1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 18 Mar 2001	Volume 2001 : Issue 153       Contents:P Re: 3Dlabs OXYGEN VX1 PCI Graphics (was: Re: the Northeast Digital Systems Ebay P Re: 3Dlabs OXYGEN VX1 PCI Graphics (was: Re: the Northeast Digital Systems Ebay 6 Re: Alpha firmware vs. PALcode: what's the difference? Re: authorize bug ? P Re: Dumbing Down VMS with UNIX Elements? (was Re: OpenVMS    EducationalProgram)P Re: Dumbing Down VMS with UNIX Elements? (was Re: OpenVMS    EducationalProgram)8 Re: How to adjust screen resolution with a S3Trio64 2MB?8 Re: How to adjust screen resolution with a S3Trio64 2MB?+ Open VMS Experience with Enterprise Storage / Re: Open VMS Experience with Enterprise Storage  Re: OpenVMS Educational Program  Re: OpenVMS Educational Program  Re: OpenVMS Educational Program  Re: OpenVMS Educational Program . Re: the Northeast Digital Systems Ebay Follies. Re: Volume Shadowing merge rates on Big Disks? Re: VPM$SERVER ERROR MESSAGE  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 16:51:46 -0500 - From: "Island Computers" <sales@islandco.com> Y Subject: Re: 3Dlabs OXYGEN VX1 PCI Graphics (was: Re: the Northeast Digital Systems Ebay  / Message-ID: <tb7mvafpbs7v22@corp.supernews.com>   2 which slot did you put it in - 32 or 64 bit slot ?   That could make a difference   DT   -- David Turner Island Computers US Corporation  2700 Gregory Street  Savannah GA 31404  Tel: 912 447 6622  Fax:912 201 0096 sales@islandco.com& <dittman@dittman.net> wrote in message< news:aDAs6.225484$sD.12075503@e420r-sjo2.usenetserver.com...5 | Hoff Hoffman <hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam> wrote: 2 | : In article <A+vf2LICQB+i@tachxxsoftxxconsult>,? wayne@tachysoft.xxx.412538.killspam.015a (Wayne Sewell) writes:  |  | : :...G | : :However, this time I am looking to replace the display machine, so & | : :I do care about the video card... | J | :   Device drivers for the 3Dlabs OXYGEN VX1 PCI Graphics Controller areJ | :   now available for OpenVMS Alpha at the ECO website.  (ECO name: VX1) | H | Be aware that the VX1 does not work correctly on 21164A systems.  I'veI | tried on both a PC164LX and when that didn't work a 433au (assuming the I | problem to be due to something related to the unsupported status of the ? | PC164LX).  I've send logs to Fred, but he's gone on vacation.  | -- | Eric Dittman | dittman@dittman.net  |    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 23:15:41 GMT  From: dittman@dittman.net Y Subject: Re: 3Dlabs OXYGEN VX1 PCI Graphics (was: Re: the Northeast Digital Systems Ebay  B Message-ID: <xeSs6.247911$sD.12899741@e420r-sjo2.usenetserver.com>  , Island Computers <sales@islandco.com> wrote:4 : which slot did you put it in - 32 or 64 bit slot ?   : That could make a difference  4 I tried all the slots, both 32-bit and 64-bit.  I've1 talked with Fred and he thinks he knows where the 3 problem lies, but like I mentioned earlier he's off  on vacation right now. --   Eric Dittman dittman@dittman.net    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 00:00:52 GMT 1 From: "Mark D. Jilson" <jilly@clarityconnect.com> ? Subject: Re: Alpha firmware vs. PALcode: what's the difference? 2 Message-ID: <3AB3FB27.820736A3@clarityconnect.com>  H This system appears to have had it's firmware from the V5.4 Firmware CD.  ! l_ricker@lto.locktrack.com wrote:  > 
 > Mark wrote:  > . > > Post just the cpu section of the following > 
 > > $ ANA/SYS  > > CLUE CONFIG  > , > ...which yields (on a development system): >  > SDA> clue config >      [ ... snip ... ]  > % > Per-CPU Slot Processor Information: M > CPU ID         00                        CPU State    rc,pa,pp,cv,pv,pmv,pl L > CPU Type       EV56  Pass 2 (21164A)     Halt Request "Default, No Action"I > PAL Code       1.21-1                    Halt PC      00000000.20000000 I > CPU Revision   ....                      Halt PS      00000000.00001F00 P > Serial Number  ..........                Halt Code    "Bootstrap or Powerfail" > Console Vers   V5.4-2  > M > CPU ID         01                        CPU State    rc,pa,pp,cv,pv,pmv,pl  >  >      [ ... snip ... ]  > B > "Aha!  I see!" says the blind man.  PAL Code and Console Vers...@ > I've got it!  Thanks, Mark, Rob and Steve... I'll proceed with > reckless abandon again.  >  > Lorin    --  D Jilly	- Working from Home in the Chemung River Valley - Lockwood, NY0 	- jilly@clarityconnect.com			- Brett Bodine fan. 	- Mark.Jilson@Compaq.com			- since 1975 or so, 	- http://www.jilly.baka.com               -   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 20:49:20 -0500   From: kuff@tessco.com (Hal Kuff) Subject: Re: authorize bug ?O Message-ID: <2DBD5AA60E59EA38.D771C7BCEE8A7E96.C839D216B016B623@lp.airnews.net>   G You can have an entry in Rightslist without an acocunt refernecing that J UIC....... quite easy... I would lookup the account name BIOMED and simplyG do this in Authorize (Providing - Providing - Providing you do not have , any ACL entries against that Rights ID......  >    Add/Id/value=UIC=[(Substitute value for BIOMED UIC)] BIOMED      F In article <98v4vh$9cp$1@reader1.imaginet.fr>, "Jean-Francois Marchal"' <jean-francois.marchal@x9000.fr> wrote:    > Bonjour  tous ! > : > Here is a strange behaviour within AUTHORIZE (VMS 7.2-1); > RIGHTSLIST and SYSUAF are defined as system wide logicals  >  > UAF> show/ident BIOMED? >   Name                             Value           Attributes 4 >   BIOMED                           [021452,001005]& > UAF> show/ident/user=[021452,001005]. > %UAF-W-BADSPC, no user matches specification > F > the second show/ident has been typed with a cut and paste of the uic > 9 > not all the identifiers of the group behave such a way. : > discovered the problem with a show/identr/user=[21452,*]0 > which didn't return the full list of the group >  > Any idea would be welcomed > Cordialement > Jean-Franois Marchal  > X9000 - LYON (FR)    ------------------------------    Date: 17 Mar 2001 15:59:06 -0800 From: j1234@sfsu.redirect.edu Y Subject: Re: Dumbing Down VMS with UNIX Elements? (was Re: OpenVMS    EducationalProgram) ) Message-ID: <3ab3fa4a@monitor.lanset.com>   . Bob Koehler <koehler@encompasserve.org> wrote:M > In article <rdeininger-1603011124170001@user-2ive6ob.dialup.mindspring.com> 8 > , rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger) writes:  L >> In the present example (ps on unix, show system on VMS) I know there is aL >> good API in VMS.  I'm ignorant about unix.  If there is is NOT a standardM >> (across many unixes) API to retrieve detailed process information, then it J >> is a technical deficiency of unix compared to VMS, for the reasons I've >> outlined.  ? > There is no such standard API.  Maybe with COE we'll get one.   F  opendir(3), defined by SVID 3, POSIX (no document given), and BSD 4.3-  according to the documentation on my system. -  There is also a readdir(3), closedir(3), ... %  Of course this is all library stuff.   F  Not to say this is a guarantee. I've seen lot's of compiles that haveC  succeeded in many places fail on a certain UNIX vendor's systems.q    jeremy   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Mar 2001 16:16:24 -0800 From: j1234@sfsu.redirect.edu Y Subject: Re: Dumbing Down VMS with UNIX Elements? (was Re: OpenVMS    EducationalProgram) ) Message-ID: <3ab3fe58@monitor.lanset.com>    j1234@sfsu.redirect.edu wrote:  H >  opendir(3), defined by SVID 3, POSIX (no document given), and BSD 4.32 oops, somehow substituted 'p' with 'l'.  nevermind   jeremy   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 01:25:31 +0000 ) From: Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com> A Subject: Re: How to adjust screen resolution with a S3Trio64 2MB? , Message-ID: <3AB40E8B.F0CC3FFB@infopuls.com>   Carl Perkins wrote:  > / > Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com> writes... E > }So I'm back here. Does anybody know what the maximum resolution is J > }the S3Trio64 video card with 2MB RAM can provide and how I can persuadeG > }the DECwindows X11 display server to use it? Currently it is running J > }with 1024x764. The DECwindows server log has two sections in it related > }to the screen resolution: > 9 > The relevant key phrases are "decw$xsize_in_pixels" and A > "decw$ysize_in_pixels". These are set up in DECW$DEVICE.COM and E > appear as logical names in the DECWindows server logical name table   > (SHOW LOG/TABLE=DECW* *SIZE*). > G > I have no idea what settings you can use for it. You may need to make D > adjustments on the card itself to use different resolutions - some > of them are like that. > 
 > --- Carl  8 Thanks! This was the trick. I changed DEC$DEVICE.COM and restarted the server: bingo!   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 06:37:41 +0100 2 From: martin@radiogaga.harz.de (Martin Vorlaender)A Subject: Re: How to adjust screen resolution with a S3Trio64 2MB? ; Message-ID: <3ab449a5.524144494f47414741@radiogaga.harz.de>   * Christof Brass (brass@infopuls.com) wrote: > Carl Perkins wrote: 1 > > Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com> writes... 6 > > } Does anybody know what the maximum resolution isM > > } the S3Trio64 video card with 2MB RAM can provide and how I can persuade 2 > > } the DECwindows X11 display server to use it? > > ; > > The relevant key phrases are "decw$xsize_in_pixels" and C > > "decw$ysize_in_pixels". These are set up in DECW$DEVICE.COM and G > > appear as logical names in the DECWindows server logical name table " > > (SHOW LOG/TABLE=DECW* *SIZE*). > : > Thanks! This was the trick. I changed DEC$DEVICE.COM and > restarted the server: bingo!  F IMHO, that's not the way to do it (DECW$DEVICE.COM can be changed by aC patch / installation - isn't there a "Do not modify" comment in the H header?). You can use it to look up the global symbols to define and the< values to use, but your customizations should really go intoH SYS$MANAGER:DECW$PRIVATE_SERVER_SETUP.COM (copy it from the .TEMPLATE if it doesn't exist).   cu,    Martin --  J One OS to rule them all       | Martin Vorlaender  |  VMS & WNT programmer7 One OS to find them           | work: mv@pdv-systeme.de J One OS to bring them all      |   http://www.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/> And in the Darkness bind them.| home: martin@radiogaga.harz.de   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 18:03:45 -0500 2 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" <DRAGON@compuserve.com>4 Subject: Open VMS Experience with Enterprise Storage7 Message-ID: <200103171803_MC2-C92C-2A8F@compuserve.com>   # Message text written by "Mike Gray"  >Hi,  G I am wondering what experiences you may have with Open VMS & Enterprise J Storage (such as IBM Shark or EMC Symmetrix)? Can anyone offer any advice= .  <   0 I've used both Storageworks and EMC.  Both work.  G For EMC, you pay a premium of about 50% and you don't get so much as an J owner's manual.  You don't need one because you are not supposed to manag= e J it yourself; instead you pay EMC to manage it for you.  If the EMC box ha= s J problems, it phones EMC and complains and a guy knocks on your door a few=  - hours later with a replacement part or parts.   H Storageworks you manage yourself which means you have to know, or learn,J how.  On the other hand, you can make changes very quickly, adding storag= e J means plugging in another disk and telling the controller what you want t= o J do  with it.  Should a disk fail in a RAID configuration,  the controller=  G can fail over to a disk in a "spare set" and you can replace the failed  disk at your leisure.   J I'm a hands on type of guy and I prefer Storageworks.  My managers prefer=  ? to pay EMC and not have to depend on me for production systems.   C As a result, I run EMC for production and Storageworks for test and  development.  H It's a matter of budget and management style.  Were I a manager, with myJ ass on the line, to say nothing of the whole business, I might prefer EMC= . =   : On the other hand, there's that 50% premium you pay. . . .   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 00:30:38 GMT $ From: Scott Vieth <svieth@wi.rr.com>8 Subject: Re: Open VMS Experience with Enterprise Storage) Message-ID: <3AB401D5.ADB34773@wi.rr.com>    Mike:   I I admin a VMS system at a large IDX site.  We have the Storageworks fibre  channel / storage (ESA12000) connected to our IDX system.   ( Email me directly if you have questions.   Thanks,   
 -Scott :^) svieth@wi.rr.com   Mike Gray wrote:  	 > Thanks.  > N > Aside from cost, does anyone have EMc or IBM connected to VMS? Any problems?9 > I am looking at running IDX (healtchare package) on it.  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 23:40:20 +0000 ) From: Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com> ( Subject: Re: OpenVMS Educational Program+ Message-ID: <3AB3F5E4.5E79C05@infopuls.com>    Rob Komar wrote: > , > Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com> wrote: > > Rob Komar wrote: > >>   [SNIP]   > > Great analysis! But I still don't see the business case as long as VMS and Alpha is that much expansive compared to the pure UNIX solution. VMS will not be the entry level as you pointed out indirectly. So when will VMS come in? I doubt there will be a moment during a company's growing where VMS with UNIX apps (note: quickshot ported and thus less stable than on its original habitat) will have a chance to come in. Do you see clearly the necessity of such a company to choose VMS at any time of their life > ime  > > for running UNIX apps? > O > As long as VMS isn't an entry level choice, then I agree with you in all that M > you imply in your questions, ie., that Unix apps in VMS probably won't help J > sell VMS systems to people who have never used them before.  But that isO > why I argue that there should be a cheap version of VMS that will run on PCs; L > it is needed to familiarize small companies and young computer enthusiastsR > (neither of which have much money) with VMS.  I (and many others in this thread)N > also argue that the cool apps are required to attract the young enthusiasts.M > Neither cheap VMS nor cool apps are sufficient by themselves to turn things 2 > around for VMS.  I think that both are required. > 	 > Cheers,  > Rob Komar   @ Having cheap Alpha boxes and free licences for entry level usage: would really be great and create a market of SW in its own: without the help of UNIX apps. Why not offer a three years9 licence fee reduction for first time users? This could be = justified by the migration and/or learning costs. It could be 9 regarded as the tax reductions or even releaves which are = offered to companies who do big investments (Ireland did this < for several years to attract IT companies and they were very successful).  = If I carefully read your statements I don't see any reason in @ favour for the UNIX quickshot apps on VMS. I still don't see any@ reason why a VMS newbie should start using VMS if these apps are? around on UNIX anyway where they are cheaper, better integrated > (an oxymoron with UNIX anyway) and the platform is cheaper (HW and OS SW).    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 23:48:04 +0000 ) From: Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com> ( Subject: Re: OpenVMS Educational Program, Message-ID: <3AB3F7B4.456AB019@infopuls.com>   "Doc.Cypher" wrote:  > $ > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > : > On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Rob Komar <rkomar@telus.net> wrote: >  > <snip> > K > >Companies like IBM and SGI support Linux because it offers them a way of H > >battling MicroSoft.  They recognize that small companies that upgradeJ > >when they grow prefer to stay with systems that they are familiar with.F > >Linux and the free BSD unices are popular among the small companiesL > >because they are cheap and because there are many young (and, thus, cheapL > >to employ) people who are familiar enough with them.  When the time comesF > >for a larger and more mature system, many of them choose one of theL > >proprietary Unix systems.  Sun even offers support for running Linux appsJ > >under Solaris to make migration easier.  So, where Linux was originallyH > >perceived as a threat against the proprietary Unices, it has now beenI > >recognized to be an important driving force behind the rejuvenation of ! > >the entire Unix server market.  > > F > >I hope that those dead set against porting VMS to PC hardware or toE > >porting whiz-bang Windows/Unix software to VMS reconsider in lightaE > >of the above (or have a completely different plan for rejuvenatingt > >VMS market share).s >  > Very well put Rob. >  > If I can summarise...d > G > The Q need to produce a VMS system that can act as a small e-businessa; > server and costs not much more than the UN*X counterpart.t  ; Fully agreed. If Java is used as platform there should be ao= chance to offer this without having to port UNIX apps becausea@ Java is inherent portable. With this combination there is even a@ chance to put VMS' strengths in front and to offer something the< UNIXes might not be able to offer: a very stable environment< (easy to maintain and all the other VMS advantages) combined? with a very fast and stable JVM. The outstanding implementationi< of the JVM would be the most important and probably the only thing Compaq has to contribute.-  I > For example, a small box to run a webserver, mail server, and carry outaE > simple business management tasks. All for not much more than $2000.  > I > Then the ambitious e-businessman can start with the same OS as the Wallt > Street Casinos.- > K > Of course, you'd need to give them away to edjuyacashunal e-stablishments6M > to make sure there was a base of VMS hackers to run these boxes. That wouldCD > also ensure that there was a broader base of free software for the > platform.2  @ I completely agree. There is simple calculation: the more people< are able to use VMS entry level systems the more people will@ actually do it even if the percentage is 0.0001. At universities@ the students are open minded, interested in new/alternative ways; and not completely accustomed to one solution. Therefore to 9 offer these systems especially to students and new, small  companies makes most sense.d   > Doc. >  > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----e > Version: N/A > B > iQEVAwUBOrKa8sriC3SGiziTAQGW+gf8CgA8E6ZEULc2oSQyeOZOPwwLOKwnSfxzB > J5NAWYDvZdq0RlnVSFKXxAwy5xByoDphqMKHidBngGnOc2X/VRKJN4Zz+WCYYxjEB > tJv3kWNFJ4M/ZwAdkA5fvp/ad4Z9QGRSFdGEiC6tnpi5/l34u261BMgvyuTlOtEVB > uYN/yv7vZsi/N3eXJ1W2H+DCuMF6ttNGDhbpOhA0syXWAj3bn95emrpXQx1RDL/jB > EJ325ryEpHoOAkQJcCHK907LilBv4lL3gwoJMpRiZdmPvhy/6qY4uDS/XvfxpYXU: > t2Pc9DtFu6FBnWM24fiptRXsdIf7K2kzmHYwTroUeLgmYyiZvd90Og== > =BJmVi > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----i   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 00:06:10 +0000a) From: Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com>.( Subject: Re: OpenVMS Educational Program, Message-ID: <3AB3FBF2.2682EBB4@infopuls.com>   Ben Sego wrote:D >  > Christof Brass wrote:4 > <snip>; > > Definitely. UNIX should only be used in education as antC > > counterexample - to teach how software engineering should neveru > > be done. > T > Unix is a good system, and has some excellent and elegant features.  Blind bigotryR > won't help your cause, and hating Unix won't make it go away.  But a lack of newP > applications will make VMS go away.  Currently, when a company has to choose aP > target environment for their new software, VMS isn't very high up on the list.S > This is a business reality, and all the praise in the world for the purity of VMSeS > won't change it.  Making it cheaper and easier to get applications onto VMS might R > change it.  Compaq's expanded license scheme will help; so would COE compliance.M > COE won't kill VMS, but a lack of new applications might well do the trick.   @ UNIX is a crap system. Because of this in the first place VMS is? there. Making VMS UNIX like is definitely the wrong way. Having ; UNIX crap apps there is of no help as this definitely won't @ attract any not-VMS people. The problem of the COE/"UNIX on VMS"; advocates is that they don't understand that their proposalA? doesn't help. Competition can only be won with unique features.0@ Turning VMS to another UNIX especially destroys this uniqueness.8 If VMS can't survive with its own strengths this clearly> indicates that the market is gone. Lowering the design quality< by introducing UNIX crap and complicating things on VMS will) destroy one of the few advantages of VMS.    > <snip> > Q > > > That's an interesting point, and I see why you're worried about the type ofeO > > > users it will attract -- after all, there's a slim chance that if they'reaQ > > > all unix people, compaq would be tempted to make VMS itself more unix-like. , > > > (Correct me if this isn't the problem) > > ; > > We don't need the masses to destroy the quality of VMS.- > R > Cool.  If everyone holds onto that attitude, then you'll get to enjoy the purityQ > of VMS all alone.  While I understand that holds appeal, it doesn't do much foroJ > the corporate types who decide where to spend their development dollars.  = There are others who also don't like a spoiled VMS. There aren< other ways to attract business managers to VMS than to offer" unrealiable UNIX crap apps on VMS.  P > > > On the other hand, it's my belief that most people who use computers don'tO > > > care what software they're running.  They care that they can use it to doe
 > > > XYZ, >  > <snip>P > The users might not care, but the people who control the budget do.  Right nowN > internal IT shops at nearly all companies have to pay for support of WindowsO > machines; some companies buy support for Unix (or Linux); fewer still buy IBMsQ > mainframe support.  Clearly, some pay for VMS support.  (When I say "pay for" I T > mean they employ people to administer the systems.)  Any time they can cut out oneQ > of the architectures, their infrastructure support costs go down.  Right now itiS > seems it's the VMS boxes that are being kicked to the curb.  That's a tough trend P > to turn around, but it will likely have to start with people getting more (andS > more modern) software to run on VMS.  Anything that furthers that goal would seemo' > to be desirable to the VMS community.o > 
 > Ben Sego  : This is another example how badly this kind of analysis is? performed. VMS has by far the lowest TCO. The consequence wouldf> be to cut down the other OS areas and to increase the VMS area9 to reduce costs and keep the standard of service. Wrt app3; availablity is only one chance: to write real VMS apps thats7 fully take advantage of VMS and fulfill the VMS quality0
 standards.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 20:45:22 -0500)  From: Ben Sego <bsego@clark.net>( Subject: Re: OpenVMS Educational Program) Message-ID: <3AB41332.5C439E02@clark.net>r   Christof Brass wrote:  <snip>   > Ben Sego wrote:oV > > Unix is a good system, and has some excellent and elegant features.  Blind bigotryT > > won't help your cause, and hating Unix won't make it go away.  But a lack of newR > > applications will make VMS go away.  Currently, when a company has to choose aR > > target environment for their new software, VMS isn't very high up on the list.U > > This is a business reality, and all the praise in the world for the purity of VMSyU > > won't change it.  Making it cheaper and easier to get applications onto VMS mightcT > > change it.  Compaq's expanded license scheme will help; so would COE compliance.O > > COE won't kill VMS, but a lack of new applications might well do the trick.r >. > UNIX is a crap system.  ' Got it.  You needn't belabor the point.V  + > Because of this in the first place VMS is5: > there. Making VMS UNIX like is definitely the wrong way.   Uh...Got it.   > Having > UNIX crap apps  E ...Uh...Still got it.  (That "Unix is crap" is your opinion, I mean.)r  . > there is of no help as this definitely won't > attract any not-VMS people.3  W First off, I believe you're wrong.  Having more software available for a platform makesoW the platform more versatile.  Which means it can serve more functions.  Which means thesT overall cost to the company is lower.  And CIO's, CTO's, CFO's, and CEO's definitely care about that.  T Secondly, it isn't simply an issue of whether more non-VMS people will be attracted.S What would be nice is if there were some reason for shops that are running multipleuV architectures not to _remove_ the VMS systems.  It isn't just about gaining new users,& it's also about keeping existing ones.    & > The problem of the COE/"UNIX on VMS"= > advocates is that they don't understand that their proposal.A > doesn't help. Competition can only be won with unique features.l  Q "Unique features" hasn't been enough to keep the VMS share from dropping.  If theuW "unique features" are widely desired, other environments will have them eventually.  If V only a niche group wants them, then if the niche can afford to pay the price, VMS will	 continue.e   >$B > Turning VMS to another UNIX especially destroys this uniqueness.  V COE compliance doesn't even come close to "turning VMS to another Unix."  And having aT layer of compatibility calls available in no way chips away at the strengths of VMS.   >-: > If VMS can't survive with its own strengths this clearly$ > indicates that the market is gone.   Well, it's certainly leaving.i   > Lowering the design qualityr > by introducing UNIX crap   (need I say it...)  % > and complicating things on VMS willc+ > destroy one of the few advantages of VMS.r >d  W Adding a set of compatibility calls needn't harm the underlying design. I doubt there'saU anything in the COE that requires underlying changes.  On the issue of "complicating"VS VMS...uh...VMS is complex.  Despite that, it still has significant advantages.  But J don't kid yourself.  It's simple to you, because you know it.  (I could beX misunderstanding you here.  If you mean it's simple from the perspective of it's design, you have a better point.)    >e
 > > <snip> > >nS > > > > That's an interesting point, and I see why you're worried about the type oftQ > > > > users it will attract -- after all, there's a slim chance that if they'reoS > > > > all unix people, compaq would be tempted to make VMS itself more unix-like. . > > > > (Correct me if this isn't the problem) > > > = > > > We don't need the masses to destroy the quality of VMS.N > >gT > > Cool.  If everyone holds onto that attitude, then you'll get to enjoy the purityS > > of VMS all alone.  While I understand that holds appeal, it doesn't do much for.L > > the corporate types who decide where to spend their development dollars. >1? > There are others who also don't like a spoiled VMS. There arem> > other ways to attract business managers to VMS than to offer$ > unrealiable UNIX crap apps on VMS. >8  6 Let me see...so, are you saying that Unix is crap? :-)  S Seriously, though, I'm sure there are other ways.  But just because there are otherr7 ways, does that mean that this one should be abandoned?r   >aR > > > > On the other hand, it's my belief that most people who use computers don'tQ > > > > care what software they're running.  They care that they can use it to don > > > > XYZ, > > 
 > > <snip>R > > The users might not care, but the people who control the budget do.  Right nowP > > internal IT shops at nearly all companies have to pay for support of WindowsQ > > machines; some companies buy support for Unix (or Linux); fewer still buy IBMmS > > mainframe support.  Clearly, some pay for VMS support.  (When I say "pay for" IcV > > mean they employ people to administer the systems.)  Any time they can cut out oneS > > of the architectures, their infrastructure support costs go down.  Right now itcU > > seems it's the VMS boxes that are being kicked to the curb.  That's a tough trendrR > > to turn around, but it will likely have to start with people getting more (andU > > more modern) software to run on VMS.  Anything that furthers that goal would seemd) > > to be desirable to the VMS community.f > >o > > Ben Sego >g< > This is another example how badly this kind of analysis is+ > performed. VMS has by far the lowest TCO.   @ That's simply not true in every case, if it's true in any cases.   > The consequence wouldo@ > be to cut down the other OS areas and to increase the VMS area3 > to reduce costs and keep the standard of service.   U Yes, and to do that, the apps currently running on the other OS's need to be replacediU with something that will run on VMS.  COE compliance will help with that by making itmQ easier, faster, and cheaper to re-target the apps to VMS.  The apps, will not, of)R course, take full advantage of VMS.  Still, they will be on a common system with aT common backup procedure and a common set of administrators.  That is a cost savings.  	 > Wrt appn= > availablity is only one chance: to write real VMS apps thato9 > fully take advantage of VMS and fulfill the VMS quality- > standards.  X Well, if it's the only way, then you better get on with it.  I'm currently de-installingU two VMS systems because the businesses can no longer afford to keep them running, andsO they decided the only reasonable way to upgrade was to kick out the VMS system.   W  In one case, (in an agency of the state of New Jersey) there are 0 VMS people in theircT IT services shop.  How does a VMS system run without a system manager or at least anT operator?  Not well.  The system is used to run only a single application.  (It's anU important application, mind you.)  Digital helped develop the app about 10 years ago. R The State sought a way to upgrade the capacity of the system, and to get some moreT modern features in the software.  Staying with VMS was cost prohibitive.  While theyM could have bought new hardware, they would have needed consultants (or CompaqsX professional services) to move the app from the VAX to the new gear.  And the underlyingU license cost of all the pieces was much higher in VMS than on Unix.  And they alreadyeW were having trouble finding VMS managers and operators.  And the they wanted to be ablep+ to run some other apps on the new hardware.i  T This New Jersey agency decided to go with a system that runs on Unix.  (I don't evenW know which flavor of Unix, since the app runs anywhere.)  They hired my company to move 	 the data.r  U If VMS is to survive, and especially if it is to grow, there need to be fewer storiesc
 like this.   Ben Sego   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 23:37:48 GMTe+ From: rjordan@mars.mcs.net (Richard Jordan)s7 Subject: Re: the Northeast Digital Systems Ebay Follies 3 Message-ID: <gzSs6.1412$JN5.29541@news.goodnet.com>h  H I had put in a couple of bids on the NDS Alphas on Ebay but gave up whenJ it became apparent their reserve was so high.  Then Great Lakes had a niceF little special in January... 600au, 512MB, 4.3GB, keyboard, mouse, andF either Unix or VMS licenses, $1500.  Slam dunk, since I already had a : spare useable video card and an extra larger drive or two.   Rich Jordan. rjordan@mcs.nety   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 02:10:28 GMTc$ From: Ed Wilts <ewilts@mediaone.net>7 Subject: Re: Volume Shadowing merge rates on Big Disks?s: Message-ID: <oOUs6.1628$5s4.87198@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net>  K And I'll add my real-world experiences.  A mixture of 4, 9 and 18GB drives WG on HSJ-50 controllers.  All are in RAID-5 sets.  That is then mirrored 1J across the street to an (obviously) identical setup.  We've got redundant K fiber paths over redundant Gigaswitches.  I can full merge the whole shot, DK about 600GB available space, in about 2-3 days although in many situations 6G I'll do minimerges and complete many disks in seconds, not hours.  The aJ system disks don't minimerge and they'll take a lot longer.  I can shadow H copy the entire disk farm in about a day with minimal user impact.  The A systems consist of Alpha 4100s, DS20s, and a couple of VAX 6620s..  K It's absolutely imperative that you are up to date on shadow patch kits or cK you'll be doing full merges when you should be doing mini-merges, and that  < will make the difference between seconds and hours per disk.           .../Ed   Lee Y T Mah wrote:   > Real life experience:s >     VMS 7.1-2.F >     Four homogeneous clustered AlphaServer 1200's.  Two nodes in two > separate computer rooms." >     Host-based volume shadowing.H >     Two HSJ40 and two HSJ50 controllers in each computer room.  Mix of" > 4.3GB  and 9.1GB shadow members.6 >     Over forty shadow members in each computer room.< >     Rough time to shadow copy a 4.3GB: less than one hour.J >     I have had to shadow copy all members of a whole room several times.& > Total elapsed time: less than a day. >  > John Jansen wrote: > I >> Currently we use a Alpha 4100/300 with 4 gig and 9 gig disks in shadow  >> sets.+ >> A shadow merge can take over a full day.  >>I >> We are considering the purchase of a dse20 with 9 gig and 18 gig disksvG >> in shadow sets. This system is supposed to be 4 times as fast as ourfH >> current one, but no one seems to be able to give me and indication ofG >> how long it would take for a shadow set merge of the 18 gig disks onc >> this system.i >>K >> Has any one had a real life experience of how long a merge would take. IsE >> am looking to get an indication as to whether it will be and hour,i >> hours, days?? >> >> Thanking you for you help >>
 >> Regards >> >> John Jansen.n   > -- > Leet > = > Lee Y T Mah                        Capital Health Authority A > Email: lytmah@cha.ab.ca            Information Systems, RAH CSCu6 > Phone:  (780) 477-4725, 477-4233   10240 Kingsway NWA > Fax:      (780) 491-5119, 491-5619    Edmonton, AB, CAN  T5H3V9h   ------------------------------   Date: 17 Mar 2001 15:33:00 CDT= From: wayne@tachysoft.xxx.412538.killspam.015a (Wayne Sewell)m% Subject: Re: VPM$SERVER ERROR MESSAGE6. Message-ID: <E0Y+sek90bvr@tachxxsoftxxconsult>  a In article <3AB300FE.36FD401E@am1.ericsson.se>, Gloria Griffith <qusgagh@am1.ericsson.se> writes:e > Yes, and it looks like this: >  > $ install list vpm/fullo > + > DISK$ALPHASYS:<SYS0.SYSCOMMON.SYSEXE>.EXEe+ >    VPM;1            Open Hdr          Prvt( >         Entry access count         = 0, >         Current / Maximum shared   = 1 / 0@ >         Privileges = SYSNAM PSWAPM ALTPRI TMPMBX NETMBX SYSPRV@ >         Authorized = SYSNAM PSWAPM ALTPRI TMPMBX NETMBX SYSPRV > C > So do I just need to add SETPRV to the privileges?  Can I do thatGH > without a whole new install command?  Would you please send me how you- > think it should be installed? (the command)v > E > Thanks for your response....I am here because one of my sites had adH > power loss and I had to check out my systems.  What is your excuse for! > working so late? Love your job?x >   L Look at his sig.  He's in Western Australia, not far from the Indian Ocean. 2 Probably a couple of timezones away from you.  :-)  M The only thing I know for sure is that Alice Springs is either 7 1/2 or 8 1/2eO hours different from Dallas, depending on whether daylight savings is in effectuC or not.  The delta to Western Australia would of course be greater.4     >  > Paul Repacholi wrote:D > 4 >> Gloria Griffith <qusgagh@am1.ericsson.se> writes: >>, >> > Old privileges:           TMPMBX,NETMBX% >> > Privileges missing:       SETPRVe >>6 >> Is VPM installed with the correct privs? Or at all? >> >> --d? >> Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd., : >> +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.C >>                                              West Australia 6076n1 >> Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.r >  -- wO =============================================================================== M Wayne Sewell, Tachyon Software Consulting  (281)812-0738  wayne@tachysoft.xxxi: http://www.tachysoft.xxx/www/tachyon.html and wayne.html  K change .xxx to .com in addresses above, assuming you are not a spambot  :-)cO =============================================================================== O Dean Wormer to Flounder: "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life."n   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2001.153 ************************