr>e  ) "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> writes:OK >> I agree, but the combination of nearly a decade of marketing malfeasanceeN >> and strategic blunders led to an economically unsustainable Alpha business. >sF > Terry, Compaq's own numbers prove that the above is a complete crockC > of shit, and every time you try to shovel it out I'll be there tom > remind people of this.   Hear, hear!     ? > I'm really disgusted by the actions of Compaq's apologists indE > promulgating its Big Lie(s), and I suspect I'm by no means alone in  > this sentiment.h   Indeed you aren't.    : > For many Alpha customers, I suspect the answer is "IBM".  
 Amen to that!h     ReI     .-.                                                               .-.gJ    /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \K   /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \aL  /       \       /     \     /   \   / \   /   \     /     \       /       \M /         \     /       \   /     `-'   `-'     \   /       \     /         \ B            \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /A             `-'                                               `-'g   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Jul 2001 23:32:02 +0200* From: Robert Harley <harley@asti.inria.fr>1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate!+ Message-ID: <rz7n163gs31.fsf@asti.inria.fr>p  ) "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> writes:e3 > > Sparc sucks, and Sun sells 'em by the boatload.  > M > Makes you wonder what Compaq could have done with Alpha had it applied evenA1 > a fraction of its vaunted marketing competence.  > G > Which was my point:  Alpha could have had significantly more than its L > already-profitable market share had Compaq had any interest in making that	 > happen.0  D But assume you have a $3B to $4B high-end business which is making aE profit, and a $20B low-end Wintel business which is haemorrhaging redFD ink like a stuck pig in a sausage factory.  Surely it makes sense to1 nuke the former and preserve the latter, right???b  F More seriously, I guess the logic was to nuke the R&D that costs moneyE and preserve the services business that makes the $$$.  IMO (armchairrC driving time), the whole high-end business will dry up so fast theysJ won't know what hit them.  Compaq is dead and they just don't know it yet.    ) > I tend to chalk it up to simple (thoughuM > stupifyingly utter) incompetence - total failure to understand the value of + > technology they did not wish to deal withe  ' Hear, hear!  (didn't I just post that?)i     R)I     .-.                                                               .-.eJ    /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \K   /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \oL  /       \       /     \     /   \   / \   /   \     /     \       /       \M /         \     /       \   /     `-'   `-'     \   /       \     /         \wB            \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /A             `-'                                               `-'    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:37:41 -0500 + From: Christopher Smith <csmith@amdocs.com>s1 Subject: RE: Alpha:  an invitation to communicategL Message-ID: <3B55D7F383B0D31197D9009027541CBF1170DA23@cmiexch1.cmi.itds.com>   > -----Original Message-----. > From: Bill Todd [mailto:billtodd@foo.mv.com]  ? > That concept is called 'accountability', in case you haven't   > encountered it	 > before.   G Which is likely, considering how little of it I've seen _ever_ from anym large company.  K On a more serious note, and back on topic, I think that Terry's "praises ofaJ Alpha" were just that.  If they had been praises of Compaq's management of2 Alpha... well, then nobody'd have listened to him.  K If he seems overly optimistic now it's probably because he's trying to looka, on the bright side of things.  There is one.  J Last month was there any one of us who thought Alpha wasn't too good to beI killed?  It would have been suicidal of Compaq to do it.  Well, now we'lle find out I guess.e   Regards,   Chrisb  ! Christopher Smith, Perl Developer  Amdocs - Champaign, IL   /usr/bin/perl -e '? print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");  'i      ------------------------------    Date: 17 Jul 2001 17:43:46 -0500+ From: kuhrt@encompasserve.org (Marty Kuhrt)o1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicaten3 Message-ID: <MhmBTQQ2dwsh@eisner.encompasserve.org>   R In article <9ivmno$prf$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> writes: > H > "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam> wrote in message/ > news:SPVZGzKByHGB@eisner.encompasserve.org... J >> In article <Pine.SOL.4.33.0107162040280.3839-100000@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>,0 > Peter Boyle <pboyle@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes: >  > ...  > J >> > My only comment is that the above argument presupposes that IA64 will; >> > attain the volumes of x86, wich may or may not happen.rG >> > If, for the sake of argument, IA64 volumes don't take off how muchn >> > patience will intel have? >> >
 >> > Peter >>F >> If VMS is ported to IA64 and IA64 is overwhelmed in the marketplaceD >> by IBM's Power CPUs, VMS will have become that much more portableD >> for porting to Power.  Alpha has not won the hearts of the world, >> despite performance.o > M > Alpha won a great many hearts, from what we've seen on Usenet over the past M > few weeks.  What it lacked were anything like commensurate sales - and thatiL > was not Alpha's fault, but its owner's for lackadaisical marketing and (as. > we now know) highly-questionable commitment. > 0 >   If IA64 fails to win the hearts of the worldD >> despite intense marketing, it does not mean that Alpha would have >> been the successor. > N > Alpha wouldn't have had to have been 'the successor' to have made Compaq farJ > greater profit than anything else seems at all likely to:  it would justF > have had to have had a half-decent slice of the market in which it's: > currently moderately profitable despite lousy marketing. > . >   But VMS does need a 64-bit environment for) >> the future (even though I prefer VAX).w > J > Only because Compaq just killed the perfectly good 64-bit environment it > already had. >  > - bill  E I remember seeing an ad for NASDAQ a couple of years back.  They usedtF to have adds touting the virtues of of various tech companies with theF tagline of "where do you find companies that can do this?  On NASDAQ!"G The Intel one was going over the chips they had designed over the years-I and said that by 2001 they would have a chip that could do over 1 billionaG instructions per second.  This was long after, IIRC, that the Alpha waseG already doing 1 billion instructions per second.  Had Compaq jumped on eC that ad and shouted "We got it NOW!" from the highest rafters, the 9( playing field might have been different.   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Jul 2001 17:38:46 -0400P From: "Stefan Monnier <foo@acm.com>" <monnier+comp.arch/news/@flint.cs.yale.edu>1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicaten, Message-ID: <5lr8vf1bix.fsf@rum.cs.yale.edu>  7 >>>>> "Bill" == Bill Todd <billtodd@foo.mv.com> writes:sG > Then where do you suppose Compaq got the idea that its engineers weren. > telling them something completely different?  K Trivial: the engineers say "there's no way we can keep up if you don't give F us more support", the MBA doesn't bother to listen to the second part.     	Stefang   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:06:01 +0100 , From: Peter Boyle <pboyle@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate'H Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.33.0107172241030.28735-100000@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>  + On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Fred Kleinsorge wrote:e  L > If I had been part of the Alpha chip design team, I would feel exactly theF > same way.  I would be absolutely sure that we could have kept up ourI > performance lead.  I guess the question must have come down to "at what  > cost". >aN > Look at how long it took to get the 1GHz CPU's out there.  It wasn't becauseN > the Alpha deigners couldn't design it.  Look how long it took to get EV6 outL > there to begin with.  Look how long it's taken to get the initial EV7s outL > there - it's not because Pete and his team couldn't design it.  What's the. > cost per-chip going to be for EV7?  For EV8?    G There must be so more much behind the scenes in the various delays thanoA any of us (especially myself!) know about but would love to know.e  7 However, everyone here is quibling over the cost of the * design team and profitability of the chip.E It seems to me that one of the underlying problems was that after thee2 point Dec couldn't afford to control their own fabA anymore, the design iteration time got (somewhat) out of control. 0 (both shrinks as well as the original 264 slip).  H Perhaps it was distance from and lack of control of the fab process thatD mortally wounded the Alpha (more so than other methodologies, or didC they just need a different fab partner? in hindsight, maybe AMD forn many reasons?).   9 Regardless it says something that the .35u Dec fab hugelyn7 overacheived compared with all subsequent shrinks IMHO.o   Peter2   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:18:00 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>?1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicateo, Message-ID: <3B54B992.A56087CD@videotron.ca>   Bill Todd wrote:  E > No - it appears mostly to have been due to non-technical managementiL > incompetence:  shuffles, layoffs, far from reassuring levels of commitment* > causing good people to leave in disgust.  N If a brain surgeon can't set the clock on his VCR, do you call him incompetentH ? If the brain surgeon outsources the maintenance of his VCR to his kidsL because the kids are much better at making the "12:00" stop blinking, do you$ call the brain surgeon incompetent ?  M Compaq is a box maker. Their history seems to show them as a highly competent K box maker.  Now, they have been distracted by that blinking "Digital" gizmotG they acquired and they don't know how to make it stop blinking and as a G result, Compaq hasn't been able to focus on its lagging PC business andn% allowed Dell to move ahead of Compaq.   N Is it unreasonable for Compaq to offload the stuff which it doesn't understand< so that it can return to making what it used to be good at ?  L Remember that you can't blame just Compaq. I suspect that much of the formerL Digital management that stayed also had a "PC" mentality. Under Digital, VMSN was threathened by many Digital employees who were convinced that NT was going to rule the world. r  H > Again, mostly from factors completely under Compaq's control.  And yetK > *still* Alpha remains at the top of the performance heap, and shows everysD > sign of having been able to remain there - if Compaq wanted it to.  I This is moot now. Alpha is dead. Gone. Superior or not, it is history. It L isn't so much the fact that Alpha is being replaced by IA64, but rather that+ Compaq dropped Alpha so easily and quickly.e  J > Most serious businesses place a greater emphasis on profit.  And there'sF > every indication that EV7 and EV8 would have been highly profitable,  F From the Wall Street Casino analyst's point of view, jeoperdizing yourM relationship with Intel and Microsoft in order to risk making a go with Alphaw% might be considered unjustified risk.k  L Since Compaq is highly dependant on Intel and Microsoft, it cannot affort toI irritate them and thus cannot compete against either. Intel and Microsoft J tolerated Alpha and VMS because they were relegated to a niche that didn'tI really hurt anyone. But with Intel now entering that niche and wishing toJ4 expand it big time, it was time to get rid of Alpha.  L From Compaq's point of view, this was a good business decision that fits itsN long term strategy. I may hate it, and it may have caused me to lose any trustE in Compaq, but if Compaq factored a certain percentage of loss of VMS.N customers and still comes out ahead by selling Alpha, then Compaq still made a smart move.-   ------------------------------  + Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:32:32 +0000 (UTC) / From: Sander Vesik <sander@haldjas.folklore.ee> 1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate$2 Message-ID: <995409155.426059@haldjas.folklore.ee>  @ In comp.arch Terry C. Shannon <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote:  N > Having consumed multiple platesful of crow, not to mention a few side orders > of Humble Pie, what's next?s  J > I am convinced that economic realities rendered Alpha a lost cause. ThisJ > didn't have to be the case, but IMHO the sins of Bill Stecker and Enrico8 > Pesatori rendered the June 25 announcement inevitable.  E > In addition, I question the manner in which Compaq communicated itsrN > decision. Throwing down the gauntlet and killing Alpha BEFORE an alternative' > architecture emerged is risky indeed.a  G > SKC subscribers have been apprised of the rationale for the decision.e  H > Whatever, EV7 and Marvel are a done deal. The VMS and Tru64 folks seemK > confident that they can deal with the consolidation. The same can be saiduF > for the system architects who are working on the post-Marvel system.  I Uhh... Do they have a *choice*? Are you sure that the ones who don't feelyF like they measure up to their jobs (moving to IA64) havn't got the axe- or moved to the 'Alpha sustaining' backbench?e  M > S*t t happens  You can either deal with it or you can rant and rave. I have I > a solution to the "JFs" of the world, it's called KILLFILE the whiners.   J > And once you've dealt with the peanut gallery, why not figure out what's. > next for VMS? My subscribers certainly know!  I We know what's next for VMS - painfull move to a new arcitecure aka loadssJ of wasted time that could otherwise have been spent on feature enhancement
 and bugfixingu   -- b 	Sandero   FLW: "I can banish that demon"   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:45:10 -0400f( From: Hamlyn Mootoo <univms@bigfoot.com>1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicates+ Message-ID: <3B54BFF6.AAFADDAC@bigfoot.com>    Marty Kuhrt wrote:  G > I remember seeing an ad for NASDAQ a couple of years back.  They used H > to have adds touting the virtues of of various tech companies with theH > tagline of "where do you find companies that can do this?  On NASDAQ!"I > The Intel one was going over the chips they had designed over the years K > and said that by 2001 they would have a chip that could do over 1 billionn  H Actually, I believe it was 2 billion in the ad (I can still remember the/ little counter) - but your point is well taken.r  I > instructions per second.  This was long after, IIRC, that the Alpha wastH > already doing 1 billion instructions per second.  Had Compaq jumped onD > that ad and shouted "We got it NOW!" from the highest rafters, the* > playing field might have been different.   ------------------------------  + Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:07:35 -0600 (MDT)r" From: John Nebel <nebel@csdco.com>1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicateKG Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.21.0107171653150.17449-100000@athena.csdco.com>    Hi Bill,  E I subscribe to Terry's newsletter and he has posed questions there on E Alpha viability for years.  It was never a forgone conclusion that it  would survive.  
 John Nebel  % On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Bill Todd wrote:    > A > "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote in messagea6 > news:6E157.557$N21.527125@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net... >  > ...e > K > > Hey, I liked Alpha right from the get-go. And like many participants inc > thisK > > forum, I long ago decided that the light at the end of the Alpha tunnelt > waseM > > the headlamp of an oncoming locomotive. And I can cite plenty of writing,r8 > > speculating, and raving that will support this fact. > K > And yet you say just below that you were singing Alpha's praises right updG > until a couple of months ago.  So which is it:  you were deliberatelylK > misleading people then about Alpha's viability, or your perception took a G > sudden shift coincident with Compaq's decision (kind of funny, that)?t >  > >cM > > Why did the marketing and strategy sucketh mightily? Well, I can't compel.J > > Pesatori or Strecker to 'fess up, but a complete and honest accounting > fromI > > these individuals would shed much light on DECpaq's ability to snatchA > defeat > > from the jaws of victory.  > G > Strecker certainly wouldn't have much to say about why *Compaq* neveroF > capitalized upon the opportunity Alpha presented it with.  And whileM > Pesatori makes a convenient scapegoat both before and after the acquisitiondG > (especially convenient since beating on him doesn't reflect poorly on N > Compaq's *current* management...), the party I'd really like to hear from isK > Pfeiffer, since my suspicion is that he might have made far better use of ! > Alpha than his replacement has.  >  > >-M > > The June 25 announcement was a bolt out of the blue. Sure, I was NDA'd on H > > June 21, but I was out there singing the praises of Alpha as late as > > mid-May. > > 6 > > Please, Sir, may I have another helping of CROW??? > > I > > Having consumed multiple platesful of crow, not to mention a few side  > orders > > of Humble Pie, what's next?  > J > How about admitting that the problem wasn't with Alpha, but with Compaq?M > And not something made inevitable long ago, but subject to correction right+< > up until last month?  That would at least be a good start. >  > >aG > > I am convinced that economic realities rendered Alpha a lost cause.p > J > Convinced now, so you say.  Why weren't you convinced last May:  nothing8 > substantive changed between then and the announcement? >  >  Thise > > didn't have to be the case,  >  > You got that 100% right. > / >  but IMHO the sins of Bill Stecker and Enricoc: > > Pesatori rendered the June 25 announcement inevitable. > N > This is getting tiresome, but those sins happened long ago now:  WHY weren't( > you saying this well before June 25th? >  > > G > > In addition, I question the manner in which Compaq communicated itsnD > > decision. Throwing down the gauntlet and killing Alpha BEFORE an
 > alternativee) > > architecture emerged is risky indeed.  > & > 'Risky' doesn't quite do it justice. >  > >&I > > SKC subscribers have been apprised of the rationale for the decision.  > >aJ > > Whatever, EV7 and Marvel are a done deal. The VMS and Tru64 folks seemM > > confident that they can deal with the consolidation. The same can be said H > > for the system architects who are working on the post-Marvel system. > >nJ > > S*t t happens  You can either deal with it or you can rant and rave. I > haveK > > a solution to the "JFs" of the world, it's called KILLFILE the whiners.  > M > I have a solution for the Compaq's of the world:  instead of just accepting N > their incompetence (and unbelievable arrogance in assuming that accepting itL > is the *only* choice their customers have), raise enough hell to throw outK > the bastards responsible and replace them with people willing to move the 2 > corporation in the direction its customers want. > M > That concept is called 'accountability', in case you haven't encountered it 	 > before.  >  > - bill >  >  >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:35:11 -04004' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>@1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate ( Message-ID: <9j2hrg$abp$1@pyrite.mv.net>  / "John Nebel" <nebel@csdco.com> wrote in message A news:Pine.OSF.4.21.0107171653150.17449-100000@athena.csdco.com...o >.
 > Hi Bill, >cG > I subscribe to Terry's newsletter and he has posed questions there ontG > Alpha viability for years.  It was never a forgone conclusion that ite > would survive.  J And those questions have almost completely centered on the deficiencies inE the way Alpha was managed as an asset, not on any problems of cost orp performance.  7 My post criticized Terry for making statements such as:   I "I long ago decided that the light at the end of the Alpha tunnel was the $ headlamp of an oncoming locomotive."  E "I am convinced that economic realities rendered Alpha a lost cause."   G "IMHO the sins of Bill Stecker and Enrico Pesatori rendered the June 25  announcement inevitable."s  H Those are not statements about *questioning* Alpha's viability, they areD flat-out statements that it isn't - and wasn't, in Terry's purported" opinion, for a long time - viable.  K If those are the views he truly held (as he states), then his public stanceuI up until last month was a complete sham.  If not (and there's no basis in H his public statements to believe those were the views he held), then hisJ reassessment of historical inevitability based on Compaq's reassessment ofC its current directions reflects a rather fluid view of journalistic 
 integrity.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:29:26 -07002& From: name99@mac.com (Maynard Handley)1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate > Message-ID: <name99-1707011629260001@il0203a-dhcp93.apple.com>  O In article <009FF22B.42FD96BE@SendSpamHere.ORG>, system@SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:n > I > Gee, there was a lot of truth in that one paragraph.  Alpha influenced >J > Pentium design via intel's patent rip-offs.  Digital's business problems  E it does not add anything useful to the debate to characterize Intel'sMJ patent infringement as a "rip-off". This implies Intel engineers hitting aH roadblock, unable to solve the problem, and coming up with a solution by searching patent databases. J Anyone who has actual patent experience will tell you this is far from howH it goes, that the reality is that most tech patents are bullshit patentsG of the obvious, that which company gets some obvious technique patented-F first is more a matter of luck (or which company has the LESS talentedG engineers who feel that something obvious is actually worth patenting),aF that any competent engineer in SW or HW in the course of a year's workH will reinvent twenty or so obvious techniques that have patents attached? to them, and that how and what goes public and goes to court isa; essentially a matter or corporate politics, not technology.o  I There are many things wrong with how Intel has handled patents (includingbG using bullshit patents to threaten competitors---Del, this is obviouslyyJ your cue to jump in and state that Intel is without blemish, something youG doubtless are in a position to claim based on your personal discussionsyE with Andy Grove and attendance of exec level and board meetings), buttE mischaracterizing a situation does nothing to help solve the problem.n   MaynardO  J > -- which are also Compaq's -- have succeeded in killing off the greatestI > technology going.  Alpha, already in 1994, had won the hearts of those iJ > using it and it was the envy of those not using it or producing it!  So,1 > let's stop trying to denegrate it posthumously.n   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:59:58 -0400i( From: Hamlyn Mootoo <univms@bigfoot.com>1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate-+ Message-ID: <3B54D17E.51903BBC@bigfoot.com>    Maynard Handley wrote:'  This implies Intel engineers hitting alJ > roadblock, unable to solve the problem, and coming up with a solution by > searching patent databases.   G I believe that patent infringements more often than not, are the resultoH of one company acquiring one or more of another company's key engineers, so the IP comes with them.  L > Anyone who has actual patent experience will tell you this is far from how  H So tell us, do you have actual patent experience?  If so, could you list them please.  J > it goes, that the reality is that most tech patents are bullshit patentsI > of the obvious, that which company gets some obvious technique patentednH > first is more a matter of luck (or which company has the LESS talentedI > engineers who feel that something obvious is actually worth patenting),hH > that any competent engineer in SW or HW in the course of a year's workJ > will reinvent twenty or so obvious techniques that have patents attached  E I think you miss the purpose of a patent.  A patent rewards the FIRSTtH ONE who can devise or improve something with (presumably) the protection" to realize FINANCIAL gain from it.   HM   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:12:31 GMT.4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicated: Message-ID: <Pv457.774$N21.679511@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>  8 "Christopher Smith" <csmith@amdocs.com> wrote in messageF news:3B55D7F383B0D31197D9009027541CBF1170DA23@cmiexch1.cmi.itds.com... >  > > -----Original Message-----0 > > From: Bill Todd [mailto:billtodd@foo.mv.com] > @ > > That concept is called 'accountability', in case you haven't > > encountered it > > before.t > I > Which is likely, considering how little of it I've seen _ever_ from anye > large company. >eJ > On a more serious note, and back on topic, I think that Terry's "praises ofL > Alpha" were just that.  If they had been praises of Compaq's management of4 > Alpha... well, then nobody'd have listened to him.  I Far be it from me to praise Compaq, or the incompetent idiots at Digital, J for their mismanagement of Alpha. "Rumour has it" that the cretins will be= recognized for their utter stupidity in a forthcoming book...   H In the interim, all we can do is wait to see what Compaq does next. Stay tuned and all that!m   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:13:14 GMTa. From: "mulp" <michaelpettengill@earthlink.net>1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate D Message-ID: <uw457.2155$Mi6.225442@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>  @ "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote in message, news:OGG47.775$rc5.60253@news.cpqcorp.net...K > You can build the most elegant, fastest, coolest thing in the world - bute ifG > the dominant player is selling a million of them to every 10 that you  sell - > you lose.m  L Or, as is the case here, you lose if the dominant player makes it worth your while to not compete.i  I At this point, my guess is that Itanium system sales have a ways to go toa match Wildfire sales.e   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:16:40 GMTn4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicateC: Message-ID: <Iz457.790$N21.683204@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>  7 "Robert Harley" <harley@asti.inria.fr> wrote in messageo% news:rz7puazgt23.fsf@asti.inria.fr...  >m8 > "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> writes:C > > [... more rationalizing of Compaq's decision to dump Alpha ...]a >eI > Just how strong were those mind-bending beams they used on you Terry???e >y > R   < I'm sorry, that information is available only to my clients.   ------------------------------  + Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:18:00 -0600 (MDT)A" From: John Nebel <nebel@csdco.com>1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate G Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.21.0107171802240.17449-100000@athena.csdco.com>s   Bill,n  I As an example: "I long ago decided that the light at the end of the AlphahJ tunnel was the headlamp of an oncoming locomotive" appeared in SKC a whileD back as a question "Is the light..." - that is the way I remember itF anyway.  It was enough to give a warning.  There was clearly hope thatI things would turn out OK, but Terry expressed doubts enough without beings& destructive of the processor's future.  C His role here appears to be informed proponent. I'm probably not aslF bothered about that as you and there is a practical reason for walkingC that fine line, Compaq would be more forthcoming to him rather thann presenting a wall of silence.i  J I'd rather have to read between the lines than have no information at all.   John    % On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Bill Todd wrote:i   > 1 > "John Nebel" <nebel@csdco.com> wrote in messageiC > news:Pine.OSF.4.21.0107171653150.17449-100000@athena.csdco.com...f > >, > > Hi Bill, > >sI > > I subscribe to Terry's newsletter and he has posed questions there on I > > Alpha viability for years.  It was never a forgone conclusion that iti > > would survive. > L > And those questions have almost completely centered on the deficiencies inG > the way Alpha was managed as an asset, not on any problems of cost oru > performance. > 9 > My post criticized Terry for making statements such as:  > K > "I long ago decided that the light at the end of the Alpha tunnel was the@& > headlamp of an oncoming locomotive." > G > "I am convinced that economic realities rendered Alpha a lost cause."e > I > "IMHO the sins of Bill Stecker and Enrico Pesatori rendered the June 25e > announcement inevitable."  > J > Those are not statements about *questioning* Alpha's viability, they areF > flat-out statements that it isn't - and wasn't, in Terry's purported$ > opinion, for a long time - viable. > M > If those are the views he truly held (as he states), then his public stance K > up until last month was a complete sham.  If not (and there's no basis incJ > his public statements to believe those were the views he held), then hisL > reassessment of historical inevitability based on Compaq's reassessment ofE > its current directions reflects a rather fluid view of journalistico > integrity. >  > - bill >  >  >  >    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:21:45 GMTD4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicateo: Message-ID: <tE457.806$N21.687397@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>  / "John Nebel" <nebel@csdco.com> wrote in messagetA news:Pine.OSF.4.21.0107171653150.17449-100000@athena.csdco.com...  > 
 > Hi Bill, >rG > I subscribe to Terry's newsletter and he has posed questions there oneG > Alpha viability for years.  It was never a forgone conclusion that its > would survive. >e > John Nebel > ' > On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Bill Todd wrote:r >k > >dC > > "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote in messageh8 > > news:6E157.557$N21.527125@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net... > >h > > ...o > > J > > > Hey, I liked Alpha right from the get-go. And like many participants in > > thisF > > > forum, I long ago decided that the light at the end of the Alpha tunnel > > was F > > > the headlamp of an oncoming locomotive. And I can cite plenty of writing,: > > > speculating, and raving that will support this fact. > >tJ > > And yet you say just below that you were singing Alpha's praises right upI > > until a couple of months ago.  So which is it:  you were deliberatelynK > > misleading people then about Alpha's viability, or your perception tookh awI > > sudden shift coincident with Compaq's decision (kind of funny, that)?s > >l > > > H > > > Why did the marketing and strategy sucketh mightily? Well, I can't compelL > > > Pesatori or Strecker to 'fess up, but a complete and honest accounting > > fromK > > > these individuals would shed much light on DECpaq's ability to snatchn
 > > defeat > > > from the jaws of victory.a > >,I > > Strecker certainly wouldn't have much to say about why *Compaq* never-H > > capitalized upon the opportunity Alpha presented it with.  And whileC > > Pesatori makes a convenient scapegoat both before and after the  acquisitionPI > > (especially convenient since beating on him doesn't reflect poorly on H > > Compaq's *current* management...), the party I'd really like to hear from istJ > > Pfeiffer, since my suspicion is that he might have made far better use of# > > Alpha than his replacement has.o > >o > > > L > > > The June 25 announcement was a bolt out of the blue. Sure, I was NDA'd onJ > > > June 21, but I was out there singing the praises of Alpha as late as > > > mid-May. > > > 8 > > > Please, Sir, may I have another helping of CROW??? > > > K > > > Having consumed multiple platesful of crow, not to mention a few sidee
 > > orders! > > > of Humble Pie, what's next?e > >tL > > How about admitting that the problem wasn't with Alpha, but with Compaq?I > > And not something made inevitable long ago, but subject to correctiond righti> > > up until last month?  That would at least be a good start. > >  > > >iI > > > I am convinced that economic realities rendered Alpha a lost cause.n > >tL > > Convinced now, so you say.  Why weren't you convinced last May:  nothing: > > substantive changed between then and the announcement? > >m	 > >  Thise! > > > didn't have to be the case,  > >p > > You got that 100% right. > > 1 > >  but IMHO the sins of Bill Stecker and Enricoa< > > > Pesatori rendered the June 25 announcement inevitable. > > H > > This is getting tiresome, but those sins happened long ago now:  WHY weren'ta* > > you saying this well before June 25th? > >h > > >wI > > > In addition, I question the manner in which Compaq communicated itsuF > > > decision. Throwing down the gauntlet and killing Alpha BEFORE an > > alternativep+ > > > architecture emerged is risky indeed.r > > ( > > 'Risky' doesn't quite do it justice. > >i > > > K > > > SKC subscribers have been apprised of the rationale for the decision.  > > > L > > > Whatever, EV7 and Marvel are a done deal. The VMS and Tru64 folks seemJ > > > confident that they can deal with the consolidation. The same can be saidJ > > > for the system architects who are working on the post-Marvel system. > > > L > > > S*t t happens  You can either deal with it or you can rant and rave. I > > haveD > > > a solution to the "JFs" of the world, it's called KILLFILE the whiners. > >pE > > I have a solution for the Compaq's of the world:  instead of just 	 acceptingcC > > their incompetence (and unbelievable arrogance in assuming thato accepting itJ > > is the *only* choice their customers have), raise enough hell to throw out I > > the bastards responsible and replace them with people willing to moveg theu4 > > corporation in the direction its customers want. > > L > > That concept is called 'accountability', in case you haven't encountered it > > before.i > > 
 > > - bill > >E > >c > >  > >o >r   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 20:49:19 -0400e- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>r1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate , Message-ID: <3B54DD0B.83A9732C@videotron.ca>   Robert Harley wrote:E > driving time), the whole high-end business will dry up so fast theyFL > won't know what hit them.  Compaq is dead and they just don't know it yet.  L From the fact that Compaq visited some of its important customers on the dayL of the Alpha murder and the fact that some folks seem to be so gung ho aboutL this move leads me to beleive that Compaq will succeed in keeping its "good" customers on VMS for some time.a  @ Meanwhile, do remember that Compaq got a big wad of money to buyJ software/service companies and hopes to grow that area by 40%. That shouldM more than make up for the loss of the non-"good" VMS customers as well as thec@ lack of new VMS customers at least during the transition period.  J Digital may have failed moving VMS customers to NT, but since then, thingsI have changed. NT has matured a lot and Compaq may use a totally differenteN technique to coax customers to go to compaq-NT solutions over a greater period of time.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:51:00 GMTs; From: Mark Garrett <Mark.Garrett@wedontwantyourspam.com.au>y1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate C Message-ID: <B77B1B07.1C080%Mark.Garrett@wedontwantyourspam.com.au>e  L in article Iz457.790$N21.683204@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net, Terry C. Shannon at4 terryshannon@mediaone.net wrote on 18/07/2001 10:16:   > 9 > "Robert Harley" <harley@asti.inria.fr> wrote in message.' > news:rz7puazgt23.fsf@asti.inria.fr...1 >> 19 >> "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> writes: C >>> [... more rationalizing of Compaq's decision to dump Alpha ...]e >> tJ >> Just how strong were those mind-bending beams they used on you Terry??? >> l >> R > > > I'm sorry, that information is available only to my clients. > : Terry like a lot of us has an large personal investment inL DEC/Digital/Compaq and so I guess has to decide a course of action since theI Alpha ship has been scuttled  by its owners who have started transferringAK passengers to a new ship itatium. This new ship has been launched before it J was even completed and now seems to be taking water. This unexpected eventK has left a few choices of action: to get a bucket and start bailing or jumplJ ship. So Terry seems to have decided the waters cold, better start bailing3 the water out in hope this new ship doesn't sink :)   
     Cheers         Mark ;)f   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:04:16 -0400t' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>s1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicateo( Message-ID: <9j2n2i$dlm$1@pyrite.mv.net>  3 "Maynard Handley" <name99@mac.com> wrote in messaget8 news:name99-1707011629260001@il0203a-dhcp93.apple.com...  H [Lot's of stuff I agree with - though I suspect he may have confused Del with Dennis at one point.]  I I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank all those people (perhapsaC especially in comp.arch, since this thread is obviously of at least J potentially less global interest there) who may not be all that interestedL in the Alphacide discussion for putting up with those of us who are - and toL warn them that it may go on for a while yet.  Compaq's apologists don't seemK to be getting any tireder than are those of us who are thoroughly disgustedrL with Compaq's initial decision and the lies it's spreading to try to justifyK it, and as long as those lies keep getting spread here we'll be right therea to counter them.  L Sorry if it's not your cup of tea - just try to ignore it.  And apologies ifG we at times get a bit heated and/or a bit off-topic:  unlike the Compaq I contingent, we don't have Borg-like agreement on the issues, but are justpL doing our best to act as a Truth Squad in the face of a large, arrogant, and  egregiously deceitful adversary.   - bill   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Jul 2001 18:20:41 -0700/ From: Brannon_Batson@yahoo.com (Brannon Batson)e1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate = Message-ID: <4495ef1f.0107171720.77d813d2@posting.google.com>a  o "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote in message news:<ovY47.845$rc5.60834@news.cpqcorp.net>... L > If I had been part of the Alpha chip design team, I would feel exactly theF > same way.  I would be absolutely sure that we could have kept up ourI > performance lead.  I guess the question must have come down to "at whati > cost". > N > Look at how long it took to get the 1GHz CPU's out there.  It wasn't becauseN > the Alpha deigners couldn't design it.  Look how long it took to get EV6 out > there to begin with.    C Jesus Fred, what the hell are you talking about?  We're not talkinghF about a processor that's scraping the bottom of the performance barrelB here.  EV6 is the fastest 64-bit processor in integer and floatingF point performance, bar none.  Yes there have been delays in shrinks ofE EV6, primarily associated with the switchover to a fabless model--but-> even so, the current Alpha on the market is the fastest 64-bit
 processor.  6 > Look how long it's taken to get the initial EV7s outB > there - it's not because Pete and his team couldn't design it.    7 What is the reason, praytell?  You seem to have so mucht; information--feel free to email me if it is 'confidential'.u  E Look how long it took to get Willamette out, look how long it took totB get Merced out, look how long it took to get Power 4 out, look how; long it took get Mckinley out, look how long it took to get B Beast/Alien out, look how long it took to get any modern processor out!  ! 1. Processors are hard to design.o7 2. Processors take at least 6 years to design nowadays.o3 3. Alpha doesn't take any longer than anybody else.l   But, the difference is:t  A 4. When a new Alpha comes out, it takes the performance lead, ande; usually it takes it away from the previous generation Alphak   > What's the. > cost per-chip going to be for EV7?  For EV8?  F Well, we don't make 'em out of gold, if that's what you're asking.  WeB use the same silicon and process technology as everybody else.  We> don't have the volumes of IA32, so the development cost is notB amortized over millions of parts--but I'm damn sure we have betterE volumes than IA64 right now.  Would you like to compare cost per unitc" of Merced to EV6? Mckinley to EV7?  D And that's really the point.  Compaq business and marketing were not@ able (willing?) to turn Alpha into a volume production, and theyF didn't think they were going to be able to do so in the future.  Under< these constraints, the hardware business was not going to beB profitable--and cost/performance would suffer.  Actually, it isn't5 quite this simple either, but that's the quick story.-  C It had absolutely nothing to do with Alpha engineers saying that we]C weren't going to be able to keep up with IA64--which is a laughablet8 thought if you know how arrogant Alpha designers are ;-)  E That is the only part of this whole thing that really pisses me off. .F The fact that I've heard from a dozen different sources that there are= people within Compaq saying that "this was initiated by AlphasC architects", and "they would not be able to sustain the performancen& advantage" is just too much to handle.   Brannonr   > < > Bill Todd wrote in message <9ivi7e$ljf$1@pyrite.mv.net>... > >R > ...a   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:26:06 -0400o' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> 1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicatey( Message-ID: <9j2obg$eeh$1@pyrite.mv.net>  H I'm not sure what to make of this post, but it has the same date/time asL some email I received from Terry (that quoted John's post, as this one does)F flaming me for posting a "priviledged communication on USENET" (gee, II suppose *this* could be considered such a post, but since he announced heGG was kill-filing me and in fact has not responded to a query my means ofa4 investigation into this matter have become limited).  K I've re-read my post a couple of times and can't find anything save what he J posted himself and I responded to.  Does anyone else see something between! the lines that I may have missed?    - bill  ? "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote in message 4 news:tE457.806$N21.687397@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net... > 1 > "John Nebel" <nebel@csdco.com> wrote in messageyC > news:Pine.OSF.4.21.0107171653150.17449-100000@athena.csdco.com...i > >n > > Hi Bill, > >eI > > I subscribe to Terry's newsletter and he has posed questions there on I > > Alpha viability for years.  It was never a forgone conclusion that itr > > would survive. > >n > > John Nebel > >d) > > On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Bill Todd wrote:z > >f > > >'E > > > "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote in messagee: > > > news:6E157.557$N21.527125@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net... > > > 	 > > > ...  > > >lL > > > > Hey, I liked Alpha right from the get-go. And like many participants > in
 > > > thisH > > > > forum, I long ago decided that the light at the end of the Alpha > tunnel	 > > > wastH > > > > the headlamp of an oncoming locomotive. And I can cite plenty of
 > writing,< > > > > speculating, and raving that will support this fact. > > >hL > > > And yet you say just below that you were singing Alpha's praises right > upK > > > until a couple of months ago.  So which is it:  you were deliberatelyyH > > > misleading people then about Alpha's viability, or your perception took > auK > > > sudden shift coincident with Compaq's decision (kind of funny, that)?o > > >s > > > > J > > > > Why did the marketing and strategy sucketh mightily? Well, I can't > compelC > > > > Pesatori or Strecker to 'fess up, but a complete and honesti
 accounting
 > > > fromF > > > > these individuals would shed much light on DECpaq's ability to snatch > > > defeat! > > > > from the jaws of victory.a > > > K > > > Strecker certainly wouldn't have much to say about why *Compaq* never"J > > > capitalized upon the opportunity Alpha presented it with.  And whileE > > > Pesatori makes a convenient scapegoat both before and after theb
 > acquisitionwK > > > (especially convenient since beating on him doesn't reflect poorly on J > > > Compaq's *current* management...), the party I'd really like to hear	 > from isnL > > > Pfeiffer, since my suspicion is that he might have made far better use > of% > > > Alpha than his replacement has.o > > >  > > > >aH > > > > The June 25 announcement was a bolt out of the blue. Sure, I was NDA'dn > onL > > > > June 21, but I was out there singing the praises of Alpha as late as > > > > mid-May. > > > > : > > > > Please, Sir, may I have another helping of CROW??? > > > >sH > > > > Having consumed multiple platesful of crow, not to mention a few side > > > orders# > > > > of Humble Pie, what's next?  > > >tF > > > How about admitting that the problem wasn't with Alpha, but with Compaq?tK > > > And not something made inevitable long ago, but subject to correctiona > right @ > > > up until last month?  That would at least be a good start. > > >a > > > >pK > > > > I am convinced that economic realities rendered Alpha a lost cause.i > > >cE > > > Convinced now, so you say.  Why weren't you convinced last May:e nothing < > > > substantive changed between then and the announcement? > > >r > > >  Thiss# > > > > didn't have to be the case,n > > >o > > > You got that 100% right. > > > 3 > > >  but IMHO the sins of Bill Stecker and Enrico1> > > > > Pesatori rendered the June 25 announcement inevitable. > > >nJ > > > This is getting tiresome, but those sins happened long ago now:  WHY	 > weren't6, > > > you saying this well before June 25th? > > >@ > > > >>K > > > > In addition, I question the manner in which Compaq communicated itsoH > > > > decision. Throwing down the gauntlet and killing Alpha BEFORE an > > > alternativet- > > > > architecture emerged is risky indeed.n > > >f* > > > 'Risky' doesn't quite do it justice. > > >  > > > >lC > > > > SKC subscribers have been apprised of the rationale for theC	 decision.< > > > >nI > > > > Whatever, EV7 and Marvel are a done deal. The VMS and Tru64 folkse seemL > > > > confident that they can deal with the consolidation. The same can be > saidL > > > > for the system architects who are working on the post-Marvel system. > > > > L > > > > S*t t happens  You can either deal with it or you can rant and rave. Ii
 > > > haveF > > > > a solution to the "JFs" of the world, it's called KILLFILE the
 > whiners. > > >tG > > > I have a solution for the Compaq's of the world:  instead of justg > acceptingnE > > > their incompetence (and unbelievable arrogance in assuming that  > accepting itL > > > is the *only* choice their customers have), raise enough hell to throw > outcK > > > the bastards responsible and replace them with people willing to move  > the 6 > > > corporation in the direction its customers want. > > > B > > > That concept is called 'accountability', in case you haven't encountered  > it
 > > > before.i > > >  > > > - bill > > >  > > >a > > >l > > >s > >n >  >e   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:41:59 -0400'- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> 1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicatei, Message-ID: <3B54E960.19FF90F5@videotron.ca>   Brannon Batson wrote:rD > use the same silicon and process technology as everybody else.  We@ > don't have the volumes of IA32, so the development cost is notD > amortized over millions of parts--but I'm damn sure we have betterG > volumes than IA64 right now.  Would you like to compare cost per unith$ > of Merced to EV6? Mckinley to EV7?  N A former Digital employee, in providing an Alpha roadmap discussion some yearsF ago had mentioned that Intel would have high costs for IA64 because itM requires greater amount of real estate and  the odds of having a chip without @ defects capable of running at maximum speed would be much lower.  ; I.E., the yields on IA64 would be much lower than on Alpha.,  M Could anyone comment on this ? Is that still true ? Is the yield an important 9 enough variable that could make Alpha cheaper than IA64 ?g   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 02:40:02 GMTw4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate ; Message-ID: <6G657.1684$N21.807615@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>e  H "Mark Garrett" <Mark.Garrett@wedontwantyourspam.com.au> wrote in message= news:B77B1B07.1C080%Mark.Garrett@wedontwantyourspam.com.au... K > in article Iz457.790$N21.683204@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net, Terry C. Shannono at6 > terryshannon@mediaone.net wrote on 18/07/2001 10:16: >  > >n; > > "Robert Harley" <harley@asti.inria.fr> wrote in messageh) > > news:rz7puazgt23.fsf@asti.inria.fr...' > >>; > >> "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> writes: E > >>> [... more rationalizing of Compaq's decision to dump Alpha ...]  > >>L > >> Just how strong were those mind-bending beams they used on you Terry??? > >> > >> R > >u@ > > I'm sorry, that information is available only to my clients. > >t< > Terry like a lot of us has an large personal investment inJ > DEC/Digital/Compaq and so I guess has to decide a course of action since thedK > Alpha ship has been scuttled  by its owners who have started transferringtJ > passengers to a new ship itatium. This new ship has been launched before itL > was even completed and now seems to be taking water. This unexpected eventH > has left a few choices of action: to get a bucket and start bailing or jumpL > ship. So Terry seems to have decided the waters cold, better start bailing5 > the water out in hope this new ship doesn't sink :)  >c  I I really can't speak for the integrity of the Good Ship Itanium, but it'soL pretty clear that Alpha will be drydocked Pretty Soon Now (EV7 is now a doneJ deal). Hence the choices are: hope that Compaq makes the NSK, VMS, and T64D ports work (which I think they can do), or bleat and whine about the	 decision.   J There's been more than enough bleating and whining in this noosegroup. ButE that's a positive thing, too.. it's allowed me to update my killfile!-   cheers,-   terry s-C still depressed about the death of Alpha, but more cognizant of thee rationale behind the decision.       >p   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:33:17 GMTr From: LBohan@dbc.spam_less..com 1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate 8 Message-ID: <p70alt48aqi328uo86ebthanprrl51c6q4@4ax.com>  @ On 17 Jul 2001 18:20:41 -0700, Brannon_Batson@yahoo.com (Brannon Batson) wrote:  " >1. Processors are hard to design.8 >2. Processors take at least 6 years to design nowadays.4 >3. Alpha doesn't take any longer than anybody else.  B But Intel might still have kept ahead, by sheer brute force ($$$),  5 ie, making IA64's at half the die-size of the Alpha,  7 and some 'n' times the clock speed, again and again.   w  3 Maybe a bit like the suggestion once made years agohB that General Motors could concievably sell vehicles for $500 each,4 absorb the losses, and wait a few years for all the + other auto manufacturers to go belly up ...s   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:31:09 -0700a+ From: "Dennis O'Connor" <dmoc@primenet.com>c1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicater- Message-ID: <9j33ep$lhq$1@nnrp1.phx.gblx.net>-  3 "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote ... G > A former Digital employee, [...] mentioned that Intel would have highaF > costs for IA64 because it requires greater amount of real estate andA > the odds of having a chip without defects capable of running aty$ > maximum speed would be much lower.= > I.E., the yields on IA64 would be much lower than on Alpha.   ; Well, before I start, I should mention there isn't always a < negative correlation between die size and yield.  One simple7 example is redundant rows and columns on memory arrays: 8 makes the die larger, but improves %good-die enough that9 even with fewer die per wafer, the number of good die pers6 wafer (the important metric) goes up.  Not that that's% necessarily the case here. That said:t  O > Could anyone comment on this ? Is that still true ? Is the yield an importantp; > enough variable that could make Alpha cheaper than IA64 ?   G Not likely.  Now, I'm not speaking for Intel, or revealing any secrets, 0 The economics of it are pretty straight-forward.  D First, you need to recognize that the economics of yield enhancementF depend on whether your chips are large or small, and whether they sellJ for a lot of a little: if they are small and cheap it doesn't make as muchD sense to invest in a lot of money in small reductions in defects perA wafer, but it does make a lot of sense if they are large and sell-C for a nice price. If you assume each defect costs you one die, thenBD with small cheap die you're just losing a buck or two per wafer, and= maybe a 0.1% reduction in production capacity; but if you areyB making large die that sell for a lot, each defect is costing you a@ couple of hundred dollars, and (assuming times are good and your@ production is wafer-start or perhaps tester limited) each defectA is costing you perhaps 0.5% of your production capacity, or more.h  E So all else being equal, a fab that's built to make big expensive dieu? will profit from investments in yield enhancement that would be 8 a waste of money for a fab making smaller cheaper chips.  > Second, recognize the role that volume plays in the situation.7 Regardless of how big your die is and how many more youm> might be _able_ to produce by investing in yield enhancements,? if you can only sell, say, a paltry half-million or so of thoses@ die every year, then again, big investments in yield enhancement; don't make any sense: it isn't amortized over enough units.o  ? Third, recognize that fab processes are targeted for particularg6 applications: processors, ASICs, DRAM, SRAM, analogue:9 all want from slightly to extremely different things fromk= a fab process.  Optimizing for one application domain usually 3 comes at the cost of some other application domain.d  = Now, look at Intel:  It sells a whole lot of microprocessors:-; 100's of millions. They range from big to very big in size.o7 They sell for anywhere from a decent piece of change to 8 a thick wad of cash.  Pretend you're running those fabs:7 are you willing to spend millions on yield enhancements 2 that would make no sense for other manufacturers ?< Probably so, because the return on that investment in large.  : Now, I'm not a naive amateur: I'm not about to make claims= that a process is "best" or "better", since it all depends onp; what you're trying to do with it.  There are many companiese with great fabs.  ? But consider just the economics of it, and it's easy to believet> that Intel's fabs could be the most cost-effective high-volume6 large-die processor fabs in the world.  Purely because) it is extremely good for the bottom line.r --3 Dennis O'Connor                   dmoc@primenet.como. Vanity Web Page http://www.primenet.com/~dmoc/   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:55:39 -0700 + From: "Dennis O'Connor" <dmoc@primenet.com>b1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate - Message-ID: <9j34sn$lm1$1@nnrp1.phx.gblx.net>v  8 "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote ...G > With Alpha off the RISC playing field, the question is, "who's next?"   ; "No one will survive ... The Attack of the Killer Micros !" ?                 -- Eugene Brooks III, sometime in the late '80so --3 Dennis O'Connor                   dmoc@primenet.com . Vanity Web Page http://www.primenet.com/~dmoc/   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:05:08 -0700r+ From: "Dennis O'Connor" <dmoc@primenet.com>u1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicatel- Message-ID: <9j35ef$lo4$1@nnrp1.phx.gblx.net>r  . "Hamlyn Mootoo" <univms@bigfoot.com> wrote ... > Maynard Handley wrote:) >  This implies Intel engineers hitting atL > > roadblock, unable to solve the problem, and coming up with a solution by > > searching patent databases.  >fI > I believe that patent infringements more often than not, are the resultlJ > of one company acquiring one or more of another company's key engineers, > so the IP comes with them.  C You'd be wrong.  My guess is you aren't an engineer, and have nevert@ worked inside a large engineering company, or you'd know better.  N > > Anyone who has actual patent experience will tell you this is far from how >e3 > So tell us, do you have actual patent experience?   @ I do, but the question is irrelevant.  One does not have to have8 a patent to have actual patent experience, as any patent) lawyer or patent examiner could tell you.  --3 Dennis O'Connor                   dmoc@primenet.come. Vanity Web Page http://www.primenet.com/~dmoc/   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:19:50 -0700-+ From: "Dennis O'Connor" <dmoc@primenet.com> 1 Subject: Re: Alpha:  an invitation to communicateq- Message-ID: <9j36a1$lqo$1@nnrp1.phx.gblx.net>   + "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> wrote ...o: > "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote ...? > > combination of nearly a decade of marketing malfeasance andiK > > strategic blunders led to an economically unsustainable Alpha business.a >'I > Terry, Compaq's own numbers prove that the above is a complete crock ofq > shit,h  @ No, they don't.  Only Bill Todd's fantasy-based self-serving and7 ultimately clueless spinning of those numbers does, ando  _that's_ the real crock of shit.  > But Bill should feel free to prove me wrong: he could show us,B for a _start_, unit volumes of  Alpha processors sold into servers@ and workstations, preferably  broken out by generation and speedB grade, and ASP data for the  systems they sold in,  for the last 85 quarters, and a breakout of service revenue by serveri8 and workstation product families, again, for 8 quarters.  5 I'm sure many people would like to see those numbers.e8 And Bill Todd _must_ have them, if he really understands= the economic viability of Alpha enough to tell Terry Shannon,t/ of "Shannon Knows DEC" fame, he's full of shit.a  > If Bill Todd can't produce those numbers, it would then appear= that he doesn't know jack. Bill Todd would be exposed as justt@ another ignorant, conceited, hate-filled, crackpot USENET poser. --3 Dennis O'Connor                   dmoc@primenet.comg. Vanity Web Page http://www.primenet.com/~dmoc/   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:29:07 +0100 + From: "antonio.carlini" <arcarlini@iee.org>.5 Subject: Re: Ancient VMS distributions for hobbyists?e' Message-ID: <3B54AE23.E2B4AAEF@iee.org>0   Ethan Dicks wrote:H > So... are there any projects to preserve and collect VMS distributionsH > prior to 5.0?  It's obviously not of any real commercial value at thisC > point, but for those of us who have older systems, it'd be fun to  > run contemporary stuff.n  ' I think there was such an effort within 0 OpenVMS engineering ... or maybe I misunderstood0 and it was old VMS listings they were archiving.  - Anything since the CD service started (in the ) 1990/1992 timeframe) will be around for aa1 long time. That should catch all the V5.0 onwards 	 releases.   - The older stuff is well worth preserving now.l  - However, remember that the media is quite oldt, now and you need a way of preserving what is+ on it (perhaps BACKUP/PHYSICAL for RX50 and / TPC or somesuch for tapes and tape cartridges).s  , But don't forget all those layered products!   A VAX needs something to do!   Antoniot     --     ---------------o- Antonio Carlini             arcarlini@iee.orgr   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 02:54:50 GMTc) From: ethan_dicks@yahoo.com (Ethan Dicks)c5 Subject: Re: Ancient VMS distributions for hobbyists? < Message-ID: <3b54fb70.185486962@news-server.columbus.rr.com>  5 On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:29:07 +0100, "antonio.carlini"o <arcarlini@iee.org> wrote:   >p >e >Ethan Dicks wrote:iI >> So... are there any projects to preserve and collect VMS distributions  >> prior to 5.0? > . >However, remember that the media is quite old- >now and you need a way of preserving what ism, >on it (perhaps BACKUP/PHYSICAL for RX50 and0 >TPC or somesuch for tapes and tape cartridges).  3 Exactly so.  I've been using PUTR from dbit.com forp0 the TU-58 backups.  It works great when the tape3 is error free, but not so well on multiple retries.s  - >But don't forget all those layered products!m >g >A VAX needs something to do!   / All I would have from my old company from thoses, days is FORTRAN (got it right here on TU-58)- and VAX-C (on RX50).  I doubt I have anythings1 like a MASS-11 distribution lying around, even ife0 I did, I never used it; I used EDT and EMACS for all my editing.u  3 I'm going to preserve whatever I have, but I'd like 8 to mix it in with others efforts to fill in the gaps.  I- don't have even close to a set of everything.    -ethan   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:21:27 -0700  From: Ti Kan <xmcd@amb.org> 3 Subject: ANNOUNCE: xmcd 3.0 pl1 X11/Motif CD player ' Message-ID: <3B551CD7.EAE511F1@amb.org>i  8 Keywords: xmcd Motif X11 CD audio player multimedia CDDB  ,                         --------------------,                         X M C D  version 3.0(                             Patchlevel 1,                         --------------------&                              by Ti Kan  8                 Take the CD player to the nth dimension.  @ I am pleased to announce the release of xmcd version 3.0 pl1, anA X11/Motif-based CD audio player utility, now with support for the  OpenVMS  operating system.   H In its evolution over the past few years, xmcd has established itself asA the premier CD player application for the X window system with an G attractive, easy-to-use user interface.  It is the most feature-rich CD A player that runs on OpenVMS as well as most UNIX system variants. E The latest release (3.0 patchlevel 1) supports SCSI CD drives on bothu? VAX and Alpha based OpenVMS systems.  IDE/ATAPI drives are alsol	 supportedB
 on Alphas.  D The remote CD database query feature fully utilizes the Internet andG taps on the vast repository of the Gracenote CDDB(tm) Music RecognitionK4 Service(sm), which was originally pioneered by xmcd.  A Xmcd also features "wwwWarp", the ability to remote control a webnH browser, so that you can search and access many useful web resources and= information related to the CD you're listening to.  The Local  DiscographycC feature lets you organize, browse and play files related to your CD G collection.  Xmcd literally takes music enjoyment to a level far beyond  the standard stereo.  C There are too many features to list, so visit the xmcd web page for.0 full information, screen snapshot and downloads:       http://www.amb.org/xmcd/  B Xmcd is FREE, Open Source Software, released under the GNU General Public License.   -- t \\ // Ti Kan5  \\/  xmcd - Take the CD player to the nth dimension.h  //\  Email:    xmcd@amb.org( // \\ Web site: http://www.amb.org/xmcd/   ------------------------------  + Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 13:09:50 -0500 (CDT)o& From: Drew Shelton <drew@sematech.org>2 Subject: Anyone using SQLassist and RS/1 together?- Message-ID: <01K61EKZA80K008X34@SEMATECH.Org>   I CA has terminated support for SQLassist 3.6 and cannot help us with this.-F We're trying to invoke RS/1 from within SQLassist (which the SQLassistI documentation says it can do), but SQLassist appears to be truncating theiJ /DYNLOCK qualifier we're trying to pass to RS/1 for our grouphome locking. Has anyone gotten this to work?t  ; We're running VMS Alpha 7.1-2, SQLassist 3.6, and RS/1 6.0.A   Thanks,d Drew  L ============================================================================6 Drew Shelton                         drew@sematech.org9 VMS Systems Manager                  office: 512-356-7575V9 Sematech                             fax:    512-356-7600m 2706 Montopolis DrivesK Austin, TX 78741-6499                I speak for myself only, not Sematech.uB     "OpenVMS is today what Microsoft wants Windows NT v8.0 to be!"I                                                         - Compaq, 9/22/98 L ============================================================================   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 20:31:13 -0400r* From: Eric Ebinger <eebinger@telocity.com>* Subject: Re: Attunity Connect and Oracle 88 Message-ID: <009001c10f20$f5ff1670$0200a8c0@teamrdb.com>   ----- Original Message -----9 From: Larry Kilgallen <Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam>-  G > In article <000c01c10e63$17988ff0$0200a8c0@teamrdb.com>, Eric Ebingerk <eebinger@telocity.com> writes:u >rL > > It is possible to a Java application running on a Windoze system talk toE > > a Rdb database running on VMS by using a JDBC-ODBC bridge to talkhK > > to the ODBC driver for Rdb.  I am not aware of any "out of the box" way E > > to have a Java application running on VMS talk to a Rdb database.r >u > I don't understand.r >'6 > You can access Rdb through the VMS calling standard. > E > Are you saying that Java cannot make outbound calls via the callingp > standard ? > C > I would expect Java should be like the compiled languages in thisr9 > regard, although you might have to create the bindings.s >a  E Java is an interpreted language (the Java "compiler" creates portablee bytecodeJ that the Java Virtual Machine converts to executable code on the fly).  ItI doesn't support the VMS calling standard.  (Although it does have a classa thatG permits  calls to be made to the host operating system.)  To complicatel matterseH further Java has a defined database interface called JDBC.  Sort of like ODBC only more complicated. :^)  ; Writing a JDBC driver is not something I really want to do.h  I Nor is have a web server running on VMS that has a launch to a web serverhL running on NT that has a Java servlet that has a Java application that talks toH the Rdb database running on the VMS box.  But that is what we are doing.   > > (OraclecK > > does not have a native JDBC driver for Rdb.)   My understanding is thataC > > the Attunity "On Platform" package makes it possible for a Javac applicatione? > > running on VMS to access an Oracle 7/8 database but the "OngJ > > Platform" package does not include support for Rdb databases.  To make thisJ > > really offensive Attunity Connect does support Rdb as a datasource for their , > > full Attunity Connect package (for $$$). >aH > If vendors don't have a way to make money, there is no reason for them > to support VMS.  >1  K Yes, and I have no problem with Attunity charging for their software.  Whata InH do have a problem with is Compaq licensing the Attunity Connect softwareG and bundling it into VMS without including the piece that talks to Rdb.s     Eric Ebinger   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Jul 2001 20:50:39 -05009 From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen)a* Subject: Re: Attunity Connect and Oracle 83 Message-ID: <aihRpODyRzae@eisner.encompasserve.org>I  e In article <009001c10f20$f5ff1670$0200a8c0@teamrdb.com>, Eric Ebinger <eebinger@telocity.com> writes:a > ----- Original Message -----; > From: Larry Kilgallen <Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam>l > H >> In article <000c01c10e63$17988ff0$0200a8c0@teamrdb.com>, Eric Ebinger! > <eebinger@telocity.com> writes:l >>M >> > It is possible to a Java application running on a Windoze system talk to0F >> > a Rdb database running on VMS by using a JDBC-ODBC bridge to talkL >> > to the ODBC driver for Rdb.  I am not aware of any "out of the box" wayF >> > to have a Java application running on VMS talk to a Rdb database. >> >> I don't understand. >>7 >> You can access Rdb through the VMS calling standard.u >>F >> Are you saying that Java cannot make outbound calls via the calling
 >> standard ?  >>D >> I would expect Java should be like the compiled languages in this: >> regard, although you might have to create the bindings. >> > G > Java is an interpreted language (the Java "compiler" creates portables
 > bytecodeL > that the Java Virtual Machine converts to executable code on the fly).  ItK > doesn't support the VMS calling standard.  (Although it does have a class  > that: > permits  calls to be made to the host operating system.)  B Are you saying that calls can only be made to the operating system and not to shareable images ?    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:55:01 +0200m, From: Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@gmx.ch>* Subject: Re: Basic questions from a newbie% Message-ID: <3B54B435.C7FF371@gmx.ch>r   "Richard D. Piccard" wrote:i >  ../..eG > There are probably more elegant ways, but I don't do it so often that  > it has been a problem.  $ More elegant, I dunno, but faster...  & $ set file/nodir disk:[000000]fred.dir  $ delete disk:[000000]fred.dir;* $ analyze/disk/repair/noconfirmd $ set def disk:[syslost] $ delete *.*.*  < There is also a DECUS TREEDEL.COM procedure lurking around.    D. (pure personal opinion :-)   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:48:52 -0400 ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> 4 Subject: Re: Check out the Wall Street Journal today( Message-ID: <9j212o$o82$1@pyrite.mv.net>  = "Sue Skonetski" <susan.skonetski@compaq.com> wrote in message , news:NbU47.808$rc5.60633@news.cpqcorp.net...5 > there is a Compaq ad (any spelling errors are mine)5 > Text >r > What will Compaq > Customers get with > The transisation to the  > Itanium (tm) Architecture?   Shafted.  Again.   >s > The Future ofn > 64-bit Computing > : > Then four customer quotes  (yes there are VMS customers) >e > Then a paragraph that says.o >eJ > Our customers consistently say that they prefer the choice,  flexibility andmI > cost-efficiency of systems based on industry-leading components, rathern than > proprietary technologies.i  H It at least was nice of them to list the four customers who consistently* told them this - takes out the guess-work.  J And now we know that Compaq was doing us all a favor by eliminating having> to choose between an industry-leading technology (Alpha) and aJ 'non-proprietary' technology like Itanic which, unlike Alpha, is available7 from only a single vendor (and a single vendor's fabs).   1   Transferring our Alpha technology to Intel (tm) L > to enhance the future of the Itanium (tm) processor family is the best wayJ > to protect our customers' long-term enterprise computing investments and+ > keep them at the forefront of technology.f  J This is true at least for the many who will now move to a more trustworthyL vendor (and if being at the forefront of technology is important to them IBM now seems the clear choice).  !   And clearly, we're not the onlyI > ones who think that way.  G Well, the degree to which those four customers can be said to have beenlH 'thinking' is questionable.  And it still leaves them and Compaq in what" appears to be a distinct minority.  K Funny how Compaq's words once again don't quite mean what they might appeart to on a quick reading.   >o2 > To get the facts go to compaq.com/ipf-enterprise   Surely they jest.m   - bill   ------------------------------   Date: 17 Jul 2001 18:43:11 GMT1 From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)/4 Subject: Re: Check out the Wall Street Journal today+ Message-ID: <9j20vv$87o$1@info.cs.uofs.edu>'  2 In article <qU9UO2goqb+xLAeH=ZsDkLTgfyef@4ax.com>,8  David Beatty <David.Beatty@qwertysasasdfgh.com> writes:? |> On 17 Jul 2001 14:28:00 GMT, bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill> |> Gunshannon) wrote:a |> t6 |> >In article <NbU47.808$rc5.60633@news.cpqcorp.net>,9 |> > "Sue Skonetski" <susan.skonetski@compaq.com> writes:! |> >|>S |> >|> Our customers consistently say that they prefer the choice,  flexibility and S |> >|> cost-efficiency of systems based on industry-leading components, rather than-" |> >|> proprietary technologies.   |> >4 |> >Ummm....  Isn't OpenVMS proprietary technology?? |> > |> >bill |>   |> Yes.R |> p* |> The last time I checked, so is Itanium.  D When you come right down to it, anything not public domain (or maybeB truly open-source) is proprietary.  I was just trying to point out# the inconsistancy of the statement.a  J ie.  if they "are dropping support for Alpha because their customers don't= want proprietary." then where does VMS fit into their plan?? o  8 I'm not saying the staement is valid, just inconsistant.  F I sometimes think what I say here may come off as being very anti-VMS.E But then I look at what some of the biggest former VMS bigots say ande/ suddenly I sound like one of it's biggest fans.    bill   -- eJ Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   t   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:06:34 -0400 ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>i4 Subject: Re: Check out the Wall Street Journal today( Message-ID: <9j223r$p2v$1@pyrite.mv.net>  F "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam> wrote in message- news:7A7KXLKjHVSl@eisner.encompasserve.org...tL > In article <9j1i1g$72$1@info.cs.uofs.edu>, bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: 6 > > In article <NbU47.808$rc5.60633@news.cpqcorp.net>,9 > >  "Sue Skonetski" <susan.skonetski@compaq.com> writes:t > > |>B > > |> Our customers consistently say that they prefer the choice, flexibility andeG > > |> cost-efficiency of systems based on industry-leading components,e rather than   > > |> proprietary technologies. > >d4 > > Ummm....  Isn't OpenVMS proprietary technology?? >p? > Yes, just like Tru64, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, MacOS and Windows.i  8 'Just like'?  I think not.  Your glasses need replacing.   >uD > But when something talks about "systems" and "components" they are > generally talking hardware.   I Whew!  That's a relief!  I'm glad to know that Compaq feels that way - at  least this week.  $   I doubt that customers are telling? > Compaq they prefer Mosaic to Navigator, Internet Explorer andf > Opera.  L It wouldn't be at all surprising if as many customers were telling them thatL as were 'consistently' telling them that they preferred an IA64 future to anL Alpha future (let alone an Alpha-*plus*-IA64 future along the lines of IBM's coexistence roadmaps).   >tB > The idea of being able to run VMS on a wider variety of machines- > than produced by Compaq is quite appealing.t  @ Not when combined with the loss of Alpha it isn't.  Not one bit.     Even if concernsD > about support made it unattractive to a lot of serious businesses,8 > the evangelism prospects for hobbyists are astounding.  G I think you're thinking about Heathkit PDP-11s in the '70s.  Times havecH changed, Larry.  Of course, there are hobby groups out there for defunctL platforms like Amiga, so I'm sure there will be non-zero activity around VMSJ as well - if it actually gets released on a truly-commodity IA64 platform.     While theaD > education marketplace has always been where people get their firstC > biases on operating systems, that is moving upstream to the home.t  F And upstream - 'way upstream - is how VMS will have to swim to get any foothold there.  Dream on.   >.B > A properly run hobbyist program does not cost Compaq anything inB > lost sales -- those people were not going to fork over thousands > of dollars anyway.  G When has Compaq ever run anything related to VMS in any manner remotelyt characterizable as 'properly'?   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:11:36 -0500 * From: cjt & trefoil <cheljuba@prodigy.net>4 Subject: Re: Check out the Wall Street Journal today+ Message-ID: <3B54AA08.B00F09CF@prodigy.net>    Bill Gunshannon wrote: > 4 > In article <NbU47.808$rc5.60633@news.cpqcorp.net>,7 >  "Sue Skonetski" <susan.skonetski@compaq.com> writes:5 > |>Q > |> Our customers consistently say that they prefer the choice,  flexibility andsQ > |> cost-efficiency of systems based on industry-leading components, rather thann > |> proprietary technologies. > 2 > Ummm....  Isn't OpenVMS proprietary technology??    So is Windows, for that matter.    >  > bill >  > --L > Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesF > bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > University of Scranton   |@ > Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:20:01 -0500 * From: cjt & trefoil <cheljuba@prodigy.net>4 Subject: Re: Check out the Wall Street Journal today+ Message-ID: <3B54AC01.4F242032@prodigy.net>    Larry Kilgallen wrote: >  <snip>B > The idea of being able to run VMS on a wider variety of machines/ > than produced by Compaq is quite appealing.    <snip>  G I'm not aware of Compaq saying they would allow such a thing.  Are you?,   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Jul 2001 18:04:11 -05009 From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen)n4 Subject: Re: Check out the Wall Street Journal today3 Message-ID: <$F0DapD5OBPQ@eisner.encompasserve.org>-  X In article <3B54AC01.4F242032@prodigy.net>, cjt & trefoil <cheljuba@prodigy.net> writes: > Larry Kilgallen wrote: >> c > <snip>C >> The idea of being able to run VMS on a wider variety of machinesw0 >> than produced by Compaq is quite appealing.   > <snip> > I > I'm not aware of Compaq saying they would allow such a thing.  Are you?i  A I am aware of Fred Kleinsorge saying they are trying to avoid any A technical barriers to that.  Non-technical decisions don't matter B for three years anyway, so there is plenty of time to lobby Compaq- management, which means NOT IN THE NEWSGROUP.0   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:58:03 GMTh4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>4 Subject: Re: Check out the Wall Street Journal today: Message-ID: <fi457.730$N21.668140@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>  F "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam> wrote in message- news:$F0DapD5OBPQ@eisner.encompasserve.org...s; > In article <3B54AC01.4F242032@prodigy.net>, cjt & trefoilv <cheljuba@prodigy.net> writes: > > Larry Kilgallen wrote: > >>
 > > <snip>E > >> The idea of being able to run VMS on a wider variety of machinesa0 > >> than produced by Compaq is quite appealing.
 > > <snip> > >tK > > I'm not aware of Compaq saying they would allow such a thing.  Are you?w >oC > I am aware of Fred Kleinsorge saying they are trying to avoid anylC > technical barriers to that.  Non-technical decisions don't mattereD > for three years anyway, so there is plenty of time to lobby Compaq/ > management, which means NOT IN THE NEWSGROUP.    Amen! Well said, Larry!n   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:23:43 -0500n& From: Jenny Butler <jbutler@utmem.edu>, Subject: Compaq & Encompass Event in Atlanta6 Message-ID: <006801c10ef5$fe59a9f0$bf01c084@utmem.edu>  I  FYI for those of you near the Atlanta, GA area, Compaq and Encompass areR  sponsoring a technical .  presentation - see below.  To register, go to www.encompassus.org/event/LPP/  and choose Atlanta.F  If you are not from the Atlanta area, check this web site for special events  in your area./  Atlanta Technology Day by Compaq and Encompass1;  Wireless Technologies, SANs, and Keynote by Jeffrey Harrowm!  Galleria Parkway Compaq FacilityQ  Thursday, July 26, 2001  9:30 am - 4:00 pmK  Encompass, the evolution of the DECUS US Chapterthe evolution of the DECUSnL  US Chapter, and Compaq Computer Corporation cordially invite you to join us=  on Thursday, July 26, for a free all-day technical exchange.s  J    a.. Keynote address by noted technologist Jeffrey Harrow, author of The#  Rapidly Changing Face of Computing 4    b.. SANs - Breakout session with John GrundhoeferA    c.. Wireless Technologies - Breakout Session with Mike Stewart=A    d.. Compaq Demo center - see the latest technologies in action=I  Throughout the day there will be opportunities to interact with Compaq'seF  Executives and Systems Engineers, as well as Encompass Board Members,L  volunteers, and other knowledgeable IT professionals like yourself. We wantJ  to hear your interests and priorities. Encompass and Compaq are committed to2  an open dialogue for their members and customers.  D  To reserve your seat for this special event, please register today.  !  Directions to Compaq in Atlanta.=  D  If you have any questions, please contact Encompass Headquarters at  information@encompassus.org.0   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 02:51:00 GMTo. From: "mulp" <michaelpettengill@earthlink.net>* Subject: Re: Compaq have committed suicideD Message-ID: <oQ657.2431$yE1.262438@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>  @ "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote in message, news:1mG47.770$rc5.60533@news.cpqcorp.net...J > Why?  Did the VAX -> Alpha migration mean this?  Do you *really* care if the J > platform you are running is "Alpha Inside"?  What if we had been able toK > build a VAX as fast as an Alpha?  The commitment is to OpenVMS.  So under   L The reason for doing RISC was that it was estimated, and demonstrated over aK number of years, that a RISC machine could be implemented a year ahead of a.5 similar generation CISC machine with fewer resources.a  H However, two RISC machines were rejected as targets for VMS because theyK lacked the required features to allow VMS to be VMS.  The Alpha program was J initiated after significant investigation was done by multiple engineeringD groups with the major issues identified and compromises in the AlphaJ architecture agreed to.  And almost all of Digital "enrolled" in the AlphaG program and made the made it happen quickly (unix was the major holdouth/ which is why it was six months later than VMS).   L In contrast, Intel has demonstrated that going beyond RISC and doing a CISCyI RISC plus CISC means that development of a chip results in delivering thel( performance of a CISC chip a year later.  I And it sure looks like VMS engineering is left to to the best they can toJL make VMS be VMS, but VMS once was a platform with broad application support,C and then, with Digital making it clear that VMS wasn't an important J platform, VMS has had a dwindling level of application support.  And I canH speak from personal experience that the decision to switch from Alpha toI IA64 didn't cause Compaq management to blink from laying off unix and VMS ( engineers AFTER the decisions were made.  J As a long time VMS bigot, I did everything that I could to promote VMS andJ make VMS a better product for about 2 decades.  I've spent years shovelingG sand against the tide with Digital.  Then after seeing Compaq being the J disaster I expected, I still stuck around still shoveling sand against theF Compaq tidal wave.  I can say with some assurance that Compaq makes itE nearly impossible for even senior management to "do the right thing".n  H But hey, if you need any help shoveling sand against this latest monson,G give me a call, I'm a glutton for punishment and besides after 27 years L Compaq thought enough to lay me off a few months short of getting some of myI retirement benefits, so I'll be happy to do just about anything to finish C the time needed to get those.  And this can't be any worse then the 
 Pro-350...   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:09:48 GMTl. From: "Duane Sand" <duane.sand@mindspring.com>* Subject: Re: Compaq have committed suicideA Message-ID: <06757.222562$%i7.125639945@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com>   
 "mulp" wrote:lI > ... However, two RISC machines were rejected as targets for VMS becauset@ > they lacked the required features to allow VMS to be VMS.  ...  B It would be interesting to hear what machines those were, and what was lacking.  H I suppose one machine was MIPS.  That has only 2 levels for kernel/user,I not the 4 used by VMS.  And the negative half of 32-bit virtual addresses D has a fixed usage.  If those were the problems, they could have been5 easily fixed by some minor cooperation from Mips Inc.l   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Jul 2001 16:44:52 -05009 From: kaplow_r@eisner.encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow)l- Subject: Re: Compaq proves their incompetence 3 Message-ID: <psIbS55sKgY8@eisner.encompasserve.org>t  W In article <26JUN200102163422@gerg.tamu.edu>, carl@gerg.tamu.edu (Carl Perkins) writes:iD > What I want to know is what Compaq is actually getting out of this" > deal other than an "agreement".   @ Same thing DEC got from the Microsoft alliance. Hung out to dry.   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:58:42 GMT0. From: "mulp" <michaelpettengill@earthlink.net>; Subject: Re: Compaq's Road to IPF: A Twenty-Question Survey D Message-ID: <Si457.2124$Mi6.221380@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>  J The question about ISVs porting their apps is generally a yes/no question:  B Will ISVs port 100% of the apps I need so that I can move to IA64?  J Yes means that the next question applies, no means you stick with Alpha or switch to another vendor.o  K Will ISVs offer the IA64 version for a reasonable price, ie., equivalent toE a year support contract?      > "Bill Gunshannon" <bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message% news:9iv29h$s2p$1@info.cs.uofs.edu...5@ > At least one of the questions needed more options for answers. >kE > "Do you believe ISVs will port their apps to Compaq IPF platforms?".E > isn't really a yes or no question.  Undoubtedly, some will and just  > as undoubtedly some won't. >c$ > A better question might have been: >p@ > "What percentage of ISV's do you think will port their apps to > Compaq IPF platforms?"
 >     100%
 >      80%
 >      60%
 >      40%
 >      20%
 >       0% >h > Or:e >n? > "What percentage of ISV's apps do you think will be ported to  > Compaq IPF platforms?"
 >     100%
 >      80%
 >      60%
 >      40%
 >      20%
 >       0% >y >e > bill >i > --L > Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesF > bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > University of Scranton   |@ > Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h> >    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 05:09:58 GMTi. From: "mulp" <michaelpettengill@earthlink.net>M Subject: Re: Compilers go to Intel, hobbyist, CSLG, etc. goes out the window?a@ Message-ID: <GS857.38$Po6.5284@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>  F "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam> wrote in message- news:uG0lM0APkSkq@eisner.encompasserve.org...yI > People asked (in this very forum) for VMS to run on commodity hardware.gF > In the middle of tough financial times, Compaq got Intel to fund the0 > port.  Compaq responded (even if by accident).  > All that was required for VMS to run on commodity hardware wasF     1) for Compaq sales reps to stop competing against other companies
 selling Alphat-     2) make the SRM console readily available   H Its ironic that Compaq won't sell PCs direct so its getting clobbered byG Dell, yet when it comes to selling Alpha hardware, Compaq can't content K itself to just take a big chunk of profit from VMS software sales.  Does it K make sense to give Microsoft $50 in profit and $50 to Intel and then acceptsI $0 in profit, but finds it objectionable to have an Alpha box builder pay- Compaq $150 for VMS?   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:11:36 GMT 2 From: hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam (Hoff Hoffman); Subject: Re: DCL code will break in Alpha -> IPF migration? 2 Message-ID: <I5057.884$rc5.60964@news.cpqcorp.net>  V In article <3B52F6F1.7725D7FA@my-deja.com>, Everett Chong <echong@my-deja.com> writes:   :... F$GETSYI("HW_MODEL")...  D   I've been using a combination of SYI$_ARCH_NAME/SYI$_ARCH_TYPE andG   SYI$_HW_MODEL, but I do not yet know what the return string for thesesG   system service requests will be on the OpenVMS IPF platform.  As was oF   mentioned, the current SYI$_HW_MODEL test (for VAX vs Alpha) is not &   easily extensible to OpenVMS on IPF.  I :These will have to be identified and re-written for Itanic.  What valuesr2 :of HW_MODEL will be used for IPF based systems?    H   I have no idea, and I'd expect to be one of the earliest folks to knowG   this detail.  This is a reasonable question, but asked far too early.rI   If I were going to take a completely wild GUESS, I'd tend to GUESS that H   SYI$_ARCH_TYPE would be 3 on OpenVMS IPF systems.  (I don't know that,F   of course.)  This GUESS is subject to change without notice -- I may%   well be entirely WRONG here.  YMMV.i  N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------N       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.com    N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------L    Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoffman#xdelta.zko.dec.com   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:02:29 GMTn2 From: hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam (Hoff Hoffman); Subject: Re: DCL code will break in Alpha -> IPF migration?e2 Message-ID: <FJ157.894$rc5.62074@news.cpqcorp.net>  n In article <cYdzDmF0uQeX@tachxxsoftxxconsult>, wayne@tachysoft.xxx.320117.killspam.015d (Wayne Sewell) writes:  J :The reason for use of the F$GETSYI("HW_MODEL") was that arch_name was notN :defined in earlier versions of vms on vax.  Thus the above test would fail onF :an old version.  Unfortunately, people still insist on running those.  H   And the same problem that existed then exists now -- if we change the J   interpretation of HW_MODEL, we silently break applications and we cause D   porting to be somewhat more difficult.  (The decision to document I   SYI$_HW_MODEL values greater than 1023 as meaning an Alpha system was,  E   in retrospect, quite short-sighted on our part.)  If we change the pF   interpretation, we may well have to provide a pile of retrofit kits J   for other platforms, or we force code to have to further conditionalize J   which $getsyi itemcodes and versions it can and should use, or we force K   differences among the platforms.  (But developers would get a nice error oF   if SYI$_HW_MODEL simply returned an error on OpenVMS IPF systems, ofE   course.)  Again, this is the same basic problem we had last time...t  K   As ARCH_NAME and ARCH_TYPE have been in common use for a while now, that r@   would be the approach that I'd personally tend to look toward.  G   That said, a discussion on this topic is running here within OpenVMS sD   Engineering, and I expect we should have documentation for how theE   OpenVMS IPF systems will identify themselves reviewed and ready forhE   the CETS2001 presentations in September, if not (well) before then.eH   (The discussion specifically cites a range for the SYI$_HW_MODEL codesG   for IPF systems, lest we have to go through this mess yet again.  :-)m  N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------N       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.com    N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------L    Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoffman#xdelta.zko.dec.com   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:38:11 -0400s# From: Mark Vance <mvance@iglou.com> 5 Subject: DEC C Doc of lib$routines.h and descriptor.h ( Message-ID: <3B5504A3.7080203@iglou.com>  , Anyone know where I can access these online.   Using DEC C.......  C I need to create directories on the fly, then check to see if I've  9 created them before proceeding...Anyone have any ideas...r   I think i make the dir with:  6 $descriptor(dirdesc,"disk$something:[top.newdirname"); lib$create_dir(&dirdesc);e  E But i don't know what lib routine I should use to check for the dirs e, existence before i continue....Any thoughts?   Thanks,c Mark..   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 04:05:48 GMTg' From: "michael" <someone@microsoft.com> 9 Subject: Re: DEC C Doc of lib$routines.h and descriptor.h39 Message-ID: <wW757.15029$l%.5576627@typhoon2.gnilink.net>o  L If you are at all interested in portability, you can use mkdir() + (ftw() orL access()). If you want to stick with the VMS rtl, you can use either the RMS# routines ($PARSE) or lib$find file.    Hope this helps.    0 "Mark Vance" <mvance@iglou.com> wrote in message" news:3B5504A3.7080203@iglou.com... >a. > Anyone know where I can access these online. >  > Using DEC C....... >iD > I need to create directories on the fly, then check to see if I've; > created them before proceeding...Anyone have any ideas...| >  > I think i make the dir with: >#8 > $descriptor(dirdesc,"disk$something:[top.newdirname"); > lib$create_dir(&dirdesc);1 >0F > But i don't know what lib routine I should use to check for the dirs. > existence before i continue....Any thoughts? >3	 > Thanks,4 > Mark.. >n   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Jul 2001 20:44:30 -05009 From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen)yJ Subject: Re: DEC-Intel lawsuit (was: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate)3 Message-ID: <DElTuioJNV26@eisner.encompasserve.org>-  g In article <name99-1707011629260001@il0203a-dhcp93.apple.com>, name99@mac.com (Maynard Handley) writes:aQ > In article <009FF22B.42FD96BE@SendSpamHere.ORG>, system@SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:O >> iJ >> Gee, there was a lot of truth in that one paragraph.  Alpha influenced K >> Pentium design via intel's patent rip-offs.  Digital's business problemss > G > it does not add anything useful to the debate to characterize Intel's>L > patent infringement as a "rip-off". This implies Intel engineers hitting aJ > roadblock, unable to solve the problem, and coming up with a solution by > searching patent databases.    You might infer that.h  G Based on what was said at the time of the lawsuit, Intel had been givene2 non-disclosure access to Alpha design information.   I have no direct knowledge.    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 01:31:57 GMT ; From: Mark Garrett <Mark.Garrett@wedontwantyourspam.com.au>dJ Subject: Re: DEC-Intel lawsuit (was: Alpha:  an invitation to communicate)C Message-ID: <B77B24A0.1C133%Mark.Garrett@wedontwantyourspam.com.au>   D in article DElTuioJNV26@eisner.encompasserve.org, Larry Kilgallen at< Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote on 18/07/2001 11:44:  O > In article <name99-1707011629260001@il0203a-dhcp93.apple.com>, name99@mac.comr > (Maynard Handley) writes:TK >> In article <009FF22B.42FD96BE@SendSpamHere.ORG>, system@SendSpamHere.ORGr	 >> wrote:o >>> J >>> Gee, there was a lot of truth in that one paragraph.  Alpha influencedL >>> Pentium design via intel's patent rip-offs.  Digital's business problems >> tH >> it does not add anything useful to the debate to characterize Intel'sM >> patent infringement as a "rip-off". This implies Intel engineers hitting atK >> roadblock, unable to solve the problem, and coming up with a solution byl >> searching patent databases. >  > You might infer that., > I > Based on what was said at the time of the lawsuit, Intel had been givenC4 > non-disclosure access to Alpha design information. >  > I have no direct knowledge.>  J My understanding was the technology used from Alpha to Pentium had nothingC to do with the processor family architecture and was only the cacheg- management especially in relationship to SMP.s  K     I don't believe there is any specially technology that makes alpha fastiJ that is not know or available to Intel, IBM, HP etc. This spin from CPQ orK whoever that some how Alpha will live on inside Itanium and make it better,kK I'd call that BS. The performance battles for this new chip won't be foughtsJ in silicon design teams but by compilers teams. CPQ also spins a nice lineL that there compilers will go to make this an easy port and good performance.D The only part of the compilers from alpha will be the syntax parsingI components the hard work in DEC's compilers has been to produce blazinglya3 fast alpha code all of that just hits the dust bin.i  
     Cheers         Mark :).   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 01:46:47 GMTa. From: "mulp" <michaelpettengill@earthlink.net>) Subject: Re: Full port of VMS to Itanium.pD Message-ID: <bU557.2405$Mi6.251160@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>  @ "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote in message, news:c8G47.766$rc5.60327@news.cpqcorp.net...L > Check the subjects of PAL/SAL and EFI.  The console for IPF is pretty muchJ > what we wanted to do to resolve the problem of having the SRM and having theaH > ARC consoles (a unified console).  It appears pretty complete.  We are stillnK > looking at it to try and devine a few things - like the ability to have a I > non-graphics console (it does define headless booting).  Some things wee knowG > we don't get - like MOP booting (it uses something defined by a "PXE"uF > specification) - but it also is extensible so we *could* write a MOPL > protocol handler.  It remains to be seen *exactly* what we will want addedF > to the console, if anything.  And what we will move into the O/S (as= > appropriate).  We are working on these questions right now.r  J I've been reading them and my interpretation is that the EFI support is toI add device support by having a ROM on an adapter board that contains byteoL code (EFI is supposed to be written in byte code) so that it can be executedG on IA32 and IA64.  This would be the way you configure the Adaptec SCSIl? adapter for fast/slow mode, internal/external termination, etc.f  4 I like this explanation of PXE, seems appropriate...J "WHAT IS PXE?  Peudoxanthoma elasticum (PXE) is an inherited disorder ..."  L But PXE is basically BOOTP/TFTP.  There's no reason that BOOTP/TFTP can't beJ used to load the initial "IPB", but the infrastructure changes required onL the host end will be more fun than VMS implementing a DECnet independent MOPJ loader (1 man year).  Of course if its done right, it would be step towardF running VMS on top of IP (3 man years).  And over a WAN (8 man years).J Not a problem - I'm sure that VMS has an unlimited budget for porting what2 with Intel kicking in lots of cash for porting....   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 04:21:29 GMT . From: "mulp" <michaelpettengill@earthlink.net>2 Subject: Re: Help - Get OpenVMS screen data by ASPB Message-ID: <d9857.121$vj4.23824@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>  F "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam> wrote in message- news:p7yyhY6QUa7m@eisner.encompasserve.org... E > I have found Touch Technologies subscription service to be somewhatfF > erratic.  Not dishonest, just unorganized.  Some grapevine access isC > required in order to be sure you get the subscription updates.  InB > can't seem to find the DECUServe "Latest Software" conference on@ > the web, so I will bring that up for discussion.  Of course, I@ > do not remember ensuring DEC Document V3.3 was in there when I% > got it, so I will work on that too.I  J Problem should be solved in 2004, I doubt that Intel will see the logic inF paying for a port to IA64 and why should TTI update the software for a retired Alpha platform.d   ------------------------------  , Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:14:53 +0200 (CEST)- From: Freddy Meerwaldt <frederik@freddym.org>o Subject: IA64 Discussion stuffJ Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0107171910380.8611-100000@firewall.freddym.org>  	 Hi there!e  J I keep on receiving 100s of E-Mails a day through info-vax (E-Mail Gateway from comp.os.vms).3 Would it be possible to get back to on-topic stuff?.H OK - IA64 is not completely off-topic but it is only a Hardware Platform( where Compaq said they will port VMS to.H Sad, that they're replacing the Alphas with that, but as this is a final0 decision, much talking doesn't help any further.  H Please: Let IA64 be IA64 and Alpha be Alpha and VAX be VAX and let's getC back to the Operating System VMS, for which this group was created.e  & I expect _no_ replies on this posting.   Greetings - Freddy -- eN Geek Code 3.1: GCS s+: a--- C+++ UBOU+++ P-- E--- W++ N w--- V++ PGP- t? 5? tv  J ==========================================================================>  Frederik Meerwaldt           Homepage: http://www.freddym.orgC  Bavaria/Germany              OpenVMS and Unix Howtos and much more I  Solaris, HP/UX, AIX, NetBSD, OpenBSD, IRIX, Tru64, OpenVMS, Ultrix, BeOS-   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 20:18:48 +0200R, From: Toon Moene <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl>  Subject: Re: IA64 Rocks My World4 Message-ID: <3B548188.E7E14A5D@moene.indiv.nluug.nl>   Russell Crook wrote:  = > "If you think C++ is not overly complicated, just what is a B > protected abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor,I > and when was the last time you needed one?" -- Tom Cargill, C++ Journal-  H I wouldn't know (honest !) but our GNATS bug database is full of reports= like the above followed by the three words: "is not working".t   -- AG Toon Moene - mailto:toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phoneto: +31 346 214290o6 Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The NetherlandsG Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.htmlaE Join GNU Fortran 95: http://g95.sourceforge.net/ (under construction)i   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:54:46 -0400 ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>a  Subject: Re: IA64 Rocks My World( Message-ID: <9j24u7$rbs$1@pyrite.mv.net>  @ "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote in message, news:U1%47.872$rc5.61019@news.cpqcorp.net...   ...s  H > OK, OK, you knew what I meant...  Why would Oracle spend good money on OPS.  K 1.  OPS was developed over a decade ago, when available SMP systems had fare# less headroom than they have today.t  G 2.  But even today it has value (just as clusters still have value evencE though large SMP systems can handle *most* major workloads) in, e.g.,f( availability and additional scalability.  F The problem with using cluster configurations with TPC-C is that TPC-CL operation is so readily partitionable that you can get just about any numberK you want (just keep adding hardware).  Most real-world database use is moreiH intertwined (or at least sufficiently hard to partition effectively thatL most people don't), such that you can't just keep adding cluster members and) scale performance anything like linearly.   L So while TPC-C running on non-clustered configurations may give you at leastE *some* idea of the relative performance of different platforms, TPC-ClE running clustered is fairly useless (at least unless at a minimum youlI compare configurations with equal numbers of cluster nodes, and even then4@ other particulars of the test configuration can make significant
 differences).r   - bill   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Jul 2001 13:46:54 -07000 From: ruemmler@cello.hpl.hp.com (Chris Ruemmler)  Subject: Re: IA64 Rocks My World( Message-ID: <9j287u$nu@cello.hpl.hp.com>  2 In article <seY47.836$rc5.60878@news.cpqcorp.net>,4 Fred Kleinsorge <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote:H >OK.  I'm, not a database expert, but why is this a bad thing?  If TPC-CG >truly measures relative performance that could be expected in the reallH >world - and if partitioning the system gets you this performance - thenG >what's the big deal?  Tru64 clusters do provide a single system image, + >making it relatively easy to administer.  n >fJ Yes, the system might be easy to administer (although all of the flags youG need to set to get things like replicated text working might be more ofoD a hassle than for a non-NUMA box) but the database side is not givenE you need to setup partitions and have multiple instances.  It is much = harder to maintain the database than with a single instance. R  D Also, most workloads are not as partitionable as TPC-C.  In order toE scale to larger and larger workloads, TPC-C had to almost be designed.C to be easily partitionable.  It needed to scale up the workload as _J performance increased.  The easiest way to do that was to scale everythingC by "warehouses."  Once you do this, however, it becomes trivial to  F partition the entire setup based on "warehouse."  This could have been> busted with a lot of cross warehouse communication/queries but@ the amount of this type of traffic in TPC-C is extremely small.   C The only companies that use the TPC-C "cluster" hack are those thatrH don't have a machine big enough or fast enought to compete in the singleG  instance area (where customers care).  This has been mainly Microsoft hM supporters (IBM PC group and Compaq) and Compaq/Sequent due to the poor NUMA k design of their systems. I   >On the other hand, if TPC-C is_L >just another meaningless benchmark number - then lets stop talking about it* >altogether - or define a meaningful test. >-B Actually, for single instance, TPC-C is one of the best benchmarksA out there.  It stresses the system greatly for a single database  A instance.  Its only problem is that vendors took advantage of themC partitionability of the workload to generate huge numbers when they-D could not do so with a single box.  This made it appear they were inA the game when they really were not.   The TPC fixed this somewhatuB by creating a "clustered" list of results and "non-clustered" listJ of results.  Unfortunately, the GS320 number is considered "non-clustered"B because the OS is single instance even though the database is not.  G So, the real problem is the misclassification of the GS320 (and SequentWC numbers previously) as non-cluster results when in fact they used a" clustered database.w   --Chrisf
 My own views. F ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >. >nA >Chris Ruemmler wrote in message <9j00of$c44@cello.hpl.hp.com>...e, >>In article <3B45E1CD.FBDBC266@us.ibm.com>,+ >>Greg Pfister  <pfister@us.ibm.com> wrote:e >>>andrew harrison wrote:s	 >>>[snip]s; >>>> The problem for WildFire is that it was late but  wheno4 >>>> it was announced it wasn't competitive with the= >>>> previous generation of servers from Compaqs competitors.s >>>>8 >>>> It recently reached the dizzy heights of 230,000 on5 >>>> TPC-C, using the latest 1001 Mhz CPU's, a result 8 >>>> puts it just ahead of the IBM P680, a machine thats* >>>> just about to be replaced by Regatta. >>>>4 >>>> When Rob Young started his WildFire boosting in5 >>>> the dark and dim past initial numbers of 200,000r5 >>>> were being bandied about, I can only assume thate5 >>>> this number was a design goal that was leaked tom2 >>>> Rob (unless he made it up). The fact that the1 >>>> initial numbers came out way lower than thate2 >>>> and then needed OPS in a box tends to suggest) >>>> that they missed their design goals.a >>>uD >>>Do you know for a fact that the OPS-in-a-box solution was used inD >>>Wildfire? That's often rather difficult to tell from official TPC? >>>disclosures. If it was used, it of course makes the high TPCS7 >>>results rather meaningless (in my personal opinion).n >>> B >>Yes, all of the GS320 TPC-C numbers have been a cluster in a canI >>with OPS except the very first one they published and withdrew (becausemC >>it was so poor in terms of performance).  If you look at the full- >disclosure J >>reports you'll see 8 configuration files for Oracle in the back, one forG >>each instance.  In addition, their "clients" are always configured in-B >>multiples of 8 which is another hint that partitioning was used. >>F >>It is sad that Compaq had to resort to TPC-C tricks like this to tryC >>and show performance on the box.  I imagine the "real" single boxCD >>performance is not terrible, just not leadership.  The NUMA hit onC >>that box is really much too large to run TPC-C really well with an >>single instance. >>	 >>--Chrisd >>My own views >l >t   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Jul 2001 13:58:09 -07000 From: ruemmler@cello.hpl.hp.com (Chris Ruemmler)  Subject: Re: IA64 Rocks My World) Message-ID: <9j28t1$1gd@cello.hpl.hp.com>d  2 In article <UUZ47.856$rc5.60905@news.cpqcorp.net>,4 Fred Kleinsorge <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote:M >Then explain to me why TPC-C numbers have any meaning at all.  Or why OracleeD >would waste good money developing such a thing - if nobody uses it. > ? TPC-C numbers are very meaningful for single instance databasessC and OSes.  Whoever has the fastest single instance number will haveaB the best "cluster" number with enough money.  Right now, I'd claimA the leader for single instance is Fujitsu followed closely by IBMtE and HP.  Compaq "appears" to be the leader given the GS320 number at MB 1GHZ, but that was a "cluster in a can" and does not really count.! Sun and Compaq bring up the rear.h  ? People do use Oracle's OPS, but they use it for reliability note> performance.  Typically the other "node" is just a hot standby? incase the main system goes down.  This allows the downtime to  B be minimal and is absolutely needed technology to run a 24x7 shop.  B Notice that there are ZERO SAP OPS numbers.  There is a reason for@ this.  The SAP benchmark does not easily partition, thus it does> not run well with OPS.  In this sense SAP actually represents B real life better than TPC-C.  However, there are other issues that; make SAP benchmarks probably less reliable of a performancel predictor than TPC-C.D   --Chrisw My own views   >a >nG >Alexis Cousein wrote in message <3B546A8F.8090608@brussels.sgi.com>...o >>Fred Kleinsorge wrote: >>A >>> OK.  I'm, not a database expert, but why is this a bad thing?n >> >>E >>Because in real life, no-one will actually run a database this way,pF >>because it lacks flexibility and is an administrative nightmare, andG >>that you cannot predict a workload like you can in a TPC-C benchmark.f >>F >>At least that's what my totally unrepresentative sample of customers2 >>(and some Sun customers I know) seem to tell me. >> >>--A >><these messages express my own views, not those of my employer>a( >>Alexis Cousein Senior Systems Engineer/ >>SGI Belgium and Luxemburg al@brussels.sgi.com  >> >i >    ------------------------------  + Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:45:17 +0000 (UTC) / From: Sander Vesik <sander@haldjas.folklore.ee>o  Subject: Re: IA64 Rocks My World2 Message-ID: <995409922.613988@haldjas.folklore.ee>  : In comp.arch Toon Moene <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> wrote: > Russell Crook wrote:  > >> "If you think C++ is not overly complicated, just what is aC >> protected abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor,uJ >> and when was the last time you needed one?" -- Tom Cargill, C++ Journal  J > I wouldn't know (honest !) but our GNATS bug database is full of reports? > like the above followed by the three words: "is not working".m  J It's should include a "class's", between 'base' and 'pure', shouldn't it?    > -- rI > Toon Moene - mailto:toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phoneto: +31 346 214290t8 > Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The NetherlandsI > Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.htmltG > Join GNU Fortran 95: http://g95.sourceforge.net/ (under construction)s   -- t 	Sandern   FLW: "I can banish that demon"   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Jul 2001 12:56:17 -0700& From: rudy@edpstaff.com (Rudy de Haas). Subject: Re: IA64 volume and low-end dominance< Message-ID: <fdecfe0a.0107171156.1eef297@posting.google.com>   hi:I  A I was looking for a place to hype my new book - The Unix Guide totC Defenestration ; see my winface.com site - but got sidetracked intot@ reading all the postings on the the IA64 volume/dominance issue., Weird, does no-one remember the pentium-pro?  D That chip was in many ways Intel's first attempt at a full 32bit CPUC environment and, like today's Xeons, didn't do dumb things like runiC "native" 16bit instructions. It was a great product -one of the few F times that Intel produced something that was performance competitive -C but it almost destroyed Intel's desktop monopoly because it allowed'B companies like AMD to gain market share by creating high megahertzA 32/16bit chips that beat the pants off the Pentium Pro in runninge< Windows 3.1 and 95 applications with 16bit instruction sets.  @ Will the Itantic's lack of backwards compatibility have the sameB effect? Personally I think it will, but it is clear that Intel and Microsoft haveC something different in mind. It's no coincidence - at least I don't-F think it is- that the alphacide announcement came on the same day that the appeals courtlF set aside the penalities Judge Jackson had assessed against Microsoft.  C What I think they expect is that this time the license subscription D strategy being embarked on by Microsoft will kill off that old 32bit code and AMD with.F it.  Whether that is the plan, and whether it works or not, are things thatF remain to be seen but the Itanic has promise - and patent protection - so  it will be interesting to watch.   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:16:11 GMT 2 From: hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) Subject: Re: InfoServerc2 Message-ID: <%9057.886$rc5.61082@news.cpqcorp.net>  p In article <BCO47.10$1w.72760@e3500-chi1.usenetserver.com>, "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh@shell1.aracnet.com> writes:% :Rich Jordan <rjordan@mcs.net> wrote:MN :> We wait with  breathless anticipation... please don't make us wait till the" :> ipf port is finished though! :) :hG :The *WHAT* port!!!!!!  Are you saying that they're going to add NAT toeK :OpenVMS?  Now that could potentially save me some electricity at home!  OrtH :am I getting my anacronyms mixed up, or are you talking about something :else?  E   This is a reference to some OpenVMS LAD server discussions and someaB   related engineering work that is (was) underway here in OpenVMS G   Engineering -- LAD is the InfoServer disk protocol.  (Not NAT.)  The  C   prototype that is (was) under discussion and development targets tE   (targeted) specifically disk services -- and NOT tape and NOT CD-R r<   capabilities -- traditionally found on InfoServer systems.  N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------N       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.com    N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------L    Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoffman#xdelta.zko.dec.com   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:15:11 -0400t' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>a! Subject: Re: ISV's and VMS future-( Message-ID: <9j22k0$pl5$1@pyrite.mv.net>  > "Bill Gunshannon" <bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message% news:9j1jt7$120$2@info.cs.uofs.edu...t. > In article <3B53D0B5.A2BAB07C@telocity.com>,' >  Koloth <koloth@telocity.com> writes:l   ...   L > |> So the question to the ISV and compaq marketeers is with all else being
 equal, why2 > |> would you choose anything other than OpenVMS? >n* > Uncertainty about the future of OpenVMS.  F Anyone who's still uncertain about the future of VMS at this point has his/her eyes tightly shut.   - bill   >. > bill >' > --L > Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesF > bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > University of Scranton   |@ > Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h> >o   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:28:46 -0500o1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> ! Subject: Re: ISV's and VMS future-' Message-ID: <3B54D83E.33029E56@fsi.net>u   "Terry C. Shannon" wrote:  > @ > "Bill Gunshannon" <bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message' > news:9j1jt7$120$2@info.cs.uofs.edu...10 > > In article <3B53D0B5.A2BAB07C@telocity.com>,) > >  Koloth <koloth@telocity.com> writes:l > >a > > |>N > > |> So the question to the ISV and compaq marketeers is with all else being > equal, why4 > > |> would you choose anything other than OpenVMS? > >y, > > Uncertainty about the future of OpenVMS. > >o > I > That sums it up pretty nicely. I wonder if Compaq is A) monitoring thisf3 > newsgroup and B) will profit from the experience..  G If we search the newsgroup archives (what archives???), I'm sure we cantH find you saying that www.compaqworkinggroup.org (or something like that)$ is the place for such communication.  G If thq Q were *REALLY* reading this newsgroup, we'd have had AffordableE* OpenVMS for VAX, Alpha and IA32 years ago.   -- = David J. Dachtera= dba DJE Systems= http://www.djesys.com/  : Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page and Message Board: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/n  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.y   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:21:09 +0100o+ From: "antonio.carlini" <arcarlini@iee.org> > Subject: Re: Need help with data recovery on failed volume set' Message-ID: <3B54AC45.A5373123@iee.org>h   Roger Wiechman wrote:n >  > Hello all, > F >  I have a volume set of 2 DSP3105S 1GB DEC drives.  Logical volume 1B >  has failed.  It spins up sporadically and never loads the heads > properly.n1 >  I even swapped drive electronics, to no avail.n  * From what (little) I know of these things,* these days the HDA and the electronics are( a matched pair, so swapping stuff rarely helps.  F >  Has anyone had any experience with data/drive recovery outfits that > understand/ >  the VMS directory structure?  Are there any?e  + I expect if you ring one of the PC ones and ) they cannot do it, they should be able toI point you to a firm that can.   G >  Lacking that, what approach could be taken to retrieve data from thec > goodI >  drive, lacking the master volume?  I have already made a physical copy  > of it.  - I've never failed to restore a backup yet ...o  ' If the drives were RAIDed together thena+ I don't think you have a hope. If they werea, a volume set, I thought you could mount them5 individually (although you can only get back the dataa, that lives entirely on the available volume)( but it's been over a decade since I last used one of those.     Antoniob   --     ---------------u- Antonio Carlini             arcarlini@iee.orgT   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Jul 2001 14:35:58 -07004 From: info@savemyfiles.com (ESS Data Recovery, Inc.)> Subject: Re: Need help with data recovery on failed volume set= Message-ID: <8b86c42f.0107171335.712d9e91@posting.google.com>'  A ESS Data Recovery can definitely help you with this problem.  OureB engineers have checked your message here in comp.os.vms and we are? sure that we can   recover your data. Please see our website ate? www.savemyfiles.com.  As soon as your media arrive here we willsB perform a free evaluation, confer with you for your needs and thenD recover the data.  If speed of transmission is important, we can FTPE the recovered data to you.  And with mention of "forum group 0609/ja"n; you will qualify for a further discount of our already very7C competitive rates. Our 95% retrieval rate allows these low prices. m% Thanks, John     info@savemyfiles.com     j Roger Wiechman <Roger_Wiechman@HMC.nospam.Edu> wrote in message news:<3B539EC2.A01D8D3B@HMC.nospam.Edu>... > Hello all, > F >  I have a volume set of 2 DSP3105S 1GB DEC drives.  Logical volume 1B >  has failed.  It spins up sporadically and never loads the heads > properly. 1 >  I even swapped drive electronics, to no avail.e > F >  Has anyone had any experience with data/drive recovery outfits that > understand/ >  the VMS directory structure?  Are there any?  > G >  Lacking that, what approach could be taken to retrieve data from the  > goodI >  drive, lacking the master volume?  I have already made a physical copyo > of it. > + >  Thanks in advance for any and all ideas.s >  >          Roger   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 20:37:53 -0400t- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>a> Subject: Re: Need help with data recovery on failed volume set, Message-ID: <3B54DA5E.CD9B59E0@videotron.ca>  H > >  Has anyone had any experience with data/drive recovery outfits that > > understand1 > >  the VMS directory structure?  Are there any?i  M The Digital hardware repair centre in Hull Qubec (Canada) had the facilitiesoJ to recover data from failed drives at the time of the Compaq merger when IM visited the site during weekend meetings (I beleive that was in June 1998). IqA beleive that this facility was slated to be kept, although the PCy manufacturing was zapped.i  B I suspect Compaq would have similar facilities in other countries.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:37:30 -0400h' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>y" Subject: Re: No chance for OpenVMS( Message-ID: <9j23tq$qfc$1@pyrite.mv.net>  ? "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote in messagef4 news:d5_47.405$N21.411520@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net... >t5 > "Rudolf Wingert" <win@fom.fgan.de> wrote in message 2 > news:200107170639.IAA19447@sinet1.fom.fgan.de...
 > > Hello, > >fI > > today I red, that Andrew Butler of the Gardner Group gives OpenVMS nolG > > chance to be alive. He wrote, that the "midrange OS VMS will be theoI > > next, what Compaq will kill. By pressing the user to migrate to a new-J > > one platform, the installation base will shrink and the user will portK > > to an other OS. Also the software developer will not see a great market @ > > and in case of this not port there software to OpenVMS IA64. > >r >aI > Something is missing from this assessment... the obligatory PROBABILITYg	 > FACTOR.   E It's not obligatory for such flat predictions:  it's an implied 100%.f   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:41:07 +0100n+ From: "antonio.carlini" <arcarlini@iee.org>-K Subject: Re: OpenVMS on IPF (was re: IPF already needs a face-lift for VMS)-' Message-ID: <3B54B0F3.28BE9724@iee.org>    Dirk Munk wrote:@ > Timestamps like they are in use for OSI would be nice I guess.  4 I'm fairly sure that the DECnet/OSI code (and before0 that the DTSS code and before that the LES code)/ is where all the current UTC stuff (formats ande so on) comes from.   Antonios   -- p   --------------->- Antonio Carlini             arcarlini@iee.orgc   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 04:34:29 GMT . From: "mulp" <michaelpettengill@earthlink.net>K Subject: Re: OpenVMS on IPF (was re: IPF already needs a face-lift for VMS)sB Message-ID: <pl857.223$g84.42627@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>  ? "Hoff Hoffman" <hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam> wrote in messagee, news:i0G47.763$rc5.60120@news.cpqcorp.net...J > In article <009FF17F.ED173243@SendSpamHere.ORG>, system@SendSpamHere.ORG' (Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-) writes:eK >   The internal implementation of the TDF and of time-keeping would be onetL >   such area -- I'd like to provide a central time-keeping kernel-mode API,G >   switch to UTC for all internal operations, keep a per-process and asH >   system-wide TDF, while (of course) continuing to present the classicK >   VAX environment for all existing user-mode calls to $bintim and similarsI >   calls.  (I have NO idea if I will be able to get this change designed L >   and implemented into the IPF release, of course.)  There are other areasK >   for enhancements seeing various (and preliminary) discussions, as well.p  I Switching to maintaining time in UTC is relatively straight forward; justcI include the DECnet DTSS execlet and then modify the other products to used its API for adjusting time.w  J Of course, I'm assuming that IA64 platforms will continue using local timeK for the battery backed up watch for compatibility "Intel" PCs.  (Every good K bios allows you to set the bb_watch time and you set it to local time, just  like on Alpha.)n   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 04:47:00 GMTm. From: "mulp" <michaelpettengill@earthlink.net>K Subject: Re: OpenVMS on IPF (was re: IPF already needs a face-lift for VMS)-B Message-ID: <8x857.232$g84.44227@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>  ? "Hoff Hoffman" <hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam> wrote in message , news:%JD47.745$rc5.59664@news.cpqcorp.net...L >   made to any documented kernel-mode APIs -- I'd like to see a centralizedB >   kernel-mode call to get the system time and TDF, for instance.  G You mean like $GETUTC?  The logic of making its return an opaque objects always was a bit absurd...   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 04:53:09 GMTs. From: "mulp" <michaelpettengill@earthlink.net>K Subject: Re: OpenVMS on IPF (was re: IPF already needs a face-lift for VMS)oB Message-ID: <VC857.134$vj4.26320@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>  + "Dirk Munk" <munk@home.nl> wrote in messageh! news:3B53D8D7.57317363@home.nl...M@ > Timestamps like they are in use for OSI would be nice I guess.L > And now we are on this subject, Maybe the lexical function F$TIME could be( changed a bit ? >How about F$TIME("UTC")  K $GETUTC has been part of VMS since V6, I think.  It would be nice to have a  broader support.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 04:53:17 GMT . From: "mulp" <michaelpettengill@earthlink.net>K Subject: Re: OpenVMS on IPF (was re: IPF already needs a face-lift for VMS)pB Message-ID: <1D857.137$vj4.26320@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>  6 "antonio.carlini" <arcarlini@iee.org> wrote in message! news:3B54B0F3.28BE9724@iee.org...S6 > I'm fairly sure that the DECnet/OSI code (and before2 > that the DTSS code and before that the LES code)1 > is where all the current UTC stuff (formats and8 > so on) comes from.  K Its in VMS and has been for years.  You can always use $GETUTC and in fact,w. the C RTL etc were changed to use it long ago.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:09:45 -0400s. From: Chuck McCrobie <mccrobie@cablespeed.com>& Subject: Re: Optical Drive for OpenVMS. Message-ID: <3B54A999.9BB472A9@cablespeed.com>  E Having been one of the engineers involved with this, it is not from adA technical issue.  While I'm not sure of the part number you quotesG (C1114R - I think the 9.1 GB drives are C1114M), the software should beS there.  F Are you looking to use rewriteable or worm media?  The software from aC technical view is there for OpenVMS Alpha 6.2+ (_NOT_ VAX and _NOT_1
 Alpha 6.1)  ? The software release you'll be looking for is OSSV RELEASE 6.0.I   Chuck McCrobie   Piyush Avichal wrote:6 >  > Hello, > K > Does anyone know when the 9.1GB software for the USDESIGNS QT9100(C1114R)sP > optical drive will be available. I'm not getting much sense from USDesigns. AtQ > the moment it is only capable of using 4.8GB media. I was told the software for D > 9.1GB media would be out in the summer but I still havent seen it. > 
 > Regards, > 	 > Piyush.r   -- b --t   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:13:18 -0600  From: yyyc186@mindspring.com Subject: Oracle dead on VMS?; Message-ID: <3b551b33$1$lllp186$mr2ice@nntp.mindspring.com>i  I According to my sources at Boeing, the current rev of Oracle database and7H "tools" is the final rev they will ever release under VMS.  Any truth toJ this?  If so, good riddance to a really sh*tty database product that never1 could get anything above marketing fraud correct!e   Roland   --  ; -----------------------------------------------------------  yyyc186@mindspring.com; -----------------------------------------------------------    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 01:52:56 -0400i2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger)  Subject: Re: Oracle dead on VMS?L Message-ID: <rdeininger-1807010152570001@user-2iveb1s.dialup.mindspring.com>  ; In article <3b551b33$1$lllp186$mr2ice@nntp.mindspring.com>,. yyyc186@mindspring.com wrote:h  K > According to my sources at Boeing, the current rev of Oracle database andbJ > "tools" is the final rev they will ever release under VMS.  Any truth toL > this?  If so, good riddance to a really sh*tty database product that never3 > could get anything above marketing fraud correct!m  H I belive they have stated that they will not continue the latest versionI of Oracle _applications_ on VMS.  I don't Oracle, so I don't know exactly2J which products this entails.  This isn't particularly new, or particularly secret.a  G The core Oracle database parts are still supported and developed.  TheywC are promising VMS releases within 90 days after "favorite platform" H releases for these parts.  Favorite means Solaris and I think some otherD unixes at the moment.  As recently as May, they were saying that theI current version will probably be closer to 60 days rather than 90 for the E VMS release.  VMS gets much better treatment than the other non-unix,t non-NT platforms in this area.   And there is still Oracle Rdb.   -- i Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.comt   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:38:10 +0100i4 From: John Laird <john@laird-towers.freeserve.co.uk> Subject: Re: OT: Dr Who.8 Message-ID: <6qh9lt0j0g8aa56s8k5gh177387icc6ovb@4ax.com>  5 On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 13:15:18 -0400, "Fred Kleinsorge"u$ <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote:  7 >Some of my favorite British shows, seen by way of PBS-c >e; >Monty Python (of course, just got the complete 14 DVD set)eL >A bit of Fry and Lawrie (Stephen Fry and Hugh Lawrie are really funny guys)5 >Dr. Who - excluding the awful first and last Doctors>2 >The Fall (and subsequent Rise) of Reginald Perrin >Black Adder
 >The Prisoneri7 >To the Manor Born (well, it was cute the *first* time)T  C No "Fawlty Towers" ?  Perhaps along with Blackadder, one of the fewS? British creations to take script-writing to the highest levels.O   	John  -- n
 John Laird Yezerski Roper Ltd   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:51:11 -0400M. From: "Kenneth Randell" <kenr@datametrics.com>+ Subject: Re: Penance for Compaq's VMS sins? + Message-ID: <9j24ue$gm3$1@bob.news.rcn.net>v  L I would like to see something *really* useful, such as a SUPPORTED Alpha PCI> <-> Unibus converter.  IMHO, this has several useful benefits:  E 1) You can bring back the hardware from the days when components were K durable; you didn't have to rely on someone else to do your board swapping.-A How many Compaq service types nowadays can remove the NPG jumper?e  J 2) Unibus device drivers were easier to create/debug/fix after you crashed the system.-  8 3) FUBAR would be revived again in normal conversations.  L 4) My old tech manuals that I have saved from the 1980's would actually have6 some use; I wouldn't be bugged into throwing them out.   Ken Randello  4 Gary McCready <google@mccready.com> wrote in message7 news:6e64ea70.0107170613.2b16e328@posting.google.com...lD > Most of the converted here agree that Compaq has sinned, and sinceF > they cannot go back and undo what has been done, what penance should > we ask of them?  >tG > Translation: since they might feel guilty, what should we ask them towF > do for their VMS crowd that might make life easier, keep our systemsD > running better, make us feel that we are not already forgotten and > second-class citizens? >eH > Personally, I would like to see a clear support strategy, ranging fromF > what tools Compaq will provide to monitor and tune my system withoutE > complications (like having to patch systems before I can use CompaqoE > Analyze, etc), to good, robust prior-version support so those of useG > who cannot upgrade will not be forced off the systems earlier than we- > would like to. >eG > In short, I would like them to provide a high-class hospice where VMSp' > can die a dignified, pain-free death.f >r > --Gary McCready54 > My opinions have nothing to do with my employer's.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:37:32 +0100e+ From: "antonio.carlini" <arcarlini@iee.org>a+ Subject: Re: Penance for Compaq's VMS sins? ' Message-ID: <3B54B01C.2FA9853D@iee.org>    Kenneth Randell wrote:G > 1) You can bring back the hardware from the days when components were,M > durable; you didn't have to rely on someone else to do your board swapping.tC > How many Compaq service types nowadays can remove the NPG jumper?c  * It lasted a long time but it didn't always4 workj that reliably. Mind you, that made it fun too!  : > 3) FUBAR would be revived again in normal conversations.   Still crops up here.  N > 4) My old tech manuals that I have saved from the 1980's would actually have8 > some use; I wouldn't be bugged into throwing them out.   There are people out there withl% PDPs and VAX-11/7xx systems who wouldr help you here.  ) At least today's tech manuals come on CDsw so they take less space :-)A   Antoniop   -- o   --------------- - Antonio Carlini             arcarlini@iee.orgs   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Jul 2001 18:08:24 -05009 From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen)e+ Subject: Re: Penance for Compaq's VMS sins?a3 Message-ID: <dvVurJlsiBm3@eisner.encompasserve.org>   \ In article <9j24ue$gm3$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Kenneth Randell" <kenr@datametrics.com> writes:N > I would like to see something *really* useful, such as a SUPPORTED Alpha PCI > <-> Unibus converter.u  < The Logical Company makes one that I have used successfully.  B Insisting that Compaq compete against all third parties is a great  way to drive away third parties.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:10:39 +0200p, From: Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@gmx.ch>J Subject: Re: Possibly a dumb question on TCPIP settings for 2 IP Addresses& Message-ID: <3B54B7E0.56664912@gmx.ch>   Andy Proctor wrote:a   ../..p6 > I thought that i could set up each interface to haveF > a separate IP address. I ran TCPIP$CONFIG and set it up, but it does > not seem to work.e
 It should.  > > I have the TCPIP services management manual here, am I right6 > in now thinking I have to set up a pseudo interface? No, you are not.   > Do I have to set it up like: > " > TCPIP> SET NOINTERFACE interface- > TCPIP> SET INTERFACE interface /HOST=host - 3 > _TCPIP> /NETWORK_MASK=mask /BROADCAST_MASK=b_maske; > TCPIP> SET CONFIGURATION INTERFACE interface /HOST=host -h3 > _TCPIP> /NETWORK_MASK=mask /BROADCAST_MASK=b_maskh > I > Where "interface" would be the two interfaces I have. Host is the host tA > name (The same regardless) and the masks as I wish. Then I run r. > tcpip$config to set the IP addresses, right? yes, right.-  F > Or am I just able to set the two interfaces to have the IP addresses > required in tcpip$config?- Same answer: yes.0  F > Will the system be able to know which interface to use for a certain  > address - done by the masking?F again yes, but not via the masking, via the configuration database, in where the IP address is a key.  C What you have here is what is called a "two legs box". When you runeH tcpip$config and choose the core/interface submenu, it *should* discoverG that you actually have two cards, EWA0 and EWB0. then it should ask youoG if you want to (re)configure these. Answer yes, then configure "leg" 1,iG with IP address 1, then leg 2 with IP address 2. Then stop TCP/IP, thenoD restart TCP/IP, then do a TCPIP SH CONF INTER (to read the permanentF database) or TCPIP SH INTER (to read the "volatile" database) to check your configuration.o  K At that point, you should be able to PING both legs with the two IP values.n   If you succeed, fine. , If you do not, come back here. We will do a    $ delete sys$system:tcpip*.dat E  - and start from scratch (as Mr BRUDEN teaches)      D.8 (what I do like in DECnet-Plus is definitely TCP/IP :-))   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:10:11 +0100 + From: "antonio.carlini" <arcarlini@iee.org>c Subject: Re: RA7x series disks' Message-ID: <3B54A9B3.E41865A5@iee.org>c   Bill Gunshannon wrote: > D > The Fault and Write-Protect indicators light when I push the fault3 > button.  I looked it up in the RA81 Users Manual.o  5 The RA7x Disk Driver Service Manual lists that (0x14)a: as "Static RAM/ECM". This means swap the ECM (electronics)0 presumably because your static RAMs are somewhat2 more static than the rest of the drive would like!  0 > |> The fault code will lead you to the failing# > |> FRU ... there are only two :-): > 4 > Probably would if I had a Maintenance Manual.  :-)  - Either you swap the electronics (as a set) ors you swap the HDA.e  + Actually, you repeat press the FAULT button ( and hope the problem clears ... then you give up and swap the ECM.h   Antonioa   -- r   ---------------l- Antonio Carlini             arcarlini@iee.orgr   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:51:19 +0930hA From: "Geoff Roberts" <geoffrobx@stmarksx.ppx.catholicx.edux.aux>q Subject: Re: RA7x series disks3 Message-ID: <hy557.93660$Rr4.342884@ozemail.com.au>a  6 "antonio.carlini" <arcarlini@iee.org> wrote in message! news:3B54A9B3.E41865A5@iee.org...- >- >- > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > >uF > > The Fault and Write-Protect indicators light when I push the fault5 > > button.  I looked it up in the RA81 Users Manual.@ >i7 > The RA7x Disk Driver Service Manual lists that (0x14)e  E Is that publicly accessible anywhere?  I have a ream of RA7x's and no. books, (Ditto TA79/RA9x)i   Cheers   Geoff in Oze   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 02:55:57 GMT ( From: Terry Kennedy <terry@gate.tmk.com> Subject: Re: RA7x series disks' Message-ID: <GGnEt9.GHu@spcuna.spc.edu>h  A Geoff Roberts <geoffrobx@stmarksx.ppx.catholicx.edux.aux> writes:.G > Is that publicly accessible anywhere?  I have a ream of RA7x's and noa > books, > (Ditto TA79/RA9x)s  9   EK-ORA7X-SM, "RA70 SERVICE MAN.", $80, 3 day lead time. G   EK-ORA90-PS, "RA90 POCKET SERVICE GUIDE", $42, unspecified lead time.wA   EK-ORA90-SV, "RA90 SERVICE GUIDE", $130, unspecified lead time.sA   EK-OTA79-SV, "TA79 SERVICE MANUAL", $84, unspecified lead time.gI   EK-OTA79-TM, "TA79;TA78;TU78;TECH MANUAL", $126, unspecified lead time.-  J   The "unspecified lead time" above are the former print-on-demand manualsJ for which there isn't current stock. They are still in the price file, butH you have a 50/50 chance of having your order canceled instead of getting the manual.M  -   Prices/availability quoted for the US only.   4         Terry Kennedy             http://www.tmk.com2         terry@tmk.com             New York, NY USA   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 02:31:59 GMTe- From: "Richard L. Dyson" <rickdyson@home.com>- Subject: Remote Consolel( Message-ID: <3B54F50D.8FE3FC63@home.com>  G Is anyone using any remote console servers for their OpenVMS products? m	 SomethingeH that would allow secure connection to the hard console ports of DECHubs,
 GIGAswitches,-L AlphaServers, HSZ/HSG controllers, etc.  This would need to be 8- or 16-port and > be reachable via TCP/IP connections, but be secure and provide+ authentication.  Possibly even support SSH..   Rick   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 02:41:03 GMTB& From: "Kevin" <get_the_puck@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Remote Consoleo; Message-ID: <3H657.1689$N21.808150@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>   K CA has Polycenter Console Manager, and I'll bet you can find shareware thatT will do the same thing.i    8 "Richard L. Dyson" <rickdyson@home.com> wrote in message" news:3B54F50D.8FE3FC63@home.com...H > Is anyone using any remote console servers for their OpenVMS products? > Something J > that would allow secure connection to the hard console ports of DECHubs, > GIGAswitches, F > AlphaServers, HSZ/HSG controllers, etc.  This would need to be 8- or 16-porte > andi@ > be reachable via TCP/IP connections, but be secure and provide- > authentication.  Possibly even support SSH.r >j > Rick   ------------------------------   Date: 17 Jul 2001 18:51:24 GMT- From: "Bill Pedersen" <pedersen@ccsscorp.com>,B Subject: Rescheduled OpenVMS Diamond Forum for Northern California. Message-ID: <3b548832@kerberos.linuxpuppy.net>  B The Diamond Forum, previously scheduled for Late June has now been rescheduled for 23 August 2001.    Below is the revised agenda. Compaq Customer Centre& 10600 Ridgeview Court - Building CAC13 Cupertino, CA 95014t   AGENDA  
       8:00 AMj!      Sign-in and buffet breakfastF  
       8:30 AMf      Welcome  
       8:45 AM I      OpenVMS Strategy and Directions Mary Ellen Fortier, Director OpenVMSo" Marketing and Business Development  
       9:45 AM%K      eBusiness Strategy Wendy Herman, Manager OpenVMS eBusiness Developmente         10:30 AM      Swiss Stock Exchange Videom         10:35 AM
      Break         10:45 AMF      AlphaServer Product Update and Direction Cathy Stockwell, Manager% AlphaServer Technology Communications          11:45 AM?      Mission Critical Services - Case Study Services Consultantl         12:15 PM
      Lunch  
       1:00 PMR;      Security and Networks Dave Raymond ~ FBI Special AgentV  
       1:45 PM D      OpenVMS SAN for eBusiness Integration Karen Fay, Senior Storage	 Architectn  
       2:30 PMg
      Break  
       2:45 PMmL      Server Consolidation Mark Santanocito, Professional Services Consultant  
       3:30 PM       Customer Dialogue  
       3:45 PMF
      Close   .h    L If there is anyone interested in attending please feel free to contact me to) help arrange a reservation for this evente   Thanks,    --
 Bill Pedersen- CCSS Corporation CCSS Interactive Learning  http://www.CCSScorp.come 831-336-2708 ================   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:06:36 GMT 4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>F Subject: Re: Rescheduled OpenVMS Diamond Forum for Northern California: Message-ID: <01057.483$N21.475666@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>  8 "Bill Pedersen" <pedersen@ccsscorp.com> wrote in message( news:3b548832@kerberos.linuxpuppy.net...D > The Diamond Forum, previously scheduled for Late June has now been! > rescheduled for 23 August 2001.a >u > Below is the revised agenda. > Compaq Customer Centre( > 10600 Ridgeview Court - Building CAC13 > Cupertino, CA 95014   L Should be an interesting forum. CPQ will have had two months to come up withJ Better Answers to some of the questions that have reared their heads since June 25.   ------------------------------   Date: 18 Jul 2001 00:34:01 GMT- From: "Bill Pedersen" <pedersen@ccsscorp.com>aF Subject: Re: Rescheduled OpenVMS Diamond Forum for Northern California0 Message-ID: <3b54d965$1@kerberos.linuxpuppy.net>  E I will be submitting a series of questions which we would like to see L addressed at the Forum ahead of time. If others are interested in submitting; questions I will then compile them and submit them as well.   J Am willing to also try and assemble the answers to these questions and putG them back on the news group.  Have to determine if we can get the ForumlA recorded so that we can then capture the entire set of responses.    --
 Bill Pedersena CCSS Corporation CCSS Interactive Learningw http://www.CCSScorp.como 831-336-2708 ================  ? "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote in message 4 news:01057.483$N21.475666@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net... >1: > "Bill Pedersen" <pedersen@ccsscorp.com> wrote in message* > news:3b548832@kerberos.linuxpuppy.net...F > > The Diamond Forum, previously scheduled for Late June has now been# > > rescheduled for 23 August 2001.n > >t  > > Below is the revised agenda. > > Compaq Customer Centre* > > 10600 Ridgeview Court - Building CAC13 > > Cupertino, CA 95014d > I > Should be an interesting forum. CPQ will have had two months to come up  withL > Better Answers to some of the questions that have reared their heads since
 > June 25. >- >-   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Jul 2001 18:43:10 -0500+ From: kuhrt@encompasserve.org (Marty Kuhrt)5A Subject: Re: Returning a value from a C program to a DCL variablec3 Message-ID: <wzGL2rxGr6Xl@eisner.encompasserve.org>8  X In article <4dd0684b.0107162354.67a02f4b@posting.google.com>, pjo@pjo.dk (Peter) writes:G > Has anyone any idea how to return a value from a C program and out tom! > a DCL symbol/variable such as :v >   > $ testprogram :== $testprogram > $ test = 0 > $ test = testprogram > $ sh sym testr >   TEST == "10" > $  > 1 > where the C program consists of the following :n >  > int main() > {i >    return 10;g > }d >  > Regards Petere  H Try this, it worked for me using Compaq C V6.2-003 on OpenVMS Alpha V7.3   /*(    Set symbol SYMBOL to value "VALUE".   */ #include <descrip.h> #include <lib$routines.h>i #include <libclidef.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <string.h>l   typedef unsigned long ulong;  
 ulong main    (    int    argc,s    char **argv    )    {(    struct dsc$descriptor symdsc, valdsc;    ulong  status;v%    char   symbol_name[16], value[16];h  "    strcpy( symbol_name, "SYMBOL");/    symdsc.dsc$w_length  = strlen( symbol_name);o(    symdsc.dsc$b_dtype   = DSC$K_DTYPE_T;(    symdsc.dsc$b_class   = DSC$K_CLASS_S;&    symdsc.dsc$a_pointer = symbol_name;    strcpy( value, "VALUE"); )    valdsc.dsc$w_length  = strlen( value);.(    valdsc.dsc$b_dtype   = DSC$K_DTYPE_T;(    valdsc.dsc$b_class   = DSC$K_CLASS_S;     valdsc.dsc$a_pointer = value;D    status = lib$set_symbol( &symdsc, &valdsc, &LIB$K_CLI_LOCAL_SYM);    return( status);.    }   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:37:27 -0500 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>rA Subject: Re: Returning a value from a C program to a DCL variable ' Message-ID: <3B54DA47.45BFC2CC@fsi.net>e   Peter wrote: > G > Has anyone any idea how to return a value from a C program and out tor! > a DCL symbol/variable such as :c >   > $ testprogram :== $testprogram > $ test = 0 > $ test = testprogram > $ sh sym test  >   TEST == "10" > $o > 1 > where the C program consists of the following :  >  > int main() > {w >    return 10;l > }i  E DCL is not user extensible. There is a way to do this within the UN*Xt3 shells; however, DCL does not provide this feature.e  G You'll need to call LIB$SET_SYMBOL to assign a value to a symbol within1 your C (or other HLL) program.   -- l 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: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:04:46 -0400 % From: "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com>bR Subject: Re: ScanMail Message: To Sender,sensitive content found and action taken./ Message-ID: <tl931h5mgjnbfe@news.supernews.com>a  H I think it's Ethan's last name that it finds offensive.  I complained toJ these people (StorNet) once and they couldn't understand why someone wouldI complain.  comp.os.vms is linked to the Info-VAX mailing list so when you.K posted a message it was e-mail to the list.  Apparently, someone at StorNethJ is subscribed to Info-VAX.  Poor Ethan must get one of these every time he posts!  . "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> wrote in message3 news:CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIKENJCPAA.tom@kednos.com...oJ > I go this in response to my last message.  Has anybody seen this before?J > Now I have been known to use dirty words, but I hardly think Dallas Real > time ClockL > qualifies unless it is confused with Debbie.  Any idea who stornet is, and > how they grabbed > my mail to this group? >t > -----Original Message-----8 > From: System Attendant [mailto:MAILMAN-SA@StorNet.com]% > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 4:23 PMt > To: 'Tom Linden'J > Subject: ScanMail Message: To Sender, sensitive content found and action > taken. >  > ; > Trend SMEX Content Filter has detected sensitive content.  >r/ > Place = Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com; ; ; Tom Linden  > Sender = Tom Linden  > Subject = RE: Hobbyistst1 > Delivery Time = July 16, 2001 (Monday) 17:23:11- > Policy = Dirty Words* > Action on this mail = Quarantine message >i% > Warning message from administrator:n9 > Sender, Content filter has detected a sensitive e-mail.D >e   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:30:16 GMTo2 From: hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) Subject: Re: SS$_GSDFULL2 Message-ID: <cn057.888$rc5.61025@news.cpqcorp.net>  h In article <3B5459E2.E2BFC022@ikp.tu-darmstadt.de>, "Dr. Otto Titze" <titze@ikp.tu-darmstadt.de> writes:0 :Yes I wondered, on that particular system I had :free_gblsects	467 :fre_gblpages	142048# :and thought that should be enough..  '   Also check the CONTIG_GBLPAGES value.v   --   $ HELP/MESSAGE GSDFULL  2  GSDFULL,  global section descriptor table is full  '   Facility:     SYSTEM, System Servicest  L   Explanation:  The system cannot create or map a global section because theL                 system space allocated for global section data is full. ThisJ                 message usually indicates that the system is not generatedE                 with sufficient space for global section descriptors.l  K   User Action:  Wait and retry the request. If the failure persists, notify'#                 the system manager.m  iN  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------N       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.com    N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------L    Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoffman#xdelta.zko.dec.com   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:02:20 -0500.* From: cjt & trefoil <cheljuba@prodigy.net>1 Subject: Re: Sun's take on Compaq's announcement.n+ Message-ID: <3B54B5EC.E223580E@prodigy.net>i  H I can't help wondering whether those Aussies are having second thoughts.   Fred Kleinsorge wrote: > I > Why something that is OpenSource.  Isn't that obvious?  UNIX is UNIX is  > UNIX.  > L > Hey, maybe they can use them for those supercomputer sales that they can't+ > get through the acceptance tests with ;-)i > F > Peter LANGSTOEGER wrote in message <3b5464b8$1@news.kapsch.co.at>...G > >In article <eLX47.824$rc5.60861@news.cpqcorp.net>, "Fred Kleinsorge" ' > <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> writes:CN > >>Maybe they should use them internally to design a Sparc chip that is fast,$ > >>or a cache design that works ;-) > >N > >With which application ?s > >;-) > >P > >--O? > >Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER           Tel.    +43 1 81111-2651l> > >Network and OpenVMS system manager  Fax.    +43 1 81111-888? > ><<< KAPSCH AG  Wagenseilgasse 1     E-mail  eplan@kapsch.netoK > >A-1121 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              "I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist"s   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:28:48 GMTg. From: "mulp" <michaelpettengill@earthlink.net>- Subject: Re: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64nD Message-ID: <Ql057.1633$Mi6.161864@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>  ? "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote in message.2 news:Lf237.13$XT4.47471@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...  H > Given the current Alpha installed base and shipment rate, and absent aL > DRAMATIC incease in adoption, Compaq really couldn't justify the continuedI > investment. Decisions that were made in the early 1990s (let's build anuI > architecture and not ensure that it becomes a volume platform) mid-90'sPI > (let's get suckered into a one-sided Alliance for Enterprise Computing)a and H > near the end of the decade (let's buy Digital and then marginalize its7 > flagship architecture) have finally taken their toll.o  L If Alpha was such a dead end, why did Intel offer such concessions to Compaq to drop Alpha?  I Why didn't Intel simply setup recruiting offices in Nashua and ShrewsburyhG and offer to hire the engineers that Compaq was going to have to layoffiG because Alpha is going south and Compaq won't be able to keep it going?0  I Compaq had already laid off a significant number of hardware and software:K engineers the preceding Friday and laid off even more the following Friday.oK More will be laid off effective about 60 days from now, as well.  The costsfG associated with these layoffs would simply speed up Compaq closing downs2 Alpha, making engineers available to Intel sooner.  L My guess is that Intel found the risk that EV7 delivered at the same time asI McKinley would revitative interest in Alpha.  If the Linux performance of L EV7 systems exceeds McKinley systems of the same cost, and EV6 systems offerH performance equal to McKinley at a significantly lower cost, how rapidly, would Intel capture the 64 bit micro market?  H AMD has demonstrated that it can survive selling chips for around 50% ofG Intel's ASP ($90 vs $175 last quarter, $75 vs ???, this quarter).  This F leaves no margin for Intel to push IA64 to every server and then everyJ desktop.  Will IA64 be a success if fewer are sold per year than Sparc oneI year from now?  Two years from now?  How embarrasing would it be for morec- Alphas systems to be sold per year than IA64?6  G Clearly the risk is very high for Intel.  At the present time, Intel ist+ facing years until time to profit for IA64..  K The Alpha program (which includes chips, systems, software, especially VMS,iL services, etc.) reached profit within a few years of introduction and no one9 has said that Alpha as a whole is unprofitable to Compaq.t  I Note, my argument does not depend on anyone agreeing that DEC should havexL invested in Alpha?  If we agree that DEC could have invested the money spentK on Alpha into a different technology and gotten a higher return, that stillnD doesn't make IA64 a good investment.  I argue that Intel should haveH invested in Alpha, instead of wasting its money on IA64 - Intel would be= making a significant profit on Alpha today if it had done so.e   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:55:36 -0400O' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>l- Subject: Re: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64 ( Message-ID: <9j28g9$1gc$1@pyrite.mv.net>  @ "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote in message, news:1DX47.821$rc5.60599@news.cpqcorp.net... >d? > JF Mezei wrote in message <3B53998A.F8CC8792@videotron.ca>...u > >iL > >By breaking its commitment to Alpha, Compaq greatly hurt its credibility. > AnddG > >consdiering that porting VMS to IA64 seems to be an afterthought, iteC > >re-enforces the image that Compaq doesn't really care about VMS.t > >f >t >g > No more than Tru64, or NSK.l  I Not true:  both Tru64 and NSK have in the past had projects already underwH way to port to IA64, hence had at least examined the issue in sufficient* detail to know it was reasonably feasible.  +   We all found out at the same time.  It isiJ > incredibly POSITIVE that they committed to port VMS, Tru64, and NSK.  IfL > they really wanted to kill VMS, it would have been the perfect opportunityC > to say that VMS would continue to be developed on Alpha, but thatc
 Marvel/EV7J > would be the last Alpha platform and we would continue to support VMS on > Alpha for the next 15 years.  E And just how many VMS customers do you believe would have immediatelyhI started to make plans to jump ship if *that* had been announced?  And how-G many new customers would VMS have attracted (IIRC, the VMS numbers havecL stayed relatively constant over recent years only because something like 15%6 new business replaced a similar amount of departures)?  I The VMS port is the minimal bribe necessary to maintain *any* credibility D about VMS's future, rather than anything any unbiased observer couldK remotely characterize as "incredibly POSITIVE".  If it causes even a modesttH percentage of customers to stick with VMS who would otherwise have left, it's paid for itself.r   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:02:18 -0400l' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>e- Subject: Re: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64e( Message-ID: <9j28ss$1h5$1@pyrite.mv.net>  @ "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote in message, news:rtX47.820$rc5.60781@news.cpqcorp.net...K > Not that its needed, but just to stick up for Kerry a bit.  I know Kerry,fH > and this guy busts his butt to do his job, and he's pretty good at it.  J I know Kerry as well, having interacted with him privately for the past 2+L years in the context of a group effort aimed at getting Compaq to appreciateJ and support VMS (and in a wider sense leverage its proprietary strengths -< as IBM does so effectively - to improve *all* its business).  J He does indeed work hard and is good at his job.  He's also intellectuallyI dishonest and willing to say anything to get that job done.  I don't know F whether he deliberately lies or is just extremely careful to avoid anyI knowledge that might interfere with what he wants to make people believe, 2 but the result is pretty much the same either way.     InJ > addition, he spends his own time in these forums to try and provide some  > counter to trolls like Andrew.  J Two peas in a pod.  You just happen to have a preference, but an objective observer wouldn't.   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:05:56 GMT 4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>- Subject: Re: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64 : Message-ID: <UM157.564$N21.533596@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>  9 "mulp" <michaelpettengill@earthlink.net> wrote in messaget> news:Ql057.1633$Mi6.161864@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...A > "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote in messages4 > news:Lf237.13$XT4.47471@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net... >fJ > > Given the current Alpha installed base and shipment rate, and absent aD > > DRAMATIC incease in adoption, Compaq really couldn't justify the	 continued-K > > investment. Decisions that were made in the early 1990s (let's build anTK > > architecture and not ensure that it becomes a volume platform) mid-90'sSK > > (let's get suckered into a one-sided Alliance for Enterprise Computing)h > andmJ > > near the end of the decade (let's buy Digital and then marginalize its9 > > flagship architecture) have finally taken their toll., >eG > If Alpha was such a dead end, why did Intel offer such concessions to  Compaq > to drop Alpha?  K Hey, Pal... I don't know! But I do know this: Mulpinnh@aol.com no longer isC on my subscription list.   Have a ginger-peachy day!g   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:53:21 -0400e- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>s- Subject: Re: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64-, Message-ID: <3B54B3CC.9FEC674F@videotron.ca>   mulp wrote:dK > Why didn't Intel simply setup recruiting offices in Nashua and ShrewsburyhI > and offer to hire the engineers that Compaq was going to have to layoffbI > because Alpha is going south and Compaq won't be able to keep it going?t  N Because Intel would not have gotten the rights to all those patents Compaq hadJ for Alpha designs/algorithms. Armed with the patents, Intel can then do toJ IA64 officially, what it had done "unofficially" with the Pentium (and got caught a little later).    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:53:57 +0100r1 From: Edd Blackburn - Stout <Edd@Xenon.VAXIS.ORG> - Subject: Re: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64.- Message-ID: <0GGN00A7X0RYRR@mx.east.saic.com>C   --Apple-Mail-1986229642-1a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit0 Content-Type: text/plain;. 	format=flowed;. 	charset=us-asciis    ( Just thought that this would amuse y'all8 http://www.alphapowered.com/presentations/alpha_ia64.pdf andu http://www.alphapowered.com/  ! Click on the Alpha Tomorrow Link!        -- Cheers   Edd Blackburn - Stoute! Senior Pensions Officer (Systems)e Lloyds TSB Group Pensionse    = On Tuesday, July 17, 2001, at 10:05 , Terry C. Shannon wrote:    >t; > "mulp" <michaelpettengill@earthlink.net> wrote in messageh@ > news:Ql057.1633$Mi6.161864@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...B >> "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote in message5 >> news:Lf237.13$XT4.47471@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...s >>J >>> Given the current Alpha installed base and shipment rate, and absent aD >>> DRAMATIC incease in adoption, Compaq really couldn't justify the > continueddI >>> investment. Decisions that were made in the early 1990s (let's build   >>> anC >>> architecture and not ensure that it becomes a volume platform)   >>> mid-90'sA >>> (let's get suckered into a one-sided Alliance for Enterprise 0 >>> Computing) >> andJ >>> near the end of the decade (let's buy Digital and then marginalize its9 >>> flagship architecture) have finally taken their toll.  >>H >> If Alpha was such a dead end, why did Intel offer such concessions to > Compaq >> to drop Alpha?3 > D > Hey, Pal... I don't know! But I do know this: Mulpinnh@aol.com no  > longer isi > on my subscription list. >i > Have a ginger-peachy day!i >u >< >i   --Apple-Mail-1986229642-1n+ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printables Content-Type: text/enriched; 	charset=us-asciii    ( Just thought that this would amuse y'all  8 http://www.alphapowered.com/presentations/alpha_ia64.pdf   andO   http://www.alphapowered.com/    . Click on the <bold>Alpha Tomorrow</bold> Link!         --   Cheers     Edd Blackburn - StoutS  ! Senior Pensions Officer (Systems)l   Lloyds TSB Group PensionsL      = On Tuesday, July 17, 2001, at 10:05 , Terry C. Shannon wrote:t    	 <excerpt>T  : "mulp" <<michaelpettengill@earthlink.net> wrote in message  > news:Ql057.1633$Mi6.161864@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...  A <excerpt>"Terry C. Shannon" <<terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote in- message-  2 news:Lf237.13$XT4.47471@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...    F <excerpt>Given the current Alpha installed base and shipment rate, and absent a  @ DRAMATIC incease in adoption, Compaq really couldn't justify the   </excerpt></excerpt>continuedo  C <excerpt><excerpt>investment. Decisions that were made in the early  1990s (let's build an   G architecture and not ensure that it becomes a volume platform) mid-90'sr  G (let's get suckered into a one-sided Alliance for Enterprise Computing)s  
 </excerpt>andw  ? <excerpt>near the end of the decade (let's buy Digital and thent marginalize its   5 flagship architecture) have finally taken their toll.e  
 </excerpt>  E If Alpha was such a dead end, why did Intel offer such concessions toa   </excerpt>Compaq   <excerpt>to drop Alpha?L  
 </excerpt>  A Hey, Pal... I don't know! But I do know this: Mulpinnh@aol.com no 	 longer isA   on my subscription list.     Have a ginger-peachy day!d         </excerpt>=    --Apple-Mail-1986229642-1--n   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:01:08 GMT 4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>- Subject: Re: Terry Shannon Tech Talk on IA-64,: Message-ID: <8l457.741$N21.670873@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>  , This is a multi-part message in MIME format.  + ------=_NextPart_000_034D_01C10EFB.4ADDBAF0m Content-Type: text/plain;a 	charset="iso-8859-1"r+ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printablee  J Indeed it is amusing and I sincerely hope that Compaq's rivals take full =H advantage of this FUD opportunity. Compaq was warned about this matter =F more than two weeks ago and apparently decided it wasn't important.=20  I Ah well... I've said "I Told You So" so many times that I can't even be =- bothered to do so any more.,  B   "Edd Blackburn - Stout" <Edd@Xenon.VAXIS.ORG> wrote in message =' news:0GGN00A7X0RYRR@mx.east.saic.com...m*   Just thought that this would amuse y'all:   http://www.alphapowered.com/presentations/alpha_ia64.pdf   andn   http://www.alphapowered.com/  #   Click on the Alpha Tomorrow Link!a         --   Cheers     Edd Blackburn - Stouti#   Senior Pensions Officer (Systems)f   Lloyds TSB Group Pensionsh    ?   On Tuesday, July 17, 2001, at 10:05 , Terry C. Shannon wrote:       =     "mulp" <michaelpettengill@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenB     news:Ql057.1633$Mi6.161864@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...  E       "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote in messages8       news:Lf237.13$XT4.47471@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...    G         Given the current Alpha installed base and shipment rate, and =M absent aH         DRAMATIC incease in adoption, Compaq really couldn't justify the  
     continuedu  H         investment. Decisions that were made in the early 1990s (let's = build anH         architecture and not ensure that it becomes a volume platform) = mid-90'sF         (let's get suckered into a one-sided Alliance for Enterprise =
 Computing)  	       and1  @         near the end of the decade (let's buy Digital and then = marginalize itsD=         flagship architecture) have finally taken their toll.a    J       If Alpha was such a dead end, why did Intel offer such concessions = to  
     Compaq         to drop Alpha?    G     Hey, Pal... I don't know! But I do know this: Mulpinnh@aol.com no =t	 longer is      on my subscription list.       Have a ginger-peachy day!           + ------=_NextPart_000_034D_01C10EFB.4ADDBAF0t Content-Type: text/html; 	charset="iso-8859-1"Y+ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD>7 <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =  charset=3Diso-8859-1">8 <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4616.200" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE>i </HEAD>c <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>G <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Indeed it is amusing and I sincerely =r hope that=20I Compaq's rivals take full advantage of this FUD opportunity. Compaq was =i	 warned=20aE about this matter more than two weeks ago and apparently decided it =e	 wasn't=20Q important. </FONT></DIV>4 <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>J <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Ah well... I've said "I Told You So" so =
 many times=20d= that I can't even be bothered to do so any more.</FONT></DIV>, <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>2 <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20C style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =n3 BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">i(   <DIV>"Edd Blackburn - Stout" &lt;<A=20I   href=3D"mailto:Edd@Xenon.VAXIS.ORG">Edd@Xenon.VAXIS.ORG</A>&gt; wrote =e
 in message=20p   <A=20    =tJ href=3D"news:0GGN00A7X0RYRR@mx.east.saic.com">news:0GGN00A7X0RYRR@mx.east= .saic.com</A>...</DIV>Just=20s"   thought that this would amuse=20   =tJ y'all<BR>http://www.alphapowered.com/presentations/alpha_ia64.pdf<BR>and<=/ BR>http://www.alphapowered.com/<BR><BR>Click=205    on the <B>Alpha Tomorrow</B> =/ Link!<BR><BR><BR><BR>--<BR>Cheers<BR><BR>Edd=20sH   Blackburn - Stout<BR>Senior Pensions Officer (Systems)<BR>Lloyds TSB = Group=20F   Pensions<BR><BR><BR>On Tuesday, July 17, 2001, at 10:05 , Terry C. =
 Shannon=20   wrote:<BR><BR>H   <BLOCKQUOTE><BR>"mulp" &lt;michaelpettengill@earthlink.net&gt; wrote = in=20S     = J message<BR>news:Ql057.1633$Mi6.161864@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...= <BR>F     <BLOCKQUOTE>"Terry C. Shannon" &lt;terryshannon@mediaone.net&gt; = wrote in=20r       = E message<BR>news:Lf237.13$XT4.47471@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...<BR><BR>gG       <BLOCKQUOTE>Given the current Alpha installed base and shipment =n rate,=20E         and absent a<BR>DRAMATIC incease in adoption, Compaq really =t couldn't=20 >         justify the<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>continued<BR>     <BLOCKQUOTE>E       <BLOCKQUOTE>investment. Decisions that were made in the early =e 1990s=20J         (let's build an<BR>architecture and not ensure that it becomes a =	 volume=20sD         platform) mid-90's<BR>(let's get suckered into a one-sided = Alliance for=20i5         Enterprise Computing)<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>and<BR> J       <BLOCKQUOTE>near the end of the decade (let's buy Digital and then =  F         marginalize its<BR>flagship architecture) have finally taken = their=20I         toll.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>If Alpha was such a dead end, why did =o Intel=20:       offer such concessions to<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>Compaq<BR>H     <BLOCKQUOTE>to drop Alpha?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Hey, Pal... I don't = know! But=20J     I do know this: Mulpinnh@aol.com no longer is<BR>on my subscription=20(     list.<BR><BR>Have a ginger-peachy=20< day!<BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>  - ------=_NextPart_000_034D_01C10EFB.4ADDBAF0--a   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:07:23 -0000 - From: wspencer@ap.nospam.org (Warren Spencer)t6 Subject: What will Microsoft do about Compaq / Intel ?/ Message-ID: <tl9a8b15ma4pe4@news.supernews.com>p   Hi,i  : For some time now, Microsoft has been trying to label one C incarnation or another of their OS's as an "enterprise server" (NT eB Server, W2K Data Center).  Could porting OpenVMS/Tru64/NSK to IPF ? be considered a threat by Microsoft, to their as-yet-unclaimed e( slice of the "enterprise server" market?  B If so, will Microsoft attempt a repeat of their (illegal) actions @ against Sun/Java; this time leveraging their close relationship * with Intel against the new target, Compaq?  = Microsoft's actions are documentated in the District Court's e Findings of Fact:     1 http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htmn   (It's a *facinating* read)  A The recent appeals court ruling upheld all the findings of fact,  0 unaltered.  A relevant exerpt is included below.   ws -- l   Warren Spencer Senior Software Engineer The Associated Press  ? ** My employer does not necessarily agree with my statements - s neither do I **o   ________________________  ? 406. In February 1997, one of Intel's competitors, called AMD,  A solicited support from Microsoft for its "3DX" technology, which nA provided sophisticated multimedia support for games. Microsoft's tB Allchin asked Gates whether Microsoft should support 3DX, despite @ the fact that Intel would oppose it. Gates responded: "If Intel B has a real problem with us supporting this then they will have to A stop supporting Java Multimedia the way they are. I would gladly nB give up supporting this if they would back off from their work on B JAVA which is terrible for Intel." Near the end of March, Allchin @ sent another message to Gates and Maritz. In it he wrote, "I am > positive that we must do a direct attack on Sun (and probably : Oracle). . . . Between ourselves and our partners, we can C certainly hurt their (certainly Sun's) revenue base. . . . We need sA to get Intel to help us. Today, they are not." Two months later, 1= Eric Engstrom, a Microsoft executive with responsibility for  ; multimedia development, wrote to his superiors that one of s@ Microsoft's goals was getting "Intel to stop helping Sun create ? Java Multimedia APIs, especially ones that run well (ie native u? implementations) on Windows." Engstrom proposed achieving this e; goal by offering Intel the following deal: Microsoft would  ? incorporate into the Windows API set any multimedia interfaces dB that Intel agreed to not help Sun incorporate into the Java class < libraries. Engstrom's efforts apparently bore fruit, for he A testified at trial that Intel's IAL subsequently stopped helping  9 Sun to develop class libraries that offered cutting-edge y multimedia support.  __   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:11:50 -0400n( From: Hamlyn Mootoo <univms@bigfoot.com>: Subject: Re: What will Microsoft do about Compaq / Intel ?+ Message-ID: <3B54C636.80369C62@bigfoot.com>t  = I think you hit it right on the head.  If Microsoft wanted todG establish/increase market share in the "enterprise server" market, what F better way than to convince a dimwit like Capellas (or pay him off, ifF he's not so easily fooled) to scrap (I think) or severely delay (as toD cripple) operating systems such as VMS, NSK, and Digital Unix (LyingC 64?).  It's not like he hasn't tried to pull this before, as you'vetG mentioned. Compaq is so afraid of Dell that it might have indeed struckaH a deal with the devil himself (and we know how those end up) to give theF goods to Intel, unwittingly weakening its own position and benefittingF Intel and Microsoft -the old warm and fuzzy axis powers.  So what doesE Compaq *think* it's getting? Maybe preferential treatment from MS andBE Intel over Dell? Sure, right before it goes onto the chopping block. oD The three winners I see: MS, Intel, and IBM (through no duplicity of their own).@     HM   Warren Spencer wrote:e >  > Hi,7 > ; > For some time now, Microsoft has been trying to label onesD > incarnation or another of their OS's as an "enterprise server" (NTC > Server, W2K Data Center).  Could porting OpenVMS/Tru64/NSK to IPF @ > be considered a threat by Microsoft, to their as-yet-unclaimed* > slice of the "enterprise server" market? > C > If so, will Microsoft attempt a repeat of their (illegal) actionseA > against Sun/Java; this time leveraging their close relationshipv, > with Intel against the new target, Compaq? > > > Microsoft's actions are documentated in the District Court's > Findings of Fact:h > 3 > http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htmb >  > (It's a *facinating* read) > B > The recent appeals court ruling upheld all the findings of fact,2 > unaltered.  A relevant exerpt is included below. >  > ws > -- >  > Warren Spencer > Senior Software Engineer > The Associated Press > @ > ** My employer does not necessarily agree with my statements - > neither do I **e >  > ________________________ > @ > 406. In February 1997, one of Intel's competitors, called AMD,B > solicited support from Microsoft for its "3DX" technology, whichB > provided sophisticated multimedia support for games. Microsoft'sC > Allchin asked Gates whether Microsoft should support 3DX, despite A > the fact that Intel would oppose it. Gates responded: "If IntelQC > has a real problem with us supporting this then they will have to B > stop supporting Java Multimedia the way they are. I would gladlyC > give up supporting this if they would back off from their work onlC > JAVA which is terrible for Intel." Near the end of March, AllchinaA > sent another message to Gates and Maritz. In it he wrote, "I am ? > positive that we must do a direct attack on Sun (and probablyi; > Oracle). . . . Between ourselves and our partners, we canuD > certainly hurt their (certainly Sun's) revenue base. . . . We needB > to get Intel to help us. Today, they are not." Two months later,> > Eric Engstrom, a Microsoft executive with responsibility for< > multimedia development, wrote to his superiors that one ofA > Microsoft's goals was getting "Intel to stop helping Sun create @ > Java Multimedia APIs, especially ones that run well (ie native@ > implementations) on Windows." Engstrom proposed achieving this< > goal by offering Intel the following deal: Microsoft would@ > incorporate into the Windows API set any multimedia interfacesC > that Intel agreed to not help Sun incorporate into the Java classs= > libraries. Engstrom's efforts apparently bore fruit, for he B > testified at trial that Intel's IAL subsequently stopped helping: > Sun to develop class libraries that offered cutting-edge > multimedia support.e > __   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 20:26:50 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>h: Subject: Re: What will Microsoft do about Compaq / Intel ?, Message-ID: <3B54D7C8.A2F2C5D6@videotron.ca>   Warren Spencer wrote:nC > Server, W2K Data Center).  Could porting OpenVMS/Tru64/NSK to IPF @ > be considered a threat by Microsoft, to their as-yet-unclaimed* > slice of the "enterprise server" market?  L The hardware is far less important than the marketing and pricing. If CompaqE continues stealth marketing of VMS, then it will continue its obscure-7 existance without getting any significant market share.r  K Meanwhile, Microsoft's marketing and moemtum will succeed in convincing the 3 enterprise ISVs to write their applications for NT.p   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Jul 2001 22:42:52 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)t: Subject: Re: What will Microsoft do about Compaq / Intel ?3 Message-ID: <wYtPws1eo384@eisner.encompasserve.org>e  _ In article <tl9a8b15ma4pe4@news.supernews.com>, wspencer@ap.nospam.org (Warren Spencer) writes:Q > Hi,3 > < > For some time now, Microsoft has been trying to label one E > incarnation or another of their OS's as an "enterprise server" (NT 4D > Server, W2K Data Center).  Could porting OpenVMS/Tru64/NSK to IPF A > be considered a threat by Microsoft, to their as-yet-unclaimed i* > slice of the "enterprise server" market? > D > If so, will Microsoft attempt a repeat of their (illegal) actions B > against Sun/Java; this time leveraging their close relationship , > with Intel against the new target, Compaq? >   ; 	Not until IBM and Compaq get together and start developing>< 	backend software and next generation middleware using Linux9 	as an API to add apps to less than favored OSes that arer; 	at the core of their *earnings*, i.e. OS/390, OS/400, AIX,a 	Tru64, and VMS.  ; 	I suspect as hardware margins decline both will be forced  > 	to pick up their software business.  Something Digital/Compaq< 	had been moving away from for years.  Gladly , hardware has< 	tanked . . . thank you Dell for focusing these guys in moreD 	important directions.  Somewhere Dell won't be going any time soon.   				Robc   ------------------------------   Date: 18 Jul 2001 00:33:36 GMT$ From: jobseekerr@aol.comNoSpam (Dan)( Subject: What's a DCL kind of guy to do?: Message-ID: <20010717203336.16822.00008252@ng-fo1.aol.com>  L I will unabashedly admit, under cover of an alias, of course, that VMS is my "first love" of computers. G  O I have written things in DCL that would make a your mind boggle. I wouldn't saytK I excel at programming on them.. though I have... with system calls and theeL like. I wouldn't say I love being a system manager... because I haven't done@ that by itself all that much. I've mostly hovered around the App/ Support/Programmer level for most of my career..  L Ok so here's the question... what now? I'm mid 30's, hate my job,(I work forK what once we all would have considered the enemy). I have a solid decade oftM apps support/development experience, and live in the NYC area, and have about  14 or so years working on DCL.  N I've picked up programming here and there... A little Unix.. and a whole bunchM of various applications that come in handy along the way. Communications (netCN and phoneline), MS office, utilities (Particularly, reformatting data seems to be a forte'),   N So now I'm asking... any suggestions as what next to do? No luck on the pick-6L yet. I'm seriously considering getting into the whole DBA thing, but I'm not# sure yet if it'll be my cup of tea.t  H Obviously from my email address, you can see I'm self-promoting. But the$ question remains... any suggestions?  N I've only been around C.O.V a few times over the years (including back when myN email address was on fidonet), but I've only resisted the temptation because IK know that Usenet has always been a timesuck, and I wouldn't want it to take M away from my life or my virtual life in Everquest. (Which addicted me without7 fair warning).     Dan>   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Jul 2001 20:47:45 +0200* From: eplan@kapsch.net (Peter LANGSTOEGER)2 Subject: [DWMOTIF V1.2-6] VAX EURO patch missing ?* Message-ID: <3b548851$1@news.kapsch.co.at>  J There is still no EURO currency symbol support in DECwindows-MOTIF V1.2-6.I Why ? Is the EURO such a new invention ? (or is it the - we're americans,e! we don't need EUROs - problem ;-)a  @ Ok, there is a ALP_DWEURO-V0101 kit to add the support on Alpha.F But what to do on VAX ? Did I miss the VAX EURO ECO or is there none ?   Any ideas/comments ? n   TIAO   -- t< Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER           Tel.    +43 1 81111-2651; Network and OpenVMS system manager  Fax.    +43 1 81111-888e< <<< KAPSCH AG  Wagenseilgasse 1     E-mail  eplan@kapsch.netH A-1121 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              "I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist"   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Jul 2001 20:22:51 +0200* From: eplan@kapsch.net (Peter LANGSTOEGER)/ Subject: [MOTIF V1.2-6] XDM no longer working ?o( Message-ID: <3b54827b@news.kapsch.co.at>  E I used to run DWMOTIF V1.2-5 (with UPD 1 and DWEURO) on my V7.2-1 PWS1/ with TCPIP V5.1 (ECO 1) and XDM was running ok.n  J Then I decided to update/test DWMOTIF to V1.2-6 and XDM seems to no longerG work now (the x-terminal doesn't get an answer for a broadcast stationslF list for the login chooser - and doesn't get an answer for an explicit connection attempt, too).o  * The TCPIP$XDM_1 process seems to be ok and$ has the usual 3 BG device allocated.  # Before I dig into, I'd like to ask. G Any experiences/suggestions ? What did I miss after the MOTIF upgrade ?    TIAs  N btw: I have no problems (so far ;-) after upgrading 2 of my VAXes to V1.2-6...   --  < Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER           Tel.    +43 1 81111-2651; Network and OpenVMS system manager  Fax.    +43 1 81111-888r< <<< KAPSCH AG  Wagenseilgasse 1     E-mail  eplan@kapsch.netH A-1121 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              "I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist"   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:05:18 -0400 5 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com>i3 Subject: Re: [MOTIF V1.2-6] XDM no longer working ? 2 Message-ID: <Q%%47.883$rc5.61074@news.cpqcorp.net>  G How did you enable TCPIP as a transport?  Make sure it's still enabled.e    B Peter LANGSTOEGER wrote in message <3b54827b@news.kapsch.co.at>...F >I used to run DWMOTIF V1.2-5 (with UPD 1 and DWEURO) on my V7.2-1 PWS0 >with TCPIP V5.1 (ECO 1) and XDM was running ok. >MK >Then I decided to update/test DWMOTIF to V1.2-6 and XDM seems to no longer=H >work now (the x-terminal doesn't get an answer for a broadcast stationsG >list for the login chooser - and doesn't get an answer for an explicit  >connection attempt, too). >n+ >The TCPIP$XDM_1 process seems to be ok and % >has the usual 3 BG device allocated.t >Q$ >Before I dig into, I'd like to ask.H >Any experiences/suggestions ? What did I miss after the MOTIF upgrade ? >A >TIA > E >btw: I have no problems (so far ;-) after upgrading 2 of my VAXes tot	 V1.2-6...  >a >--r= >Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER           Tel.    +43 1 81111-2651 < >Network and OpenVMS system manager  Fax.    +43 1 81111-888= ><<< KAPSCH AG  Wagenseilgasse 1     E-mail  eplan@kapsch.net I >A-1121 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              "I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist"G   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Jul 2001 21:08:55 +0200* From: eplan@kapsch.net (Peter LANGSTOEGER)3 Subject: Re: [MOTIF V1.2-6] XDM no longer working ?I* Message-ID: <3b548d47$1@news.kapsch.co.at>  U In article <3b54827b@news.kapsch.co.at>, eplan@kapsch.net (Peter LANGSTOEGER) writes:h >Any experiences/suggestions ?  E I hate to followup my own postings, but I like to have bugs fixed ;-)R  I >                               What did I miss after the MOTIF upgrade ?m  I I missed something before the upgrade. This machine was the only machine,,H where the XDM config files were missing (I forgot to rename and edit theI template files), so it surely wasn't working before the upgrade and I nowg stand corrected.   Thanks for listening   -Peter  I PS. Only problem I've found so far is that the DWMOTIF installation makeseD the new desktop default without asking me. Changing the only line inD SYS$COMMON:[SYSMGR]DECW$DEFAULT_DESKTOP.COM fixed it very quickly... -- r< Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER           Tel.    +43 1 81111-2651; Network and OpenVMS system manager  Fax.    +43 1 81111-888 < <<< KAPSCH AG  Wagenseilgasse 1     E-mail  eplan@kapsch.netH A-1121 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              "I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist"   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2001.395 ************************