1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 24 Feb 2002	Volume 2002 : Issue 108       Contents: a submit command question. Re: a submit command question. Re: a submit command question.& Re: Backup/Restore Verification Errors; Re: Compaq Secure Web Browser for OpenVMS Alpha announcment ; Re: Compaq Secure Web Browser for OpenVMS Alpha announcment * CSWB T1.0 - Was: Re: Shannon on the merger) Re: FTP from VMS to Unix and file headers  Re: PGP for OpenVMS?) Re: Profitability and the survival of VMS ) RE: Profitability and the survival of VMS ) Re: Profitability and the survival of VMS ) Re: Profitability and the survival of VMS ) Re: Profitability and the survival of VMS ) Re: Profitability and the survival of VMS ) Re: Profitability and the survival of VMS ) RE: Profitability and the survival of VMS ) RE: Profitability and the survival of VMS ) Re: Profitability and the survival of VMS  Re: Setting Time and Date  Re: Setting Time and Date  Re: Setting Time and Date  Re: Shannon on the merger  Re: Shannon on the merger  Re: Shannon on the merger  Re: Shannon on the merger  Re: Shannon on the merger  Re: Shannon on the merger  The Inquirer on HP/Comapq  Re: The Inquirer on HP/Comapq ! Re: The portability of Windows NT ! Re: The portability of Windows NT ! Re: The portability of Windows NT & Re: tool to calc recursive dir sises ?. Re: TS10 - Successful but some PROBE problems.A Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was The demise  Re: [Q] internet and VMS  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 24 Feb 2002 01:03:17 -0800 From: wingwong@witty.com (wing) # Subject: a submit command question. = Message-ID: <873e96d6.0202240103.19cc9dd8@posting.google.com>    Hi,   E I am new to vms and I am trying to use the SUMBIT command to submit a > job.  I have successfully submitted the job with the following command.    WING[USER.WING]: submit refresh D /para=(34)/queue=aptuser_server /notify/log_file=refresh/name=refres  A However, I have the following errors in the refresh.log after the  completion of the job.  ! WING[USER.WING]: type refresh.log 
 $ Set NoOn/ $ VERIFY = F$VERIFY(F$TRNLNM("SYLOGIN_VERIFY")) $ %SET-W-NOTSET, error modifying DKB0:8 -SET-E-INVDEV, device is invalid for requested operation  E It makes me confused as the error is: device is invalid for requested 
 operation.? But, the user for submitting the job has REWD privileges to all  directory under [USER.WING].   Thanks in advance,   Wing   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 09:16:03 GMT  From: danco@pebble.org' Subject: Re: a submit command question. - Message-ID: <slrna7hbql.tpn.danco@pebble.org>   I In article <873e96d6.0202240103.19cc9dd8@posting.google.com>, wing wrote:    > $ Set NoOn1 > $ VERIFY = F$VERIFY(F$TRNLNM("SYLOGIN_VERIFY")) & > %SET-W-NOTSET, error modifying DKB0:: > -SET-E-INVDEV, device is invalid for requested operation  < Turn verify on in the user's LOGIN.COM.  That will allow you= to see what command is executing when the error occurs.  It's : probably doing a SET TERMINAL/INQUIRE or something equally egregious in batch mode.   For instance, change:    $ set terminal/inquire   To:   9 $ if f$mode().eqs."INTERACTIVE" then set terminal/inquire   @ Do the same thing for similar commands that make little sense or? even cause problems when executed from LOGIN.COM in batch mode. C Actually, the problem may even be in your system-wide login command 
 procedure.   - Dan    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 10:33:56 -0800 % From: Dean Woodward <deanw@rdrop.com> ' Subject: Re: a submit command question. ) Message-ID: <3C793214.5A5B7734@rdrop.com>   	 Subject:  *             Re: a submit command question.
        Date:  +             Sun, 24 Feb 2002 10:33:10 -0800        From: +             Dean Woodward <deanw@rdrop.com>          To:              danco@pebble.org
  References:  
             1          danco@pebble.org wrote:  > K > In article <873e96d6.0202240103.19cc9dd8@posting.google.com>, wing wrote:  >  > > $ Set NoOn3 > > $ VERIFY = F$VERIFY(F$TRNLNM("SYLOGIN_VERIFY")) ( > > %SET-W-NOTSET, error modifying DKB0:< > > -SET-E-INVDEV, device is invalid for requested operation > > > Turn verify on in the user's LOGIN.COM.  That will allow you? > to see what command is executing when the error occurs.  It's < > probably doing a SET TERMINAL/INQUIRE or something equally > egregious in batch mode. >  > For instance, change:  >  > $ set terminal/inquire >  > To:  > ; > $ if f$mode().eqs."INTERACTIVE" then set terminal/inquire    We take this a step further:   $! User LOGIN.COM template $ GOTO 'F$MODE()'  $ ! 
 $INTERACTIVE: 8 $ ! tailor to your own needs by adding DCL commands here $ !  $ GOTO Done  $ !  $BATCH:  $ GOTO Done  $ ! 	 $NETWORK: " $ ! ( keep this simple and short ) $OTHER:  $Done: $ EXIT   --  : Dean Woodward   | Portland, OR- worst motorcycling weather0 deanw@rdrop.com | in the continental US, there. 4                 |  - Someone on rec.moto, circa 1994D ----------------+---------------------------------------------------= '66 Duc 250 - '85 Yam FJ1100 - '00 Kaw KLR650 - '01 Apr Falco    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 15:05:07 +0100 ( From: Paul Sture <paul.sture@bluewin.ch>/ Subject: Re: Backup/Restore Verification Errors ) Message-ID: <3C78F313.5080300@bluewin.ch>    Nic Clews wrote:   > Nic Clews wrote: > D >>If you're not taking a queiscesed (sp?)/ database shutdown type ofI >>backup of your data, and your data is sensitive to inter and extra file F >>relationships, then you need to do this. That would be the saveset I1 >>would worry about if I saw verification errors.  >> > B > Bad practice I know, but I forgot to say, you can do the compareH > directly from tape. INITing a new disk may give you slightly different; > structured system files and a 'false' verification error.  > 2 > You get all this BACKUP functionality for FREE*. > " > What do you get with Windoesn't? >  > Nowt, nothing, zero. > - > *Well in the base operating system license.  > F With respect, that's not true. I successfully used ntbackup to recover  I from many a glitch. It was a pain to do so because although the _backups_   D could be run in command line mode (via the AT scheduler), _restores_@ required pointing and clicking. Truly horrible when dealing with incremental restores.   6 OTOH, I'm going to let you off for XP. As explained at  7 http://www.woodyswatch.com/winxp/archtemplate.asp?2-n05   I To quote: "that makes XP/Home's backup just about as useful as a Ferrari  F Testarossa with no wheels.", goesd on to accuse M$ of "outright lies" 8 and sums up with the phrase "Trustworthy computing, eh?"    
 Paul Sture Switzerland    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:37:00 +0100 ( From: Paul Sture <paul.sture@bluewin.ch>D Subject: Re: Compaq Secure Web Browser for OpenVMS Alpha announcment) Message-ID: <3C78EC7C.3020502@bluewin.ch>    Rich Jordan wrote:   > Sue,M >      great news!  Beta at last, and I'm so very close to being able to dump N > the NT on one of my Alphas and install an operating system  because of this! >    I typing this message with it.  > My other great news today is that my NT box gets switched off.  , Yippee! My home becomes a Windows free zone!  
 Paul Sture Switzerland    ------------------------------    Date: 24 Feb 2002 09:39:54 -0800) From: john@ossc.net (John Gemignani, Jr.) D Subject: Re: Compaq Secure Web Browser for OpenVMS Alpha announcment= Message-ID: <35b06b78.0202240939.15e95520@posting.google.com>   Y Paul Sture <paul.sture@bluewin.ch> wrote in message news:<3C78EC7C.3020502@bluewin.ch>...  > Rich Jordan wrote: >  > > Sue,O > >      great news!  Beta at last, and I'm so very close to being able to dump P > > the NT on one of my Alphas and install an operating system  because of this! > >  >   > I typing this message with it. > @ > My other great news today is that my NT box gets switched off. > . > Yippee! My home becomes a Windows free zone! >  > Paul Sture
 > Switzerland   E Couldn't say it better myself.  I've moved ALL of my network services F to one of my VMS servers and switched the click-click swiss cheese (no insult intended, Paul) box off.    -john    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:47:25 +0100 ( From: Paul Sture <paul.sture@bluewin.ch>3 Subject: CSWB T1.0 - Was: Re: Shannon on the merger ) Message-ID: <3C78EEED.3000106@bluewin.ch>    David J. Dachtera wrote:   > "Terry C. Shannon" wrote:  > J > (Currently downloading CSWB T1.0, FWIW. Maybe my little Alpha can handleE > it, maybe not. Probably need more RAM. Gotta find some more 64MB or  > better parity SIMMs...)  >   G It is truly memory hungry and slow. This on a PWS 600au with 512MB RAM.    __
 Paul Sture Switzerland    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:39:04 +0100 = From: Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com> 2 Subject: Re: FTP from VMS to Unix and file headers) Message-ID: <3C78ECF8.B8F5031F@gtech.com>   
 Roy wrote:G > We are receiving files via FTP from a VMS machine to  a Unix computer ? > and a Windows 2000 computer.  The files sent from the VMS box A > apparently contain a header record of some sort that results in F > garbage characters at the front of the files after they are receivedE > on Unix or Windows 2000.  Does anyone know how to suppress the file / > header characters as part of the FTP process?   4 Usually that kind of problems arise, when you either2 FTP in the wrong mode (ascii/binary) or FTP a file5 that is "VMS only" (like RMS index-sequential files).    Arne   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:41:37 +0100 = From: Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com>  Subject: Re: PGP for OpenVMS? ) Message-ID: <3C78ED91.5C5E1C36@gtech.com>    David Mathog wrote: ! > david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk wrote: Q > > Does anyone know where to get a VMS version of GNUPG now that the GNUPG 1.0.4 < > > version is no longer available from David Mathog's site. > I > It's still there but it may have moved from the URL you have.  Look in:  > 1 > ftp://saf.bio.caltech.edu/pub/software/openvms/  > P > Don't ask me for support though - I don't have a VMS machine anymore to run it > on.   / Time for you to get a hobbyist system at home !    :-)    Arne   ------------------------------    Date: 24 Feb 2002 09:55:27 -0000= From: Doc.Cypher <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> 2 Subject: Re: Profitability and the survival of VMS5 Message-ID: <20020224095527.8748.qmail@gacracker.org>   C On Sat, 23 Feb 2002, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote:  >Peter LANGSTOEGER wrote: M >> So, please, stop whining and moaning (it doesn't help any longer) but also K >> stop praising Q's decsions/actions (they are not worth it) and return to ) >> useful work at/with/for [Open]VMS like  >>  C >> 1) porting to INTEL IA64 (and IBM POWER4 and AMD Hammer as well)   G To be honest, I don't see much likelihood of the additional ports being H done under Compaq or HP management of VMS. I certainly would like to seeK them happen, and given the time required to complete a port I don't see any I reason why that can't occur if IA64 doesn't improve quickly. As I suspect H many others in the group feel, my loyalty is to VMS - not to the currentG owners. I'd like to see changes either at the owner company (management F change at Compaq), or change of owners. The possibility of that changeI being to HP doesn't inspire any confidence of improvement in treatment of  VMS.  N >> 2) porting U**X freeware to OpenVMS (and don't forget to regularly say manyM >>         thanks to the porters of already ported products because a growing H >>         number of them sees their work as unneccessary/unbeloved now)  K I certainly appreciate the work done by those porting UN*X apps. I actually G hope to encourage this by providing shell accounts on my system. Simply D put, I don't always have the time or skills to undertake the portingI myself, so I'm doing what I can to encourage others. I get a lot of under I used accounts where people want to simply bounce telnet connections but I K do have a few people taking an active interest in the programming languages K available. One of these people came from the Compaq trial run service, they J couldn't even create a directory on their test account! I believe it wouldE be easy, and relatively inexpensive, for the owners of VMS to promote / application porting by improviing this program.   M >> 3) continously ask ISVs for OpenVMS versions of their products (eg. ADOBE,  >>         REAL, ...)   G I'd love to see more serious support for the VMS platform by major ISVs  like those you mention.   L >> 4) continously ask analysts/trade press reporters/personal-agencies about7 >>         their knowledge/omision of OpenVMS (in their $ >>         surveys/articles/reports)  J This is one for those who subscribe to, or buy services from, such bodies.K It is also the responsibility of the owner company. Rebutting Gartner isn't I enough, you need to both ask why major publications don't mention VMS and J advertise in said publications to make people aware of your product - VMS.  M >> 5) continously ask managers/salespeople/product-managers (esp. at Q) about N >>         their knowledge/plans of/with OpenVMS and why they don't have them.   Quite.  A >> 6) fixing bugs in OpenVMS and layered products (esp. in TCPIP,  >> PATHWORKS, ...)  K I take it for granted the VMS engineering team is engaged in such tasks, as  well as the IA64 port.  K >Or heed the calls for silence and let Compaq/HP/whoever do the above tasks F >because that is THEIR JOB TO SELL THEIR PRODUCTS TO GENERATE PROFITS.  ? Indeed it is. They're not doing it, and the many people who are F persistently critical aren't doing it. Following the Compaq party lineJ (i.e. remaining silent) doesn't seem to do it either because that involves) denying there is actually a problem here.   N >We were only doing that because we felt we could help VMS survive a hopefullyO >temporary situation where VMS was mistreated. People's definition of temporary 7 >differ and this is what is causing here the arguments.   H The mismanagement of VMS is an issue that won't go away until either VMS- does, or the management is radically changed.   M >Some still feel there is a good chance of VMS's fortunes turning around, but O >others have come to take their heads out of the sand and see that there really 8 >is no ship on the horizon that could possibly save VMS.  H This makes it sound like you have 'lost faith' in VMS. I'd like to thinkI that isn't the case, but your arguments don't come across like that. Your I analysis that VMS is doomed under current management strategies is pretty J reasonable, but I don't like to dwell on that. Instead I intend to use VMS5 while it is still here and encourage others to do so.   K As it is, I find the very negative comments in the newsgroup disheartening. H Users of my system who have visited the group have been surprised at theF situation. They come away with the impression there is a great deal ofH animosity to the current owners of VMS. Luckily those who have mentionedJ visiting c.o.v. are intrigued enough to continue playing with VMS althoughG they will shy away from asking for help here. These of course are Linux I folks who always looked on Alpha as the ultimate hardware platform. Since A many have misinterpreted the EOL announcement as the end of Alpha 4 availability they also have a low opinion of Compaq.  B Why, if it is so important to keep people aware of the history andJ situation, don't you compile all your arguments, points etc and produce itE as a "VMS Mismanagement FAQ"? That might make the group a little less   discouraging to those new to it.     Doc. --  6 The bigger the humbug, the better people will like it.K ~ Phineas Taylor Barnum.                              http://vmsbox.cjb.net    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 08:03:20 -0500 + From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@Compaq.com> 2 Subject: RE: Profitability and the survival of VMST Message-ID: <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF401AB1CDC@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>   Re: new applications on OpenVMS   E While there is obviously always going to be much more work to do, and D while Java is certainly not without its issues, folks should realizeG that the recent moves by many medium and large ISV's to start migratingsG their application code bases to Java has resulted in a great benefit toq OpenVMS.=20r  D Big benefit for OpenVMS is that it is no longer a port, but rather aF certification effort - an effort typically measured in weeks vs months for a port.t  G From what I understand, many universities are also now teaching Java as  well.r  2 Some recent new applications certified on OpenVMS:   http://www.dataglider.come0 http://www.dataglider.com/solutions/openvms.html http://www.imsure.comv< http://www.lutris.com/company/pressReleases/Press020204.html1 http://www.iona.com/products/appserv-standard.html< http://www.onexchange.com/press112601.asp (Financial market)     Regards,  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultantt Compaq Canada Corp.e Professional Services  Voice: 613-592-4660m Fax  :  819-772-7036 Email: Kerry.Main@Compaq.com     -----Original Message-----G From: Doc.Cypher [mailto:Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]]=20r Sent: February 24, 2002 4:55 AMr To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Comt# Cc: mail2news@freedom.gmsociety.orgb2 Subject: Re: Profitability and the survival of VMS    C On Sat, 23 Feb 2002, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote:o >Peter LANGSTOEGER wrote:nH >> So, please, stop whining and moaning (it doesn't help any longer) but  I >> also stop praising Q's decsions/actions (they are not worth it) and=20-3 >> return to useful work at/with/for [Open]VMS likeg >>=20tC >> 1) porting to INTEL IA64 (and IBM POWER4 and AMD Hammer as well)3  G To be honest, I don't see much likelihood of the additional ports beingnH done under Compaq or HP management of VMS. I certainly would like to seeG them happen, and given the time required to complete a port I don't seesE any reason why that can't occur if IA64 doesn't improve quickly. As IhH suspect many others in the group feel, my loyalty is to VMS - not to theC current owners. I'd like to see changes either at the owner company F (management change at Compaq), or change of owners. The possibility ofH that change being to HP doesn't inspire any confidence of improvement in treatment of VMS.m  E >> 2) porting U**X freeware to OpenVMS (and don't forget to regularlyt say manyE >>         thanks to the porters of already ported products because a  growingEH >>         number of them sees their work as unneccessary/unbeloved now)  B I certainly appreciate the work done by those porting UN*X apps. IA actually hope to encourage this by providing shell accounts on mycG system. Simply put, I don't always have the time or skills to undertake.H the porting myself, so I'm doing what I can to encourage others. I get aD lot of under used accounts where people want to simply bounce telnetG connections but I do have a few people taking an active interest in thesB programming languages available. One of these people came from theH Compaq trial run service, they couldn't even create a directory on theirE test account! I believe it would be easy, and relatively inexpensive, G for the owners of VMS to promote application porting by improviing thist program.  F >> 3) continously ask ISVs for OpenVMS versions of their products (eg. ADOBE, >>         REAL, ...)u  G I'd love to see more serious support for the VMS platform by major ISVsu like those you mention.n  F >> 4) continously ask analysts/trade press reporters/personal-agencies about07 >>         their knowledge/omision of OpenVMS (in their $ >>         surveys/articles/reports)  B This is one for those who subscribe to, or buy services from, suchE bodies. It is also the responsibility of the owner company. Rebutting2G Gartner isn't enough, you need to both ask why major publications don'twF mention VMS and advertise in said publications to make people aware of your product - VMS.   G >> 5) continously ask managers/salespeople/product-managers (esp. at Q)8 aboutgH >>         their knowledge/plans of/with OpenVMS and why they don't have   >> them.   Quite.  D >> 6) fixing bugs in OpenVMS and layered products (esp. in TCPIP,=20 >> PATHWORKS, ...)  H I take it for granted the VMS engineering team is engaged in such tasks, as well as the IA64 port.m  H >Or heed the calls for silence and let Compaq/HP/whoever do the above=20F >tasks because that is THEIR JOB TO SELL THEIR PRODUCTS TO GENERATE=20	 >PROFITS.h  ? Indeed it is. They're not doing it, and the many people who are(F persistently critical aren't doing it. Following the Compaq party lineA (i.e. remaining silent) doesn't seem to do it either because thatT2 involves denying there is actually a problem here.  G >We were only doing that because we felt we could help VMS survive a=20ND >hopefully temporary situation where VMS was mistreated. People's=20G >definition of temporary differ and this is what is causing here the=20n >arguments.   H The mismanagement of VMS is an issue that won't go away until either VMS- does, or the management is radically changed.-  D >Some still feel there is a good chance of VMS's fortunes turning=20H >around, but others have come to take their heads out of the sand and=20G >see that there really is no ship on the horizon that could possibly=20c
 >save VMS.  H This makes it sound like you have 'lost faith' in VMS. I'd like to thinkD that isn't the case, but your arguments don't come across like that.G Your analysis that VMS is doomed under current management strategies isyF pretty reasonable, but I don't like to dwell on that. Instead I intend@ to use VMS while it is still here and encourage others to do so.  < As it is, I find the very negative comments in the newsgroupF disheartening. Users of my system who have visited the group have beenG surprised at the situation. They come away with the impression there is E a great deal of animosity to the current owners of VMS. Luckily thoseiC who have mentioned visiting c.o.v. are intrigued enough to continuetG playing with VMS although they will shy away from asking for help here. A These of course are Linux folks who always looked on Alpha as thevB ultimate hardware platform. Since many have misinterpreted the EOLB announcement as the end of Alpha availability they also have a low opinion of Compaq.  B Why, if it is so important to keep people aware of the history andG situation, don't you compile all your arguments, points etc and producetH it as a "VMS Mismanagement FAQ"? That might make the group a little less  discouraging to those new to it.     Doc. --=20s6 The bigger the humbug, the better people will like it. ~ Phineas Taylor Barnum. http://vmsbox.cjb.nete   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:32:34 +0100-= From: Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com>02 Subject: Re: Profitability and the survival of VMS) Message-ID: <3C78EB71.EA2D89AF@gtech.com>S   JF Mezei wrote: % > Rob Young wrote list of C2 systems:h4 > > Data General Corporation AOS/VS II, Release 3.10C > > Digital Equipment Corporation OpenVMS VAX and Alpha Version 6.1TS > > Microsoft Corporation Windows NT Workstation and Windows NT Server, Version 4.0g > N > VMS is not in very good company in that rating. Of course, if NT can get it,M > it means that the rating is meaningless. Also, the fact that the rating was & > not maintained past 6.1 tells a lot.  0 One has to read what is written with fine print.  E NT 3.5 was certified with: third party security software, no netcard S and no floppy-drive !s   Arne   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:36:55 +0100e= From: Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com>>2 Subject: Re: Profitability and the survival of VMS) Message-ID: <3C78EC77.99EFF26F@gtech.com>l   JF Mezei wrote:oF > That is lost in marketing. When Microsoft makes claims that NT is C2G > compliant, it won't stipulate that to gain that level, it must run onhM > batteries, no connected to ANYTHING and run an a room protected from any RF @ > radiation etc etc. MS will just claim that NT is C2 compliant. > O > The end result is that it dilutes the value of C2 compliance of other systemsV8 > who can gain C2 compliance with usable configurations. > J > From the PC weenies point of view, it elevates NT to a "real and secure"N > operating system. And to the real computer folks, it lowers their OS down to% > the gutter levels where NT resides.  > F > MS couldn't get NT to meet the serious OS' levels of security. So itP > broughtthe standards down to its level. Now, one cannot pitch MVS/VMS or otherP > proprietary system against NT with C2 compliance/security as a major advantageJ > worth the extra money since on paper, NT is also just as secure since it > passed C2 compliance.  > M > One would have hoped that the other OS manufacters would have protested the-0 > awarding of C2 to NT under such circumstances.  - AFAIK then C2 was not really a secure system.<  7 You had to go to B1 and B2 to get a real secure system.   > And VMS with the SE package did get a B certification (sorry I* can not remember whether it was B1 or B2).  ( C2 is just standard multi-user features.   Arne   ------------------------------    Date: 24 Feb 2002 08:34:51 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)i2 Subject: Re: Profitability and the survival of VMS3 Message-ID: <c+E+9ipFM+Yk@eisner.encompasserve.org>o  R In article <3C78EFAF.FAB843F2@spam.net>, Brass Christof <welcome@spam.net> writes:  A > Java is indeed a ship on the horizon although itself Java is a t; > bad or second or third best solution because it consumes "? > unecessary resources while at the same time prevents certain - > optimisations.  B Avoiding the Java Virtual Machine will lead to better performance,E but often time-to-market is more important.  Companies whose strategy-F for portability of their products involved Java are likely to be usingG it on all platforms, so the VMS offering does not have a penalty due tof& getting less emphasis from the vendor.  E If the performance is less than optimal, a competitor can do a nativetE implementation on VMS, but in the meantime VMS has the benefit of the:B JVM offering.  Many companies would rather buy a bigger machine toD get better performance anyway, and few companies are at the limit of" the machines available to run VMS.  I As programmers we may say money to buy the extra hardware is "excessive",4F but that is a business decision to be made at the top.  Someone with aE hardware bent could suggest saving money on compilers and programminge all applications in Macro :-)q   ==============  F My comments above in support of Java are in no way intended to support( its use in mobile code for web browsers.   ------------------------------    Date: 24 Feb 2002 08:37:52 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)o2 Subject: Re: Profitability and the survival of VMS3 Message-ID: <YdQxjaJtkPXJ@eisner.encompasserve.org>   i In article <3C78EC77.99EFF26F@gtech.com>, Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com> writes:   / > AFAIK then C2 was not really a secure system.I > 9 > You had to go to B1 and B2 to get a real secure system.e > @ > And VMS with the SE package did get a B certification (sorry I, > can not remember whether it was B1 or B2).   B1.y  * > C2 is just standard multi-user features.  B Standard for you, but not the way Windows NT ships out-of-the-box.  B All of the auditing and other security changes in VAX/VMS 6.0 wereD required in order to get evaluated (again) at the C2 level.  Did youB realize how insecure VMS V5.5 was, compared to the final standards for C2 ?   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:50:39 +0100e' From: Brass Christof <welcome@spam.net>r2 Subject: Re: Profitability and the survival of VMS( Message-ID: <3C78EFAF.FAB843F2@spam.net>   "Main, Kerry" wrote: > ! > Re: new applications on OpenVMSl > G > While there is obviously always going to be much more work to do, and F > while Java is certainly not without its issues, folks should realizeI > that the recent moves by many medium and large ISV's to start migratingsI > their application code bases to Java has resulted in a great benefit too
 > OpenVMS. > F > Big benefit for OpenVMS is that it is no longer a port, but rather aH > certification effort - an effort typically measured in weeks vs months
 > for a port.d > I > From what I understand, many universities are also now teaching Java asx > well.f > 4 > Some recent new applications certified on OpenVMS: >  > http://www.dataglider.com 2 > http://www.dataglider.com/solutions/openvms.html > http://www.imsure.com > > http://www.lutris.com/company/pressReleases/Press020204.html3 > http://www.iona.com/products/appserv-standard.htmn> > http://www.onexchange.com/press112601.asp (Financial market) >   ? Java is indeed a ship on the horizon although itself Java is a h9 bad or second or third best solution because it consumes o= unecessary resources while at the same time prevents certain t optimisations.  = I made the good experience by myself in using an entirely in h: Java implemented application on a different platform than + the two intended ones without any problems.a  7 The portability of Java was one important idea why SUN  7 invested that much into it. Basically you can write an u8 application and let it run under Solaris/SPARC or under 8 WNT/x86 without any modification. This works as long as 8 you stick to certain rules while implementing your app. 6 You even don't have to supply different images if you ' carefully chose file and archive names.   6 VMS and Alpha comes in where the performance matters. 8 A high quality JVM implementation together with a state 7 of the art JIT (Just-In-Time-Compiler) under VMS/Alpha e7 will take the performance penalty away and unleash the r power of Alpha.c  5 What is needed to let VMS live on the desktop is the  2 implementation of the multi-media Java API and of ! course HW like sound or TV cards.r   -- t6 moc dot slupofni at ssarb - please revert the sequence   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 11:05:36 -0500e+ From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@Compaq.com>e2 Subject: RE: Profitability and the survival of VMST Message-ID: <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF401AB1CE1@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>  	 Christof,r  H >>> The portability of Java was one important idea why SUN invested thatC much into it. Basically you can write an application and let it runkC under Solaris/SPARC or under WNT/x86 without any modification. This H works as long as you stick to certain rules while implementing your app.E You even don't have to supply different images if you carefully choset file and archive names.<<<  E Yep, and a good example of a major ISV looking at the same philsophy:eH http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,5099254,00.h tmld2 (one long url - "SAP delves into Web services"...)  G >>> What is needed to let VMS live on the desktop is the implementationtF of the multi-media Java API and of course HW like sound or TV cards.<<   You have my vote.=20  B Sounds like great opportunity for small-medium size developers ie.F develop "multi-media Java API and of course HW like sound or TV cards"E solutions and let Customer determine which OS/HW platform they run itt on...=20  H Course, if they are adverse to virus's and security hacker attacks, thenD a Cust might be tempted to choose OpenVMS..if they choose some otherF platform, the developers do not care as they get their $'s either way.   :-)v   Regardst  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultantm Compaq Canada Corp.  Professional Serviceso Voice: 613-592-4660o Fax  :  819-772-7036 Email: Kerry.Main@Compaq.com     -----Original Message-----1 From: Brass Christof [mailto:welcome@spam.net]=20r Sent: February 24, 2002 8:51 AMt To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com.2 Subject: Re: Profitability and the survival of VMS     "Main, Kerry" wrote: >=20! > Re: new applications on OpenVMSt >=20J > While there is obviously always going to be much more work to do, and=20I > while Java is certainly not without its issues, folks should realize=20PB > that the recent moves by many medium and large ISV's to start=20H > migrating their application code bases to Java has resulted in a great   > benefit to OpenVMS.  >=20I > Big benefit for OpenVMS is that it is no longer a port, but rather a=20eH > certification effort - an effort typically measured in weeks vs months  
 > for a port.a >=20I > From what I understand, many universities are also now teaching Java=20l
 > as well. >=204 > Some recent new applications certified on OpenVMS: >=20 > http://www.dataglider.com=202 > http://www.dataglider.com/solutions/openvms.html > http://www.imsure.com=20> > http://www.lutris.com/company/pressReleases/Press020204.html3 > http://www.iona.com/products/appserv-standard.htmc> > http://www.onexchange.com/press112601.asp (Financial market) >=20  A Java is indeed a ship on the horizon although itself Java is a=20/; bad or second or third best solution because it consumes=20/? unecessary resources while at the same time prevents certain=20g optimisations.  ? I made the good experience by myself in using an entirely in=20t< Java implemented application on a different platform than=20+ the two intended ones without any problems.y  9 The portability of Java was one important idea why SUN=20y9 invested that much into it. Basically you can write an=20r: application and let it run under Solaris/SPARC or under=20: WNT/x86 without any modification. This works as long as=20: you stick to certain rules while implementing your app.=208 You even don't have to supply different images if you=20' carefully chose file and archive names.n  8 VMS and Alpha comes in where the performance matters.=20: A high quality JVM implementation together with a state=209 of the art JIT (Just-In-Time-Compiler) under VMS/Alpha=20g9 will take the performance penalty away and unleash the=20M power of Alpha.3  7 What is needed to let VMS live on the desktop is the=20o4 implementation of the multi-media Java API and of=20! course HW like sound or TV cards.e   --=20p6 moc dot slupofni at ssarb - please revert the sequence   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 11:35:24 -0500A+ From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@Compaq.com>m2 Subject: RE: Profitability and the survival of VMST Message-ID: <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4016CEACC@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>  	 Christof,e  E >>> I made the good experience by myself in using an entirely in JavadE implemented application on a different platform than the two intendedr ones without any problems.<<<t  C Just thought of another example which might be of interest to thoset3 running CSWS (secure Apache Server) on OpenVMS -=20f   http://www.halcyonsoft.com/e  G "Banish Code Red and Nimda forever by moving your ASP apps to a non-IISn! server using iASP.            =20c  D Instant ASP runs on ANY Java-enabled platform from a Linux box to an= S/390 and has NONE of the security vulnerabilities of IIS..."y   Regards,    
 Kerry Main Senior Consultantr Compaq Canada Corp.d Professional Servicesp Voice: 613-592-4660b Fax  :  819-772-7036 Email: Kerry.Main@Compaq.com     -----Original Message-----1 From: Brass Christof [mailto:welcome@spam.net]=20e Sent: February 24, 2002 8:51 AMr To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Comv2 Subject: Re: Profitability and the survival of VMS     "Main, Kerry" wrote: >=20! > Re: new applications on OpenVMSo >=20J > While there is obviously always going to be much more work to do, and=20I > while Java is certainly not without its issues, folks should realize=20 B > that the recent moves by many medium and large ISV's to start=20H > migrating their application code bases to Java has resulted in a great   > benefit to OpenVMS.r >=20I > Big benefit for OpenVMS is that it is no longer a port, but rather a=20 H > certification effort - an effort typically measured in weeks vs months  
 > for a port.b >=20I > From what I understand, many universities are also now teaching Java=20y
 > as well. >=204 > Some recent new applications certified on OpenVMS: >=20 > http://www.dataglider.com=202 > http://www.dataglider.com/solutions/openvms.html > http://www.imsure.com=20> > http://www.lutris.com/company/pressReleases/Press020204.html3 > http://www.iona.com/products/appserv-standard.htmO> > http://www.onexchange.com/press112601.asp (Financial market) >=20  A Java is indeed a ship on the horizon although itself Java is a=20 ; bad or second or third best solution because it consumes=20a? unecessary resources while at the same time prevents certain=20l optimisations.  ? I made the good experience by myself in using an entirely in=20E< Java implemented application on a different platform than=20+ the two intended ones without any problems.y  9 The portability of Java was one important idea why SUN=20o9 invested that much into it. Basically you can write an=20 : application and let it run under Solaris/SPARC or under=20: WNT/x86 without any modification. This works as long as=20: you stick to certain rules while implementing your app.=208 You even don't have to supply different images if you=20' carefully chose file and archive names.h  8 VMS and Alpha comes in where the performance matters.=20: A high quality JVM implementation together with a state=209 of the art JIT (Just-In-Time-Compiler) under VMS/Alpha=20 9 will take the performance penalty away and unleash the=20a power of Alpha.   7 What is needed to let VMS live on the desktop is the=20t4 implementation of the multi-media Java API and of=20! course HW like sound or TV cards.k   --=20n6 moc dot slupofni at ssarb - please revert the sequence   ------------------------------  + Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 17:42:40 +0000 (UTC)i From: david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk2 Subject: Re: Profitability and the survival of VMS+ Message-ID: <a5b8mg$p29$1@aquila.mdx.ac.uk>e  i In article <3C78EC77.99EFF26F@gtech.com>, Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com> writes:m >JF Mezei wrote: >p. >AFAIK then C2 was not really a secure system. >d8 >You had to go to B1 and B2 to get a real secure system. >w? >And VMS with the SE package did get a B certification (sorry Ie+ >can not remember whether it was B1 or B2).a >m) >C2 is just standard multi-user features.g >o >Arneu  7 No the major difference between B and C level was that gK B1,B2 and B3 had to have mandatory access controls (secret, top secret etc)aL and hence were generally considered only relevent to Government or Military  systems.  L C1 and C2 systems had to support discretionary rather than mandatory access D controls ie the owner of the file or other resource could alter the  protection on the object.lJ This was generally considered sufficient for Commercial systems (and a lot easier to use).e  - C2 is not just standard multi-user features. oM Historically VMS has always been shipped in a form which would be expected to O satisfy C2 criteria even if the actual test for compliance had not been carried-M out. Most Unix systems on the other hand do not ship in a form which would be=C expected to satisfy C2 criteria. Usually additional software and/oraJ configuration needs to be carried out to convert the system into one whichK would be expected to comply with the C2 standard. For instance on Tru64 you @ would need to load certain modules and enable enhanced security.    D See http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/library/rainbow/5200.28-STD.html. for a full listing of the Orangebook criteria.D See http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/library/rainbow/NCSC-TG-005.html8 for a full listing of the redbook (ie network) criteria.  3 Other documents allied to these are available at :-.  0 http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/library/rainbow/    F Also as I have stated before these certifications only guaranteed thatM the systems contained the facilities needed to satisfy the criteria and that 2L testing had shown these to work. Subsequent discovery of buffer overflows orK other bugs which enabled these facilities to be bypassed should really have N invalidated these criteria. But unless the problem turned up during the actual8 testing this seldom if ever seems to have been the case.  M Obviously no reasonable amount of testing for the granting of the certificatecN could hope to find all security holes at that time. The only exception to thisL being if a system was going for a certification at level A which required a D formal proof of the correct operation of the system to be presented.  p
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University  
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University   ------------------------------    Date: 24 Feb 2002 08:16:42 -0800, From: ozoneradical@yahoo.com (Ozone Radical)" Subject: Re: Setting Time and Date= Message-ID: <8e0a2732.0202240816.7bf07d55@posting.google.com>v  \ Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr> wrote in message news:<3C775A35.950ECD2A@Free.fr>...? > Buy the appropriate license. This forum is not a WAREZ forum.p >   C The computers, and the software on them, were given to us by the US F government. We are supposed to get them working. Thanks for the advise anyway.i   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 12:04:27 -0500s2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger)" Subject: Re: Setting Time and DateJ Message-ID: <rdeininger-2402021204270001@1cust86.tnt2.nashua.nh.da.uu.net>  = In article <8e0a2732.0202240816.7bf07d55@posting.google.com>, - ozoneradical@yahoo.com (Ozone Radical) wrote:e  9 >Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr> wrote in messager# news:<3C775A35.950ECD2A@Free.fr>...i@ >> Buy the appropriate license. This forum is not a WAREZ forum. >> s >eD >The computers, and the software on them, were given to us by the USG >government. We are supposed to get them working. Thanks for the advise  >anyway.    I Depending on the terms of their license, the US government might not haves. the right to "give" your college the software.  J But Compaq has a couple of deals for educational instititions.  There is aJ free educational license package available for VMS, with some restrictionsH attached.  There is also a cheap (compared to commercial prices) packageJ called CSLG (campuswide software license grant, or something similar) withJ fewer restrictions.  You should be able to find information starting from    http://www.openvms.compaq.coma  > Also see the OpenVMS FAQ, which you can find in the same area.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 17:23:37 GMTg From: system@SendSpamHere.ORGo" Subject: Re: Setting Time and Date0 Message-ID: <00A0A0B6.8CC3F3BB@SendSpamHere.ORG>  l In article <8e0a2732.0202240816.7bf07d55@posting.google.com>, ozoneradical@yahoo.com (Ozone Radical) writes:] >Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr> wrote in message news:<3C775A35.950ECD2A@Free.fr>... @ >> Buy the appropriate license. This forum is not a WAREZ forum. >> y >mD >The computers, and the software on them, were given to us by the USG >government. We are supposed to get them working. Thanks for the advise  >anyway.  C If that is the case, the gov't ought to be paying its license fees.   E As for setting the time, if you'd use the proper syntax (read the dockC at www.openvms.compaq.com:8000) you wouldn't have a problem setting. the systems clock.   --O VAXman- OpenVMS APE certification number: AAA-0001     VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COMs            IJ   "And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery I   intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" -- Calvin & Hobbesb   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:53:03 +0100a= From: Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com>t" Subject: Re: Shannon on the merger) Message-ID: <3C78F03F.D46975A2@gtech.com>e   Bill Todd wrote:G > Terry has now weighed in at openvms.org and tru64.org in favor of theeJ > merger, listing the same tired arguments the principals have trotted outH > repeatedly and unconvincingly for 5 months now.  Why he is so securely/ > ensconced in Compaq's pocket remains unknown.i  & Maybe he is living in the real world !  2 I would vote for the merger as well. If the merger3 is rejected, then I expect VMS to be announced deadr within 6 months after that.o  4 I agree that it would be stupid of Compaq. But it is what I expect.   Arne   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 13:51:09 GMTI# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>l" Subject: Re: Shannon on the merger. Message-ID: <hd6e8.407$1h5.386@news2.bloor.is>  I If the merger is voted down, it's important that HP shareholders vote NO,cH and Comapq shareholders vote yes. In this way, the deal 'breakup fee' ofE $675 million gets paid to Compaq by HP, and not the other way around.h  K Now if they'd only use that $675 million to properly market OpenVMS instead:- of paying themselves fat bonuses for nothing.w      7 "Rich Jordan" <rjordan@mindspring.com> wrote in message - news:a59i2k$8q4$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net.../ >s' > Terry C. Shannon wrote in message ...c >a > >vL > >Got a complaint about the merger? Then put your money where your mouth is# > >and vote your shares against it.h > >n >t > .....eL > >I note with interest that most of the loudest bitchers and whiners aren'tJ > >even Compaq customers, which renders their bitching and whining totally/ > >irrelevant. Perhaps they need to get a life.  >e >rL > Customer _and_ shareholder.  I don't have 6-figures shares, and my companyG > sells in the two-figure range of systems each year, and we don't sellm CompaqH > wintel (only Alpha/VMS) so honestly Compaq doesn't give a flying fudge abouttG > us or our customers, and doubtless rather wishes we'd go away or justiJ > conform to their nice little wintel-centric view of the way things ought toK > be.  Speaking as a reseller (used to be ASP) and user since the mid 1980s G > (the company connection goes back to the early 1970s, before my time)mH > Digital itself never got as bad, as totally full of itself and its own viewG > of what should be, _even_ under GQ Palmer, as it is now under currenta
 > management.y >dJ > I'm voting my meager irrelevant shares against the merger.  If I had any way L > of getting to the meetings I'd try to speak towards removal of the current QdI > management on the basis of their complicity in brain dead marketing (ornH > outright lack of marketing) of enterprise systems, shabby treatment ofE > customers trying to buy or get information on non-wintel Q systems,aG > devolution of what once was a world class service organization to the5 shell1H > that remains (I've got a couple dozen customers with soft and hardwareK > service contracts; every single one has noted large increases in responseoH > time, and call takers utterly clueless on VMS systems, at the least!), withK > the resulting frittering away of many customers and losses to stockholder G > value.  Pfeiffer was let go for a lot less than this.  Its time for ag cleanoJ > sweep; it'd be hard to do worse than this bunch has done the last couple ofJ > years.  And yes, its in part because I do have a personal stake in this; VMSsL > is my chosen career and I believe my best chance of staying in that careerH > is a Compaq with new, competent, management not under the thumb of the borg > of redmond (I can hope...) > I > I'm also voting my stake in HP against the merger; in fact I decided too sendL > in the green proxy to Mr. Hewlett in case any other issues came up becauseJ > I'm satisfied that long term shareholder value would be better served byI > staying the hell away from Compaq and the management that dragged it toe its  > current state. >d
 > Rich Jordanr >t >s >h >    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 13:31:57 GMTt4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>" Subject: Re: Shannon on the merger: Message-ID: <hX5e8.13718$ro5.5199347@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>  7 "Rich Jordan" <rjordan@mindspring.com> wrote in message6- news:a59i2k$8q4$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...a >e' > Terry C. Shannon wrote in message ...w >o > >aL > >Got a complaint about the merger? Then put your money where your mouth is# > >and vote your shares against it.a > >V >  > .....,L > >I note with interest that most of the loudest bitchers and whiners aren'tJ > >even Compaq customers, which renders their bitching and whining totally/ > >irrelevant. Perhaps they need to get a life.r >i >2L > Customer _and_ shareholder.  I don't have 6-figures shares, and my companyG > sells in the two-figure range of systems each year, and we don't selle CompaqH > wintel (only Alpha/VMS) so honestly Compaq doesn't give a flying fudge aboutaG > us or our customers, and doubtless rather wishes we'd go away or justsJ > conform to their nice little wintel-centric view of the way things ought toK > be.  Speaking as a reseller (used to be ASP) and user since the mid 1980soG > (the company connection goes back to the early 1970s, before my time)wH > Digital itself never got as bad, as totally full of itself and its own viewG > of what should be, _even_ under GQ Palmer, as it is now under currento
 > management.e >sJ > I'm voting my meager irrelevant shares against the merger.  If I had any way0L > of getting to the meetings I'd try to speak towards removal of the current QcI > management on the basis of their complicity in brain dead marketing (ori4 > outright lack of marketing) of enterprise systems.  I Ah. Perhps THAT's why one of Compaq'a utterly useless PR weenies tried toiL throw me out of the last stockholder's meeting (can't wait to see the littleI weasel again on March 20). Had I had an opportunity to speak, the subjecty7 damn sure would have been marketing... or lack thereof.r  I CPQ sure doesn't get much for the $300M it spends each year on marketing,8 now does it?   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 15:50:02 GMTi4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>" Subject: Re: Shannon on the merger: Message-ID: <KY7e8.13975$ro5.5270058@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>  . "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in message( news:hd6e8.407$1h5.386@news2.bloor.is...K > If the merger is voted down, it's important that HP shareholders vote NO, J > and Comapq shareholders vote yes. In this way, the deal 'breakup fee' ofG > $675 million gets paid to Compaq by HP, and not the other way around.t >eE > Now if they'd only use that $675 million to properly market OpenVMSo insteadp/ > of paying themselves fat bonuses for nothing.- >-   NOW *THAT'S* A CONCEPT!!!e  K CPQ currently spends close to $300M USD per year on "marketing." Maybe theymG should outsource the whole wretched mess. Of course, the outsourcing of0J Accounts Payable and Accounts Receivable has been an utter disaster. Trust me on this one!t  L What CPQ really needs is some new blood on the Board, not just the same-old,I same-old candidates selected by the Houston Politburo. The Politburo thatm brought you Director Ken Lay...    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 17:48:11 GMT * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>" Subject: Re: Shannon on the mergerC Message-ID: <vH9e8.184610$d34.14033992@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>S  7 "Arne Vajhj" <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com> wrote in messagep# news:3C78F03F.D46975A2@gtech.com...  > Bill Todd wrote:I > > Terry has now weighed in at openvms.org and tru64.org in favor of thenL > > merger, listing the same tired arguments the principals have trotted outJ > > repeatedly and unconvincingly for 5 months now.  Why he is so securely1 > > ensconced in Compaq's pocket remains unknown.e >2( > Maybe he is living in the real world ! >o4 > I would vote for the merger as well. If the merger5 > is rejected, then I expect VMS to be announced dead  > within 6 months after that.=    That wouldn't be too surprising.   >n6 > I agree that it would be stupid of Compaq. But it is > what I expect.  F The real question is why you'd expect anything different if the mergerK succeeds.  HP isn't taking on all the current Compaq management morons just K for show, and can be expected to take their advice in such matters (just asoG happened when Compaq acquired DEC) - and has even more reason to try too6 'consolidate' its offerings after a major acquisition.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:00:51 -0500t- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>n" Subject: Re: Shannon on the merger, Message-ID: <3C793862.B6B23144@videotron.ca>   "Terry C. Shannon" wrote:uB > CPQ currently spends close to $300M USD per year on "marketing."  L But that $300 has the punch of $600 million because by advertising Intel andM MS crap, they get "help" from Intel and Microsoft. If they advertised the non)R compaq products such as VMS, Alpha, Tru64 or NSK, they'd have to pay for it fully.  @ If VMS makes it past the Carly takeover and survives until it isL commercialised on IA64, it will be most interesting to see if HP would startI to advertise VMS since, by running on Intel crap, they can put the awfulldL Intel logo and tune and get Intel to subsidize the price of the advertising.  K On the other hand, I doubt that customers will be impressed when they learneJ that they big multi million VMS machine is advertised with the same bloody: logo that was associated with crap software and cheap PCs.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:18:56 GMTi# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>n" Subject: The Inquirer on HP/Comapq/ Message-ID: <kD6e8.1837$Tu9.180@news1.bloor.is>h  ' http://www.theinquirer.net/22020215.htmm   Read the last paragraph.  5 So Mikey, when did merger discussions actually begin?a   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 15:52:46 GMTa4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>& Subject: Re: The Inquirer on HP/Comapq: Message-ID: <i%7e8.13978$ro5.5271659@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>  . "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in message) news:kD6e8.1837$Tu9.180@news1.bloor.is...a) > http://www.theinquirer.net/22020215.htm- >- > Read the last paragraph. >07 > So Mikey, when did merger discussions actually begin?  >j  E I doubt that Mike Magee knows when the palaver began. The other Mikey@I (Capellas) sez that the talks began in 1H01. Based on what he said to me,8K I'd venture to guess March or April 2001. But only Carly and Curly know forA sure   ------------------------------   Date: 24 Feb 2002 14:09:57 GMT/ From: Thomas Dickey <dickey@saltmine.radix.net>t* Subject: Re: The portability of Windows NT* Message-ID: <a5as7l$jpm$2@news1.Radix.Net>  7 In comp.os.vms Glenn Everhart <Everhart@gce.com> wrote:   J > VMS does have the history of being coded partly in MACRO-32; NT is codedE > mainly in C or C++. This would appear to make NT more portable, but B > the ability to make compilers for MACRO-32 gives the lie to thatG > notion to some degree, and has preserved VMS from the buffer overfloweG > diseases promoted by use of null terminated strings all over. HistoryuF > may eventually decide that whatever happens to the two OSs, the pathE > of using C may not be the better engineering one. Sometimes history  > works out like that...  N not exactly - VMS was preserved from the problem of null-terminated strings byM a historical accident - choosing to make strings descriptor-based to (attempteM to) make the different supported languages (e.g., Fortran and Basic) all able J to call the same set of library routines.  The same idea was done a littleM later with Apollo's (using a slightly better technical solution which did notnC involve polluting the source code with lots of nonstandard syntax).n   -- o= Thomas E. Dickey <dickey@radix.net> <dickey@herndon4.his.com>a http://dickey.his.com  ftp://dickey.his.com   ------------------------------  + Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 15:21:43 +0000 (UTC)c2 From: Christer Weinigel <wingel@hog.ctrl-c.liu.se>* Subject: Re: The portability of Windows NT- Message-ID: <a5b0bn$f87$1@news.island.liu.se>e  : In article <1IQd8.12702$ro5.4523955@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>,3 Terry C. Shannon <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote: E >Ah, the portability of Windows NT... Alpha's no longer a player, butm' >whatever happened to MIPS, PPC, et al?s  E It turned into Windows CE, running on at least Mips, Hitachi Super-H,i Arm and x86.     /Christerr   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 17:50:58 GMTh* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>* Subject: Re: The portability of Windows NTC Message-ID: <6K9e8.184657$d34.14036922@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>o  < "Thomas Dickey" <dickey@saltmine.radix.net> wrote in message$ news:a5as7l$jpm$2@news1.Radix.Net...9 > In comp.os.vms Glenn Everhart <Everhart@gce.com> wrote:s > L > > VMS does have the history of being coded partly in MACRO-32; NT is codedG > > mainly in C or C++. This would appear to make NT more portable, butnD > > the ability to make compilers for MACRO-32 gives the lie to thatI > > notion to some degree, and has preserved VMS from the buffer overflow-I > > diseases promoted by use of null terminated strings all over. History H > > may eventually decide that whatever happens to the two OSs, the pathG > > of using C may not be the better engineering one. Sometimes history. > > works out like that... >5E > not exactly - VMS was preserved from the problem of null-terminatedn
 strings byF > a historical accident - choosing to make strings descriptor-based to (attemptJ > to) make the different supported languages (e.g., Fortran and Basic) all able+ > to call the same set of library routines.u  H There was nothing 'accidental' about the use of descriptors (or at leastK counted strings) rather than null-terminated strings:  the relative virtues4? of counted strings were well-appreciated when VMS was designed.0   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 12:57:43 +0100e9 From: Jan-Erik =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=F6derholm?= <aaa@aaa.com>s/ Subject: Re: tool to calc recursive dir sises ?y' Message-ID: <3C78D537.12C98EDB@aaa.com>o  4 Because the total of each directory *do not* include0 the subdirs "under" that directory. I could do a5 dir/tot to a tmp file and then process that file withe a bit of DCL., but...   	 Jan-Erik.t     Didier Morandi wrote:t >  > I do not understand. > Why don't you do >  > $ dir/siz/tot [my_dir...]  >  > ?p >  > D. >  > Jan-Erik Sderholm wrote:s > >i > > Hi.r> > > I'd like a tool that displays the total size and number of= > > the files i each dir on a disk. Each dir should display atD > > total *incl* all sub-dirs from that level. A "dir /tot" displaysD > > the actual number of files and size in each dir *excl* sub-dirs. > > ' > > Anyone having samething like this ?p > >w/ > > I once wrote a tool to do this in DCL using " > > F$SEARCH("device:[000000...]")J > > and then using F$FILE_ATTRIBUTES to calculate eof-size, alloc-size forL > > each dir and then write a report. It included a "level:n" label for eachG > > directory, so I could do "SEA <report> "level:2"" to get the totals.H > > for a specific directory level. It worked fine, it just took so long > > time > > to run.d > >o > > Regards> > > Jan-Erik Sderholm.C   ------------------------------  ! Date: Sun, 24 Feb 02 09:54:27 GMTm From: jmfbahciv@aol.com>7 Subject: Re: TS10 - Successful but some PROBE problems.v+ Message-ID: <a5al6s$ld0$1@bob.news.rcn.net>s  & In article <Gs0q28.6oJ@world.std.com>,*    weiner@TheWorld.com (Sam Weiner) wrote: <snip>  0 >I wonder if all this stuff plus ftp.digital.com, >which still has some interesting stuff will' >survive if the HP merger goes through.0  ; I would assume not, especially if it has nothing to do with-> current business.  Everybody seems to be stricken with PC-itis these days.)   /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:47:43 -0500o' From: Eric Sosman <Eric.Sosman@sun.com>bJ Subject: Re: Younger recruits versus experienced veterans ( was The demise' Message-ID: <3C74278F.6A7E0895@sun.com>r   Charles Richmond wrote:j >:B > I also like that *all* nouns and *no* adjectives are capitalized > in German.       Gro ist Jehovah, der Herr!n     ^n  2     (Babelfish gave me one of the best laughs I've2 ever gotten from a computer by translating this as# "Jehovah, the gentleman is large!")n   --   Eric.Sosman@sun.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 10:07:26 +0100e From: Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl>! Subject: Re: [Q] internet and VMSl& Message-ID: <3C78AD4E.8090609@home.nl>  G I'll give it a try, based on TCP/IP services 5.1 and what I know  :-) .tE I think the kernel thing is typically Unix, where you build a kernel -C operating system with all kind of things loaded. Other drivers are rE loaded separately, and are thus slower (in Unix).  VMS does not know   this mechanism.8? Most of the answers can be found in the TCPIP manuals. For the  F performance optimizations look in the Troubleshooting & Tuning manual.     MerefBast wrote:  N >   I saw a list comparing operating systems on internet related features, butH >VMS was missing from the comparison list. Does anyone know which of theF >following VMS has (preferably with an authorative reference)? Thanks. >c >Extension            ???n# >IPSec                not yet AFAIK$ >IPv6                 yesn >RSVP                 ???n >IP Multiplexing      think so >IP Multicast         yest >e' >Performance Optimizations         yes o$ >Telnet in kernel                  -$ >Kernel Sockets                    -, >TCP Large Windows                 yes afaik& >Zero Copy TCP/Hardware Checksum   ???& >Path MTU Discovery                yes+ >OpenShortestPathFirst (OSPF)      yes      % >RTP: Real Time Protocol           ??r& >RTCP: Real Time Control Protocol  ?? % >Parallelized TCP/IP               ??t >t >fH >   A courtesy copy of your reply directly to MerefBast@aol.com would be* >appreciated, but isn't necessary. Thanks. >  >i   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2002.108 ************************J > conform to their nice little wintel-centric view of the way things ought toK > be.  Speaking as a reseller (used to be ASP) and user since the mid 1980s G > (the company connection goes back to the early 1970s, before my time)mH > Digital itself never got as bad, as totally full of itself and its own viewG > of what should be, _even_ undeV    V    ¸V    øV    ĸV    ŸV    ƸV    ǸV    ȸV    ɸV    ʸV    ˸V    ̸V    ͸V    θV    ϸV    иV    ѸV    ҸV    ӸV    ԸV    ոV    ָV    ׸V    ظV    ٸV    ڸV    ۸V    ܸV    ݸV    ޸V    ߸V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V     V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    	V    
V    V    V    
V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V     V    !V    "V    #V    $V    %V    &V    'V    (V    )V    *V    +V    ,V    -V    .V    /V    0V    1V    2V    3V    4V    5V    6V    7V    8V    9V    :V    ;V    <V    =V    >V    ?V    @V    AV    BV    CV    DV    EV    FV    GV    HV    IV    JV    KV    LV    MV    NV    OV    PV    QV    RV    SV    TV    UV    VV    WV    XV    YV    ZV    [V    \V    ]V    ^V    _V    `V    aV    bV    cV    dV    eV    fV    gV    hV    iV    jV    kV    lV    mV    nV    oV    pV    qV    rV    sV    tV    uV    vV    wV    xV    yV    zV    {V    |V    }V    ~V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    ¹V    ùV    ĹV    ŹV    ƹV    ǹV    ȹV    ɹV    ʹV    ˹V    ̹V    ͹V    ιV    ϹV    йV    ѹV    ҹV    ӹV    ԹV    չV    ֹV    ׹V    عV    ٹV    ڹV    ۹V    ܹV    ݹV    ޹V    ߹V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    V    