1 INFO-VAX	Wed, 08 May 2002	Volume 2002 : Issue 254       Contents:4 Re: 3rd party support for Alpha hardwad and software; A brief history of the DQDRIVER (ATA/ATAPI/IDE disk driver) ? Re: A brief history of the DQDRIVER (ATA/ATAPI/IDE disk driver) ? Re: A brief history of the DQDRIVER (ATA/ATAPI/IDE disk driver) % access() check that works with ACLs ? ) Re: access() check that works with ACLs ? ) Re: access() check that works with ACLs ? ) Re: access() check that works with ACLs ? ) Re: access() check that works with ACLs ? ) Re: access() check that works with ACLs ? & Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?& Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?& Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?& Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?& Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?& Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?& Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?& Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?& Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?& Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?& Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?& Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?& Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?& Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?& Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?& Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?& Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?7 Re: An Invitation from CUO-EMEA President Terje Bruvoll ( Re: ASTs and privs. Was: $QIO and SYSPRV( Re: ASTs and privs. Was: $QIO and SYSPRV# Re: Backup fails...  advice sought!   Bob Palmer and the demise of DEC$ Re: Bob Palmer and the demise of DEC$ Re: Bob Palmer and the demise of DEC3 Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix 3 Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix 3 Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix 3 Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix 3 Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix 3 Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix  Create a DB.  Re: CSWS / CSWB / MX Speculation  Re: CSWS / CSWB / MX Speculation  Re: CSWS / CSWB / MX Speculation  Re: CSWS / CSWB / MX Speculation  Re: CSWS / CSWB / MX Speculation  Re: CSWS / CSWB / MX Speculation  Re: CSWS / CSWB / MX Speculation  Re: CSWS / CSWB / MX Speculation  Re: CSWS / CSWB / MX Speculation  Re: CSWS / CSWB / MX Speculation5 DEC2000/300 front (Was: Removing AS1000A front panel)   Re: Fix for EDT emulation in EVE- Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning - Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning - Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning - Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning - Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning 0 Gartner rides again (was Re: HP Product Roadmap)4 RE: Gartner rides again (was Re: HP Product Roadmap)4 Re: Gartner rides again (was Re: HP Product Roadmap)4 RE: Gartner rides again (was Re: HP Product Roadmap)8 GNAT on VMS, was: Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?< Re: GNAT on VMS, was: Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue? Re: HP Product Roadmap Re: HP Product Roadmap Re: HP Product Roadmap Re: HP Product Roadmap Re: HP Product Roadmap Re: HP Product Roadmap Re: HP Product Roadmap Re: HP Product Roadmap Re: HP Product Roadmap Re: HP Product Roadmap Re: HP Product Roadmap Re: HP Product Roadmap Re: HP Product Roadmap Re: HP Product Roadmap Re: HP Product Roadmap Re: HP Product Roadmap Re: HP Product Roadmap# Re: HP Roadmap: OpenVMS, Tru64 safe # Re: HP Roadmap: OpenVMS, Tru64 safe # Re: HP Roadmap: OpenVMS, Tru64 safe # Re: HP Roadmap: OpenVMS, Tru64 safe # Re: HP Roadmap: OpenVMS, Tru64 safe # Re: HP Roadmap: OpenVMS, Tru64 safe # Re: HP Roadmap: OpenVMS, Tru64 safe # Re: HP Roadmap: OpenVMS, Tru64 safe # Re: HP Roadmap: OpenVMS, Tru64 safe # Re: HP Roadmap: OpenVMS, Tru64 safe $ Re: is this suitable for openvms ???. Memo:  Re: Memo:  Help restoring a system disk Observing HSx performances? Re: Old RAID 230 logical init very slow (63% done after 5 days) ? Re: Old RAID 230 logical init very slow (63% done after 5 days) : Re: Powerstorm 4D40T Video Card w/AlphaStation 500 and VMS Read_verify  Re: Read_verify   Re: Removing AS1000A front panel Re: Revisionist history  Re: Revisionist history  Re: Revisionist history  Re: Revisionist history  Re: Revisionist history  Re: Revisionist history  Re: Revisionist history  Re: Revisionist history  Re: Revisionist history  Re: Revisionist history  Re: Revisionist history  Re: Revisionist history  Re: Revisionist history  Re: Revisionist history  Re: Revisionist history ! Re: Sayonara DS10, new org charts 3 Re: Scott Stallard, forget your VMS to HP UX dream! 3 Re: Scott Stallard, forget your VMS to HP UX dream! 3 Re: Scott Stallard, forget your VMS to HP UX dream! 3 Re: Scott Stallard, forget your VMS to HP UX dream! 3 Re: Scott Stallard, forget your VMS to HP UX dream!  Re: simh VAX VMS users?  Re: simh VAX VMS users? ' Re: SKC Morphs Again... We're Now SKHPC ' Re: SKC Morphs Again... We're Now SKHPC ' Re: SKC Morphs Again... We're Now SKHPC ' Re: SKC Morphs Again... We're Now SKHPC  RE: SMTP Usage Filter...+ Re: Some more words of wisdom from Capellas 1 Re: SOT: Yo Andrew, you guys on a roll this week? 1 Re: SOT: Yo Andrew, you guys on a roll this week? 1 Re: SOT: Yo Andrew, you guys on a roll this week? 1 Re: SOT: Yo Andrew, you guys on a roll this week?  sync time in cluster Re: USB on OpenVMS Re: USB on OpenVMS VAX 4000/600A help needed  Re: VAX 4000/600A help needed  Re: VAX 4000/600A help needed ( Re: VMS Bigots Unite To Form New Company( Re: VMS Bigots Unite To Form New Company6 Re: Why is security so important in a VMS environment?' Re: WIS??? Did it die with the HP deal? ' Re: WIS??? Did it die with the HP deal? ' Re: WIS??? Did it die with the HP deal?   www.compaq.com is link to hp.com$ Re: www.compaq.com is link to hp.com$ RE: www.compaq.com is link to hp.com$ Re: www.compaq.com is link to hp.com/ Re: ZIPped .PCSI container arrives OK on VMS??? * Re: [Q]Terminators in Terminal Driver QIOW3 [SURVEY] would you use CHARON-ia64 if there is one? * [V5.1 ECO 3] NTP doesn't start up reliable  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 07:36:03 -0700 % From: Tom Crabtre <tccrab@sunset.net> = Subject: Re: 3rd party support for Alpha hardwad and software * Message-ID: <3CD937D3.41ECF76E@sunset.net>   Randy:   Hardware support:    Island Computer Co., David Turner http://www.islandco.com   % Dave is a great guy and very helpful.  <shameless plug>   TomC   "Randy B." wrote:   F > Does anyone know of 3rd party alternatives to Compaq for support for: > support of Alpha hardware (4100) and software (openVMS)? > 	 > Thanks.    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 08:41:19 -0400 2 From: Atlant Schmidt <atlantnospam@mindspring.com>D Subject: A brief history of the DQDRIVER (ATA/ATAPI/IDE disk driver)- Message-ID: <3CD91CEF.274E96B@mindspring.com>   3   I wrote this reply to someone in private mail and 1   they encouraged me to post it to the newsgroup. -   I see no harm in doing so, so here it is...     -=-=-=-=-=-  ,   Some background information you may enjoy:  =   "512-byte mode" [in CD-ROMs] was actually a very sore point :   with the hardware/systems folks. High-volume CD-ROMs, in>   general, didn't have this mode yet the VMS SCSI driver suite<   required it. So every time we needed a new SCSI CD-ROM, weC   had to beg and plead with the vendor for 512-byte sector support. ?   It also meant we had to pay exorbitant prices for a "special" >   drive. I think Digital Unix was in the same boat [and so was   Sun's Solaris].   9   And as CD-ROMs started maturing, the product cycles got <   shorter and shorter. A given vendor would introduce newer,=   faster, cheaper CD-ROM drives every 6-12 months. And it got =   to the point where even "vanilla" SCSI CD-ROMs were looking =   too expensive compared to the ATAPI CD-ROM drives that were +   being installed into PCs by the millions.   <   So VMS Engineering and Unix Engineering took a decision to<   support ATAPI CD-ROM drives. And a very early sub-decision8   was to only require ordinary CD-ROM drives; no special9   firmware! We wanted access to those $50 and $25 drives!   5   I took the existing SYS$EXAMPLES DQDRIVER and added ;   a ton of functionality to it including ATAPI support (and :   DMA and Zip drive support and better IDE support and...)<   As it turns out, making the driver independent of 512-byte=   sector support was pretty simple and was clearly a big win. =   It got a little more complex when I added Zip-drive support ;   (an ATAPI drive where the sectors *ARE* 512 bytes) but it =   was still pretty straight-forward. Last I knew, the listing 2   was still in SYS$EXAMPLES if you want to see it.  <   ATAPI drive suport actually got pretty funny at one point.9   The hardware guys starting sending me several different =   CD-ROM drives each month, saying "So does *THIS* one work?" <   After the first few, the DQDRIVER got "generalized" enough<   that basically all the drives worked "out of the box". 6x,9   12x, 24x, 32x CD-ROMS, 1x and 2x DVD-ROMs, Toshiba, LG, C   Sony, they all just plugged in and worked. (TEAC drives were hit- @   or-miss, though.) Eventually, I had this *HUGE* pile of drives@   and could only test new versions of my driver against the pile6   of drives on a "statistical sampling" sort of basis.  @   The host adapter chips were another story. We (VMS and DigitalC   Unix) tended to want to use them in modes that the PC guys didn't A   (like fancy scatter-gather DMA) and the chips often didn't work =   so well. In the end, we ended up only supporting DMA on the ;   Acer chips (in the DS10 family); there were too many bugs :   and data corruption problems to support DMA on the other;   host adapter chips (e.g., the Cypress as used in the DS20 1   and ES40 [I think -- my memory is foggy here]).   $                               Atlant   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 15:38:39 +0200 C From: Eberhard Heuser-Hofmann <vaxinf@chclu.chemie.uni-konstanz.de> H Subject: Re: A brief history of the DQDRIVER (ATA/ATAPI/IDE disk driver)B Message-ID: <001101c1f695$a96345e0$ad072286@chemie.unikonstanz.de>   Atlant,   L In my opinion you and all others in the OpenVMS-groop do a good job. I using the IO_DIAGNOSE F feature to program a Pioneer IDE-DVD-Recorder. In spite of a too short timeout (15 sec.) H the commands work as expected. I have found a workaround of this timeout problem mentioned.  K What I read about the USB-driver, doesn't make me happy. No IO_DIAGNOSE for 	 USB means F no scanner, no cd/dvd-recorder and no harddisk support in near future.   eberhard   ----- Original Message -----4 From: "Atlant Schmidt" <atlantnospam@mindspring.com> To: <Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com> % Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 2:41 PM D Subject: A brief history of the DQDRIVER (ATA/ATAPI/IDE disk driver)    5 >   I wrote this reply to someone in private mail and 3 >   they encouraged me to post it to the newsgroup. / >   I see no harm in doing so, so here it is...  >  >  -=-=-=-=-=- > . >   Some background information you may enjoy: > ? >   "512-byte mode" [in CD-ROMs] was actually a very sore point < >   with the hardware/systems folks. High-volume CD-ROMs, in@ >   general, didn't have this mode yet the VMS SCSI driver suite> >   required it. So every time we needed a new SCSI CD-ROM, weE >   had to beg and plead with the vendor for 512-byte sector support. A >   It also meant we had to pay exorbitant prices for a "special" @ >   drive. I think Digital Unix was in the same boat [and so was >   Sun's Solaris].  > ; >   And as CD-ROMs started maturing, the product cycles got > >   shorter and shorter. A given vendor would introduce newer,? >   faster, cheaper CD-ROM drives every 6-12 months. And it got ? >   to the point where even "vanilla" SCSI CD-ROMs were looking ? >   too expensive compared to the ATAPI CD-ROM drives that were - >   being installed into PCs by the millions.  > > >   So VMS Engineering and Unix Engineering took a decision to> >   support ATAPI CD-ROM drives. And a very early sub-decision: >   was to only require ordinary CD-ROM drives; no special; >   firmware! We wanted access to those $50 and $25 drives!  > 7 >   I took the existing SYS$EXAMPLES DQDRIVER and added = >   a ton of functionality to it including ATAPI support (and < >   DMA and Zip drive support and better IDE support and...)> >   As it turns out, making the driver independent of 512-byte? >   sector support was pretty simple and was clearly a big win. ? >   It got a little more complex when I added Zip-drive support = >   (an ATAPI drive where the sectors *ARE* 512 bytes) but it ? >   was still pretty straight-forward. Last I knew, the listing 4 >   was still in SYS$EXAMPLES if you want to see it. > > >   ATAPI drive suport actually got pretty funny at one point.; >   The hardware guys starting sending me several different ? >   CD-ROM drives each month, saying "So does *THIS* one work?" > >   After the first few, the DQDRIVER got "generalized" enough> >   that basically all the drives worked "out of the box". 6x,; >   12x, 24x, 32x CD-ROMS, 1x and 2x DVD-ROMs, Toshiba, LG, E >   Sony, they all just plugged in and worked. (TEAC drives were hit- B >   or-miss, though.) Eventually, I had this *HUGE* pile of drivesB >   and could only test new versions of my driver against the pile8 >   of drives on a "statistical sampling" sort of basis. > B >   The host adapter chips were another story. We (VMS and DigitalE >   Unix) tended to want to use them in modes that the PC guys didn't C >   (like fancy scatter-gather DMA) and the chips often didn't work ? >   so well. In the end, we ended up only supporting DMA on the = >   Acer chips (in the DS10 family); there were too many bugs < >   and data corruption problems to support DMA on the other= >   host adapter chips (e.g., the Cypress as used in the DS20 3 >   and ES40 [I think -- my memory is foggy here]).  > & >                               Atlant >    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 10:58:40 -0400 2 From: Atlant Schmidt <atlantnospam@mindspring.com>H Subject: Re: A brief history of the DQDRIVER (ATA/ATAPI/IDE disk driver). Message-ID: <3CD93D20.7A29F7C6@mindspring.com>   Eberhard Heuser-Hofmann wrote:  F > In my opinion you and all others in the OpenVMS-groop do a good job.; > I using the IO_DIAGNOSE feature to program a Pioneer IDE- = > DVD-Recorder. In spite of a too short timeout (15 sec.) the > > commands work as expected. I have found a workaround of this > timeout problem mentioned.  <   Thanks for the kind words. In my case, it would have to beC   "did a good job" (past tense) as I left DigiPaq in April of 2000. 9   By the way, I think thanks for the IO$_DIAGNOSE feature D   must go to Paul Jacobi; I'm pretty sure he added all of that code.  5   With regard to yur timeout problem you could always =   rebuild the driver from source. As I mentioned, I think the 9   driver source is distributed in SYS$EXAMPLES and Google -   found a recent version of it on the web at:   @     http://www.tmesis.com/freeware/V5/DQDRIVER/DQDRIVER.C_VMS073    '                                  Atlant +                 (now writing Solaris codes)    ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 07:27:41 -0700  From: cbdeja@my-deja.com (-). Subject: access() check that works with ACLs ?= Message-ID: <611952a3.0205080627.36d01705@posting.google.com>   A I need to check whether a file is readable or executable and have D previously used the access() system call - it works fine in OpenVMS.  E However, ACLs have now been introduced on our system and world access F to some files has been removed, with only ACL entries granting access.  C It seems that access() does not check the ACL entries because it is = returning a status which says these files are not readable or 9 executable. There is also something to this effect in the E documentation, but the documentation does not say how I CAN perform a A check for read/execute file access which takes ACLs into account.   2 Does anyone knows how this can be done in OpenVMS?   Thanks   Colin    ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 10:29:03 -0500 - From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) 2 Subject: Re: access() check that works with ACLs ?3 Message-ID: <TyeBYboyz8Yn@eisner.encompasserve.org>   \ In article <611952a3.0205080627.36d01705@posting.google.com>, cbdeja@my-deja.com (-) writes:C > I need to check whether a file is readable or executable and haveDF > previously used the access() system call - it works fine in OpenVMS. > G > However, ACLs have now been introduced on our system and world accessIH > to some files has been removed, with only ACL entries granting access. > E > It seems that access() does not check the ACL entries because it is ? > returning a status which says these files are not readable oro; > executable. There is also something to this effect in the G > documentation, but the documentation does not say how I CAN perform asC > check for read/execute file access which takes ACLs into account.e > 4 > Does anyone knows how this can be done in OpenVMS?  * Use the $CHKPRO or $CHKACC system service.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 15:40:30 GMTe. From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter LANGSTOEGER)2 Subject: Re: access() check that works with ACLs ?5 Message-ID: <OFbC8.183396$vc2.2115516@news.chello.at>?  c In article <TyeBYboyz8Yn@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:e] >In article <611952a3.0205080627.36d01705@posting.google.com>, cbdeja@my-deja.com (-) writes:?D >> I need to check whether a file is readable or executable and haveG >> previously used the access() system call - it works fine in OpenVMS.  >> aH >> However, ACLs have now been introduced on our system and world accessI >> to some files has been removed, with only ACL entries granting access.e >>  F >> It seems that access() does not check the ACL entries because it is@ >> returning a status which says these files are not readable or< >> executable. There is also something to this effect in theH >> documentation, but the documentation does not say how I CAN perform aD >> check for read/execute file access which takes ACLs into account. >> u5 >> Does anyone knows how this can be done in OpenVMS?W > + >Use the $CHKPRO or $CHKACC system service.i  ; Or in other words, don't expect that C RTL does it for you.u6 This leads to the question, why ? Wasn't that a goal ?   -- S Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER % Network and OpenVMS system specialistS E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atP A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm looking for (a) Network _and_ VMS Job(s)   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 10:02:34 -0700  From: cbdeja@my-deja.com (-)2 Subject: Re: access() check that works with ACLs ?= Message-ID: <611952a3.0205080902.3e10bf24@posting.google.com>t  : I have managed to find references to a set of system calls   SYS$CHECK_ACCESS
 SYS$CHKPRO SYS$CHECK_PRIVILEGE)  E but they seem to be very complicated to use and I'm not sure which of  these would fit my needs.o  F I'm basically looking for a very simple YES/NO check as to whether theB calling program has read, write or execute access to a named file.  C Is there a *simplified* set of arguments I can pass to one of theset. functions to allow me to do this simple check?   Thanks   Colino    a cbdeja@my-deja.com (-) wrote in message news:<611952a3.0205080627.36d01705@posting.google.com>...aC > I need to check whether a file is readable or executable and haveRF > previously used the access() system call - it works fine in OpenVMS. > G > However, ACLs have now been introduced on our system and world accesssH > to some files has been removed, with only ACL entries granting access. > E > It seems that access() does not check the ACL entries because it is4? > returning a status which says these files are not readable orn; > executable. There is also something to this effect in thePG > documentation, but the documentation does not say how I CAN perform aoC > check for read/execute file access which takes ACLs into account.s > 4 > Does anyone knows how this can be done in OpenVMS? >  > Thanks >  > Colinl   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 11:37:35 -0500V- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)f2 Subject: Re: access() check that works with ACLs ?3 Message-ID: <nqj9EFqnIVOI@eisner.encompasserve.org>   f In article <OFbC8.183396$vc2.2115516@news.chello.at>, peter@langstoeger.at (Peter LANGSTOEGER) writes:e > In article <TyeBYboyz8Yn@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes: ^ >>In article <611952a3.0205080627.36d01705@posting.google.com>, cbdeja@my-deja.com (-) writes:E >>> I need to check whether a file is readable or executable and haveeH >>> previously used the access() system call - it works fine in OpenVMS. >>> I >>> However, ACLs have now been introduced on our system and world accessmJ >>> to some files has been removed, with only ACL entries granting access. >>> G >>> It seems that access() does not check the ACL entries because it isuA >>> returning a status which says these files are not readable ora= >>> executable. There is also something to this effect in the I >>> documentation, but the documentation does not say how I CAN perform aoE >>> check for read/execute file access which takes ACLs into account.  >>> 6 >>> Does anyone knows how this can be done in OpenVMS? >>, >>Use the $CHKPRO or $CHKACC system service. > = > Or in other words, don't expect that C RTL does it for you.c8 > This leads to the question, why ? Wasn't that a goal ?  C I suppose that depends on the definition of the access() CRTL call.0  D But certainly it is not reasonable to expect the CRTL to emulate the* full semantics of the VMS system services.   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 12:59:23 -0500h- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)H2 Subject: Re: access() check that works with ACLs ?3 Message-ID: <3yXXSE43SF3z@eisner.encompasserve.org>i  \ In article <611952a3.0205080902.3e10bf24@posting.google.com>, cbdeja@my-deja.com (-) writes:< > I have managed to find references to a set of system calls >  > SYS$CHECK_ACCESS > SYS$CHKPRO > SYS$CHECK_PRIVILEGEa > G > but they seem to be very complicated to use and I'm not sure which of- > these would fit my needs.-  H SYS$CHECK_ACCESS is a simplified version of SYS$CHKPRO, for the question "would that user have access".  $ SYS$CHECK_PRIVILEGE is not relevant.  H > I'm basically looking for a very simple YES/NO check as to whether theD > calling program has read, write or execute access to a named file. > E > Is there a *simplified* set of arguments I can pass to one of theses0 > functions to allow me to do this simple check?  * Try to open the file and see if it works !  G The reasons why that might not be appropriate are many, and in them are K tied up the many complications in the system services (don't want auditing,:2 want auditing only under certain conditions, etc.)   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 07:53:53 +0100d( From: Nic Clews <sendspamhere@127.0.0.1>/ Subject: Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?n) Message-ID: <3CD8CB81.FEC95CB5@127.0.0.1>    "David J. Dachtera" wrote: >  > Didier Morandi wrote:  > >iI > > What is to you the main problem(s) about the Alpha to ia64 migration?  > H > The current lack of a viable, production-quality (to OVMS's standards)
 > IPF CPU.   Is this really an argument?n  D I wonder how many prefabs there were of the marvel CPU's before theyH were stable, ditto the first ever Alphas, I'd be interested seeing a bitG of engineering history when they had their first working prototype, andd? if it even still works! (It may be somewhere, I've not looked).t  E I do not have a problem with it. I mourned the passing of the TadpoleCD and it no longer being supported, but when I asked someone who knew,G about VMS on a laptop, when it comes to Itanium there will be _no_ more E mucking about with SRM and firmware, it'll just 'go'. (No commitment,I; but this is the design goal which will most likely happen).   H On that basis I'm prepared to say, stuff the performance, look what I've got on my laptop.a   --  ( Regards, Nic Clews CSC Computer Sciences nclews at csc dot comd   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 08:40:24 +0100o( From: Nic Clews <sendspamhere@127.0.0.1>/ Subject: Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?n) Message-ID: <3CD8D668.4A136602@127.0.0.1>    Douglas B Rupp wrote:c > M > However GNAT, the Gnu Ada compiler will be available and fully supported on. > IA64 VMS.u > M > Ada Core Technologies recently completed some major performance enhancementp	 > work oncJ > GNAT for VMS under contract to Compaq and is pleased to report that GNAT > generated codeF > now performs comparably to DEC Ada (and in most cases better) on the > applicable PIWGsK > tests on Alpha.  Most of the enhancements were not Alpha specific, and so 
 > should alsou > benefit GNAT on IA64 VMS.y  E The issue that Larry mentions in his reply to you, I will expand on a  little here.  E The DEC Ada environment was chosen for a number of reasons, not least,A the building environment and commands which allows software to beiE checked and cross checked by various tools due to the safety criticalDB nature of the application of the code. This process (of which I'veG described a small part) is called validation, and is extremely thorough C and time consuming, and therefore expensive, and you do not want tosG repeat the process except when necessary. VAX, and I mean VAX and Alphah  compatibility is also paramount.  E A whole software delivery environment has been based around this, andhD also around the command set used to drive a DEC Ada compiler and its features (ACS etc.).  G Take this away in Itanium, and Compaq have an uphill task of persuadingsH further investment in Alpha (being declared future EOL) and meaning they? may well have to put time into converting all the qualificationhF procedures to a.n.other systems, and this allows other (flavour of the& month) platforms to get consideration.  H Not knowing for sure is one of the main problems. However if the DEC AdaC commands are NOT fully supported, there is a strong (maybe certain)nC chance that future work will be moved OFF the VMS operating system.D Please listen to this.  D There are big numbers involved here, and I can speak to people in anG official capacity about them (but not here). I've also said that beforeu@ here, but no-one has contacted me yet. We're not even asking for6 anything fancy, DEC Ada version 3.5 will be just fine.  ! Go ahead, sign the death warrant.    -- r( Regards, Nic Clews CSC Computer Sciences nclews at csc dot com    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 08:06:15 -0400n- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>i/ Subject: Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?a, Message-ID: <3CD914B2.E41B9C58@videotron.ca>   Where is the issue ?  L The issue is that Compaq lied to customers when it said that Alpha could notK keep up with IA64 and prematurely killed Alpha, knowing full well that IA64pL was technologically very inferior and very behind the ramping up compared toK Alpha which is at a stage in its life where it is well past ensuring it can- divide properly.  J In lying to customers, Compaq lost their trust. And now we see through theJ propaganda they try to produce to portray IA64 as "industry standard" when, even dead, alpha still sells more than IA64.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 14:18:34 +0200d- From: Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr>d/ Subject: Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue? ' Message-ID: <3CD9179A.841B454A@Free.fr>p   JF Mezei wrote:l >  > Where is the issue ? > N > The issue is that Compaq lied to customers when it said that Alpha could notM > keep up with IA64 and prematurely killed Alpha, knowing full well that IA64vN > was technologically very inferior and very behind the ramping up compared toM > Alpha which is at a stage in its life where it is well past ensuring it can  > divide properly.  P This is not relevant to customers. What they want is their applications running,4 They are, to me, not that interested in performance.  nL > In lying to customers, Compaq lost their trust. And now we see through theL > propaganda they try to produce to portray IA64 as "industry standard" when. > even dead, alpha still sells more than IA64.  3 You cannot say that as VMS/ia64 does not exist yet.n   Thanks for your feedback.o   D. -- t2   ------------------------------------------------2 MORANDI Consultants  http://Didier.Morandi.Free.fr0   19 chemin de la Butte, 31400 Toulouse, France.2 Tel.: +33 (0)6 7983 6418 - Fax: +33 (0)5 6154 19282 OpenVMS, APPLE, Computer Security, Migration plans2 --------------------------------------------------   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 09:03:13 -0400o- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> / Subject: Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?T, Message-ID: <3CD92209.4505D405@videotron.ca>   Didier Morandi wrote:aR > This is not relevant to customers. What they want is their applications running,6 > They are, to me, not that interested in performance.  N When you invest the kind of money that HP wants for VMS systems (this big high< performance systems)), you want a vendor that you can trust.  N If you, as an amployee, will recommend to stay on VMS, you need to have publicL statements that are credible so that you can convince uppoer management thatM the risk is manageable, and that it is not yet necessary to migrate to Sun ore@ IBM. To do that, you need to have a vendor that has credibility.  N A vendor that purposefully ignored VMS during the merger talks and only puts aH one liner to describe a business that generates billions, well you can't really trust such a business.w   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 13:21:15 GMT 5 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com>b/ Subject: Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue? 9 Message-ID: <fD9C8.11$Jh6.461956@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>   ; Nic Clews wrote in message <3CD8CB81.FEC95CB5@127.0.0.1>...g >"David J. Dachtera" wrote:  >> >> Didier Morandi wrote: >> >J >> > What is to you the main problem(s) about the Alpha to ia64 migration? >>I >> The current lack of a viable, production-quality (to OVMS's standards)h >> IPF CPU.T >T >Is this really an argument? > E >I wonder how many prefabs there were of the marvel CPU's before they I >were stable, ditto the first ever Alphas, I'd be interested seeing a bit H >of engineering history when they had their first working prototype, and@ >if it even still works! (It may be somewhere, I've not looked). >p  J Marvel/EV7 has had it's share of glitches, but has been remarkabkly smooth compared to earlier chips.  F >I do not have a problem with it. I mourned the passing of the TadpoleE >and it no longer being supported, but when I asked someone who knew,NH >about VMS on a laptop, when it comes to Itanium there will be _no_ moreF >mucking about with SRM and firmware, it'll just 'go'. (No commitment,< >but this is the design goal which will most likely happen). >v  G There will be no special firmware, although the VMS installation itselfiK "may" provide a boot manager to provide a VMS-friendly interface.  But onlyD@ using standard EFI interfaces that will work on any IA64 system.  I >On that basis I'm prepared to say, stuff the performance, look what I've  >got on my laptop. >4  K By the time we move past the porting and early adopter phase, I expect that C performance will be reasonable on IA64, and that HP will be selling  competetive IA64 servers.    ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 13:15:17 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk/ Subject: Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue? + Message-ID: <abb8d5$l7l$2@aquila.mdx.ac.uk>e  W In article <3CD9179A.841B454A@Free.fr>, Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr> writes:  >JF Mezei wrote: >>  Q >This is not relevant to customers. What they want is their applications running, 5 >They are, to me, not that interested in performance.t >   E All I can say is you have some very strange customers if they are notdH interested in price/performance. IA64 looks as though it will have worseJ performance than Alpha for some considerable time and because it will be aG niche product (rather than "Industry standard") is likely to also be ane expensive product.I There is absolutely no incentive for any VMS customers to move from AlphazG to IA64 until IA64 performance exceeds that of Alpha. There are massive5K disincentives ie the cost of recompiling testing (and in some cases gettinge" certification) for their products.    
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 13:14:57 GMTd5 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com>o/ Subject: Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?t9 Message-ID: <lx9C8.10$za6.195729@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>   J Bliss migration should be as simple as a recompile in most cases.  I wouldD expect to see the IA64 versions shipped in the same way it is today.     pos wrote in message ...0 >I await the bliss migration path with interest. > K >And don't even start me on all the layered products. ISV's have lost theirbI >VMS coding skills (duh, what compilation flag is this - EV5), so if they-L >don't even understand the original code, how the hell do you think they can >port anything across?; >"Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message . >news:gvJKkebpC0sk@eisner.encompasserve.org...9 >> In article <3CD80CFB.CE733B7E@Free.fr>, Didier Morandi>! ><Didier.Morandi@Free.fr> writes:aJ >> > What is to you the main problem(s) about the Alpha to ia64 migration? >>  >> Unavailability of Compaq Ada. >n >    ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 13:41:38 GMTi1 From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) / Subject: Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?n+ Message-ID: <abb9ui$mbc$1@info.cs.uofs.edu>>  - In article <3cd8505f.0@topcat.tabbygnat.com>,t0  "Douglas B Rupp" <rupp@nospam_gnat.com> writes:N |> However GNAT, the Gnu Ada compiler will be available and fully supported on |> IA64 VMS. |> e  7 We've been over this before, but I'll ask again anyway.   D Will ACT absorb the cost of recertification for all the applicationsD (particularly military) that were done with Dec ADA??  If not, whereE is the incentive to stay on what may be percieved as a dying platformnD which will require yet another recertification in a few more years??G Unlike the business world which can't see beyond the end of the current F fiscal quarter, many military applications are here for the long term.   bill   -- pJ Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   j   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 10:38:47 -04008- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>n/ Subject: Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue? , Message-ID: <3CD93869.674DA3D9@videotron.ca>   Fred Kleinsorge wrote:M > By the time we move past the porting and early adopter phase, I expect thatsE > performance will be reasonable on IA64, and that HP will be sellingr > competetive IA64 servers.d    D Who else has committed so deeply to IA64. If you consider the 2 mainI competitors to be IBM and Sun, then neither has committed to IA64 for anys serious stuff.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 15:34:21 GMT2* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>/ Subject: Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?oB Message-ID: <1AbC8.131827$Lj.10293787@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  : "Didier Morandi" <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr> wrote in message! news:3CD9179A.841B454A@Free.fr...a > JF Mezei wrote:i > >a > > Where is the issue ? > >nL > > The issue is that Compaq lied to customers when it said that Alpha could not J > > keep up with IA64 and prematurely killed Alpha, knowing full well that IA64D > > was technologically very inferior and very behind the ramping up compared totK > > Alpha which is at a stage in its life where it is well past ensuring itf canc > > divide properly. >o$ > This is not relevant to customers.  J Knowing that your vendor lies (blatantly) to you is not relevant?  Perhaps not to you.-  .  What they want is their applications running,6 > They are, to me, not that interested in performance.  E Or perhaps you just didn't understand the statement you responded to.s   >oJ > > In lying to customers, Compaq lost their trust. And now we see through thetI > > propaganda they try to produce to portray IA64 as "industry standard"v when0 > > even dead, alpha still sells more than IA64. >>5 > You cannot say that as VMS/ia64 does not exist yet..  D Wrong.  It's a statement about the current situation, and it's true.   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 15:50:13 GMT-* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>/ Subject: Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?dA Message-ID: <VObC8.118300$N8.9269290@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>n  @ "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote in message3 news:fD9C8.11$Jh6.461956@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net...t   ...i  H > By the time we move past the porting and early adopter phase, I expect thatE > performance will be reasonable on IA64, and that HP will be sellingo > competetive IA64 servers.>  J As always, Fred's faith in Itanic is touching but flies in the face of allI available evidence.  In the time-frame he notes above (2004, from the VMS L port schedule details already released), Itanic will still be running on theK pretty much vanilla McKinley core, just with one or two process shrinks and J added cache.  No fast/high-bandwidth memory access like EV7 (2002), HammerI (2002), and even UltraSPARC III (2001), no fast, scalable multi-processornI connections like POWER4 (2001), EV7 (2002), and Hammer (2002).  So Itanic I won't be performance-competitive with much of anyone (save possibly Sun), D and will be *both* higher-priced *and* lower-performing than Hammer.  F So while Itanic performance in 2004 might qualify as 'reasonable' whenG compared with VMS performance *today*, it won't be competitive with VMSdF performance on Alpha in 2004, nor with the 2004 performance offered byJ POWERx, Hammer, or even (on the low end) IA32 (whether from Intel or AMD).K Fred's definition of 'competitive' must be quite different from the one I'mC familiar with.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 19:03:52 +0200Y- From: Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr>i/ Subject: Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?o' Message-ID: <3CD95A77.EA29A20A@Free.fr>    JF Mezei wrote:c > P > When you invest the kind of money that HP wants for VMS systems (this big high> > performance systems)), you want a vendor that you can trust.  L No. You want a vendor who writes down a commitment on the life period of theO product in years, so that you can answer the following question: "when should It: worry about migrating from VMS to another HW/SW platform".  ; Remember the results of the survey I posted two weeks ago:    N among 100 French VMS decidors, 60% have already migrated to HP/SUN or IBM, 30%M are working on this migraton and the rest does not know what to do. These 10%5M are the ones who are currently wondering "when should I worry about migrating M from VMS to another HW/SW platform?" Their problem is not trust, it is years.   < I expect these 10% to attend DECUS Europe in Lyon next week.   D. --  2   ------------------------------------------------2 MORANDI Consultants  http://Didier.Morandi.Free.fr0   19 chemin de la Butte, 31400 Toulouse, France.2 Tel.: +33 (0)6 7983 6418 - Fax: +33 (0)5 6154 19282 OpenVMS, APPLE, Computer Security, Migration plans2 --------------------------------------------------   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 19:05:49 +0200o- From: Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr>d/ Subject: Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?n' Message-ID: <3CD95AED.D79A4147@Free.fr>   N I was not clear. The problem is not to migrate to Itanium during the life timeJ of VMS/Alpha, it is to migrate OR NOT to Itanium when the Alpha SUPPORT is phased out by HP.    david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:  >  ../..'K > There is absolutely no incentive for any VMS customers to move from AlphaeI > to IA64 until IA64 performance exceeds that of Alpha. There are massive0M > disincentives ie the cost of recompiling testing (and in some cases gettinga$ > certification) for their products.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 19:13:52 +0200e- From: Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr>a/ Subject: Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?o' Message-ID: <3CD95CD0.3D7ED5BD@Free.fr>a   Bill Todd wrote: > L > Knowing that your vendor lies (blatantly) to you is not relevant?  Perhaps
 > not to you.   M As a Customer, I would care on the product (Intel/VMS Eng) not on the vendor. N Where is their added value? The chip is made by Intel and VMS is still (thanksP God) made by DEC Engineering. And I do trust Intel and VMS Eng. As a Customer, II do not care if HP is honest or not. I know that DEC was, we all know that.M former-CPQ was not, what the heck about HP? And in any case, the VMS/ia64 box 8 will be (I *hope*) manufactured by former DECOMPAQ guys.  2 >>>  What they want is their applications running,7 >> They are, to me, not that interested in performance.cG > Or perhaps you just didn't understand the statement you responded to.a   Maybe (French mother tongue :-)n  7 >> You cannot say that as VMS/ia64 does not exist yet. aF > Wrong.  It's a statement about the current situation, and it's true.  O No. The original post is saying that VMS/ia64 is less sold that VMS/Alpha. This K statement is wrong as there is no such product VMS/ia64 today (well, afaik)    D.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 19:15:36 +0200C- From: Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr>e/ Subject: Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue? ' Message-ID: <3CD95D37.4FEEB340@Free.fr>m   Fred Kleinsorge wrote: > L > Bliss migration should be as simple as a recompile in most cases.  I wouldF > expect to see the IA64 versions shipped in the same way it is today. >   5 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com>e4 Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co.   ****************  
 I like it :-)u   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 17:36:07 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk/ Subject: Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?c+ Message-ID: <abbnm7$q98$1@aquila.mdx.ac.uk>s  W In article <3CD95AED.D79A4147@Free.fr>, Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr> writes:gO >I was not clear. The problem is not to migrate to Itanium during the life timetK >of VMS/Alpha, it is to migrate OR NOT to Itanium when the Alpha SUPPORT is  >phased out by HP. - >-   Then it depends :-  N 1) Has the support been dropped before IA64 performance is better than Alpha ?#    ie Is HPQ forcing users to move.sK 2) Is IA64 seen as a longterm platform ? ie Has Intel in reality if not in  D    press statements dropped IA64 and is just providing chips to HPQ.C 3) Is IA64 price/performance competitive with POWER 4, Hammer etc ?wL 4) How has HPQ treated VMS ? Is it growing or has it been allowed to decline    further ?F 5) Are products still being written or ported to VMS or has the number+    of applications declined still further ?m    H If the answers to these questions are not correct then it doesn't matterG what porting tools are available. Customers will move to other vendors.s    
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University          >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: >> M >.../..iL >> There is absolutely no incentive for any VMS customers to move from AlphaJ >> to IA64 until IA64 performance exceeds that of Alpha. There are massiveN >> disincentives ie the cost of recompiling testing (and in some cases getting% >> certification) for their products.r   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 10:55:59 +0200 - From: Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr>m@ Subject: Re: An Invitation from CUO-EMEA President Terje Bruvoll' Message-ID: <3CD8E820.F9F46E7C@Free.fr>.   Bill Todd wrote: > L > Right.  Just as you could have found out 'the truth about the future' from& > such people in early June last year.     :-)i   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 09:06:10 -0700 - From: jodonnell@hrblock.com (Jason O'Donnell)41 Subject: Re: ASTs and privs. Was: $QIO and SYSPRVi= Message-ID: <9059bf6b.0205080806.72c24545@posting.google.com>s  K >   This was true prior to per-thread security; before OpenVMS Alpha V7.2. -G >   With per-thread security, threads have a security context -- and asiH >   ASTs can be delivered to threads, things can really get interesting.  C I have studied the newer internals with multiple KTBs available per,? process and per-thread security.  I was just keeping it simple.-  G >   As I have been repeatedly (harping?) commenting on, privileges are 0H >   likely not needed here given that subsystem identifiers are a better! >   and more targeted solution.  -  9 100% in agreement.  Rights Identifiers are the way to go.a   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 11:41:17 -0500a- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)e1 Subject: Re: ASTs and privs. Was: $QIO and SYSPRVo3 Message-ID: <$N+8THi4Jkpa@eisner.encompasserve.org>   m In article <9059bf6b.0205080806.72c24545@posting.google.com>, jodonnell@hrblock.com (Jason O'Donnell) writes: L >>   This was true prior to per-thread security; before OpenVMS Alpha V7.2. H >>   With per-thread security, threads have a security context -- and asI >>   ASTs can be delivered to threads, things can really get interesting.d > E > I have studied the newer internals with multiple KTBs available perhA > process and per-thread security.  I was just keeping it simple.a > H >>   As I have been repeatedly (harping?) commenting on, privileges are I >>   likely not needed here given that subsystem identifiers are a bettere" >>   and more targeted solution.   > ; > 100% in agreement.  Rights Identifiers are the way to go.g  B But don't stop there, go all the way to protected subsystems, as IA said once and Steve Hoffman has said N times, all in this thread."   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 10:55:25 -0400p- From: "Richard D. Piccard" <piccard@ohio.edu>>, Subject: Re: Backup fails...  advice sought!( Message-ID: <3CD93C57.BC503A09@ohio.edu>   Your friend here is    $ SHOW LOGICAL/FULL  II_SYSTEM   for example:   $ sh log www_root1/fulleW    "WWW_ROOT1" [super] = "DQA0:[HTTP_SERVER.]" [concealed,terminal] (LNM$PROCESS_TABLE)o  H For the kind of thing you are doing, where the logical name servers as aF device, the translation must either be a device or the terminal period% inside the square bracket is needed. b   								RDPa    
 Mat wrote: >  > Hello! > A > I've created a backup job by copying an existing .COM file from ? > another server in my cluster and editing it to suit my needs.e! > However, it keeps falling over!  > H > I've isolated the error in the .COM file, but I am not sure how to fixD > it.  I don't have all that much VMS knowledge, so anything you can > contribute would be welcome! > : > Here is an excerpt from my backup log showing the error: >  > "%DCL-E-OPENIN, error openingr5 > II_SYSTEM:[INGRES.UTILITY]IIRMSSYMDEF.COM; as inputeC > -RMS-F-DEV, error in device name or inappropriate device type for4 > operationO' >   SYSTEM       job terminated at...."h > F > I believe that the problem is with the ii_system logical, that it isG > either not defined or defined incorrectly.  How could I check to makei > sure?s > 	 > Thanks,  > 	 > Matthewl   -- lB ==================================================================B Dick Piccard                           Academic Technology ManagerB piccard@ohio.edu                                 Computer ServicesB http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~piccard/                Ohio University   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 08:52:24 -0400t2 From: Atlant Schmidt <atlantnospam@mindspring.com>) Subject: Bob Palmer and the demise of DECT. Message-ID: <3CD91F88.E7F08549@mindspring.com>  C   I  little while ago, a web search I was doing happened across theeD   paper "Organizational Leadership and Shame" and I read the sectionF  about the decline and fall of Digital Equipment Corporation. The full   paper is at:  D     http://www.sba.oakland.edu/ispso/html/2000Symposium/Hunt2000.htm  A   I wrote to the author with the comments I've included below. HeS repliedsD   telling me that he is actually about to update the paper and would welcomer6   further anecdotes. I knew right where to turn... :-)  G   If you'd like to comment to the author (adding stories or just saying H   "That Schmidt guy is clearly full of it!"), please reply here but also  +   copy the author (as listed in the paper).   =                                                        Atlantd  4  -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-    James:-  G   I just happened upon your paper "Organizational Leadership and Shame"d;   and read the section about Digital Equipment Corporation.t  E   I was amused by your comments about Bob Palmer and his relationshipt   with the employees:a  >     ..."His relationship with employees was marked by distance;     and the apparent need to differentiate himself from hisV     employees". ...,    ?   "GQ Bob" was *NEVER* one of us, and he never wanted to be ones=   of us. (I say this as someone who worked at Digital for 24+r=   years before finally giving up). Let me tell you a triad ofw   interlocking stories:v  ?     I worked for a number of years in "The Mill", the ancestral3@     home of Digital Equipment Corporation. Each day, I'd walk up@     the hill from the lower Thompson Street parking lot and intoE     the Thompson Street lobby, past the very-near-to-the-door visitor-C     parking area ("Blue Pass Required!"). Each day, I'd see a whitenC     Porsche 911 parked in visitor parking. After months of this, my E     interest had been piqued, so I asked Security who was the visitorc@     that parked their Porsche here day after day. "Oh, that's no@     visitor; that's Bob Palmer's car. He's VP of manufacturing."@     "Isn't that *VISITORS ONLY* parking?" I asked?" I just got aA     shrug back. So I figured out where his office was in the Millr@     and took a walk down there. "Palatial" is the word that cameA     to my mind; with huge office areas and practically no people.iD     I formed my opinion of Bob Palmer that day, and it never changed+     the rest of the years I was at Digital.   A     Bob's mini-palace was in sharp contrast to Ken Olsen's officeeG     area. While nicely appointed, it wasn't much different in character E     than any of the other areas of the Mill; nicer than some, rattierrF     than others (Ken was, after all, the original Digital "Mill Rat").D     And yes, Ken had a private parking space near his office. It wasC     our *ONE* officially-designated space in the whole company. But-D     it was okay -- he built the company; he deserved it. And it gaveA     us a way to keep tabs on him -- If the brown Pinto was parkedt@     there, he was in. (Ken was on the Board of Ford at the time.?     They wanted to give him a fancy Lincoln, but he chose a careA     more in keeping with the majority of Ford's customers. Later,l%     the Pinto gave way to an Escort.)l  D     The Mill was great space. Centraly located in beautiful downtownA     Maynard, it had plenty of amenities: easy lunchtime access to ?     lots of shops and restaurants, plenty of light, and fallingf@     lanolin in the summer (although that decreased year by year,D     replaced by the "Black Beauty" sandblasting grit used to re-furbE     area after area of the Mill). The Mill was a great place to work,8A     and Ken used to like to brag about how inexpensive it was perFA     square foot. Something must have happened, though, the momentM@     Palmer took over. Palmer moved out to a building called MSO2F     where he built an even more-palatial palace of an office, completeA     with a private entrance for his worshipfulness. And the memos A     started circulating talking about how hideously expensive thehC     Mill space was. (Sure. The mortgage was paid-off years ago. The C     taxes were low. The building had been cost-effective enough for E     a hundred years. But suddenly, it was too expensive.) So out wentaB     the Mill, tossed away with so much of Digital such as our dataD     base division, our storage division, our semiconductor division,B     etc. The Mill's clock tower was, after all, only our corporateB     symbol. But GQ Bob hated it, along with any other signs of the     peasants, so it had to go.    E   Palmer *NEVER* understood the value contained in DEC. You're right:d<   It had the *WORLD'S FASTEST MICROPROCESSOR* for many yearsF   running. It had VMS, which along with IBM's MVS was certainly one ofB   the world's top two server operating systems. It had a wonderful=   version of Unix. And Palmer couldn't succeed with all these B   attributes and, in fact, degraded them and eventually threw themB   all away for cheap to his Texas buddies at Compaq. He ran Mostek2   into the ground and he did the same for Digital.  7   He was *NEVER* one of us, and was damned proud of it!s  @   I finally threw in the towel in April of 2000 (during Compaq'sA   reign), and came to work for a company that still resembles the B   old, succesful Digital. Started by peers of Ken Olsen, there areB   no palaces here and no fancy headquarters buildings with private>   entrances! Just lots of good people and a CEO that takes the=   elevator with us and goes to sit in a cube the same size as A   everyone's. Oddly enough, there are quite a few ex-Digits, too.     :                                          Atlant G. Schmidt   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 10:18:43 -0400c- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>U- Subject: Re: Bob Palmer and the demise of DECr, Message-ID: <3CD933B6.55F68DCE@videotron.ca>   Atlant Schmidt wrote:. > E >   I  little while ago, a web search I was doing happened across thesF >   paper "Organizational Leadership and Shame" and I read the sectionH >  about the decline and fall of Digital Equipment Corporation. The full >   paper is at: > F >     http://www.sba.oakland.edu/ispso/html/2000Symposium/Hunt2000.htm  1 Thank you very much for your effort and the text.f   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 19:38:45 +0200 - From: Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr>s- Subject: Re: Bob Palmer and the demise of DECr' Message-ID: <3CD962A4.B7251AD3@Free.fr>-   Atlant Schmidt wrote:  > F >     http://www.sba.oakland.edu/ispso/html/2000Symposium/Hunt2000.htm   ../..:P After almost thirty years at the helm of Digital, in the face of large financialL loses in a company used to showing consistent profitability, the Board fired* Olsen and put in his place Robert Palmer. ../..y  O Ken has been fired because he didn't want to "go UNIX" and he also did not wantmM to produce low quality (and less expensive) PCs. His spirit was "We will sellfN Rainbows because they are the best PCs in the world" and this was true but notK enough. The Rainbow has been the Rolls-Royce of the PCs but it was just too O complete and too expensive. This is to me why it failed to market (remember the%M article "There is no more gold at the end of the Rainbow"). The PC350/380 has5K been a second try, but as it was not as good as the Rainbow, it failed too.n3 There may be other reasons but I do not know them. m  H They are Board's friends who have invented than Ken was fired for "large financial loses".    On the parking issue.-  P One day around the 1980' Ken visited the Belgium HQ. He noticed a car park placeG close to the main entrance labelled "Director" (or HQ manager, I do not ? remember). He said "This is not DIGITAL spirit, please remove".,  O I posted this story in an internal DEC forum (formerly HUMAN::DIGITAL for those-L who wish to find the original post). Someone replied to the post saying thatP this was an incorrect answer as KO has a personal car park place. During a visitH to the Mill,  I went to see KO's car park place. I did find an anonymous( delimited area but no label of any sort.   D.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 06:31:43 GMT $ From: mnahkola@aurinko.ntc.nokia.com< Subject: Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix2 Message-ID: <jD3C8.3953$ws6.82089@news2.nokia.com>   david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk wrote:e( cmadams@hiwaay.net (Chris Adams) writes:5 >>Once upon a time,  <david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> said:s  O >>>However even here you might get into bother if you made changes to the Linux-R >>>kernel without getting it approved by Linus Torvalds and his closest associatesE >>>and persisted in selling it (or freely distributed it) as Linux.  -  H >>That's is exactly what Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, Caldera, etc. do: makeH >>modifications to the kernel (and other stuff) and sell it, without anyH >>approval by Linus or associates.  That is what the GNU GPL permits (as >>long as source is provided).  H > Are you sure I thought Redhat , Suse etc added their own installationsN > routines, public domain applications etc but I thought the Kernel was prettyO > strictly controlled. Linus doesn't want Linux to split into umpteem thousandsh! > of incompatible Linux variants.s  E Well ... looked at Red Hat distros lately (as in, 7.*)? I wouldn't beg* surprised if the others were just as bad.   E Why, even I've made my own kernels in the sense of getting a mainline @ kernel and adding stuff from various sources... (well, until theC appropriate stuff got backported to mainline 2.2 from 2.3 and 2.4).a  E And besides, for all practical purposes there are already a number ofrB slightly incompatible stable Linuxes - 1.2, 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 and thenH multiply with the number of CPU architectures... (in this room currentlyF running on 3 incompatible architectures, and a fourth would be easy to add.)-     -- -' Mikko Nahkola <mikko.nahkola@nokia.com>C/ My ideas, not my employer's. No warranty. YMMV.  #include <disclaimer.h>4   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 06:45:44 GMTK$ From: mnahkola@aurinko.ntc.nokia.com< Subject: Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix2 Message-ID: <sQ3C8.3959$ws6.82089@news2.nokia.com>  F In article <mG9Vjvksy6eO@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Bob Koehler wrote:( peter@abbnm.com (Peter da Silva) writes:1 >> Bob Koehler <koehler@encompasserve.org> wrote:-  I >>>    Since when?  I've never seen a UNIX that didn't have some vendor's2L >>>    proprietary stamp on it, was limitted to thier hardware, and required+ >>>    the use of thier system admin tools.t  M >> I guess you've never seen Xenix, SCO UNIX, Solaris, ESIX, Unixware, or anygM >> other commercial UNIX that runs on commodity PCs. Some of these are fairlymM >> dependent on custom admin suites, yes, but most are quite happy to let you E >> manage them with generic plain text file and common command lines.b  H >    No, I haven't.  I do know they exist, except that I thought Solaris6 >    only ran on some PCs, no generic commodity types.  H There may be some of that with the others too - but, to my knowledge allF of the components are fairly common as such - it's just that there's aF gadzillion of different components available for PCs and anything thatF requires a specific model from _a_ vendor gets a bit difficult - whichG isn't the case on the proprietary hardware, either _the_ vendor has ones	 or not...t  C >    But the discussion was on "proprietary".  If you're suggestinghC >    Solaris isn't proprietary to Sun then you're lost in the hype.l  > Well, er, there was the "and" word in the original statement -H that's just one of the three conditions. But for some reason many peopleB seem to understand "and" in normal speech to mean what we know as  "or" (||) in computers...t  C >    Even my kid's Linux is available only from one vendor, runs on E >    only certain hardware, and can be managed only via that vendor'sgF >    choice of admin tools.  If he had to change to another Linux he'd2 >    have to learn his admin stuff all over again.  = Now that is unusual but not unheard of. What vendor and what n> hardware? Debian/hppa perhaps? (yes, AFAICT that would fit the% description... as would some others.)r  F And note that this is often correctly perceived as the biggest problemE for Linux at the moment. Oh well... the differences are still smaller-< than between different proprietary UNIXes (and lookalikes).      -- o' Mikko Nahkola <mikko.nahkola@nokia.com>j/ My ideas, not my employer's. No warranty. YMMV.e #include <disclaimer.h>8   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 07:40:35 -0500t- From: koehler@encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) < Subject: Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix3 Message-ID: <LFcvM8aLHkw+@eisner.encompasserve.org>s  a In article <20020507160322.1bbf5726.hoendech@ecc.lu>, Stefaan A Eeckels <hoendech@ecc.lu> writes:  > ; > Nonsense. He could have chosen to ignore the custom tools < > and edit the configuration files. That's exactly the point= > with an open system like Unix: you can get it from a numberd= > of vendors, and the core technology is the same. Hence, the07 > disappearance of a vendor (or his desire to bleed you = > financially) isn't an insurmountable problem. The fact that04 > there are minor differences is wholly irrelevant.  >   G    Some Linux use BSD-style text configuration files that can be editediF    by hand.  Other's seem to use SVID-style binary configuration files(    that can't readily be edited by hand.  G    And nothing in the typical Linux distribution points out which toolsbD    are in common with other vendor's Linux, so the kid has no way to    know which tools to choose.  F    How minor the differences are depend on what work you're doing.  At@    the end user level all UNIX are pretty much the same.  At theD    programmer level real differences start to show up.  To the adminG    every UNIX is dramaticaly different.  This last issue drives up costiC    as the manpower needed to admin all those different UNIX becomesf@    significant over any one-vendor solution, whethe a UNIX based    solution or something else.  E    And I still insist that an open system is one I can see inside.  IeB    can affort a source listing for VMS.  I can generally get LinuxC    source off the net, but I still don't know anyone who can afford 7    a Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, ... proprietary UNIX license.c   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 13:04:32 GMTg& From: peter@abbnm.com (Peter da Silva)< Subject: Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix- Message-ID: <abb7p0$54a@web.eng.baileynm.com>T  2 In article <sQ3C8.3959$ws6.82089@news2.nokia.com>,!  <mikko.nahkola@nokia.com> wrote:iJ > There may be some of that with the others too - but, to my knowledge allH > of the components are fairly common as such - it's just that there's aH > gadzillion of different components available for PCs and anything thatH > requires a specific model from _a_ vendor gets a bit difficult - whichI > isn't the case on the proprietary hardware, either _the_ vendor has one  > or not...   N And in some cases UNIX can use devices that current versions of Windows don't.  I I have a whole stack of old Sun-style optical mice for the PC that aren'toL supported under anything later than Windows 3.1, but work fine with FreeBSD,H and I've got some older Matrox cards that I have been unable to use withH Windows 2000 (they turn fonts slowly but surely into gibberish). There'sI also a whole bunch of network cards that are only supported by Novell and  free UNIXes any more.v  H There's no such thing as an operating system that will automagically run# on every random PC you throw it at.o   -- hO I've seen things you people can't imagine. Chimneysweeps on fire over the roofs=O of London. I've watched kite-strings glitter in the sun at Hyde Park Gate.  All L these things will be lost in time, like chalk-paintings in the rain.   `-_-'K Time for your nap.  | Peter da Silva | Har du kramat din varg, idag?    'U`O   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 14:25:03 GMTa# From: damercer@mmm.com (Dan Mercer)S< Subject: Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix) Message-ID: <abbcfv$73c$1@magnum.mmm.com>7  5 In article <20020508160416.4d076561.hoendech@ecc.lu>,a+ Stefaan A Eeckels <hoendech@ecc.lu> writes:  > On 8 May 2002 07:40:35 -05000 > koehler@encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote: > J >> In article <20020507160322.1bbf5726.hoendech@ecc.lu>, Stefaan A Eeckels >> <hoendech@ecc.lu> writes: >> > y> >> > Nonsense. He could have chosen to ignore the custom tools? >> > and edit the configuration files. That's exactly the pointu@ >> > with an open system like Unix: you can get it from a number@ >> > of vendors, and the core technology is the same. Hence, the: >> > disappearance of a vendor (or his desire to bleed you@ >> > financially) isn't an insurmountable problem. The fact that7 >> > there are minor differences is wholly irrelevant.   >> >   >>  J >>    Some Linux use BSD-style text configuration files that can be editedI >>    by hand.  Other's seem to use SVID-style binary configuration filesn+ >>    that can't readily be edited by hand.t > = > There are no binary configuration files in System V derivedb > systems. t  A Although this is largely true,  it is not completely true.  While F the BSD printing system (LPR) is entirely based on ASCII config files,G regrettably the SysV system (LPD) is not.  This makes it very difficult 0 to work with or to duplicate to a mirror server.  	 <DELETIA>  --  
 Dan Mercer damercer@mmm.com  h    P Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 16:04:16 +0200) From: Stefaan A Eeckels <hoendech@ecc.lu>i< Subject: Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix5 Message-ID: <20020508160416.4d076561.hoendech@ecc.lu>    On 8 May 2002 07:40:35 -0500. koehler@encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote:  I > In article <20020507160322.1bbf5726.hoendech@ecc.lu>, Stefaan A Eeckelsa > <hoendech@ecc.lu> writes:r > > = > > Nonsense. He could have chosen to ignore the custom toolst> > > and edit the configuration files. That's exactly the point? > > with an open system like Unix: you can get it from a numbere? > > of vendors, and the core technology is the same. Hence, the?9 > > disappearance of a vendor (or his desire to bleed youw? > > financially) isn't an insurmountable problem. The fact that 6 > > there are minor differences is wholly irrelevant.  > >  > I >    Some Linux use BSD-style text configuration files that can be editedhH >    by hand.  Other's seem to use SVID-style binary configuration files* >    that can't readily be edited by hand.  ; There are no binary configuration files in System V derivedt< systems. Solaris is a good example of this - it doesn't have= a GUI configuration utility like SAM (admintool can be safely ; discounted). Everything that can and needs to be configuredn' is done through editable files in /etc:a  - /etc/system: OS and kernel modules parameterss: /etc/inittab: configuration of the mother of all processes$ /etc/inetd.conf: networking services0 /etc/config.d and /etc/rc?.d: start/stop scripts /etc/vfstab: mountable devices% /etc/auto*: automounter configurationo etc. F  2 There are some networking configuration tools that8 act directly on the kernel (ifconfig, route, plumb etc),8 but they are driven through editable configuration files  3 Once you are aware of the main configuration files,e4 getting any Unix system up and running is relatively3 easy. It also helps one's understanding of what the  GUI configurators do.   I >    And nothing in the typical Linux distribution points out which toolshF >    are in common with other vendor's Linux, so the kid has no way to  >    know which tools to choose.  4 Linux is enough like Unix that a book on Unix system6 administration will be an excellent foundation for any3 motivated person wanting to understand how Linux isa configured.t  : Take SuSE's YaST, for example, which is a tool a bit like 9 SMIT or SAM. It's driven by a configuration file that youa9 can read to understand what commands YaST (the studlycapsa; are theirs) invokes, and what principal configuration filesl< it modifies. The knowledge about primary configuration files6 (e.g. "man inittab") is usable on any version of Unix.   H >    How minor the differences are depend on what work you're doing.  At; >    the end user level all UNIX are pretty much the same. n  < To the end user, the OS doesn't matter. I've seen people who; don't see the difference between Word and StarOffice Writeru4 ("Hey, that's a cute version of Word you're using").  @ >    At the programmer level real differences start to show up.   8 I write portable programs for a living, and I can assure5 you that 95% of the code is identical between all then8 platforms - if you write code with some attention to the7 published standards (such as POSIX), it's even higher. o  7 >    To the admin every UNIX is dramaticaly different. w  ; Not in my experience. Granted, they are different, and SMITi? and SAM look different - but frankly, there are as many, if not = more, differences between the various incarnations of WindowsrB (from the same vendor) as between the various Unixen when it comes to configuration.   # >    This last issue drives up costeE >    as the manpower needed to admin all those different UNIX becomesiB >    significant over any one-vendor solution, whethe a UNIX based  >    solution or something else.  < Granted - it's easier to admin a HP-UX only site, but addingA another Unix to the mix isn't nearly as difficult as adding, say,aA Windows. All Unixen understand NIS, NFS, ssh, etc. At the office, > I have HP-UX, AIX, Solaris, and Linux. On all these, I get the> same home directory, use the same commands, and build software@ from the same makefiles. The basic infrastructure is essentially? unchanged since 1991 (when we started). There are more systems,8= and its more diverse, but fundamentally, the network conceptsj are still the same. B With Windows, I've migrated from no network (3.0), to beta-testingB the MS TCP/IP stack (3.1) with Workgroup style networking, NT 4.0 D PDC/BDC/WINS style domains (thank God for Samba, which saved me fromE having to dedicate PCs to being PDCs or BDCs), and now Win2K Advancedg@ Directory - but I'll need to change that when we'll go on to XP,: because AD version 2 is not compatible with AD version 1. C And let me tell you that each and everyone of the Windows versions -B I've used has a different set of screens to configure the network.  G >    And I still insist that an open system is one I can see inside.  IhD >    can affort a source listing for VMS.  I can generally get LinuxE >    source off the net, but I still don't know anyone who can affordp9 >    a Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, ... proprietary UNIX license.t  C I paid $75 for a Solaris 8 Foundation license; I ordered it on-lineu
 from Sun.   ? Obviously, there are vendor-only extensions to the Unix systemspA from the different vendors, but the fact remains that Unix is thet> only OS that you can buy from several vendors, and the only OSB that'll allow you to change vendors in case of problems. You can't% do that with Windows, or VMS, or RTE.    -- a Stefaana -- eJ Microsoft treats IT managers the way Proctor & Gamble treats nine-year-oldH prospective consumers: lots of noise, bright colors, and jumping around.= Other software vendors just wish they could be so successful.f. 				         -- Cameron Laird in comp.lang.tcl   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 08:56:27 -05004 From: "Lucas, Edward A (SAIC)" <Edward.Lucas@bp.com> Subject: Create a DB.h? Message-ID: <EF1DC894691AD5118AF000508BB85FDE034CC5E0@AMCLVX11>    Ok,p  J My VAX 6620 is a mailbox server the main purpose of the VAX is to pull and
 get files.E I need to record activity on the mailbox system to charge back to all,
 departments. eL I  would like create a DB with a primary key = mailbox name, secondary key = number of files.K I then would like to run command procedures (search's...) against the DB toa$ provide information for the Business  & My whole problem is getting started.  K I guess I would use the FDL editor, but not having much knowledge if any ise! putting me behind the eight ball.nK I want the file to be a RMS indexed files.  Since I have two keys, I do not-' have to sort the file during a convert.0> But the my whole problem is creating the "Master File" (my DB)  J Can someone please provide me information an starting this and or creating
 my main file.i  ' My whole problem has been starting off.   J I have created numerous command procedures, I take care of three VAX's andK three Alpha's. But I have never been a programmer or created a main "mastera file"g Edward A. Lucas   Sr. VAX/VMS System Administrator SAIC Phone:  (216) 525-7492 Email:   Lucaea@bp.com   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 10:08:32 +0200t= From: Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com>a) Subject: Re: CSWS / CSWB / MX Speculationr) Message-ID: <3CD8DD00.D7BA9CE5@gtech.com>l   david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:hk > In article <3CD7BE9F.553FF1BD@gtech.com>, Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com> writes:d" > >david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk wrote:n > >> In article <3CD784B3.6AA08BD0@gtech.com>, Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com> writes:L > >> >  - lack of client compatibility. How many of the "big" mail protocols > >> >    does MX support: > >> >       - Exchange) > >> >       - Notes > >> >       - GroupWise > >> >       - POP3e > >> >       - IMAP4 > >> >    ?  > >>P > >> I don't know about MX but replace it with PMDF and you have support for allR > >> those plus many others. PMDF can either talk to Exchange, Notes and Groupwise% > >> over it's standard SMTP channelsr > >  > >????  > >r? > >SMTP is a standard for sending email not for reading email !n > >nG > >And "talk to other mail servers" and "act as server for clients" arey > >two very different things.h > >u > N > MX and PMDF are both mail servers not mail clients. Hence I assumed when youL > mentioned MX support for these protocols you were talking about the systemH > being able to act as a central mail hub passing mail to these systems.  A The discussion is abouther whether there are a big market for VMS: as email-servers.l  A My point is that there are not, because the mail servers lacks in>' client-support/mail-reading capability.p   This does not work:e  -                            |--PC with Outlook: --firewall--VMS MX server--|-                            |--PC with Outlook'  ; [note Outlook is the full MS Office version not the Expresso( version shipping with Internet Explorer]   This will work:u  F                                                     |--PC with Outlook5 --firewall--VMS MX server--Windows Exchange server--|nF                                                     |--PC with Outlook      But most companies would prefer:  7                                      |--PC with Outlookn& --firewall--Windows Exchange server--|7                                      |--PC with Outlookw   for obvious cost reasons.o  < That is why I say it would not be a huge commercial success.  < I like PMDF and in my opinion a VMS PMDF server and IMAP4 as9 standard for email reading protocol is the best solution.c  < But there are a couple of hundred millions of Office package users that thinks otherwise.  P > Note. The only "BIG" mail protocols I am aware of are SMTP, IMAP, POP and X400M > - Exchange, Lotus Notes and Groupwise also have their own "LITTLE" internalt > proprietary protocols.  8 I would not call Exchange a little protocol when we talk commercial possibilities.h  . > Basically I'm not sure what you really want.  2 I do not really want anything. I am just trying to! explain the sad facts of reality.t   MicroSoft is bloody smart:<   - you want our calendar ? then you need our email client !@   - you want our email client ? then you need our email server !B   - you want our email server ? then you need our server operating system !   Arne   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 05:44 CDT' From: carl@gerg.tamu.edu (Carl Perkins)v) Subject: Re: CSWS / CSWB / MX Speculation , Message-ID: <8MAY200205443988@gerg.tamu.edu>  A Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com> writes...wB }The discussion is abouther whether there are a big market for VMS }as email-servers. } B }My point is that there are not, because the mail servers lacks in( }client-support/mail-reading capability. }  }This does not work: } . }                           |--PC with Outlook }--firewall--VMS MX server--|j. }                           |--PC with Outlook  6 Yes it does. Just use POP3 or IMAP4, both of which are" available with Outlook and on VMS.   --- Carl   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 11:50:06 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk) Subject: Re: CSWS / CSWB / MX Speculations+ Message-ID: <abb3de$jpe$1@aquila.mdx.ac.uk>e  i In article <3CD8DD00.D7BA9CE5@gtech.com>, Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com> writes:c  >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:l >> In article <3CD7BE9F.553FF1BD@gtech.com>, Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com> writes:# >> >david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk wrote:tB >The discussion is abouther whether there are a big market for VMS >as email-servers. >lB >My point is that there are not, because the mail servers lacks in( >client-support/mail-reading capability. >  >This does not work: > . >                           |--PC with Outlook >--firewall--VMS MX server--|S. >                           |--PC with Outlook > < >[note Outlook is the full MS Office version not the Express) >version shipping with Internet Explorer]  >e >This will work: > G >                                                    |--PC with Outlook 6 >--firewall--VMS MX server--Windows Exchange server--|G >                                                    |--PC with Outlook. >t >e! >But most companies would prefer:c >s8 >                                     |--PC with Outlook' >--firewall--Windows Exchange server--|c8 >                                     |--PC with Outlook >U >for obvious cost reasons. >e  8 Most large companies using Exchange will usually have :-    8                                   - Hundreds of Exchange,                                  |  Servers "  --firewall-- Central Mailhub  --|I                                  |                    |-- PC with Outlookc8                                   - Exchange servers -| I                                                       |-- PC with OutlookM7                                                       |CN                                                       |-- Other platforms and F                                                       |   mail clients7                                                       |tE                                                       |-- Web Clients    Or something similar.   A In most cases the Central mailhub will NOT be an Exchange server.l    = >That is why I say it would not be a huge commercial success._ >n= >I like PMDF and in my opinion a VMS PMDF server and IMAP4 asi: >standard for email reading protocol is the best solution. >n= >But there are a couple of hundred millions of Office packagei >users that thinks otherwise.s >kQ >> Note. The only "BIG" mail protocols I am aware of are SMTP, IMAP, POP and X400tN >> - Exchange, Lotus Notes and Groupwise also have their own "LITTLE" internal >> proprietary protocols.b >t9 >I would not call Exchange a little protocol when we talk  >commercial possibilities. >a  + Exchange is a product it is not a Protocol.p  K Lotus Notes and Groupwise do have their own proprietary internal protocols.rO What protocol are you actually talking about with Exchange ? I believe Exchange L uses either X400 or SMTP protocols internally (ie between groups of ExchangeL servers). I don't know what protocols Outlook as opposed to Outlook express 6 uses to access Exchange. Are they published anywhere ?  M There is also of course MAPI but that is an Application Programming Interface L not a Mail Protocol. I haven't heard of it recently but there was MAPI code F to directly access the VMS mailstore available from Compaq at onetime.      / >> Basically I'm not sure what you really want.g >D3 >I do not really want anything. I am just trying to5" >explain the sad facts of reality. >t >MicroSoft is bloody smart:.= >  - you want our calendar ? then you need our email client !sA >  - you want our email client ? then you need our email server !bC >  - you want our email server ? then you need our server operatinge	 >system !  >> >Arnes    L If what you are saying here were the truth then all mail vendors should give( up. Everybody would be running Exchange.  E Not everybody has gone down the proprietary Exchange, Lotus Notes or rK Groupwise route. Many companies prefer real open standards based solutions.eJ Many companies prefer secure, scalable, managable , reliable mail systems.  J In many ways these monolithic proprietary products have had their day. TheL future is open standards (IMAP, POP) and web access. Even Microsoft has seenN this and has opened up Exchange to IMAP, POP and web access. I believe you can> now even access Exchange's calendar functionality via the web.  
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 08:03:44 -0400 1 From: Michael Austin <maustin@firstdbasource.com>n) Subject: Re: CSWS / CSWB / MX Speculations2 Message-ID: <3CD9141F.640D371E@firstdbasource.com>   Arne Vajhj wrote: > ! > david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: m > > In article <3CD7BE9F.553FF1BD@gtech.com>, Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com> writes:o$ > > >david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk wrote:p > > >> In article <3CD784B3.6AA08BD0@gtech.com>, Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com> writes:N > > >> >  - lack of client compatibility. How many of the "big" mail protocols > > >> >    does MX support: > > >> >       - Exchangee > > >> >       - Notes > > >> >       - GroupWise > > >> >       - POP3b > > >> >       - IMAP4
 > > >> >    ?l > > >>R > > >> I don't know about MX but replace it with PMDF and you have support for allT > > >> those plus many others. PMDF can either talk to Exchange, Notes and Groupwise' > > >> over it's standard SMTP channelsr > > >m	 > > >????f > > >sA > > >SMTP is a standard for sending email not for reading email !c > > >vI > > >And "talk to other mail servers" and "act as server for clients" aree > > >two very different things.r > > >i > >iP > > MX and PMDF are both mail servers not mail clients. Hence I assumed when youN > > mentioned MX support for these protocols you were talking about the systemJ > > being able to act as a central mail hub passing mail to these systems. > C > The discussion is abouther whether there are a big market for VMSS > as email-servers.p > C > My point is that there are not, because the mail servers lacks int) > client-support/mail-reading capability.  >  > This does not work:n > / >                            |--PC with Outlook  > --firewall--VMS MX server--|/ >                            |--PC with Outlooke  B That depends on whether or not you want/need to use an IMAP or POPF server. I have been using TCPIP V5.x with Outlook, OE, and Netscape asE POP clients for some time now. Works great. I have used both VMS MailtG and am toying with the MX product that uses VMS Mail as it's mailstore.o  B What *appears* to be lacking in this space, however is a VMS-basedE Anti-virus that reads through all messages and quarantines or deletesnD the message (inbound as well as outbound). (It may exist, I have not# taken the time to research lately.)g     > = > [note Outlook is the full MS Office version not the Expresst* > version shipping with Internet Explorer] >  > This will work:o > H >                                                     |--PC with Outlook7 > --firewall--VMS MX server--Windows Exchange server--|eH >                                                     |--PC with Outlook >    -- a Regards,  7 Michael Austin            Registered Linux User #261163t7 First DBA Source, Inc.    http://www.firstdbasource.comt Sr. Consultant 704-947-1089 (Office)o 704-236-4377 (Mobile)c   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 13:14:14 GMTd. From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter LANGSTOEGER)) Subject: Re: CSWS / CSWB / MX Speculationn5 Message-ID: <Gw9C8.181198$vc2.2088720@news.chello.at>a  i In article <3CD8DD00.D7BA9CE5@gtech.com>, Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com> writes:tB >The discussion is abouther whether there are a big market for VMS >as email-servers. >WB >My point is that there are not, because the mail servers lacks in( >client-support/mail-reading capability. >r >This does not work: >s. >                           |--PC with Outlook >--firewall--VMS MX server--|9. >                           |--PC with Outlook   Wrong.  F PC with Outlook CAN be used with IMAP4 (and POP3) and then there is NO@ extra software needed on VMS server (but maybe you prefer PMDF).G PC with Outlook Express can be served, too (OE also speaks IMAP4/POP3).n  F PC with Outlook can also be used with MAPI (!) but then there is extraA software needed on the VMS server: Office Server (aka ALL-IN-ONE)rB A1 does include the MAPI protocol (as does/did Open Mail from HP).  < >[note Outlook is the full MS Office version not the Express) >version shipping with Internet Explorer]e   Yes, indeed.  G Only question is, what Outlook Features do you need, what VMS w/ or w/odH Office Server does NOT offer ? Calendar ? Is the calendar and the publicE folder support also in Office-Server ? Is there a Fax-Add-On SoftwarecE for Office-Server ? Is there a Multi-Privacy-Level-Calendar with Sync.C Functions Add-On-Software also available for Office-Server on VMS ?,  7 And this is IMO the biggest problem, the Add-On-Market. K With Mail alone, VMS is the far better (and IMO even cheaper) mail server !l   >This will work: >1G >                                                    |--PC with Outlooku6 >--firewall--VMS MX server--Windows Exchange server--|G >                                                    |--PC with Outlook   D Yes, and that is was most companies with still a VMS mail server do.D Anti-SPAM, Listserver, central SMTP-Mail-Hub (even for communicationD between the internal exchange servers) and maybe even virus checkingF done on VMS; mailboxes and calendar/public-folders on Exchange (2000).  ! >But most companies would prefer:r >n8 >                                     |--PC with Outlook' >--firewall--Windows Exchange server--|n8 >                                     |--PC with Outlook >l >for obvious cost reasons.  A Are they "obvious" ? I don't think so, I see them only as a myth.S, But M$ is very actively spreading this myth.    5 And while we are there: The same people would prefer:   K - Exchange-Server-with-Firewall/Proxy/Webserver/DNSserver/ADS/Virusscanner/r# Databaseserver---|--PC with Outlook                   |#                  |--PC with Outlooke  ) because of the 'obvious' cost reasons ;-)eK I can't understand, why M$ people accept the one-server-for-one-applicationyI behaviour of NT while they are claiming that VMS as mail-server (and many D other apps server) is not cost-effective and should be removed ASAP.    = >That is why I say it would not be a huge commercial success.t  H Yes, but not for technical (or cost) reasons. Only cause of mindshare...J You know, you won't be fired for becoming a M$ only IT-department/company.  = >I like PMDF and in my opinion a VMS PMDF server and IMAP4 asl: >standard for email reading protocol is the best solution.  H Me too. And not only because Office Server/All-In-One will not be portedH to IA64 (what will NSA and the White-House then use as mailservers ?)...  E It is also because of the non WinCE handhelds and the growing numbershC of PC clients with U**X instead of M$ and their mailprograms (whichi might OTOH be Outlook, too)   = >But there are a couple of hundred millions of Office packagey >users that thinks otherwise.=   Yup.K But you know the old statement "Eat shit, billions of flies can't be wrong" * I personally don't want to become a fly...   --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER % Network and OpenVMS system specialist  E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atP A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm looking for (a) Network _and_ VMS Job(s)   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 13:08:06 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk) Subject: Re: CSWS / CSWB / MX Speculation)+ Message-ID: <abb7vm$l7l$1@aquila.mdx.ac.uk>   f In article <3CD9141F.640D371E@firstdbasource.com>, Michael Austin <maustin@firstdbasource.com> writes: >Arne Vajhj wrote:  >> d" >> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:n >> > In article <3CD7BE9F.553FF1BD@gtech.com>, Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com> writes:% >> > >david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk wrote:: >2C >What *appears* to be lacking in this space, however is a VMS-based-F >Anti-virus that reads through all messages and quarantines or deletesE >the message (inbound as well as outbound). (It may exist, I have notl$ >taken the time to research lately.) >e  D There have been two recent discussions on comp.os.vms on this issue.F One on 5th March 2002 subject "Any virus scan software for VMS smtp ?"K and one on 2nd May 2002 subject "Virus Scanners (was URGENT to all info-VAX0 subscribers)".  M Sophos VSWEEP (http://www.sophos.com/products/software/antivirus/savvms.html)o- can be used to scan files on VMS for viruses.aJ This can be used with either PMDF or MX to scan incoming and outgoing mailM messages. The reliance on PMDF and MX is because the mail messages need to beAI split into their individual attachments and Mime decoded before scanning. E PMDF does this through its conversion channel and MX through its SITEh
 interface.F I use PMDF and Sophos VSWEEP for this purpose on our VMS based central	 mailhubs.   L Bob Ceculski also reported that after talking to Sophos they were looking atK porting their MailMonitor software to VMS. This product would work directlytK with the DEC TCPIP services, TCPWARE and MULTINET TCPIP stacks removing the L need to use MX or PMDF. If you want this though talk to Sophos directly theyJ are more likely to port the software if they can see a good market for it.    
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 14:58:42 +0200t= From: Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com>o) Subject: Re: CSWS / CSWB / MX Speculationo) Message-ID: <3CD92102.CA262A41@gtech.com>C   Carl Perkins wrote:aC > Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com> writes...  > }This does not work: > }S0 > }                           |--PC with Outlook > }--firewall--VMS MX server--|w0 > }                           |--PC with Outlook > 8 > Yes it does. Just use POP3 or IMAP4, both of which are$ > available with Outlook and on VMS.  1 Do you claim that MS Office Outlook will functionh/ with full functionality (including calendar and 1 email arrival notification) up against a VMS POP3l server ????a   Arne   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 15:01:49 +0200l= From: Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com>d) Subject: Re: CSWS / CSWB / MX Speculatione) Message-ID: <3CD921BD.18B712F9@gtech.com>n   Michael Austin wrote:e > > This does not work:t > >s1 > >                            |--PC with Outlooki  > > --firewall--VMS MX server--|1 > >                            |--PC with Outlook  > D > That depends on whether or not you want/need to use an IMAP or POPH > server. I have been using TCPIP V5.x with Outlook, OE, and Netscape asG > POP clients for some time now. Works great. I have used both VMS MailoI > and am toying with the MX product that uses VMS Mail as it's mailstore.    I ask again:  1 Do you claim that MS Office Outlook will function / with full functionality (including calendar and 1 email arrival notification) up against a VMS POP3  server ????   1 I have also used Outlook Express as a POP3 cliente0 against VMS. That works fine. But that is a home0 email via ISP solution - not an enterprise email	 solution.-   Arne   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 15:19:22 +0200s= From: Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com>A) Subject: Re: CSWS / CSWB / MX Speculation8) Message-ID: <3CD925D9.9B6CF4CE@gtech.com>    david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:tk > In article <3CD8DD00.D7BA9CE5@gtech.com>, Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com> writes:t" > >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:n > >> In article <3CD7BE9F.553FF1BD@gtech.com>, Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com> writes: > >This will work: > >-I > >                                                    |--PC with Outlook 8 > >--firewall--VMS MX server--Windows Exchange server--|I > >                                                    |--PC with Outlooky > >  > >:# > >But most companies would prefer:m > >.: > >                                     |--PC with Outlook) > >--firewall--Windows Exchange server--|c: > >                                     |--PC with Outlook > >< > >for obvious cost reasons. > : > Most large companies using Exchange will usually have :- > : >                                   - Hundreds of Exchange- >                                  |  Serversk$ >  --firewall-- Central Mailhub  --|K >                                  |                    |-- PC with Outlookt9 >                                   - Exchange servers -|nK >                                                       |-- PC with Outlook 9 >                                                       |vO >                                                       |-- Other platforms and H >                                                       |   mail clients9 >                                                       | G >                                                       |-- Web Clientsv >  > Or something similar.|   True.     But then you also agree with me.  : Small companies go with the only Exchange server. Very big; companies goes with 1 central mailhub (that could very welli) be VMS) and hundreds of Exchange servers.e  ; The sum of that is that MS got a huge market potential. Ando> VMS got a very modest market potential. And the reason is that MS controls the desktop.  ; > >I would not call Exchange a little protocol when we talkx > >commercial possibilities. > - > Exchange is a product it is not a Protocol.u > M > Lotus Notes and Groupwise do have their own proprietary internal protocols. Q > What protocol are you actually talking about with Exchange ? I believe Exchange N > uses either X400 or SMTP protocols internally (ie between groups of ExchangeM > servers). I don't know what protocols Outlook as opposed to Outlook express 8 > uses to access Exchange. Are they published anywhere ?  6 I do not know what Outlook uses to cummunicate with an4 Exchange server. I am not even sure it uses the same3 protocol in online and offline mode. SMTP is only ae8 protocol for sending email not get reading email. I have2 never worked with X.400, so I do not know anything	 about it.s  9 When Outlook is in online mode the emails are pushed fromM6 the server to client (maybe simulated via periodically9 polling), because you can get email arrival notification.n  ; Outlook in offline mode has a stupid "feature", so that youi> need to have connection all the time you have the client open.8 Else it can not connect to the Exchange server. Not very "offline" in my eyes.t  9 Outlook Express is a standard internet email client usingo8 SMTP for sending email and POP3/IMAP4 for reading email.? Just like NetScape Messenger and the rest. No special features.h   > >MicroSoft is bloody smart:t? > >  - you want our calendar ? then you need our email client ! C > >  - you want our email client ? then you need our email server !tE > >  - you want our email server ? then you need our server operatingt > >system !e > N > If what you are saying here were the truth then all mail vendors should give* > up. Everybody would be running Exchange.  5 That has been the market direction the last 5 years !   F > Not everybody has gone down the proprietary Exchange, Lotus Notes orM > Groupwise route. Many companies prefer real open standards based solutions.tL > Many companies prefer secure, scalable, managable , reliable mail systems. > L > In many ways these monolithic proprietary products have had their day. The6 > future is open standards (IMAP, POP) and web access.   Are you sure about that ?w  $ It is not what I see in the market !  O >                                                       Even Microsoft has seen P > this and has opened up Exchange to IMAP, POP and web access. I believe you can@ > now even access Exchange's calendar functionality via the web.  A And how many millions of MS Office Outlook seats has been dropped 
 due to this ?a   My guess: zero !   Arne   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 15:11:02 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk) Subject: Re: CSWS / CSWB / MX Speculation + Message-ID: <abbf66$nhb$1@aquila.mdx.ac.uk>e  i In article <3CD925D9.9B6CF4CE@gtech.com>, Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com> writes:.  >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:l >> In article <3CD8DD00.D7BA9CE5@gtech.com>, Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com> writes:# >> >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:bo >> >> In article <3CD7BE9F.553FF1BD@gtech.com>, Arne =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vajh=F8j?= <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com> writes:2 >> >This will work:m >> >J >> >                                                    |--PC with Outlook9 >> >--firewall--VMS MX server--Windows Exchange server--|>J >> >                                                    |--PC with Outlook >> > >> >$ >> >But most companies would prefer: >> >; >> >                                     |--PC with Outlooka* >> >--firewall--Windows Exchange server--|; >> >                                     |--PC with Outlook. >> > >> >for obvious cost reasons.  >> k; >> Most large companies using Exchange will usually have :-s >>  ; >>                                   - Hundreds of Exchange>. >>                                  |  Servers% >>  --firewall-- Central Mailhub  --|AL >>                                  |                    |-- PC with Outlook: >>                                   - Exchange servers -|L >>                                                       |-- PC with Outlook: >>                                                       |P >>                                                       |-- Other platforms andI >>                                                       |   mail clients : >>                                                       |H >>                                                       |-- Web Clients >> t >> Or something similar. >  >True. >u! >But then you also agree with me.  >a; >Small companies go with the only Exchange server. Very bigi< >companies goes with 1 central mailhub (that could very well* >be VMS) and hundreds of Exchange servers. >e  8 No all I said was "Most large companies using Exchange".D I also purposely showed other mail clients than Outlook being used.   H Pretty much any large company will use the above structure regardless ofP whether it is using Exchange or one or more other types of mail server systems.   M Again very small companies who can support all their users on one mail serveruH (regardless of whether that is Exchange or something else) will probably= connect it directly through a firewall to the outside world. t  M Compared with many other solutions though the lack of scalability of Exchange N will force many otherwise small companies to need to use multiple mail serversJ and hence to put in place a structure similar to that for a large company.  < >The sum of that is that MS got a huge market potential. And? >VMS got a very modest market potential. And the reason is that  >MS controls the desktop.o  O I cannot disagree that Microsoft as ever tries to leverage its monopoly desktop = position. That doesn't mean that those products are any good.c     >e< >> >I would not call Exchange a little protocol when we talk >> >commercial possibilities.a >> a. >> Exchange is a product it is not a Protocol. >> eN >> Lotus Notes and Groupwise do have their own proprietary internal protocols.R >> What protocol are you actually talking about with Exchange ? I believe ExchangeO >> uses either X400 or SMTP protocols internally (ie between groups of ExchangeGN >> servers). I don't know what protocols Outlook as opposed to Outlook express9 >> uses to access Exchange. Are they published anywhere ?E >t7 >I do not know what Outlook uses to cummunicate with ane5 >Exchange server. I am not even sure it uses the sameh4 >protocol in online and offline mode. SMTP is only a9 >protocol for sending email not get reading email. I havea3 >never worked with X.400, so I do not know anything 
 >about it. >w: >When Outlook is in online mode the emails are pushed from7 >the server to client (maybe simulated via periodically : >polling), because you can get email arrival notification. >h< >Outlook in offline mode has a stupid "feature", so that you? >need to have connection all the time you have the client open.s9 >Else it can not connect to the Exchange server. Not veryt >"offline" in my eyes. >w: >Outlook Express is a standard internet email client using9 >SMTP for sending email and POP3/IMAP4 for reading email.d@ >Just like NetScape Messenger and the rest. No special features. >k >> >MicroSoft is bloody smart:@ >> >  - you want our calendar ? then you need our email client !D >> >  - you want our email client ? then you need our email server !F >> >  - you want our email server ? then you need our server operating >> >system ! >> oO >> If what you are saying here were the truth then all mail vendors should giveS+ >> up. Everybody would be running Exchange.a >i6 >That has been the market direction the last 5 years ! >c  P Sorry there are probably more Unix based mail server systems running around the 4 world than Exchange servers by quite a large margin.  K By the way has hotmail now finally been converted to run on Exchange or are  Microsoft still trying ?        G >> Not everybody has gone down the proprietary Exchange, Lotus Notes or N >> Groupwise route. Many companies prefer real open standards based solutions.M >> Many companies prefer secure, scalable, managable , reliable mail systems.r >> TM >> In many ways these monolithic proprietary products have had their day. Them7 >> future is open standards (IMAP, POP) and web access.n >/ >Are you sure about that ? >0% >It is not what I see in the market !r >nP >>                                                       Even Microsoft has seenQ >> this and has opened up Exchange to IMAP, POP and web access. I believe you canfA >> now even access Exchange's calendar functionality via the web.I >eB >And how many millions of MS Office Outlook seats has been dropped >due to this ? >a >My guess: zero !p >l >Arne   J Open standards such as IMAP, POP and web access mean that a mail system is+ logically split into 3 separate components.o   1) Message transfer agent 
 2) Mail StoreC 3) Mail client  N If you are using Exchange via POP, IMAP or Web access then you are not tied to& using Microsoft specific Mail clients.J Conversly if you are using Microsoft Outlook but using it with IMAP or POP( then you are not tied to using Exchange.  L Mail systems have always been about being able to transfer messages between J dis-similar systems. This has led to a standardisation on the TCPIP and inI particular the SMTP protocol.  Similarly remote access to mail has led topL standardisation on the POP and IMAP protocols and latterly to web based mail access.aI Exchange was originally conceived as a monolithic proprietary mail systemnO with the clients (Outlook) tied directly to the server system. You couldn't usedM one without the other. Outlook licenses also cost money and because this was  L a monopoly situation this could have been extremly profitable for Microsoft.  I Hence to answer your question I would expect that quite a large number ofaM Outlook licenses which would have needed to be purchased so that remote userse: can access their mail on Exchange have not been purchased.  
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 11:45:18 +0200l9 From: Jan-Erik =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=F6derholm?= <aaa@aaa.com> > Subject: DEC2000/300 front (Was: Removing AS1000A front panel)' Message-ID: <3CD8F3AE.90368FB7@aaa.com>8   Nic Clews wrote: >  > E > We had one of these delivered 'locked'. On examination of a similarlF > chassis which was open for examination, there ain't no way no how ofF > getting into a locked one without causing a lot of damage which willI > also probably destroy the system. The locking bar alone can sustain thet. > weight of the entire system without bending. >  > Anyone got any spare keys? >     A Nop, but I have actualy broken into my own DEC 2000/300 by force.29 Now it runs without the front plate over the disk bays...    Jan-Erik Sderholm.    ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 07:04:22 -0700a. From: SPAMSINK2001@YAHOO.COM (Alan E. Feldman)) Subject: Re: Fix for EDT emulation in EVEa< Message-ID: <343f30ae.0205080604.5f2b863@posting.google.com>  f Michael Zarlenga <zarlenga@conan.ids.net> wrote in message news:<udfu5e81r8glb2@corp.supernews.com>...1 > Alan E. Feldman <SPAMSINK2001@YAHOO.COM> wrote:aJ > : I agree that both EDT and EVE/tpu are useful. I use both. But I preferD > : the feel of EDT. And I mention the advantages of EDT mainly as aI > : counterpoint to those who say to just forget EDT and use only EVE ando > : TPU. > ? > You like only seeing 24 lines of text in a 50-line ws window?s    5 No. But there are many things about EVE I don't like.i    c@ > What I like most about EDT is the application keypad and I get$ > it with SET KEYPAD EDT in EVE/TPU.    C EVE and I never really got along. When I first tried it, everythinglF was a headache. It didn't work at remote sites (I later found out thatD I had to set the terminal to eightbit mode). EDT is less fussy aboutF the terminal. There were other headaches I think, but I can't remember them right now.c  F The EDT emulation wasn't that good at the time. I tried to rewrite oneF of the TPU routines but often got "Compilation aborted at line 1" whenE the line I changed was something like line number 241! Yeah, that wasS fun.  C I ALSO LIKE BEING IN UPPERCASE MODE IN VMS. AND MY DCL ROUTINES ARE F WRITTEN IN UPPERCASE EXCEPT FOR tHE Mixed case I use for comments.  SoB every time I use Find Next in Eve, I have to remember to push CapsA Lock or EVE won't find my string! More fun. EDT doesn't insist oni
 lowercase.    F In EDT I can easily write out the paste buffer with ^Z *WRITE FILE.TYP$ =PASTE, then *C to get back to work.  D In EVE I have to do the following: Press Do, Command: SHOW SYS, moveE the cursor up to the line that says "Insert Here", press enter, presstF Do again, Command: WRITE FILE.TYP, press Do *yet* again, Command: showC buff, move the cursor to the main buffer, press Return. Is there angE eaiser way? And don't tell me I can write a routine to do it. I DON'TvF WANT TO WASTE MY TIME WRITING AND DEBUGGING TPU ROUTINES THAT ABORT ATC LINE 1 JUST TO BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING THIS SIMPLE. And writing theo> paste buffer to a file is something I actually do quite often.  D In a long-ago post on this topic, someone said that EVE/TPU promisedE you a very nice house, but when you opened the box, all you got was al( lot of 2x4's, a hammer, some nails, etc.  F Also there is the matter of my extensive EDT init file. Yeah, I've gotF almost every key defined. Would you like to translate that into an EVEE init|command|section file for me? I'd really appreciate it if someoneo- would. I'll be happy to post it or e-mail it.M  E EDT starts much more quickly. And unlike EVE, cursor movement is rocksC solid smooth. The cursor position is more predictable with repeatedn presses of Find Next in EDT.  A With EDT I don't have to worry about the pagefile filling up whenVE editing a large file. One of our developers who used to work here didiE that twice with EVE!!! And I don't have to wait for the large file too load.-  F While EVE is overall more powerful, it is also more like bloatware and2 more like GUI and I don't like current GUI's much.  D I also like that you can stay in line/command mode. I also like thatE ^U aborts everything. And there are other things I like, like the ALLmD command, and other cool line mode commands. And easier undo, which I use from time to time.  D Also, EDT now supports files with more than 65536 lines! So there isB hope that maybe one day we will have EDT filling a 50 line screen.C BTW, 50 lines would make the characters too small except on maybe ai 21" screen.   F EVE can do a lot of cool things, and I use EVE when I need to do thoseF things. And I gave EVE credit for those things in my previous posts on= this topic. But for normal everyday editing, it's EDT for me.l   Disclaimer: JMHO Alan E. Feldmane" afeldman atski gfigroup dotski com   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 13:29:52 GMTc5 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> 6 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning9 Message-ID: <kL9C8.12$ne6.276675@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>v  H Hmmm.  You must have lost your way and found yourself in a VMS newsgroupL instead of a Tru64 newsgroup.  The guys on the 3rd floor will be working forL the next several years to move Tru64 features into HP-UX, and provide a easyJ migration to it from Tru64.  And of course, Tru64 will continue to be sold( through 2006, and supported much longer.  K There isn't any "forced migration" of VMS customers to HP-UX, although if avK VMS customer wants to move to a UNIX, we will certainly have tools and help  for them to move to HP-UX.      , StormWatcher@helferlein.net wrote in message; <3b183bebfa0318d908a286e631fd3a3d@remailer.segfault.net>...  >  >Storm Clouds brewing. > E >There must have been execs there with tails between the legs leaving  >wet trails on the pile carpet.  >hH >Here is what the Control Masters don't get or wasn't clear in the stain >spots.w > H >They tried to force Affinity aka Assinity on us and of course it bombed >miserably.  > J >They coaxed and begged us to go to Tru64.  What a stupid place that would beD >right now.  Imagine telling your management "Oops!", we now need toF >go to HPHUX.  And there are a few of those suckers.  You get what you deserve.L > Marvel will be at the top for a while.  They would like to strangle it but9 >they can't.  So when and why do VMS users move?  BecauseoH >they have to and they love HPHUX so much they go right for it.  I don't thinkEK >so.  Those tools for conversions, when do we use them?  After 2006.  Deatho< >March timelines do not compute or make sense at all.  There) >is no desire to migrate, don't force it.e >EJ >Carly thought she caught a lot of crap from Walter and those MPE wussies.= >That was a pleasant stroll in the park on a warm spring day.e >h* >Cold front moving in over warm moist air. >T >Storm Clouds brewing. >s   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 10:44:12 -0400o- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>i6 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning, Message-ID: <3CD939AE.118E8CFE@videotron.ca>   Fred Kleinsorge wrote:M > There isn't any "forced migration" of VMS customers to HP-UX, although if arM > VMS customer wants to move to a UNIX, we will certainly have tools and help. > for them to move to HP-UX.   "forced" is a relative term.  J Put all the goodies such as clustering in HP-UX, provide greater breath ofM applications on HP-UX than on VMS, and price HP-UX to be cheaper than VMS anda guess what will happen ? N  N Enticement, motivation, leadership woudl be better terms than "forced". But itW all comes down to HP deciding on behanlf of customers what platforms will be available.o   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 11:00:39 -0400- From: "Peter Weaver" <peter.weaver@stelco.ca>o6 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning5 Message-ID: <abbejd$guc26$1@ID-141708.news.dfncis.de>   @ "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote in message3 news:kL9C8.12$ne6.276675@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net...  >...K > There isn't any "forced migration" of VMS customers to HP-UX, although ifo at >...  3 But if you watch the news conference from yesterdaybH (http://hpmsweb1.com/content/271_287/day1_press.htm) and fast forward toI 1:16:03 you will hear Carley say "You want to migrate customers off thosecK platforms onto new platforms over time. That's what they want and, frankly,  that's what we want."   L I believe the question she is answering begins around 1:12:45 if you want to hear the quote in context.   -- Peter WeaverL Opinions are my own, and do not reflect the opinions of my employer, nor theK company that it sub-contracts to, nor the company that it sub-contracts to.t   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 10:45:22 -0400% From: "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com>)6 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning/ Message-ID: <udieg7lunc9rb0@news.supernews.com>q  @ "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote in message3 news:kL9C8.12$ne6.276675@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net...tJ > Hmmm.  You must have lost your way and found yourself in a VMS newsgroupJ > instead of a Tru64 newsgroup.  The guys on the 3rd floor will be working foriI > the next several years to move Tru64 features into HP-UX, and provide a> easyL > migration to it from Tru64.  And of course, Tru64 will continue to be sold* > through 2006, and supported much longer. > K > There isn't any "forced migration" of VMS customers to HP-UX, although ifs acH > VMS customer wants to move to a UNIX, we will certainly have tools and help > for them to move to HP-UX. >   K And if a customer wants to move from HP-UX to OpenVMS?  Will you have tools-H and help available for them?  You may find that a lot of Tru64 customersJ would rather move to OpenVMS than to HP-UX.  Those would be the people who$ regret their VMS to Tru64 migration.   ------------------------------  , Date: Wed,  8 May 2002 18:44:50 +0200 (CEST)! From: StormWatcher@helferlein.net 6 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm WarningD Message-ID: <3e70f5423a34cf2ebb85bf291ead0d5a@remailer.segfault.net>  . "Peter Weaver" <peter.weaver@stelco.ca> wrote: > A >"Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote in message 4 >news:kL9C8.12$ne6.276675@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net... >>... L >> There isn't any "forced migration" of VMS customers to HP-UX, although if a  >>...   4 >But if you watch the news conference from yesterdayG >(http://hpmsweb1.com/content/271_287/day1_press.htm) and fast forward  N >to 1:16:03 you will hear Carley say "You want to migrate customers off >thoseL platforms onto new platforms over time. That's what they want and, >frankly, that's what we want."l  K >I believe the question she is answering begins around 1:12:45 if you >want  to hear the quote in context.n   --  7 You see , it is just a matter of semantics.  You alwaysaH need a hysterical headline to go fishing with.  It really isn't a forcedC migration.  If it smelled like that, the user community would causedE collateral damage.  But the ground work is already laid.  Look at thel new special OpenVMS Times.  2 Q: Will you offer a [VMS] migration path to HPHUX?  > A: Yes.  We believe HPHUX on Itanium is an excellent long-termH choice for OpenVMS customers, [By implication, OpenVMS on Itanium is not5 an excellent long-term choice] but we want to supporti@ them moving on their own timetable.  [Implying that they will be= moving but we certainly want to give them all the time in the B world.  Certainly don't want a pissed-off customer base].  We willA be evaluating what new tools and services may be required to helpn@ them transition to HPHUX if they so desire.  [You can help speed@ up the process by making tools and languages available for HPHUX  and NSK and Windows but not VMS]    C [Interesting contradictory ending.  "if they so desire"  A friggingkB lawyer type marketing wanker must have helped pen that paragraph.]   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 12:11:10 -0400  From: norm.raphael@jamesbury.com9 Subject: Gartner rides again (was Re: HP Product Roadmap)L4 Message-ID: <C2256BB3.0057E343.00@jklh22.valmet.com>   From:   + Analyst: HP delivers - with a few surprisesa  ! By Michael S. Mimoso, News Editor  08 May 2002, SearchHPr  N http://searchhp.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid6_gci822254,00.html   ..  P "If I was a Compaq customer today -- unless I was a Tru64 user -- I'd be feelingM good. And if I was an HP-UX customer, I'd be feeling very good about what wasmN announced," said Gartner vice president and research area director, enterprise# servers and storage, Paul McGuckin.i    N To no one's surprise, Compaq's proprietary version of Unix, Tru64, was put outL to pasture Tuesday. Doubtful Compaq users were placated by HP's announcementI that it would enhance HP-UX with Tru64's high availability and clusteringd
 capabilities.l    H "There were no real surprises," McGuckin said. "The merged company has aK significant challenge to meet customer needs, deliver cost savings and keepa certain products."    J Though there were no real shockers, McGuckin said he was surprised at HP'sP decision to continue support of the OpenVMS operating system. OpenVMS, a DigitalK leftover, runs on Compaq Alpha servers that HP said it continue to support,NP along with its PA-RISC-based servers, for three years. Then, the two lines would+ move to the Itanium Processor Family (IPF).y    L "I would not have kept OpenVMS," McGuckin said. "To keep investing in VMS toM bring it to Itanium raises a concern that ISVs (independent software vendors)e& may not support it (for three years)."   ..            3 david.gudewicz@abbott.com on 05/08/2002 11:37:33 AM>  + Please respond to david.gudewicz@abbott.com    To:   Info-VAX@mvb.saic.comt cc:h  Subject:  Re: HP Product Roadmap      D And just for yukes, I asked Michael Capellas and Peter Blackmore the. following question about the roadmap document.  A Why was OpenVMS mentioned under the UNIX heading and not its own?n   -- Dave...r  6 If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous,, he will not bite you.  This is the principle# difference between a dog and a man.e -----Mark Twainn  < "Dave Gudewicz" <david.gudewicz@abbott.com> wrote in message2 news:abbftf$hsv$1@fizban.fizban.pprd.abbott.com...I > Many of us waited for 8 months for yesterday.  Many of us expected more> thanJ > 5 seconds of air time and a fleeting reference under a UNIX heading in a > roadmap document.w > G > The gist of the above message was sent to both Rich Marcello and Mark  Gorham > this morning.  > --	 > Dave...  > 8 > If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous,. > he will not bite you.  This is the principle% > difference between a dog and a man.A > -----Mark Twains > < > "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote in message( > news:3CD937C2.FFD4507F@videotron.ca... > > Phillip Helbig wrote:dK > > > True, but no change from the policy during, say, the last 10 years orn! > > > so.  Could have been worse.  > >MD > > No it could not have been worse. HP was smart enough to see that
 > acocuntantshL > > and Wall Street would ask question when revenues would fall off rapidly.G > > palmer learned that thehard way when he tried to "affinity" VMS tooe
 > quickly. > >gJ > > Also, while VMS may not be dead, it isn't anywhere near what it was in the  > > late 80s early 1990s.m > >i( > > Here is a telling example in Canada; > > L > > DECUS 91 in Vancouver attracted about 1100 attendees if I remember well.+ > > DECUS 92 in Calgary attacted about 800.l1 > > DECUS 93 in Montreal got about 350 attendees.e > >oF > > At the calgary event, the DECUS board refused to see a trend (even though > weI > > already knew that VMS and Digital were losing ground and continued tot > forgeoG > > area with plans for 1300 in Montreal, tis at a time where there wast stilll > theb: > > chance to scale down the venue and save lots of money. > >eH > > Why do I brong this up ?  Because over that period, VMS may not have died,h > bitdG > > it declined significantly from its very prominent position. It alsog	 > changedbB > > from a very versatile OS from desktop to datacentre to a "high perforance"yH > > only OS with 2 or 3 niche markets (down from the 6 Compaq originally > allowed).- > >=J > > Continuing the previoius policies means that the line will continue to beB > > drawn in the same direction. Only one conclusion can be drawn. > >iL > > Marcello showed during the shgort turn-around, that it was possible with > justL > > a bit of marketing to reverse the negative trend. Compaq and HP know it. > YeteI > > thy chose not to act on this information and re-dploy VMS to increasep thel% > > profitablility of the coporation.l >  >    ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 09:07:40 -0700# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>t= Subject: RE: Gartner rides again (was Re: HP Product Roadmap) 9 Message-ID: <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIKEAEEPAA.tom@kednos.com>a  D Well at least we know that Paul McGuckin doesn't know the differenceK between the imperfect and the subjunctive.  Speaking of imperfective, these:H guys, IMV, normally don't know what they are talking about, and they areE usually engaged by management to accomplish some Machiavellian  task.n       >-----Original Message-----sE >From: norm.raphael@jamesbury.com [mailto:norm.raphael@jamesbury.com] & >Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 9:11 AM >To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com: >Subject: Gartner rides again (was Re: HP Product Roadmap) >m >l >s >  >  >From: >t, >Analyst: HP delivers - with a few surprises > " >By Michael S. Mimoso, News Editor >08 May 2002, SearchHP > D >http://searchhp.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid6_gci822 >254,00.html >  >... >tB >"If I was a Compaq customer today -- unless I was a Tru64 user -- >I'd be feelingi? >good. And if I was an HP-UX customer, I'd be feeling very goodi >about what wasl: >announced," said Gartner vice president and research area >director, enterprises$ >servers and storage, Paul McGuckin. >  >sC >To no one's surprise, Compaq's proprietary version of Unix, Tru64,  >was put out@ >to pasture Tuesday. Doubtful Compaq users were placated by HP's
 >announcementrJ >that it would enhance HP-UX with Tru64's high availability and clustering >capabilities. >c >gI >"There were no real surprises," McGuckin said. "The merged company has a L >significant challenge to meet customer needs, deliver cost savings and keep >certain products."  >e >uK >Though there were no real shockers, McGuckin said he was surprised at HP'so> >decision to continue support of the OpenVMS operating system. >OpenVMS, a DigitalcL >leftover, runs on Compaq Alpha servers that HP said it continue to support,A >along with its PA-RISC-based servers, for three years. Then, the  >two lines would, >move to the Itanium Processor Family (IPF). >l > C >"I would not have kept OpenVMS," McGuckin said. "To keep investingE
 >in VMS to< >bring it to Itanium raises a concern that ISVs (independent >software vendors)' >may not support it (for three years)."o >  >... >  >  >t >  >t > 4 >david.gudewicz@abbott.com on 05/08/2002 11:37:33 AM >U, >Please respond to david.gudewicz@abbott.com >B >To:   Info-VAX@mvb.saic.com >cc:! >Subject:  Re: HP Product Roadmap  >e >  >eE >And just for yukes, I asked Michael Capellas and Peter Blackmore theo/ >following question about the roadmap document.  >sB >Why was OpenVMS mentioned under the UNIX heading and not its own? >m >--o >Dave... >.7 >If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous,e- >he will not bite you.  This is the principlel$ >difference between a dog and a man. >-----Mark Twain >i= >"Dave Gudewicz" <david.gudewicz@abbott.com> wrote in messagel3 >news:abbftf$hsv$1@fizban.fizban.pprd.abbott.com...cJ >> Many of us waited for 8 months for yesterday.  Many of us expected more >thanpK >> 5 seconds of air time and a fleeting reference under a UNIX heading in ai >> roadmap document. >>H >> The gist of the above message was sent to both Rich Marcello and Mark >Gorham  >> this morning. >> --i
 >> Dave... >>9 >> If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous,o/ >> he will not bite you.  This is the principle & >> difference between a dog and a man. >> -----Mark Twain >>= >> "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote in messagen) >> news:3CD937C2.FFD4507F@videotron.ca...i >> > Phillip Helbig wrote:L >> > > True, but no change from the policy during, say, the last 10 years or" >> > > so.  Could have been worse. >> >E >> > No it could not have been worse. HP was smart enough to see that  >> acocuntants@ >> > and Wall Street would ask question when revenues would fall
 >off rapidly.cH >> > palmer learned that thehard way when he tried to "affinity" VMS too >> quickly., >> >K >> > Also, while VMS may not be dead, it isn't anywhere near what it was inn >the >> > late 80s early 1990s. >> >) >> > Here is a telling example in Canada;o >> >> >> > DECUS 91 in Vancouver attracted about 1100 attendees if I >remember well.-, >> > DECUS 92 in Calgary attacted about 800.2 >> > DECUS 93 in Montreal got about 350 attendees. >> >G >> > At the calgary event, the DECUS board refused to see a trend (eveng >though- >> we9J >> > already knew that VMS and Digital were losing ground and continued to >> forgeH >> > area with plans for 1300 in Montreal, tis at a time where there was >still >> the; >> > chance to scale down the venue and save lots of money.a >> >I >> > Why do I brong this up ?  Because over that period, VMS may not have  >died, >> bitH >> > it declined significantly from its very prominent position. It also
 >> changedC >> > from a very versatile OS from desktop to datacentre to a "highs >perforance"I >> > only OS with 2 or 3 niche markets (down from the 6 Compaq originally  >> allowed). >> >K >> > Continuing the previoius policies means that the line will continue toa >beeC >> > drawn in the same direction. Only one conclusion can be drawn.h >> >? >> > Marcello showed during the shgort turn-around, that it wast >possible with >> just A >> > a bit of marketing to reverse the negative trend. Compaq and  >HP know it. >> YetJ >> > thy chose not to act on this information and re-dploy VMS to increase >the& >> > profitablility of the coporation. >> >> >c >h >w >d >e >r >t >w >---' >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.n; >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).r@ >Version: 6.0.360 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 5/7/2002 >l ---h& Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).? Version: 6.0.360 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 5/7/2002t   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 11:35:33 -0500t- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)t= Subject: Re: Gartner rides again (was Re: HP Product Roadmap) 3 Message-ID: <6Hv3FMvrJM1c@eisner.encompasserve.org>a  W In article <C2256BB3.0057E343.00@jklh22.valmet.com>, norm.raphael@jamesbury.com writes:i  N > "I would not have kept OpenVMS," McGuckin said. "To keep investing in VMS toO > bring it to Itanium raises a concern that ISVs (independent software vendors)o( > may not support it (for three years)."  F Certainly he would abandon VMS, as a major step toward making previousF predictions come true.  It certainly is a bummer that actual customersD want it and HP has been more heavily influenced by customers than by* the Gartner group.  Life just isn't fair !   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 10:04:13 -0700# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> = Subject: RE: Gartner rides again (was Re: HP Product Roadmap) 9 Message-ID: <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIMEAIEPAA.tom@kednos.com>e  D Well at least we know that Paul McGuckin doesn't know the differenceK between the imperfect and the subjunctive.  Speaking of imperfective, thesePH guys, IMV, normally don't know what they are talking about, and they areE usually engaged by management to accomplish some Machiavellian  task.r   >-----Original Message-----rE >From: norm.raphael@jamesbury.com [mailto:norm.raphael@jamesbury.com]e& >Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 9:11 AM >To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com: >Subject: Gartner rides again (was Re: HP Product Roadmap) >8 >$ >. >6 >c >From: >c, >Analyst: HP delivers - with a few surprises >i" >By Michael S. Mimoso, News Editor >08 May 2002, SearchHP >uD >http://searchhp.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid6_gci822 >254,00.html >7 >... >sB >"If I was a Compaq customer today -- unless I was a Tru64 user -- >I'd be feelingt? >good. And if I was an HP-UX customer, I'd be feeling very goodw >about what was,: >announced," said Gartner vice president and research area >director, enterprises$ >servers and storage, Paul McGuckin. >q >eC >To no one's surprise, Compaq's proprietary version of Unix, Tru64,l >was put out@ >to pasture Tuesday. Doubtful Compaq users were placated by HP's
 >announcementtJ >that it would enhance HP-UX with Tru64's high availability and clustering >capabilities. >0 >rI >"There were no real surprises," McGuckin said. "The merged company has aXL >significant challenge to meet customer needs, deliver cost savings and keep >certain products."@ >r >oK >Though there were no real shockers, McGuckin said he was surprised at HP's.> >decision to continue support of the OpenVMS operating system. >OpenVMS, a DigitaltL >leftover, runs on Compaq Alpha servers that HP said it continue to support,A >along with its PA-RISC-based servers, for three years. Then, thed >two lines would, >move to the Itanium Processor Family (IPF). >l >nC >"I would not have kept OpenVMS," McGuckin said. "To keep investingh
 >in VMS to< >bring it to Itanium raises a concern that ISVs (independent >software vendors)' >may not support it (for three years)."  >e >... >d >e >  >o >h >t4 >david.gudewicz@abbott.com on 05/08/2002 11:37:33 AM >r, >Please respond to david.gudewicz@abbott.com >e >To:   Info-VAX@mvb.saic.com >cc:! >Subject:  Re: HP Product Roadmapl >a >r >vE >And just for yukes, I asked Michael Capellas and Peter Blackmore ther/ >following question about the roadmap document.- >-B >Why was OpenVMS mentioned under the UNIX heading and not its own? >r >--e >Dave... >u7 >If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous,s- >he will not bite you.  This is the principlel$ >difference between a dog and a man. >-----Mark Twain > = >"Dave Gudewicz" <david.gudewicz@abbott.com> wrote in messageo3 >news:abbftf$hsv$1@fizban.fizban.pprd.abbott.com....J >> Many of us waited for 8 months for yesterday.  Many of us expected more >thanPK >> 5 seconds of air time and a fleeting reference under a UNIX heading in as >> roadmap document. >>H >> The gist of the above message was sent to both Rich Marcello and Mark >Gorhama >> this morning. >> --r
 >> Dave... >>9 >> If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous,a/ >> he will not bite you.  This is the principlel& >> difference between a dog and a man. >> -----Mark Twain >>= >> "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote in messagee) >> news:3CD937C2.FFD4507F@videotron.ca...a >> > Phillip Helbig wrote:L >> > > True, but no change from the policy during, say, the last 10 years or" >> > > so.  Could have been worse. >> >E >> > No it could not have been worse. HP was smart enough to see thath >> acocuntants@ >> > and Wall Street would ask question when revenues would fall
 >off rapidly.WH >> > palmer learned that thehard way when he tried to "affinity" VMS too >> quickly.  >> >K >> > Also, while VMS may not be dead, it isn't anywhere near what it was int >the >> > late 80s early 1990s. >> >) >> > Here is a telling example in Canada;g >> >> >> > DECUS 91 in Vancouver attracted about 1100 attendees if I >remember well.a, >> > DECUS 92 in Calgary attacted about 800.2 >> > DECUS 93 in Montreal got about 350 attendees. >> >G >> > At the calgary event, the DECUS board refused to see a trend (evene >thoughb >> wegJ >> > already knew that VMS and Digital were losing ground and continued to >> forgeH >> > area with plans for 1300 in Montreal, tis at a time where there was >still >> the; >> > chance to scale down the venue and save lots of money.- >> >I >> > Why do I brong this up ?  Because over that period, VMS may not havey >died, >> bitH >> > it declined significantly from its very prominent position. It also
 >> changedC >> > from a very versatile OS from desktop to datacentre to a "highi >perforance"I >> > only OS with 2 or 3 niche markets (down from the 6 Compaq originallyh >> allowed). >> >K >> > Continuing the previoius policies means that the line will continue too >be-C >> > drawn in the same direction. Only one conclusion can be drawn.P >> >? >> > Marcello showed during the shgort turn-around, that it wasd >possible with >> justnA >> > a bit of marketing to reverse the negative trend. Compaq andu >HP know it. >> YetJ >> > thy chose not to act on this information and re-dploy VMS to increase >the& >> > profitablility of the coporation. >> >> >  >o >e >t >h >i >o >  >---' >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.d; >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).e@ >Version: 6.0.360 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 5/7/2002 >o --- & Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).? Version: 6.0.360 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 5/7/2002n   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 08:12:14 -0500vB From: clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley)A Subject: GNAT on VMS, was: Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?e3 Message-ID: <oJV7Ndg0N6Y$@eisner.encompasserve.org>y  ] In article <3cd8505f.0@topcat.tabbygnat.com>, "Douglas B Rupp" <rupp@nospam_gnat.com> writes:  > M > Ada Core Technologies recently completed some major performance enhancementu	 > work onoJ > GNAT for VMS under contract to Compaq and is pleased to report that GNAT > generated codeF > now performs comparably to DEC Ada (and in most cases better) on the > applicable PIWG K > tests on Alpha.  Most of the enhancements were not Alpha specific, and sod
 > should alsoe > benefit GNAT on IA64 VMS.t >   / Will these changes be in the public GNAT code ?e  I Also, what are your plans for VMS support in GCC 3.1 ? When I last lookedvF at the snapshots, the only VMS specific files appeared to be old ones.   Thanks for any information,g   Simon.   -- -B Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP       + Microsoft: The Lada of the computing world.d   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 09:05:00 -0700- From: "Douglas B Rupp" <rupp@nospam_gnat.com> E Subject: Re: GNAT on VMS, was: Re: Alpha to ia64: where is the issue?w- Message-ID: <3cd9501b.0@topcat.tabbygnat.com>t   Simon Clubley writes:M1 > Will these changes be in the public GNAT code ?    Note that the performance I enhancements involved changes to both the target specific and independante partsfK of Gcc, as well as to the GNAT frontend and runtime.  A lot of the stuff ise already in the public code.    >sK > Also, what are your plans for VMS support in GCC 3.1 ? When I last looked H > at the snapshots, the only VMS specific files appeared to be old ones.  L For the past several months numerous VMS specific checkins have been made to 3.x.   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 01:06:57 -0700 % From: Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net>f Subject: Re: HP Product Roadmapa) Message-ID: <abamb101tfa@drn.newsguy.com>M  8 In article <3CD89B09.30202@tsoft-inc.com>, David says... >iO >Am I being picky?  Yes, definitely.  But that slight difference speaks rather  P >loudly.  To restate, the way it appeared, VMS is just another item in the Unix E >catagory.  I don't feel comfortable with people who see it that way.d  D Especially when said "Unix" category is scheduled for "evisceration"   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 11:04:59 +0200u- From: Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr>  Subject: Re: HP Product Roadmapt' Message-ID: <3CD8EA3C.D595294C@Free.fr>0  L 609 lines, and the only VMS match in two lines is within the UNIX paragraph. Sounds no good to me.v   D.   "Stuart, Ed" wrote:h > ) > The HP Product Roadmap can be found at:d6 > http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/07may02b.htm > 1 > There is one and only one reference to OpenVMS.    ------------------------------  + Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 13:03:46 +0100 (MET)f9 From: Phillip Helbig <HELBPHI@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com>t Subject: Re: HP Product Roadmap); Message-ID: <01KHHI6HJCQA8ZFQK0@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com>e  ) > The HP Product Roadmap can be found at:s6 > http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/07may02b.htm > 1 > There is one and only one reference to OpenVMS.   G For those who don't believe what VMS's vendors have to say, of course, e this doesn't matter.  I For those who have been waiting for the official announcement as soon as MI it was legally possible, what more could we want?  The VMS roadmap looks - fine to me.-   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 11:54:40 GMT<# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>r Subject: Re: HP Product RoadmapRD Message-ID: <4m8C8.117$QOT.113@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>   Phillip,   This is where you are wrong.   HP says:K "Decision: HP will continue with the previously published roadmaps for bothfL PA-RISC and AlphaServer systems. HP will continue development of the PA-8800I and PA-8900 processors, as well as the EV7 and EV79 Alpha processors. The H roles of these two families will be quite different. The PA-RISC serversC will be targeted at the PA-RISC installed base and all new business0I opportunities. AlphaServer systems will be primarily focused on the AlphaR9 installed base and high-performance technical computing."a  L The important statement here is that PA-RISC will be targeted at the PA-RISCK installed base and **ALL** new business opportunities. What this means in a/D practical sense is that HP is  **NOT** looking to grow the VMS base.    G Why do I say that?  Because all HP's new business will be pushed to useiE PA-RISC, which means unix. It means that all HP's sales and marketing K efforts with new customers will be towards pushing unix . Let's assume thatrI the sales force is 50/50 between Compaq and HP people. Today, very few ofCL the Compaq people know much about VMS, and even fewer HP ones know about it.K Add to this the emphasis on directing new customer business to PA-RISC, anddL what are you left with?  I'll bet you 100 Euros that there will be some sortL of HP-internal memo from sales management that surfaces sometime in the nextD 90-120 days that says 'VMS is NOT to be promoted..that new customersK inquiring about it should be steered to unix instead', or something similarr to this.  L Which means that HP will in effect be actively discouraging any expansion ofL the VMS install base outside of existing customers and those *very* few HPTC- environments where nothing but Alpha will do.w          F "Phillip Helbig" <HELBPHI@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com> wrote in message5 news:01KHHI6HJCQA8ZFQK0@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com...o+ > > The HP Product Roadmap can be found at:o8 > > http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/07may02b.htm > >c3 > > There is one and only one reference to OpenVMS.n >sH > For those who don't believe what VMS's vendors have to say, of course, > this doesn't matter. >/J > For those who have been waiting for the official announcement as soon asJ > it was legally possible, what more could we want?  The VMS roadmap looks
 > fine to me.o   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 08:44:59 -0400t- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>O Subject: Re: HP Product Roadmape, Message-ID: <3CD91DC4.59F1B16F@videotron.ca>   Phillip Helbig wrote:iJ > For those who have been waiting for the official announcement as soon asJ > it was legally possible, what more could we want?  The VMS roadmap looks
 > fine to me.u    L VMS has been neglected, if not abused,  for 10 years. Compaq only kept it onL life support during its short tenure. It did try to administer medecine (theK renaissance) with positive results, but chose not to continue treatment. IfXH you have a monster that could harm windows, you keep the monster asleep.  H Carly stated authoritatively on many occasions that she had worked out aB detailed roadmap for all products to be implemented very quickly.   M The roadmap has been unveiled, and all that was revealed is that VMS is being M kept on life support. Carly would/should have known that a it was possible tor> significantly increase VMS profits with even token marketing.   F Should *could* had said something such as "HP is committed not only toM implement the Compaq roadmaps, but also to foster the expansion of VMS". They  chose not to say such things.w     The way I read this is simple:N 	"We intend to move you from VMS to something else in the medium to long term"  F Carly and friends are not incompetent. We must assume that their shortN statement about VMS was carefully worded and conveys the strategic decision ofD HP. When you combine this with their also carefully worded strategicJ statements that Linux and Windows will take over computing, that they willL focus only on industry-standard commodity stuff, the writing is VERY CLEARLY WRITTEN ON THE WALL.  4 At this point in time, I give VMS as long as Tru-64.   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 05:54:37 -0700e( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) Subject: Re: HP Product Roadmapw= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0205080454.4bb88324@posting.google.com>a  t "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<tU_B8.95284$WV1.28984797@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>...8 > "Barry Treahy, Jr." <Treahy@mmaz.com> wrote in message# > news:3CD876C2.4050902@mmaz.com...  >  > Terry C. Shannon wrote:d >  iN > That is true, but there efforts to understate VMS rang out loud and clear asL > it was limited to only a single sentance comment under the 'Unix' section,; > as if they couldn't figure any better place to locate it.l > C > I, for one, had hoped for a more robust and visionary commitment.  > K > Yes, that would have been nice. And not all that difficult to articulate.l > I > So state that: "HP also will deliver on the previously announced Compaq 3 > OpenVMST roadmap, including the port to Itanium." K > certainly doesn't make me warm and fuzzy nor does it convey and long term>A > commitment to VMS or any attempt to grow that market segment...r > H > Doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy either (and it wasn't MY statement > anyhow ;-} ).- > @ > The good news is, "First, do no harm." That much HPQ has done. > K > The bad news is, IMHO, unless HPQ states that it will address OpenVMS ISVeK > retention and recruitment issues, the OS will fall prey to benign neglect " > and ultimately to ISV attrition. > + > Ever hear the tale of an OS named MPE/iX?:  H VMS and MPE are two different animals ... alot of MPE (i.e. file system)G is still 16 bit, and clustering, well forget it ... the port from 16 to E 64 bit would have been a nightmare ... MPE is alot like RSTS/E ... it-B was never attended to properly ... VMS is 64 bit, and has the bestG security and clustering in the industry ... that's why it is surviving. E As for marketing, why do you expect anything else from a couple of pcMD companies ... they still think they are going to make money in pc's!   ------------------------------  + Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 15:09:02 +0100 (MET)a9 From: Phillip Helbig <HELBPHI@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com>i Subject: Re: HP Product Roadmap ; Message-ID: <01KHHML3K07W8Y8ZDE@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com>a  A > Which means that HP will in effect be actively discouraging anysE > expansion of the VMS install base outside of existing customers and0F > those *very* few HPTC environments where nothing but Alpha will do.   F True, but no change from the policy during, say, the last 10 years or  so.  Could have been worse.   C The more VMS customers who say "if I have to leave VMS due to HP's  I policies, I will leave HP completely" and the more new customers who say PF "I am interested in VMS; if you can't make me an offer based on that, F then I am not interested in any HP offering", the more demand for VMS  will be created.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 13:32:05 GMTj5 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com>  Subject: Re: HP Product Roadmape9 Message-ID: <pN9C8.13$ji6.475177@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>$   Try:  ) http://www.compaq.com/hps/commitment.htmlh       Stuart, Ed wrote in message.K <92EFB80E551BD511B39500D0B7B0CDCC0642C3D7@ohms.electric.ci.austin.tx.us>....( >The HP Product Roadmap can be found at:5 >http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/07may02b.htmr >d0 >There is one and only one reference to OpenVMS. >  >-->EdF >**Please apply a generous amount of all the usual disclaimers here.** >    ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 06:59:15 -0700,( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) Subject: Re: HP Product Roadmapr= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0205080559.24040be4@posting.google.com>o  \ Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr> wrote in message news:<3CD8EA3C.D595294C@Free.fr>...N > 609 lines, and the only VMS match in two lines is within the UNIX paragraph. > Sounds no good to me.  >  > D. >  > "Stuart, Ed" wrote:m > > + > > The HP Product Roadmap can be found at:t8 > > http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/07may02b.htm > > 3 > > There is one and only one reference to OpenVMS.G  * I thought Capellas said unix was done for?   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 10:36:00 -0400t- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>H Subject: Re: HP Product Roadmapa, Message-ID: <3CD937C2.FFD4507F@videotron.ca>   Phillip Helbig wrote:lG > True, but no change from the policy during, say, the last 10 years orl > so.  Could have been worse.k  L No it could not have been worse. HP was smart enough to see that acocuntantsH and Wall Street would ask question when revenues would fall off rapidly.L palmer learned that thehard way when he tried to "affinity" VMS too quickly.  J Also, while VMS may not be dead, it isn't anywhere near what it was in the late 80s early 1990s.c  $ Here is a telling example in Canada;  H DECUS 91 in Vancouver attracted about 1100 attendees if I remember well.( DECUS 92 in Calgary attacted about 800. - DECUS 93 in Montreal got about 350 attendees.i  L At the calgary event, the DECUS board refused to see a trend (even though weK already knew that VMS and Digital were losing ground and continued to forgeiM area with plans for 1300 in Montreal, tis at a time where there was still the"6 chance to scale down the venue and save lots of money.  N Why do I brong this up ?  Because over that period, VMS may not have died, bitK it declined significantly from its very prominent position. It also changed J from a very versatile OS from desktop to datacentre to a "high perforance"N only OS with 2 or 3 niche markets (down from the 6 Compaq originally allowed).  I Continuing the previoius policies means that the line will continue to be > drawn in the same direction. Only one conclusion can be drawn.  M Marcello showed during the shgort turn-around, that it was possible with justaL a bit of marketing to reverse the negative trend. Compaq and HP know it. YetI thy chose not to act on this information and re-dploy VMS to increase theu! profitablility of the coporation.r   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 14:25:42 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>  Subject: Re: HP Product Roadmap H Message-ID: <GzaC8.16788$GLp1.4494@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  L This is exactly what we wrote to HP in November 2001, and to Walter Hewlett.    K Yes, it could have been worse in the short term, but all it really means isnI that you'd better start porting now while you still have staff alive that>L knows something about VMS. If you wait much longer, there'll be virtually noI people with VMS skills left who know the intricacies of your applicationsyI and their interactions with the o/s and why certain design decisions were> made.>  K HP will soon hear the great sucking sound of customers leaving for AIX when J they finally realize that HP has no intention of even attempting to marketK VMS to a growth position. ISV's will take HP statement to be a pretty cleareK statement that they are far better off abandoning the VMS market because HPtH isn't going to do squat to improve its market share, and in fact will beC actively encouraging its decline by steering new customers to unix.f      F "Phillip Helbig" <HELBPHI@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com> wrote in message5 news:01KHHML3K07W8Y8ZDE@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com...cC > > Which means that HP will in effect be actively discouraging anyiG > > expansion of the VMS install base outside of existing customers andsG > > those *very* few HPTC environments where nothing but Alpha will do.  >yG > True, but no change from the policy during, say, the last 10 years oro > so.  Could have been worse.p >iD > The more VMS customers who say "if I have to leave VMS due to HP'sJ > policies, I will leave HP completely" and the more new customers who sayG > "I am interested in VMS; if you can't make me an offer based on that,cG > then I am not interested in any HP offering", the more demand for VMSi > will be created.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 10:21:10 -05001 From: "Dave Gudewicz" <david.gudewicz@abbott.com>/ Subject: Re: HP Product Roadmaps8 Message-ID: <abbftf$hsv$1@fizban.fizban.pprd.abbott.com>  L Many of us waited for 8 months for yesterday.  Many of us expected more thanH 5 seconds of air time and a fleeting reference under a UNIX heading in a roadmap document.e  L The gist of the above message was sent to both Rich Marcello and Mark Gorham
 this morning.  -- Dave...s  6 If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous,, he will not bite you.  This is the principle# difference between a dog and a man.s -----Mark Twaint  : "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote in message& news:3CD937C2.FFD4507F@videotron.ca... > Phillip Helbig wrote:rI > > True, but no change from the policy during, say, the last 10 years ore > > so.  Could have been worse.  >mB > No it could not have been worse. HP was smart enough to see that acocuntantsnJ > and Wall Street would ask question when revenues would fall off rapidly.E > palmer learned that thehard way when he tried to "affinity" VMS tool quickly. >yL > Also, while VMS may not be dead, it isn't anywhere near what it was in the > late 80s early 1990s.e >p& > Here is a telling example in Canada; >fJ > DECUS 91 in Vancouver attracted about 1100 attendees if I remember well.) > DECUS 92 in Calgary attacted about 800.f/ > DECUS 93 in Montreal got about 350 attendees.- >-K > At the calgary event, the DECUS board refused to see a trend (even thougha weG > already knew that VMS and Digital were losing ground and continued toi forge K > area with plans for 1300 in Montreal, tis at a time where there was stilli thee8 > chance to scale down the venue and save lots of money. >fL > Why do I brong this up ?  Because over that period, VMS may not have died, biteE > it declined significantly from its very prominent position. It alsof changedfL > from a very versatile OS from desktop to datacentre to a "high perforance"F > only OS with 2 or 3 niche markets (down from the 6 Compaq originally	 allowed).  >eK > Continuing the previoius policies means that the line will continue to bei@ > drawn in the same direction. Only one conclusion can be drawn. > J > Marcello showed during the shgort turn-around, that it was possible with justJ > a bit of marketing to reverse the negative trend. Compaq and HP know it. YetcK > thy chose not to act on this information and re-dploy VMS to increase the,# > profitablility of the coporation.n   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 10:37:33 -05001 From: "Dave Gudewicz" <david.gudewicz@abbott.com>l Subject: Re: HP Product Roadmapi8 Message-ID: <abbgs6$i0m$1@fizban.fizban.pprd.abbott.com>  D And just for yukes, I asked Michael Capellas and Peter Blackmore the. following question about the roadmap document.  A Why was OpenVMS mentioned under the UNIX heading and not its own?s   -- Dave...3  6 If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous,, he will not bite you.  This is the principle# difference between a dog and a man., -----Mark Twain   < "Dave Gudewicz" <david.gudewicz@abbott.com> wrote in message2 news:abbftf$hsv$1@fizban.fizban.pprd.abbott.com...I > Many of us waited for 8 months for yesterday.  Many of us expected more  thanJ > 5 seconds of air time and a fleeting reference under a UNIX heading in a > roadmap document.t >uG > The gist of the above message was sent to both Rich Marcello and Marku Gorham > this morning.h > --	 > Dave...m >c8 > If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous,. > he will not bite you.  This is the principle% > difference between a dog and a man.  > -----Mark TwainV >s< > "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote in message( > news:3CD937C2.FFD4507F@videotron.ca... > > Phillip Helbig wrote:sK > > > True, but no change from the policy during, say, the last 10 years or-! > > > so.  Could have been worse.- > >-D > > No it could not have been worse. HP was smart enough to see that
 > acocuntants L > > and Wall Street would ask question when revenues would fall off rapidly.G > > palmer learned that thehard way when he tried to "affinity" VMS tooP
 > quickly. > >:J > > Also, while VMS may not be dead, it isn't anywhere near what it was in thel > > late 80s early 1990s.c > >u( > > Here is a telling example in Canada; > >sL > > DECUS 91 in Vancouver attracted about 1100 attendees if I remember well.+ > > DECUS 92 in Calgary attacted about 800.s1 > > DECUS 93 in Montreal got about 350 attendees.a > >dF > > At the calgary event, the DECUS board refused to see a trend (even though > weI > > already knew that VMS and Digital were losing ground and continued to  > forge G > > area with plans for 1300 in Montreal, tis at a time where there was  stilld > the*: > > chance to scale down the venue and save lots of money. > >sH > > Why do I brong this up ?  Because over that period, VMS may not have died,e > bitlG > > it declined significantly from its very prominent position. It also 	 > changedaB > > from a very versatile OS from desktop to datacentre to a "high perforance"uH > > only OS with 2 or 3 niche markets (down from the 6 Compaq originally > allowed).  > >fJ > > Continuing the previoius policies means that the line will continue to beB > > drawn in the same direction. Only one conclusion can be drawn. > >IL > > Marcello showed during the shgort turn-around, that it was possible with > justL > > a bit of marketing to reverse the negative trend. Compaq and HP know it. > Yet0I > > thy chose not to act on this information and re-dploy VMS to increaseb thet% > > profitablility of the coporation.  >e >n   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 09:10:06 -0700o' From: David Mathog <mathog@caltech.edu>  Subject: Re: HP Product Roadmaps+ Message-ID: <3CD94DDE.4FA58872@caltech.edu>e   Alan Greig wrote:l > : > In article <3CD89B09.30202@tsoft-inc.com>, David says... > >mP > >Am I being picky?  Yes, definitely.  But that slight difference speaks ratherQ > >loudly.  To restate, the way it appeared, VMS is just another item in the Unix/G > >catagory.  I don't feel comfortable with people who see it that way.  > F > Especially when said "Unix" category is scheduled for "evisceration"  > The only thing clearly scheduled for evisceration is HPQ.  The= extent of Carly and Curly's vision and focus for HPQ seems tol> be "we'll sell Microsoft and Intel's products more efficiently> than anybody." The problems being that they won't (Dell will),? and that those sales mostly make money for Microsoft and Intel,u> and while HPQ (continues) to lose its collective shirt in that< low margin sector the high margin sectors will be mismanaged into the ground.  = The company is only a few days old and the writing is alreadya# on the wall. It's oddly familiar...p   Let Capellas be President.' Move features from this OS to that one. A Say the wrong things, or say nothing, and piss off the customers.u$ Yank profits from VMS and burn them.0 Tie the company's enterprise future to Godotium. Advertising?  What's that?   The only new twist is:  5 Gift wrap the MPE users and ship them to IBM and Sun.a  ? We've seen this company before - twice. DEC and Compaq. If thattB strategy (sic) had any merit we wouldn't now be talking about HPQ.  4 If history is any guide the only high margin sectors; which will do well at HPQ are Tandem and the storage folks.l? Apparently because management doesn't get too actively involvedr= with either of them, and _especially_ because management doesh8 not decide for them who they can, and cannot, sell their; products to.  Would that were true for the other enterprise 
 divisions.   Regards,   David Mathog mathog@caltech.edu   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 15:58:24 GMTe* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> Subject: Re: HP Product RoadmaptA Message-ID: <AWbC8.112420$v7.9459051@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>a  F "Phillip Helbig" <HELBPHI@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com> wrote in message5 news:01KHHI6HJCQA8ZFQK0@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com... + > > The HP Product Roadmap can be found at:e8 > > http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/07may02b.htm > >i3 > > There is one and only one reference to OpenVMS.  >nH > For those who don't believe what VMS's vendors have to say, of course, > this doesn't matter. >3J > For those who have been waiting for the official announcement as soon as3 > it was legally possible, what more could we want?o  I That was a rhetorical question, right?  I mean, taking it literally woulds require a *long* answer.   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 15:56:41 GMTn* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> Subject: Re: HP Product RoadmapdB Message-ID: <ZUbC8.132023$Lj.10308852@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  @ "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote in message3 news:pN9C8.13$ji6.475177@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net...i > Try: >t+ > http://www.compaq.com/hps/commitment.htmla  - Oh, shit - there's that word again.  RIP VMS.t   - bill   >t >  >l > Stuart, Ed wrote in messageh >dK <92EFB80E551BD511B39500D0B7B0CDCC0642C3D7@ohms.electric.ci.austin.tx.us>...r* > >The HP Product Roadmap can be found at:7 > >http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/07may02b.htm  > >m2 > >There is one and only one reference to OpenVMS. > >m > >-->EdH > >**Please apply a generous amount of all the usual disclaimers here.** > >w   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 16:08:22 GMT ( From: spam@devnull.com (Russell Wallace) Subject: Re: HP Product Roadmapa0 Message-ID: <3cd94d26.535031479@news.eircom.net>  F On Wed, 08 May 2002 11:54:40 GMT, "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote:  L >"Decision: HP will continue with the previously published roadmaps for bothM >PA-RISC and AlphaServer systems. HP will continue development of the PA-8800oJ >and PA-8900 processors, as well as the EV7 and EV79 Alpha processors. TheI >roles of these two families will be quite different. The PA-RISC serverslD >will be targeted at the PA-RISC installed base and all new business >opportunities.   D "All new business opportunities"... now that's interesting. I may beA reading too much into it, but in hindsight this just might end upfA being seen as the first publicly visible crack on HP's end in then "IA64 is the future" idea.   -- -3 "Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent." ! http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallacev mail:rw(at)eircom(dot)netj   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 11:09:43 +0200h- From: Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr> , Subject: Re: HP Roadmap: OpenVMS, Tru64 safe' Message-ID: <3CD8EB57.27688608@Free.fr>i   A simple question, Bill.  % Why are you so sure that VMS is dead?i
 Just curious.l   D.   Bill Todd wrote: > A > "John Eisenschmidt" <jweisen@eisenschmidt.org> wrote in message 0 > news:20020507163852.B11726@eisenschmidt.org... > L > While VMS and Tru64 may not have been killed today, calling them 'safe' in7 > any normal sense of the term is still a real stretch.    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 13:27:27 GMTn. From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter LANGSTOEGER), Subject: Re: HP Roadmap: OpenVMS, Tru64 safe5 Message-ID: <3J9C8.181379$vc2.2088720@news.chello.at>i  W In article <3CD8EB57.27688608@Free.fr>, Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr> writes:8 >A simple question, Bill.c   I'm not Bill, but let me bite.  & >Why are you so sure that VMS is dead?  2 I don't think that Bill believes that VMS is dead.N I'm pretty sure, he thinks that HPQ will all do to murder VMS in the long run.I And this 'long run' is unfortunately not so far away cause of the actionsTL of DEC and CPQ. And _then_ VMS will be dead (Maybe at the end of the decade)  G And, no, I don't want to see it happen, and I'm very pleased to see how-I optimistic VMS engineering is, but I can't close my eyes and (therefor ?)oO can't be as optimistic as well (but you all know, how I'd like to see VMS win).5   -- 0 Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER % Network and OpenVMS system specialist  E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atP A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm looking for (a) Network _and_ VMS Job(s)   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 06:57:54 -0700r( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski), Subject: Re: HP Roadmap: OpenVMS, Tru64 safe= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0205080557.20821e8a@posting.google.com>d  \ Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr> wrote in message news:<3CD8EB57.27688608@Free.fr>... > A simple question, Bill. > ' > Why are you so sure that VMS is dead?i > Just curious.@ >  > D. >  > Bill Todd wrote: > > C > > "John Eisenschmidt" <jweisen@eisenschmidt.org> wrote in messageb2 > > news:20020507163852.B11726@eisenschmidt.org... > > N > > While VMS and Tru64 may not have been killed today, calling them 'safe' in9 > > any normal sense of the term is still a real stretch.   , I think the answer to that is obvious ... :)   ------------------------------    Date: 08 May 2002 22:42:08 +0800, From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>, Subject: Re: HP Roadmap: OpenVMS, Tru64 safe- Message-ID: <87wuueitvj.fsf@prep.synonet.com>e  / Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr> writes:a   > A simple question, Bill. > ' > Why are you so sure that VMS is dead?g > Just curious.t   >>E Decision: HP will continue with the previously published roadmaps fortE both PA-RISC and AlphaServer systems. HP will continue development oftE the PA-8800 and PA-8900 processors, as well as the EV7 and EV79 Alphat9 processors. The roles of these two families will be quite > different. The PA-RISC servers will be targeted at the PA-RISCF installed base and all new business opportunities. AlphaServer systems9 will be primarily focused on the Alpha installed base andn) high-performance technical computing.  <<   C So *all* the new business will be directed away from VMS and T64 to ' HPUX and HPPA. Note, they do say 'all'.6   This is from' http://www.theinquirer.net/08050214.htmp  , Does anyone have the URL for the whitepaper?   --  < Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.p@                                              West Australia 6076. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  + Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 17:13:30 +0100 (MET)29 From: Phillip Helbig <HELBPHI@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com>c, Subject: Re: HP Roadmap: OpenVMS, Tru64 safe; Message-ID: <01KHHQXJQZFM8Y8ZDE@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com>s  G > Decision: HP will continue with the previously published roadmaps for G > both PA-RISC and AlphaServer systems. HP will continue development ofsG > the PA-8800 and PA-8900 processors, as well as the EV7 and EV79 Alphae; > processors. The roles of these two families will be quiteh@ > different. The PA-RISC servers will be targeted at the PA-RISCH > installed base and all new business opportunities. AlphaServer systems; > will be primarily focused on the Alpha installed base anda) > high-performance technical computing.  i  G The big question is, what about Itanium servers?  ASSUMING all product eD lines will be consolidated on Itanium in the near future, the above E makes perfect sense and does not NECESSARILY bode badly for VMS.  It nG WOULD be silly to sell ALPHA to new customers, only to migrate them to r Itanium later.  . > Does anyone have the URL for the whitepaper?  4 http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/07may02b.htm   ------------------------------   Date: 8 MAY 2002 15:10:36 GMTH+ From: Dave Greenwood <greenwoodde@ornl.gov> , Subject: Re: HP Roadmap: OpenVMS, Tru64 safe1 Message-ID: <8MAY02.15103614@feda01.fed.ornl.gov>s  D In a previous article, Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com> wrote:1 > Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr> writes:  >  e > > A simple question, Bill. > > ) > > Why are you so sure that VMS is dead?d > > Just curious.  >    > >>G > Decision: HP will continue with the previously published roadmaps for G > both PA-RISC and AlphaServer systems. HP will continue development ofnG > the PA-8800 and PA-8900 processors, as well as the EV7 and EV79 Alphaa; > processors. The roles of these two families will be quitei@ > different. The PA-RISC servers will be targeted at the PA-RISCH > installed base and all new business opportunities. AlphaServer systems; > will be primarily focused on the Alpha installed base and$+ > high-performance technical computing.  <<o >  wE > So *all* the new business will be directed away from VMS and T64 too) > HPUX and HPPA. Note, they do say 'all'.d >  U > This is from) > http://www.theinquirer.net/08050214.htmv >  s. > Does anyone have the URL for the whitepaper?  6   http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/07may02b.htm   Dave --------------9 Dave Greenwood                Email: Greenwoodde@ORNL.GOVfH Oak Ridge National Lab        %STD-W-DISCLAIMER, I only speak for myself   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 16:07:36 GMTc* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>, Subject: Re: HP Roadmap: OpenVMS, Tru64 safeA Message-ID: <c3cC8.112426$v7.9465219@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>l  : "Didier Morandi" <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr> wrote in message! news:3CD8EB57.27688608@Free.fr...  > A simple question, Bill. >l' > Why are you so sure that VMS is dead?h > Just curious.r  I Peter was right:  I don't think it's dead *now*, and didn't suggest that.iI However, I'm as certain as it's possible to be without signed confessionseC from the culprits that neither Compaq nor (now) HP has any interestcL whatsoever in doing anything but milk VMS for what it can get out of it withG minimal effort:  that's what *all* the evidence of the past three yearseJ indicates, and that's what the lack of comment from HP over the past eightJ months plus the near-complete ignoring of VMS in the new roadmap indicatesD as well (plus the statement that *all* non-HPTC new business will beL directed to PA-RISC rather than Alpha, when coupled with VMS being availableL *only* on Alpha for the next two years - yeah, yeah, 'early adopters' may be5 able to get half-functional VMS environments sooner).n   - bill   >t > D. >h > Bill Todd wrote: > >sC > > "John Eisenschmidt" <jweisen@eisenschmidt.org> wrote in message 2 > > news:20020507163852.B11726@eisenschmidt.org... > >lK > > While VMS and Tru64 may not have been killed today, calling them 'safe'i in9 > > any normal sense of the term is still a real stretch.c >i   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 16:26:17 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk, Subject: Re: HP Roadmap: OpenVMS, Tru64 safe+ Message-ID: <abbjj9$ov8$1@aquila.mdx.ac.uk>o  w In article <01KHHQXJQZFM8Y8ZDE@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com>, Phillip Helbig <HELBPHI@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com> writes:-H >> Decision: HP will continue with the previously published roadmaps forH >> both PA-RISC and AlphaServer systems. HP will continue development ofH >> the PA-8800 and PA-8900 processors, as well as the EV7 and EV79 Alpha< >> processors. The roles of these two families will be quiteA >> different. The PA-RISC servers will be targeted at the PA-RISCNI >> installed base and all new business opportunities. AlphaServer systemso< >> will be primarily focused on the Alpha installed base and* >> high-performance technical computing.   >,H >The big question is, what about Itanium servers?  ASSUMING all product E >lines will be consolidated on Itanium in the near future, the above  F >makes perfect sense and does not NECESSARILY bode badly for VMS.  It H >WOULD be silly to sell ALPHA to new customers, only to migrate them to  >Itanium later.e >t6 Less silly than selling new customers PA-RISC servers.@ Certainly with Alpha no IA64 is going to offer anything like theD performance for quite sometime even if the port was completed early.  F The way I read that is that some in HP think Alpha is just for TRU64 -M which is the installed base (with no new customers since it's a dead product)tM plus high-performance technical computing on TRU64 which requires the Alphas e# high performance in the short term.e  
 David Webb VMs and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University  / >> Does anyone have the URL for the whitepaper?s >H5 >http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/07may02b.htm    ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 10:00:07 -0700 # From: hemanir@netzero.com (Anamika)h, Subject: Re: HP Roadmap: OpenVMS, Tru64 safe< Message-ID: <180adbe.0205080900.39aa2c88@posting.google.com>  . Here is the link and TRU64 is going to killed.  4 http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/07may02b.htm   VMS ? Some chances.c   -A    a Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com> wrote in message news:<87wuueitvj.fsf@prep.synonet.com>...E1 > Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr> writes:  >  > > A simple question, Bill. > > ) > > Why are you so sure that VMS is dead?e > > Just curious.t >  M > >>G > Decision: HP will continue with the previously published roadmaps fornG > both PA-RISC and AlphaServer systems. HP will continue development of G > the PA-8800 and PA-8900 processors, as well as the EV7 and EV79 Alphao; > processors. The roles of these two families will be quitee@ > different. The PA-RISC servers will be targeted at the PA-RISCH > installed base and all new business opportunities. AlphaServer systems; > will be primarily focused on the Alpha installed base andh+ > high-performance technical computing.  <<  > E > So *all* the new business will be directed away from VMS and T64 to ) > HPUX and HPPA. Note, they do say 'all'.w >  > This is from) > http://www.theinquirer.net/08050214.htmI > . > Does anyone have the URL for the whitepaper?   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 16:45:07 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>., Subject: Re: HP Roadmap: OpenVMS, Tru64 safeH Message-ID: <nCcC8.17003$GLp1.8030@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  F "Phillip Helbig" <HELBPHI@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com> wrote in message5 news:01KHHQXJQZFM8Y8ZDE@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com...h >uH > The big question is, what about Itanium servers?  ASSUMING all productE > lines will be consolidated on Itanium in the near future, the aboveiF > makes perfect sense and does not NECESSARILY bode badly for VMS.  ItH > WOULD be silly to sell ALPHA to new customers, only to migrate them to > Itanium later. >t   Sorry, but you are wrong.   I AlphaServers tend to have a rather long service life for several reasons:  A) they're fast,B B) relative to the Sun and Itanic they will continue perform quite acceptably for 3-5 years,c! C) a small thing called clusters.l  L There is no reason for HP not to continue to sell Alpha-based VMS until theyJ run out of Alpha cpu's. But with the non-commitment to marketing of VMS HPK has just made, the day HP runs out of the remaining Alpha cpu's may well bedC at the limit of VMS 64-bit internal time, which if memory serves meh& correctly is sometime around 9100 A.D.    C HP, like Compaq before it, doesn't really seem to want to be in theaL 'systems' business (ie. o/s & hardware that are complimentary). If they did,J they'd be giving VMS and NSK far more presence than they do, because theseK are the two o/s products that bring in the bulk of the 'enterprise systems'  profits.  L HP seems to want to be more like Dell, which doesn't give a damn about whichJ o/s you run, so long as they don't have have to design/develop the o/s, or support it.a   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 18:41:42 +0200e/ From: Frederik Meerwaldt <frederik@freddym.org> - Subject: Re: is this suitable for openvms ???h/ Message-ID: <abbkg7$scr$00$1@news.t-online.com>    Hi Axel,  F would you mind putting your realname into the From and using the shift; key of your keyboard (the one with the arrow to the top ;))a  H > i got a cheap dec personal workstation 500a with an ide-cdrom-drive, aG > qlogic-scsi-controller with a 4 gb hdd, a 2mb cache module, 256 mb ofeH > ram and a compaq powerstorm 4d51t. i installed the newest firmware andB > everything is running fine for winnt and freebsd too but with noH > xwindow. will this work for openvms too or what do i have to change to > get it running ?  F This is actually a nice machine and the graphics should certainly work
 with OpenVMS. 5 Not sure whether you need to install Open3D or not...r> But at least there should be the possiblity to get it working.   Greetings - Freddy   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 08:59:23 +0100  From: paul.beaudoin@hsbc.com7 Subject: Memo:  Re: Memo:  Help restoring a system disksE Message-ID: <OF47CDDAB4.7BADFD78-ON80256BB3.002B22F6@systems.uk.hsbc>h  D Thanks for the response. The disk in question is a Seagate barracuda- designated as Compaq Rz2dd-ks - 9GB 10K spin.iI Further to last note I took the disk into a different system and it boots  fineG I have no information on the pinouts on the disk (and couldn't find anynJ yesterday on Google) but compared it to a 2GB disk with identical physical+ format and all matches in terms of jumpers.4I Back in my system, same error - media is not present or has been disabled  via run/stop switch.  . I removed the new disks completely - no changeE I changed the scsi id on the only disk left and still the same error.t  K The question is now obvious: what does this message mean - it is apparentlyiE a bit obscure as I have found no one yet who has ever come across it..   Thanks for the help.      ' ** HSBC's website is at www.hsbc.com **t  D ********************************************************************B  This message and any attachments are confidential to the ordinaryB  user of the e-mail address to which it was addressed and may also>  be privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy,8  forward, disclose or use any part of the message or itsC  attachments and if you have received this message in error, please.B  notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete it from
  your system."  =  Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or A  error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,p>  arrive late or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not?  accept liability for any errors or omissions in the context ofl?  this message which arise as a result of Internet transmission.t  PD  Any opinions contained in this message are those of the author and ?  are not given or endorsed by the HSBC Group company or office e=  through which this message is sent unless otherwise clearly fA  indicated in this message and the authority of the author to so n3  bind the HSBC entity referred to is duly verified.u  D ********************************************************************   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 08:51:01 -0700e- From: XNCGULCTLUMA@spammotel.com (Roose Chua)r# Subject: Observing HSx performancesu: Message-ID: <6273a2.0205080751.fafd653@posting.google.com>   Hi!7  E I would be doing some capacity planning on our systems and aside fromVD the regular CPU/memory utilizations, I would like to see the currentD performance of our HSx controllers. Could someone recommend the bestD way I could get some data on this? We have some Alpha 1200 and GS60s' with OpenVMS 7.2 and PSDC/PSPA on them.a   Thanks,n
 Roose ChuaE roose_chua@delete_this_portion_for_non_spam_message_replies-yahoo.com-  B *What I post is mostly my personal opinion and may not reflect the. view of the current company I am working with.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 10:26:40 +01004 From: "Chris Sharman" <chris.sharman@ccagroup.co.uk>H Subject: Re: Old RAID 230 logical init very slow (63% done after 5 days)A Message-ID: <1020850828.6015.0.nnrp-07.9e989e7e@news.demon.co.uk>?  E The only srlmgr I can find is under Jensen, and claims to be ONLY forh DEC2000 and DECpc150AXP.F swxcrmgr is pretty tacky though - using accented characters instead of= graphics, and busily updating most of the screen continually.e  
 Thanks, Chrisa  8 "mike mclaughlin" <mclaughlin@vfna.com> wrote in message7 news:fcb54070.0205071147.515ee113@posting.google.com...i > Chris,J >    i had this situation happen to me 1 time. It turned out that i wasn'tI > running the correct config utility. i was using the swxcrmgr utility toe8 > a vt terminal... it ran successfully but took forever.? >   if you're using a vt terminal the utility to use is SRLMGR. ) > SWXCRMGR is for a graphic monitor only.M > good luck. > /mike-   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 07:36:18 -0400i* From: Chuck Chopp <ChuckChopp@rtfmcsi.com>H Subject: Re: Old RAID 230 logical init very slow (63% done after 5 days)* Message-ID: <3CD90DB2.3020007@rtfmcsi.com>   Chris Sharman wrote:  G > The only srlmgr I can find is under Jensen, and claims to be ONLY for  > DEC2000 and DECpc150AXP.H > swxcrmgr is pretty tacky though - using accented characters instead of? > graphics, and busily updating most of the screen continually.  >  > Thanks, Chris5 > : > "mike mclaughlin" <mclaughlin@vfna.com> wrote in message9 > news:fcb54070.0205071147.515ee113@posting.google.com...  >  >>Chris,J >>   i had this situation happen to me 1 time. It turned out that i wasn'tI >>running the correct config utility. i was using the swxcrmgr utility to88 >>a vt terminal... it ran successfully but took forever.? >>  if you're using a vt terminal the utility to use is SRLMGR.@) >>SWXCRMGR is for a graphic monitor only.r >>good luck. >>/mikes >> >  >     B The updated RCU programs are under different names now.  They are F RA200RCU.EXE [for GUI console] and RA200SRL.EXE [for serial console]. E These are the ones you use for an AlphaServer that is *not* a Jensen nC box.  The old program names are SWXCRMGR.EXE [for GUI console] and eB SRLMGR.EXE, and although they are outdated they are the only ones G supported for using a RAID 230 controller in a Jensen box.  Of course, II your first post stated that you had something like an AlphaServer 2100A,  E so you'd be all set to go if you just download the current firmware, mF install it and then use the current RCU tools to configure your drive  groups & logical drives.     HTH,   Chuck. -- , Chuck Chopp'  8 ChuckChopp@rtfmcsi.com            http://www.rtfmcsi.com1                                    ICQ # 22321532?@ RTFM Consulting Services Inc.     864 801 2795 voice & voicemail2 103 Autumn Hill Road              864 801 2774 fax4 Greer, SC  29651                  800 774 0718 pager8                                    8007740718@skytel.com   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 13:36:56 GMTy5 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com>eC Subject: Re: Powerstorm 4D40T Video Card w/AlphaStation 500 and VMSy9 Message-ID: <YR9C8.14$Fi6.495670@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>S  B Oh, and if you are capable of writing this driver, let us know ;-)  L These cards were done for UNIX and NT during the dark days when the WS group# didn't want to invest in 3D on VMS.e    " Peter LANGSTOEGER wrote in message, <3V_B8.172895$vc2.2003187@news.chello.at>...7 >In article <3CD84F57.650F98C9@boeing.com>, Eric Elfnere" <eric.g.elfner@boeing.com> writes:H >>I would appreciate any information regarding the use of the PowerstormG >>"Cateyes" 4D40T Video Board, in an AlphaStation 500, running VMS 7.2.mD >>Motif won't run on the card and returns error message "No graphicsB >>adapter found".  The current system configuration is as follows: >>3 >> 1) The board occupies Slots 11 and 12 on Bus 00.o4 >> 2) The VGA disable jumper is open (not jumpered). >eE >VMS doesn't support this card. Just like the 4D50T, 4D51T and 4D60T.t; >Replace it with a 3D30 or 4D20 or write your own driver...n >  >--. >Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER& >Network and OpenVMS system specialist >E-mail  peter@langstoeger.at0J >A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm looking for (a) Network _and_ VMS Job(s)   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 09:59:24 +0200% From: "IdrEASY" <IdrEASY@bigfoot.com>f Subject: Read_verify) Message-ID: <abalua$hq1$1@as201.hinet.hr>e   Hi!s  : I will be thankful if somebody modify this code for Alpha.E ---------------------------------------------------------------------s  7         .TITLE READ_VERIFY - Read Verify Coding Examplee         .IDENT  'V05-000't           .SBTTL  DECLARATIONS         .DISABLE        GLOBAL   ;v; ; Declare the external system routines and MACRO libraries.n ;A"         .EXTERNAL       LIB$GET_EF&         .EXTERNAL       SCR$ERASE_PAGE  -         .LIBRARY        'SYS$LIBRARY:LIB.MLB'n1         .LIBRARY        'SYS$LIBRARY:STARLET.MLB'I ;  ; Include files: ;a         $IODEF         $TRMDEFp ;e	 ; Macros:s ;  .MACRO ITEM LEN=0,CODE,VALUE         .WORD   LENs         .WORD   TRM$_'CODE'c         .LONG   VALUE          .LONG   0e
 .ENDM ITEM   ;l ; Equated symbols: ;V INBUF_LEN = 20
 ESC = ^X1B   ;N ; Own storage: ;l* ; Build item lists for the read verify QIO ;u   ;n ; Right-justified field  ;s R_ITEM_LIST:&         ITEM    CODE    = MODIFIERS, -?                 VALUE   = TRM$M_TM_R_JUST       ; Right justify-  %         ITEM    CODE    = EDITMODE, -GD                 VALUE   = TRM$K_EM_RDVERIFY     ; Enable read verify  #         ITEM    CODE    = PROMPT, --*                 VALUE   = R_PROMPT_ADDR, -?                 LEN     = R_PROMPT_LEN          ; Set up promptc  %         ITEM    CODE    = INISTRNG, -e*                 VALUE   = R_INISTR_ADDR, -G                 LEN     = R_INISTR_LEN          ; Set up initial stringn  &         ITEM    CODE    = INIOFFSET, -&                 VALUE   = R_INISTR_LEN  %         ITEM    CODE    = PICSTRNG, -u*                 VALUE   = R_PICSTR_ADDR, -G                 LEN     = R_PICSTR_LEN          ; Set up picture strings  $         ITEM    CODE    = FILLCHR, -G                 VALUE   = <^A/* />            ; clear = *, fill = spacer   R_ITEM_LIST_LEN = .-R_ITEM_LISTb   R_PROMPT_ADDR:         .ASCII  <ESC>/[12;12H$/i R_PROMPT_LEN = .-R_PROMPT_ADDR   R_INISTR_ADDR:         .ASCII  /   ,   /e R_INISTR_LEN = .-R_INISTR_ADDR  ( MASK = TRM$M_CV_NUMERIC!TRM$M_CV_NUMPUNC   R_PICSTR_ADDR:         .BYTE   MASK         .BYTE   MASK         .BYTE   MASK2         .BYTE   0               ; Marker character         .BYTE   MASK         .BYTE   MASK         .BYTE   MASK R_PICSTR_LEN = .-R_PICSTR_ADDR ;h ; Left-justified field ;a L_ITEM_LIST:&         ITEM    CODE    = MODIFIERS, -;                 VALUE   = TRM$M_TM_CVTLOW!TRM$M_TM_AUTO_TABlB                                                 ; Upcase input andH                                                 ; complete on field full  %         ITEM    CODE    = EDITMODE, -eD                 VALUE   = TRM$K_EM_RDVERIFY     ; Enable read verify  #         ITEM    CODE    = PROMPT, - *                 VALUE   = L_PROMPT_ADDR, -?                 LEN     = L_PROMPT_LEN          ; Set up promptk  %         ITEM    CODE    = INISTRNG, - *                 VALUE   = L_INISTR_ADDR, -G                 LEN     = L_INISTR_LEN          ; Set up initial stringl  &         ITEM    CODE    = INIOFFSET, -                 VALUE   = 0H  %         ITEM    CODE    = PICSTRNG, -s*                 VALUE   = L_PICSTR_ADDR, -G                 LEN     = L_PICSTR_LEN          ; Set up picture string0  $         ITEM    CODE    = FILLCHR, -I                 VALUE   = <^A/* />              ; clear = *, fill = spacef   L_ITEM_LIST_LEN = .-L_ITEM_LIST    L_PROMPT_ADDR:+         .ASCII  <ESC>/[13;12H Enter Date: /s L_PROMPT_LEN = .-L_PROMPT_ADDR   L_INISTR_ADDR:         .ASCII  /  -   -  /  L_INISTR_LEN = .-L_INISTR_ADDR   MASK1 = TRM$M_CV_NUMERIC% MASK2 = TRM$M_CV_UPPER!TRM$M_CV_LOWERt   L_PICSTR_ADDR:         .BYTE   MASK1          .BYTE   MASK1a2         .BYTE   0               ; Marker character         .BYTE   MASK2e         .BYTE   MASK2b         .BYTE   MASK2U2         .BYTE   0               ; marker character         .BYTE   MASK1i         .BYTE   MASK1l L_PICSTR_LEN = .-L_PICSTR_ADDR   IN_IOSB:        .BLKL   2h TT_CHAN:        .BLKW   1o! INBUF:          .BLKB   INBUF_LEN # SYSINPUT:       .ASCID  /SYS$INPUT/a SYNC_EFN:       .BLKL   1a  
         .PAGEt  &         .ENTRY  READ_VERIFY     ^M < >   ;  ; Get the required event flags.  ;n           PUSHAL  SYNC_EFN"         CALLS   # 1, G^ LIB$GET_EF@         BLBC    R0, ERROR                       ; Error - branch ;m! ; Assign the channel to SYS$INPUTe ;            $ASSIGN_S -r                  CHAN = TT_CHAN -;                 DEVNAM = SYSINPUT               ; SYS$INPUTwA         BLBC    R0, ERROR                       ; Branch on error-   ;- ; Clear the screen ;2           CLRQ    -(SP)e%         CALLS   #2, G^ SCR$ERASE_PAGER         BLBC    R0, ERROR6   ;e' ; Do the right-justified read operation8 ;s            PUSHL   #R_ITEM_LIST_LEN         PUSHAB  R_ITEM_LIST.         CALLS   #2, DO_READn         BLBC    R0, ERROR    ; & ; Do the left-justified read operation ;<            PUSHL   #L_ITEM_LIST_LEN         PUSHAB  L_ITEM_LIST.         CALLS   #2, DO_READr         BLBC    R0, ERRORr   ERROR:         RETi  
         .PAGEl ;++  ;  ; DO_READ - do the actual QIOS ; 	 ; Inputs:  ;t+ ;       4(AP)   the address of the itemlisto* ;       8(AP)   the length of the itemlist ;o ;--            .ENTRY  DO_READ, ^M<>e           $QIOW_S EFN=SYNC_EFN, - !                 CHAN = TT_CHAN, -o5                 FUNC = #<IO$_READVBLK!IO$M_EXTEND>, -h!                 IOSB = IN_IOSB, -b                 p1 = inbuf, -I"                 p2 = #inbuf_len, -                 p5 = 4(AP), -l                 P6 = 8(AP)<         BLBC    R0, 10$                 ; QIO error - branchI         MOVZWL  IN_IOSB, R0             ; Get the terminal driver status.oH         BLBC    R0, 10$                 ; Terminal driver error - branch   ;  Handle the input...   10$:         RETs           .END READ_VERIFY   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 05:31 CDT' From: carl@gerg.tamu.edu (Carl Perkins)- Subject: Re: Read_verify, Message-ID: <8MAY200205310834@gerg.tamu.edu>  S In article <abalua$hq1$1@as201.hinet.hr>, "IdrEASY" <IdrEASY@bigfoot.com> writes.... }Hi! } ; }I will be thankful if somebody modify this code for Alpha.@F }--------------------------------------------------------------------- } 8 }        .TITLE READ_VERIFY - Read Verify Coding Example  4 You might take a look at SYS$EXAMPLES:READ_VERIFY.C.   **  MODIFICATION HISTORY:  **3 **      11-Mar-1993 Conversion from READ_VERIFY.MAR    --- Carl   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 09:43:39 +0100t( From: Nic Clews <sendspamhere@127.0.0.1>) Subject: Re: Removing AS1000A front panel ) Message-ID: <3CD8E53B.AED5061D@127.0.0.1>v   Alder wrote: > G > Thank you Colin.  Your reply should win an award for thoroughness and  > helpfulness.:-Di > K > I think that in case of nuclear attack I'll be crouching down inside this  > thing.  E Interestingly, Colin would probably know about that sort of thing ;-)c  C Another box which is well constructed is the 'humble' DEC 2000-300.,  C We had one of these delivered 'locked'. On examination of a similarlD chassis which was open for examination, there ain't no way no how ofD getting into a locked one without causing a lot of damage which willG also probably destroy the system. The locking bar alone can sustain thee, weight of the entire system without bending.   Anyone got any spare keys?   -- n( Regards, Nic Clews CSC Computer Sciences nclews at csc dot comn   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 10:50:30 +0000 (UTC)* From: Osmo Kujala <kujala@tukki.cc.jyu.fi>  Subject: Re: Revisionist history, Message-ID: <abavtm$4ef$1@mordred.cc.jyu.fi>  4 Fred Kleinsorge <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote:% > Entertaining, but rather pointless.   E Fred, you just agreed that your line of argument is rather pointless.i  B > Do I believe that there is a danger of this happening soon?  No.  F You may be right (You must know something about this matter.), but we H wanted more concrete evidence. So, you can't give it. Okay. I appreciate$ your opinion and put emphasis on it.  
 > Is there= > the prospect that some day this might happen to VMS?  Sure,b  > It is along the main thread of this fusion. Towards "industry 3 standard" (monopoly,assimilation,wintelization...).t   > if Bill Todd andL > his ilk have his way, VMS would be further marginalized to the point whereJ > it has little or no profit, and a small and shrinking customer base - atN > which point it would make very little sense to do anything else except place > it into maintenance mode.3  K I've got different impression of Bill Todd and his ilk. I believe they are  E very worried about the bad situation and possible death of VMS and I aB believe marginalizing and shrinking customer base is caused by bad  decisions of DEC/Digital/Compaq.   Osmo   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 13:02:07 +0100 U From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com>p  Subject: Re: Revisionist history0 Message-ID: <abb4i0$c0m$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   David J. Dachtera wrote:   > Fred Kleinsorge wrote: > % >>Entertaining, but rather pointless.n >>L >>Do I believe that there is a danger of this happening soon?  No.  Is thereN >>the prospect that some day this might happen to VMS?  Sure, if Bill Todd andL >>his ilk have his way, VMS would be further marginalized to the point whereG >>it has little or no profit, and a small and shrinking customer base -f >> > 3 > Now, you know *I* have to take issue with that...w > I > The whole point to the "affordable" thing is to *EXPAND* the VMS marketo > base, not shrink it. > I > I guess it just takes a moron (namely me) to understand that - the restcG > of this group (not to mention the HPQ Brass) is just too intelligent.*
 > Dunno... >     6 Freddy knows this perfectly well. In another thread he4 is claiming that Sun's alledged inability to compete3 with single CPU x86 boxes in price performance withs- Solaris SPARC boxes will be the death of Sun.   9 Even a person with Freddys undoubted analytical abilitiesr9 should realise that this argument if true applies equallyi to OpenVMS.     7 Of course the reason why Sun does have single CPU SPARC 2 boxes that do compete with low end x86 servers and2 workstations is because we understand the need for volume as well as revenues.e     Regardsi Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 13:42:00 GMTc5 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com>t  Subject: Re: Revisionist history9 Message-ID: <IW9C8.15$596.171152@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>   A David J. Dachtera wrote in message <3CD88E42.53A7B1A9@fsi.net>...t >Fred Kleinsorge wrote:  >>& >> Entertaining, but rather pointless. >>G >> Do I believe that there is a danger of this happening soon?  No.  Ist thereeK >> the prospect that some day this might happen to VMS?  Sure, if Bill Todd* and*G >> his ilk have his way, VMS would be further marginalized to the point1 where0H >> it has little or no profit, and a small and shrinking customer base - >r2 >Now, you know *I* have to take issue with that... >iH >The whole point to the "affordable" thing is to *EXPAND* the VMS market >base, not shrink it.  >   J IA64 may be the way that we get to affordable, at least that is *my* hope.  H >I guess it just takes a moron (namely me) to understand that - the restF >of this group (not to mention the HPQ Brass) is just too intelligent.	 >Dunno...o >h  > Now, now.  If I can't call you one, then you can't either ;-).   >> ateI >> which point it would make very little sense to do anything else exceptm placer >> it into maintenance mode. >oH >Yeah - maintain it's market growth rate, maintain its growth in featureD >parity with UN*X-like o.s.-es, maintain it's growth in performance, >stability and security, ... >3- >"Maintenance mode"? Sure! Sounds good to me!) >e  C Yup.  We plan to maintain all those things.  We are working on UNIX I compatability, new features, IO performance, lock manager performance, MP I performance, scaleability, and even new security.  That isn't maintenancer mode.a   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 13:51:27 GMTh5 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com>   Subject: Re: Revisionist history9 Message-ID: <z3aC8.16$qj6.535641@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>h  6 Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote in message ... >a >t >David J. Dachtera wrote:f >u >> Fred Kleinsorge wrote:c >>& >>>Entertaining, but rather pointless. >>>sG >>>Do I believe that there is a danger of this happening soon?  No.  Iso there K >>>the prospect that some day this might happen to VMS?  Sure, if Bill Todd  and-G >>>his ilk have his way, VMS would be further marginalized to the pointm where H >>>it has little or no profit, and a small and shrinking customer base - >>>w >>4 >> Now, you know *I* have to take issue with that... >>J >> The whole point to the "affordable" thing is to *EXPAND* the VMS market >> base, not shrink it.  >>J >> I guess it just takes a moron (namely me) to understand that - the restH >> of this group (not to mention the HPQ Brass) is just too intelligent. >> Dunno...l >> >  > 7 >Freddy knows this perfectly well. In another thread hec5 >is claiming that Sun's alledged inability to compete14 >with single CPU x86 boxes in price performance with. >Solaris SPARC boxes will be the death of Sun. >   I I'm not quite sure I'm smart enough to trace the original comment all theiH way down to this response.  But in any case, it's true.  IMO - VMS can'tJ compete with uniprocessor x86 on price/performance.  Neither can you.  ButL we can sell you a total solution that integrates the small x86 boxes, backed) by the big bet-your-business VMS systems.   L No your problem is that the same thing is rapidly becomming true on the highJ end for Sun.  The only thing you guys can do is to try and drop the prices8 quickly, since you are stagnant on the performance side.   >a >e8 >Of course the reason why Sun does have single CPU SPARC3 >boxes that do compete with low end x86 servers and 3 >workstations is because we understand the need ford >volume as well as revenues. >l  H Well, they really don't compete well, unless you are so blinded by SparcI that you can't see how pointless it is to run Slowaris on a Sparc low-endyH box, instead of Linux, or any other number of cheap or free UNIX-alikes.J How long can you sell those loss-leaders?  As a company, you don't seem so healthy.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 14:09:43 GMT75 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com>   Subject: Re: Revisionist history9 Message-ID: <HkaC8.17$ne6.276675@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>     Osmo Kujala wrote in message ...5 >Fred Kleinsorge <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote:0& >> Entertaining, but rather pointless. >kF >Fred, you just agreed that your line of argument is rather pointless. >pC >> Do I believe that there is a danger of this happening soon?  No.c >oF >You may be right (You must know something about this matter.), but weI >wanted more concrete evidence. So, you can't give it. Okay. I appreciateh% >your opinion and put emphasis on it.  >V  ) http://www.compaq.com/hps/commitment.html    >> Is therec> >> the prospect that some day this might happen to VMS?  Sure, >.> >It is along the main thread of this fusion. Towards "industry4 >standard" (monopoly,assimilation,wintelization...). >e  H Which in a way, is the same thing everyone that is doing something other3 than Windows, and maybe an evolved Linux is facing.    >> if Bill Todd and>G >> his ilk have his way, VMS would be further marginalized to the point1 whereoK >> it has little or no profit, and a small and shrinking customer base - atnI >> which point it would make very little sense to do anything else except4 placed >> it into maintenance mode. > K >I've got different impression of Bill Todd and his ilk. I believe they areNE >very worried about the bad situation and possible death of VMS and IAC >believe marginalizing and shrinking customer base is caused by badV! >decisions of DEC/Digital/Compaq.-  F Actually, Bill believes that it is too late, and that he has a need to4 convince others that he is right.  Abandon all hope.   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 09:54:54 -0500m+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)-  Subject: Re: Revisionist history3 Message-ID: <KT8fRPSFmi1X@eisner.encompasserve.org>a  q In article <IW9C8.15$596.171152@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>, "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> writes:  > I >>The whole point to the "affordable" thing is to *EXPAND* the VMS market  >>base, not shrink it. >> > L > IA64 may be the way that we get to affordable, at least that is *my* hope. >   D 	Ours too.  You had mentioned it before but please do us all a favorD 	and make sure no firmware games are played.  As a for instance, the7 	DS20L - Linux only.  A lot like an Alpha NT box to me.R  @ 	From what I understand (your earlier comments) you are ensuringD 	firmware plays fair across the board.  Forgive my lack of technical$ 	knowledge , but you catch my drift.   				Roba   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 15:59:59 GMT ( From: spam@devnull.com (Russell Wallace)  Subject: Re: Revisionist history0 Message-ID: <3cd94b15.534502309@news.eircom.net>  E On Wed, 08 May 2002 16:02:33 +0100, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancyr4 <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com> wrote:  F >No that isn't true either is it Freddy. We have a number of processorH >hikes comming up and we have recently announced substantial performanceG >improvements on our current range. Only you could for example describe_2 >an increase in FP performance of 80% as stagnant.  D Now that's a good point - I just saw the latest SPEC figures someoneF posted on comp.arch, and I was blinking at it and muttering "that must@ be a typo, can't be _Sparc_ I see sitting in the top half of the  performance charts, can it?" ^.^   Anyone know how it was done?   --  3 "Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent."l! http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace_ mail:rw(at)eircom(dot)net:   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 16:02:33 +0100SU From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com>_  Subject: Re: Revisionist history0 Message-ID: <abbf49$f16$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Fred Kleinsorge wrote:  8 > Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote in message ... >  >> >>David J. Dachtera wrote: >> >> >>>Fred Kleinsorge wrote:= >>>P >>>_' >>>>Entertaining, but rather pointless.T >>>>H >>>>Do I believe that there is a danger of this happening soon?  No.  Is >>>> > there$ > L >>>>the prospect that some day this might happen to VMS?  Sure, if Bill Todd >>>> > and  > H >>>>his ilk have his way, VMS would be further marginalized to the point >>>> > whereT > I >>>>it has little or no profit, and a small and shrinking customer base -  >>>> >>>>4 >>>Now, you know *I* have to take issue with that... >>>MJ >>>The whole point to the "affordable" thing is to *EXPAND* the VMS market >>>base, not shrink it.  >>>NJ >>>I guess it just takes a moron (namely me) to understand that - the restH >>>of this group (not to mention the HPQ Brass) is just too intelligent. >>>Dunno...F >>>- >>>  >>8 >>Freddy knows this perfectly well. In another thread he6 >>is claiming that Sun's alledged inability to compete5 >>with single CPU x86 boxes in price performance withu/ >>Solaris SPARC boxes will be the death of Sun.- >> >> > K > I'm not quite sure I'm smart enough to trace the original comment all theSJ > way down to this response.  But in any case, it's true.  IMO - VMS can'tL > compete with uniprocessor x86 on price/performance.  Neither can you.  ButN > we can sell you a total solution that integrates the small x86 boxes, backed+ > by the big bet-your-business VMS systems.A >     > Well this is all fine and dandy except that Sun currently does= compete against small low end x86 boxes. Its interesting that ? you keep claiming that we cannot do something that we are doing - sucessfully. Netra X1/T1 sales are V healthy.K  ; Incedentally we also build and supply small cheap x86 boxesN9 running Linux so I guess your claim that we couldn't do a:: x86 low end with big backend boxes like Compaq is also BS.  6 The trouble with all your recent arguments is that you5 keep making the basic mistake of building you case one3 a set of assumptions you have made which are false.   9 After that unfortunately the rest of the BS is worthless.       N > No your problem is that the same thing is rapidly becomming true on the highL > end for Sun.  The only thing you guys can do is to try and drop the prices: > quickly, since you are stagnant on the performance side. >      Humm  E No that isn't true either is it Freddy. We have a number of processor G hikes comming up and we have recently announced substantial performance0F improvements on our current range. Only you could for example describe1 an increase in FP performance of 80% as stagnant.S     >  >>9 >>Of course the reason why Sun does have single CPU SPARCo4 >>boxes that do compete with low end x86 servers and4 >>workstations is because we understand the need for >>volume as well as revenues.  >> >> > J > Well, they really don't compete well, unless you are so blinded by SparcK > that you can't see how pointless it is to run Slowaris on a Sparc low-endeJ > box, instead of Linux, or any other number of cheap or free UNIX-alikes.L > How long can you sell those loss-leaders?  As a company, you don't seem so
 > healthy.    C Wow breathtaking, look arround you Compaq was hardly healthy before G being bought by HP and HP had huge issues which have not been resolved.#  C You may not have noticed this but there is a recession on which has)@ particularly effected Technology companies, yours and mine among< them. IBM have been least effected because of the proportionC anuity services business in their revenue mix but their HW revenues  have suffered.    < I keep warning you about glass houses and stones its a shame/ you keep forgetting the glass house you are in.e   Regards2   Andrew Harrisona   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 17:00:41 +0100AU From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com>r  Subject: Re: Revisionist history0 Message-ID: <abbih9$fsi$2@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Rob Young wrote:  s > In article <IW9C8.15$596.171152@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>, "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> writes:i > J >>>The whole point to the "affordable" thing is to *EXPAND* the VMS market >>>base, not shrink it.  >>>1 >>>1L >>IA64 may be the way that we get to affordable, at least that is *my* hope. >> >> > F > 	Ours too.  You had mentioned it before but please do us all a favorF > 	and make sure no firmware games are played.  As a for instance, the9 > 	DS20L - Linux only.  A lot like an Alpha NT box to me.. > B > 	From what I understand (your earlier comments) you are ensuringF > 	firmware plays fair across the board.  Forgive my lack of technical& > 	knowledge , but you catch my drift. >     < Freddy has already stated that no companies devolve business: decisions to technicians, in other words he's powerless to0 help you influence what is a commecial decision.   Regards  Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 16:33:54 GMTo* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>  Subject: Re: Revisionist historyB Message-ID: <SrcC8.108031$Ii2.9647495@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  @ "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote in message3 news:HkaC8.17$ne6.276675@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net... " > Osmo Kujala wrote in message ...   ...-  I > >I've got different impression of Bill Todd and his ilk. I believe theyu arecG > >very worried about the bad situation and possible death of VMS and IdE > >believe marginalizing and shrinking customer base is caused by bad # > >decisions of DEC/Digital/Compaq.  > H > Actually, Bill believes that it is too late, and that he has a need to6 > convince others that he is right.  Abandon all hope.  L Wrong as usual, Fred - Osmo had it right.  What I've been doing for the pastK 10+ months is playing 'truth squad' to Compaq's lies, and you can expect meeK to be doing the same next year if things continue as they have been (which,e2 by the way, is exactly what I told you last year).   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 17:04:11 GMTi5 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com>   Subject: Re: Revisionist history9 Message-ID: <fUcC8.27$Om6.650325@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>f  J Sure.  Smoke and mirrors in the compiler.  They found an optimization thatG helps a handful of tests, and in particular one test.  It's unlikely to K translate to much in the way of any user code performance, but it does makehJ them (for the time being) look better on paper.  Eventually, everyone elseJ will bite the bullet and have their compiler people do the same, and Sparc, will return to it's bottom dweller position.      H Russell Wallace wrote in message <3cd94b15.534502309@news.eircom.net>...F >On Wed, 08 May 2002 16:02:33 +0100, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy5 ><andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com> wrote:b >$G >>No that isn't true either is it Freddy. We have a number of processoroI >>hikes comming up and we have recently announced substantial performancetH >>improvements on our current range. Only you could for example describe3 >>an increase in FP performance of 80% as stagnant.B > E >Now that's a good point - I just saw the latest SPEC figures someonetG >posted on comp.arch, and I was blinking at it and muttering "that mustuA >be a typo, can't be _Sparc_ I see sitting in the top half of the ! >performance charts, can it?" ^.^t >" >Anyone know how it was done?* >e >--m4 >"Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent."" >http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace >mail:rw(at)eircom(dot)net   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 17:12:01 GMTn5 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com>h  Subject: Re: Revisionist history9 Message-ID: <B%cC8.28$zl6.612452@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>   6 Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote in message ... >e >  >Rob Young wrote:p >oB >> In article <IW9C8.15$596.171152@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>, "Fred1 Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> writes:  >>K >>>>The whole point to the "affordable" thing is to *EXPAND* the VMS marketp >>>>base, not shrink it. >>>> >>>>G >>>IA64 may be the way that we get to affordable, at least that is *my*s hope.  >>>d >>>n >>F >> Ours too.  You had mentioned it before but please do us all a favorF >> and make sure no firmware games are played.  As a for instance, the9 >> DS20L - Linux only.  A lot like an Alpha NT box to me.7 >>B >> From what I understand (your earlier comments) you are ensuringF >> firmware plays fair across the board.  Forgive my lack of technical& >> knowledge , but you catch my drift. >> >  >t= >Freddy has already stated that no companies devolve business>; >decisions to technicians, in other words he's powerless toi1 >help you influence what is a commecial decision.u >b  J Andy-pandy old bean.  Do take a pill, the doctor says that unless you stay4 on the meds, you'll continue to have these episodes.  K Just one other thing.  Aside from my grandmother, I prefer that most peopleaI call me Fred, Frederick, or even Mr. Kleinsorge.  If you in your childish4I way just want us to continue this BS of Andy vs Freddy - please continue,IK and I'll be happy to be as much an ass as you - because I really don't likeh$ you quite as much as my grandmother.   _Fred    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 17:29:07 GMTh* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>  Subject: Re: Revisionist historyA Message-ID: <DfdC8.112496$v7.9524424@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>d  @ "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote in message3 news:fUcC8.27$Om6.650325@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net...nL > Sure.  Smoke and mirrors in the compiler.  They found an optimization thatI > helps a handful of tests, and in particular one test.  It's unlikely to H > translate to much in the way of any user code performance, but it does makeL > them (for the time being) look better on paper.  Eventually, everyone elseL > will bite the bullet and have their compiler people do the same, and Sparc. > will return to it's bottom dweller position.  H As usual, Fred seems to be operating in write-only mode and incapable ofJ assimilating information that might change his misconceptions (unless he'sH just given up all pretense of objectivity and deliberately ignoring it):  L 1.  The new SPARC number that impressed me (its respectable 610 SPECint2K, aL measurement of relevance to typical real-world server use) had nothing to doL with the compiler optimizations Fred mentioned above (which were specific toK SPECfp2K, a measurement of much more limited relevance to real-world serverh use).m  K 2.  And as Andrew mentioned elsewhere, those optimizations were not limitedeH to a single FP test.  While it may (or may not) be true that they do notK reflect any real improvement in SPARC's FP hardware performance relative tobL its competition, compiler advances do occur and are (completely) legitimate, not 'smoke and mirrors'.   - bill   >(J > Russell Wallace wrote in message <3cd94b15.534502309@news.eircom.net>...   ...F  G > >Now that's a good point - I just saw the latest SPEC figures someoneuI > >posted on comp.arch, and I was blinking at it and muttering "that mustfC > >be a typo, can't be _Sparc_ I see sitting in the top half of the'# > >performance charts, can it?" ^.^t > >t > >Anyone know how it was done?  > >t > >--r6 > >"Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent."$ > >http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace > >mail:rw(at)eircom(dot)net   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 17:29:50 GMTx( From: spam@devnull.com (Russell Wallace)  Subject: Re: Revisionist history0 Message-ID: <3cd96052.539940698@news.eircom.net>  3 On Wed, 08 May 2002 17:04:11 GMT, "Fred Kleinsorge"i$ <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote:  K >Sure.  Smoke and mirrors in the compiler.  They found an optimization thato6 >helps a handful of tests, and in particular one test.  B Any idea which optimization? Since SPEC is based on real programs,E wouldn't it be likely to work on other real programs? Or does it relyl* on a fortuitous quirk of just one of them?   -- S3 "Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent."l! http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallaces mail:rw(at)eircom(dot)net    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 18:30:03 +0100eU From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com>e  Subject: Re: Revisionist history0 Message-ID: <abbnos$h8n$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Fred Kleinsorge wrote:  L > Sure.  Smoke and mirrors in the compiler.  They found an optimization thatI > helps a handful of tests, and in particular one test.  It's unlikely to>M > translate to much in the way of any user code performance, but it does makeaL > them (for the time being) look better on paper.  Eventually, everyone elseL > will bite the bullet and have their compiler people do the same, and Sparc. > will return to it's bottom dweller position. >     ; Freddy get it right. At the moment you seem to be on a rolly& producing a never ending stream of BS.   FirstlywE It isn't the compiler its compilers some of the 14 CFP2000 benchmarkstA that have had the biggest performance hikes are written in C somei in Fortran,h   SecondlyD It isn't a handfull, 3 of the 14 benchmarks go between 2.2 and 7.5 x? faster, 2 50-60% faster and the remaining 9 average 28% faster.s   ThirdlyhE You assume that the optimisation techniques Sun has used are directlyTC applicable to all other processors, while this might hold for HP-PAt- and Alpha it is much less likely to for IA64.o   Fourthly? Your claim that it is unlikely to translate into any user code a; performance is as with all the claims you have made in thisi? paragraph more BS. Posters on comp.arch have allready commentedi% that the impovements will be usefull.N   FiftlyB Its also a dumb claim for a Compaq Alpha/IA64 protagonist to make.@ Alpha has been sold almost exclusively on its SPECint and SPECfpC performance probably because other benchmarks don't seem to flatter @ it :):). IA64 is in the same boat except that it isn't very good? at SPECint. So why would you want to claim that delivering gooda: SPECfp performance isn't a good thing its the only measure> you have that makes IA64 and Alpha look respectible. With this: sort of analysis if you were a turkey you would be the one- jumping up and down and voting for christmas.    Sixtly9 Keep up the good work you are an example to us all :):):)o   Regards" Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 05:15 CDT' From: carl@gerg.tamu.edu (Carl Perkins)r* Subject: Re: Sayonara DS10, new org charts, Message-ID: <8MAY200205152380@gerg.tamu.edu>  1 Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes...s }In article <rdeininger-0705021942570001@1cust251.tnt2.nashua.nh.da.uu.net>, rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger) writes:l } M }> I can't find any confirmation that the DS10 is retiring soon.  I think thel }> story had this wrong. } E }Concievably some particular model number is being withdrawn in favor ) }of one with slightly different features.m  @ If they were to ask me, my vote would be to go to a DS11 (or, to? continue their silly numbering scheme, DS15) with an EV68 at at8D least 1GHz and DDR333 memory. With a little luck, the HP people willD at least kill off the old habit of never putting a fast processor or5 decent memory in the low end system (but I doubt it).s   --- Carl   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 05:57:04 -0700 ( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)< Subject: Re: Scott Stallard, forget your VMS to HP UX dream!= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0205080457.247f1661@posting.google.com>f  q "Dave Gudewicz" <david.gudewicz@abbott.com> wrote in message news:<ab9c36$68v$1@fizban.fizban.pprd.abbott.com>... H > I just sent Mr. Stallard an email regarding this and suggested hp alsoF > provide tools and service for those wishing to mograte from hp-ux to > OpenVMS.  Seems only fair. >  > --	 > Dave..._ >   ? and that makes more sense because didn't Capellas say that unix 
 was done for?2   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 07:59:44 -0500pB From: clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley)< Subject: Re: Scott Stallard, forget your VMS to HP UX dream!3 Message-ID: <U33EoUda$sjd@eisner.encompasserve.org>   h In article <d7791aa1.0205071046.57201e02@posting.google.com>, bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) writes:8 > So VMS is secure and the itanium port is also, but Mr.9 > Stallard, knock off the "we think the VMS to HP UX ports7 > idea is a great one" talk ... we are not leaving vms, 9 > and if you try to force us off of VMS it will not be to  > your unix garbage!  H I have seen the followups to this posting, but I have not seen mentioned- in what context the above statement was made.i  L Did he say it as a general statement, ie: We think that all VMS users shouldJ move to HP-UX, or was it more specific, ie: If you _do_ decide to move offM VMS, we think that you should move to HP-UX instead of a Microsoft solution ?n  I Also, where did he actually say this, and if it's online does anyone havet a URL for it ?   Simon.  G PS: I don't have any HP-UX experience, so can somebody who does explaine5 why we should move to HP-UX instead of another Unix ?d   -- bB Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP       + Microsoft: The Lada of the computing world.    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 14:23:42 GMTo. From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter LANGSTOEGER)< Subject: Re: Scott Stallard, forget your VMS to HP UX dream!5 Message-ID: <OxaC8.182173$vc2.2099099@news.chello.at>c  q In article <yoaC8.18$ki6.476181@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>, "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> writes:uJ >If you are thinking of leaving VMS for UNIX, then by all means we want to) >try to make HP-UX the UNIX you move to.    G If I would think of leaving VMS for UNIX it would be OSF1^WdUNIX^WTru64oF and not the old and dying 32bit (with 64bit extensions) monster HP/UX.L I think, it was absolutely the wrong decision to make Tru64 the organ donor.K But only for technical reasons. For all other reasons it would be the worstd/ UNIX I've ever seen (only 7 so far): SLOWLARIS h  M >                                           But nobody is suggesting that any K >VMS user "should" move to another OS, unless that is what they want to do.h  J You are leaning out of the window. Stating "Nobody" is far from being ableF to put a hand in a fire. A lot of people are stating that VMS is dyingF and MANY are FROM YOUR OWN COMPANY (and are stating it for years now -1 and despite what one say, didn't stop telling so).   -Peter  C PS: And regarding your cited URL, broken commitments don't count...c --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGERa% Network and OpenVMS system specialistr E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atP A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm looking for (a) Network _and_ VMS Job(s)   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 14:13:50 GMTs5 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com>x< Subject: Re: Scott Stallard, forget your VMS to HP UX dream!9 Message-ID: <yoaC8.18$ki6.476181@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>   I If you are thinking of leaving VMS for UNIX, then by all means we want touJ try to make HP-UX the UNIX you move to.  But nobody is suggesting that anyJ VMS user "should" move to another OS, unless that is what they want to do.  ) http://www.compaq.com/hps/commitment.htmlp      " Simon Clubley wrote in message ...> >In article <d7791aa1.0205071046.57201e02@posting.google.com>,* bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) writes:9 >> So VMS is secure and the itanium port is also, but Mr.d: >> Stallard, knock off the "we think the VMS to HP UX port8 >> idea is a great one" talk ... we are not leaving vms,: >> and if you try to force us off of VMS it will not be to >> your unix garbage!  >iI >I have seen the followups to this posting, but I have not seen mentionedu. >in what context the above statement was made. >pF >Did he say it as a general statement, ie: We think that all VMS users shouldK >move to HP-UX, or was it more specific, ie: If you _do_ decide to move offnL >VMS, we think that you should move to HP-UX instead of a Microsoft solution ?u >cJ >Also, where did he actually say this, and if it's online does anyone have >a URL for it ?t >  >Simon.t >eH >PS: I don't have any HP-UX experience, so can somebody who does explain6 >why we should move to HP-UX instead of another Unix ? >h >--f< >Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP, >Microsoft: The Lada of the computing world.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 11:18:05 -0400o- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>s< Subject: Re: Scott Stallard, forget your VMS to HP UX dream!, Message-ID: <3CD9419C.24C4D9A4@videotron.ca>   Fred Kleinsorge wrote: > K > If you are thinking of leaving VMS for UNIX, then by all means we want togL > try to make HP-UX the UNIX you move to.  But nobody is suggesting that anyL > VMS user "should" move to another OS, unless that is what they want to do.  M HP shoudl start to plan to sell migration package from VMS. But not to HP-UX,sM but rather to those platforms Digital customers wool go to: IBM and SUN. FromiK a purely business point ofview, HP stands to gain more by helping customersoL migrate to IBM than just having then migrate to IBM and hiring outside firms help with migration.   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 07:07:08 GMT ' From: huw.davies@kerberos.davies.net.aus  Subject: Re: simh VAX VMS users?O Message-ID: <AE5D661D6B3E0F27.1CC71C1E00D7E84B.54A5C18AF88DFC5D@lp.airnews.net>o  3 norm lastovica <norman.lastovica@oracle.com> wrote:eF > I've been playing around with running VMS on the SIMH VAX simulator.H > Most things are working OK.  I've installed VMS V7.3, a DEC C compilerA > and Rdb.  I'm trying to debug a problem where a process in the yF > simulated environment seems to get stuck waiting for a disk write to$ > the system disk seems to complete.  > > Anyone else got this up and running?  Any tricks to share?    H I'm running it on Linux/Alpha. The only issue I had was that it wouldn't run correctly when compiled using gcc. Changing to ccc got it up and running. OpenVMS 7.3 is installed and I've been using it to test some code for a colleague. --  ? Huw Davies          | e-mail: Huw.Davies@kerberos.davies.net.au =                     | "If God had wanted soccer played in theu;                     | air, the sky would be painted green" 3   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 13:08:43 -0000T From: sword7@speakeasy.org  Subject: Re: simh VAX VMS users?/ Message-ID: <udi8qrhjaflnd5@corp.supernews.com>l  3 norm lastovica <norman.lastovica@oracle.com> wrote:tF > I've been playing around with running VMS on the SIMH VAX simulator.H > Most things are working OK.  I've installed VMS V7.3, a DEC C compilerA > and Rdb.  I'm trying to debug a problem where a process in the  F > simulated environment seems to get stuck waiting for a disk write to$ > the system disk seems to complete.  J Yes, it was a bug in SIMH that cause crash during heavy disk load.  Please) get a latest download that dated May 3/4.e   -- Tim Stark   -- e, Timothy Stark	<><	Inet: sword7@speakeasy.orgJ --------------------------------------------------------------------------F "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that H whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.. Amen." -- John 3:16 (King James Version Bible)   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 12:53:02 +0100yU From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com>?0 Subject: Re: SKC Morphs Again... We're Now SKHPC0 Message-ID: <abb410$buk$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Fred Kleinsorge wrote:  8 > Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote in message ... >  >> >>Fred Kleinsorge wrote: >aL >>>into account the tricked up compiler that caused the temportary "upgrade" >>>c > of >  >>>USIII speed). >>>g >>>  >>B >>There you go again posting about something you don't understand. >>E >>1. The optimisation used by Sun only effected SPECfp note that BilliH >>is talking about SPECint. Even you should be aware of the differences. >> >> > J > It should beat Sparc using any measurment.  Heck, an old guy with a hand3 > calculator will give it a good run for the money.. >     7 Thank you for the wonderfull technical response Freddy.t  A But lets be specific what measurement were you refering to, wafere  > size. Tell us which measure you are sure IA-64 will beat SPARC on ??a     > H >>2, It wasn't a trick and if you think it was perhaps you could back up> >>your claim with evidence other than suppostion on your part. >> >> > N > They tricked up the computer to beat a specific test.  It wont take long forH > everyone else to bite te bullet and add the same optimization to their > compilers. >     D They tricked up the computer !!! What are you some sort of marketingE person. So far 0 techical content from dear old Fred now why am I notn	 suprised.n  D Sun released a new compiler which does a better job of optimising FPA applications, evidence of this is the improvement in Sun's SPECfpoE results which mostly due to compiler improvements but also processor l
 improvements.r  @ The Forte 7 compiler improves the performance of all 14 CPF2000 > benchmarks used to measure the CFP result which is a geometric= mean of the results. In particular ART (Neural networks/imageyH processing benchmark) improved by a factor of 7.5 x but other benchmarksB such as EQUAKE (Seismic Wave Propagation) improved by 5.2 x, LUCASG (Number Theory) 2.2 x, GALGEL (Fluid Dynamics) 1.6 x and APSI (PolutanteE distribution) 1.5 x. The other 9 improved by an average of 28% rathere, higher than the 17% clock hike of the CPU's.  9 Remember CPF2000 is the Geometric mean of the 14 results.n  C So which test did we "trick" ? Tricking one might cause for concernm? tricking at least 5 less so or are you questioning the validityeC of CFP2000 as a test at all. If you are remember that its virtuallyd9 the only measure that shows Alpha based systems in a goodg light.    M > There was no leap in hardware speed, and almost no user code will be fastero > because of the trick., >     G Well apart from the fact that we increased the clock speed from 900 to sG 1050 Mhz increased the size of the TLB cache and made a number of otheraF improvements then discounting all this you are right there was no leapB in HW speed. It was a combination of HW and Compiler (exactly what" you are hoping for from Mckinley).  G This would be a more interesting contest Freddy if you had a clue what wG you were talking about since you don't appear to, its less of a contestm and more of a blood sport.     > I >>>So IA64 systems will at minimum be performance competetive with USIII,r >>>  > and  > 4 >>>from what I understand will be priced much lower. >>>r >>> G >>This would have been an interesting point had your previous ones beene+ >>correct since they were not it isn't :):)R >> >> > J > Alright, let's ignore the future, and talk about the present.  Why wouldH > anyone run slowaris on a uniprocessor Sparc when an IA32 is faster and
 > cheaper? >     D Ask yourself the same question about Alpha. BTW the Slowaris jibe isC dumb since you havn't come up with any examples of Tru64 or OpenVMS  being faster have you.    ? > Eventually, even Sun users will wake up and smell the coffee.' >     > If you are right then the same applies to Tru64 and OpenVMS on Alpha/IA64..  @ Of course the real reason is that people buy systems for reasons> other than Performance and Price. They must do because if they? only used these criteria no one would have bought Tru64/OpenVMS-> systems. In case you hadn't noticed on benchmarks that measureG price performance you are not first league players and never have been.s   So to Sumarise  @ You are complaining about Sun improving its compiler performance/ which is exactly what you hope for in McKinley.t  ? You claim Solaris is slow without yet having managed to provideiB comparative benchmark results to Tru64 and OpenVMS that show this.  ? You claim Sun cannot compete price performance wise with singler= CPU x86 boxes. You seem unaware of the fact that Sun producesd: a sub 1000 dollar Sun that does compete with x86 boxes andB at the same time the division of the company you work for does not? have a low end x86 competitor. While you are working on porting-9 OpenVMS and Tru64 to IA64 a platform which everyone knows0< will not compete for the single CPU x86 market. Its too hot, too expensive and too slow.e  ? Not a good prospect for you Freddy with your CV whatever skillssA you outlined in your resume didn't include NT/Win2000 which wouldr9 seem to be what you are destined to have to learn if youreA predictions come true. I would get as many MS training courses ast3 your employer du jour will pay for under your belt.e  6 Marvelous I hope this has been a usefull lesson to you8 in your own company, benchmarks and why you should stick7 to whatever you are good at and avoid what you are not.,6 You don't need to thank me for the career advice, from= the tone of your postings you appear to have reached the samen conclusion yourself.   Regardsg Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 14:21:14 GMTh5 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> 0 Subject: Re: SKC Morphs Again... We're Now SKHPC9 Message-ID: <uvaC8.19$6j6.521249@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>7  G Andy you're a treasure.  I hope that Sun doesn't underpay you.  Just inhL entertainment value alone your worth at least half of what they pay you, not@ to mention your numerous technical contributions to the company.  H Think of me when you and the other guys in marketing get together to sob over a pint.   _Freddyr  6 Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote in message ... >c >m   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 16:57:05 +0100eU From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com> 0 Subject: Re: SKC Morphs Again... We're Now SKHPC0 Message-ID: <abbiai$fsi$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Fred Kleinsorge wrote:  I > Andy you're a treasure.  I hope that Sun doesn't underpay you.  Just inhN > entertainment value alone your worth at least half of what they pay you, notB > to mention your numerous technical contributions to the company. > J > Think of me when you and the other guys in marketing get together to sob > over a pint. >     ; More factual technical analysis from the pen of Freddy boy.   ; Sadly the only people doing any entertainment at the moment < are you and Bob, sadly because you arn't entertaining anyone for the right reasons.  : How about getting something right ? Start by ditching your7 assumption that I am in marketing. Surely you must have 9 learnt by now that if you get your basic assumptions 100%g9 wrong then the rest of your carefull constructed argument 
 collapses.  9 It was the same over SPARC and FAB's, the same with Linuxe9 and you appear to be following the same well trodden patht. on Alpha/IA64/SPARC/x86 and price performance.     Regardsn Andrew Harrisonh   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 17:17:21 GMTt5 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com>r0 Subject: Re: SKC Morphs Again... We're Now SKHPC9 Message-ID: <B4dC8.29$5o6.701498@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>m  6 Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote in message ... >i; >How about getting something right ? Start by ditching yourl8 >assumption that I am in marketing. Surely you must have: >learnt by now that if you get your basic assumptions 100%: >wrong then the rest of your carefull constructed argument >collapses.o >n  I Andy, I mean "Mr Prime Minister", have you stopped taking your medication I again?  Come on now, be a good boy and always make sure you take the BLUEfJ pill in the morning, otherwise you can't remember exactly who and what you do.$   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 09:21:43 -0700# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> ! Subject: RE: SMTP Usage Filter...s9 Message-ID: <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIIEAGEPAA.tom@kednos.com>f   So would following work?   Reject-Mail: 210.0.0.0/8 Accept-Mail: 210.49.0.0/16   >-----Original Message----- A >From: Mark(unMASK)Forsyth [mailto:forsytMhm@optAushoSme.com.aKu]p$ >Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 9:25 PM >To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com" >Subject: Re: SMTP Usage Filter... >  >r >S? >"Michael Austin" <maustin@firstdbasource.com> wrote in messageo- >news:3CD73636.175F7A40@firstdbasource.com...2 >s
 >[deletia] >>B >> Add these as well, these are entire Asia/Pacific (China) entire >> networks. >>? >> Bad-Clients: 210.0.0.0/8,211.0.0.0/8,202.0.0.0/8,203.0.0.0/8H >X. >You're knocking out bits of Oz too with that. >l) >inetnum:     210.49.0.0 - 210.49.255.255o >netname:     OPTUSINTERNET-AU% >descr:       OPTUS INTERNET - RETAILo >descr:       INTERNET SERVICESv >descr:       St Leonards, NSW >country:     AU >mA >Why not just block China Telecom, that stops just about the lot.k >a >Ooroo
 >Mark F... >  >e >>K >> I was getting a bunch of rejections in OPCOM, until they finally got theh3 >> message and now I get none from those addresses.o >> --t >> Regards,o >>: >> Michael Austin            Registered Linux User #261163: >> First DBA Source, Inc.    http://www.firstdbasource.com >> Sr. Consultanta >> 704-947-1089 (Office) >> 704-236-4377 (Mobile) >> >n >a >---' >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.u; >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).TA >Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 4/19/2002  >a ---e& Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).? Version: 6.0.360 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 5/7/2002$   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 17:58:46 +0100.U From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com>n4 Subject: Re: Some more words of wisdom from Capellas0 Message-ID: <abblu6$gqt$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Main, Kerry wrote:  	 > Andrew,o >  > D >>>>Oracle is devloped on Sun Solaris and given Compaqs market share >>>>J > with them no one could describe Compaq as the first-go-to-market partner > with Oracle.<< > " > Ahh, but what about the new HP ? > F > Do you not think HP-UX + Tru64 UNIX + OpenVMS + W2K + Linux is not aH > compelling reason for Oracle to want to do much more business with the	 > new HP?u >     9 No Tru64 is going, OpenVMS has a very questionable futureh& which leaves Win2000, HP-UX and Linux.  : HP and Compaq are just Linux followers, the people who are: actually providing technology are Sun and IBM don't expect= to win business from IBM fro example in the Linux market whentC you are so far removed from the nuts and bolts of building Linux inn the first place.  5 Win2000, humm heard of SQL-Server, Larry isn't a fan.n  8 HP-UX, pretty credible UNIX but third in the market, hey% lets face it thats better than Tru64.e  3 So no first to market with Oracle not on your life.'  6 Incedentally how do you justify Mikeys first-to-market with Oracle claims ????e     > [beware - sarcasm alert] > E > Also, btw .. Ahhh Yup, Oracle and Sun are really close these days. t >     7 When Oracle ditch Solaris as their development platform$8 and kick it of the 1 tier porting list then come back to me.l  7 Of course people have spats it happens all the time butm4 Oracle and Sun have a very similar agenda. MS is the4 enemy both companies understand that though its more3 uncomfortable for Oracle than it is for Sun becausea2 they derive revenues from MS platforms where as we don't.  2 Niether company is a fan of IBM, Oracle because of/ Informix and DB2, Sun because of IBM HW and GS.l    D > - That's why Sun went off and bought a company that does clusteredG > databases. Shhhh.. maybe Oracle and IBM (DB2) and Sybase did not hearg > about that... :-)  > www.clustra.com,4 > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/53/24476.html > G > - That's why Sun did their big PeopleSoft benchmark in Jan'02 on DB2.gH > http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2002-01/sunflash.20020107.1.html > D > - That's why Sun and Oracle CEO's are dropping jabs at each other:D > http://www.computerworld.com/storyba/0,4125,NAV47_STO67867,00.htmlI > "Asked earlier if Sun and Oracle are now competitors, because Sun sellseH > an application server that competes with Oracle's, Ellison delivered a > friendly potshot.o > H > "I have this conversation with Scott a lot," he said, referring to SunJ > Chairman and CEO Scott McNealy. "He always wonders if I'm mad at him forG > going into competitive markets, and the answer is no, because I don'tiE > think they stand a chance. Bless their heart, it's not what they do J > well. I think it's going to be really hard for an open standards company4 > like that to get deep into the software business." > I > - That's why Oracle has licensed Compaq Tru64 clustering to be the core4A > of their new database clustering technology in 9i and 10i RAC. i >  > [sarcasm alert off]I > 9 > Ahh .. Yup, Oracle and Sun are really close these days.y >  > :-)  >  > Kerry Main > Senior ConsultantM > Compaq Canada Corp.  > Professional Servicess > Voice: 613-592-4660  > Fax  :  819-772-7036 > Email: Kerry.Main@Compaq.com >  >  > -----Original Message-----) > From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy 7 > [mailto:andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com] P > Sent: May 3, 2002 10:58 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Comt6 > Subject: Re: Some more words of wisdom from Capellas >  >  >  >  > Alan Greig wrote:- >  > 3 >>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/25142.htmlm >># >>Some quotes from Curly yesterday:j >>F >>HP in the past has been seen as a kind of amorphous blob, asked one 6 >>analyst. What can you do to clarify that perception? >>B >>"We're driving the move to standards-based computing across the  >>board," he replied.  >>D >>In response to a question "What does Compaq stand for?", Capellas  >>answered:  >>C >>"We've got to be the first go-to-market partner Intel, the first aH >>go-to-market partner for Oracle and the first go-to-market partner for >> >  >>Microsoft," he said. >> >> >  > 1 > Mikey needs to get a bit closer to his partners  > before spouting this.. > 5 > Oracle is devloped on Sun Solaris and given Compaqsh5 > market share with them no one could describe Compaqn0 > as the first-go-to-market partner with Oracle. > 6 > Being first to market with Intel and MS is a dubious5 > accolade which most people would consider best kept   > quiet rather than broadcasted. > 	 > Regardsd > Andrew Harrison  >  >  >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 10:21:23 +0100eU From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com>M: Subject: Re: SOT: Yo Andrew, you guys on a roll this week?0 Message-ID: <abar4j$8jj$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Blimey    Has Bob got a lost twin brother.   RegardsS Andrew Harrison.   Dan Allen wrote:   > ----- Original Message -----' > From: "FedCIRC" <fedcirc@fedcirc.gov>i > To: <FedCIRC-Community:>$ > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 4:45 PMF > Subject: FedCIRC Advisory FA-2002-11 Heap Overflow in Cachefs Daemon > (cachefsd) >  >  >  >>$ >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>H >>FedCIRC Advisory FA-2002-11 Heap Overflow in Cachefs Daemon (cachefsd) >>( >>   Original release date: May 06, 2002 >>   Last revised: >>   Source: CERT/CC >>F >>   A complete revision history can be found at the end of this file. >> >>  Systems Affected >>I >>     * Sun Solaris 2.5.1, 2.6, 7, and 8 (SPARC and Intel Architectures)e >>
 >>Overview >>K >>   Sun's  NFS/RPC  file  system  cachefs daemon (cachefsd) is shipped and-K >>   installed  by default with Sun Solaris 2.5.1, 2.6, 7, and 8 (SPARC andlK >>   Intel  architectures).  A remotely exploitable vulnerability exists in K >>   cachefsd that could permit a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code K >>   with  the  privileges of the cachefsd, typically root. The CERT/CC haseK >>   received  credible  reports  of  scanning  and exploitation of Solarism >>   systems running cachefsd. >> >>I. Description >>K >>   A  remotely  exploitable  heap overflow exists in the cachefsd programiK >>   shipped and installed by default with Sun Solaris 2.5.1, 2.6, 7, and 8 K >>   (SPARC   and   Intel  architectures).  Cachefsd  caches  requests  foroK >>   operations on remote file systems mounted via the use of NFS protocol. K >>   A  remote  attacker  can  send  a  crafted RPC request to the cachefsdn* >>   program to exploit the vulnerability. >>> >>   Logs of exploitation attempts may resemble the following: >>G >>May 16 22:46:08 victim-host inetd[600]: /usr/lib/fs/cachefs/cachefsd:4" >>Segmentation Fault - core dumped >>; >>May 16 22:46:21 victim-host last message repeated 7 timesc >>G >>May 16 22:46:22 victim-host inetd[600]: /usr/lib/fs/cachefs/cachefsd:  >>Bus Error- core dumped >>G >>May 16 22:46:24 victim-host inetd[600]: /usr/lib/fs/cachefs/cachefsd:b" >>Segmentation Fault - core dumped >>G >>May 16 22:46:56 victim-host inetd[600]: /usr/lib/fs/cachefs/cachefsd:  >>Bus Error - core dumpedi >>: >>May 16 22:46:59 victim-host last message repeated 1 time >>G >>May 16 22:47:02 victim-host inetd[600]: /usr/lib/fs/cachefs/cachefsd: " >>Segmentation Fault - core dumped >>; >>May 16 22:47:07 victim-host last message repeated 3 timeso >>G >>May 16 22:47:09 victim-host inetd[600]: /usr/lib/fs/cachefs/cachefsd:  >>Hangup >>G >>May 16 22:47:11 victim-host inetd[600]: /usr/lib/fs/cachefs/cachefsd:e" >>Segmentation Fault - core dumped >>K >>   According  a  Sun  Alert Notification, failed attempts to exploit thishK >>   vulnerability  may  leave  a core dump file in the root directory. ThesK >>   presence  of the core file does not preclude the success of subsequent K >>   attacks.  Additionally,  if  the  file  /etc/cachefstab exists, it mayi >>   contain unusual entries.t >>: >>   This issue is also being referenced as CAN-2002-0085: >>B >>     http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2002-0085 >>K >>   The  Australian  Computer  Emergency  Response Team has also issued ana? >>   advisory related to incident activity exploiting cachefsd:  >>L >>  http://www.auscert.org.au/Information/Advisories/advisory/AA-2002.01.txt >> >>II. Impact >>K >>   A  remote  attacker may be able to execute code with the privileges off* >>   the cachefsd process, typically root. >> >>III. Solutiont >># >>   Apply a patch from your vendor0 >>K >>   Appendix A contains information provided by vendors for this advisory.  >>K >>   If  a  patch  is not available, disable cachefsd in inetd.conf until ae >>   patch can be applied. >>K >>   If  disabling  the  cachefsd  is  not  an option, follow the suggested . >>   workaround in the Sun Alert Notification. >>" >>Appendix A. - Vendor Information >>K >>   This  appendix  contains  information  provided  by  vendors  for this K >>   advisory.  As  vendors  report new information to the CERT/CC, we will>K >>   update this section and note the changes in our revision history. If a>K >>   particular  vendor is not listed below, please check the Vulnerability 6 >>   Note (VU#635811) or contact your vendor directly. >>	 >>    IBMt >>C >>     IBM's AIX operating system, all versions, is not vulnerable.n >>	 >>    SGIu >>F >>     SGI does not ship with SUN cachefsd, so IRIX is not vulnerable. >>	 >>    Suns >>J >>     See     the     Sun     Alert     Notification     available     atG >>     http://sunsolve.sun.com/pub-cgi/retrieve.pl?doc=fsalert%2F44309.yF >>   _________________________________________________________________ >>K >>   The CERT/CC acknowledges the eSecurity Online Team for discovering andhK >>   reporting  on this vulnerability and thanks Sun Microsystems for theira >>   technical assistance.F >>   _________________________________________________________________ >>/ >>   Feedback  can  be directed to the authors:k, >>   Jason A. Rafail and Jeffrey S. HavrillaK >>   ______________________________________________________________________a >>% >>   This document is available from:o7 >>   http://www2.fedcirc.gov/advisories/FA-2002-11.html K >>   ______________________________________________________________________v >> >>FedCIRC Contact Informatione >> >>   Email: fedcirc@fedcirc.gov > >>          Phone: +1 888-282-0870 (24-hour toll-free hotline)4 >>          Phone: +1 703-375-2222 (24-hour hotline)  >>          Fax: +1 703-375-2427 >>H >>   FedCIRC personnel answer the hotline 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. >> >>    Using encryption >>K >>   We  strongly  urge you to encrypt sensitive information sent by email.l) >>   Our public PGP key is available frome >>& >>   http://www2.fedcirc.gov/keys.html >>K >>   If  you  prefer  to  use DES, please call the FedCIRC hotline for moreC >>   information.  >>" >>    Getting security information >>K >>   FedCIRC publications and other security information are available fromy >>   our web siteo >> >>   http://www.fedcirc.gov/ >>K >>   FedCIRC  (Federal Computer Incident Response Center) provides securitylK >>   services  to U.S. Federal civilian agencies. FedCIRC is managed by theaK >>   U.S.  General  Services  Administration.  The CERT Coordination CenteraH >>   performs incident and vulnerability analysis and issues advisories. >>K >>   *  "CERT"  and  "CERT  Coordination Center" are registered in the U.S.e! >>   Patent and Trademark Office.-K >>   ______________________________________________________________________l >> >>   NO WARRANTYK >>   Any  material furnished by Carnegie Mellon University and the Software-K >>   Engineering  Institute  is  furnished  on  an  "as is" basis. Carnegie K >>   Mellon University makes no warranties of any kind, either expressed oroK >>   implied  as  to  any matter including, but not limited to, warranty ofcK >>   fitness  for  a  particular purpose or merchantability, exclusivity oryK >>   results  obtained from use of the material. Carnegie Mellon UniversityoK >>   does  not  make  any warranty of any kind with respect to freedom from-2 >>   patent, trademark, or copyright infringement. >>/ >>   Copyright 2002 Carnegie Mellon University.r >> >>   Revision History & >>      May 06, 2002:  Initial release >> >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----@ >>Version: PGP 6.5.8 >>B >>iQEVAwUBPNbqgIBMzw7XZGn/AQEJwggAgEFMO8YIsP/0I2XHStYlZLJDoBx5jB9MB >>MuUWsTtYBbrnoyu6sJhpo3GjshT+k2k5kj9PjbmFLmqfUShmM3G/W3yc21D2w8M3B >>9ogIpwBZXAYIEiLRKkqFdBqcUn2dE8mixAOW3AvrqZb54CwQxkVFLVshkYHIRSsNB >>lJz7zfAaw7bDqXTc9OrI/TBFdkPR9rHBJpyQgtxzKzThcawwTu+LfEl8ZlxQizaOB >>Ofu1cA/4phBe4WO/KnSQKmKACHhFZsoO2hSTdRwx9t3hq9zaoleS2oB1EHHspuqm: >>k6LqSobTuYsD3sHE2c9bGPyNj4KUkyLpYicYRxzPEn3RWtDQbebvzw== >>=MrUeb >>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----o >> >> >  >  >    ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 07:05:28 -0700n( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski): Subject: Re: SOT: Yo Andrew, you guys on a roll this week?= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0205080605.4ff66617@posting.google.com>o   Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com> wrote in message news:<abar4j$8jj$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...A > Blimey > " > Has Bob got a lost twin brother. > 	 > Regardsg > Andrew Harrisond >   : I'm afraid not Andrew ole chap ... he just understands the4 superiority of VMS, and this is another piece of the3 evidence ... and, if you haven't heard the Capellase- bulletin ... "Unix is done for, eviscerated"!u   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 14:22:55 GMT.5 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com>U: Subject: Re: SOT: Yo Andrew, you guys on a roll this week?9 Message-ID: <3xaC8.20$jk6.566306@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>I  ' More keen and insightful analysis Andy?a   Your cache drop a bit?  6 Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote in message ... >Blimey  >s! >Has Bob got a lost twin brother.  >n >Regards >Andrew Harrison >  >Dan Allen wrote:k >  >> ----- Original Message ----- ( >> From: "FedCIRC" <fedcirc@fedcirc.gov> >> To: <FedCIRC-Community:> % >> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 4:45 PMxG >> Subject: FedCIRC Advisory FA-2002-11 Heap Overflow in Cachefs Daemone
 >> (cachefsd)9 >> >> >> >>>m% >>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----c >>>:I >>>FedCIRC Advisory FA-2002-11 Heap Overflow in Cachefs Daemon (cachefsd)s >>>f) >>>   Original release date: May 06, 2002: >>>   Last revised:M >>>   Source: CERT/CC- >>>rG >>>   A complete revision history can be found at the end of this file.h >>>c >>>  Systems Affectedy >>> J >>>     * Sun Solaris 2.5.1, 2.6, 7, and 8 (SPARC and Intel Architectures) >>>  >>>Overview" >>>eL >>>   Sun's  NFS/RPC  file  system  cachefs daemon (cachefsd) is shipped andL >>>   installed  by default with Sun Solaris 2.5.1, 2.6, 7, and 8 (SPARC andL >>>   Intel  architectures).  A remotely exploitable vulnerability exists inL >>>   cachefsd that could permit a remote attacker to execute arbitrary codeL >>>   with  the  privileges of the cachefsd, typically root. The CERT/CC hasL >>>   received  credible  reports  of  scanning  and exploitation of Solaris >>>   systems running cachefsd.L >>>d >>>I. Description  >>> L >>>   A  remotely  exploitable  heap overflow exists in the cachefsd programL >>>   shipped and installed by default with Sun Solaris 2.5.1, 2.6, 7, and 8L >>>   (SPARC   and   Intel  architectures).  Cachefsd  caches  requests  forL >>>   operations on remote file systems mounted via the use of NFS protocol.L >>>   A  remote  attacker  can  send  a  crafted RPC request to the cachefsd+ >>>   program to exploit the vulnerability.7 >>>6? >>>   Logs of exploitation attempts may resemble the following:u >>>eH >>>May 16 22:46:08 victim-host inetd[600]: /usr/lib/fs/cachefs/cachefsd:# >>>Segmentation Fault - core dumpede >>>a< >>>May 16 22:46:21 victim-host last message repeated 7 times >>>hH >>>May 16 22:46:22 victim-host inetd[600]: /usr/lib/fs/cachefs/cachefsd: >>>Bus Error- core dumpedl >>>DH >>>May 16 22:46:24 victim-host inetd[600]: /usr/lib/fs/cachefs/cachefsd:# >>>Segmentation Fault - core dumpedo >>>UH >>>May 16 22:46:56 victim-host inetd[600]: /usr/lib/fs/cachefs/cachefsd: >>>Bus Error - core dumped >>>a; >>>May 16 22:46:59 victim-host last message repeated 1 timea >>>eH >>>May 16 22:47:02 victim-host inetd[600]: /usr/lib/fs/cachefs/cachefsd:# >>>Segmentation Fault - core dumped  >>>t< >>>May 16 22:47:07 victim-host last message repeated 3 times >>> H >>>May 16 22:47:09 victim-host inetd[600]: /usr/lib/fs/cachefs/cachefsd:	 >>>HangupX >>>uH >>>May 16 22:47:11 victim-host inetd[600]: /usr/lib/fs/cachefs/cachefsd:# >>>Segmentation Fault - core dumpedt >>> L >>>   According  a  Sun  Alert Notification, failed attempts to exploit thisL >>>   vulnerability  may  leave  a core dump file in the root directory. TheL >>>   presence  of the core file does not preclude the success of subsequentL >>>   attacks.  Additionally,  if  the  file  /etc/cachefstab exists, it may >>>   contain unusual entries. >>>s; >>>   This issue is also being referenced as CAN-2002-0085:r >>>SC >>>     http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2002-0085r >>>tL >>>   The  Australian  Computer  Emergency  Response Team has also issued an@ >>>   advisory related to incident activity exploiting cachefsd: >>>e >>>rH http://www.auscert.org.au/Information/Advisories/advisory/AA-2002.01.txt >>>l
 >>>II. Impact  >>>OL >>>   A  remote  attacker may be able to execute code with the privileges of+ >>>   the cachefsd process, typically root.  >>>e >>>III. Solution >>>e$ >>>   Apply a patch from your vendor >>>vL >>>   Appendix A contains information provided by vendors for this advisory. >>> L >>>   If  a  patch  is not available, disable cachefsd in inetd.conf until a >>>   patch can be applied.e >>>aL >>>   If  disabling  the  cachefsd  is  not  an option, follow the suggested/ >>>   workaround in the Sun Alert Notification.d >>> # >>>Appendix A. - Vendor Information  >>>tL >>>   This  appendix  contains  information  provided  by  vendors  for thisL >>>   advisory.  As  vendors  report new information to the CERT/CC, we willL >>>   update this section and note the changes in our revision history. If aL >>>   particular  vendor is not listed below, please check the Vulnerability7 >>>   Note (VU#635811) or contact your vendor directly.0 >>>.
 >>>    IBM >>>hD >>>     IBM's AIX operating system, all versions, is not vulnerable. >>>w
 >>>    SGI >>>mG >>>     SGI does not ship with SUN cachefsd, so IRIX is not vulnerable.e >>>n
 >>>    Sun >>>eK >>>     See     the     Sun     Alert     Notification     available     atnH >>>     http://sunsolve.sun.com/pub-cgi/retrieve.pl?doc=fsalert%2F44309.G >>>   _________________________________________________________________  >>>lL >>>   The CERT/CC acknowledges the eSecurity Online Team for discovering andL >>>   reporting  on this vulnerability and thanks Sun Microsystems for their >>>   technical assistance.eG >>>   _________________________________________________________________  >>>t0 >>>   Feedback  can  be directed to the authors:- >>>   Jason A. Rafail and Jeffrey S. Havrilla L >>>   ______________________________________________________________________ >>> & >>>   This document is available from:8 >>>   http://www2.fedcirc.gov/advisories/FA-2002-11.htmlL >>>   ______________________________________________________________________ >>>  >>>FedCIRC Contact Information >>>5  >>>   Email: fedcirc@fedcirc.gov? >>>          Phone: +1 888-282-0870 (24-hour toll-free hotline)-5 >>>          Phone: +1 703-375-2222 (24-hour hotline)t! >>>          Fax: +1 703-375-2427s >>>.I >>>   FedCIRC personnel answer the hotline 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.c >>>: >>>    Using encryptionm >>> L >>>   We  strongly  urge you to encrypt sensitive information sent by email.* >>>   Our public PGP key is available from >>> ' >>>   http://www2.fedcirc.gov/keys.htmla >>>sL >>>   If  you  prefer  to  use DES, please call the FedCIRC hotline for more >>>   information. >>>o# >>>    Getting security informations >>>rL >>>   FedCIRC publications and other security information are available from >>>   our web site >>>a >>>   http://www.fedcirc.gov/w >>> L >>>   FedCIRC  (Federal Computer Incident Response Center) provides securityL >>>   services  to U.S. Federal civilian agencies. FedCIRC is managed by theL >>>   U.S.  General  Services  Administration.  The CERT Coordination CenterI >>>   performs incident and vulnerability analysis and issues advisories.o >>> L >>>   *  "CERT"  and  "CERT  Coordination Center" are registered in the U.S." >>>   Patent and Trademark Office.L >>>   ______________________________________________________________________ >>>w >>>   NO WARRANTYuL >>>   Any  material furnished by Carnegie Mellon University and the SoftwareL >>>   Engineering  Institute  is  furnished  on  an  "as is" basis. CarnegieL >>>   Mellon University makes no warranties of any kind, either expressed orL >>>   implied  as  to  any matter including, but not limited to, warranty ofL >>>   fitness  for  a  particular purpose or merchantability, exclusivity orL >>>   results  obtained from use of the material. Carnegie Mellon UniversityL >>>   does  not  make  any warranty of any kind with respect to freedom from3 >>>   patent, trademark, or copyright infringement.  >>>60 >>>   Copyright 2002 Carnegie Mellon University. >>>H >>>   Revision History' >>>      May 06, 2002:  Initial release- >>>G  >>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>Version: PGP 6.5.82 >>>eC >>>iQEVAwUBPNbqgIBMzw7XZGn/AQEJwggAgEFMO8YIsP/0I2XHStYlZLJDoBx5jB9MaC >>>MuUWsTtYBbrnoyu6sJhpo3GjshT+k2k5kj9PjbmFLmqfUShmM3G/W3yc21D2w8M3AC >>>9ogIpwBZXAYIEiLRKkqFdBqcUn2dE8mixAOW3AvrqZb54CwQxkVFLVshkYHIRSsN C >>>lJz7zfAaw7bDqXTc9OrI/TBFdkPR9rHBJpyQgtxzKzThcawwTu+LfEl8ZlxQizaOSC >>>Ofu1cA/4phBe4WO/KnSQKmKACHhFZsoO2hSTdRwx9t3hq9zaoleS2oB1EHHspuqmP; >>>k6LqSobTuYsD3sHE2c9bGPyNj4KUkyLpYicYRxzPEn3RWtDQbebvzw==> >>>=MrUe >>>-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>, >>>  >> >> >> >    ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 14:19:39 GMTl1 From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)e: Subject: Re: SOT: Yo Andrew, you guys on a roll this week?+ Message-ID: <abbc5r$mbc$2@info.cs.uofs.edu>   = In article <d7791aa1.0205080605.4ff66617@posting.google.com>, +  bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) writes:g |>2 |>          and, if you haven't heard the Capellas0 |> bulletin ... "Unix is done for, eviscerated"!  C Yeah Bob, we know.  After all, Byte Magazine announced the death of @ Unix right there on the front cover of the September 1992 issue.   bill   -- uJ Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 10:42:48 -0700# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>d Subject: sync time in cluster 9 Message-ID: <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIEEALEPAA.tom@kednos.com>a  > I run ntp under tcpip5.1 on one node.  How can the other nodes. be served this time without having to run ntp? --->& Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).? Version: 6.0.360 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 5/7/2002b   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 07:44:16 -05006- From: koehler@encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)> Subject: Re: USB on OpenVMSs3 Message-ID: <PbmzIM6dLTUg@eisner.encompasserve.org>n  q In article <FwRB8.24$PE5.356510@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>, "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> writes:iK > I hated it because I had problems with "accurate" tracking on a number of2< > surfaces.  In fact, I ended up using it on a pad of paper.  F    I've had some rewally slick surfaces that no mechanical mouse wouldE    work reliably on, but I've never had a problem with a two cylinderl    mouse on a mouse pad.  E    But I'm really glad to see the optical pad mouse go away.  Even ifd7    you can find the pad, the thing often tracks poorly.,   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 14:11:11 GMTt1 From: CSABA  HARANGOZO   <csabah@zipworld.com.au>d Subject: Re: USB on OpenVMS 7 Message-ID: <3maC8.1462$06.197136@nasal.pacific.net.au>0  . Bob Koehler <koehler@encompasserve.org> wrote:s > In article <FwRB8.24$PE5.356510@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>, "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> writes:wL >> I hated it because I had problems with "accurate" tracking on a number of= >> surfaces.  In fact, I ended up using it on a pad of paper.w  G >   I've had some rewally slick surfaces that no mechanical mouse wouldIF >   work reliably on, but I've never had a problem with a two cylinder >   mouse on a mouse pad.o  F >   But I'm really glad to see the optical pad mouse go away.  Even if8 >   you can find the pad, the thing often tracks poorly.  : 	If anyone wants these "two-cylinder" mice, I have one for@ 	sale ( VSXXX-BB ), plus a "normal" one, US$5 each, plus postage0 	( which is cheap due to the low Aussie dollar.)  A 	Also, I have 3 x DEC RX26 SCSI 2.88 MB floppy drive, US$10 each. @ 	Assorted original DEC ribbon cables, internal DSSI disk cables, 	etc.o 						Cheers,  Csaba  I    ---------------------------------------------------------------------->E    * Csaba I. Harangozo     |    'To err is human', said the hedgehogbE    * csabah@zipworld.com.au |           as he dismounted a wirebrush. I    ----------------------------------------------------------------------b;    EARTH::AUSTRALIA:[SYDNEY]HARANGOZO.CSABA;1, delete? [N]:a   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 10:14:20 +0200+ From: "Luca_B" <balzano-spam-avoid-@iol.it>a" Subject: VAX 4000/600A help needed( Message-ID: <abamop$1vno$1@half.spin.it>   Hi all,    I have a diskless VAX4000/600AI Recently I've found a couple of RF36 disks that were mounted in a SF36-BEc rack array.TJ The disks have a connector that fits the other one on the backplane of theK VAX (internal DSSI) but if I connect them and switch on the machine nothing_J appens (the AC power supply seems to go in protection mode and no power is given to the machine).# I'm not familiar with the DSSI bus.SJ Anyone can tell me if there is something to do before connecting the disks to the VAX? $ Or if there is something else to do?   bye>   Luca   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 09:52:15 +0100_( From: Nic Clews <sendspamhere@127.0.0.1>& Subject: Re: VAX 4000/600A help needed) Message-ID: <3CD8E73F.FD8DA9AA@127.0.0.1>>  
 Luca_B wrote:+ >     > I have a diskless VAX4000/600AK > Recently I've found a couple of RF36 disks that were mounted in a SF36-BE 
 > rack array.>L > The disks have a connector that fits the other one on the backplane of theM > VAX (internal DSSI) but if I connect them and switch on the machine nothingiL > appens (the AC power supply seems to go in protection mode and no power is > given to the machine).% > I'm not familiar with the DSSI bus.oL > Anyone can tell me if there is something to do before connecting the disks
 > to the VAX?e& > Or if there is something else to do?  A It is not clear from your question, and I'm not familiar with therF SF36-BE, but when putting paired (two in a bay) RF drives into the topD row, there is a split power (5 pin) for each drive, a ribbon to eachH from the DSSI carrier, and the DSSI bit that plugs into the system is anH edge connector that may need a little gentle but firm manoeuvring to get in properly.  H Front panel has two ID plus, and a red and green light. All should lightB for a few seconds, then red out leaving green and the disks should 'chatter' for a few seconds.  H If the drives are not in, does the console complete all tests OK? (to 3)  H If the system will not power with the drives in, do you know if they areB good or bad drives? Try disconnecting just one of the power plugs,C perhaps a PSU fault on one drive is dragging down the whole system.r   Let us known how you get on.   -- o( Regards, Nic Clews CSC Computer Sciences nclews at csc dot com    ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 14:28:02 +0200+ From: "Luca_B" <balzano-spam-avoid-@iol.it> & Subject: Re: VAX 4000/600A help needed( Message-ID: <abb5kt$2gcm$1@half.spin.it>  5 "Nic Clews" <sendspamhere@127.0.0.1> wrote in message,# news:3CD8E73F.FD8DA9AA@127.0.0.1.... > Luca_B wrote:g  J > If the system will not power with the drives in, do you know if they areD > good or bad drives? Try disconnecting just one of the power plugs,E > perhaps a PSU fault on one drive is dragging down the whole system.H   hi Nic,5  H the trick is that the edge connector of the RF36's sled  to mount in theL SF36-BE cabinet is physically the same as the one in the VAX 4000 but when IH unmounted it I've discovered that the electrical connections are not the same.A  1 The problem now is to find a sled for the drives.Y  	 thank youN   Luca   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 12:37:09 GMT 1 From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)-1 Subject: Re: VMS Bigots Unite To Form New Companyt+ Message-ID: <abb65l$kn3$1@info.cs.uofs.edu>   ' In article <3CD88BC0.FB1E5D57@fsi.net>,e4  "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> writes: |> Bill Gunshannon wrote:U |> > sB |> > In article <d7791aa1.0205050407.3a794231@posting.google.com>,0 |> >  bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) writes: |> > |> J |> > |> and you think unix/linux is any better ... if so, I have a millionD |> > |> cert advisories to email to you ... sorry, vms stands alone! |> >  F |> > No it doesn't.  RT-11, RSTS/E, RSX-11 and Primos all have exactly! |> > zero CERT advisories. [snip]. |> xH |> Curiosity: are there any IP stacks for those o.s.-es floating around?   Hmmmm.  Let's see.  > Primos?  Yes, they have had an IP stack since before they went> into maintenance mode. (Even the company folding couldn't kill= the OS.  I expect VMS would have survived the death of Compaqe if the merger had failed.)  > RT-11?  There is a free IP stack.  But then, wasn't the one of3 the first IP stacks for VMS the free one from CMU??l  @ RSX-11?  Process did one, I imagine it might still be available,8 but Huinter is probably better qualified to answer that.  ? RSTS/E?  As far as I know, no.  But maybe this summer that will:> change.  I am hoping to get time once school is out to work onA some of my pet projects and PDP stuff is at the toip of the list.>  ; But, if the question was intended to somehow hint that lackC= of presence on the INTERNET makes these OSes to obscure to bes; hacked (wasn't obscurity one of the reasons some of us saidt= VMS survived DEFCON??)  I will have to offer that the lack ofs= an IP stack doesn't keep anything off the INTERNET.  My PDP'sS> are turned off at the moment (this is the last week of classes? and I knew I would have no time to play, so there was no reason ; to burn the electricity) but even without IP stacks I have s? INTERNET access to both RSTS and RT-11 using a terminal server..; It supports both login and file transfer.  It could supporte< email as well, but I have no reason for it athis time.  WhatA other TCP services would a security concerned admin allow anyway?    bill   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   x   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 16:11:22 GMT - From: goathunter@goatley.com (Hunter Goatley) 1 Subject: Re: VMS Bigots Unite To Form New Companyq1 Message-ID: <3cd94ddf.353550608@news.process.com>   N On 8 May 2002 12:37:09 GMT, bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:  ? >RT-11?  There is a free IP stack.  But then, wasn't the one ofe4 >the first IP stacks for VMS the free one from CMU?? > 6 Yes, I think so.  It was certainly out there early on.  A >RSX-11?  Process did one, I imagine it might still be available,l9 >but Huinter is probably better qualified to answer that.  >s? Yes, we still sell TCPware for RSX-11, on an unsupported, as-is6 basis.   Hunter ------9 Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/:8 goathunter@goatley.com    http://www.goatley.com/hunter/< New Robert R. McCammon site: http://www.RobertRMcCammon.com/   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 14:27:05 GMTr5 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com>s? Subject: Re: Why is security so important in a VMS environment?69 Message-ID: <ZAaC8.21$mk6.569486@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>   A David Froble wrote in message <3CD839EA.3090904@tsoft-inc.com>...t >Dave Gudewicz wrote:y >   / >>> At the same time, the joke x86 architecturesF >>>started eating things from the bottom up.  Yes, it was a joke - but >>>/
 >> anybody >>G >>>could afford one, and lots of useful software started being written.  >  >eK >Back to protecting profit margins I see.  A desktop VAX at PC prices coulde haveJ >had lots of useful software written for it, along with the vast amount ofI >existing applications.  But, everybody wanted the big prices, and didn't  >consider volumn.c >c  L I don't think I quite agree here.  Perhaps if the VAX as an architecture hadE been made "open" where other box makers could build VAXes... perhaps.t   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 08:16:53 -0700r' From: roose_chua@yahoo.com (Roose Chua) 0 Subject: Re: WIS??? Did it die with the HP deal?= Message-ID: <127ddcff.0205080716.5a34e90a@posting.google.com>e  < Hi! I would just like to know how we could get a WIS access?F Currently, we are still using DSNlink but sometimes, this breaks and I would like to browse articles.   Thanks,f
 Roose Chua  C *What I posts does not necessarily reflect the view/opinions of themB current company I am working with and would usually be my personal view.r  U system@SendSpamHere.ORG wrote in message news:<00A0D86F.422C593B@SendSpamHere.ORG>...tL > I've been trying to check on issues I've reported via WIS.  However, thereL > doesn't seem to be a WIS since the start of the weekend.  Is this just the, > beginning of things to come under HP rule?   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 11:36:07 -0400- From: "Peter Weaver" <peter.weaver@stelco.ca> 0 Subject: Re: WIS??? Did it die with the HP deal?5 Message-ID: <abbgls$fv42v$1@ID-141708.news.dfncis.de>g  4 "Roose Chua" <roose_chua@yahoo.com> wrote in message7 news:127ddcff.0205080716.5a34e90a@posting.google.com...>> > Hi! I would just like to know how we could get a WIS access?H > Currently, we are still using DSNlink but sometimes, this breaks and I   >...  K Send a mail message to you DSN support (DSN%DSN ??) and ask for WIS access.X They should set it up for you.  F BTW: I don't know about other parts of the world, but WIS in Canada isF incredibly slow, it often times out and is generally difficult to use.   -- Peter WeaverL Opinions are my own, and do not reflect the opinions of my employer, nor theK company that it sub-contracts to, nor the company that it sub-contracts to.d   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 16:30:24 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk0 Subject: Re: WIS??? Did it die with the HP deal?+ Message-ID: <abbjr0$ov8$2@aquila.mdx.ac.uk>a  e In article <abbgls$fv42v$1@ID-141708.news.dfncis.de>, "Peter Weaver" <peter.weaver@stelco.ca> writes:_5 >"Roose Chua" <roose_chua@yahoo.com> wrote in message 8 >news:127ddcff.0205080716.5a34e90a@posting.google.com...? >> Hi! I would just like to know how we could get a WIS access?_I >> Currently, we are still using DSNlink but sometimes, this breaks and Ia >I >>...i > L >Send a mail message to you DSN support (DSN%DSN ??) and ask for WIS access. >They should set it up for you.  > L They should be very happy to do so since they intend shutting down DSNlink -! they've already done it in the UKn    G >BTW: I don't know about other parts of the world, but WIS in Canada isoG >incredibly slow, it often times out and is generally difficult to use.e >b >--i   Agreed terrible to use.y    
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University   ------------------------------  . Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 09:10:40 +0200 (MET DST)& From: Rudolf Wingert <win@fom.fgan.de>) Subject: www.compaq.com is link to hp.comu6 Message-ID: <200205080710.JAA17922@sinet1.fom.fgan.de>   Hello,   Koehler wrotes:a   <<< @    I could find VMS by following the Software and OS link, but I5    couldn't find Alpha by following the servers link.c >>>o  A I can't see the same. I went to www.compaq.com --> www.hp.com -->.E product & services --> server und do see the item Compaq AlphaServer.    TIA and regards Rudolf Wingert   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 07:49:11 -0500R- From: koehler@encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler).- Subject: Re: www.compaq.com is link to hp.com_3 Message-ID: <Sl5uohGDMgg9@eisner.encompasserve.org>_  w In article <01KHGACB17MU8Y8ZDE@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com>, Phillip Helbig <HELBPHI@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com> writes: C >>    I could find VMS by following the Software and OS link, but Ig8 >>    couldn't find Alpha by following the servers link. >  > Just:r >  >    Products and services >  >    Servers >  >    Compaq AlphaServera > " > Three clicks from the main page. >   A    Gee, silly me, I started from Business, thinking Home and homem'    office would take me to Billy boxes.v   ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 07:50:20 -0500t- From: koehler@encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)y- Subject: RE: www.compaq.com is link to hp.com23 Message-ID: <0WBSnDspXv+L@eisner.encompasserve.org>s  n In article <RELAY14fQbPmhjM8osI000022a4@relay1.softcomca.com>, "kenrbnsn1@rcn.com" <kenrbnsn1@rcn.com> writes:$ > You are not looking hard enough... > / > I found a mention of OpenVMS in two clicks...u > 0 > From:  koehler@encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) > ; >    I could find VMS by following the Software and OS link   C    Isn't that what I said?  It was finding Alpha that I couldn't do     on the first try.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 11:32:22 -0400# From: "Island" <sales@islandco.com>>- Subject: Re: www.compaq.com is link to hp.com>/ Message-ID: <udigm8id9hpu9f@news.supernews.com>-  1 Who needs to buy  NEW server with a graphics cardn  5 We sell the Workstations still (with a graphics card)A   Davidu   -- David B Turner	 Sales Dptg Island Computers US Corporatione 2700 Gregory Street7	 Suite 1800 Savannah GA 31404i Tel: 912 447 6622b Fax: 912 201 0096( sales@islandco.com www.islandco.com' http://www.islandco.com/legal-email.htm    We sell Alpha's ! * All emails are checked for Virus and Worms  F "Phillip Helbig" <HELBPHI@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com> wrote in message5 news:01KHGACB17MU8Y8ZDE@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com... D > >    I could find VMS by following the Software and OS link, but I9 > >    couldn't find Alpha by following the servers link.g >  > Just:r >n >    Products and services >| >    Servers >y >    Compaq AlphaServerd >s" > Three clicks from the main page. >-I > It would be nice if under "desktops, workstations and appliances" there<H > were a remark to the effect that folks interested in a VMS workstation3 > can buy a low-end server with graphics card.  :-|    ------------------------------   Date: 8 May 2002 07:52:12 -0500i- From: koehler@encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)s8 Subject: Re: ZIPped .PCSI container arrives OK on VMS???3 Message-ID: <ve2OQym1OVKk@eisner.encompasserve.org>t  [ In article <3CD8917D.7EF791CE@fsi.net>, "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> writes:4 > 2 > I believe "the brat" is UCX/TCPIP in both cases. >   8    And still the only stack without STRU VMS, I suppose?    c   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 15:33:02 GMTe1 From: Forrest Kenney <Forrest.Kenney@hp.com.doom> 3 Subject: Re: [Q]Terminators in Terminal Driver QIOWc+ Message-ID: <3CD943AD.33AEAA42@hp.com.doom>   O      You can only terminate on a single character, in the long form this can bes anyeQ character 0-255 supplied in the mask.  In the short form you are limited to 0-31. Q The terminal driver can return an indication of a multi-byte terminator.  It uses ; that if an escape sequence was the terminator for the read.,     forrestt   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 11:14:13 +02000- From: Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr>b< Subject: [SURVEY] would you use CHARON-ia64 if there is one?' Message-ID: <3CD8EC66.B449D6D8@Free.fr>.  J I know that many VAX users use CHARON-VAX on Alpha or PC to continue theirM development or use products which have no VMS/Alpha version. Would you use ancS eventual CHARON-ia64 product should an Alpha-only version not be available on ia64?m   [ ] yes, I would [ ] no [ ] what is CHARON-VAX?      Thanks,r   D. -- '2   ------------------------------------------------2 MORANDI Consultants  http://Didier.Morandi.Free.fr0   19 chemin de la Butte, 31400 Toulouse, France.2 Tel.: +33 (0)6 7983 6418 - Fax: +33 (0)5 6154 19282 OpenVMS, APPLE, Computer Security, Migration plans2 --------------------------------------------------   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 14:06:04 GMTl. From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter LANGSTOEGER)3 Subject: [V5.1 ECO 3] NTP doesn't start up reliable,5 Message-ID: <ghaC8.181918$vc2.2096561@news.chello.at>a  9 I just got reminded of a NTP problem I have (for months):k  ( After every boot (and TCPIP start) I get  &  7 May 23:44:50  ntpd version = 3-5.91N  7 May 23:44:51  tickadj = 97, tick = 976, tvu_maxslew = 99231, est. hz = 1024%  7 May 23:44:51  precision = 976 usecwH getconfig: Couldn't open <DISK$VMSSYS:[VMS$COMMON.SYSEXE]TCPIP$NTP.CONF>P  7 May 23:44:51  getconfig: Couldn't open <DISK$VMSSYS:[VMS$COMMON.SYSEXE]TCPIP$	 NTP.CONF>Z  E Can anyone tell me, why NTP looks for its config file in SYS$SYSTEM ?8< It's in SYS$SPECIFIC:[TCPIP$NTP] of course and after doing a  ! $ @SYS$STARTUP:TCPIP$NTP_SHUTDOWN   $ @SYS$STARTUP:TCPIP$NTP_STARTUP  = it is found by the NTP server and NTP is working as expected.e  K So, do you perhaps know, why I have to start NTP twice during the startup ?r   -Peter  I PS: I know, I can copy the NTP config file to SYS$SYSTEM, but that is noti my question...K PPS: Did I already ask, why TCPIP still has problem in so basic thingies...s --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGERo% Network and OpenVMS system specialiste E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atP A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm looking for (a) Network _and_ VMS Job(s)   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2002.254 ************************