1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 18 Nov 2001	Volume 2001 : Issue 641       Contents:
 Re: 17-Nov... 
 Re: 17-Nov... 
 Re: 17-Nov... 9 Re: Alpha Reinvigoration Opportunities: A Bridge Too Far? @ Re: Any Survey Question Suggestions? (Was Re: Special IPF-InsideP Re: Any Survey Question Suggestions? (Was Re: Special IPF-Inside Issueof Shannon Re: APC UPS Software by TMESIS& Re: Can vaxstation be booted headless? Re: DEQ bonuses.... Re: From the deja vu all over again department2 Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!2 Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger! Re: ISV's and VMS on Intel Re: ISV's and VMS on Intel Re: Items for sale!  Life After Alpha No subject was specified. ! Remote Access (RSH) configuration % Re: Remote Access (RSH) configuration % Re: Remote Access (RSH) configuration " Some merger issues (long - sorry!)E Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org ; Re: VMS on IBM power chip would make IBM No. 1 in high end! ; Re: VMS on IBM power chip would make IBM No. 1 in high end! ; Re: VMS on IBM power chip would make IBM No. 1 in high end! 4 Re: VMS/RMS - destroyed sequential files - NEED HELP what to do with old alpha's  Re: what to do with old alpha's   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 23:34:37 GMT ' From: Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net>  Subject: Re: 17-Nov...+ Message-ID: <3BF6F46A.84B5B868@pacbell.net>   G Yes. I remember it well. It was Nov 17, 1858, when VMS machines started D counting time in 100 nano second units in a 64 bit counter. Now lets! calculate when REAL end of VMS...      Bob Kaplow wrote:  > G > I guess today is as close as it gets to wishing VMS a happy birthday.  > = >         Support Freedom: http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 20:30:07 -0500 ' From: Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net>  Subject: Re: 17-Nov...< Message-ID: <howard-732B5C.20300617112001@enews.newsguy.com>  N In article <3BF6F46A.84B5B868@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net>  wrote:  I > Yes. I remember it well. It was Nov 17, 1858, when VMS machines started F > counting time in 100 nano second units in a 64 bit counter. Now lets# > calculate when REAL end of VMS...   : Heck, now that we've got I*8, I'm, like, TOTALLY.... wild. --   Howard S ShubsD "Run in circles, scream and shout!"  "I hope you have good backups!"   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 03:07:46 GMT 3 From: Carl Nelson <carl.nelson@mcmail.maricopa.edu>  Subject: Re: 17-Nov...3 Message-ID: <3BF72602.C6FF3397@mcmail.maricopa.edu>    Don Sykes wrote:  A > Yes. I remember it well. It was Nov 17, 1858, when VMS machines  started F > counting time in 100 nano second units in a 64 bit counter. Now lets# > calculate when REAL end of VMS...  >  > Bob Kaplow wrote:  > > ? > > I guess today is as close as it gets to wishing VMS a happy 	 birthday.  > > ? > >         Support Freedom: http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/   B   I still call Nov 17th "null day". With all zeroes, the numerical address > to human-readable address converter will generate "17-Nov-1858F 00:00:00.00". Some code has been added in various utilities to convert@ that to a more meaningful string, such as <no backup performed>.  E   Before that I used to get hiccoughs on the 17th when I'd see that a  fileF was backed up on 17-Nov-1989 (for example). My immediate thought would be, = "WHY wasn't this (critical) file backed up...... oh. Dammit!"   ?   I haven't had quite so many scares since they added the other : interpretation to some of the utilities. Good thing, that.  G   BTW, the date was selected as the base date and time for astronomical A observations as per the Smithsonian Institute. I believe that the  internalF format runs out somewhere in the 311th century. I figured it out once. May H 5th, I think. Early afternoon. I plan on taking the day off. Or at least   taking a LONG lunch.  ?   Of course the utilites will choke before then, on 31-Dec-9999 E 23:59:59.99. I once submitted a /after job to a print queue with that H date/time to demonstrate this to someone who had confused the Un*x death  F date of 2026 with VMS. Forgot to delete it, and no one dared to delete it from the queue for a week.   -- Carl    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 20:34:50 GMT * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>B Subject: Re: Alpha Reinvigoration Opportunities: A Bridge Too Far?? Message-ID: <KRzJ7.7145$uB.2252538@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>   8 Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> wrote in message> news:Pine.SGI.4.30.0111170624160.19917-100000@world.std.com... >  > ' > On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Bill Todd wrote:  >  > > < > > Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> wrote in messageB > > news:Pine.SGI.4.30.0111170507070.25392-100000@world.std.com... > > >  > > > + > > > On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Bill Todd wrote:  > > >  > > > > @ > > > > Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> wrote in messageE > > > > news:Pine.SGI.4.30.0111160958300.8088-100000@world.std.com...  > > > >  > > > > ...  > > > > E > > > > > But it all comes back to marketing. Instead of shooting the 
 messenger, > > why 1 > > > > > not focus on the source of the problem?  > > > > K > > > > If you couched your pronouncements as messages from Compaq ("Compaq 
 > > claimsC > > > > that...") rather than endorsements ("This appears eminently  > > reasonable..."),E > > > > then you wouldn't be needing to duck anywhere nearly as much.  > > > K > > > Having spent a couple of years in a combat zone, I have a pretty good  ideaK > > > of when it makes sense to duck. Nothing worth ducking here on Usenet.  > > I > > Then don't complain about people shooting the messenger:  that's what 3 > > precipitated the comment (which remains valid).  > >  > . > Shooting the messenger accomplishes nothing.   OK, let's try one more time:  J You're *not* just a messenger.  You're an endorser of the positions CompaqA has stated.  You stated above why you think your endorsements are ) reasonable, but endorsements they remain.     (Funny, there was no negativeB > feedback about the Itanium Erratum in the offending issue of theI > newsletter; and I'm surprised that said Erratum hasn't precipitated any  > discussion).   It has; guess you missed it.   > 
 >  > ... >K > > > I do think that given the economic realities precipitated by a decade  ofI > > > Alpha marketing malfeasance rendered the IPF consolidation the best  courseL > > > of action Compaq could take. It's way too late to undo the damage that the L > > > original Alpha marketing team did in the early-mid 90's. It's too late toF > > > undo the really lousy deal that Microsoft suckered Strecker into	 accepting K > > > in August 1995 (Alliance for Enterprise Computing). And it's too late  toI > > > undo the cancellation of the Sculptor project by the dynamic duo of  > > > Eckhard and Enrico.  > > > & > > > A damned shame, but there it is. > > E > > You miss the point, which that *even after* all that damage Alpha  *still* I > > looks like much better bet on which to expand the VMS and Tru64 bases  thanK > > Itanic does (especially given that Itanic won't even be an option until  2004K > > for VMS - and of course will never be for Tru64, unless Compaq reverses  its J > > course on that yet again).  History, sad though it is, is not relevant to > > that assessment. > L > Where we are in disagreement is on the architectural platform for OpenVMS.I > I am of the opinion that Alpha ceased to be economically viable. Wish I G > was wrong in that regard, and I'd love to be proven wrong (since this H > would prove Compaq wrong) but I just don't see any evidence to supportG > continued investment in Alpha beyond EV7 (which is to all intents and  > purposes a done deal now).  G And we see plenty of evidence that Compaq is lying through its teeth on J this.  You choose to believe what Compaq tells you, and we (because CompaqL has demonstrated multiple times its readiness to lie whenever it suits them)  choose to believe that evidence.   >  > 
 >  > > ... > > : > >  I doubt that CPQ pays much attention to the goings-on > > > in this newsgroup. > > E > > One hopes that others do, however.  Since Compaq has *never* been 
 responsiveF > > to customer interest in Alpha, suggesting that we pin our hopes on talking L > > with Compaq seems silly.  I can't speak for others, but my main hope now isL > > to make the incompetence and perfidy of Compaq's management sufficientlyI > > publicly visible that the merger attempt fails (because customers are  seenL > > to be leaving Compaq in droves and/or because its stock prices drops too low H > > to make the HP offer palatable on the HP end) and the current CompaqB > > management is booted out, *after* which talking with the *new*
 management# > > might be the right thing to do.  > L > Could be, my friend, but I'm not sure. But your scenario is not beyond theJ > realm of possibility. A recent case in point: I was quoted in the BostonL > Globe as saying that the merger isn't toast, but the document sure looks aC > little brown around the edges. Doh, that's an understatement, no?  > J > Understatement or not, an unnamed person in CPQ PR had a hissy-fit aboutG > the quote. Too bad, I stand by it... and it would appear that the the  > opinion is very widely held. >  >  > > >  > >  The traffic at the www.compaqworkinggroup.org site hasH > > > been very low. The surveys at www.tru64.org have generated 10x theI > > > responses of the working group efforts and Compaq does in fact take  note% > > > of the responses in that forum.  > > K > > Given how negative the results of that survey were, the only way Compaq A > > could 'take note' of them in a manner that would indicate any  responsiveness< > > whatsoever to customer desires would be to revive Alpha. > >  > J > Again, I don't think that'll happen.. too many bridges have been burned,@ > too many resources (developers, et al) have been "redeployed."  H Again, history is not what matters here:  if the right way to proceed atF this point in time is to recross the river, then the bridges that wereG burned will just have to be rebuilt.  And those responsible for burning K them, and lying about it in the process, should be sacked:  it wasn't 'just H a mistake', and if it doesn't cost the corporation its life then it will come close.    > J > Given the apparent business and economic realities, do you have a viableL > proposal for reinvigorating Alpha? I'm not trolling, I find the concept toH > be interesting, and would find it even more interesting if it could be > justified.  E Resurrect the EV8 development effort, using the EV7 team plus any EV8 K engineers who can be attracted back.  Make public any elements of the Intel H deal that would impede this effort (among others, the FTC should have anI interest in them), and if there *are* any significant impediments explain L whether the deal has been so fully consumated that it can't be backed out of without severe legal exposure.  K Given that Alpha sales appeared to be holding their own against the general I industry contraction in Q2 (and certainly by comparison with sales of PCs K and 'industry-standard' servers), the apparent drastic fall-off in Q3 lends K a lot of credence to the contention that a great deal of revenue and profit I was lost due to the decision to cut Alpha development off at the hip.  At K least some of that business should be retrievable if Compaq can demonstrate K clearly that Alpha does have a lengthy future after all:  EV7 appears about I 3 years ahead of any performance-comparable IA64 product, and even if EV8 A slipped until 2005 it would still be at least a year ahead of any G performance-comparable IA64 product - leaving aside the consequences of I IA64's considerably greater consumption of both power and chip area for a  given performance level.  J So Alpha is still a leadership product and should remain so if developmentE continues.  People attracted to it over the years will continue to be F attracted to it, and with any decent marketing effort its sales shouldE expand.  Conversely, under current conditions its sales are obviously J contracting:  the difference between the two sales curves should more thanK fund its resurrection even now - though obviously it would have been a hell F of a lot better to have skipped the June 25th debacle and garnered the! difference in revenue and profit.   C The alternative?  Continue losing Alpha customers - mostly to other G vendors - and their service and PC-related business.  Continue to watch F Compaq ignore VMS rather than leverage those areas in which it retainsL leadership and add those features that will allow those strengths to be usedJ in new markets.  Either see Compaq absorbed into HP and watch the combinedK entity flounder for a couple of years of assimilation while the rest of the E industry passes it by, or see the merger die and Compaq left at least C severely injured (or bought at a discount and broken up for parts).   H I don't give a damn what happens to the Wintel parts of Compaq except asH that affects the enterprise parts, since only the latter have any uniqueJ value to the industry in my book.  Tandem could probably be broken off andF kept running by any competent party, but Alpha is a complex synergy ofJ hardware, software, and service that can't survive without a large part ofC Compaq surviving (and being able to sell Wintel stuff to enterprise : customers who want that too has some value, as IBM knows).   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 20:44:00 GMT * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>I Subject: Re: Any Survey Question Suggestions? (Was Re: Special IPF-Inside < Message-ID: <j_zJ7.17288$4m.1132728@news2.aus1.giganews.com>  2 Carl Perkins <carl@gerg.tamu.edu> wrote in message' news:17NOV200112285687@gerg.tamu.edu... L > In article <Pine.SGI.4.30.0111170904310.17783-100000@world.std.com>, Terry+ C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> writes...  > }  > } ' > }On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, JF Mezei wrote:  > }  > }> Terry C Shannon wrote:  > }> >H > }> > In light of the continuing controversy over the Alphacide, do you haveF > }> > any suggestions for survey questions for the next SKC/Tru64.org survey? 5 > }> > If so, send 'em along to kfarmer@tru64.org and  terryshannon@mediaone.net  > }>K > }> Do you intend to stay on Alpha as long as possible, or migrate to IA64  as soon  > }> as possible ? > }> > }  > }Thanks, that's a good start!  > G > I would suggest adding at least one more choice somewhere between the L > "as fast as possible" and "as slow as possible" choices. False dichotomiesL > make for really bad poll questions. (And on a web poll you generally can't! > pencil in "none of the above".)   H Not to mention a choice for people who are giving up on Alpha because of9 June 25th but will no way in hell be migrating to Itanic.    - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 23:44:25 -0600 , From: "Rich Jordan" <rjordan@mindspring.com>Y Subject: Re: Any Survey Question Suggestions? (Was Re: Special IPF-Inside Issueof Shannon 2 Message-ID: <9t7hih$6k3$2@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>  J Two questions, two response areas each; one for customer/end users and one for resellers:  F Do you believe the IPF consolidation decision, and resultant impendingK termination of the Alpha processor line is a positive for your business use K of Compaq systems [resellers: positive for your sales of Compaq systems and  realted services]   J Has the IPF consolidation decision, and resultant impending termination ofI the Alpha processor line had any impact to date on your business   (scale E answer 1-10, with 1 being major negative impact, 5-6 being no-minimal $ impact, and 10 being major positive)  H I'm biased.  We've now lost 5 sales that are almost certainly due to theL Alphacide, and two more that are reasonably 'attributable' to that decision;D we are seeing absolutely _NO_ positive sides to the decision WRT our business (reseller, VAR).    Rich Jordan   $ Terry C Shannon wrote in message ... >  > G >In light of the continuing controversy over the Alphacide, do you have H >any suggestions for survey questions for the next SKC/Tru64.org survey?I >If so, send 'em along to kfarmer@tru64.org and terryshannon@mediaone.net. > I >As previously mentioned, a summary of the mid-summer survey is posted at F >www.tru64.org and voting is still open on the first follow-up survey. >u   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 00:07:55 -0600 , From: "Rich Jordan" <rjordan@mindspring.com>' Subject: Re: APC UPS Software by TMESIS 2 Message-ID: <9t7j40$m6r$2@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>  J We are running it on a MicroVAX 3100-85 with TCPware at one customer site.J You will want to contact Tmesis to be certain the downloadable demo is theH most current version, but we've been running 100% fine for nearly a yearG now.  Web interface works, logging works, it reports whenever there's aeG power glitch, and we had a textbook clean shutdown/restart the one time 6 there was a long duration power failure.  Recommended.   Rich Jordan  CCSM   Robin Brady wrote in message4 <17e7dda1.0111160950.64b71844@posting.google.com>...5 >Does anyone have any experience with software callediI >UPShot by TMESIS Software (http://www.tmesis.com/apc/registration.htmlx)l >on OpenVMS Alpha 7.3? >w; >Just curious how well it works as it appears to be a beta.- >- >Robin   ------------------------------   Date: 17 Nov 2001 21:51:15 GMT3 From: vance@alumni.caltech.edu (Vance R. Haemmerle)c/ Subject: Re: Can vaxstation be booted headless?3, Message-ID: <9t6m4j$465@gap.cco.caltech.edu>  ) In article <9t2nr3$l9f$1@news.panix.com>,c. John Forkosh <forkosh@panix1.panix.com> wrote:+ >I have several vs's (4000/60's and vlc's),t, >all booting okay with S3 switch up and vt's+ >plugged in mmj ports.  But would prefer toe+ >boot them headless, and  set host  to them , >as necessary, rather than having a terminal, >on each.  Is that possible?  Is there maybe, >some kind of kvm-like device that can "fake >it out"?  Thanks, >John (forkosh@panix.com):    *     You don't need a terminal connected at* all as long as they're set to boot up from. power up.  I have a vs3100/38 with no terminal* connected (it used to have one) and when I* turn it on, it just boots into my cluster.+ If something ever goes wrong, I supposed it + would be time to connect the terminal again % and see what error message there was.e   -- Vance HaemmerleI vance@alumni.caltech.edu   ------------------------------   Date: 17 Nov 2001 22:00:23 GMT3 From: vance@alumni.caltech.edu (Vance R. Haemmerle)- Subject: Re: DEQ bonuses...o, Message-ID: <9t6mln$4eq@gap.cco.caltech.edu>  M In article <3D35AD137AAAD411A6BA0008C7B1B12D0160256E@MBCALBEXC03.BENDER.COM>,3= Koska, John C. (LNG-MBC) <John.C.Koska@lexisnexis.com> wrote:e >In the news...  > 7 >Executive Bonuses Included in the Hewlett-Compaq Deal n >0= >Senior executives of Hewlett-Packard and Compaq will receiveh9 >bonuses totaling more than $55 million if the companies' 7 >merger succeeds and they stay on until September 2003.pJ >http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/16/technology/16HEWL.html?todaysheadlines     I   The directors of these companies sure like to spend their shareholder'sl, money willy-nilly to promote their own egos.  G   Gee, now why do you think they have to bribe their senior managers toi) stay on?  Must be a pretty bad deal, huh?a   -- Vance Haemmerle  vance@alumni.caltech.edu   ------------------------------   Date: 17 Nov 2001 22:49:57 GMT3 From: vance@alumni.caltech.edu (Vance R. Haemmerle) 7 Subject: Re: From the deja vu all over again departmentc, Message-ID: <9t6pil$5m6@gap.cco.caltech.edu>  - In article <VA.000004bd.6c184295@bluewin.ch>, * Paul Sture  <paul.sture@bluewin.ch> wrote: >tL >http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/714154/000091205701538073/a2062839z4 >25.txt (sorry it's wrapped) >s >--start quote-- >aL >Q72. THE MERGER SEEMS TO DOUBLE THE SIZE OF OUR PC COMMODITY HOLDINGS. THISC >SEEMS AT ODDS WITH OUR STRATEGY. CAN YOU RECONCILE THIS PERCEIVED n >DISCONNECT? >kK >A: As a result of this deal, we may become the number one PC manufacturer t& >in the industry. This would give us       increased losses!    -- Vance Haemmerlet vance@alumni.caltech.edu   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 15:26:39 -0500 ( From: Bill Gunshannon <bill@cs.uofs.edu>; Subject: Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!.B Message-ID: <20011117152212.S13593-100000@server2.cs.scranton.edu>  & On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Paul Sture wrote:  D > In article <9sv6ce$nro$1@info.cs.uofs.edu>, Bill Gunshannon wrote: > >g& > > And then there is always "ghoti"!! > >8B > What is "ghoti" please? I got a gazillion hits on various search@ > engines, but not a single one I looked at told me what it was. >@  % A phonetic english spelling of "fish"v   "gh" from laugho "o"  from women  "ti" from action  I Isn't english a wonderful language!!  And people here wonder why I prefer0 German!!   bill   -- oJ 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   |> Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   ------------------------------   Date: 17 Nov 2001 22:45:20 GMT3 From: vance@alumni.caltech.edu (Vance R. Haemmerle) ; Subject: Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger! , Message-ID: <9t6pa0$5js@gap.cco.caltech.edu>  - In article <VA.000004ba.6b97099d@bluewin.ch>,.* Paul Sture  <paul.sture@bluewin.ch> wrote:C >In article <9sv6ce$nro$1@info.cs.uofs.edu>, Bill Gunshannon wrote:g6 >> In article <BnrlFQpYm0JF@eisner.encompasserve.org>,3 >>  Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:r >> |> I >> |> Written English is a set of rules for setting down the spoken wordsoB >> |> in a graphic format to facilitate reading and comprehension. >> |> D >> |> i kud ryght stough inn calmprihenssible weighs igknorrinn rulz' >> |> buht knot yousingh rytin ingglyshm >> e% >> And then there is always "ghoti"!!m >>  B >What is "ghoti" please? I got a gazillion hits on various search ? >engines, but not a single one I looked at told me what it was.e  (   You just need to look underwater.  :-)     gh as in "cough"   o as in "women"e   ti as in "pollution"   -- Vance Haemmerlef vance@alumni.caltech.edu   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 22:23:42 GMT = From: system@SendSpamHere.ORG (Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-) # Subject: Re: ISV's and VMS on Intelm0 Message-ID: <00A05315.1140A016@SendSpamHere.ORG>  S In article <3BF67976.13A885AE@dplanet.ch>, John McLean <mcleanj@dplanet.ch> writes:a
 >{...snip...}uE >I am having trouble understanding why any ISV would find Intel/VMS alG >more attractive proposition than Alpha/VMS.  I would have thought that D >System Service calls, Run-time library calls and other O/S-specific@ >issues would have been the major obstacle.  After all, very few@ >third-party products get anywhere near the underlying hardware.  D You'd think, eh?  Perhaps these ISVs in the Intel world would ratherE work with an instruction set/calling standard that gives one a brain-cC cramp so severe that one's gray matter oozes from the output end ofmC the alimentary canal like the aftermath of Salmonella.  The simple, C concise and eloquent Alpha instruction set and VMS calling standardi2 is just too difficult for this intel-ligent crowd.  C Having VMS on Intel and the use of Intel's calling standard somehow.C makes VMS easier to port applications to is total marketroid driven.C bullshit.  If you're claiming that Andy G. is making such claims, I < would have to ask that he step forward here and explain why. --O VAXman- OpenVMS APE certification number: AAA-0001     VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COMn             J   "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: 17 Nov 2001 19:57:01 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)o# Subject: Re: ISV's and VMS on Intel 3 Message-ID: <QhpfIuYJsEcT@eisner.encompasserve.org>e  S In article <3BF67976.13A885AE@dplanet.ch>, John McLean <mcleanj@dplanet.ch> writes:   F > I am having trouble understanding why any ISV would find Intel/VMS aH > more attractive proposition than Alpha/VMS.  I would have thought thatE > System Service calls, Run-time library calls and other O/S-specificeA > issues would have been the major obstacle.  After all, very fewhA > third-party products get anywhere near the underlying hardware.w  A A minor point would be that it does not require buying a bunch of ? "funny" hardware.  At tiny ISVs they can alternate boot between(> VMS and other operating systems.  At other ISVs they can buy a? bunch of Itanium machines and decide later how to allocate them ( between VMS and other operating systems.  < I think even the largest ISVs who have larger-sized products? might want to switch between operating systems on their largestoB hardware, for instance if they really need Wildfire-class machines to fully test their software.s  ? On the other hand, I believe a lot of software firms are not sob) rigorous about testing as they should be.t   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Nov 2001 14:02:44 -0600 From: MikeWJ <mjenkins@jcn.net>  Subject: Re: Items for sale!8 Message-ID: <rhgdvt8983iig5ub2ttplephqg8fofcsid@4ax.com>   Chris,  < Sorry 'bout that. I'm located in the heart of St. Louis, Mo.  9 As for all items: Best offer on all pieces is acceptable.c  @ I may be reached at Mike.Jenkins@jacobs.com or mjenkins@jcn.net.   Thanks,r   MikeWJ     ch257r@yahoo.com (Chris) wrote:e  e >mjenkins@jcn.net (MikeWJ) wrote in message news:<42d0e8ed.0111130649.7539aba5@posting.google.com>... F >> I have these items to sell.  If interested, please call me, Mike atI >> 314-552-8666 or Dave at 314-552-8506.  Serious inquiries only, please.e >> i >> Looking to sell:r >> u* >>  24 VT terminals (VT220, VT320, VT420),# >>  31 VT keyboards (LK201, LK401),l >>   3 Remote Console Switches,e >>   3 Decserver 200/MC, >>   1 Decserver 250,a >>   9 LA75 printers,d >>   1 LA424 Printer,  >>   1 LP29 printer, >>   1 LG02 printer, >>   1 LG31 printer, >>   1 LPS20 printer,t >>   1 LPS32 printer,g >>   1 LN06 (Declaser 2200), >>   2 VXT2000 Desktop units,  >>   1 VXT1000 Desktop unit,% >>   1 StorageWorks 800 media cabinetoF >>     (HSD50 controller, 4 BA350 shelves, (28) 2-GB HD's, (2) TL7L's " >>      & (1) TLZ9 4mm tape units)& >>   2 VAX 4505a's (each has 2 RF72's)( >>   1 Microvax 3300 w/HD extension box.* >>      Other miscellaneous VAX equipment. >> ?I >> May have another 3300 in the parts bin.  If so, will add to this list.i >> n
 >> Thanks. >>  	 >> MikeWJ  >  >u >f >. >Mike, >cF >When you are posting stuff for sale, it is infinately more helpful ifB >you also post where you are. Some poeple might be concerned aboutB >shipping/freight expenses. I am interested in the MicroVax(s) and >related vaxen stuff.m >a >i >Chris.a   ------------------------------   Date: 17 Nov 2001 22:33:02 GMT' From: dashw459@aol.comeatspam (Doug W.)e Subject: Life After Alphag9 Message-ID: <20011117173302.19275.00000625@mb-ch.aol.com>n  M While there has been much speculation on how VMS customers would react to themO Alpha EOL and the planned merger with HP, what are large VMS customers actuallycO doing now?   If you work for a large VMS customer, could you post a descriptionrL on how your firm is reacting?  Staying the course, waiting for IPF, planningM migrations off VMS, contacting other vendors or just ignoring the situation? a   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 03:05:45 GMT 3 From: Carl Nelson <carl.nelson@mcmail.maricopa.edu>c" Subject: No subject was specified.3 Message-ID: <3BF72589.EE0F1836@mcmail.maricopa.edu>    Don Sykes wrote:  I > Yes. I remember it well. It was Nov 17, 1858, when VMS machines started4F > counting time in 100 nano second units in a 64 bit counter. Now lets# > calculate when REAL end of VMS...i >t > Bob Kaplow wrote:u > >dI > > I guess today is as close as it gets to wishing VMS a happy birthday.h > >r? > >         Support Freedom: http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/e  J   I still call Nov 17th "null day". With all zeroes, the numerical address> to human-readable address converter will generate "17-Nov-1858F 00:00:00.00". Some code has been added in various utilities to convert@ that to a more meaningful string, such as <no backup performed>.  J   Before that I used to get hiccoughs on the 17th when I'd see that a fileJ was backed up on 17-Nov-1989 (for example). My immediate thought would be,= "WHY wasn't this (critical) file backed up...... oh. Dammit!"e  ?   I haven't had quite so many scares since they added the otherh: interpretation to some of the utilities. Good thing, that.  G   BTW, the date was selected as the base date and time for astronomicaleJ observations as per the Smithsonian Institute. I believe that the internalJ format runs out somewhere in the 311th century. I figured it out once. MayH 5th, I think. Early afternoon. I plan on taking the day off. Or at least taking a LONG lunch.  ?   Of course the utilites will choke before then, on 31-Dec-9999pE 23:59:59.99. I once submitted a /after job to a print queue with thathH date/time to demonstrate this to someone who had confused the Un*x deathI date of 2026 with VMS. Forgot to delete it, and no one dared to delete ite from the queue for a week.   -- Carle   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 23:25:37 GMTe2 From: Federico Tiberi <federico.tiberi@inmedia.ws>* Subject: Remote Access (RSH) configuration* Message-ID: <3BF6F129.A3146FD0@inmedia.ws>   Hi,-C I should access a VMS host using an RSH mechanism from UNIX (Tru64)@H hosts, but I don't know how to configure the RSH service on VMS (UCX 4.1 is installed).   I tried using: UCX> add service rsh ... UCX> enable service rshl  > without success ... I think that above commands were wrong ...  ' Does anybody know the right procedure ?S   Thanks for any suggest.-   Federico -------- federico.tiberi@libero.itw   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 02:42:57 GMTo- From: "John E. Malmberg" <wb8tyw@qsl.network>>. Subject: Re: Remote Access (RSH) configuration* Message-ID: <3BF726AB.1080908@qsl.network>   Federico Tiberi wrote:    E > I should access a VMS host using an RSH mechanism from UNIX (Tru64)tJ > hosts, but I don't know how to configure the RSH service on VMS (UCX 4.1 > is installed). >  > I tried using: > UCX> add service rsh ... > UCX> enable service rsh> > @ > without success ... I think that above commands were wrong ... > ) > Does anybody know the right procedure ?     B UCX 4.1 is a bit old, you may want to consider upgrading to a more current version.  E Use the @SYS$MANAGER:UCX$CONFIG menu.  It will make sure that all thec' steps needed to configure RSH are done.n  I If you are planning on using PROXIEs or trusted host mode, you will also  : need to add proxy entries using the UCX>ADD PROXY command.  D You can find documentation for the most current version of TCPIP forD OpenVMS at the documentation link from http://www.openvms.compaq.com  > The older UCX uses a UCX command instead of the TCPIP command.   -John- wb8tyw@qsl.network Personal Opinion Only    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 06:37:08 GMTo5 From: "John Gemignani, Jr." <john@REMOVETHISossc.net>i. Subject: Re: Remote Access (RSH) configuration@ Message-ID: <oGIJ7.24514$dk.1804854@bin1.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  	 Federico-y  , As the other John said, there are two steps:  H 1. Enable the service using the SYS$STARTUP:TCPIP$CONFIG procedure.  You2 will use the SERVER meniu to make the definitions.  I 2. On Unix there is a .rhosts file in the user's directory which containswI remove user and hostnames which are allowed to login to your account.  OniH VMS, you use the TCPIP (UCX) SET PROXY command to place entries into the global, system database:  $     $ TCPIP ADD PROXY <local_user> -$         /HOST=<name> /REMOTE=<ruser>  D This is the same as a .rhosts entry for user <ruser> at host <name>.   -Johnl   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 22:54:25 +0100 1 From: John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch>p+ Subject: Some merger issues (long - sorry!)r5 Message-ID: <3BF6DC90.4698C5F8@swissonline.delete.ch>o  H I worked my way through the 120-page submission by HP with regard to the@ merger and through some other EDGA documents filed by Compaq.  =    3 Here's 6 points which you might find interesting. =r       John McLean.   --------------------------------   ITEM 1 - The timing of events7    ? In Hewlett Packard's filing of 15 Nov we find the following =85:  G "In 1999, due to an increasingly competitive market environment, the HP.C board of directors and members of HP management became particularlyuG focused on developing strategies to secure HP's future by strengtheningbE HP's product and service offerings. =85.. As part of this process, HPfE evaluated a range of strategic alternatives and potential acquisitionwC candidates, including (with support in particular from HP directorsn6 Richard A. Hackborn and George A. Keyworth II) Compaq.  H "Also in early 2001, in an effort to maximize opportunities for its UNIXH business, HP began approaching other companies to determine whether theyF would be interested in licensing HP's UNIX operating system, HP-UX. AsH part of these initiatives and following a series of previous discussionsD between business unit representatives of both companies, Ms. FiorinaC contacted Mr. Capellas in June 2001 to discuss Compaq's interest inrA licensing HP-UX. After several days of deliberation, Mr. CapellasnC contacted Ms. Fiorina to suggest that the synergies between the twotH companies were broader than HP-UX and that HP consider whether a broader1 strategic relationship might be a viable option."(    C In its SEC Filings of 6 Nov Compaq includes a Q&A from its internetuG website.  This posting includes the following answer byMichael Capellaso  @ Q4: DID THE MERGER DISCUSSIONS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH COMPAQ'SE DECISION TO STANDARDIZE ON THE INTEL ITANIUM(TM) PROCESSOR FAMILY ANDt6 TRANSFER YOUR ALPHA TECHNOLOGY AND RESOURCES TO INTEL?  E A: Not at all. That decision was made long before any discussion of ae	 merger. =t          **  Was it really LONG BEFORE ??  H  Perhaps the state of the merger discussions prompted the statement from. Compaq because the HP filing goes on to say ..  @ " Based on the initial conversations between Ms. Fiorina and Mr.J Capellas, on June 22, 2001 Mr. Capellas and =85 met with Ms. Fiorina and = =85cE to discuss the possibility of Compaq licensing HP-UX. =85.. [A]t this:A meeting, Ms. Fiorina and Messrs. Capellas, =85 also discussed thecG potential for a broader relationship between HP and Compaq, including an possible business combination."8      , ITEM 2 - ANALYSIS OF COMPARITIVE COMPANIES =      H Goldman Sachs also reviewed and compared the revenue and price /earningsB multiples of HP, Compaq and other selected public companies in theE computer hardware, services and storage industries for calendar yearsnG 2001 and 2002, as well as the five-year compounded annual InstitutionalyB Broker Estimate System growth rates and calendar year 2002 price /B earnings / growth rate of HP, Compaq and the other selected public
 companies.  8 The other selected companies consisted of the following:  ?   .  Computer Hardware Industry: Apple, Dell, Gateway, IBM, Suni Microsystems?   .  Services Industry: Accenture, Computer Sciences, EDS, KPMG 
 Consulting-   .  Storage Industry: EMC, Network Appliance-     ** APPLE ???  D Perhaps they realised the error of their ways because when they also? analyzed the historical and estimated financial information andrF multiples, they used only Dell, Gateway, IBM and Sun as other selected
 companies.     ITEM 3 - SYNERGIES ANALYSISp  F Goldman Sachs also reviewed the synergies of the merger. The Synergies@ reflect the "incremental benefits that the management of HP thenE expected to achieve as a result of the merger, including cost savingsFG and operating synergies".   This supposes that the merger will begin toOE realize the benefits of these synergies in the fourth quarter of HP's G fiscal year 2002, but will not fully realize these synergies until HP'sh fiscal year 2004.   G The estmated synergies are anything from $11.3 billion to $24.5 billion < and assume that 100% of the Synergies are actually realized.    G ** WOW !  That's a nice bit of crystal-ball gazing.  Maybe they will bemH 100% realised and maybe it will be 11.3 billion or maybe it will be more 100% higher=85.   =n      A ITEM 4 - CONDITIONS REGARDING ALTERNATIVE ACQUISITION PROPOSALS =e    A - Neither HP or Compaq will do anything to support an alternativee( acquisition proposal by any third party.  H - Both pay the other $675 million (within 2 days) if the merger does notE go ahead because a third-party has made a counter-proposal to acquiresE the company.  (This applies to mergers that start within 12 months ofiF any breakdown between HP and Compaq or that such a merger is concluded within 2 years).  G ** This means that any third-party has to find an extra $675 million to  pay out this condition..    - ITEM 5 - DETAILS OF COMPAQ SHAREHOLDER VOTINGr  H "Compaq's bylaws allow shareowners to propose business before any annualE or special shareowner meeting. However, nominations and proposals mayNG only be made by a shareowner who has given timely written notice to the E corporate secretary of Compaq before the annual or special shareowner-	 meeting."$  @ And on page 104 =85 "Under Compaq's bylaws, notice of shareownerB nominations or proposals to be made at a shareowner meeting, to beF timely, must be delivered to, or mailed and received at, the principalA executive offices of Compaq no less than 90 days before the firstrA anniversary of the immediately preceding year's annual meeting ofuF shareowners or, if the date of the meeting is more than 30 days beforeF or after the anniversary date, no less than 90 days before the date ofB the meeting. However, if Compaq publicly announces the date of theE shareowner meeting less than 100 days before the date of the meeting,aD notice by the shareowner must be received no later than the close ofE business on the tenth day after Compaq publicly announces the date oft the shareowner meeting.   B A copy of the relevant bylaws provision may be obtained by writtenF request to Compaq Computer Corporation, P.O. Box 69200, Houston, Texas, 77269-2000, Attention: Corporate Secretary."    G ** I think this means any shareholders will need to act fast to get anycA proposals included in the matters of business at the shareholdersS: meeting.  Can someone else please do the mathematics ...??    ; ITEM 6 - "TRIGGERING EVENTS" WHICH MAY TERMINATE THE MERGERa   The merger may be cancelled if  ) - the board of directors changes its minde@ - the BoD fails to recommend the merger in a prospectus or Proxy	 statementlF - the BoD fails to re-affirm its recommendation in favor of the merger5 (and does not do so within 10 days when requested to)y5 - the BoD accepts an alternative acquisition proposal D - the BoD starts negotiations with a third party regards acquisition    F ** I guess the board has to abide by the decision of the shareholders,@ so these points reflect back on the outcome of the shareholders' meeting.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 06:13:26 GMTl. From: "aaron spink" <aaronspink@earthlink.net>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.orgE Message-ID: <akIJ7.50970$hZ.4821948@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>   : "Bob Koehler" <koehler@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:2tPWxm5KzyBF@eisner.encompasserve.org...lF >    I'm no fan of Bin Laden, but where does the Constitution proclaim >    this limitation?  >t< "We the People of the United States".  The Constitution is aI convonent/contract entered into by the people of the united states(aka USmK citizens).  The protections and rights are really just contracts between inHI the parties involved in the contract(aka US citizens).  The contract only0H applied to those who have signed the contract.  The contract can only beC signed by those parties who have been invited to sign the contract.   F In other words, if you don't have citizenship, any extention of the USI constitution to grant you rights is solely at the discretion of congress.t   Aaron Spinke   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Nov 2001 11:14:56 -0800( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)D Subject: Re: VMS on IBM power chip would make IBM No. 1 in high end!= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0111171114.56d06458@posting.google.com>e  ` "John Eisenschmidt" <jeisensc@aaas.org> wrote in message news:<sbf50dc7.056@AAASMTA.aaas.org>...J > Alpha is already gone. IBM won't be doing anything with that - which is " > fine, Power is a great platform. > K > As for a VMS port to Power - you're more likely to see a discount on IBM  M > services to migrate to one of their other offerings. They already have two  - > non-Unix OSes, why would they want a third?h >   H OS400 is not a high end OS like VMS ... it is a piece of garbage writtenH to keep their system 3x customers ... os400 is a lousy menu based closedE OS ... I spent a month on one once to see if it was comparible to vmsoF and that one month was about all I could have taken!  We crashed twiceI in that month and their support people had no clue as to why!  Most os400:H users like the one I worked for are running in system 3x mode which justE kills the processor ... would have been cheaper to just stay on theirMF 3x box ... their is "nothing" that compares with vms, and IBM I'm sureH would love to have a real high end os instead of the junk they have now!   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 20:24:44 -0500)- From: "John Eisenschmidt" <jeisensc@aaas.org>9D Subject: Re: VMS on IBM power chip would make IBM No. 1 in high end!+ Message-ID: <sbf6c7aa.005@AAASMTA.aaas.org>6  ; Let's try this again - maybe this time MIME won't attack...>    H But if you bought VMS, could you afford Hoff? VMS without Hoff is like = source without a compiler. <G>  I I understand what you're saying - when you look at a merger the size of =vE HPaq - $300 million falls by the wayside of things like the printer =r% division that makes HP $2 billion.=203  K And the port would have to pay for itself. Compaq can port VMS to Itanium =eI and justify the cost - people who run VMS on IA64 will almost assuredly = G buy their Itanium Servers from Compaq. Since they've hacked off their =lD Alpha division, they're banking on their high end IA64 stuff doing = well.=20  K If IBM brought VMS to Power, they'd have to define the reference platform = G (since a CPU alone makes not the system). Would VMS run on the AS/400 = I hardware, the RS/6000 hardware, the Z/90 hardware, or something new? If =WH it's not one of those three it'd be even more money in hardware r&d to =L create a target platform (maybe they could call it the VS/11 - the Virtual = System 11). =20t  J In the end, it would come down to IBM looking at a cost benefit analysis =J and deciding whether they needed their old competitors OS and customers, =G or just their old competitors customers migrating to their own OSes.=20c  J I don't think Sun wants Compaq, and SGI can't afford lunch. SGI seems to =D pay more attention to Linux than Irix, I don't think they have the =H attention span for another OS. In the unlikely event either one bought =G Compaq, I think it's even money for either of them to run with VMS or =,
 throw it out.   I A couple years ago, OpenVMS became the spoils of war. Only history will =r, tell us if it ends up remembered as plunder.    C >>> Rob Young <young_r@encompasserve.org> 11/16/2001 1:53:17 PM >>>-L In article <sbf50dc7.056@AAASMTA.aaas.org>, "John Eisenschmidt" <jeisensc@a= aas.org> writes:  J Ummmm.... maybe for the same reason SGI* or Sun would enjoy having VMS.  =J Heck... I'd even take it off their hands.  Perhaps someone could help me =* get started on a creative finance package.  F After all.... if the profits were HALF those widely reported I could =H struggle along with mortgage and whatnot even at that rate of return.  =I Shoot.... I'd probably spend $2 or $3 million on an annual mortgage and = K stick the other $298 million in the bank every year (assuming that is the =a  correct HALVING of VMS profits).   Robt   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Nov 2001 20:56:23 -0600+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)eD Subject: Re: VMS on IBM power chip would make IBM No. 1 in high end!3 Message-ID: <8Re4H+SIvKLJ@eisner.encompasserve.org>   [ In article <sbf6c7aa.005@AAASMTA.aaas.org>, "John Eisenschmidt" <jeisensc@aaas.org> writes: = > Let's try this again - maybe this time MIME won't attack...t >  > J > But if you bought VMS, could you afford Hoff? VMS without Hoff is like =  > source without a compiler. <G> >   > 	This implies I would cut people loose.  I wouldn't.  I'd hireC 	to do creative things like gearing up to make VMS a better Windozes? 	than Windoze.  After all, on re-read of DOJ settlement it doesoG 	appear the APIs will be made known with enough safeguards to make sure + 	the Borg doesn't play games with the APIs.n    K > I understand what you're saying - when you look at a merger the size of = G > HPaq - $300 million falls by the wayside of things like the printer =r' > division that makes HP $2 billion.=20m  > 	Sure.  So maybe they shed everything but printers and go head> 	to head with Lexmark.  Point is ... companies *normally* shed; 	poorly performing divisions.  PCs being a big exception as-A 	HP/Compaq want to be a full service vendor.  PCs (Dell actually)m( 	probably had a big part of this merger.  C 	$2 billion they make on printers?  That would mean they break even.D 	combining everything else as so far this year they have made about  	$1.6 billion.  - > And the port would have to pay for itself. i  @ 	Why?  Spend $40 million (very high number) to make $400 million 	per year.  Why not?  " > Compaq can port VMS to Itanium =K > and justify the cost - people who run VMS on IA64 will almost assuredly =kI > buy their Itanium Servers from Compaq. Since they've hacked off their =-F > Alpha division, they're banking on their high end IA64 stuff doing =
 > well.=20 >   F 	I'm not so sure.  I think the realization is that somewhere out thereC 	the normal 30% server profit margins are long gone.  Dell squeezessC 	17% (if I recall)... and there are charts and graphs that probablytB 	tell everyone that server profit margins decline to less than 15%H 	in 2 years.... with those kind of scary charts... proprietary (in-house? 	developed) efforts will come under exceeding pricing pressure.c  @ 	They have to make that up somewhere.  That is made up in "soft"? 	divisions.  Software, services - support and consulting.  The  , 	information revolution continues to evolve.  M > If IBM brought VMS to Power, they'd have to define the reference platform =iI > (since a CPU alone makes not the system). Would VMS run on the AS/400 =yK > hardware, the RS/6000 hardware, the Z/90 hardware, or something new? If =tJ > it's not one of those three it'd be even more money in hardware r&d to =N > create a target platform (maybe they could call it the VS/11 - the Virtual = > System 11). =20.    B 	I think IBM has their day for a few years (2?).  Pricing pressure@ 	will make them unattractive when Itanium follow-ons come... and> 	32-64 Gigs of memory is pretty common.  I think memory pricesC 	also contributed to some of the thinking about getting on Itanium.u    L > In the end, it would come down to IBM looking at a cost benefit analysis =L > and deciding whether they needed their old competitors OS and customers, =I > or just their old competitors customers migrating to their own OSes.=20o  = 	Probably a business decision as much as engineering to go to 	 	Itanium.x  L > I don't think Sun wants Compaq, and SGI can't afford lunch. SGI seems to =F > pay more attention to Linux than Irix, I don't think they have the =J > attention span for another OS. In the unlikely event either one bought =I > Compaq, I think it's even money for either of them to run with VMS or =/ > throw it out.  > K > A couple years ago, OpenVMS became the spoils of war. Only history will = . > tell us if it ends up remembered as plunder. >   @ 	I don't understand this last line.  VMS is still very strong in? 	certain segments.  Within a few segments others are pretenders3A 	as their value add is actually a detraction.  Failover clusters?    	Give me a break.o   				Robh   > D >>>> Rob Young <young_r@encompasserve.org> 11/16/2001 1:53:17 PM >>>N > In article <sbf50dc7.056@AAASMTA.aaas.org>, "John Eisenschmidt" <jeisensc@a= > aas.org> writes: > L > Ummmm.... maybe for the same reason SGI* or Sun would enjoy having VMS.  =L > Heck... I'd even take it off their hands.  Perhaps someone could help me =, > get started on a creative finance package. > H > After all.... if the profits were HALF those widely reported I could =J > struggle along with mortgage and whatnot even at that rate of return.  =K > Shoot.... I'd probably spend $2 or $3 million on an annual mortgage and =sM > stick the other $298 million in the bank every year (assuming that is the =u" > correct HALVING of VMS profits). >  > Rob  >    ------------------------------   Date: 17 Nov 2001 20:29:33 GMT3 From: vance@alumni.caltech.edu (Vance R. Haemmerle)u= Subject: Re: VMS/RMS - destroyed sequential files - NEED HELPe, Message-ID: <9t6hbd$2op@gap.cco.caltech.edu>  N In article <9t0cth$895$1@aquila.mdx.ac.uk>,  <david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk> wrote: >>= >Just reread this and saw that I hadn't made clear that this b9 >-SYSTEM-E-UNSUPPORTED, unsupported operation or function2I >occurs fairly frequently with type/tail on files which are perfectly ok.f5 >One cause appears to be if the file is fairly large.sQ >Hence I can quite believe that a type/tail = 100 was OK and then failed a littleh >later on a growing file.o  K   One tricky limitation is that type/tail will not work on sequential filessI containing a record of 512 bytes or larger.  I have an OSU web server logiI that I would sometimes run type/tail on.  At some point, probably becauseUI of the stupid Nimba virus floating around, an entry in the log got biggerT than 511 bytes.  Now I get   $ type/tail access.logD %TYPE-W-OPENIN, error opening WWW_ROOT:[000000]ACCESS.LOG;1 as input8 -SYSTEM-E-UNSUPPORTED, unsupported operation or function+ -RMS-F-ORG, invalid file organization valuer   -- Vance Haemmerlee vance@alumni.caltech.edu   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 00:22:12 +0100e' From: "Wim_K" <verledentijd@homail.com>.$ Subject: what to do with old alpha's* Message-ID: <9t6rj3$guh$1@news1.xs4all.nl>  * We are migrating from VMS to Unix ( snif )  E I don't know *&** about Unix, and we have a few Alpha's who are doingr6 nothing at all at the moment, most of them are 2100's.  C I started complaining to my boss that VMS was relialable and fast.?s  C He told me that I had to find out what I could do with those AXP's.   4 We are doing a lot of APS stuff now, and webhosting.  A Can I use these AXP's for this, or is Unix way faster and better?i  K I also would like to know what kind of ASP applications you can run on openn VMS.   Please help me out.    I don't wanna lose my Job.  % Please cc to my email address aswell.    wim@wanadoo.nl   Many thanks in advance   ------------------------------   Date: 18 Nov 2001 01:31:28 GMT) From: leslie@clio.rice.edu (Jerry Leslie)m( Subject: Re: what to do with old alpha's' Message-ID: <9t731g$891$1@joe.rice.edu>   & Wim_K (verledentijd@homail.com) wrote:, : We are migrating from VMS to Unix ( snif ) :,G : I don't know *&** about Unix, and we have a few Alpha's who are doing*8 : nothing at all at the moment, most of them are 2100's. :e) Do these already have OpenVMS installed ?a  E : I started complaining to my boss that VMS was relialable and fast.?l :aI You should also tell him how secure OpenVMS is; it was declared virtuallyA# unhackable by the DEFCON 9 hackers:   ,   http://www.pointsecure.com/Defconwhite.pdf    "Virtually Unhackable" DEFCON9  E : He told me that I had to find out what I could do with those AXP's., :c  J You may be able to trade them for ALPHAs that already have Tru64 licenses,- if your boss wants a commercial unix variant.   6 : We are doing a lot of APS stuff now, and webhosting. :u  There are ISPs that use OpenVMS.  C : Can I use these AXP's for this, or is Unix way faster and better?y :n? Tru64 unix may run a tad faster than OpenVMS on the same ALPHA.h  E There are unix variants that'll run on the ALPHA; e.g.: Tru64, Linux,y NetBSD, FreeBSD.  - Unix better than VMS ?  No, I don't think so.w  F : I also would like to know what kind of ASP applications you can run 
 : on openVMS.I : * What ASP applications do you need to run ?   : Please help me out.o :q : I don't wanna lose my Job. :l' : Please cc to my email address aswell.h :  : wim@wanadoo.nl :t : Many thanks in advance  4 --Jerry Leslie     (my opinions are strictly my own)   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2001.641 ************************