1 INFO-VAX	Sat, 24 Nov 2001	Volume 2001 : Issue 653       Contents: Re: Disk Defragmenters, Re: DSSI VAXcluster manual on line anywhere?4 Re: Gartner and IDC say HP will effectively kill DLT4 Re: Gartner and IDC say HP will effectively kill DLT) Re: Gartner hints VMS to be dropped by HP ) Re: Gartner hints VMS to be dropped by HP ) Re: Gartner hints VMS to be dropped by HP ) Re: Gartner hints VMS to be dropped by HP ) Re: Gartner hints VMS to be dropped by HP ' Re: Is it a DEC C problem, or is it me?  Re: Life After Alpha Re: Mounting a disk  Re: NTP under TCPIP V5.1 Problem with pathworks" Re: Remote connection to pathworks RE: tk70 blinking loud5 Tru64.org IPF Consolidation Survey Still Taking Votes 9 Re: Tru64.org IPF Consolidation Survey Still Taking Votes   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 19:06:25 GMT 3 From: Tim Llewellyn <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk>  Subject: Re: Disk Defragmenters / Message-ID: <3BFE9D84.BE4F5E44@cableinet.co.uk>    Bernard Straehl wrote: > ] > Arne Vajhj <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com> wrote in message news:<3BFBA845.208904E1@gtech.com>...  > > Martin Hunt wrote:J > > > Has anyone had any experience with Compaq's DFO product? I have usedJ > > > both Diskeeper and PerfectDisk, but don't know anything about DFO. IL > > > am currently looking at which product would be suitable for some VAXes9 > > > which is currently not running any defrag software.  > > > H > > > Any information, such as CPU utilisation, performance, and general/ > > > philosophy of operation, would be useful.  > >  > > [sorry for the late answer]  > >  > > DFO works. No problems.  > >  > > Arne > 	 > Hi Arne  >  > As a hint:H > I also installed DFO on my systems and did execute "setfilenomove.com"G > an all my disks. Then I had the idea to backup my normal sysdsk (in a G > RA8000) to a not used internal disk, boot from this internal disk and $ > run DFO against the normal sysdsk. > H > The result: I could not boot anymore from my normal sysdsk. This was aH > real bad idea. The way to resolve this was to restore my normal sysdskA > from this internal disk ( this means trad. VMS defragmentation)   I I have booted many system disks that have been regularly DFO'd. However,  E there is no guarantee I was using the same versions of VMS and DFO as  you.   I agree with Arne.   --   Tim.Llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk     C Standard disclaimer applies. My views in no way represent those of  ! my employers or service provider.    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 19:18:02 GMT " From: Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca>5 Subject: Re: DSSI VAXcluster manual on line anywhere? 9 Message-ID: <Xns91627D1F8FEC5falkarcabca@205.233.108.180>   K Robert DiRosario <rdirosario@starpower.net> wrote in news:3BFD810F.C40802F4  @starpower.net:   ! > Is the DEC manual  EK-410AB-MG, 4 > "DSSI VAXcluster Installation and Troubleshooting"  > available on the web anywhere? > 3 > I just picked up a VAX/VMS 7.1 CD set from e-bay, 7 > with the documentation CD.  Will it be on the doc CD?  > 6 > This is my hobby, so $85 for a manual is a bit high. > 8 > I'm not sure there's any information I need from it  I* > just found it referenced in the VMS FAQ.  9 Chances are you don't need it.  What do you want to know?    @ ----------------------------------------------------------------A   A L B E R T A         Alfred Falk               falk@arc.ab.ca  @ R E S E A R C H         Information Systems Dept   (780)450-5185+   C O U N C I L         250 Karl Clark Road 1                         Edmonton, Alberta, Canada  http://www.arc.ab.ca/   T6N 1E4   http://www.arc.ab.ca/staff/falk/   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 21:15:03 GMT 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> = Subject: Re: Gartner and IDC say HP will effectively kill DLT ' Message-ID: <3BFEBFC2.6F58F0D3@fsi.net>    Alan Greig wrote:  >  > "David J. Dachtera" wrote: > L > > Curious. I thought DLT was sold to Quantum, and that most new DLT drivesK > > are rebadged Quantums. I'm probably wrong on one count or both. If not, D > > I don't see this as Carly's decision to make. DLT is an industry& > > standard at this point, is it not? > >  > J > Correct but the point the analysts were making is that almost all of theL > other main players including IBM and HP are co-developers of Ultrium whichM > they have designed as a rival to DLT. Compaq is about the only major vendor J > still firmly in the DLT camp even though it has already started to offerG > Ultrium drives instead as an option. Once HP take over Compaq IDC and K > Gartner are saying they will downplay the DLT product. With IBM, Sun, HP, : > ex-DEC-ex-Compaq all pushing Ultrium DLT will be doomed. > ! > That's their prediction anyway.   F I guess we'll see how it shakes out when the factors of durability and% long term storage are fully analyzed.   E I see where the cartridge has some kind of local, NVRAM. One point of H contention I can see is whether the tape is still usable if the NVRAM is
 destroyed.  G Price points will be another issue. At $100+ (US) per cartridge, though = that has come down a bit, DLT-III and later DLT-IV were never C economical. I've seen my share of sites where scrimping on the tape A cartridge budget has led to a BACKUP scenario that produces tapes E useless for disaster recovery, and barely usable for any recovery. If A Ultrium cart.'s don't come in at under $50 US, I would think that + acceptance will come in below expectations.   F 'Twill be interesting. We've been waiting for something substantial toC happen in tape capacity and transfer rates as disc capacity and SAN D transfer rates have expanded much faster than those same figures for magtape.   --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 08:44:37 +1100 . From: Burnie M <burniem.NOSPAM@ozemail.com.au>= Subject: Re: Gartner and IDC say HP will effectively kill DLT 8 Message-ID: <0qgtvtcptevmt99da8jkpl69a4puu88r0n@4ax.com>  A On 22 Nov 2001 10:35:39 -0700, nothome@spammers.are.scum (Malcolm  Dunnett) wrote:   : >In article <u0vpvtsvbd0j5k9mq8dk60eg8re7sh63ar@4ax.com>, + >   Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net> writes:  > H >> Supposedly DLT/SuperDLT sales are still mainly through Compaq branded >> products or related sales.  > 8 >    Most of our DLT drives are HP branded, the rest are: >Quantum branded. I don't know how much following SuperDLT6 >has, so it might be logical to kill it in favour of a< >different technology - but it seems that the installed base9 >of earlier DLT technologies would make it unadvisable to 	 >kill it.      Interesting.? We have 60 Compaq (VMS/Tru64) and 110 HP-UX systems all running 
 DLT7000/8000. B The deal would have to be VERY good to make us change to something5 that could not read our massive library of old tapes. E HP refusing to sell them to us would not be enough. HP not supporting E them in the OS would create an interesting legal situation after they  previously sold them to us.   C I suspect HP will sell both, art least for the next 2-3 yewars, and  let the market decide.   Burnie M   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 14:15:43 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> 2 Subject: Re: Gartner hints VMS to be dropped by HP, Message-ID: <3BFEA04E.AE7FB3D5@videotron.ca>   John McLean wrote:H > If there is a No-confidence vote in the BoD of Compaq, then the mergerB > could easily disappear and the board be replaced with people whoD > recognise where there is money to be made - VMS, Tru64 and Tandem.  J You are assuming that Compaq has the freedom to steer away from the WintelN mafia and market products that compete against wintel products. I would not beM surprised if there were some informal agreements between Microsoft, Intel and I Compaq that give Compaq advantageous treatment if Compaq cannabalises any 7 producty thst might compete agaist Intel and Microsoft.   N Also, how would the wall street casino analysts react if Compaq, in a weakenedN state, were to declare war on Microsoft and Intel and base its strategy on old2 proprietary systems that have been declared dead ?   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Nov 2001 11:16:08 -0800( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)2 Subject: Re: Gartner hints VMS to be dropped by HP= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0111231116.1da774cd@posting.google.com>   a JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<3BFE47C5.42FB9CFE@videotron.ca>...  > Alan Greig wrote: G > > It's possible that convincing HP of the value of VMS and convincing C > > them to look for a new owner who'll promote it are not mutually 8 > > exclusive. I could be fooling myself though I agree. > L > They are mutually exclusive. HP-Compaq are not about to sell VMS intact toL > some outfit that would not only turn out to compete against HP-Compaq, butL > also constantly remind everyone how Windows isn't ready for prime time andM > that any serious company should stay away from that crap. That goes against K > the HP-Compaq business plan of  helping Gates convince the world that all & > servers will and should run Windows. > F > So if you convince HP management that VMS has a possible future as aI > competitor to Windows, then HP won't want to unleash VMS intact to some L > potential competitor, they will instead donate VMS to Gates just like they > donated Alpha to Intel.  > P > The trick might be to convince Compaq that VMS is a liability in the long termM > (with its DII-COE contracts) and that it should sell it to some third party P > while it still has some value.  The 3rd party would initially say that it willM > ust put VMS on maintenance and support the existing customer base, but once I > the papers are signed sealed and delivered, it would mount an agressive ( > marketing campaign to destroy Windows.  H you can't destroy windows in the desktop market as a client, only on theC high end can you put an end to its datacenter domination dreams ...    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 20:59:34 GMT * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>2 Subject: Re: Gartner hints VMS to be dropped by HP@ Message-ID: <WMyL7.50221$uB.8384197@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  8 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote in message& news:3BFEA04E.AE7FB3D5@videotron.ca... > John McLean wrote:J > > If there is a No-confidence vote in the BoD of Compaq, then the mergerD > > could easily disappear and the board be replaced with people whoF > > recognise where there is money to be made - VMS, Tru64 and Tandem. > L > You are assuming that Compaq has the freedom to steer away from the WintelI > mafia and market products that compete against wintel products. I would  not beK > surprised if there were some informal agreements between Microsoft, Intel  and K > Compaq that give Compaq advantageous treatment if Compaq cannabalises any 9 > producty thst might compete agaist Intel and Microsoft.   K Since such treatment (if it exists) has not succeeded in allowing Compaq to J turn a profit in these areas, the value of preserving it at the expense ofL the ability to pursue more profitable activities seems questionable at best: thus, no problem there.    > G > Also, how would the wall street casino analysts react if Compaq, in a  weakenedL > state, were to declare war on Microsoft and Intel and base its strategy on old 4 > proprietary systems that have been declared dead ?  H I rather doubt that declaring war on Wintel is in anyone's interests (atI least right now).  IBM certainly hasn't done so, but is succeeding rather E well with a strategy that embraces both its proprietary offerings and I Wintel.  Compaq has *said* they want to emulate IBM, but so far has shown L absolutely no ability even to understand what they say they want to emulate.J A new BoD could fix that, and Wall Street could hardly look less favorably( on this than they currently view Compaq.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 18:31:32 -0500 ( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>2 Subject: Re: Gartner hints VMS to be dropped by HP, Message-ID: <3BFEDC54.5010004@tsoft-inc.com>   JF Mezei wrote:    > John McLean wrote: > H >>If there is a No-confidence vote in the BoD of Compaq, then the mergerB >>could easily disappear and the board be replaced with people whoD >>recognise where there is money to be made - VMS, Tru64 and Tandem. >> > L > You are assuming that Compaq has the freedom to steer away from the WintelP > mafia and market products that compete against wintel products. I would not beO > surprised if there were some informal agreements between Microsoft, Intel and K > Compaq that give Compaq advantageous treatment if Compaq cannabalises any 9 > producty thst might compete agaist Intel and Microsoft.     D Well, if they are getting such special treatment, and they're still I losing money on PCs, then what good is the special treatment.  Note that  G MS worships the 'knife in the back' and while giving special treatment  D to Compaq, they might be giving even more special treatment to Dell H since Dell doesn't have any VMS and such.  What better way to kill VMS, G than to entice Compaq to do so, while also insuring that Compaq fails.  C That covers both Compaq killing VMS, and killing Compaq should VMS   refuse to die.    P > Also, how would the wall street casino analysts react if Compaq, in a weakenedP > state, were to declare war on Microsoft and Intel and base its strategy on old4 > proprietary systems that have been declared dead ? >   I Show them a path of increasing profits.  If you then do follow the path,  I they will note this, and be more receptive on future projections.  Those  E people really don't care how you make profits, just that you DO make   profits.  @ IBM (with all those proprietary systems) closed above $115 today Dell - somewhere around $25  HP - around $28 6 Compaq - $9.80, with a 52 week range of $7.26 to 25.23   Dave   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com6 T-Soft, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 03:32:30 GMT   From: cjt <cheljuba@prodigy.net>2 Subject: Re: Gartner hints VMS to be dropped by HP+ Message-ID: <3BFF14C8.E5AE3E3D@prodigy.net>    Roar Throns wrote:  > ( > Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net> wrote: > J > : "As to the root question, I recommend that concerned VMS users look upH > : their counterparts who own HP 3000's.  From our vantage point, HP isI > : not giving any more support to its own venerable HP 3000 base than it ? > : is to the Compaq VMS base.  If enough critical customers of E > : either/both platforms make enough noise and promise to buy enough F > : computers, then the not unintelligent executives at HP will make a  > : sensible business decision." > E > : So again I suggest all concerned parties who have not yet done so @ > : contact HP through any official channels they might have (orC > : otherwise) and point out that they expect HP to honour Compaq's F > : apparent commitments to VMS, that they see VMS as the best generalB > : purpose operating system on the market and that they intend toD > : purchase future systems in line with Peter Kastner's suggestion. > J > : It is my belief that Carly and the HP board are not aware of what theyI > : will have in OpenVMS but may just be beginning to see the picture. It B > : is best they too come to the conclusion reluctantly (it seems)D > : reached by Compaq that killing VMS would incur far more pain andH > : financial loss than continuing to port, develop and ****MARKET*****. > ? > At that high level they mainly understand business and money.  > ? > It might be wise also telling them something in the likes of:  > H > Just make threats about moving to a competitor, and state reasons like% > you have lost confidence in HP etc. N > If HP drops VMS, technical (quality) reasons will leave no other alternative( > than moving to an IBM non-Unix system.D > And if moving to Unix, it will be to a competitor like IBM or Sun.+ > Say you will buy even PCs from elsewhere.e > E > That might help in dissuading HP from just having Unix and Windows.t  J I predict it will have no effect whatsoever unless people actually do it, J rather than just threaten.  At that point, however, it will merely provide. additional justification to speed the process. >  > -- > -Roar Throns    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 15:39:41 -0800r' From: David Mathog <mathog@caltech.edu>o0 Subject: Re: Is it a DEC C problem, or is it me?+ Message-ID: <3BFEDE3D.54A01287@caltech.edu>h   ed.vogel@compaq.com wrote:D >       I would strongly urge developers *not* to use /NOOPT to workD > around a crash without first understanding exactly why the programD > failed when /OPT was specified.  I believe you are doing yourself,E > and possibly others, a disservice by ignoring what is clearly a bug  > somewhere.  H I'll agree with that - except it's sometimes interesting to try a couple of differentH modes to see if you can make the problem worse - and the resulting crash more easily.F understood.  If it's a pointer corruption problem it may take millions of cycles beforeC the error causes some obvious problem with the program, but if somed super highlyG optimized mode happens to blow up right on the error it could be easierc to fix.  Admittedly," this trick works only very rarely.  ? The flip side also occurs.  A couple of days ago I ran into the  strangest thingnC I've ever seen a compiler do.  The free command line version of the  Borland C/C++ compilerH for windows was throwing dozens of warnings about unused variables (this on a piece of codeG that compiles and runs essentially everywhere else without so much as aDB warning, including on Windows with other compilers.)  All of theseA warnings went away when all optimization was disabled completely.0F That was strange enough that I gave up on that compiler right then and there (Cygwin worked anyway.)    Regards,   David Mathog mathog@caltech.edu   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 18:03:06 -0500t( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> Subject: Re: Life After AlphaV, Message-ID: <3BFED5AA.3000907@tsoft-inc.com>   Tim Llewellyn wrote:   >  > Madman wrote:e >    > N >>I stopped flying United some time ago because it was obvious that profit wasJ >>much more important than customer satisfaction - which brings us back to> >>Compaq!  I knew I could steer this back on topic....  -- Ian >> > F > Did you read John McLeans recent post? It doesn't really appear that" > Compaq are interested in profit. > 	 > regardsc >  >    Nor customer satisfaction!   Dave   -- e4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com6 T-Soft, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 23:05:28 -0000p; From: "David McKenzie" <david.mckenzie@computershare.co.uk>n Subject: Re: Mounting a diskB Message-ID: <1006556732.13827.0.nnrp-10.c1edba74@news.demon.co.uk>   Rather than    $ MOUNT/SYSTEM disk: volumen   it should be  ) $ MOUNT/SYSTEM disk: volume logical name.   G And thereafter only use the logical. This just makes management so much-> easier, and is easy to if you start out doing it fron day one.     -- David McKenzie Charon Consulting (Australia) ( david.mckenzie@mig.spitfire0.demon.co.uk   (But who wants a Mig?)   ! 2 "Alan Greig" <a.greig@virgin.net> wrote in message2 news:53ssvtc9i16gu9aecg3ekta1mv2qbdo9kg@4ax.com...7 > On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 14:16:04 +0100, "John Jenniskens" * > <j.jenniskens@HumanInference.com> wrote: > 	 > >Hello,: > >  > >I'm a OpenVMS novice.I > >Our system had to little disk space for installing an Oracle database.fC > >I've managed to mount a new Disk, and I've got space enough now.GF > >The only trouble is, the device is lost whenever I boot the system. > >TL > >On Unix I know there is a /etc/mntab, where you describe which devices to	 > >mount.l > >How do I do that on OpenVMS.n > 2 > Simplest answer (assuming recent version of VMS) > ; > Place the MOUNT command in SYS$MANAGER:SYSTARTUP_VMS.COM.  >  > eg >  > $ MOUNT/SYSTEM disk: volume  >iD > where disk: is the disk name (ex DKA200:) and volume is the volume& > label you initialized the disk with. >y" > >Thank you very much in advance. > >i > >John Jenniskens > >n >  > -- > Alan   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 20:02:21 +0100r& From: Michael Joosten <joost@c-lab.de>! Subject: Re: NTP under TCPIP V5.1 $ Message-ID: <3BFE9D3D.6488@c-lab.de>   Martin Hunt wrote: > F > I have recently upgraded a VAX from TCPIP services V4.2 to V5.1 (ECO= > 3). NTP was working fine before, but now is having problemsuB > synchronising with an NTP server. The log file doesn't give muchG > information compared with the old version, but when I set the logicalp? > TCPIP$NTP_LOG_LEVEL to 6, I get heaps of messages, including:e > = > invalid packet header 202.36.63.50 0x80 0.098969 453.170639  > H > Occasionally, the VAX manages to synchronise, but more often it fails. > E > The "peer" command in the ntpq program shows the following, which IpH > presume means it hasn't been able to contact the server (documentationA > is a bit poor on this, and makes reference to a unix manual fory > further information!). > H >      remote           refid      st t when poll reach   delay   offset > dispP > ==============================================================================G > 202.36.63.50    0.0.0.0         16 u   26   64    0     0.00    0.000 	 > 16000.0f >   F reach(ability) 0 means that there were no response from the server forC more than 8 times the poll rate (64 seconds). The 'reach' figure isnG actually an octal bit mask that is shifted once a response comes in, so C 377 shows perfect connectivity, 177 that the last response has been1 missed and so on.M  E This looks like a protocol version conflict. Do you know what type oflH NTP proto version your NTP server uses? Perhaps you could change the NTP config on your VMS box to read   server 202.36.63.50 version 2m  6 instead? (or was it '3' or '1' instead, I'm not sure). -- d* Michael Joosten, SBS C-LAB, joost@c-lab.de* Fuerstenallee 11, 33094 Paderborn, Germany, Phone: +49 5251 606127, Fax: +49 5251 6060658 C-LAB is a cooperation of University Paderborn & SIEMENS   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 03:56:34 GMT  From: dre123@wi.rr.com Subject: Problem with pathworks 5 Message-ID: <3bff189c.15354618@news-server.wi.rr.com>l  " Running VMS 6.1 and Pathworks 5.0D  @ I am using an old VMS machine to backup my home network and withF Windows 2000 everything worked fine.  Now I went to Windows XP and theD PC says that I have to use 8.3 file names.  I can see and get at theF long file names on the VMS machine but when I go to save a file on the@ VMS machine I get the message saying I need to use 8.3 names.  IE didn't change a thing on the VMS side, so I assume there is somethinggE on the PC side.  Any ideas?  Also, before I could see the VMS machinewD in the "entire network" window on the PC.  Now I have to specify the path to get to a share.-   Don-   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 23:18:04 -0000z; From: "David McKenzie" <david.mckenzie@computershare.co.uk>s+ Subject: Re: Remote connection to pathworks4B Message-ID: <1006557488.14195.0.nnrp-10.c1edba74@news.demon.co.uk>   See previous post   ! It is called NETBIOS$DEVICE, e.g.l  ) $ ASSIGN/SYSTEM/EXEC EWB0: NETBIOS$DEVICEw       -- David McKenzie Charon Consulting (Australia)d( david.mckenzie@mig.spitfire0.demon.co.uk   (But who wants a Mig?)   !m4 "Chatelard" <piper.lyon@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:9tl9sj$q1f$1@wanadoo.fr...r > Hi,  >oJ > I'm trying to set up  a remote connection to an alpha server running VMS' > 7.1-2 Tcp/IP 5.0 and Pathworks V6.0B.dI > I can't see or map the print and directory shares.I can just log on thet > system ( via PPPD).o< > Is there any parameters to set up ( multiple interfaces )./ > The same PC connected via the lan works fine.e >r > Thanks >  > Eric >n >a >i >s >t >  >o >    ------------------------------   Date: 23 Nov 2001 20:45:32 GMT From: CR <gimme@nowhere.net> Subject: RE: tk70 blinking loud@5 Message-ID: <3bfeb56c$0$157$9b622d9e@news.freenet.de>n  - WILLIAM WEBB <WWEBB1@email.usps.gov> wrote in.& news:0033000042490600000002L002*@MHS:   0 > Seriously- is there a pattern to the blinking? > WWWebb    I Well, all LEDs are blinking with a constant high frequence, if you could l4 say so to something not working in the GHz Area. ;-)     -- h Carlos write to cratnulldotnet    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 00:40:33 GMTo- From: Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com>.> Subject: Tru64.org IPF Consolidation Survey Still Taking VotesC Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.30.0111231933060.8950-100000@world.std.com>c  I Well, after the Recent Unpleasantness regarding my synopsis of the CompaqaJ white paper on the Alphacide, er, "Compaq's IPF Decision," it appears that? the topic remains quite timely. If you haven't voted in the IPFaJ Cnsolidation Follow-Up Survey at www.tru64.org, please take a minute to doJ so. We're generating statistically significant results, but the more input7 we have, the more seriously the findings will be taken.a  J We've been collecting the suggestions for the third survey and will likely, have something ready to go early next month.   cheers,m   Terry Shannon and Ken Farmer   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 06:22:33 GMTo* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>B Subject: Re: Tru64.org IPF Consolidation Survey Still Taking Votes@ Message-ID: <J0HL7.50743$8q.8009096@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  8 Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> wrote in message= news:Pine.SGI.4.30.0111231933060.8950-100000@world.std.com... K > Well, after the Recent Unpleasantness regarding my synopsis of the CompaqhL > white paper on the Alphacide, er, "Compaq's IPF Decision," it appears thatA > the topic remains quite timely. If you haven't voted in the IPF L > Cnsolidation Follow-Up Survey at www.tru64.org, please take a minute to doL > so. We're generating statistically significant results, but the more input9 > we have, the more seriously the findings will be taken.  >sL > We've been collecting the suggestions for the third survey and will likely. > have something ready to go early next month.  H When I looked at the new survey a while ago, I decided to give it a passJ because several significant questions were not reasonably answerable givenH the way they were worded (a problem I also had with the original survey,H though IIRC not to as great an extent).  Would you consider posting yourG next survey questions for suggested rewording *before* creating a finaln  version for gathering responses?   - bill   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2001.653 ************************