1 INFO-VAX	Wed, 15 May 2002	Volume 2002 : Issue 267       Contents:: Re: $CHECK_ACCESS fails if there is no read access to file: Re: $CHECK_ACCESS fails if there is no read access to fileG Re: A (free) VMS environment in a Linux/Unix system ?, was: Re: freeVMS G Re: A (free) VMS environment in a Linux/Unix system ?, was: Re: freeVMS G Re: A (free) VMS environment in a Linux/Unix system ?, was: Re: freeVMS P Re: A (free) VMS environment in a Linux/Unix system ?, was: Re: freeVMS freeVMSf A Tad more info, if it helps. $ 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 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  Re: disk geometry and shadowing  Re: disk geometry and shadowing  Re: disk geometry and shadowing  Re: disk geometry and shadowing " DS10L's Complete for USD 1299 !!!!- 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 & Re: High Water Concurrent Users Count?& Re: High Water Concurrent Users Count?+ Re: howto create self-extracting zip files? + Re: howto create self-extracting zip files? P HP reports fiscal second-quarter pro forma earnings of 25 cents         per shar OpenVMS Hobbyist License Re: OpenVMS Hobbyist License OpenVMS SNMP TRAP  Re: OpenVMS SNMP TRAP 2 Question re odbc processes and whos using them....6 RE: Question re odbc processes and whos using them....+ Re: Re Smart house wiring - Re: auto wiring P Re: Reads vs. Writes (was Re: What is good model for disk i/o w        /shadowin3 Re: Scott Stallard, forget your VMS to HP UX dream! " Re: simple disk-shadowing question' 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: System manager available RE: System manager available Re: System manager available Re: Tivoli ABC for VMS Re: Tivoli ABC for VMS Re: Tivoli ABC for VMS UNIX security a good bet..0 Re: What is good model for disk i/o w/shadowing?0 Re: What is good model for disk i/o w/shadowing? Re: Who cares about marketing! Re: Who cares about marketing! Re: Who cares about marketing! Re: Who cares about marketing! Re: Who cares about marketing! Re: Who cares about marketing! Re: Who cares about marketing! Re: Who cares about marketing! Re: Who cares about marketing! Re: Who cares about marketing! Re: Who cares about marketing! Re: Who cares about marketing! Re: Who cares about marketing! Re: Who cares about marketing! Re: Who cares about marketing! Re: Who cares about marketing! Re: Who cares about marketing! Re: Who cares about marketing! Re: Who cares about marketing! Re: [announce] FreeVMS 0.0.14   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 14 May 2002 15:42:08 -0700 From: cbdeja@my-deja.com (-)C Subject: Re: $CHECK_ACCESS fails if there is no read access to file = Message-ID: <611952a3.0205141442.6532fedf@posting.google.com>   i Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<GEYCJlR5V9tL@eisner.encompasserve.org>...  B > Without read access, you are not allowed to know what protectionB > settings are for the file.   The description of SYS$CHECK_ACCESS > starts with: >  > 8 > 	"Determines on behalf of a third-party user whether a0 > 	 named user can access the object specified." > ? > The third party must be able to read the protection settings.   5 But this does not apply on our Alpha running OpenVMS.   E If you create a file and give it (say) DWE access rights for all SOGW F users, then use sys$check_access() to check for any type of access you like ...  @ on our VAX VMS will always return SYS$_NOCALLPRIV, but the AlphaF running OpenVMS will give you the required answer EVEN THOUGH NO USERS$ HAVE READ ACCESS TO THE FILE ITSELF.  D If OpenVMS doesn't require read access, why does VMS? Is this likely& to be a bug in the old version of VMS?   Colin    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 00:41:50 GMT ) From: rob.buxton@wcc.govt.nz (Rob Buxton) C Subject: Re: $CHECK_ACCESS fails if there is no read access to file / Message-ID: <3ce1add0.9193028@news.wcc.govt.nz>   < On 14 May 2002 05:26:37 -0700, cbdeja@my-deja.com (-) wrote:  C >I'm trying to use SYS$CHECK_ACCESS on one of our machines which is  >running an old version of VMS.  > C >SYS$CHECK_ACCESS only seems to work if you have read access to the > >file in question. If you do NOT have read access to the file, >SYS$CHECK_ACCESS always >returns SYS$_NOCALLPRIV.  > D >Why should this be? Does the process need some special privilege to? >work when you don't have read access to the file - if so what?  > G >On the Alpha running OpenVMS 5.5 this call ALWAYS succeeds whether you A >have read access or not! Why is there a difference in behaviour?  >   E Just guessing, but suspect the difference here is VAX running 5.5 and $ Alpha running something a bit later.  @ There was a big change to how Security worked between VMS 5 & 6. This may be part of the issue?  6 I do not have sys$check_access to verify what it does.   >Thanks  >  >Colin   ------------------------------    Date: 14 May 2002 14:00:37 -0600B From: clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley)P Subject: Re: A (free) VMS environment in a Linux/Unix system ?, was: Re: freeVMS3 Message-ID: <VUsGejPmJSYd@eisner.encompasserve.org>   i In article <abr2he$5ia$1@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no>, Roar =?iso-8859-1?Q?Thron=E6s?= <roart@nvg.ntnu.no> writes: E > Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-earth.ufp> wrote:  > M > : I really like what they are doing and hope that they succeed, but I can't K > : help wondering if the best short term approach might be to provide some > > : kind of a VMS environment on Linux and other Unix systems. >  > : What do others think ? > L > : If you agree, then what do you think the most important parts of the VMS? > : environment are to get running on these platforms and why ?  > : > You want something like http://www.accelr8.com/dcl.html? >   H I am aware of this product as well as the limited version free download.I Although DCL would be of interest, I would only use it to do those things ; that are especially cumbersome in Unix and easy in VMS, ie:    	$ search [...]*.txt string   I instead of a long find command, and to support those VMS facilities added E to Linux/Unix. The kinds of things that I would really like to see on  Linux/Unix are:   J 1) The VMS queue manager (both print [with forms handling] and batch) withJ    a DCL interface. [BTW, which Unixes support VMS style forms handling ?]  G 2) RMS. The purpose here is to have a decent free ISAM facility (I know H    that C-ISAM is commercially available) in it's own right, and RMS has>    proven to be very reliable and feature rich over the years.  M I solved my other wishlist item, a decent editor with a EDT keypad interface,  by using Emacs.   / > Descriptors? (Have been there for some years)  >  > Something deeper down? >    Simon.   --  B Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP       + Microsoft: The Lada of the computing world.    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 00:14:26 GMT 0 From: Jeffrey Chimene <jeff.nospam@systasis.net>P Subject: Re: A (free) VMS environment in a Linux/Unix system ?, was: Re: freeVMS, Message-ID: <3CE1ACD3.9DA6D791@systasis.net>  & --------------C9BD321D2C5B5C8CB7652759* Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit    List:   g While I'm second to none w/r/t/ VMS chauvinism, her lack of a (decent) regular expression in SEARCH has  always been a PITA.   B On *nix/bash one can use FSF grep: grep -i <rexp> <path> [ | more]d where "-i" enables a case insensitive search that examines path for occurences of rexp. bash handles* wildcard expansion of the path expression.     Simon Clubley wrote:  J > I am aware of this product as well as the limited version free download.K > Although DCL would be of interest, I would only use it to do those things = > that are especially cumbersome in Unix and easy in VMS, ie:  > $ >         $ search [...]*.txt string > K > instead of a long find command, and to support those VMS facilities added G > to Linux/Unix. The kinds of things that I would really like to see on  > Linux/Unix are:    -- microsoft free by 2003      & --------------C9BD321D2C5B5C8CB7652759) Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii  Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   > <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> List: I <p>While I'm second to none w/r/t/ VMS chauvinism, her lack of a (decent) 4 regular expression in SEARCH has always been a PITA.P <p>On *nix/bash one&nbsp;can use FSF grep: <font face="Courier New,Courier">grep, -i &lt;rexp> &lt;path> [ |&nbsp;more]</font>J <br>where "-i" enables a case insensitive search that examines <i>path</i>Q for occurences of <i>rexp</i>. bash handles wildcard expansion of the <i>path</i>  expression. 
 <br>&nbsp; <p>Simon Clubley wrote: G <blockquote TYPE=CITE>I am aware of this product as well as the limited  version free download.F <br>Although DCL would be of interest, I would only use it to do those things? <br>that are especially cumbersome in Unix and easy in VMS, ie: H <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $ search [...]*.txt stringF <p>instead of a long find command, and to support those VMS facilities added F <br>to Linux/Unix. The kinds of things that I would really like to see on  <br>Linux/Unix are:</blockquote>  
 <pre>--&nbsp;  microsoft free by 2003</pre>
 &nbsp;</html>   ( --------------C9BD321D2C5B5C8CB7652759--   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 02:54:40 GMT 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> P Subject: Re: A (free) VMS environment in a Linux/Unix system ?, was: Re: freeVMS' Message-ID: <3CE1D11D.A0E69759@fsi.net>    Roar Throns wrote:  > E > Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-earth.ufp> wrote: * > : "Ed Wilts" <ewilts@ewilts.org> writes: > M > : I really like what they are doing and hope that they succeed, but I can't K > : help wondering if the best short term approach might be to provide some > > : kind of a VMS environment on Linux and other Unix systems. >  > : What do others think ? > L > : If you agree, then what do you think the most important parts of the VMS? > : environment are to get running on these platforms and why ?  > : > You want something like http://www.accelr8.com/dcl.html? > / > Descriptors? (Have been there for some years)  >  > Something deeper down?  H Speaking only for myself, a (more or less) full VMS run-time environmentG on top of a Linux or BSD kernel would be entirely acceptable as a first D step. Later efforts could address the kernel issues that this cannot	 provide.     For starters, though:    o ODS  o RMS  o DCL - o JBC (Job Controller) and batch/print queues $ o Device support including mailboxesG o Support for ANSI labelled tapes including, but not limited to, BACKUP   H MSCP, SCS, Distributed Lock Manager (DLM), clustering and so on can comeG later, also. Get the fundamentals (above the kernel level) going first.    FWIW...    --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 04:49:41 GMT ) From: Andrew Balaam <abalaam@yahoo.co.uk> Y Subject: Re: A (free) VMS environment in a Linux/Unix system ?, was: Re: freeVMS freeVMSf 2 Message-ID: <20020515.4494100.35397067@imagnu.geo>  A Surely the fundementals at the 'kernel' level are more important.    Decent process scheduling, ASTs and event flags
 Logical names 	 Mailboxes   I These things (and more) are (in my opinion) what makes VMS VMS and not=20  just another Unix.   Geoff.  6 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<  I On 15/05/02, 03:54:40, "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote=  =20 I regarding Re: A (free) VMS environment in a Linux/Unix system ?, was: Re=  :=20 freeVMS:     > Roar Thron=E6s wrote:  > > G > > Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-earth.ufp> wrote: , > > : "Ed Wilts" <ewilts@ewilts.org> writes: > > I > > : I really like what they are doing and hope that they succeed, but =  I=20 can't I > > : help wondering if the best short term approach might be to provide=   some @ > > : kind of a VMS environment on Linux and other Unix systems. > >  > > : What do others think ? > > I > > : If you agree, then what do you think the most important parts of t=  he=20  VMS A > > : environment are to get running on these platforms and why ?  > > < > > You want something like http://www.accelr8.com/dcl.html? > > 1 > > Descriptors? (Have been there for some years)  > >  > > Something deeper down?  I > Speaking only for myself, a (more or less) full VMS run-time environme=  ntI > on top of a Linux or BSD kernel would be entirely acceptable as a firs=  t F > step. Later efforts could address the kernel issues that this cannot
 > provide.   > For starters, though:    > o ODS  > o RMS  > o DCL / > o JBC (Job Controller) and batch/print queues & > o Device support including mailboxesI > o Support for ANSI labelled tapes including, but not limited to, BACKU=  P   I > MSCP, SCS, Distributed Lock Manager (DLM), clustering and so on can co=  meI > later, also. Get the fundamentals (above the kernel level) going first=  .   	 > FWIW...    > -- > David J. Dachtera  > dba DJE Systems  > http://www.djesys.com/  * > Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:! > http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 13:41:58 -0600 % From: "Dave Rich" <drich@nucorar.com> & Subject: A Tad more info, if it helps.5 Message-ID: <abrlik$k839t$1@ID-136223.news.dfncis.de>   H The output from RMU/SHOW USERS is quite lengthy, but does have a match..  B     - 0000011C:1 - SS_CASTER_0000 - non-utility, CAS - active userC         - image $1$DKA100:[SYS0.SYSCOMMON.][SYSEXE]SQLSRV$EXE.EXE;1   K So I guess it boils down to asking SQLSRV$EXE.EXE for information about who ' is making remote calls to the database.    Any suggestions?   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 13:49:21 -0400 ( From: "Mike Foley" <mike-spam@yelof.com>- Subject: Re: Bob Palmer and the demise of DEC / Message-ID: <ue2jh22vbodm22@corp.supernews.com>   >     Prior to the NT "Affinity" program, there was quite a push8     within VMS to get those VMS customers who were going     to Unix to go to DEC Unix.  =     Unfortunately, I'd say a fair amount ported to Unix using <     the tools available, only to end up ready to run on Sun.  :     If as much effort went into keeping customers happy on:     VMS, we'd ALLbe alot happier. (ie: pushing a marketing6     message that staying with VMS is a smart choice in     business, etc..)  D                                                                 mike  4 "Carl Perkins" <carl@gerg.tamu.edu> wrote in message' news:13MAY200218222753@gerg.tamu.edu...r7 > "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@attbi.com> writes...o/ > }> > Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote:t= > }> > > If is makes you feel any better Sun has a OpenVMS toe* > }> > > Solaris Affinity Program as well. > }eF > }Andrew, you have my email address. I'd be interested (seriously) in learning' > }more about the Sun affinity program.x > }e
 > }terry s >r0 > The difference between Sun and Digital/Compaq: >o@ > Sun's "affinity" program is to more people from a competitor's% > OS (VMS) to their own OS (Solaris).E >cC > Digital/Compaq's "affinity" program was to move people from theire1 > own OS (VMS) to a competitor's OS (Windows NT).  > @ > HP may be, in some sense, taking a setp up - at least they may? > be trying to shift people from one of their OSes (VMS) (well,sC > two of them actually as you can add in Tru64) to another of theirtG > own OSes (HPUX). This may be a bit less stupid than what has happenedlC > before, from the persective of a company trying to make money foroA > themselves rather than for Microsoft. However, note that "a bitc* > less stupid" is not the same as "smart". > 
 > --- Carl   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 00:41:28 +0200n. From: "Marc Van Dyck" <marc.vandyck@skynet.be>- Subject: Re: Bob Palmer and the demise of DEC 5 Message-ID: <3ce19269$0$8137$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>o  : "Didier Morandi" <Didier.Morandi@Free.fr> wrote in message! news:3CD962A4.B7251AD3@Free.fr...c   >g > On the parking issue.a >nL > One day around the 1980' Ken visited the Belgium HQ. He noticed a car park placetI > close to the main entrance labelled "Director" (or HQ manager, I do notgA > remember). He said "This is not DIGITAL spirit, please remove".t > K > I posted this story in an internal DEC forum (formerly HUMAN::DIGITAL forn thoseUI > who wish to find the original post). Someone replied to the post sayingc thatL > this was an incorrect answer as KO has a personal car park place. During a visit J > 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.  I Didier, I worked for the Belgian Digital subsidiary, for 12 years. I haven never seen such aaH sign and I don't believe it ever existed. Besides that, I have heard the same story with fiveL or seven different countries named, so I think it must be some sort of urban legend. And finally,I I will check with some ex-colleagues, but I don't believe KO ever visitedo the Brussels' offices.   Marc.i   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 14:05:05 -0400o* From: WILLIAM WEBB <WWEBB1@email.usps.gov>< Subject: RE: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix- Message-ID: <0033000063921692000002L022*@MHS>s  6 =0AIn the list you provided, a cluster isn't a cluster isn't a cluster, Andrew.   The devil is in the details--e   what's shared? what's the interconnect? is there a failover time?P if so how long?s how many nodes max?K distance between nodes?n  ? As an analogy, there are diamonds, moissanites, cubic zirconia,g rhinestones and broken glass.r   They're all small and shiny.  = If you're saying they're all equivalent then I'll trade you a + kilo of rhinestones for a kilo of diamonds.   D Please provide shipping address ASAP, my wife wants that second home in the mountains.k :^)!   Regards,   WWWebb       -----Original Message-----/ From: Info-VAX-Request@Mvb.Saic.Com at INTERNET # Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 1:41 PM B To: Webb, William W Raleigh, NC; Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com at INTERNET< Subject: RE: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix     Bob Koehler wrote:  H > In article <abgrtf$1ib$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNU= KkC Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com> writes: >! >>MPE has clusters >> >> >!> >    Yeah, right.  MPE has clusters like Solaris has clusters. >eH >    Back to reality:  HP has clusters.  Back when DEC still existed, H= P-F >    said VMS clusters ARE the definitive implementation and that they) >    would like to have as good in HP-UX.c >(    : Nope OpenVMS clusters are not the definitive cluster, they= represent on strand of cluster developement. There are othersg6 IBM Sysplex, BeoWolf, Application Server Clusters etc.  C Understanding this might help you understand why not everyone needsu< or apsires to having an OpenVMS cluster in their datacenter.   Regardse Andrew=f   ------------------------------    Date: 14 May 2002 13:37:36 -0600+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)w< Subject: Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix3 Message-ID: <L3s$ecziuKOu@eisner.encompasserve.org>o   In article <abrg09$1df$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com> writes: >  >  > Bob Koehler wrote: >  >> In article <abgrtf$1ib$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com> writes:l >>   >>>MPE has clusterse >>>N >>>G >> U? >>    Yeah, right.  MPE has clusters like Solaris has clusters.r >> eJ >>    Back to reality:  HP has clusters.  Back when DEC still existed, HP H >>    said VMS clusters ARE the definitive implementation and that they * >>    would like to have as good in HP-UX. >> o >  > < > Nope OpenVMS clusters are not the definitive cluster, they? > represent on strand of cluster developement. There are othersn8 > IBM Sysplex, BeoWolf, Application Server Clusters etc. > E > Understanding this might help you understand why not everyone needsr> > or apsires to having an OpenVMS cluster in their datacenter. >   > 	Some don't aspire because they can't get there, i.e. never be@ 	shared disk (BeoWolf - no NFS doesn't count and maybe when DAFSH 	is out there in quantity it is less of a nit), so why debate over that?   	Others?  B 	IBM Sysplex clustering is limited in a few regards.  Number 1 is H 	cost.  Even though Sysplex can scale to 32 nodes, I believe Pfister in G 	his book wrote that the largest Sysplex he could find was 16 nodes andoA 	he attributed it to cost, if I recall correctly.  Second, and itu@ 	will here on out show how they have fallen behind , is the 390sD 	support 16 - CPUs 64 GByte of memory.  A Marvel will support 64/128C 	CPUs 1024 GByte of memory FRS, 2048 GByte in a few years.  Rumors dG 	about the death of the mainframe have been greatly played up over the 4H 	years.  But it looks like Compaq/HP, Sun and IBM will be building very G 	large modular servers over the next few years that will significantly  E 	place mainframes behind the performance 8-ball.  And way behind the rC 	price performance 8-ball (post-Madison IA64 large servers, etc).  80 	We'll see what it means in about 2, 3, 5 years.  @ 	But yes, OpenVMS is the definitive OS for definitive clustering 	and will shine on Marvel.   				Rob    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 18:54:01 GMT * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>< Subject: Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' UnixA Message-ID: <d3dE8.16165$Ze4.1463761@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>n  8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:L3s$ecziuKOu@eisner.encompasserve.org...m   ...h  
 > the 390s' > support 16 - CPUs 64 GByte of memory.c  L Have you checked to see what the newer 64-bit z-Series supports?  I haven't,K but 4 GB/CPU seems suspiciously like a 32-bit size limit that might well noo
 longer apply.t   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 20:10:10 +0100n& From: Ken Green <Ken.Green@kgcc.co.uk>< Subject: Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix* Message-ID: <3CE16112.EC41AF98@kgcc.co.uk>   Rob Young wrote:   > In article <abrg09$1df$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com> writes: > >h > >n > > Bob Koehler wrote: > >e > >> In article <abgrtf$1ib$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com> writes:e > >> > >>>MPE has clusterso > >>>  > >>>  > >>A > >>    Yeah, right.  MPE has clusters like Solaris has clusters.r > >>K > >>    Back to reality:  HP has clusters.  Back when DEC still existed, HP I > >>    said VMS clusters ARE the definitive implementation and that they_, > >>    would like to have as good in HP-UX. > >> > >  > >e> > > Nope OpenVMS clusters are not the definitive cluster, theyA > > represent on strand of cluster developement. There are otherss: > > IBM Sysplex, BeoWolf, Application Server Clusters etc. > > G > > Understanding this might help you understand why not everyone needs @ > > or apsires to having an OpenVMS cluster in their datacenter. > >r >=G >         Some don't aspire because they can't get there, i.e. never betI >         shared disk (BeoWolf - no NFS doesn't count and maybe when DAFSSQ >         is out there in quantity it is less of a nit), so why debate over that?p >p >> >|% >                                 Robs  G Not everyone wants shared disk, sharing disk is SSSSLLLLOOOOOWWWWW!!!!!a  A if your app needs shared... then great, if it doesn't then don't.   = BTW HP-UX had shared disk cluster from HP-UX 6.0 through to 9l before dropping them.u  C They weren't aimed at the same market place as Vax clusters, but ite+ was a very real market place none the less.    Cheers   Ken    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 19:26:23 GMTo* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>< Subject: Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' UnixB Message-ID: <zxdE8.135111$M7.13447058@bin7.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  3 "Ken Green" <Ken.Green@kgcc.co.uk> wrote in messagem$ news:3CE16112.EC41AF98@kgcc.co.uk...   ...n  I > Not everyone wants shared disk, sharing disk is SSSSLLLLOOOOOWWWWW!!!!!h  4 Not at all, at least if you know how (and VMS does).   - bill   ------------------------------    Date: 14 May 2002 15:36:07 -0600+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)g< Subject: Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix3 Message-ID: <mGjlJOKzfW3t@eisner.encompasserve.org>c  S In article <3CE16112.EC41AF98@kgcc.co.uk>, Ken Green <Ken.Green@kgcc.co.uk> writes:a > Rob Young wrote: >  >> In article <abrg09$1df$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com> writes:i >> > >> > >> > Bob Koehler wrote:h >> > >> >> In article <abgrtf$1ib$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com> writes: >> >>p >> >>>MPE has clusters >> >>> >> >>> >> >>tB >> >>    Yeah, right.  MPE has clusters like Solaris has clusters. >> >>sL >> >>    Back to reality:  HP has clusters.  Back when DEC still existed, HPJ >> >>    said VMS clusters ARE the definitive implementation and that they- >> >>    would like to have as good in HP-UX.9 >> >>C >> > >> >? >> > Nope OpenVMS clusters are not the definitive cluster, they0B >> > represent on strand of cluster developement. There are others; >> > IBM Sysplex, BeoWolf, Application Server Clusters etc.  >> >H >> > Understanding this might help you understand why not everyone needsA >> > or apsires to having an OpenVMS cluster in their datacenter.f >> > >>H >>         Some don't aspire because they can't get there, i.e. never beJ >>         shared disk (BeoWolf - no NFS doesn't count and maybe when DAFSR >>         is out there in quantity it is less of a nit), so why debate over that? >> >> >>& >>                                 Rob > I > Not everyone wants shared disk, sharing disk is SSSSLLLLOOOOOWWWWW!!!!!n >   - 	Uh-oh.. I sense Bill sneaking up on us.  :-)g  A 	Sharing disks is not slow.  I suspect you are setting me up, butwA 	what the hey.  Serving I/O is slow.  Now perhaps you are talkingo@ 	about rdbms that function ship and boy I took a beating on thatF 	a few years back.  Modern rdbmses have managed to work around most ofA 	the pain of not being shared disk with automated partitioning , f 	function shipping , etc.n  = 	Now here is where Bill added a whole lot of input in various = 	discussions about this and related issues.  A random sample:t  S http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8ihqvc%24bp5%241%40pyrite.mv.net&output=gplaind    ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>,7 Subject: Re: OpenVMS clusters vs other systems clusters  Date: 2000/06/18+ NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jun 2000 06:41:48 GMT) Newsgroups: comp.os.vms   8 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote in message& news:394C2F45.BAD6D89C@videotron.ca... > Larry Kilgallen wrote:E > > I doubt that you will find Compaq funding such a study for public1F > > release.  The only "good" result possible from a Compaq standpointE > > is one that measured Tru64 and VMS as absolutely identical, sincef; > > otherwise one departement or another would be offended.n >eF > The Montreal Compaq office has said a few times that Tru64's currentL > clustering capabilities now include ALL the functionality that was present  in + > openVMS (past tense is theirs, not mine).h >mK > I do not know if that is really true or not. If it is true, it means thatO  anyJ > vendor can develop clustering technology that rivals VMS in a very short time.n  E 'Functionality' is a slippery concept.  I've argued that Sun clusters L approach the functionality of VMS clusters, and that's true, but they sufferG markedly in file system scalability and performance, because their fileo9 system is simply NFS (enhanced to support transparent, if F less-than-immediate, server fail-over) rather than direct-to-disk with distributed cache.  K Tru64's file system is similar:  it's exported (like NFS or RMS/DAP) rather F than direct-to-disk, but it *does* apparently have a distributed cacheL (presumably coordinated using the DLM it got from VMS), which should give itL performance intermediate between Sun and VMS clusters in typical situations.H Can't scale as far or as flexibly as VMS, though, since it (like Sun) isG limited to the load-capacity of a single server to export its private -oK though fail-overable - portion of the file system (and the file system mustfG be re-partitioned if the load on an existing data partition exceeds the " capacity of a single server node).  H My guess would be that there are other performance/availability/whateverL differences too.  Whether any of them constitute 'functional' differences is in the eye of the beholder.n   - bill   ---h 	iC > if your app needs shared... then great, if it doesn't then don't.N  F 	You can write applications that don't need or don't use shared disks.   > ? > BTW HP-UX had shared disk cluster from HP-UX 6.0 through to 9  > before dropping them.a >   ! 	Couldn't get it right, it seems.r  K > They weren't aimed at the same market place as Vax [VMS] clusters, but itp- > was a very real market place none the less.p  @ 	True.  But you soon get a better paradigm as they are sticking B 	AdvFS/Tru64 clustering into HP/UX.  But the "clustering" paradigmC 	is constantly being re-invented re-defined and Pfister will be outp( 	with a 3rd edition someday to prove it.  ? 	Along these lines... it is readily apparent why many are using,B 	"failover" clustering.  There is a great inherent advantage.  AllA 	locks are local, all storage access is local.  So very large SMPO@ 	nodes stay popular, Regatta, UE15000, etc. with a twin idle box 	sitting there, "just in case."b  G 	Understanding issues (1) and in response was/is Galaxy where clustered-H 	nodes share a backplane, node communication goes through shared memory,@ 	shared disk, shared memory, and for a next feature (be a while)@ 	will be to move the lock trees (DLM) into shared memory so thatG 	message passing SCS doesn't occur for locking.  Until then, "failover" B 	clustering of 32 CPUs (with an underlying well written database) D 	should have an advantage over 4 - 8 CPU Galaxy nodes in a Marvel.  G 	However, I think Galaxy in Marvel even with "remote" locks, should do u) 	real well at performance scaling anyhow.n   				Rob    (1)  Amdahl's Law :-)L   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 22:57:12 +0100M& From: Ken Green <Ken.Green@kgcc.co.uk>< Subject: Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix* Message-ID: <3CE18838.45DC9379@kgcc.co.uk>   Bill Todd wrote:  5 > "Ken Green" <Ken.Green@kgcc.co.uk> wrote in messagey& > news:3CE16112.EC41AF98@kgcc.co.uk... >s > ...  >>K > > Not everyone wants shared disk, sharing disk is SSSSLLLLOOOOOWWWWW!!!!!  >t6 > Not at all, at least if you know how (and VMS does). >  > - bill  
 OK I'll bite,y  J so how do you get a cohertent buffer cache with multiple systems accessing1 the same disk without using some sort of network?    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 23:02:30 GMTt* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>< Subject: Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' UnixA Message-ID: <aIgE8.12883$Tj3.1742559@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>(  3 "Ken Green" <Ken.Green@kgcc.co.uk> wrote in messageb$ news:3CE18838.45DC9379@kgcc.co.uk... > Bill Todd wrote: >t7 > > "Ken Green" <Ken.Green@kgcc.co.uk> wrote in messages( > > news:3CE16112.EC41AF98@kgcc.co.uk... > >4 > > ...h > > 5 > > > Not everyone wants shared disk, sharing disk isd SSSSLLLLOOOOOWWWWW!!!!!  > >o8 > > Not at all, at least if you know how (and VMS does). > > 
 > > - bill >t > OK I'll bite,o >tL > so how do you get a cohertent buffer cache with multiple systems accessing3 > the same disk without using some sort of network?   K So how do multiple systems access any shared data at all (whether on shared>0 disk or not) without using some sort of network?  K With non-shared disks, if you want to share data among systems they need toiK cooperate, just as they need to using shared disks.  The primary differencegE due to the sharing of the disk is that when desired data isn't cachedtL somewhere the system that wants it can, after obtaining any necessary locks,K get it directly from (or send it directly to) the disk rather than ask some & other system to get it and send it on.  K In large systems, this means that  1) there's no need to partition the datasJ among the various systems that 'serve' it (because all systems have directH access to all data),  2) there's no problem after partitioning said dataK with a server getting overloaded due to hot spots (because, again, all datadF is directly accessible to all who need it), and  3) the storage can beH scaled independently of the processing capacity (and without the need to
 repartition).n  K And eliminating the need for 'server'-style operation does not increase thetJ network traffic (thus does not increase access latency).  Obtaining a lockH from whoever is in a position to grant it (which is usually known by theI requestor - but I'm not going to reprise the VMS distributed lock manager I algorithms here) takes one exchange, after which the requestor can obtain0K the data from disk, which is the same number of operations that would occurLL if instead the requestor asked a 'server' to obtain the data and forward it.H (Actually, it can be less, because the VMS DLM algorithms make it likelyG that most lock requests are local, hence the disk access can take placet
 directly.)  L With a good distributed cache (such as the one Oracle recently developed forJ its 'cache fusion' architecture) you can do even better due to the abilityL to combine cache-management messages with lock-management messages (and onceH you have such a distributed cache, shared storage becomes a definite winJ over served storage).  VMS unfortunately dropped the ball on this for manyF years, but is finally getting there with XFC (when they get it workingH right).  Meanwhile, there is the legitimate knock that a node that wantsH access to data that another node has cached must still go to disk for itD (whereas if it was cached at a 'server' then no disk access would beK required) - but this is an anomaly of the VMS implementation rather than ana. inherent problem with concurrent disk-sharing.   - bill   ------------------------------    Date: 14 May 2002 18:37:03 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)< Subject: Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix< Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0205141737.28f4110@posting.google.com>  t "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<jxTA8.66544$%s3.26397068@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>...5 > "Volker Birk" <bumens@dingens.org> wrote in message 8 > news:3cd3922e$0$223$4d4ebb8e@businessnews.de.uu.net...A > > In comp.sys.hp.hpux Bob Ceculski <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote:c > > > linux is a poor mans unixe > >d. > > Good morning. World is changing every day. > >eH > > > begin with doesn't say much for linux ... yes good old propreitaryK > > > vms is still the best os in the world for the past 20 plus years, and6J > > > the way it looks right now, the next 20 years ... linux or any otherH > > > os for that matter will never rival vms ... it will survive on its > > > own merits ... > >tF > > I agree - VMS will survive, it has a broad platform of supporters. > ><< > > Why do I have the feeling of an growing OS war here? :-P > K > If there's a war going on here, its a war against marketing ineptitude. IrM > don't think many denizens of comp.os.vms have a visceral hatred of Unix, oft > OS/400, of NSK, or even MVS. > M > Windoze is another story, but hey, there are plenty of technical reasons tor$ > dislike THAT operating system. ;-}  F I have been on OS400, MVS and others, and yes, I do hate them comparedI to VMS, not in the sense of hate hate, but in the sense of "I can't standoC it, it makes me sick" hate ... there is no finer an os than vms ...i   ------------------------------    Date: 14 May 2002 18:38:27 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)< Subject: Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0205141738.363d7f58@posting.google.com>a   Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com> wrote in message news:<abrg09$1df$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...S > Bob Koehler wrote: >  > > In article <abgrtf$1ib$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com> writes: > >  > >>MPE has clusters > >> > >> > > @ > >    Yeah, right.  MPE has clusters like Solaris has clusters. > > K > >    Back to reality:  HP has clusters.  Back when DEC still existed, HP sI > >    said VMS clusters ARE the definitive implementation and that they  + > >    would like to have as good in HP-UX.  > >  >  > < > Nope OpenVMS clusters are not the definitive cluster, they? > represent on strand of cluster developement. There are othersa8 > IBM Sysplex, BeoWolf, Application Server Clusters etc. > E > Understanding this might help you understand why not everyone needs > > or apsires to having an OpenVMS cluster in their datacenter. > 	 > Regardse > Andrew  C I think after 9/11, there are a few who would disagree with you ...n   ------------------------------    Date: 14 May 2002 18:47:48 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)< Subject: Re: Capellas: Linux, Windows Will 'Eviscerate' Unix= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0205141747.56266f61@posting.google.com>-   Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com> wrote in message news:<abrg09$1df$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...e > Bob Koehler wrote: >  > > In article <abgrtf$1ib$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com> writes: > >  > >>MPE has clusters > >> > >> > > @ > >    Yeah, right.  MPE has clusters like Solaris has clusters. > > K > >    Back to reality:  HP has clusters.  Back when DEC still existed, HP eI > >    said VMS clusters ARE the definitive implementation and that they -+ > >    would like to have as good in HP-UX.  > >  >  > < > Nope OpenVMS clusters are not the definitive cluster, they? > represent on strand of cluster developement. There are others68 > IBM Sysplex, BeoWolf, Application Server Clusters etc. > E > Understanding this might help you understand why not everyone needs<> > or apsires to having an OpenVMS cluster in their datacenter. > 	 > Regardse > Andrew  G Andrew, everyone knows that VMS clusters are still superior to anything H out there ... many have tried to copy it, but no one has ... tests proveD this year after year ... to speak otherwise is to make a fool out of	 yourself!    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 00:30:31 GMTh) From: rob.buxton@wcc.govt.nz (Rob Buxton)H( Subject: Re: disk geometry and shadowing/ Message-ID: <3ce1ab3b.8532979@news.wcc.govt.nz>l  5 On Tue, 14 May 2002 01:18:41 GMT, "David J. Dachtera"o <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote:   >Phillip Helbig wrote: >> eD >> Members of a shadow set have to have the same geometry.  They canI >> otherwise be completely different disks, right?  (Of course, they have K >> to work with VMS etc.)  To determine if two disks have the same geometryiK >> for the purpose of shadowing, is it enough if these things are the same?p >> e >>    Total blocks >> e >>    Sectors per track  >> r >>    Total cylindersF >> s >>    Tracks per cylinderF >>  F >> Is there a "blocks per sector"?  If so, why isn't it listed in SHOWD >> DEVICE?  If it is fixed, then "Total blocks" is redundant, right? >oG >Recent experience would indicate that total block count is a key item.  > E >The newer HSG firmware (don't know the exact revision, my partner at @ >work does, but he has a life and doesn't participate here) willC >INITIALIZE certain disks 500 blocks larger than others of the same,I >geometry. Apparently, this is a known issue. We wound up with two former I >shadow-set members that were replaced but couldn't be joined back to them@ >shadow-sets due to the differing block counts (VMS Alpha V7.3). >   D This sounds like all HS Controllers. If, on the Controller, you Init? the device with SAVE Configuration you'll get about a 500 blockw difference than if you don't..D So, although you've got identical disks they get presented to the OS" with a different total block size.C So, if shadowing via HS Controllers  you need to ensure each shadow  member is init'd the same. -   >--  >David J. Dachtera >dba DJE Systems >http://www.djesys.com/  >b) >Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:d  >http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 02:57:00 GMT41 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> ( Subject: Re: disk geometry and shadowing' Message-ID: <3CE1D1AE.2ECF55ED@fsi.net>>   Rob Buxton wrote:U > 7 > On Tue, 14 May 2002 01:18:41 GMT, "David J. Dachtera"r  > <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote: >  > >Phillip Helbig wrote: > >>F > >> Members of a shadow set have to have the same geometry.  They canK > >> otherwise be completely different disks, right?  (Of course, they havelM > >> to work with VMS etc.)  To determine if two disks have the same geometrylM > >> for the purpose of shadowing, is it enough if these things are the same?h > >> > >>    Total blocks > >> > >>    Sectors per trackd > >> > >>    Total cylindersa > >> > >>    Tracks per cylinder  > >>H > >> Is there a "blocks per sector"?  If so, why isn't it listed in SHOWF > >> DEVICE?  If it is fixed, then "Total blocks" is redundant, right? > >hI > >Recent experience would indicate that total block count is a key item.  > >>G > >The newer HSG firmware (don't know the exact revision, my partner atsB > >work does, but he has a life and doesn't participate here) willE > >INITIALIZE certain disks 500 blocks larger than others of the sameiK > >geometry. Apparently, this is a known issue. We wound up with two formereK > >shadow-set members that were replaced but couldn't be joined back to thedB > >shadow-sets due to the differing block counts (VMS Alpha V7.3). > >  > F > This sounds like all HS Controllers. If, on the Controller, you InitA > the device with SAVE Configuration you'll get about a 500 blocks > difference than if you don't.eF > So, although you've got identical disks they get presented to the OS$ > with a different total block size.E > So, if shadowing via HS Controllers  you need to ensure each shadown > member is init'd the same.  H This is a known GSH firmware issue. I can't quote you the specifics just& now, but if I find them I'll postthem.   --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systemsp http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/e   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 03:01:23 GMTm1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>O( Subject: Re: disk geometry and shadowing' Message-ID: <3CE1D2B6.F3A20EDE@fsi.net>    Phillip Helbig wrote:e >  > > >    Total blocksF > > >< > > >    Sectors per track > > >  > > >    Total cylinders > > >C > > >    Tracks per cylinder > > >r > > J > > Recent experience would indicate that total block count is a key item. > I > OK.  But JUST the same total-block count is not enough, i.e. I need allt" > four items above to be the same?  F AFAIK, the geometry restrictions have been eased, based on postings by: Hoff, but you may want to search dejagoogle for it to see.   > > The newer HSG firmware > # > Sorry, host-based shadowing here.h  D Same here. However, the problem *IS* with the HSG firmware. Read theA earlier post again. The disk geometries are reported identically; H however, the block counts are not. Thus, the disks cannot be rejoined to their shadow-sets.   -- y David J. DachteraF dba DJE Systemsa http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/h   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 03:12:30 GMTr1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>n( Subject: Re: disk geometry and shadowing& Message-ID: <3CE1D550.634A967@fsi.net>   "David J. Dachtera" wrote: > [snip]J > This is a known GSH firmware issue. I can't quote you the specifics just( > now, but if I find them I'll postthem.  7 I meant, "HSG" and "post them", of course. It's late...a   -- n David J. Dachterao dba DJE Systemsu http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 16:28:26 -0400e# From: "Island" <sales@islandco.com>e+ Subject: DS10L's Complete for USD 1299 !!!!p/ Message-ID: <ue2s9c19nsp4a8@news.supernews.com>s   We have them   Buy 'em whilst vey're 'oti   Configured for VMS   DS10L 6/466 EV6o 512MB Memory Dual 10/100 Ethernet 9GB SCSI Disk drivea Ultra 2 SCSI Controllerl   No video includedf Serial port use required     -- David B Turner	 Sales Dptf Island Computers US Corporationo 2700 Gregory Street-	 Suite 180f Savannah GA 31404r Tel: 912 447 6622f Fax: 912 201 0096n 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   ------------------------------   Date: 14 May 2002 18:06:12 GMT1 From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)c6 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning, Message-ID: <abrjmk$2n3t$1@info.cs.uofs.edu>   How about a reality check??y  E In article <pqaE8.4357$t8_.325@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, &  "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes:J |> "Dissatisfied with unix? Down-time costing you too much lost business?   @ The University's VMS system has had more downtime (scheduled and= un-scheduled) than my Unix servers in every year since I havea
 been here.  P |>                                                                         Tired* |> of paying top dollar for "unix guru's"   A The bottom rung VMS guy here earns more than I do and I have over  20 years of experience.   J |>                                        who change employers faster than# |> humming birds beat their wings? m  = I have been here longer than any of the VMS staff, in fact, Ic? have watched the whole VMS staff turn over at least three timese since I've been here.   N |>                                 Choose the operating system that "let's you* |> sleep nights and stay calm" - OpenVMS."  B Considering that most people who are running Unix on their systemsF are perfectly happy and none of what you had above compares to realityG how do you think statements like that make you look to management types- making decisions??   bill a   -- 2J 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: Tue, 14 May 2002 18:42:27 GMTn5 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> 6 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning9 Message-ID: <nUcE8.26$Ux2.681050@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>   L Two guys in suits, sitting in the hospital emergency entrance.  An ambulanceF pulls up, and as the staff rushes the dying patient into the hospital, everyone falls to the floor.   Guy one:  What just happened.c Guy two:   It just crashed.a' Guy one:  They all went down at once??? ' Guy two:   It happens.  But just watch..  E Eight fat sweaty guys show up in blue tee shirts that say "Backup ande+ Recovery".  The staff returns to it's feet.    Guy one:  That's amazing.K8 Guy two:  Yeah, but the patient died while we were down.  7 Bet your business?  Bet your life?  Don't bet on Linux. * VMS, when it really *is* mission critical.    F [Of course, you could just as easily insert SUN for Linux, but this is  obviously a poke at the IBM ads]    ; Nic Clews wrote in message <3CE133F9.153B84DA@127.0.0.1>...  >John Smith wrote: >>I >> "Dissatisfied with unix? Down-time costing you too much lost business?  TiredwJ >> of paying top dollar for "unix guru's" who change employers faster thanJ >> humming birds beat their wings? Choose the operating system that "let's yout* >> sleep nights and stay calm" - OpenVMS." >>F >> "Call you local HP office and insist on OpenVMS for your business." >u >I like it but too complicated.h >wD >Black and white footage of a patient being rushed to hospital in anF >ambulance, lot of furrowed brows and concerned looks. Doctor in whiteD >coat keys a few things on a computer, then says "it's OK, we have a" >cross match and it's on its way". >s  >Caption. "hp OpenVMS for life". >rD >A deep play on words that with enough repeats will probably get the >message through.e >--c) >Regards, Nic Clews CSC Computer Sciencesf >nclews at csc dot com   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 18:44:38 GMTl5 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> 6 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning9 Message-ID: <qWcE8.27$Jv2.589959@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>   J Your results sound atypical.  It would be interesting to know exactly whatI your VMS system does, and a post mortem on your downtime.  Of course, the / same information for your UNIX systems as well.i    $ Bill Gunshannon wrote in message ... >How about a reality check?? >sF >In article <pqaE8.4357$t8_.325@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,' > "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes: J >|> "Dissatisfied with unix? Down-time costing you too much lost business? >rA >The University's VMS system has had more downtime (scheduled anda> >un-scheduled) than my Unix servers in every year since I have >been here.  >k >|>e Tired * >|> of paying top dollar for "unix guru's" >iB >The bottom rung VMS guy here earns more than I do and I have over >20 years of experience. >cK >|>                                        who change employers faster thane# >|> humming birds beat their wings?m >g> >I have been here longer than any of the VMS staff, in fact, I@ >have watched the whole VMS staff turn over at least three times >since I've been here. > K >|>                                 Choose the operating system that "let's  your+ >|> sleep nights and stay calm" - OpenVMS."m > C >Considering that most people who are running Unix on their systemscG >are perfectly happy and none of what you had above compares to reality H >how do you think statements like that make you look to management types >making decisions??e >h >bill  >e >--pK >Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves-E >bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.C >University of Scranton   |a? >Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>2   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 14:52:34 -0400t2 From: Atlant Schmidt <atlantnospam@mindspring.com>6 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning. Message-ID: <3CE15CF2.1DBB6D39@mindspring.com>   Atlant Schmidt wrote:.   > Bill Gunshannon wrote: >p > > How about a reality check??iL > > > "Dissatisfied with unix? Down-time costing you too much lost business? > >cD > > The University's VMS system has had more downtime (scheduled andA > > un-scheduled) than my Unix servers in every year since I have  > > been here. > > ' > > >  who change employers faster thanr% > > > humming birds beat their wings?r > >oA > > I have been here longer than any of the VMS staff, in fact, IvC > > have watched the whole VMS staff turn over at least three timese > > since I've been here.f >p6 > It may turn out that the second point I've quoted is+ > directly attributable to the first point.g  ; Obviously, I meant it the other way around, with "downtime"'8 being attributable to staff turnover/lack of experience.   Atlant   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 14:40:40 -0400e2 From: Atlant Schmidt <atlantnospam@mindspring.com>6 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning. Message-ID: <3CE15A28.1BEE4876@mindspring.com>   Bill Gunshannon wrote:   > How about a reality check??fJ > > "Dissatisfied with unix? Down-time costing you too much lost business? >mB > The University's VMS system has had more downtime (scheduled and? > un-scheduled) than my Unix servers in every year since I haveC > been here. >i% > >  who change employers faster thanD# > > humming birds beat their wings?n >o? > I have been here longer than any of the VMS staff, in fact, IrA > have watched the whole VMS staff turn over at least three times- > since I've been here.   4 It may turn out that the second point I've quoted is) directly attributable to the first point.C   Atlant   ------------------------------    Date: 14 May 2002 14:03:17 -0600+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)r6 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning3 Message-ID: <ifH7nMHLfjDi@eisner.encompasserve.org>n  ` In article <abrjmk$2n3t$1@info.cs.uofs.edu>, bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > How about a reality check??g > G > In article <pqaE8.4357$t8_.325@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,c( >  "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes:L > |> "Dissatisfied with unix? Down-time costing you too much lost business?  > B > The University's VMS system has had more downtime (scheduled and? > un-scheduled) than my Unix servers in every year since I haven > been here. >   D 	I normally try to take 4-6 hours semi-annual downtime.  UnscheduledG 	is externally caused (at least in the last 2-3 years).  I have managedMF 	a cluster that had a higher frequency of unplanned outage, until the F 	cause was determined.  I also managed a cluster that had been up overF 	a year until upgrade, with one node crashing in that timeframe.  Mark 	Berryman earlier wrote:  R http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3CDBC6AA.542D047%40Mvb.Saic.Com&output=gplain  E Hard pressed, perhaps, but doable.  I've got a cluster that's been upeF steady for over 2 years (which is when I built it), with zero downtimeE to the user community.  However, every node in the cluster is running 8 the current version of VMS and is up-to-date on patches.   ---t  F 	Maybe the scranton.edu VMS crashes/outages are directly attributable - 	to human causes, neglect or misuse or abuse.e    R > |>                                                                         Tired, > |> of paying top dollar for "unix guru's"  > C > The bottom rung VMS guy here earns more than I do and I have overm > 20 years of experience.B >   A 	You being a skilled professional should point that out to senior D 	management in a professional manner.  If you are highly valued, youB 	should be compensated accordingly (please .... I'm not suggestingC 	everyone in the world is being paid what they are worth but I also 7 	know that if you don't ask , you often won't receive).u   > P > |>                                 Choose the operating system that "let's you, > |> sleep nights and stay calm" - OpenVMS." > D > Considering that most people who are running Unix on their systemsH > are perfectly happy and none of what you had above compares to realityI > how do you think statements like that make you look to management types  > making decisions?? >   # 	Ummmm.. like a VMS traditionalist?H  A 	Obviously, negative marketing often backfires.  Case in point - gA 	Sun going after Microsoft whether Scott McNeally at a trade showh 	or otherwise.   				Rob    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 15:26:27 -0400i- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> 6 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning, Message-ID: <3CE164DF.6861D899@videotron.ca>   "Stuart, Ed" wrote:  > N > The "Special Edition of the TRU64 UNIX and OpenVMS Times" has been modified.) > The OpenVMS/HP-UX migration Q&A is now:f  M I find this to be unethical. A company should not be able to modify publishedcL documents. It might be able to add an addendum at the end to clarify, but itG should not be allowed to modify already published materials, especiallynL something as big as a change in corporate policy. Did the version number forN that document change ? It should have, otherwise you have two nearly identical? documents circulating with a major difference in policy inside.c   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 15:14:02 -0400n* From: WILLIAM WEBB <WWEBB1@email.usps.gov>6 Subject: RE: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning- Message-ID: <0033000063933699000002L092*@MHS>u  F =0AI posted this back in January-- only the company name has changed--     INT. DATA CENTER-p  ,     Man standing in front of row of servers.                          MAN;            "My systems have been up for 276 days straight."t   INT. OFFICE-  /     People standing in front of midsize system.:                          PEOPLEa4             "Our fileservers are immune to viruses."   INT. SMALL OFFICE SERVER ROOM-  F     Woman sitting in front of table with several desktop-sized systems     with monitors.                          WOMAN;             "My webservers have been up for eighteen months>5              and they haven't been hacked even once.":  	 VOICEOVERd  6             "What do these people know that you don't?B             "They're running OpenVMS systems from Hewlett-Packard.  ;              OpenVMS.   Stability...Reliability...Security.f  
 FADE TO BLACKh   -----Original Message-----/ From: Info-VAX-Request@Mvb.Saic.Com at INTERNETs$ Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 12:12 PMB To: Webb, William W Raleigh, NC; Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com at INTERNET6 Subject: RE: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning     John Smith wrote:o > H > "Dissatisfied with unix? Down-time costing you too much lost business= ? TiredeH > of paying top dollar for "unix guru's" who change employers faster th= anH > humming birds beat their wings? Choose the operating system that "let= 's you) > sleep nights and stay calm" - OpenVMS."  >TE > "Call you local HP office and insist on OpenVMS for your business."    I like it but too complicated.  C Black and white footage of a patient being rushed to hospital in anlE ambulance, lot of furrowed brows and concerned looks. Doctor in whitenC coat keys a few things on a computer, then says "it's OK, we have a ! cross match and it's on its way".k   Caption. "hp OpenVMS for life".   C A deep play on words that with enough repeats will probably get thea message through. --( Regards, Nic Clews CSC Computer Sciences nclews at csc dot com=   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 15:34:13 -0400h- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>t6 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning, Message-ID: <3CE166B0.6061F4B8@videotron.ca>   Rob Young wrote:M >         move there, is mostly offensive.  Also, it appears that someone diduN >         not brief senior management about the VMS base and the sensitivitiesK >         of dealing with them.  That or senior management disregarded sucha >         briefing.:  L Rob, they were briefed and they know exactly where the VMS base stands. TheyN are fully aware of the damage inflicted by Palmer with the messages to migrateD from VMS to Unix and then to NT (or was it NT first, Unix second ?).  I They are fully aware of those sensitivityes., as well as to the fact that A under Compaq, killing VMS meant instantly losing those customers.C  N I am not 100% convinced that upper management is aware of the damage caused byN the murder of Alpha. It is possible that they were also fed the bullshit about customers being happy about it.   M The migration to UNIX paragraph showed their true intentions. As I predicted, D they have toned it down, will be sending kind responses to those whoN complained, but there is still no public retraction and no public statement to" deny that this was ever HP policy.  M In fact, the document was covertly modified and in my opinion, this does moregH harm than good because it means you can't trust HP to stand by what they" write, they can change it at will.   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 19:40:58 GMT/5 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com>P6 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning9 Message-ID: <eLdE8.31$pA2.806021@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>r  = JF Mezei wrote in message <3CE164DF.6861D899@videotron.ca>...s >"Stuart, Ed" wrote: >>E >> The "Special Edition of the TRU64 UNIX and OpenVMS Times" has been 	 modified.h* >> The OpenVMS/HP-UX migration Q&A is now: > D >I find this to be unethical. A company should not be able to modify	 published"J >documents. It might be able to add an addendum at the end to clarify, but itH >should not be allowed to modify already published materials, especiallyI >something as big as a change in corporate policy. Did the version numbera foruE >that document change ? It should have, otherwise you have two nearlyu	 identicalL@ >documents circulating with a major difference in policy inside.  I Unethical?  Huh?  What change in policy?  This isn't a legal document, orrG even a "policy" statement.  It is a marketing document designed to helpsK answer questions that we anticipate from customers.  Why would a historicaluG record be significant to anyone?  It would just be more confusing.  TheoJ documents aren't "floating around" unless you are circulating hardcopy, or7 downloads of the original file instead of a link to it.   E In response to questions from the field over a particular Q&A, it wassL clarified to more clearly reflect what was meant.  Maintaining a copy of theH original one, with the response that caused confusion and concern, would( seem to not be a productive thing to do.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 16:55:04 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>36 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning, Message-ID: <3CE1799E.205CEAF4@videotron.ca>   Fred Kleinsorge wrote:K > Unethical?  Huh?  What change in policy?  This isn't a legal document, orw > even a "policy" statement. l  K Sorry, but when you starve your customers of VMS informatioon for 8 months, G and release this doozie on the week where the policies are finally madeoJ public, then that document becomes part of the policy from the part of theM customers for whom the one liner about VMS in the official product roadmap is  not sufficient.     M > answer questions that we anticipate from customers.  Why would a historicala# > record be significant to anyone? M  K It isn't a question of historical record. It is a question of a corporation N changing its documents without notice. This is similar to you being able to goN to the post office, retrieve a letter you sent and change it contents and send  it again with the same postmark.  N This is big grey area for the internet in terms of legal aspects. If companiesH can change their web site at will and not keep any records, then nothingL prevents them from advertising a GS series alpha for $1.00 and then when theN customer goes to order it, they change the web site to indicate the cost is $1U million and the cutsomer has no way to prove the company used misleading advertising.   E And in terms of Digital, since customers were screwed with the broken-G commitments about Alpha, the ability to change policy like this is veryiM dangerous because it removes any credibility from any document put on the web-L site since they can change at any time without warning and without any proof of the previous version.  K This means that as a customer, I must now SAVE everything I pickup from therJ compaq/HP web site as evidence should they change it. It also means that I= must distrust HP unless it is written on paper and notarized.u  N This is not a great way to welcome customers you have purposefully kept in theN dark for 8 months and who have learned to distrust Compaq because Compaq broke commitments at will.  N HP should have just generated a new newsletter, different version/date, with aK full explanation of what was actually meant and suifficient credibility forn% customers to beleive the new version.c    ' > It would just be more confusing.  TheaL > documents aren't "floating around" unless you are circulating hardcopy, or9 > downloads of the original file instead of a link to it.   H Making a copy of a document available on a web site should be consideredM circulating it hardcopy. Once published, they should not be modifiable unless M the document is clearly marked as volatile in which case its contents are notrD credible for long term. Volatile documents are acceptable for wether6 predictions, but not for long term corporate policies.    G > In response to questions from the field over a particular Q&A, it wasd4 > clarified to more clearly reflect what was meant.   L No, sorry. It was modified as damage control because they had underestimatedL the reaction of customers to the real policy. Now, this modification removedM credibility to that publication, and the original policy still remains in theyM customer's minds, except that customers now know that HP will make efforts to-L lie about their true intends to reduce the VMS attrition rate to the 9% they have anticipated.-  J If Compaq had wanted to fix this properly, Carly would have written a memoN which would have superceded (more recent, new date, new content) this documentK and apoligized for an error which allowed this document, written before thesL policy on VMS was finalised to be released. (or some other lame excuse). TheM memo would then assure VMS customers that HP intends to keep VMS customers onrL VMS and that VMs will continue to be developped on IA64 well after the port.  I Why Carly ? Because this Scott Stallard is some unknown entity to DigitaleN customers and the only person one can believe at HP right now is Carly because8 she represents the company and her words mean something.  N Another thing that could have been done in this memo is to announce that ScottL Stallard's job had changed and that he would no longer be in any position to& affect the policy and handling of VMS.  M The damage that was done by his memo is serious and only serious actions willv@ fix it. Hiding the problem under the carpet just doesn't cut it.   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 20:57:13 GMTr# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>r6 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm WarningG Message-ID: <JSeE8.11445$t8_.9140@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>   G My remarks pretty much sum up what I have seen happen in the commerciale marketplace.  J Academia may be different, but since I am not in that 'space' I will defer to you in that regard.    > "Bill Gunshannon" <bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message& news:abrjmk$2n3t$1@info.cs.uofs.edu... > How about a reality check??o >tG > In article <pqaE8.4357$t8_.325@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,s( >  "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes:K > |> "Dissatisfied with unix? Down-time costing you too much lost business?w >'B > The University's VMS system has had more downtime (scheduled and? > un-scheduled) than my Unix servers in every year since I have- > been here. >e > |> Tired + > |> of paying top dollar for "unix guru's"t >tC > The bottom rung VMS guy here earns more than I do and I have overm > 20 years of experience.5 >.L > |>                                        who change employers faster than$ > |> humming birds beat their wings? > ? > I have been here longer than any of the VMS staff, in fact, IbA > have watched the whole VMS staff turn over at least three timesm > since I've been here.s >dL > |>                                 Choose the operating system that "let's you , > |> sleep nights and stay calm" - OpenVMS." > D > Considering that most people who are running Unix on their systemsH > are perfectly happy and none of what you had above compares to realityI > how do you think statements like that make you look to management types  > making decisions?? >e > bill >  > --L > Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesF > bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > University of Scranton   |@ > Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 16:23:00 -0500i1 From: "Dave Gudewicz" <david.gudewicz@abbott.com>56 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning1 Message-ID: <abrvcg$jof$1@fizban.pprd.abbott.com>   L If countries can amend their constitutions, surely companies can amend their6 publications.  And it needn't take years to do either.   -- Dave...m  ) Adam and Eve had many advantages, but the - principle one was that they escaped teething.r -----Mark Twainn  : "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote in message& news:3CE164DF.6861D899@videotron.ca... > "Stuart, Ed" wrote:S > >fF > > The "Special Edition of the TRU64 UNIX and OpenVMS Times" has been	 modified.t+ > > The OpenVMS/HP-UX migration Q&A is now:i >aE > I find this to be unethical. A company should not be able to modify 	 publishedyK > documents. It might be able to add an addendum at the end to clarify, butR itI > should not be allowed to modify already published materials, especiallyeJ > something as big as a change in corporate policy. Did the version number forcF > that document change ? It should have, otherwise you have two nearly	 identicalcA > documents circulating with a major difference in policy inside."   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 16:31:50 -0500m1 From: "Dave Gudewicz" <david.gudewicz@abbott.com>n6 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning1 Message-ID: <abrvt1$jrk$1@fizban.pprd.abbott.com>e  H And one more thing JF to satisfy a curiosity I and probably others have.  % Always wrong it is.  <---- Yoda speakn+ Have you ever had a half-full thing to say?    -- Dave...M  ) Adam and Eve had many advantages, but then- principle one was that they escaped teething.e -----Mark Twaind  : "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote in message& news:3CE164DF.6861D899@videotron.ca... > "Stuart, Ed" wrote:r > > F > > The "Special Edition of the TRU64 UNIX and OpenVMS Times" has been	 modified.n+ > > The OpenVMS/HP-UX migration Q&A is now:g >aE > I find this to be unethical. A company should not be able to modifyt	 publishedzK > documents. It might be able to add an addendum at the end to clarify, butu itI > should not be allowed to modify already published materials, especiallyyJ > something as big as a change in corporate policy. Did the version number forsF > that document change ? It should have, otherwise you have two nearly	 identical A > documents circulating with a major difference in policy inside.    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 17:47:17 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> 6 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning, Message-ID: <3CE185D8.D030BAE8@videotron.ca>   Dave Gudewicz wrote: > N > If countries can amend their constitutions, surely companies can amend their8 > publications.  And it needn't take years to do either.  K If HPO amends its bylaws/constitution, a record of that change is kept with M the SEC, and a record of the previous constitution is also kept in case theresP are any legal problems that date at the time the old constitution was in effect.  L The same applies with very volatile airfares. Airlines keep a record of whatJ airfare was in the past for a certain amount of time, so that if you do goL back with a valid ticket for a refund, they can verify that the fare paid atI that time was valid even though the fare may have changed 50 times since.i  E Again, had the document been marked "modifiable at will" or "volatilehM information, may change at any time", I would not object to them changing it. L However, the expectations were that this was a fixed document, approaved andM released by HP/Compaq to represent official HP policy. Changing that document8 without a trace is not honest.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 00:43:47 +0100aU From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com>i6 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning0 Message-ID: <abs7fj$7ad$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Fred Kleinsorge wrote:  L > Your results sound atypical.  It would be interesting to know exactly whatK > your VMS system does, and a post mortem on your downtime.  Of course, thet1 > same information for your UNIX systems as well.v >  >      Sorryc  = We have just been asked to replace an OpenVMS based system ate: a customers site (cluster 7.3 GS140's) guess why ?????????   Downtime  = Of course it doesn't help that OpenVMS does not figure in theF= customers strategic plan but the downtime is the final straw.6  1 If you think that OpenVMS is perfect think again.J   Regardsl Andrew Harrisone    & > Bill Gunshannon wrote in message ... >  >>How about a reality check??e >>G >>In article <pqaE8.4357$t8_.325@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, ' >>"John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes: K >>|> "Dissatisfied with unix? Down-time costing you too much lost business?L >>B >>The University's VMS system has had more downtime (scheduled and? >>un-scheduled) than my Unix servers in every year since I havev >>been here. >> >>|> >> > Tiredm > + >>|> of paying top dollar for "unix guru's"  >>C >>The bottom rung VMS guy here earns more than I do and I have overe >>20 years of experience.o >>L >>|>                                        who change employers faster than$ >>|> humming birds beat their wings? >>? >>I have been here longer than any of the VMS staff, in fact, IiA >>have watched the whole VMS staff turn over at least three times- >>since I've been here.M >>L >>|>                                 Choose the operating system that "let's >> > youN > , >>|> sleep nights and stay calm" - OpenVMS." >>D >>Considering that most people who are running Unix on their systemsH >>are perfectly happy and none of what you had above compares to realityI >>how do you think statements like that make you look to management typesr >>making decisions?? >> >>bill >> >>--L >>Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesF >>bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. >>University of Scranton   |@ >>Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h> >> >  >    ------------------------------    Date: 14 May 2002 18:42:45 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)6 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0205141742.356dc58c@posting.google.com>   e bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote in message news:<abrjmk$2n3t$1@info.cs.uofs.edu>...C > How about a reality check??e > G > In article <pqaE8.4357$t8_.325@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,2( >  "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes:L > |> "Dissatisfied with unix? Down-time costing you too much lost business?  > B > The University's VMS system has had more downtime (scheduled and? > un-scheduled) than my Unix servers in every year since I havee > been here. > R > |>                                                                         Tired, > |> of paying top dollar for "unix guru's"  > C > The bottom rung VMS guy here earns more than I do and I have overe > 20 years of experience.S > L > |>                                        who change employers faster than% > |> humming birds beat their wings? t > ? > I have been here longer than any of the VMS staff, in fact, IeA > have watched the whole VMS staff turn over at least three timesq > since I've been here.n > P > |>                                 Choose the operating system that "let's you, > |> sleep nights and stay calm" - OpenVMS." >  s > bill  - sounds like you should be on vms, doesn't it?t   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 02:27:52 GMTe1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>e6 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning' Message-ID: <3CE1CAD9.57A28872@fsi.net>r   "Stuart, Ed" wrote:  > N > The "Special Edition of the TRU64 UNIX and OpenVMS Times" has been modified.) > The OpenVMS/HP-UX migration Q&A is now:r > ( > Q: For OpenVMS customers who have made+ > a firm decision to move to UNIX, will youa" > offer a migration path to HP-UX? > 3 > A: Yes. For our OpenVMS customers who have made a/4 > decision to move to UNIX, we believe that HP-UX is6 > an excellent choice, and we will work with them on a4 > migration plan and provide tools and services that& > can help ensure a smooth transition. > H > Looks like the folks at the new HP read those emails that were sent by > OpenVMS advocates.  = Well, here's some questions and answers that I'd like to see:X  E Q: For OpenVMS customers who have made a firm commitment to stay withdF OpenVMS, does HP have a plan to provide hardware support until a fully9 viable, commercial-quality IPF processor finally appears?aG A: Yes - HP will continue to ensure the availability of Alpha ProcessoriD Family systems until IPF is ready for prime time, no matter how long that takes.a  @ Q: For former OpenVMS customers, ISVs and VARs who are exploringF returning to OpenVMS, does HP have a plan to court them, support their9 decision to return and help them migrate back to OpenVMS?mB A: Of course! OpenVMS is unsurpassed for versatility, security andG stability and we'll do everything humanly possible - and then some - tow2 help bring the former faithful back into the fold!  F Q: For OpenVMS customers who need applications not currently availableE for OpenVMS, does HP have a plan to work with ISVs to get more app.'si% written for and/or ported to OpenVMS?oC A: Oh, yes! Going forward, we're budgeting unprecedented amounts tof> recruit and retain ISVs, VARs and OEMs for OpenVMS systems andA applications. This includes OpenVMS advertising in the mainstreamoG publications (not just those visible to CIOs and other executive types)-F as well as adjustments to OpenVMS's pricing structure so resellers canG finally compete against alternate platform proposals dollar-for-dollar!-H We're serious this time! OpenVMS is our most lucrative product and we'reB going full-throttle after a market that has been too-long ignored!  5 (Earth calling David J.!! Come back to reality, son!)    -- b David J. Dachteray dba DJE SystemsV http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/d   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 02:29:52 GMTf1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> 6 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning' Message-ID: <3CE1CB53.F6F82F98@fsi.net>m   Bill Gunshannon wrote: > [snip]R > |>                                                                         Tired+ > |> of paying top dollar for "unix guru's"i > C > The bottom rung VMS guy here earns more than I do and I have overt > 20 years of experience.l   Where do I sign???!!!    -- e David J. Dachteraa dba DJE Systemsp http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/e   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 02:56:44 GMTt( From: "Mark E. Levy" <mlevy70@attbi.com>6 Subject: Re: Forced migration to HPHUX - Storm Warning+ Message-ID: <M7kE8.2513$gD6.3843@sccrnsc01>   # "Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy" > <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com> wrote in message* news:abs7fj$7ad$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com... >h >e > Fred Kleinsorge wrote: >lI > > Your results sound atypical.  It would be interesting to know exactlyr whatI > > your VMS system does, and a post mortem on your downtime.  Of course,n the 3 > > same information for your UNIX systems as well.e > >i > >e >o >  > Sorrya >t? > We have just been asked to replace an OpenVMS based system at < > a customers site (cluster 7.3 GS140's) guess why ????????? >n
 > Downtime  & Oh, I get it. They want MORE downtime.  	 Mark Levyz OpenVMS forever, Sun never.a   ------------------------------    Date: 14 May 2002 11:05:08 -0700. From: SPAMSINK2001@YAHOO.COM (Alan E. Feldman)/ Subject: Re: High Water Concurrent Users Count?o= Message-ID: <343f30ae.0205141005.6e5b7a02@posting.google.com>e  e "Phil Howell" <phowell@snowyhydro.com.au> wrote in message news:<ilZD8.75$C4.24940@ozemail.com.au>...i: > "Richard D. Piccard" <piccard@ohio.edu> wrote in message$ > news:3CDFC377.99A702DE@ohio.edu... > >"L > > That sounds interesting, but I suspect some systems usage patterns wouldI > > involve brief residence in DCL during execution of LOGIN.COM and thentJ > > immediate execution of a particular application.  Does DCL still countF > > as being concurrently shared, from INSTALL's point of view, duringI > > execution of an application that was initiated from DCL by any of then@ > > several methods (e.g., RUN, MCR, or foreign command symbol)?F > Any user process that has dcl as its command line interpreter should1 > map to the dcltables image until it terminates.l > Phil    F What about batch jobs? Does the original poster want those included? I= would think that they also map to DCL the same as interactiveo
 processes do.      Disclaimer: JMHO Alan E. Feldmana" afeldman atski gfigroup dotski com   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 10:47:45 +1000t/ From: "Phil Howell" <phowell@snowyhydro.com.au>e/ Subject: Re: High Water Concurrent Users Count?9/ Message-ID: <6giE8.536$C4.47141@ozemail.com.au>d  ; "Alan E. Feldman" <SPAMSINK2001@YAHOO.COM> wrote in messageo7 news:343f30ae.0205141005.6e5b7a02@posting.google.com...t< > "Phil Howell" <phowell@snowyhydro.com.au> wrote in message* news:<ilZD8.75$C4.24940@ozemail.com.au>...< > > "Richard D. Piccard" <piccard@ohio.edu> wrote in message& > > news:3CDFC377.99A702DE@ohio.edu... > > >iH > > > That sounds interesting, but I suspect some systems usage patterns would K > > > involve brief residence in DCL during execution of LOGIN.COM and thenmL > > > immediate execution of a particular application.  Does DCL still countH > > > as being concurrently shared, from INSTALL's point of view, duringK > > > execution of an application that was initiated from DCL by any of theaB > > > several methods (e.g., RUN, MCR, or foreign command symbol)?H > > Any user process that has dcl as its command line interpreter should3 > > map to the dcltables image until it terminates.y > > Phil >o >wH > What about batch jobs? Does the original poster want those included? I? > would think that they also map to DCL the same as interactive  > processes do.  >t ><! Yes this would include batch jobse Phil   ------------------------------  + Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 18:51:46 +0000 (UTC).- From: lewis@spyder.mitre.org (Keith A. Lewis)h4 Subject: Re: howto create self-extracting zip files?- Message-ID: <abrmc2$co$1@newslocal.mitre.org>n   Doc.Cypher <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes in article <20020514063949.15980.qmail@gacracker.org> dated 14 May 2002 06:39:49 -0000:L >I'd certainly like to see patches being signed, but we'd need some officialJ >encryption support in VMS. X.509 would certainly do, but PGP/GPG seems to% >be far more widespread in its usage.t >nL >I've not investigated X.509 certificate hierarchies much, but I assume theyI >have a similar basis to a PGP web of trust. If it was a web of trust I'dsI >actually expect to see Hoff's signature on the key used to sign software 	 >distros.d  F The difference between PGP and X.509 certification is free culture vs.K commercial.  Browsers come with a few top-level X.509 certificates, and all J signatures they load must chain back to those.  For a fee, they will issueH you one (which expires in a few years).  For a bigger fee, you can get aA "certificate authority" certificate, which allows you to generatesL certificates for others (again, for a few years).  It's a tree of trust, not% a web.  And money flows to the roots.l  L Even Netscape's https complains about self-signed certificates (but at least it allows them).  ; PGP allows any keyholder to certify any key free of charge.e  + --Keith Lewis              klewis$mitre.orgo PGP key available.         e> The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.   ------------------------------    Date: 14 May 2002 14:35:53 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)n4 Subject: Re: howto create self-extracting zip files?3 Message-ID: <LJuhnw7nWWEq@eisner.encompasserve.org>a  ] In article <abrmc2$co$1@newslocal.mitre.org>, lewis@spyder.mitre.org (Keith A. Lewis) writes:0  H > The difference between PGP and X.509 certification is free culture vs.M > commercial.  Browsers come with a few top-level X.509 certificates, and alliL > signatures they load must chain back to those.  For a fee, they will issueJ > you one (which expires in a few years).  For a bigger fee, you can get aC > "certificate authority" certificate, which allows you to generaterN > certificates for others (again, for a few years).  It's a tree of trust, not' > a web.  And money flows to the roots.a > N > Even Netscape's https complains about self-signed certificates (but at least > it allows them).  D Web browser usage of X.509 certificates is a very limited aberrationC of what the X.509 V3 standard provides.  Cross-certification allowsaD your organization to evaluate certificates from another organization9 without any intermediary "top level" entity taking a cut.   D If you find than organizations like Verisign and Thawte are (whoops,G that should be "an organization like Verisign and Thawte is") promotingbD a model which involves an intermediary collecting money, think of itD as the natural motivator for promotion and advertising, not anything that stems from the technology.-  D X.509 V1 had the limitation of a global hierarchy that you describe.C That has been fixed, many years ago.  Your organization can "trust"tF my organization and so indicate by cross certification, but it is doneD by a duly appointed individual within your organization, not by each end user as a renegade.w   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 18:20:34 -0400   From: norm.raphael@jamesbury.comY Subject: HP reports fiscal second-quarter pro forma earnings of 25 cents         per shari4 Message-ID: <C2256BB9.0079B35B.00@jklh22.valmet.com>  K HP logs 2Q profit Company reports pro forma earnings of 25 cents per share.  May 14, 2002: 4:58 PM EDTo    B NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Hewlett-Packard Co. Tuesday logged a fiscalO second-quarter profit that matched Wall Street's expectations and said businessl conditions remain difficult.    J The company, which earlier this month completed its buyout of rival CompaqM Computer Corp., said it earned 25 cents per share during the quarter ended ina April.  O That excludes acquisitions-related and other one-time charges and compares withhP 17 cents during the same quarter last year. The latest results also were in lineK with most analysts' expectations, according to a poll conducted by earnings- tracking firm First Call.e    I Including one-time items, HP reported a net profit of 12 cents per share,a. compared with 2 cents in the year-ago quarter.    I At $10.6 billion, HP's second-quarter revenue fell 9.4 percent from $11.7:* billion during the same period a year ago.    K HP's latest quarterly results mark its last report as a standalone company.aM Earlier this month, HP completed its $18.7 billion buyout of Compaq Computer,nP the biggest such deal in the technology industry's history, which put it a close' second to IBM in terms of global sales.a    N When they closed the Compaq deal and began operating the two companies as one,M HP executives said the IT industry remains difficult and underscored the idea O that a merger was necessary in order for the company to thrive during an era off slower growth.    H Carly Fiorina, HP's chairman and CEO, reiterated that sentiment Tuesday.    H "While a muted recovery in the second half is still possible, we are notL counting on meaningful improvement in IT spending until 2003," she said in a
 statement.    O HP did not provide any concrete financial guidance for its fiscal third quarteraP or the remainder of the fiscal year. The company said it planned to do so at its+ security analysts meeting early next month.-    P During the second quarter, HP said its business was especially weak in the U.S.,O where revenue fell 11 percent from the first quarter and 16 percent from a yearr ago.    D Second-quarter revenue from outside the U.S. was down 4 percent both2 sequentially and year-over-year, the company said.    M In Europe, revenue was down 6 percent from the first quarter but up 2 percentoM year-over-year. Sales in the Asia-Pacific region were down 2 percent from therE first quarter and down 13 percent from their year-ago level, HP said.s    N Meanwhile, sales in Latin America were up 3 percent from the first quarter and  down 12 percent from a year ago.    P Shares of HP, which have been on the rise since the company completed its buyoutP of Compaq on May 3, rose 2.6 percent on the New York Stock Exchange ahead of the> earnings release, which was issued after the close of trading.   ------------------------------    Date: 14 May 2002 12:36:16 -0700, From: srp336@getcoactive.com (Steve Pfister)! Subject: OpenVMS Hobbyist License"< Message-ID: <45126e60.0205141136.b30b72f@posting.google.com>  D I'm looking to get an OpenVMS hobbyist license and the OpenVMS media@ to try out the simh and Charon Vax emulators. Is a membership inB Encompass US absolutely necessary to get the hobbyist license? TheD license is really all I wanted, and the membership application seems. like it's going to take a while to get set up.  A And the montagar.com website says the Vax kits may be in stock in B July...is that information definite, or might there likely be some delay.   Thanks!i   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 01:19:29 GMTt* From: 2damncommon <2damncommon@nospam.com>% Subject: Re: OpenVMS Hobbyist License'@ Message-ID: <BIiE8.1345$xn6.76279994@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>   Steve Pfister wrote:  F > I'm looking to get an OpenVMS hobbyist license and the OpenVMS mediaB > to try out the simh and Charon Vax emulators. Is a membership inD > Encompass US absolutely necessary to get the hobbyist license? TheF > license is really all I wanted, and the membership application seems0 > like it's going to take a while to get set up. > C > And the montagar.com website says the Vax kits may be in stock in D > July...is that information definite, or might there likely be some > delay. > 	 > Thanks!   G Took me about a month to get everything I needed to get VMS running on . Charon-Vax. I Yes, you need at least an Associate membership in Encompass. Apparently, mK sometimes they respond quickly-sometimes not. Took about 2 weeks for me to - get the email reply, I think.7D In the meantime you can load Charon-Vax and read some docs and this 	 newsgroup C If you are the impatient sort - you are never going to enjoy VMS...C
 Good Luck.   ------------------------------    Date: 14 May 2002 14:11:17 -0700 From: yau818@yahoo.com (Fred)  Subject: OpenVMS SNMP TRAP= Message-ID: <e04ecee5.0205141311.18452cc2@posting.google.com>   F Version of system: OpenVMS (TM) Alpha Operating System, Version V7.2-1  B I would like to know if OpenVMS's snmp service can send snmp trapsA automatically when certain events (fail login) happen.  I can use ( snmp_trapsnd to send snmp trap manually.5                                                       D I tried the following snmp configuration and it didn't send any snmp trap.     a     SNMP Configuration     Flags:    AuthenTraps    Contact:  XXX   	 Location o
   First:  
   Second:   , Community           Type       address_list   4 trapit              Read Trap  (receiver IP address)        - I found this setting from the following link:hM http://www.openvms.compaq.com:8000/73FINAL/6526/6526pro_025.html#snmp_con_secCF Is this what I need to have OpenVMS snmp fail login sending snmp trap?    -
 Please advises   
 Thanks a lot,l Fred yau818@yahoo.com   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 03:05:50 GMT21 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>o Subject: Re: OpenVMS SNMP TRAP& Message-ID: <3CE1D3C0.A4815BA@fsi.net>   Fred wrote:E > H > Version of system: OpenVMS (TM) Alpha Operating System, Version V7.2-1 > D > I would like to know if OpenVMS's snmp service can send snmp trapsC > automatically when certain events (fail login) happen.  I can usee* > snmp_trapsnd to send snmp trap manually. > F > I tried the following snmp configuration and it didn't send any snmp > trap.a >  >  >  > SNMP Configuration >  > Flags:    AuthenTrapss >  > Contact:  XXXc > 
 > Location
 >   First: >   Second:r > - > Community           Type       address_lista > 6 > trapit              Read Trap  (receiver IP address) > / > I found this setting from the following link: O > http://www.openvms.compaq.com:8000/73FINAL/6526/6526pro_025.html#snmp_con_secsH > Is this what I need to have OpenVMS snmp fail login sending snmp trap? >  >  > Please advisev  C Depends which TCP/IP stack for OpenVMS you happen to be using. Moreq details, please...   -- y David J. Dachtera- dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/m   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 13:38:33 -0600A% From: "Dave Rich" <drich@nucorar.com>V; Subject: Question re odbc processes and whos using them....n5 Message-ID: <abrlc7$k8fn2$1@ID-136223.news.dfncis.de>O    Trying to track something down..  J Ocassionally, I will have numberous odbc processes, most of which I almost8 know for sure have to be zombied, or excessivly idled...     here is an example one.e ACCOUNTS:[RICH] show sysL OpenVMS V6.2-1H3  on node ****** 14-MAY-2002 13:29:06.56  Uptime  0 01:26:01F   Pid    Process Name    State  Pri      I/O       CPU       Page flts PagessF 0000011C SS_CASTER_0000  LEF      6      837   0 00:00:05.12      1628 916n    9 There shouldn't be ANY of these running, to my knowledge.s  J They are the processes of Human Machine Interfaces accessing the databases on the system.  E During a normal day, there are 4 HMI's, plus the development one I am # rebuilding, for a grand total of 5,oH but show sys will report in the area of 10+ of these types of processes.  J Is there any way to cull a bit more information from the system? Like whatJ the IP address of the machine that a particular processes is communicating with, etc??c  L Sorry if this is a bit vague, but I have a full stomach, and am not thinking
 100%.. ;-)     Thanks in advance   	 Dave RichP Software Automation Engineer Nucor Steel-   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 09:13:43 +0930 : From: "Barratt, Chris (FMC)" <Chris.Barratt@fmc.sa.gov.au>? Subject: RE: Question re odbc processes and whos using them....6P Message-ID: <07103702F27FD411ACA30000F8085452044FEBC7@sagemshs001.fmc.sa.gov.au>  K Assuming you are using Rdb and that the process is an SQL Services process,a   $ sqlsrv_man sqlsrv> connect server;n sqlsrv> show clients;r  K or alternatively install the SQLSRV GUI manager and you can see the clients! from there too.    Cheers,a
 chris Barrattm FMCt   > -----Original Message-----, > From: Dave Rich [mailto:drich@nucorar.com]# > Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2002 5:09- > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com,= > Subject: Question re odbc processes and whos using them..... >  > " > Trying to track something down.. > > > Ocassionally, I will have numberous odbc processes, most of  > which I almost: > know for sure have to be zombied, or excessivly idled... >  >  > here is an example one.a > ACCOUNTS:[RICH] show sys< > OpenVMS V6.2-1H3  on node ****** 14-MAY-2002 13:29:06.56   > Uptime  0 01:26:01H >   Pid    Process Name    State  Pri      I/O       CPU       Page flts > PagesnH > 0000011C SS_CASTER_0000  LEF      6      837   0 00:00:05.12      1628 > 916  >  > ; > There shouldn't be ANY of these running, to my knowledge.o > ? > They are the processes of Human Machine Interfaces accessing   > the databasesy > on the system. > G > During a normal day, there are 4 HMI's, plus the development one I ame% > rebuilding, for a grand total of 5,-@ > but show sys will report in the area of 10+ of these types of  > processes. > ; > Is there any way to cull a bit more information from the   > system? Like what.? > the IP address of the machine that a particular processes is l > communicatingu
 > with, etc??a > ? > Sorry if this is a bit vague, but I have a full stomach, and " > am not thinking  > 100%.. ;-) >  >  > Thanks in advanceo >  > Dave Rich  > Software Automation Engineer
 > Nucor Steel  >  >    ------------------------------   Date: 14 May 2002 17:56:59 GMT$ From: pontius@btv.MBI.com.invalid ()4 Subject: Re: Re Smart house wiring - Re: auto wiring+ Message-ID: <abrj5b$d7u$1@news.btv.ibm.com>d  / In article <pw-2104021833550001@192.168.1.100>,o$ 	pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes: <snip>N > It seems that architecturally speaking what you're doing is replacing a veryI > simple system that does not in fact cause a whole lot of trouble with a L > very complicated one  that will have really bizarre failure modes and thatJ > will invite workarounds that make the dangers of the current system look
 > trivial. > J > This mode of redesign (replacing something simple whose "safety" residesJ > in basic mechanics and physics with something complicated whose "safety"J > resides in a bunch of opaque standards and software/firmware) is all too1 > common when silicon goes into mature equipment.e >UJ > No doubt it will eventually happen, but those will be interesting times. >mD Kind of reminds me of VCRs that owners can barely program, and stillC probably don't utilize all of the features, watches with unutilizedr features, microwave ovens, etc.<  F Imagine Grandma and Grandpa (that may well be us, by then) calling forF the grandkids to help them plug in a lamp. (It just won't LIGHT when I do it!)h   Dale Pontius (NOT speaking for IBM)   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 00:49:22 +0100nU From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com>oY Subject: Re: Reads vs. Writes (was Re: What is good model for disk i/o w        /shadowin 0 Message-ID: <abs7q2$7cs$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>  ! norm.raphael@jamesbury.com wrote:    > 0 > How does one do this on a running application? >  >     > I don't have a clue for OpenVMS but its simple for UNIX iostatB will tell you. Since OpenVMS is vastly superior to UNIX it followsD that it must be able to tell you what the proportion of reads/writes are on a device basis.   Regardst Andrew HarrisonC   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 02:07:14 GMTu1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>-< Subject: Re: Scott Stallard, forget your VMS to HP UX dream!' Message-ID: <3CE1C602.D4F30457@fsi.net>j   David Rabahy wrote:e >  > Are folks reassurable? g   Most assuredly!n   > What exactly would it take?rG > http://www.openvms.compaq.com/ is chock full of public expressions of0
 > commitment.i   *SIGH*  3 In the vernacular, "(money) talks, bulls**t walks".y  E In short, "commitments" are relatively meaningless. It is also widelyoB held that "actions speak louder than words" and, to date, Compaq'sF (DEC's, OpenVMS's, etc.) actions have "spoken" in direct contradiction! to these so-called "commitments".a  G As other posters have mentioned, here's what would go farther than more  empty "commitments":  , o Market OpenVMS visibly, in the mainstream.  A o Apologize publicly for breaking commitments made publicly. Somec	 examples:n<   - Alpha "commitments" made shortly before the "Alphacide".;   - NT/Alpha commitments made shortly before that was axed.s  * o Make OpenVMS "affordable": See this URL:!   http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/e  G Now, these few meager items are hardly a drop in the bucket, but they'dcG sure go a long way toward building some good will amid some deeply hurt - customer feelings out here in the real world.   H If you or your team need further input, feel free to e-mail me privately8 (how to demung the reply-to address should be obvious).   D Also, you'll want to spend some time sifting through the archives ofD this newsgroup. Granted, there's a lot of "noise" to filter out, butG most (but not all) of the answers you may be seeking can be found here.-   -- - David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems: http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/i   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 02:38:31 GMTc1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>m+ Subject: Re: simple disk-shadowing questioni' Message-ID: <3CE1CD5A.793D74C0@fsi.net>i   Jan-Erik Sderholm wrote:m > : > But you don't *need* to enable cluster to use shadowing, > just set an allocation class.m! > Or maybe I missundersstod you ?,  A You are quite correct. Shadowing works just fine on non-clusteredg systems.   -- g David J. Dachterae dba DJE Systemsf http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/e   ------------------------------   Date: 14 May 2002 20:09:41 GMT3 From: bobd@araminta.uts.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)c0 Subject: Re: SKC Morphs Again... We're Now SKHPC: Message-ID: <abrqu5$h21$1@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>  Q Fred Kleinsorge <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> carefully crafted electrons to say:t > K > You could decide that at this point, it is your name that people buy (and"M > that they know what is inside) and rename your newsletter to something likenN > "The Shannon Report" - which isn't much more pretentious - and decouples the > company from your newsletter.  > : > Or you could go for real focused - Shannon Knows VMS ;-)  G Or, the Yoda-ized version of a broad spectrum, never to be obsolescent:o  * 	"Shannon, knows things he does, Ummmmmm".   approach. Or maybe:h  * 	"HP, I know what you did last merger...."   or perhaps:o   	"Shannon. Knows. HP"t  / 	"Digital/DEC/COMPAQ/HP: The Next Degeneration"i  D or a more hip version for the youthful in spirit audiences of today:   	"ShannonTerry VMSpants"  :-)       J ==========================================================================9               Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U'st  ?         "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright s   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 21:24:34 GMTp, From: hooton@salem.zk3.dec.com (Dave Hooton)0 Subject: Re: SKC Morphs Again... We're Now SKHPC: Message-ID: <mgfE8.37$2G2.1065021@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net>  : In article <abrqu5$h21$1@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,5 bobd@araminta.uts.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:l< > > Or you could go for real focused - Shannon Knows VMS ;-)I > Or, the Yoda-ized version of a broad spectrum, never to be obsolescent:i, > 	"Shannon, knows things he does, Ummmmmm".   Or the Ben Stein route:d    	"Win Terry Shannon's Knowledge"  
 					- DDH   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 22:35:14 GMTe* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>0 Subject: Re: SKC Morphs Again... We're Now SKHPCA Message-ID: <BigE8.17084$Ze4.1667892@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>t  9 "Dave Hooton" <hooton@salem.zk3.dec.com> wrote in messageg4 news:mgfE8.37$2G2.1065021@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net...< > In article <abrqu5$h21$1@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,7 > bobd@araminta.uts.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:k> > > > Or you could go for real focused - Shannon Knows VMS ;-)K > > Or, the Yoda-ized version of a broad spectrum, never to be obsolescent:d- > > "Shannon, knows things he does, Ummmmmm".  >  > Or the Ben Stein route:n >r! > "Win Terry Shannon's Knowledge"    Or the Gertrude Stein route:    "A Digital is a Compaq is a HP."   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 03:03:27 GMTh1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>t% Subject: Re: System manager availablet' Message-ID: <3CE1D332.9592C5D2@fsi.net>C   Bill Sticker wrote:t > / > I'd switch to anything if I could find a job.c  @ I've often said that I wished I'd gotten that job on the garbage truck...   -- d David J. Dachterae dba DJE Systemsm http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/m   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 20:10:58 -0700u# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>h% Subject: RE: System manager availablea9 Message-ID: <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIKEMJEPAA.tom@kednos.com>e   >-----Original Message-----r7 >From: David J. Dachtera [mailto:djesys.nospam@fsi.net]q$ >Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 8:03 PM >To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com& >Subject: Re: System manager available >i >  >Bill Sticker wrote: >> d0 >> I'd switch to anything if I could find a job. >oA >I've often said that I wished I'd gotten that job on the garbagee	 >truck...r  ; And consider the benefits,  free lunch and all you can eat.H >a >--  >David J. Dachtera >dba DJE Systems >http://www.djesys.com/e >r) >Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:   >http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/ >e >---' >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.u; >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).o@ >Version: 6.0.360 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 5/7/2002 >e ---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, 15 May 2002 04:17:30 GMTn1 From: LESLIE@JRLVAX.HOUSTON.RR.COM (Jerry Leslie)S% Subject: Re: System manager availableV: Message-ID: <ujlE8.8255$9z5.1044275@typhoon.austin.rr.com>  4 Bill Sticker (NOSPAMPLEASE@SPAMSTOPPER.CO.UK) wrote:/ : I'd switch to anything if I could find a job.s :   L The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has a handbook that gives a description 8 of jobs, the salaries they pay, training required, etc.:  &      http://stats.bls.gov/oco/home.htm3      Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2002-03 Edition-  C Perhaps there's something similar on a British government web site.n    H --Jerry Leslie   leslie@clio.rice.edu  (my opinions are strictly my own)9   Note: leslie@jrlvax.houston.rr.com is invalid for emails   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 13:00:24 +1000V* From: "Dale King" <dalek@forpresident.com> Subject: Re: Tivoli ABC for VMS ' Message-ID: <absj09$kfd$1@lore.csc.com>t  1 "jp" <johnparamonte@hotmail.com> wrote in message 6 news:3367ac9.0205131056.4fad3649@posting.google.com...F > Can anyone here give any feedback, positive or negative, on Tivoli's7 > ABC with OpenVMS? Does it use the VMS Backup utility?t  N Yep, add another vote for ABC.  You will need to consider how you will restoreP system disks.  If you have spare machines you can do a file restore to a disk onI it, then rewrite write the bootblock (for Alpha, and VAX if required) andl transport the disk physically.  O Haven't seen the slow down problem mentioned in another reply though.  Used for F both VAX and Alpha backups here for a few months now, and all restores( (including system disks) have been fine.   Dale   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 03:15:26 GMT-1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>y Subject: Re: Tivoli ABC for VMSS' Message-ID: <3CE1D600.7C786560@fsi.net>3  	 jp wrote:o > F > Can anyone here give any feedback, positive or negative, on Tivoli's7 > ABC with OpenVMS? Does it use the VMS Backup utility?p  D I cannot recommend any backup "solution" for OpenVMS that avoids VMSC BACKUP or tries to send multiple terabytes of data over an Ethernet  link, gigabit or no.  ) The "solution" to ABC is VMS BACKUP, IMO.o   --   David J. Dachteraa dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/i   ------------------------------    Date: 14 May 2002 23:32:22 -0600+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)e Subject: Re: Tivoli ABC for VMS 3 Message-ID: <brKcQtnJRmtJ@eisner.encompasserve.org>e  [ In article <3CE1D600.7C786560@fsi.net>, "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> writes:p > jp wrote:i >> iG >> Can anyone here give any feedback, positive or negative, on Tivoli's88 >> ABC with OpenVMS? Does it use the VMS Backup utility? > F > I cannot recommend any backup "solution" for OpenVMS that avoids VMSE > BACKUP or tries to send multiple terabytes of data over an Ethernet. > link, gigabit or no. > + > The "solution" to ABC is VMS BACKUP, IMO.n >   ? 	I can recommend any backup solution that does what is supposeds: 	to do.  Restore files when you need them.  ABC does that.  > 	Secondly, many shops have Enterprise backup solutions... i.e.= 	tape robots, multiple tape drives and dozens of Terabytes ofa< 	tape storage.  You can't justify separate solutions in many7 	cases.  That is why there is 3rd party clients for VMSX? 	for Enterprise backup vendors.  TSM, Legato and surely one for : 	Veritas but don't know the name.  And a quick google does+ 	show VMS is there for Veritas as a client:   S http://www.sun.com/storage/software/data_services/netbackup/netbackup_datasheet.pdf2     					Rob   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 02:19:55 GMT 2 From: "William Hymen" <t18_pilot@hotmail.spam.com># Subject: UNIX security a good bet..uD Message-ID: <fBjE8.1509$l82.154754@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>  4 Unix security is so bad, there will ALWAYS be plenty@ of work.  We have sun and HP at my bank, and it takes three moreA layers of software to make it as secure as vms is out of the box.8   Bill    A "Howard Taylor" <Howard.Taylor@pacificcoast.net> wrote in messager news:3ce10bae$1@nubby2.... >nB > "Bill Sticker" <NOSPAMPLEASE@SPAMSTOPPER.CO.UK> wrote in message+ > news:abqd23$rir$1@helle.btinternet.com...iC > > Anyone need a good VMS system manager with 20 years experience?r > > Nationality British. > > info@johnoxley.com > >i >n" > I did see this post on Yahoo ... >s
 > Description1 > L > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > ---- >r  > HELP!! - COME OUT OF RETIRMENT+ > URGENTLY WANTED VMS SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR  > 
 > IN PERTH >0K > Do you have extensive previous systems administration experience in a VMSo > environment? >eG > Our Client urgently requires the skills of an experienced VMS Systemse: > Administrator, will consider both CONTRACT or PERMANENT. >vJ > For further information or confidential chat please contact Tony Jackson on > (08) 9212 1018 ASAPf >e >t >s > Howard Taylor  >t >e   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 12:49:35 GMTP3 From: sy18889@rabbit.fmr.com (Bradford J. Hamilton)s9 Subject: Re: What is good model for disk i/o w/shadowing?e. Message-ID: <zxtD8.21$O3.34@news-srv1.fmr.com>  ] In article <abh4n0$a59$1@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>, bleau@umtof.umd.edu (Lawrence Bleau) writes: F >This is a good thread so far; keep it up.  There were a few questions@ >raised about my original post that I'd like to address, though. >:. <snip>----------------------------------------  + (replies interspersed at "question points")F  5 >sy18889@rabbit.fmr.com (Bradford J. Hamilton) wrote:u >eM >>We did an experiment in our lab, with a 6G RMS indexed file on a 9G, 10KRPMqH >>drive.  We backed the file up, disk-to-disk, to a "target" drive whichK >>consisted of 2 9G drives, shadowed.  We then repeated the backup, using aeO >>target drive of one 9G drive, shadowed (single-member shadow-set).  The finaliN >>test was to repeat the experient with a 9G drive that was part of a 2-member' >>mirror set (controllers were HSJ80s).r >sK >Hmm, this may not match my configuration.  We have no HSJ anythings; these H >are connected to a scsi bus.  Now, your findings still have merit.  TheL >question is what part of those findings can be applied to my configuration,J >and what part is dependent on the HSJ optimizing operations?  Or was onlyG >the last test (mirror) done to an HSJ connected device?  If your otherPI >tests were done with host-based shadowing, not HSJ-based, then I can use0
 >the results.R  N The mirror test was also on HSJ-connected devices.  We have no SCSI-bus disks.   > G >>The results of our experiments were that writing to the single-memberoN >>shadow-set and the mirror set took ~28% less wall-clock time than writing toP >>the two-member shadow-set (we repeated each test a number of times, to attempt >>to eliminate "noise"). >-J >So, to invert this, writing to a 2-member shadow set took 39% longer thanH >to either a 1-member shadow set or to a standalone disk.  The model I'dK >used assumed a 100% increase.  Good work, these are the types of numbers Ie >need! >oM >>YMMV, of course, but our "results" seem to indicate that writes do not takefK >>twice as long, but there is *some* penalty when you write to a two-membera
 >>shadow-set.e >cD >Okay, that's fine, I just wanted to measure these somehow.  My onlyE >concern, mentioned above, is how much your HSJ assists the shadowing@K >operation during a write.  Do you have any non-HSJ scsi disks that you can 
 >use to test?r >$) >----------------------------------------2) >Now, in reply to the above test results,.- >young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) wrote:t > C >>	You most likely did not have write-backed caching turned on thatpH >>	mirrorset.  As an example of just how big an effect this is, the timeG >>	for a write to complete to a modern disk is in the region of 4-5 ms. A >>	Using Polycenter, a write only mirrorset of mine measured 1 mseD >>	for writes to complete.  That was probably the minimum threshold,D >>	could have very well been rounded up to 1 ms :-).  Point is, withE >>	that kind of difference, I would argue writes are 300-500% faster.d  I Write-back caching is always turned on in our environment.  This does noteG discount the fact that something else in our environment is "de-tuned".    >eK >This is the type of factor I was wondering about.  However, Rob only makesaK >the above point wrt mirror sets.  What about the other two tests that werer >done?  O See above.  Again, I won't claim our environment is optimized; I just wanted totM demonstrate (for our customer) what they could expect to see, using differentH3 models, without any additional tuning or twiddling.    <snip> >- >Lawrence Bleau- >University of Marylanda# >Physics Dept., Space Physics GroupH
 >301-405-6223o >bleau@umtof.umd.edu   Bradford J. Hamilton& braMdhamAilPtoSn@aMtAtPbi.cSom		(home)& sMy1A88P89S@rabMbit.fAmPr.coSm		(work)  ; "All opinions that I express are my own, not my employer's". "Lose the MAPS"r   ------------------------------    Date: 15 May 2002 00:30:36 -0600+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)u9 Subject: Re: What is good model for disk i/o w/shadowing?.3 Message-ID: <xGesBD64yP56@eisner.encompasserve.org>   d In article <zxtD8.21$O3.34@news-srv1.fmr.com>, sy18889@rabbit.fmr.com (Bradford J. Hamilton) writes:_ > In article <abh4n0$a59$1@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>, bleau@umtof.umd.edu (Lawrence Bleau) writes:mG >>This is a good thread so far; keep it up.  There were a few questionsrA >>raised about my original post that I'd like to address, though.f >>0 > <snip>---------------------------------------- > - > (replies interspersed at "question points")u > 6 >>sy18889@rabbit.fmr.com (Bradford J. Hamilton) wrote: >>N >>>We did an experiment in our lab, with a 6G RMS indexed file on a 9G, 10KRPMI >>>drive.  We backed the file up, disk-to-disk, to a "target" drive whicheL >>>consisted of 2 9G drives, shadowed.  We then repeated the backup, using aP >>>target drive of one 9G drive, shadowed (single-member shadow-set).  The finalO >>>test was to repeat the experient with a 9G drive that was part of a 2-member ( >>>mirror set (controllers were HSJ80s). >>L >>Hmm, this may not match my configuration.  We have no HSJ anythings; theseI >>are connected to a scsi bus.  Now, your findings still have merit.  ThemM >>question is what part of those findings can be applied to my configuration,hK >>and what part is dependent on the HSJ optimizing operations?  Or was only H >>the last test (mirror) done to an HSJ connected device?  If your otherJ >>tests were done with host-based shadowing, not HSJ-based, then I can use >>the results. > P > The mirror test was also on HSJ-connected devices.  We have no SCSI-bus disks. >  >>H >>>The results of our experiments were that writing to the single-memberO >>>shadow-set and the mirror set took ~28% less wall-clock time than writing torQ >>>the two-member shadow-set (we repeated each test a number of times, to attemptu >>>to eliminate "noise").o >>K >>So, to invert this, writing to a 2-member shadow set took 39% longer than I >>to either a 1-member shadow set or to a standalone disk.  The model I'doL >>used assumed a 100% increase.  Good work, these are the types of numbers I >>need!e >>N >>>YMMV, of course, but our "results" seem to indicate that writes do not takeL >>>twice as long, but there is *some* penalty when you write to a two-member >>>shadow-set. >>E >>Okay, that's fine, I just wanted to measure these somehow.  My onlyhF >>concern, mentioned above, is how much your HSJ assists the shadowingL >>operation during a write.  Do you have any non-HSJ scsi disks that you can >>use to test? >>* >>----------------------------------------* >>Now, in reply to the above test results,. >>young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) wrote: >>D >>>	You most likely did not have write-backed caching turned on thatI >>>	mirrorset.  As an example of just how big an effect this is, the timegH >>>	for a write to complete to a modern disk is in the region of 4-5 ms.B >>>	Using Polycenter, a write only mirrorset of mine measured 1 msE >>>	for writes to complete.  That was probably the minimum threshold,iE >>>	could have very well been rounded up to 1 ms :-).  Point is, withaF >>>	that kind of difference, I would argue writes are 300-500% faster. > K > Write-back caching is always turned on in our environment.  This does nottI > discount the fact that something else in our environment is "de-tuned".  >  >>L >>This is the type of factor I was wondering about.  However, Rob only makesL >>the above point wrt mirror sets.  What about the other two tests that were >>done?m > Q > See above.  Again, I won't claim our environment is optimized; I just wanted toxO > demonstrate (for our customer) what they could expect to see, using different 5 > models, without any additional tuning or twiddling.= >     = 	It is late and I lost much of the context as threads got out C 	of order and Deja is okay, but it was/is a longer thread.  Refresh B 	my memory.  Just what are you trying to prove?  How bout breaking9 	it out in separate points so it is easier to respond to.    				Robn   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 14:30:52 -0400w- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>w' Subject: Re: Who cares about marketing!h, Message-ID: <3CE157DB.1CD4AACE@videotron.ca>   Nic Clews wrote:I > However 'he' failed in the marketing department. Where were the advertsnH > for Digital products? In DEC User and DEC Computing and similar. WhereI > they in the mainstream? Not as much as the competitors. 'His' marketingn* > consisted of preaching to the converted.  N I have at home an old CIPS (canadian information processing society) survey ofM members' equipment/sofware dating early/mid 1980s. The last page (inside backh9 cover) is a full page Digital Advertisement for ALL-IN-1.6   How times have changed.s  J Also, Digital had some of the best marketing: students working on DEC gearK would propose DEC gear to their bosses. Before getting to university (wheremH there was little/no DEC gear in the IT dept), I had exposure to DEC gearH because the school had access to PDP11s operated by the quebec educationM governmeht for APL, and using DECwriters with accoustic couplers at 300 baud,dM followed later by an actual PDP-11 on-site. And when a friend ended up at thenL business school (HEC) he gave me an account on a VMS machine there and I wasK able to play around, compile and run "hello world" Fortran programs just by K reading the online help. Saw the difference between that and IBM mainframesm& used at the university for IT courses.  G A couple years later, I was able to get my boss to spend $120,000 for atH Microvax II to replace not only the service bureau we were paying to runN reports, but also provide word processing at every desk (instead of the only 3H  Micom machines in a open office that secretaries had to share). VMS andI Digital were totally foreign to them, but I was able to provide them with-L enough technical "this is good" , and coupled with the fact that VMS had theL most available software, both commercially and though DECUS, that was enoughL to convince him, and it was enough for him to convince his boss and peers atM head office that this was a good decision/selection. This worked so well that0L a year later, the head office wanted the same thing. Problem is that DEC wasB so arrogant that they lost a sale that was theirs to begin with.    L I still find it amazing that I was able to support 16 users doing WPSPLUS on4 an MV-II with 16 meg memory and a single RD54 drive.    M Why was DEC succesful ? Because it had seeded students with Digital knowledge/I just at the time when smaller businesses/departments were starting to buywN their own gear instead of relying on outside service bureaus. And DEC had justN enough marketing there to get its foot in the door. DEC won the first computer! revolution: departmental systems./  E It worked so well that success got to DEC's head and they then becameaI arrogant, started to hire from IBM and set their sights on conquering thesN mainframe world. Meanwhile DEC was blind to the coming second revolution, that1 of the low cost systems sold through advertising.S   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 15:05:31 -0400-- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>o' Subject: Re: Who cares about marketing!P, Message-ID: <3CE15FF8.24985F6D@videotron.ca>   Elliott Roper wrote:F > tell the customer is that the VMS system you buy today will still be1 > working and worth the money in 5 years or more.r  H You get laughed at by the majority of the people when you say that. BeenK there, done that, and suffered financially because I was loyal to VMS.  TheBI number of cases where a customer will accept a dead architecture are veryyI small (probably short term computing until a replacement system combininga' multiple stuff arrives in a few years).-  L 5 years is not a long time when you spend millions for software like SAP. ItJ takes a great deal of effort to get it running right and you don't want toH change that software just a year or two after you finally got it running/ properly. Oh, I forgot, SAP doesn't run on VMS.   F > What's ethical about advising someone to use a less capabable OS for > five to 10 long years?  L What is ethical is to present the various choices, from low cost/low qualityK Windows and high cost/dead VMS and provide objective assesments of each. It H would not be ethical to pitch VMS and promise that VMS has a long brightK future ahead of it. Right now, all indications are that HP intends to ditch'M VMS inside of 5 years and migrate customers to HP-UX. It would not be ethicalh" NOT to mention that to a customer.  @ > We are going to convince VMS's owner with lots of sales, and aF > vigourous ISV community, not permanent whingeing in this news group.  G It isn't the customer who is supposed to convince the vendor. It is the: vendor's role to convince us.  -  M Sorry, the days of customers trying to save VMS from Palmer are gone. We wereeN able to remain loyal in the hopes that Palmer was a temporary glitch. But that/ glitch has become permanent. Accept VMS's fate.u  I The only allies we have inside HP have their feet and hands tied. If theyrN cause trouble, they are out. While I understand their position, what is neededH right now is someone willing to risk their job to do something drastic.   N Marcello's tactic of working "softly" and behind the scenes may have preservedK his job, and it may have spurted that short term renaissance, but it wasn't-G good enough to sustain the renaissance and look where VMS is today. DidBK Marcello fight against the Alpha murder or was he a good puppy and acceptede9 it, saying great things about IA64 to please his bosses ?o  E We don't need a band-aid for VMS, we need major surgery to change theeM attitudes at HP. And with no single worldwide voice anymore (DECUS all brokeneG up), customers won't have the leverage necessary to make things happen.O  H > honestly see that if the customer demand is there, VMS on Itanic has a: > more certain future than backing the double with alpha.   M The second HP starts to say they expect VMS customers to migrate to HP-UX, no J matter what platform it runs on, VMS is dead. The minute HP says that thatN Alpha won't be sold to new customers, VMS is dead. The port to IA64 is hurtingM VMS far more than it is helping it because until IA64 is viable commercially,aN VMS will have no new sales and that is deadly not only for VMS at HP, but alsoL for ISV's who are deciding wether it is worth spending/wasting money to port their apps to VMS.  M It is one thing to brag about a few exsiting VMS apps being ported to IA64 by K ISVs. But unless HP can show that all ISVs intend to port all their apps tocH VMS, and that NEW apps will appear on VMS-IA64, then the move to IA64 is regressive, not progressive.  L HP could start by porting Office-Server (all-in-1) before it brags about all4 its current software offerings being ported to IA64.   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 19:29:46 GMTS* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>' Subject: Re: Who cares about marketing!oB Message-ID: <KAdE8.177394$q8.17883994@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  5 "Nic Clews" <sendspamhere@127.0.0.1> wrote in messagee# news:3CE12BDA.47C2B852@127.0.0.1....   ...   F > History. He we are ~15 years later and where is VMS? Technically farG > superior than it was yet  not where it should be. This is a different  > worldi  H Why?  What evidence do you have to offer that the world is significantlyH different in terms of high-tech than it was during the 30 years that DEC3 succeeded - wildly - without traditional marketing?-  I You have completely ignored this aspect of history while promoting a viewTK that, while eminently conventional, has no obvious basis for support in thes particular case of DEC.n  G DEC thrived without much marketing against a far better-established andeK larger competitor (IBM) that marketed like crazy (and had squelched most ofdI its other competition by doing so).  DEC successfully made the transitionaL from primarily engineering/scientific/academic sales to primarily commercialK sales without changing its non-marketing tradition - again, against larger, B entrenched competition from IBM that failed with well-marketed butK technically inferior products against DEC.  And when DEC fell, the signs of K its internal decay were evident long before there was *any* slacking off inu its sales or profitability.(  I And yet, despite this record of success without traditional marketing andeG the clear internal problems that preceded DEC's decline, you persist insG asserting that the decline was due to the fact that lack of traditionalsI marketing suddenly, after three decades of unimportance, became critical?.  H Sorry:  you're applying conventional wisdom without thinking.  MarketingE *is* important for *most* companies in *most* situations, and lack ofsH marketing *became* important for DEC (and later Compaq) *after* DEC fellK apart (because it no longer had many things going for it that it once had).iA But lack of marketing was in no way the *cause* of DEC's decline.r   ...t  A > Everything in the right balance, but failing to market in thesee( > connected times is commercial suicide.  K Again, why?  The Internet has started to turn conventional marketing on itsbH head, *especially* among the technical cognoscenti.  If you had made theJ point that upper management may tend more to micro-manage today than allowI those who know what they're doing do their jobs, that might have had some I relevance, but 'connectedness' and resulting information accessibility istH more an antidote for mindless image-making than it is a supporter of it.   ...s  J > Yet ask your neighbours, or anyone in the street about IBM. They'll know > who they are.p  H So what?  Ask them about Cisco (well, people who watch the business news< probably have heard of it, but that's not due to marketing).  L If you want to sell people PCs, mass marketing is important.  If you want toI sell them MP EV7s and enterprise storage arrays, it is (or with a companye  like DEC was can be) irrelevant.   ...m  ! > VMS today will not sell itself.k  C Today?  That was never the point under dispute.  But even today thetH importance of VMS marketing is at least as much to demonstrate some realL (financial) commitment from its owner as to get knowledge of the product outK to the audience that might want to know about it:  without such evidence ofiJ real (not just verbal) commitment, it won't matter *how* much exposure VMSJ gets (hence the futility of amateur efforts by c.o.v. supporters to 'sell' VMS).u   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 19:20:32 GMT-( From: spam@devnull.com (Russell Wallace)' Subject: Re: Who cares about marketing!a0 Message-ID: <3ce16095.450574820@news.eircom.net>  F On Tue, 14 May 2002 16:23:06 +0100, Nic Clews <sendspamhere@127.0.0.1> wrote:  H >An interesting test would be to see if folks could recall the 'dot com'( >Sun campaign of a couple of years back. > > >Ask them about the Intel processor and what it means to them. > , >Ask them about Bill Gates and what he does. > G >Then ask them what they think their Lotto or heathcare systems run on, I >who's systems move the money, which run defence systems worldwide, which0E >are used to run telephone systems, which ones are immune to viruses,.' >everything we know and love about VMS.s  & As a general rule, to the extent that:  3 1. You have a product people already know they wantnC 2. Nobody else can provide it (at least not at a competitive price)   D Then marketing isn't so important, because the world may well beat a path to your door anyway.e  @ To the extent that these stop being true, marketing becomes more
 important.  D In DEC's case the above indeed held true for yea decades. #2 startedE becoming untrue in the 1980s when hardware costs dropped to the pointnE where lots of companies could now provide business computing systems.uA And #1 started becoming untrue around the same time from the samemB ultimate cause: the market was expanding from big companies (which; care about security and reliability) to small companies and-F individuals (which don't). Then under the resulting stress, the wheels= started coming off the organization, and the rest is history.o    >VMS today will not sell itself.   Right.   -- B3 "Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent."D! http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace8 mail:rw(at)eircom(dot)net    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 16:25:35 -0400e- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>h' Subject: Re: Who cares about marketing!T, Message-ID: <3CE172B7.A24BEC0C@videotron.ca>   Bill Todd wrote:K > its other competition by doing so).  DEC successfully made the transition-N > from primarily engineering/scientific/academic sales to primarily commercial5 > sales without changing its non-marketing tradition e    M It could be argued that the transition was not viable and that DEC was simplykI running on momentum generated by the scientific stuff before, but without H marketing to keep the speed, the momentum ran out and dec began to fall.  J I don't think you can pin it to a single fault. It was a systematic fault.J Prices kept too high, dropping of education as an important focus, lack ofL advertising. And another important one was the use of proprietary techniquesK to prevent loss of revenus (such as expoxy in a bus) which not only angered,L customers, but also gave Sun et al great ammunution to call DEC "proprietary and expensive".d  M DEC had the wrong corporate philosphy. And that degenerated in many problems.i? Palmer was unable or unwilling to fix the corporate philosophy.c   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 20:37:40 GMTn# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>e' Subject: Re: Who cares about marketing! G Message-ID: <oAeE8.11243$t8_.2056@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>s  8 HP, we really have to talk about promoting OpenVMS more.     Ad #1e; "We all know how much governments love to count money 24/7.i  L Chances are that every time a lottery ticket is sold, there is a server fromI HP running OpenVMS managing the transactions and keeping track of all theo winning numbers reliably.   D OpenVMS. The operating system of xx% of the world's lottery systems.   or as an alternate tag line...5 OpenVMS. The operating system to bet your dreams on."n  ) -----------------------------------------u   Ad #2sI "When you buy that special lottery ticket, you'll take comfort in knowing H that a server from HP running OpenVMS is keeping watch over your winning numbers.  I Bet your business on OpenVMS just like xx% of the world's lotteries have.d  ; AlphaServers and OpenVMS. The winning combination from HP."     * ------------------------------------------   Ad #3y7 "When seconds can mean life or death, OpenVMS is there.-  F Chances are that if you are in an accident and rushed to the emergencyK department, there is a server from HP running OpenVMS making sure that yourcG critical test results are instantly and reliably shared with healthcare % professionals thoughout the hospital.   < OpenVMS. Just the prescription for the healthcare industry."    * ------------------------------------------   Ad #4uF "If the pace of improvement of the automobile were as fast as those ofI computer cpu's, we'd all be driving cars that went 600mph, got 1000 milesw per gallon, and cost 17 cents.  J More computer chips are manufactured worldwide on production lines managed< by OpenVMS from HP than any other computer operating system.  ( OpenVMS. Speeding up the pace of change.  ? (alternatively...OpenVMS. Driving down the cost of computing.)"e      8 All four ads (c) 2002, John Smith . All Rights Reserved.  J Done with 2 minutes of thought. Maybe the HP marketing guys could do a bit" better if they took a week or two.                5 "Nic Clews" <sendspamhere@127.0.0.1> wrote in messagea# news:3CE12BDA.47C2B852@127.0.0.1...f > Bill Todd wrote: > > 9 > > "Nic Clews" <sendspamhere@127.0.0.1> wrote in messagen' > > news:3CE0CDA5.A429C91A@127.0.0.1...o > >  > > ...e > > 6 > > > However 'he' failed in the marketing department. > >e
 > > Bullshit.t > >y > >  Where were the adverts L > > > for Digital products? In DEC User and DEC Computing and similar. WhereC > > > they in the mainstream? Not as much as the competitors. 'His'5	 marketingr. > > > consisted of preaching to the converted. > >:D > > AND IT WORKED.  For close to 30 years, starting in the heyday of	 marketing L > > (the '50s) and continuing right up through most of the '80s.  99.999% ofE > > companies in the world can only dream of the kind of success thisn
 'marketing > > failure' brought DEC.e >  > ...m > F > History. He we are ~15 years later and where is VMS? Technically farG > superior than it was yet  not where it should be. This is a differentoJ > world, it is not a perfect world either but I disagreed with the FinanceG > director of the last place for cutting marketing budgets in financial-E > crises (he was since relieved of his duties after I left), and I'vetJ > worked enough in the media industry to understand how the machine works. >sA > Everything in the right balance, but failing to market in theser( > connected times is commercial suicide. > H > You have written a lot of sense, but dwelling on past mistakes doesn'tJ > help unless they are lessons learnt. These are not for you or I, but forH > those whose job it is to market. Take a leaf from IBM's book. Do theirG > adverts sing the qualities of their i series and how great OS/400 is?eJ > Perpetuate their linux and AIX strategy? Discuss LPAR's on the z series? >mB > No, it creates a fairytale world where some unfeasible event hasG > occurred, with all sat around blaming each other without an SLA or DRy > plan in sight. Nonsense. >yJ > Yet ask your neighbours, or anyone in the street about IBM. They'll know > who they are.y > I > An interesting test would be to see if folks could recall the 'dot com' ) > Sun campaign of a couple of years back.e >a? > Ask them about the Intel processor and what it means to them.n > - > Ask them about Bill Gates and what he does.u >tH > Then ask them what they think their Lotto or heathcare systems run on,J > who's systems move the money, which run defence systems worldwide, whichF > are used to run telephone systems, which ones are immune to viruses,( > everything we know and love about VMS. >/< > I hope you'll educate them where the marketing has failed. >cE > I'm the converted, and worse, I have faith, whether you think it is H > misplaced or not matters not to me. I am only one, it is everyone else > and the message that counts. >o! > VMS today will not sell itself.g >mI > I fear we will get no further on here, but what I do believe is we bothe > care passionately about VMS. >/ > --* > Regards, Nic Clews CSC Computer Sciences > nclews at csc dot comw   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 20:50:43 GMTa# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> ' Subject: Re: Who cares about marketing!oG Message-ID: <DMeE8.11394$t8_.2118@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>e  5 "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messager< news:KAdE8.177394$q8.17883994@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... >n >mI > DEC thrived without much marketing against a far better-established andtJ > larger competitor (IBM) that marketed like crazy (and had squelched most ofK > its other competition by doing so).  DEC successfully made the transitioniC > from primarily engineering/scientific/academic sales to primarily3
 commercialE > sales without changing its non-marketing tradition - again, against  larger,yD > entrenched competition from IBM that failed with well-marketed butJ > technically inferior products against DEC.  And when DEC fell, the signs ofJ > its internal decay were evident long before there was *any* slacking off in > its sales or profitability.  >uK > And yet, despite this record of success without traditional marketing andcI > the clear internal problems that preceded DEC's decline, you persist in I > asserting that the decline was due to the fact that lack of traditionalwK > marketing suddenly, after three decades of unimportance, became critical?u >nJ > Sorry:  you're applying conventional wisdom without thinking.  MarketingG > *is* important for *most* companies in *most* situations, and lack ofhJ > marketing *became* important for DEC (and later Compaq) *after* DEC fellG > apart (because it no longer had many things going for it that it onceo had).qC > But lack of marketing was in no way the *cause* of DEC's decline.t >f   Bill,   K When I was with a major brokerage house, NOBODY from Digital approached anyuF of the senior execs (CEO, CFO, COO, head of IT, etc....) about Digital products or services.   K I was the one who specified and bought DEC gear (at the departmental level)oL and it was I who invited DEC in, not them coming to me. They were lucky thatH I have enough 'juice' to be able to sign-off on the stuff. It was prettyC much the same up and down The Street, as I gathered from stories myi? competitors and I swapped from time-to-time in bars after work.s  G And never once did I hear of any really senior DEC EVP or higher havingyL meetings or playing golf with senior brokerage guys like I know that IBM andL Sun were doing at the time. Part of marketing is letting a customer look youL straight in the eyes and see that you aren't lying to them when you say yourH new cpu will be around for the next 25 years and more. (maybe that was aI cheap shot, but I sort of feel that it's at least in part justified.) Not K all marketing is simply saying, "I have a better mousetrap. Now beat a patha/ to my door, and behave while standing in line."o  E Every time those DEC marketing/sales 'weasels' didn't do their job inoK marketing/selling to my senior execs, it made me look bad for buying DEC iniK the first place. The IBM and Sun guys would get calls returned by my execs,dF whereas none of the DEC guys even called my execs. There was a certainJ amount of institutional arrogance displayed by Digital at the time, and itG permeated their sales/marketing organization. Maybe your experience wasaG different than mine, but I have more than enough coincidental anecdotaltH corroboration that makes me believe that my experiences were not unique.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 16:14:55 -0500u1 From: "Dave Gudewicz" <david.gudewicz@abbott.com>l' Subject: Re: Who cares about marketing!s1 Message-ID: <abrutb$jl7$1@fizban.pprd.abbott.com>a  L Unfortunately, I've heard many stories similar to John's below.  This surelyK didn't help the cause any.  And it didn't change much after CPQ assimilated H DEC.  At LUG meetings, I'd hear from some that they hadn't seen or heard* from a DEC/CPQ anyone in years.  Not good.   Dave...g  ) Adam and Eve had many advantages, but the - principle one was that they escaped teething.  -----Mark Twainc  . "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in messageA news:DMeE8.11394$t8_.2118@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...s >t7 > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messaget> > news:KAdE8.177394$q8.17883994@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > >- > >-K > > DEC thrived without much marketing against a far better-established andbL > > larger competitor (IBM) that marketed like crazy (and had squelched most > ofB > > its other competition by doing so).  DEC successfully made the
 transitionE > > from primarily engineering/scientific/academic sales to primarily  > commercialG > > sales without changing its non-marketing tradition - again, againstt	 > larger,yF > > entrenched competition from IBM that failed with well-marketed butL > > technically inferior products against DEC.  And when DEC fell, the signs > ofL > > its internal decay were evident long before there was *any* slacking off > in > > its sales or profitability.e > >lI > > And yet, despite this record of success without traditional marketingm andlK > > the clear internal problems that preceded DEC's decline, you persist inDK > > asserting that the decline was due to the fact that lack of traditionalnC > > marketing suddenly, after three decades of unimportance, becamee	 critical?  > >tL > > Sorry:  you're applying conventional wisdom without thinking.  MarketingI > > *is* important for *most* companies in *most* situations, and lack of L > > marketing *became* important for DEC (and later Compaq) *after* DEC fellI > > apart (because it no longer had many things going for it that it oncen > had).oE > > But lack of marketing was in no way the *cause* of DEC's decline.y > >  >d > Bill,b >rI > When I was with a major brokerage house, NOBODY from Digital approached, anyiH > of the senior execs (CEO, CFO, COO, head of IT, etc....) about Digital > products or services.e > F > I was the one who specified and bought DEC gear (at the departmental level)I > and it was I who invited DEC in, not them coming to me. They were luckyr thatJ > I have enough 'juice' to be able to sign-off on the stuff. It was prettyE > much the same up and down The Street, as I gathered from stories mytA > competitors and I swapped from time-to-time in bars after work.  >pI > And never once did I hear of any really senior DEC EVP or higher having J > meetings or playing golf with senior brokerage guys like I know that IBM anddJ > Sun were doing at the time. Part of marketing is letting a customer look youhI > straight in the eyes and see that you aren't lying to them when you say  yourJ > new cpu will be around for the next 25 years and more. (maybe that was aK > cheap shot, but I sort of feel that it's at least in part justified.) NoteH > all marketing is simply saying, "I have a better mousetrap. Now beat a path1 > to my door, and behave while standing in line."t >oG > Every time those DEC marketing/sales 'weasels' didn't do their job ineJ > marketing/selling to my senior execs, it made me look bad for buying DEC inF > the first place. The IBM and Sun guys would get calls returned by my execs,H > whereas none of the DEC guys even called my execs. There was a certainL > amount of institutional arrogance displayed by Digital at the time, and itI > permeated their sales/marketing organization. Maybe your experience waseI > different than mine, but I have more than enough coincidental anecdotalCJ > corroboration that makes me believe that my experiences were not unique. >? >h >w   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 17:41:35 -0400a- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> ' Subject: Re: Who cares about marketing!e, Message-ID: <3CE18483.E405CD1A@videotron.ca>   John Smith wrote:t > : > HP, we really have to talk about promoting OpenVMS more.  J Giving examples of potential marketing may be fun, but it does nothing. HPJ must first change its policy towards VMS and Alpha and allow VMS to expandL beyond its retsricted market niches and sell to new customers, even on Alpha( before even thinking about marketing it.  K Secondly, for VMS to show any growth, HP will have to reduce VMS prices bigeI time. Because Alpha is declared dying, HP must price it with a "priced to2 clear" mentality.   L Perhaps one reason HP doesn't want to sell to new customers is that HP needsM to reduce the liability of whatever promises Compaq made to customers when it M killed Alpha with regards to the upcoming upgrades to IA64. If those will endTF up costing HP money, then HP wants to reduce the number of folks doingL Alpha-IA64 migration at HP's expense. Perhaps this is why HP favours PA-RISC1 as interim platform until IA64 becomes a reality.m   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 22:02:42 GMTl* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>' Subject: Re: Who cares about marketing!.B Message-ID: <6QfE8.178251$q8.18022723@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  . "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in messageA news:DMeE8.11394$t8_.2118@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...h >t7 > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message > > news:KAdE8.177394$q8.17883994@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > >d > >oK > > DEC thrived without much marketing against a far better-established andsL > > larger competitor (IBM) that marketed like crazy (and had squelched most > ofB > > its other competition by doing so).  DEC successfully made the
 transitionE > > from primarily engineering/scientific/academic sales to primarilyt > commercialG > > sales without changing its non-marketing tradition - again, against 	 > larger,rF > > entrenched competition from IBM that failed with well-marketed butL > > technically inferior products against DEC.  And when DEC fell, the signs > ofL > > its internal decay were evident long before there was *any* slacking off > in > > its sales or profitability.  > >1I > > And yet, despite this record of success without traditional marketing  andcK > > the clear internal problems that preceded DEC's decline, you persist incK > > asserting that the decline was due to the fact that lack of traditionallC > > marketing suddenly, after three decades of unimportance, becamem	 critical?  > >rL > > Sorry:  you're applying conventional wisdom without thinking.  MarketingI > > *is* important for *most* companies in *most* situations, and lack ofkL > > marketing *became* important for DEC (and later Compaq) *after* DEC fellI > > apart (because it no longer had many things going for it that it once  > had).hE > > But lack of marketing was in no way the *cause* of DEC's decline.s > >  >  > Bill,p >gI > When I was with a major brokerage house, NOBODY from Digital approachedr anyoH > of the senior execs (CEO, CFO, COO, head of IT, etc....) about Digital > products or services.h >tF > I was the one who specified and bought DEC gear (at the departmental level)9 > and it was I who invited DEC in, not them coming to me.t  G Exactly.  You knew what your company needed, and that it needed it fromu2 DEC - and not because of DEC's marketing activity.  K Up through the mid-'80s, this knowledge was industry-wide - and, again, notm$ because of DEC's marketing activity.    They were lucky that J > I have enough 'juice' to be able to sign-off on the stuff. It was prettyE > much the same up and down The Street, as I gathered from stories my A > competitors and I swapped from time-to-time in bars after work.n > I > And never once did I hear of any really senior DEC EVP or higher havingnJ > meetings or playing golf with senior brokerage guys like I know that IBM andb > Sun were doing at the time.o  K And as IBM had been doing right along, while DEC wasn't, during DEC's yearsgI of greatest prosperity:  again, no obvious problem with lack of marketing- there.  1  Part of marketing is letting a customer look youhI > straight in the eyes and see that you aren't lying to them when you sayr yourJ > new cpu will be around for the next 25 years and more. (maybe that was aG > cheap shot, but I sort of feel that it's at least in part justified.)r  L As long as your reputation hasn't been tarnished already, it speaks for you.7 As DEC's did, loudly and clearly, until the later '80s.f    NotH > all marketing is simply saying, "I have a better mousetrap. Now beat a path1 > to my door, and behave while standing in line."m > G > Every time those DEC marketing/sales 'weasels' didn't do their job inlJ > marketing/selling to my senior execs, it made me look bad for buying DEC in > the first place.  L Why?  Were DEC's products or performance inferior?  Did your superiors think you were incompetent?I  ;  The IBM and Sun guys would get calls returned by my execs,sH > whereas none of the DEC guys even called my execs. There was a certainL > amount of institutional arrogance displayed by Digital at the time, and it/ > permeated their sales/marketing organization.S  K Arrogance was indeed a problem, starting internally in the earlier '80s andpG becoming externally apparent by the later '80s.  It, however, was not auE *marketing* problem, but a *pervasive* problem.  It was also somewhat.I short-lived:  when it became obvious that there was no longer the kind ofbD industry dominance to justify such arrogance, the company flounderedH internally (which may also have contributed to similar customer neglect,+ either as a result of denial or confusion).s  L By the way:  back when DEC was thriving, customers got plenty of attention -J but from technical people more than high-level strokers.  Customers seemed0 to prefer that (at least that's what they said).    Maybe your experience wasI > different than mine, but I have more than enough coincidental anecdotalyJ > corroboration that makes me believe that my experiences were not unique.  L Nor, however, were they in any way relevant to what I've been saying, unlessK they occurred in the mid-'80s at the latest.  (Doesn't sound that way:  Sunu$ was just getting started back then.)  K People like you and Nic keep trying to apply conventional norms to what wastL a *very* unconventional company (and succeeded to a large degree because of,K not in spite of, its different approach).  Believe me, if you weren't theresH (or very closely involved externally) at the time, you just don't have aJ clue:  Tom Peters' "In Search of Excellence" sheds some light, but nowhere near the entire picture.  J *After* DEC fell from grace, *then* the kinds of things you describe aboveL *did* become problems, and marketing could have helped (though not saved DECI unless the other, more basic, internal problems had been solved as well).k   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 00:52:39 GMTt0 From: prune@ZAnkh-Morpork.mv.com (Paul Winalski)' Subject: Re: Who cares about marketing!e9 Message-ID: <3ce1b031.2785929384@proxy.news.easynews.com>o  F On Mon, 13 May 2002 21:07:30 GMT, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote:   > > >"Paul Winalski" <prune@ZAnkh-Morpork.mv.com> wrote in message4 >news:3ce01f8a.2683362050@proxy.news.easynews.com... >  Suddenly DEC was dealingd@ >> with PHBs who weren't going to beat a path to the door to buyB >> the better mousetrap.  Instead, they were going to buy what the* >> press and ads SAID was the right thing. >hK >And right up through the mid-'80s, that was DEC:  the trade press did most K >of DEC's marketing for it, and while it may not have reached CEOs this waspI >back in the days when specialists within a company had more control overa+ >spending decisions within their specialty.   0 And when those days changed, look what happened.   >  DEC hid its light underA >> a bushel, and got its Mill clock cleaned by IBM and others whoy* >> understand the importance of marketing. >hL >DEC's clock was cleaned by  a) an over-reach into the real mainframe marketK >without having quite the products to compete there,  b) failure to compete F >aggressively in its bread-and-butter markets and thereby giving Sun aK >foothold (actually, the whole staircase), and  c) internal schisms between M >the VMS and Unix groups that hurt *everyone's* future.  Marketing could only M >have ameliorated these problems a bit, not solved them; conversely, had theypI >been fixed, marketing would have been no more necessary than it had eversH >been:  being top dog brings with it significant visibility, and without4 >those other problems DEC would have remained there. >sK >It was only after DEC's fall that marketing became a big issue.  And since_I >other major internal problems persisted, it couldn't have saved DEC thencL >either.  In fact, the continued lack of marketing was if anything a symptom' >of those more basic internal problems.   C Sorry, disagree completely.  SUN took over because it actively soldo@ its products to the press and the buying public, instead of just sitting back and taking orders.   @ From the perspective of someone who watched the whole thing playB out from start to finish from within, the internal bickering was aD side issue.  The main problem was that the old, traditional, pre-VAX@ DEC never "got it" when it came to marketing and its importance.+ I'm afraid that you, Bill, are one of them..   >>; >> KO, his successors, and the managers who surrounded themn; >> never grokked the importance of marketing.  Nor did theyr> >> understand that excellent marketing will win over excellent >> engineering every time. >nH >Right:  that's why IBM kept DEC from ever becoming any kind of a threat
 >whatsoever. n  E DEC never was a threat to IBM except for a very short period of time,tB when VAX was selling so far under IBM's established price umbrella= that even DEC's total incompetance at marketing didn't make anC difference.  During that short, happy period, VAXes really did sellu> themselves.  Then IBM woke up, lowered the price umbrella, and that was that.   >Not.E  A You think so, eh?  Which company is still #1 in the industry, andaA which is a sorry relic taken over by HP (the elephant's graveyarde of 1980 computer has-beens)?  
 ---------- Remove 'Z' to reply by email.s   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 01:11:17 +0100 U From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com>e' Subject: Re: Who cares about marketing!l0 Message-ID: <abs935$7p4$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Bill Todd wrote:  7 > "Nic Clews" <sendspamhere@127.0.0.1> wrote in messageo% > news:3CE12BDA.47C2B852@127.0.0.1...e >  > ...d >  > F >>History. He we are ~15 years later and where is VMS? Technically farG >>superior than it was yet  not where it should be. This is a differenta >>worldr >> > J > Why?  What evidence do you have to offer that the world is significantlyJ > different in terms of high-tech than it was during the 30 years that DEC5 > succeeded - wildly - without traditional marketing?a >     > 30 years ago the SW market was not dominated by a small numberA of vendors because applications suites like SAP, PeopleSoft, JDE,oA Oracle, Baan Siebel etc did not exist. If you wanted a payroll ornD general  ledger app you rolled your own or payed someone to roll one for you.  > DEC was a leader in the mini-computer market without garnering@ any support from these vendors (they didn't exist in that form).  @ 30 years on its mostly about applications with a minimal ammount= of customisation that grabs customers very few people want tod roll their own.   @ Digital and Compaq for Ultrix, Tru64 and OpenVMS were singularly8 unsucessfull at getting ISV's to support their platform.  ) Ultrix was less well supported than SunOSa8 Tru64 is less well supported than Solaris, AIX and HP-UX ditto for OpenVMS.  ; 30 years ago this was much less important because customersv: mostly made rather than bought. Now most customers want to8 buy rather than make and it shows for Tru64 and OpenVMS.  6 Part of HP's decision to dump Tru64 in favour of HP-UX1 is based on ISV support rather than market share.t  9 If you are a customer that needs to run 5 apps to deliver 5 your service to your users and you have a choice of an8 platform that supports all 5 or one that only supports 4< you will in almost all ocasions choose the one that supports the 5 you need.    Regardsr Andrew Harrisonn    K > You have completely ignored this aspect of history while promoting a view M > that, while eminently conventional, has no obvious basis for support in the" > particular case of DEC.m > I > DEC thrived without much marketing against a far better-established and M > larger competitor (IBM) that marketed like crazy (and had squelched most of8K > its other competition by doing so).  DEC successfully made the transition N > from primarily engineering/scientific/academic sales to primarily commercialM > sales without changing its non-marketing tradition - again, against larger,tD > entrenched competition from IBM that failed with well-marketed butM > technically inferior products against DEC.  And when DEC fell, the signs ofaM > its internal decay were evident long before there was *any* slacking off in  > its sales or profitability.  > K > And yet, despite this record of success without traditional marketing and I > the clear internal problems that preceded DEC's decline, you persist innI > asserting that the decline was due to the fact that lack of traditionaliK > marketing suddenly, after three decades of unimportance, became critical?  > J > Sorry:  you're applying conventional wisdom without thinking.  MarketingG > *is* important for *most* companies in *most* situations, and lack ofaJ > marketing *became* important for DEC (and later Compaq) *after* DEC fellM > apart (because it no longer had many things going for it that it once had). C > But lack of marketing was in no way the *cause* of DEC's decline.  >  > ...i >  > A >>Everything in the right balance, but failing to market in these ( >>connected times is commercial suicide. >> > M > Again, why?  The Internet has started to turn conventional marketing on itsaJ > head, *especially* among the technical cognoscenti.  If you had made theL > point that upper management may tend more to micro-manage today than allowK > those who know what they're doing do their jobs, that might have had somelK > relevance, but 'connectedness' and resulting information accessibility isgJ > more an antidote for mindless image-making than it is a supporter of it. >  > ...  >  > J >>Yet ask your neighbours, or anyone in the street about IBM. They'll know >>who they are.y >> > J > So what?  Ask them about Cisco (well, people who watch the business news> > probably have heard of it, but that's not due to marketing). > N > If you want to sell people PCs, mass marketing is important.  If you want toK > sell them MP EV7s and enterprise storage arrays, it is (or with a company " > like DEC was can be) irrelevant. >  > ...t >  > ! >>VMS today will not sell itself.h >> > E > Today?  That was never the point under dispute.  But even today thelJ > importance of VMS marketing is at least as much to demonstrate some realN > (financial) commitment from its owner as to get knowledge of the product outM > to the audience that might want to know about it:  without such evidence ofnL > real (not just verbal) commitment, it won't matter *how* much exposure VMSL > gets (hence the futility of amateur efforts by c.o.v. supporters to 'sell' > VMS).l >  > - bill >  >  >  >    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 01:15:52 GMTcL From: winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr")' Subject: Re: Who cares about marketing!a8 Message-ID: <00A0DEFB.D89801D5@SSRL04.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>   In article <abs935$7p4$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com> writes: >o >h >Bill Todd wrote:  >t8 >> "Nic Clews" <sendspamhere@127.0.0.1> wrote in message& >> news:3CE12BDA.47C2B852@127.0.0.1... >> 2 >> ... >> 0 >> rG >>>History. He we are ~15 years later and where is VMS? Technically fartH >>>superior than it was yet  not where it should be. This is a different >>>world >>>P >> rK >> Why?  What evidence do you have to offer that the world is significantlyiK >> different in terms of high-tech than it was during the 30 years that DECy6 >> succeeded - wildly - without traditional marketing? >> t >c > ? >30 years ago the SW market was not dominated by a small numbereB >of vendors because applications suites like SAP, PeopleSoft, JDE,B >Oracle, Baan Siebel etc did not exist. If you wanted a payroll orE >general  ledger app you rolled your own or payed someone to roll one 	 >for you.n >e? >DEC was a leader in the mini-computer market without garneringoA >any support from these vendors (they didn't exist in that form).  >nA >30 years on its mostly about applications with a minimal ammountf> >of customisation that grabs customers very few people want to >roll their own.    G My two objections to these remarks are (1) that PeopleSoft doesn't - asPH far as I could tell by viewing SLAC's experience with it from a discreetF distance - take a _minimal_ amount of customization:  it takes as muchE consultant time and money in customization as it would to develop the.F application from scratch; out-of-the-box, the  application is useless,C and (2) that maybe 30 years ago it was all roll-your-own - that's a2H little before I was paying attention - but 20 years ago there were quiteA a lot of packaged mainframe/supermini business applications, someiH developed and sold by the hardware vendors - HP had a successful line onC MPE - and some from third parties like MSA and  McCormick & Dodge. I   -- Alanr  O ===============================================================================s0  Alan Winston --- WINSTON@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDUM  Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL   Phone:  650/926-3056 M  Physical mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 69, PO BOX 4349, STANFORD, CA  94309-0210gO ===============================================================================    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 20:49:02 -0400 ( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>' Subject: Re: Who cares about marketing! , Message-ID: <3CE1B07E.3060304@tsoft-inc.com>   Bill Todd wrote:  0 > "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in messageC > news:DMeE8.11394$t8_.2118@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...y > 7 >>"Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message > >>news:KAdE8.177394$q8.17883994@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... >> >>>eJ >>>DEC thrived without much marketing against a far better-established andK >>>larger competitor (IBM) that marketed like crazy (and had squelched most  >>>n >>of >>A >>>its other competition by doing so).  DEC successfully made theD >>>n > transition > D >>>from primarily engineering/scientific/academic sales to primarily >>>t >>commercial >>F >>>sales without changing its non-marketing tradition - again, against >>>s	 >>larger,  >>E >>>entrenched competition from IBM that failed with well-marketed butlK >>>technically inferior products against DEC.  And when DEC fell, the signs) >>>t >>of >>K >>>its internal decay were evident long before there was *any* slacking offa >>>  >>in >> >>>its sales or profitability.  ( Yep, the old 'head-in-the-sand' routine.  A The old "we're going to keep margins where we want them" routine.f  P DEC was very successful with the BI bus.  The BI bus was one of the things that N killed DEC.  Lawsuits against anyone who sold a product that plugged into the L bus, unless they first paid a fee for doing so.  Not being competitive with 7 small systems, because they were greedy at the top end.d  M Now, not only do many companies, and even individuals, sell products to plug mN into a PCI bus, but they provide windoz drivers for them.  Not totally a good F thing, but from a popularity perspective, great for PCs and Microsoft.  N Charging licenses for LAT.  Haven't seen LAT as much of a standard.  It could ( have been in much more widespread usage.  O DEC was afraid to let others share in what they did, and ended up being a very m small minority.k  O This mentality is still there.  Look at the cost to cluster 2 DS10s.  About 12  Q grand, just for 2 cluster licenses, last time I looked.  May it's gone up again. bI   Following price cuts with price increases just doesn't make much sense.u  P Greed, and thinking that they could continue being greedy, that's the stupidity  that killed DEC.   Dave   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 02:57:48 GMTa* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>' Subject: Re: Who cares about marketing! B Message-ID: <M8kE8.140133$M7.13915207@bin7.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  # "Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy"s> <andrew_nospam.harrison_remove_this@sun#.com> wrote in message* news:abs935$7p4$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com... >  >  > Bill Todd wrote: >h9 > > "Nic Clews" <sendspamhere@127.0.0.1> wrote in messages' > > news:3CE12BDA.47C2B852@127.0.0.1...  > >I > > ...n > >  > > H > >>History. He we are ~15 years later and where is VMS? Technically farI > >>superior than it was yet  not where it should be. This is a differenta	 > >>worldt > >> > >iL > > Why?  What evidence do you have to offer that the world is significantlyL > > different in terms of high-tech than it was during the 30 years that DEC7 > > succeeded - wildly - without traditional marketing?u > >r >i > @ > 30 years ago the SW market was not dominated by a small numberC > of vendors because applications suites like SAP, PeopleSoft, JDE, C > Oracle, Baan Siebel etc did not exist. If you wanted a payroll or F > general  ledger app you rolled your own or payed someone to roll one
 > for you.  L You need to read more carefully:  the period under discussion ended about 15H years ago, not 30.  At that point in time, there *was* major third-partyJ software available (certainly Oracle), and during the intervening period aK lot of it (certainly SAP, I think PeopleSoft and Baan, likely others - it'soH not an area I keep up with) *has* been available on VMS (though a lot of= them dropped support as VMS's fortunes continued to dwindle).t   >n@ > DEC was a leader in the mini-computer market without garneringB > any support from these vendors (they didn't exist in that form).  G DEC certainly garnered support from Oracle, even while it was competingaI against it with Rdb.  For a very long time VMS was the *only* environments where OPS ran.   >eB > 30 years on its mostly about applications with a minimal ammount? > of customisation that grabs customers very few people want to  > roll their own.s >oB > Digital and Compaq for Ultrix, Tru64 and OpenVMS were singularly: > unsucessfull at getting ISV's to support their platform.  D Only after DEC had already declined:  they had no problem whatsoever# attracting ISV support before that.v   >p+ > Ultrix was less well supported than SunOSo: > Tru64 is less well supported than Solaris, AIX and HP-UX > ditto for OpenVMS.  L And all of this post-dates DEC's decline, rather than was in any way a cause of it.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 00:49:23 -04007- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>3' Subject: Re: Who cares about marketing!t, Message-ID: <3CE1E8CA.4526A712@videotron.ca>   Bill Todd wrote:N > Exactly.  Those days changed because of misdirection and/or confusion withinK > DEC, not because of lack of marketing.  And it was only after that changepJ > that lack of marketing became part (though far from all) of the problem.    N Depends on the definition of marketing. Marketing is more than advertising. ItM is also knowing who your competitors are. And Digital failed to recognize whoo: its new competitors were and though it was still only IBM.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 04:11:29 GMTs* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>' Subject: Re: Who cares about marketing!hA Message-ID: <3clE8.20443$Ze4.2056295@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>l  = "Paul Winalski" <prune@ZAnkh-Morpork.mv.com> wrote in messagen3 news:3ce1b031.2785929384@proxy.news.easynews.com... H > On Mon, 13 May 2002 21:07:30 GMT, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> > wrote: >p > >h@ > >"Paul Winalski" <prune@ZAnkh-Morpork.mv.com> wrote in message6 > >news:3ce01f8a.2683362050@proxy.news.easynews.com... > >  Suddenly DEC was dealingiB > >> with PHBs who weren't going to beat a path to the door to buyD > >> the better mousetrap.  Instead, they were going to buy what the, > >> press and ads SAID was the right thing. > >eH > >And right up through the mid-'80s, that was DEC:  the trade press did mostI > >of DEC's marketing for it, and while it may not have reached CEOs thish wasoK > >back in the days when specialists within a company had more control overm- > >spending decisions within their specialty.r >j2 > And when those days changed, look what happened.  L Exactly.  Those days changed because of misdirection and/or confusion withinI DEC, not because of lack of marketing.  And it was only after that changepH that lack of marketing became part (though far from all) of the problem.   ...h  G > >It was only after DEC's fall that marketing became a big issue.  Andt sincepK > >other major internal problems persisted, it couldn't have saved DEC thenfF > >either.  In fact, the continued lack of marketing was if anything a symptomt) > >of those more basic internal problems.t >"E > Sorry, disagree completely.  SUN took over because it actively soldlB > its products to the press and the buying public, instead of just! > sitting back and taking orders.k  I Sun took over because  1) its products were a lot cheaper and  2) DEC wasmL both complacent and arrogant.  Neither of these has anything much to do with
 marketing.   >DB > From the perspective of someone who watched the whole thing playD > out from start to finish from within, the internal bickering was aF > side issue.  The main problem was that the old, traditional, pre-VAXB > DEC never "got it" when it came to marketing and its importance.  K They didn't 'get it' because they didn't need to - until *DEC* changed (not  the external circumstances).  - > I'm afraid that you, Bill, are one of them.   L Damn right.  And I'm afraid you are clueless.  However, IIRC you do have theL excuse of having been cocooned within the VMS development group at the time,L where what was going wrong with the rest of the company was far less visibleD (since VMS itself seemed to be moving along as well as it ever had).  L Or do you think that Cutler located his team as far away from New England asK was physically possible without crossing an international border because ofl marketing deficiencies?e   >s > >>= > >> KO, his successors, and the managers who surrounded them7= > >> never grokked the importance of marketing.  Nor did theyl@ > >> understand that excellent marketing will win over excellent > >> engineering every time. > > J > >Right:  that's why IBM kept DEC from ever becoming any kind of a threat > >whatsoever. >iG > DEC never was a threat to IBM except for a very short period of time,rD > when VAX was selling so far under IBM's established price umbrella? > that even DEC's total incompetance at marketing didn't make abE > difference.  During that short, happy period, VAXes really did sell @ > themselves.  Then IBM woke up, lowered the price umbrella, and > that was that. >  > >Not.d >uC > You think so, eh?  Which company is still #1 in the industry, andhC > which is a sorry relic taken over by HP (the elephant's graveyardo > of 1980 computer has-beens)?  G If you continue to concentrate on what has happened since the mid-'80s,f- you'll continue to completely miss the point.o   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 23:28:35 -0400r( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>' Subject: Re: Who cares about marketing!s, Message-ID: <3CE1D5E3.9000503@tsoft-inc.com>  * Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr wrote:    I > My two objections to these remarks are (1) that PeopleSoft doesn't - asrJ > far as I could tell by viewing SLAC's experience with it from a discreetH > distance - take a _minimal_ amount of customization:  it takes as muchG > consultant time and money in customization as it would to develop thesH > application from scratch; out-of-the-box, the  application is useless,    Q As I've long maintained, the usage of SAP, PeopleSoft, Baan, et al has 2 reasons.   M One is the quite legitimate desire of those who use computers as a tool, and sH don't want to be in the computer/software business.  Such people need a P solution, and would like such to be a shrink wrapped product they can purchase. M   Unfortunately, when their needs are unique enough that a one-size-fits-all CQ solution isn't appropriate, then they have a problem.  The distasteful answer to  M their problem is software modified in some manner to match their needs.  The  P SAP/PeopleSoft/Baan type of solutions have so much complex set-up that they end J up with people as much or more expensive as programmers.  The result is a L solution that is as much or more expensive than a custom solution, and many ; times less flexible and ill-suited for the company's needs.k  P The really distasteful reason that such products are chosen is that beancounter K like executives listen to their beancounter like consulting firms, such as oN Auther Anderson and such.  Even after the Enron fiasco there may be a few who M don't realize that such firms have only 2 concerns, themselves, and how much eQ they can bill to their customers/marks.  These firms recommend SAP et al for one aP reason.  So that they can sell their $250/hr and up herd of consultants to such O customers for a year or more of installation/set-up, and then continue milking u them for ongoing support.i  Q Still, such is more palatable to some executives than the egotistic techies that c give them fits.r    E > and (2) that maybe 30 years ago it was all roll-your-own - that's a J > little before I was paying attention - but 20 years ago there were quiteC > a lot of packaged mainframe/supermini business applications, someiJ > developed and sold by the hardware vendors - HP had a successful line onE > MPE - and some from third parties like MSA and  McCormick & Dodge.      K Yep, but such didn't produce as much billing for the accounting/consulting cP firms.  Many also relied upon programming staffs for installation, maintenance, , and most significantly custom modifications.    P Many management types don't like techies. Sometimes they have good cause to feel	 this way.d     Dave   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 04:46:15 GMTi* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>' Subject: Re: Who cares about marketing!nA Message-ID: <qKlE8.15773$Tj3.2144899@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>   : "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote in message& news:3CE1E8CA.4526A712@videotron.ca... > Bill Todd wrote:I > > Exactly.  Those days changed because of misdirection and/or confusion  withinF > > DEC, not because of lack of marketing.  And it was only after that changeL > > that lack of marketing became part (though far from all) of the problem. >o > @ > Depends on the definition of marketing. Marketing is more than advertising. ItBK > is also knowing who your competitors are. And Digital failed to recognizen whoe< > its new competitors were and though it was still only IBM.  B Knowing the competition and knowing what customers wanted were notL deficiencies in the Old DEC.  So if that was part of marketing, DEC had that& part down pat (until it got confused).   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 02:36:36 GMT)1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>-& Subject: Re: [announce] FreeVMS 0.0.14' Message-ID: <3CE1CCE4.6BB5A954@fsi.net>T  " "Scandora, Anthony (35048)" wrote: > > > "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote in message# > news:3CDDC989.F15E032E@fsi.net...R > > ...  > > One another, related topic:e > >sJ > > On project I might suggest to the readers is that translators from anyJ > > 3GL (including C, regardless of how you classify it) to Macro/32 wouldJ > > be *VERY* useful freeware items. The resulting code should be suitableL > > for use on OpenVMS-VAX and OpenVMA-Alpha as well as whatever evolves out" > > of the current FreeVMS effort. > < > That would be a huge project for a miniscule set of users.  F Initially. Once it becomes widely known, the potential user base wouldD justify the effort. Then again, almost any userbase seems to justify	 freeware.y  M > If there is really a demand for a free C for VMS, fix up GCC so it does VMS  > right.  G That would help, yes. Ideally, of course, we'd like to see DEC-C have aaD status similar to Macro/32: distributed "free" with VMS, just as gcc> seems to come with every *BSD and Linux distro. on the planet.  3 ...but that would make too much sense, wouldn't it?    -- y David J. Dachteraa dba DJE Systemsn http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/)   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2002.267 ************************