1 INFO-VAX	Tue, 29 Apr 2003	Volume 2003 : Issue 235       Contents:7 $show system/noproc  delivers -> OpenVMS X9BY-R2Y   ... ; Re: $show system/noproc  delivers -> OpenVMS X9BY-R2Y   ... 0 Re: Anti-spam features of TCPIP Services for VMS0 Re: Anti-spam features of TCPIP Services for VMS0 Re: Anti-spam features of TCPIP Services for VMS0 Re: Anti-spam features of TCPIP Services for VMS0 Re: Anti-spam features of TCPIP Services for VMS0 Re: Anti-spam features of TCPIP Services for VMS0 Re: Anti-spam features of TCPIP Services for VMS* Compaq Enterprise Directory for e-Business. Re: Compaq Enterprise Directory for e-Business Re: Fortel go bye-bye! Re: Gordon Bell interview  Re: Gordon Bell interview G Re: Have you seen this...its new                         !!! ES(fEmFqLo = Re: How Alpha will save Itanium - must reading for Bill Todd! $ Re: I learned about VMS from that...H Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyH Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyH Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyH Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyH Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyH Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyH Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly8 Re: Itanium Madison blasts Sun, IBM in encryption specs!8 Re: Itanium Madison blasts Sun, IBM in encryption specs!8 Re: Itanium Madison blasts Sun, IBM in encryption specs!/ Re: MicroVAX crash in RMU/RESTORE operations... " Not entirely OT: RSHELL to Solaris: Re: OpenVMS Freeware 6 CD, new Ghostscript to be included?6 Re: OpenVMS Itanium port progressing well says Gorham!6 Re: OpenVMS Itanium port progressing well says Gorham!6 Re: OpenVMS Itanium port progressing well says Gorham!P Re: OpenVMS on non-HP Itanium boxes (was: Re: OpenVMS Itanium port progressing wP Re: OpenVMS on non-HP Itanium boxes (was: Re: OpenVMS Itanium port progressing wP Re: OpenVMS.org: Marvel article and HP's press release for Marveland Alpha RetaiP Re: OpenVMS.org: Marvel article and HP's press release for Marveland Alpha Retai RE: Q - Printer Problems* SDA's PTHREAD command - Where's the docs??. Re: SDA's PTHREAD command - Where's the docs?? Re: SLS change server node Re: StorageTek on SAN with VMSM Re: telnet connect to network object rejected (was: Re: Q - Printer Problems) 
 Re: VMS 7.3-1  Re: What is a VMS Cluster * Re: X-windows: adding a widget to a systemE Re: [DECnet-Plus V7.3-1 ECO2] What has happened to the DECNET_VERSION   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 23:52:29 +0200 + From: Thomas Schick <schick.thomas@gmx.net> @ Subject: $show system/noproc  delivers -> OpenVMS X9BY-R2Y   .... Message-ID: <b8k7qd$m4$04$1@news.t-online.com>  @ Does anyone know an explanation for this strange version number?  
 Thomas Schick     $ some additional information follows:K ___________________________________________________________________________  $ sh sys/noproc I OpenVMS X9BY-R2Y  on node SATURN  28-APR-2003 14:52:53.25 Uptime 01:16:25    $ wrs f$getsyi("hw_name")  DEC 2000 Model 300   $ wrs f$getsyi("version")  X9BY-R2Y  & $@sys$update:DECW$GET_IMAGE_VERSION  -4               SYS$COMMON:[SYS$LDR]SYS$BASE_IMAGE.EXE& Image identification is ALPHA X9EC-R2Y   $ produ show hist G ------------------------------ ----------- -------- ------------------- D PRODUCT                        KIT TYPE    OPERATION   DATE AND TIMEG ------------------------------ ----------- -------- ------------------- G DEC AXPVMS TCPIP_SSH T5.3-6A   Full LP     Install 05-FEB-2003 21:04:46 G DEC AXPVMS TCPIP_ECO V5.3-182  Patch       Install 05-FEB-2003 20:47:52 G DEC AXPVMS VMS731_SYS V3.0     Patch       Install 05-FEB-2003 20:43:14 G DEC AXPVMS VMS731_RMS V2.0     Patch       Install 05-FEB-2003 20:41:59 G DEC AXPVMS VMS731_F11X V1.0    Patch       Install 05-FEB-2003 20:39:11 G DEC AXPVMS DNVOSIECO01 V7.3-1  Patch       Install 05-FEB-2003 20:38:31 G DEC AXPVMS TCPIP_SSH T5.3-6A   Full LP     Install 05-FEB-2003 17:51:38 G DEC AXPVMS TCPIP_MUP V5.3-181  Patch       Install 20-JAN-2003 19:05:52 G CPQ AXPVMS CDSA V1.0-2         Full LP     Install 17-JAN-2003 14:09:28 G DEC AXPVMS DECNET_OSI V7.3-1   Full LP     Install 17-JAN-2003 14:09:28 G DEC AXPVMS OPENVMS V7.3-1      Platform    Install 17-JAN-2003 14:09:28 G DEC AXPVMS TCPIP V5.3-18       Full LP     Install 17-JAN-2003 14:09:28 G DEC AXPVMS VMS V7.3-1          Oper System Install 17-JAN-2003 14:09:28  :  :V7.3  :  :V7.2    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 01:59:01 GMT # From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) D Subject: Re: $show system/noproc  delivers -> OpenVMS X9BY-R2Y   ...0 Message-ID: <F%kra.549$KJ2.503@news.cpqcorp.net>  \ In article <b8k7qd$m4$04$1@news.t-online.com>, Thomas Schick <schick.thomas@gmx.net> writes:E :Does anyone know an explanation for this [OpenVMS X9BY-R2Y] strange   :version number?  F   There appears to be a base image with a field-test baselevel around,G   either individually or as part of an OpenVMS field test installation. G   Or something or someone patched in the wrong version string using the D   OpenVMS SYSVER tool; see the OpenVMS FAQ for details on that tool.  I   X9BY is a build baselevel prior to the build for the release of OpenVMS H   V7.3-1, and the R2Y component of the version string is an encoding of A   the associated OpenVMS Alpha V7.3-1 release project name: Ruby.   I   Without knowing the history of this system, it is very difficult to say J   exactly what has happened here.  I'd first look for the erroneous use of   a field test kit.     N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------J       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.comN  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:36:39 -0400 - From: Jonathan Boswell <jsb@ost.cdrh.fda.gov> 9 Subject: Re: Anti-spam features of TCPIP Services for VMS 0 Message-ID: <3EAD74B7.5BD562EC@ost.cdrh.fda.gov>   Thanks for your pointers.    JF Mezei wrote: ' > You can find a template SMTP_CONFIG :  > K > $LIB/EXTRACT=SMTP_CONFIG/output=TCPIP$SMTP_COMMON:SMTP.CONFIG SMTP_CONFIG   P I cannot find any *smtp*.tlb anywhere on any of my computers, including the onesI that have an smtp_config.template as they should.  Where did you get your  SMTP_CONFIG library?  ' > For enabling other nodes on your lan: 3 > Enable Relay in the SMTP service config in TCPIP>  > And in SMTP.CONFIG > " M > Good-Clients: 10.0.0.0/8    (to allow 10.*.*.* to relay messges, all others  > are bounced).  > Relay-Zones: <domain-name>  K I already tried that using the template file from work.  (Actually, I don't L specify a Relay Zone, so according to the docs, no unknown clients should beN able to relay.)  Clearly this anti-spam feature is not working, and I think it= is not even present despite my TCPIP Services version number.    $ tcpip show version  ?   Compaq TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS Alpha Version V5.3 - ECO 1 4   on a AlphaStation 200 4/233 running OpenVMS V7.2-2  P Note that, at least for telnet, attempts to access the WAN address of my LinksysO from the LAN (like an email client on the LAN), the source address becomes that K of the Linksys, 192.168.1.1.  But telnet from the wild shows the correct IP L outside address, so I *thought* all was well.  But I just tried it and I can@ relay from the outside using an unlisted IP address to anywhere.    - JB    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:11:44 -0400 - From: Jonathan Boswell <jsb@ost.cdrh.fda.gov> 9 Subject: Re: Anti-spam features of TCPIP Services for VMS 0 Message-ID: <3EAD7CF0.947FC9C5@ost.cdrh.fda.gov>   JF Mezei wrote: M > Good-Clients: 10.0.0.0/8    (to allow 10.*.*.* to relay messges, all others  > are bounced).   G According to RFC 1918, the following addresses are reserved for private 
 addresses:  6      10.0.0.0        -   10.255.255.255  (10/8 prefix);      172.16.0.0      -   172.31.255.255  (172.16/12 prefix) <      192.168.0.0     -   192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix)  B So...  In the nomenclature of the SMTP.CONFIG file, these would be  7 Good-Clients: 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16   P Did I get that right?  (I can't find any explanation in the docs on this /prefixL nomenclature.  Perhaps the authors think I know what I'm doing...)  Why thisJ isn't in our config_smtp.template file, I don't know.  But as far as I canJ determine, none of the private addresses above should be routed around the> Internet, so it should be safe to enable these for SMTP relay.    - JB    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:49:37 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>9 Subject: Re: Anti-spam features of TCPIP Services for VMS ( Message-ID: <3EAD93D6.6312CBE@istop.com>   Jonathan Boswell wrote: M > > $LIB/EXTRACT=SMTP_CONFIG/output=TCPIP$SMTP_COMMON:SMTP.CONFIG SMTP_CONFIG  > A > I cannot find any *smtp*.tlb anywhere on any of my computers, i    Oops ! Mea culpa.   J the library is SYS$HELP:TCPIP$TEMPLATES.TLB , and the member to extract is SMTP_CONFIG into SMTP.CONFIG  R > Note that, at least for telnet, attempts to access the WAN address of my LinksysQ > from the LAN (like an email client on the LAN), the source address becomes that  > of the Linksys, 192.168.1.1.  M Accessing YOUR wan address from inside YOUR lan is often undeterministic. For * my netgear, I end up accessing the router.  N > outside address, so I *thought* all was well.  But I just tried it and I canB > relay from the outside using an unlisted IP address to anywhere.  J A remote host should show up as its correct IP address when it connects to0 your host (unless Linksys is really screwed up).  : I have 5.3 on VAX  and the good clients bit seems to work.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:27:11 -0400 - From: Jonathan Boswell <jsb@ost.cdrh.fda.gov> 9 Subject: Re: Anti-spam features of TCPIP Services for VMS 0 Message-ID: <3EAD9CAF.FFD546D5@ost.cdrh.fda.gov>   JF Mezei wrote: - > the library is SYS$HELP:TCPIP$TEMPLATES.TLB   N <Chagrined> I don't have that file either!  I just checked my VAXes and AlphasB here at work and they too lack that file, though they all have the smtp_config.template file.  O > Accessing YOUR wan address from inside YOUR lan is often undeterministic. For , > my netgear, I end up accessing the router.  P Indeed, doing this on my Linksys when it was new caused it to faint dead away inO shock and awe.  Seems to work reliably now, though, with recent versions of the N firmware.  It routes connection requests from outside OR inside to my DMZ host (the Alphastation).   L > A remote host should show up as its correct IP address when it connects to2 > your host (unless Linksys is really screwed up).  ( Yup.  It does that, at least for telnet.    - JB    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:02:14 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>9 Subject: Re: Anti-spam features of TCPIP Services for VMS ) Message-ID: <3EADB2E3.E9C148CE@istop.com>    Jonathan Boswell wrote:  >  > JF Mezei wrote: / > > the library is SYS$HELP:TCPIP$TEMPLATES.TLB   3 Silly me, it is in SYTS$LIBRARY:TCPIP$TEMPLATES.TLB   ! Sorry, spring has arrived here...    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:07:24 -0700 % From: Dean Woodward <deanw@rdrop.com> 9 Subject: Re: Anti-spam features of TCPIP Services for VMS ( Message-ID: <3EADDE5C.4010000@rdrop.com>   Jonathan Boswell wrote:    > JF Mezei wrote:  > M >>Good-Clients: 10.0.0.0/8    (to allow 10.*.*.* to relay messges, all others  >>are bounced).  >  > I > According to RFC 1918, the following addresses are reserved for private  > addresses: > 8 >      10.0.0.0        -   10.255.255.255  (10/8 prefix)= >      172.16.0.0      -   172.31.255.255  (172.16/12 prefix) > >      192.168.0.0     -   192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix) > D > So...  In the nomenclature of the SMTP.CONFIG file, these would be > 9 > Good-Clients: 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16   B Good security practice suggests you only enable the ones you need.  R > Did I get that right?  (I can't find any explanation in the docs on this /prefixD > nomenclature.  Perhaps the authors think I know what I'm doing...)  , Subnet_Address/Number_of_bits_in_subnet_mask   For example:    /8 = 255.0.0.0    /16 = 255.255.0.0    /24 = 255.255.255.0   E Because it's assumed you'd never do something like '255.240.255.128'  E though it's theoretically possible (I think it'd be fun to try, if I  A could get enough machines going in a lab- I'd bet that *lots* of  6 software would break in really interesting ways... ;-)   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 04:42:14 +0200 2 From: martin@radiogaga.harz.de (Martin Vorlaender)9 Subject: Re: Anti-spam features of TCPIP Services for VMS ; Message-ID: <3eade686.524144494f47414741@radiogaga.harz.de>   . Jonathan Boswell (jsb@ost.cdrh.fda.gov) wrote: > JF Mezei wrote: H > > Good-Clients: 10.0.0.0/8    (to allow 10.*.*.* to relay messges, all > > others are bounced). > I > According to RFC 1918, the following addresses are reserved for private  > addresses: > 8 >      10.0.0.0        -   10.255.255.255  (10/8 prefix)= >      172.16.0.0      -   172.31.255.255  (172.16/12 prefix) > >      192.168.0.0     -   192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix) > D > So...  In the nomenclature of the SMTP.CONFIG file, these would be > 9 > Good-Clients: 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16  >  > Did I get that right?    Yup.  ; > (I can't find any explanation in the docs on this /prefix D > nomenclature.  Perhaps the authors think I know what I'm doing...)  F It's just the number of bits that are significant (i.e. fixed, in this context) in the IP address.   
 > Why thisL > isn't in our config_smtp.template file, I don't know.  But as far as I canL > determine, none of the private addresses above should be routed around the@ > Internet, so it should be safe to enable these for SMTP relay.  H Yup, again. But you should always be aware that the above statement also4 excludes all other IP networks from delivering mail.   cu,    Martin --  G  Your mouse has moved.     | Martin Vorlaender  |  VMS & WNT programmer 4  Windows must be restarted | work: mv@pdv-systeme.deH  for the change to take    |    http://www.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/;  effect. Reboot now? [OK]  | home: martin@radiogaga.harz.de    ------------------------------   Date: 28 Apr 2003 20:50:33 GMT From: ninite@aol.com (Ninite) 3 Subject: Compaq Enterprise Directory for e-Business : Message-ID: <20030428165033.21674.00000189@mb-m16.aol.com>   Hello VMS Gurus,   Is anyone using this product?   H Our site wants to.  I have the CD for Version 5.2, which the docs say is; an upgrade to Version 5.1, which we don't have installed.     ; Under Prerequisite Software, Version 5.1 isn't even listed. C However, what is listed, is DECnet-Plus V7.2-1 ECO2 including OSAK. $ Our site is running DECnet Phase IV.  D Also listed is Compaq TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS V5.0A or later, ifC we're using "RFC1006 connections" (I have no idea what this means).   7 We are running Process Software MultiNet V4.4 Rev A-X,  3 on an AlphaServer 4100 5/533 4MB, OpenVMS AXP V7.3.    So my questions are:  + Do I really need to migrate to DECnet Plus?   ! Do I need Compaq TCP/IP Services?   & What the heck is a RFC1006 connection?  = If anyone would share any information about these issues, I'd  sure be eternally grateful!    Thank you,     Laura Galvas
 IT Specialist  U.S. Army AFDD NASA/Ames Research Center  Moffett Field, CA    --- ninite in CA   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 23:47:27 +0200 " From: adolf.sonderegger@bluewin.ch7 Subject: Re: Compaq Enterprise Directory for e-Business * Message-ID: <3EADA16F.133AC81F@bluewin.ch>  
 Ninite wrote:    > Hello VMS Gurus, >  > Is anyone using this product?  > J > Our site wants to.  I have the CD for Version 5.2, which the docs say is; > an upgrade to Version 5.1, which we don't have installed.  > = > Under Prerequisite Software, Version 5.1 isn't even listed. E > However, what is listed, is DECnet-Plus V7.2-1 ECO2 including OSAK. & > Our site is running DECnet Phase IV. > F > Also listed is Compaq TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS V5.0A or later, ifE > we're using "RFC1006 connections" (I have no idea what this means).  > 8 > We are running Process Software MultiNet V4.4 Rev A-X,5 > on an AlphaServer 4100 5/533 4MB, OpenVMS AXP V7.3.  >  > So my questions are: > - > Do I really need to migrate to DECnet Plus?  > # > Do I need Compaq TCP/IP Services?  > ( > What the heck is a RFC1006 connection? > ? > If anyone would share any information about these issues, I'd  > sure be eternally grateful!  >  > Thank you, >  > Laura Galvas > IT Specialist  > U.S. Army AFDD > NASA/Ames Research Center  > Moffett Field, CA  >  > --- ninite in CA   Hello Laura   3 You can run DECnet/Plus over TCP/IP. The RFC1006 -> ? http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1006.html points in this direction.    regards  Adolf Sonderegger    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Apr 2003 12:16:25 -0700/ From: prosullivan@aol.com (prosullivan@aol.com)  Subject: Re: Fortel go bye-bye! = Message-ID: <a14b767a.0304281116.2c4b2d26@posting.google.com>   r Ashley Shepherd <ashley.shepherd@virgin.net> wrote in message news:<vvtpav0bf1hkh3e7nka2vlcgejh69o7bv7@4ax.com>... .  > H > If you have any questions I will do my best to answer them, but in the+ > meantime, it should be business as usual,  > ( "It's not dead, it's merely resting" etc  4 Is that why you are in competition with Pollycenter?  	 good luck    pos    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:34:21 +0200 ( From: "Philip Lewis" <philip@nospam.com>" Subject: Re: Gordon Bell interview- Message-ID: <b8jvnv$245r$1@news.cybercity.dk>    Dan Foster wrote: 5 > http://americanhistory.si.edu/csr/comphist/bell.htm  > A > A quite interesting one from someone who, as you know, was very 
 > involved? > with the VAX design and with Digital in general. Has a lot of C > interesting things to say about Mr. Olsen, about the company (and  > others), about forks> > in design paradigms (RISC vs CISC for one), about what Alpha" > represented compared to the VAX. > C > I found it interesting and timely in face of the current hullaboo 5 > about the Alpha vs Itanium (vs Opteron) transition.  > A > A lot of the current discussion is somewhat framed in technical G > issues - which I would expect no less from engineers, and somewhat in G > political issues. But Mr. Bell's statements makes me think that a lot  > of the changesE > in computing are more attributable to human dynamics as the driving < > force rather than any reasoned technical arguments per se. > G > So... maybe folks are looking at the Alpha vs Itanium/Opteron debates  > inG > the entirely wrong light? That perhaps a lot of personalities 'behind + > the scenes' are driving this whole thing?  > G > Not meant to badmouth the engineers' hard work; in fact, I find their  > workG > to be incredible and pretty well done. But overall direction seems to F > often be determined by higher-level human beings who may be somewhat> > less influenced by technical factors than personal dynamics? >  > -Dan   Dan,  H You should go read (if you were/are not lucky enough to have heard/hear)L what Carley & Curley actually say.  There is no engineering involved at all.J These people have the missionary zeal of those who have "seen the one trueI way" and this unary view of the "future of computing" does not and cannot * include superior proprietary technologies.  L There are lots of other things that are logically excluded as well, like the" existence of IBM in the industry !  K But you are essentially correct, it is big egos looking to have big numbers L (!= profit) that has driven the death of DEC and CompaQ and soon I fear HP a s technology centres.    p.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:53:21 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> " Subject: Re: Gordon Bell interviewH Message-ID: <lphra.21199$w7k.16428@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  3 "Philip Lewis" <philip@nospam.com> wrote in message ' news:b8jvnv$245r$1@news.cybercity.dk...  > Dan Foster wrote: 7 > > http://americanhistory.si.edu/csr/comphist/bell.htm  > > C > > A quite interesting one from someone who, as you know, was very  > > involvedA > > with the VAX design and with Digital in general. Has a lot of E > > interesting things to say about Mr. Olsen, about the company (and  > > others), about forks@ > > in design paradigms (RISC vs CISC for one), about what Alpha$ > > represented compared to the VAX. > > E > > I found it interesting and timely in face of the current hullaboo 7 > > about the Alpha vs Itanium (vs Opteron) transition.  > > C > > A lot of the current discussion is somewhat framed in technical F > > issues - which I would expect no less from engineers, and somewhat inE > > political issues. But Mr. Bell's statements makes me think that a  lot  > > of the changes? > > in computing are more attributable to human dynamics as the  driving > > > force rather than any reasoned technical arguments per se. > > A > > So... maybe folks are looking at the Alpha vs Itanium/Opteron  debates  > > inA > > the entirely wrong light? That perhaps a lot of personalities  'behind - > > the scenes' are driving this whole thing?  > > C > > Not meant to badmouth the engineers' hard work; in fact, I find  their  > > workF > > to be incredible and pretty well done. But overall direction seems to? > > often be determined by higher-level human beings who may be  somewhat@ > > less influenced by technical factors than personal dynamics? > >  > > -Dan >  > Dan, > > > You should go read (if you were/are not lucky enough to have heard/hear) F > what Carley & Curley actually say.  There is no engineering involved at all. C > These people have the missionary zeal of those who have "seen the  one trueD > way" and this unary view of the "future of computing" does not and cannot, > include superior proprietary technologies. > E > There are lots of other things that are logically excluded as well,  like the$ > existence of IBM in the industry ! > E > But you are essentially correct, it is big egos looking to have big  numbers D > (!= profit) that has driven the death of DEC and CompaQ and soon I	 fear HP a  > s technology centres.   A Are you saying that non-engineers leading technology companies is B analogous to the Taliban, mullahs, or dictators leading a country,9 with the same net results -- utter destruction and chaos?    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:24:29 -0400 & From: David M Smith <dsmit115@csc.com>P Subject: Re: Have you seen this...its new                         !!! ES(fEmFqLo8 Message-ID: <1d3rav81otlmh8atpvn6l66d9llruic7l8@4ax.com>  M On 25 Apr 2003 19:16:58 -0500, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote:   l >In article <4b6ec350.0304251333.a3e1856@posting.google.com>, JimStrehlow@data911.com (Jim Strehlow) writes:; >> Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message  >> ...H >>> Are you perhaps using some Microsoft news client rather than ANUNEWS >>> on VMS ? >>   >>  J >> Is that on the FREEWARE CD-ROM; else where is the download for ANUNEWS? > & >I hope someone else will answer that.C >From my perspective, it is installed on DECUServe by someone else.   O The Freeware V4.0 CD (online at http://h71000.www7.hp.com/freeware/freeware40/) N has a directory for anu-news, I don't know if this is it and, if it is, if the version is relatively current.I ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I David M. Smith 302.391.8533                       dsmit115 at csc dot com I Computer Sciences Corporation     (Opinions are those of the writer only) I -------------------------------------------------------------------------    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:15:53 -0400 & From: David M Smith <dsmit115@csc.com>F Subject: Re: How Alpha will save Itanium - must reading for Bill Todd!8 Message-ID: <1u2ravc63qicrau5unc7debc4dl26f7vb6@4ax.com>  O On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:41:23 -0400, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote:    >"Main, Kerry" wrote: F >> What gobblie goop - a lawyer would have a great time with all that. >  >It's Gobble dee gook ...   I Well, if we have to get down to this level, the sources I could find say:   K Kenneth G. Wilson (1923).  The Columbia Guide to Standard American English.  1993.    ! 	gobbledygook, gobbledegook (n.)       J is a slang word for the obfuscatory wordiness of officialese, which may beO confusing at best and meaningless much of the rest of the time. Gobbledygook is , the usual spelling, gobbledegook a variant.   I ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I David M. Smith 302.391.8533                       dsmit115 at csc dot com I Computer Sciences Corporation     (Opinions are those of the writer only) I -------------------------------------------------------------------------    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:48:29 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> - Subject: Re: I learned about VMS from that... H Message-ID: <Nkhra.21120$w7k.12946@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  2 "Dean Woodward" <deanw@rdrop.com> wrote in message" news:3EAD4FD7.8010107@rdrop.com... > B > As for phone lines, before our servers went to co-lo, I liked to haveF > two POTS analog lines into the server room, independent of the phoneD > switch. One went to a phone, the other wire hung loosely next to a modem F > that we could plug into a modem so field service could dial in. (OurD > customers are jails & prisons; cell phones typically work for crap$ > inside all that rebar & concrete.)  2 So presumably all 'break-ins' are inside jobs. ;-)   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:12:15 +0100 / From: cbh@ieya.co.REMOVE_THIS.uk (Chris Hedley) Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly ) Message-ID: <vtqj8b.o93.ln@teabag.cbhnet>   3 According to Morten Reistad  <mrr@reistad.priv.no>: E > partners, customers etc. as it has a whole framework for consistent : > production. Note that consistent does not mean quality.   8 And even if translated as consistent quality, it doesn't9 necessarily imply good quality; if anything, consistently 8 mediocre quality seems too frequently deemed acceptable.   Chris. --  O "If the world was an orange it would be like much too small, y'know?" Neil, '84 +   Currently playing: Ultravox - "Ultravox!" O   http://www.chrishedley.com - assorted stuff, inc my genealogy.     Gan canny!    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:30:10 -0000 % From: Pete Fenelon <pete@fenelon.com> Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly / Message-ID: <var0a27mse0dc0@corp.supernews.com>   J In alt.folklore.computers Chris Hedley <cbh@ieya.co.remove_this.uk> wrote:5 > According to Morten Reistad  <mrr@reistad.priv.no>: F >> partners, customers etc. as it has a whole framework for consistent; >> production. Note that consistent does not mean quality.   > : > And even if translated as consistent quality, it doesn't; > necessarily imply good quality; if anything, consistently : > mediocre quality seems too frequently deemed acceptable. >   7 ISO9000 doesn't stop you building a concrete parachute. D It does ensure that there's a good audit trail and helps you build a) *repeatable* concrete parachute, however.    pete --  E pete@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" HMHB    ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:00:00 +0000 (UTC) , From: bhk@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly})Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly % Message-ID: <1051555161snz@dsl.co.uk>   ( In article <3EAC384F.60750BDA@istop.com>7            jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com "JF Mezei" writes:   D > Well said. Just as your skills on oen technology become valuable,   5 Skills in oenotechnology[1] will always be useful :-)   H [1] I replaced the 'o', which had strangely been converted to a space in
 your post. --  M Brian {Hamilton Kelly}                                          bhk@dsl.co.uk F     "We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would.  Yet we are@     untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them".M                                               George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 00:17:29 GMT ) From: Charles Richmond <richmond@ev1.net> Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly ' Message-ID: <3EADE02A.C5C6DC39@ev1.net>    Morten Reistad wrote:  > / > According to Lars Duening <lars@bearnip.com>: . > >JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote: > > < > >     [snip...]            [snip...]             [snip...] > > D > >I realise that most companies prefer to avoid this feedback step. >  > This is beyond ISO9000.  > 7 IOW, anything that might be useful is beyond the scope  7 of ISO9000...but all the burdensome paperwork and time- 6 wasting activities definitely *are* included.  Is this right???     --B +----------------------------------------------------------------+B |   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |B +----------------------------------------------------------------+   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 00:18:14 GMT ) From: Charles Richmond <richmond@ev1.net> Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly ' Message-ID: <3EADE057.DCD987BC@ev1.net>    Pete Fenelon wrote:  > L > In alt.folklore.computers Chris Hedley <cbh@ieya.co.remove_this.uk> wrote:7 > > According to Morten Reistad  <mrr@reistad.priv.no>: H > >> partners, customers etc. as it has a whole framework for consistent< > >> production. Note that consistent does not mean quality. > > < > > And even if translated as consistent quality, it doesn't= > > necessarily imply good quality; if anything, consistently < > > mediocre quality seems too frequently deemed acceptable. > >  > 9 > ISO9000 doesn't stop you building a concrete parachute. F > It does ensure that there's a good audit trail and helps you build a+ > *repeatable* concrete parachute, however.  > ; That way you can keep making the same mistake until you get  that mistake right.     ;-)    --B +----------------------------------------------------------------+B |   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |B +----------------------------------------------------------------+   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:17:49 -0400   From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com>Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly 5 Message-ID: <1030428211620.2426A-100000@Ives.egh.com>   , On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Charles Richmond wrote:   > leslie wrote:  > >  > > jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: > > : G > > : VMS is an OS that can do the skyscraper and feeding an army jobs. E > > : It takes money to keep it in shape, adjust to new hardware, and E > > : stop up leaks.  The PC mentality doesn't account for this cost. 9 > > : Shit...the PC mentality doesn't believe in backups.  > > : 
 > > : /BAH > > :  > >  > > Amen !!  > > B > > The FTC should pass a ruling that no software can be called anC > > "operating system' unless it includes a backup/retore tool that C > > can handle the "bare metal" restore, such as when the boot disk $ > > has suffered a hardware failure. > > A > > Of course it helps to have a device to back up to, which many ( > > PCs don't have, other than a floppy. > >  > > VMS   has a bootable CD  > > AIX   has mksysb > > HP-UX has Ignite-UX  > > B > Many of the newer PC's have a CDRW or even a DVD-Ram drive...butH > I don't think this is increasing the tendency for the "users"/"lusers" > to back up their data... > < > I saw a poster once that seems appropriate here...it said: > 2 > "Life is tough...it's tougher if your stupid..."  . The gun dealer in "The Friends of Eddie Coyle"     --   John Santos  Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 23:56:32 -0400S: From: Charles Shannon Hendrix <shannon@news.widomaker.com>Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly . Message-ID: <g5tk8b.c1a.ln@escape.shannon.net>  F In article <jeoj8b.ag42.ln@via.reistad.priv.no>, Morten Reistad wrote:  E > This is partly correct. But ISO9000 is only about the documentationsL > and the processes around it. It is pretty geared towards serial productionH > of complicated machinery. Documentation and process changes are prettyG > cumbersome, and pretty counterproductive as a standalone effort for ae > programming house.  D I've been in places where they threatened to use it for programming.  E > ISO9000 is, however, an important building block for a lot of otheroD > standards in the 9000 series. Iso 9002 has real value for exteriorE > partners, customers etc. as it has a whole framework for consistentn: > production. Note that consistent does not mean quality.   G So far, most of the time when I see ISO9000 certification, I see a dropsF in quality.  Too much time spend on the paperwork instead of doing the
 actualy work?5   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Apr 2003 17:32:57 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)A Subject: Re: Itanium Madison blasts Sun, IBM in encryption specs!s= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0304281632.16684d14@posting.google.com>o   Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<3EAD5BBA.4080505@nospamn.sun.com>...X >> h8 > The systems vendors offering Opteron based systems are5 > asking x86 type pricing for them. 5K for a dual CPU 	 > system.? > ; > HP want 20K for a single CPU 900 MHz 1.5 MB cache Itaniumn! > server. 34K for a 2 way system.a > / > It isn't difficult to work out paying quarter 8 > the price for a system with 2 faster CPU's is going to9 > be attractive, particularly when you discover that ther . > is also software available for the platform. > 	 > Regards  > Andrew Harrison   = yes it is paying 1/4 the price and getting junk in return ...n8 x86 platforms are and always will be garbage compared to; alpha ... I just hope Intel designs Itanium along the linesn= of alpha and all the other terrific DEC hardware/software ... 6 the only thing oopsteron has going for it is the alpha; technology Palmer sold to AMD before convienently ending ups8 working there after gutting DEC ... as for all the other% garbage, you get what you pay for ...    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 01:29:01 GMTe& From: Rick Jones <foo@bar.baz.invalid>A Subject: Re: Itanium Madison blasts Sun, IBM in encryption specs! / Message-ID: <xzkra.548$bE2.14@news.cpqcorp.net>h  P Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:  C > The systems vendors offering Opteron based systems are asking x86a2 > type pricing for them. 5K for a dual CPU system.  E As always, knowing what of the benchmarked config is included in that_" base price is an important detail.  ; > HP want 20K for a single CPU 900 MHz 1.5 MB cache Itaniumn! > server. 34K for a 2 way system.   D Got a reference for thost figures and what is/is not included in the> price? And whether that is the rx5670 or the rx2600 etc etc...  F Further, HP has not (to my knowledge) announced prices for the 1.5 GHz systems.  F > It isn't difficult to work out paying quarter the price for a system  > Without knowing what is/is not included in those prices you'veF tossed-out, there is no way to know that the difference for the tested configs is 1/4.-  F > with 2 faster CPU's is going to be attractive, particularly when youA > discover that ther is also software available for the platform.t  F Not that SPEC defines pricing for SPECweb99_SSL, but just how does theD 280R or the Netra 20 with the 2x1.2 GHz UltraSPARC-III Cu's and thatE add-on SCA 1000 Crypto card (the one where Sun is claiming up to 4300 F SSL transactions per second) at a whopping 1008 SPECweb99_SSL compare?B (Yes, Sun _finally_ submitted SPECweb99_SSL figures with their SCAE 1000.  Nothing with the recently announced SCA 4000 though...)  LooksMA like with just 2GB of the 8GB used in the result, and without theCA Gigaswift interfaces or the SCA, or the disc array it is at $15K.X  = http://store.sun.com/catalog/doc/BrowsePage.jhtml?catid=55844   F Of course, pricing is always a fun game isn't it - what is in the baseB config, how much to get that to the tested config, how much of theB tested config was required to get the result. For example, was the@ entire 12x36GB StorEdge 3310 SCSI array and dual Ultra3 SCSI HBAE required required to hit that 1008 number, what is the pricing of ZWSfA compared to Sun ONE Web Server (although it was probably the SNCA9C doing all the real work as an in-kernel accelerator rather than theaC web server...), how much does that SCA 1000 or the GigaSwifts cost.a All that fun stuff.D  
 rick jones -- eB firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car windowF these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)A feel free to post, OR email to raj in cup.hp.com  but NOT BOTH...a   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 01:38:08 -0400 * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>A Subject: Re: Itanium Madison blasts Sun, IBM in encryption specs! 2 Message-ID: <l4CcnUArxeJbkjOjXTWcqA@metrocast.net>  3 "Rick Jones" <foo@bar.baz.invalid> wrote in messagei) news:xzkra.548$bE2.14@news.cpqcorp.net...-K > Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>m wrote: >yE > > The systems vendors offering Opteron based systems are asking x86o4 > > type pricing for them. 5K for a dual CPU system. >-G > As always, knowing what of the benchmarked config is included in that $ > base price is an important detail.  E Indeed.  But it doesn't change the fact that all indications are thatsF Opteron systems are priced *far* lower than any competition save IA32.E Processors currently cost $283 (at 1.4 GHz) to $794 (at 1.8 GHz), vs.-K roughly 5x as much for the Itanic2 range ($1338 - $4200+, IIRC) offering on.K average somewhat less performance (but Madison reportedly will bring ItaniceK to rough equality in most areas and leadership in some without changing the  price).i   >e= > > HP want 20K for a single CPU 900 MHz 1.5 MB cache ItaniumT# > > server. 34K for a 2 way system.: >PF > Got a reference for thost figures and what is/is not included in the@ > price? And whether that is the rx5670 or the rx2600 etc etc...  E I'm curious as well.  Not all that long ago people were talking about G entry-level single-processor Itanic2 development systems from HP in thenJ $4500 range, with IIRC dual-processor systems starting at about $10K.  ButI as best I can determine prices are *far* higher than that (though I admitoJ that my success in navigating HP's pricing information on the Web has been spotty at best).   > H > Further, HP has not (to my knowledge) announced prices for the 1.5 GHz
 > systems.  K Aha, but they *had* to when they submitted their new TPC-C score.  And eveneJ without adding up all the small items, just a basic rx5670 with 4 Madisons4 plus 24 GB of memory gets the price tag above $100K.  J By contrast, the Racksaver box with 32 GB of memory that nearly equals theL rx5670 McKinley TPC-C numbers costs $49K (including the small items left outI above).  Its $2.76/tpmC score is the best of *any* system listed (all thetH way down to inexpensive single-processor IA32 systems) and not much moreL than half the $5.03/tpmC and $4.97/tpmC scores that the McKinley and Madison rx5670 systems achieve.o  D SPECweb99_SSL results don't include system pricing, but HP's MadisonI submission appears to be about the same configuration as the TPC-C systemhK (i.e., over $100K).  Unfortunately, the 4-processor Opteron that reportedlySL posts a slightly higher score is not yet officially listed AFAICT, but thereC seems little reason to suspect that it would cost any more than thee Racksaver TPC-C system.    - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:28:37 -0400 & From: David M Smith <dsmit115@csc.com>8 Subject: Re: MicroVAX crash in RMU/RESTORE operations...8 Message-ID: <c07ravglbfgvqalh75lo95i39rj1ppbcng@4ax.com>  O On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 17:45:43 -0400 (EDT), Lord Isildur <isildur@andrew.cmu.edu>N wrote:   >sB >The 1gb limit is only an issue during booting, since the firmwareF >routines wrap accesses around 1gb.. once the system is running, thoseM >routines are not used anymore. i think he's hitting a filesystem size limit.. >  >Isildur  K If I understand your post correctly, I disagree. VMS V5.5-2 is limited to aeO 24-bit LBN. Here is the info from the V6.0 Release Notes, when this restriction  was removed:  /   2.2.21 Volume Size-Maximum Increased to 2**31    V6.0  9   In previous versions of OpenVMS, the maximum size of an09   individual volume supported by the file system was lim-:<   ited to 2**24 blocks (approximately 16,000,000 blocks or 88   GigaBytes). In Version 6.0, the maximum supported vol-<   ume size has been increased to 2**31 blocks (approximately>   2,000,000,000 blocks or 1 TeraByte.) While there are no sin-A   gle disks of this size available, it is possible to construct aHC   logical volume of this size using striping or similar techniques.n  =   Note that in a volume set, the size limit applies individu-c=   ally to each member of a volume set. Thus, in theory, it isiA   now possible to construct a volume set with a total size of 255n   TeraBytes.  N My experience with several systems which ignored this and used larger disks isJ that, eventually, disk corruption will occur when you try to access an LBN@ beyond the 2**24 boundary and "wrap around" on top of low LBN's.I -------------------------------------------------------------------------hI David M. Smith 302.391.8533                       dsmit115 at csc dot comsI Computer Sciences Corporation     (Opinions are those of the writer only) I -------------------------------------------------------------------------0   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:09:41 -0500:1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> + Subject: Not entirely OT: RSHELL to Solariso' Message-ID: <3EADDEE5.A00E9666@fsi.net>S  H Okay, now that we have our STK L700E libraries running, our ACSLS serverG talking to DCSC and thence to SLS, I need to get data from ACSLS, whichi runs on Solaris.   My question is:n  G Is there some way to eliminate the need to have passwords in clear textoE on RSHELL commands in our DCL procedures? Is there some kind of proxy.G and/or trusted host relationship I can set up on Solaris so that I neede* only pass a username on my RSHELL command?   Info:w
 VMS V7.3-1 Multinet V4.4 Rev A-Xh Solaris/8 (Sparc)o ACSLS V6.0.1   -- s David J. Dachterai dba DJE Systemso http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 23:05:10 GMTh# From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) C Subject: Re: OpenVMS Freeware 6 CD, new Ghostscript to be included?00 Message-ID: <Gsira.537$iG2.240@news.cpqcorp.net>  b In article <6Ncqa.47891$cB3.353136@nnrp1.uunet.ca>, Ben Armstrong <BArmstrong@dymaxion.ca> writes:C :Back in February on comp.os.vms, Hoff Hoffman posted this call fors. :submissions for the next OpenVMS Freeware CD: ..  
   The URL is:I3     http://www.openvms.compaq.com/openvms/freeware/ /     http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/freeware/2   ..H :I would like to know if anyone here has a new version of Ghostscript to :include...a  M :If you're involved in producing or know the whereabouts of a binary kit of aaK :version of Ghostscript more recent than 6.50, I'd be interested in hearing 
 :from you. :*J :I'll be emailing the OpenVMS Freeware project directly with this query as :well.  G   To reduce the prevalence of assumptions running contrary to the local H   reality ("it's OK; they know me here"), the "OpenVMS Freeware project"E   (eg: me :-) isn't in a position to offer to provide a clearinghouse2I   for any requests for early distributions nor to offer help in searchingMJ   for any new or updated distributions of OpenVMS Freeware tools.  (That'sJ   one of many tasks that I simply don't have the time available to offer.)  H   The "OpenVMS Freeware project" :-) is continually looking for new and H   also for updates to existing distributions.   At present, I am stagingH   all submission pointers and a few downloaded kits on a disk, as I haveH   no time to work on the next Freeware distribution right now -- this isG   also centrally why I cannot even remotely consider offering any tools C   clearinghouse service, nor can I offer to port or to fix freewareIH   software packages.   (Yes, I've actually been asked to provide support1   and porting services on a couple of occasions.))  L   Like the FAQ and answering questions, I cannot offer to be a clearinghouseI   service for pre-release copies of Freeware packages.  That said, if youaL   are looking to port a tool and wish to avoid replication, then lemme know.  J   I've previously posted an answer back to Ben Armstrong with the pointersG   that I had found in an older discussion on Ghostscript and Ghostview,sK   before I had realized that Ben's mail message was also cross-posted here.gJ   (I'll be adding the Ghostview/Ghostscript FTP URL to the next FAQ, too.)     No offense is intended.p     N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------J       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.comN  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:24:39 +0200e( From: "Philip Lewis" <philip@nospam.com>? Subject: Re: OpenVMS Itanium port progressing well says Gorham! - Message-ID: <b8jv66$23fc$1@news.cybercity.dk>s  ( Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote: > Dave Weatherall wrote:- >> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:07:57 UTC, JF Mezeit+ >> <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca> wrote:r >> >>  >>> "John Gemignani, Jr." wrote: >>>nC >>>> Consider this:  Vaxes are gone, Alpha will eventually be gone.a= >>>> When were YOU planning to move from your VAX with VMS tos >>>> ~something else~ with >>>> Windows or Unix?u >>>sD >>> Consider this: Had they not killed Alpha, how much further aheadC >>> would VMS have been today, and how much further ahead VMS wouldkG >>> have bveen 1 and 2 years down the road with the resources allocated[' >>> to improvements instead of a port ?  >>>-F >>> The port should be viewed as a necessary evil caused by a mistakenE >>> decision to kill alpha. It should not be viewed as something good G >>> for VMS. There is nothing outstanding about IA64, nothing that will C >>> give VMS a technological edge over competitors such as HP-UX ore( >>> Tandem, something it had with Alpha. >> >>F >> Hang on JF. Porting VMS to another platform is _not_ a/the mistake. >> IteH >> would be good for VMS. Dave D. and others have been asking for it forG >> a long time now. I would like to be using at home but then I'm a VMSIG >> bigot so we can't map that desire onto the Home computing populationfE >> at large. As you point out below, the mistake is setting alight to  >> the2 >> boats before you've reached the opposite shore. >> >l7 > That implies that OpenVMS will then be running on twos4 > supported platforms that each have some measure of > long term viability. >P) > Otherwise what other benefit is there ?6 >n > To show that its possible ?r3 > To keep OpenVMS engineering in beers and pizzas ?t >a< > However as we all know IA-64 replaces Alpha, the remainingA > OpenVMS customers at that time shoulder the burden of migrating = > to OpenVMS/IA-64 and the Alpha platform dies and there then, > there is IA-64 and thats it. > # > And what happens if IA-64 fails ?: >:< > And people have not been asking for a port to Itanium they> > have been asking for a port to a low cost commodity platform8 > which Itanium emphatically isn't unless you think that2 > 100,000 for a 4 way server is commodity pricing. >   J Andrew, your back with a pithy statement - dead accurate as well.  IA64 != Commodity.  Not now, not ever.  L VMS is still in the same general position as it was before - low volume chipI architecture (but without the performance) - and I cannot see VMS serverseI being cheaper (relatively speaking) because of the IA64 thing - and IntelRG certainly never said IA64 was going to be a cheap commodity item AFAIK.i  D Therefore the Intel (and by extension IA64) = Commodity argument and& therfore cheaper long term is a false.I People who believe it also certainly believe in in Santa Claus, the tootho fairy and honest jockeys.c   > 	 > regardst > Andrew Harrison6   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Apr 2003 17:49:58 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)? Subject: Re: OpenVMS Itanium port progressing well says Gorham!.= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0304281649.5367680e@posting.google.com>    Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<3EAD49E9.2040502@nospamn.sun.com>...n > >  h7 > That implies that OpenVMS will then be running on two-4 > supported platforms that each have some measure of > long term viability. > ) > Otherwise what other benefit is there ?r  8 how about security, clustering, reliability, no viruses,; 99.9999% uptime, the best hardware/software platform in thei business ...   > < > However as we all know IA-64 replaces Alpha, the remainingA > OpenVMS customers at that time shoulder the burden of migratingu= > to OpenVMS/IA-64 and the Alpha platform dies and there then' > there is IA-64 and thats it.  < what burden?  we went from vax to alpha with ease ... RMS is= RMS and our DIBOL programs were up and running after a simpleo< recompile ... vax/alpha/itanium is and will be easy ... they< all cluster and talk and work together seemlessly ... decnet< is decnet ... ods2 disks on vax work with alpha ... the only; burden there is on vms upgrades is having to place type thet> word BACKUP to transport the data/programs ... this is not sun; or IBM Andrew where upgrades are a real pain in the $#@ ...s   > # > And what happens if IA-64 fails ?u  ? and what happens if sun fails and goes belly up like it is reald< close to doing right now ... I would bet you money that VMS 5 would be snapped up faster than sun garbage would ...s   > < > And people have not been asking for a port to Itanium they> > have been asking for a port to a low cost commodity platform8 > which Itanium emphatically isn't unless you think that2 > 100,000 for a 4 way server is commodity pricing. > 	 > regardsi > Andrew Harrisonr  @ low cost is the code word for "GARBAGE", something micro$oft and< sun and IBM are good at ... you get what you pay for ... DEC> hardware/software was always worth paying more for because you@ got your money worth ... you cannot run a cost effective 100% upA all the time business with commodity garbage Andrew ... ceo's andl@ IT people who bought that line hook and sinker are now adding up@ the loses and finally realizing that after spending 80% of theirC time patching and rebooting and rebuilding and replacing, commodity.? hardware/software is costing them plenty compared to VMS owners-- who can actually get productive work done ...i   ------------------------------   Date: 29 Apr 2003 05:18:51 GMT/ From: "Dave Weatherall" <djweath@attglobal.net> ? Subject: Re: OpenVMS Itanium port progressing well says Gorham!a5 Message-ID: <DTiotGxQ0bj6-pn2-kB5mQm8G9g8k@localhost>p  F On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 06:52:44 UTC, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote:   > < > "Dave Weatherall" <djweath@attglobal.net> wrote in message1 > news:DTiotGxQ0bj6-pn2-MuUErke9ylPS@localhost...s. > > On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:07:57 UTC, JF Mezei, > > <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca> wrote:  L > > > Consider this: Had they not killed Alpha, how much further ahead would > VMS!N > > > have been today, and how much further ahead VMS would have bveen 1 and 2 > yearscM > > > down the road with the resources allocated to improvements instead of a3 > port ? > > >JH > > > The port should be viewed as a necessary evil caused by a mistaken
 > decision to9M > > > kill alpha. It should not be viewed as something good for VMS. There isaB > > > nothing outstanding about IA64, nothing that will give VMS a > technologicaleJ > > > edge over competitors such as HP-UX or Tandem, something it had with > Alpha.  G > > Hang on JF. Porting VMS to another platform is _not_ a/the mistake.t  J > I'm afraid JF's vision is closer to reality than yours is here:  you areD > responding with abstractions without evaluating actual trade-offs.  C Well you're right, I was not defending the specifics of the chosen aA platform and I certainly was not defending the killing of Alpha. s  g > > It would be good for VMS.e  K > Abstractions such as that one.  In some ways, even a port to a completely N > irrelevant platform 'would be good for VMS', in the sense that it would help4 > clean up the code to make additional ports easier.  @ Point taken about Abstractions. I missed the structure on first F reading. Yes that is the/my point. How could one get VMS onto another D platform without moving the architecture dependencies down the code C chain. The port to Alpha did a lot in that area. Moving to IA32 or   IA64 or Opteron involves more.  eG > But would it be a good use of resources?  No way:  there are far moreoL > important things to do, and as JF noted if it weren't for the port (and inM > particular the immediacy of its need, because the Alpha boats *are* burning M > and the sooner VMS can stop depending on them the safer it will be) some ofeM > those more important things could be being done (e.g., material OS advanceshL > that would both help VMS compete and demonstrate its owner's commitment toK > its long-term future), while porting work could proceed more leisurely inhN > the background just in case supporting additional platforms became important > down the road.  F Again I don't disagree, absolutely, with that point of view. I do (tryB to) keep the principle (abstraction) and the actualities separate D though. On the other hand, I'm not a good person to comment on that C area (new developments to match the competition) because I've only eA just been able to drop VMS 5.5-2 as my lowest common denominator  E platform. I am not on the cutting edge and don't miss much from VMS.  E Crikey, I still, by choice, have a 3100/M76 on my desk instead of an e
 AlphaStation.e  1 >  Dave D. and others have been asking for it forr > > a long time now.  aG > Not quite.  What people have been asking for is a port to a commodityrM > platform - in particular, IA32.  That is not what you're getting:  whatever-L > market share Itanic may slowly acquire, its volumes won't be a drop in theN > bucket compared with IA32's (or AMD64's) - and consequently its pricing willL > be closer to Alpha's (remember, a DS10 cost only about $6K, and API proved5 > that it could be considerably less) than to a PC's.n  F Well while I would accept that a port of 64-bit Alpha/VMS to a 32-bit C IA-32 would be a waste _now, a port from VAX 32 bit to IA32 _then, >F would have been completely different. If one then accepts the argumentF that a low cost 64-bit workstation running VMS is desirable, Compaq/HPF would today have had the choice between producing low-cost (low-speed) Alphas, IA-64 and now Opterons.I  6 >  I would like to be using at home but then I'm a VMSH > > bigot so we can't map that desire onto the Home computing populationJ > > at large. As you point out below, the mistake is setting alight to the3 > > boats before you've reached the opposite shore.s > M > Again, not quite on target.  It's not sufficient merely to reach shore, you-N > then have to determine that said shore is so attractive that there's no need0 > for all the things you were used to back home.  F Absolutely, the route chosen by Compaq, with or without HP connivance, is just plain dumb.-  I > If Compaq had kept the Alpha team and actually backed Alpha, that never L > would have happened:  Intel would have been stuck with a power-inefficientI > architecture that it had no idea how to push forward and that therefore-L > would never have looked attractive compared with Alpha (though AMD64 stillH > might, for the low end), and EV8 would be coming next year to solidifyJ > Alpha's high-end leadership.  The current situation with the engineering- > forced-march port is no favor to customers.w  D Again no disagreement. However, one of Fred's arguments for IA64 is D that it provides CHumPaq with a route to provide Reasonable, if not C Low, cost workstations. (Yeah, I too feel that he has contradicted wF himself on occasion in this area). Now you yourself have accepted that@ EV7 and above are aimed more at the multi-CPU Server market and F perhaps too expensive for the workstation roll. The low cost w/s is a  reasonable/sensible aim.  ? In the end, unless HP do somthing to market VMS, our debate is  E somewhat moot. I've just come back from the reading room where I was  C perusing the April edition of Dr. Dobbs. It contains 6 pages of HP -F advertising about its support for Linux, not to mention the back page & advert for its Itanium-2 workstations.   Gotta go to work.J   -- t Cheers - Dave.  B PS. While writing this I was think about the post from Alan Greig @ where he argued, before alphacide, that a port to Itanium was a 9 'must'. He's not been around for a while. I hope he's OK..   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:43:19 GMTo# From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman)aY Subject: Re: OpenVMS on non-HP Itanium boxes (was: Re: OpenVMS Itanium port progressing wt0 Message-ID: <XKdra.516$k32.238@news.cpqcorp.net>  U In article <3EA82C29.9020502@MMaz.com>, "Barry Treahy, Jr." <Treahy@MMaz.com> writes:  :Phillip Helbig wrote: :cF :>>>One of the improvements that customers have wanted/needed most andJ :>>>asked for persistently for many years is the ability for VMS to run onJ :>>>industry-standard hardware.  Having that capability will be well worth" :>>>some short-term inconvenience.
 :>>>       :>>>K :>>Just because it looks and smells like VMS running on a PC, doesn't mean .H :>>that HP is going to make it so.  Past experience with Compaq/DEC has I :>>been that VMS will only dance well (or at all) with the hardware that nH :>>HP/Compaq/DEC choose to code VMS to support.  Additionally, there is J :>>nothing to stop them from coding requirements for custom BIOS's in the I :>>various hardware components that require you to use the HP variant of  - :>>that Adaptec controller, or ATI adapter...w :>>b :>J :>Obviously, HP will not SUPPORT VMS on bargain-basement hardware.  On theI :>other hand, Hoff has stated here quite unequivocally that there will be D :>no intentional goodies to tie VMS to HP hardware, prevent VMS fromG :>running on specific hardware (even from HP) etc---though these things:6 :>have happened in the past (the "NT only" machines).   F   The Microsoft Windows NT Alpha systems -- variously including the -aF   series Personal Workstations, the DECpc 150 AXP series, the whiteboxD   series Alpha systems -- were specifically priced and packaged and E   configured specifically for support of Microsoft Windows NT.  Only.N  I :I respect Hoff's opinion as well as his technical contributions, but is  J :he the official mouth piece of HP on this matter?  Can his statements be < :taken to the bank and HP held on that point?  Probably not.  G   I do not recall making such statements as have been attributed to me eE   here.  (I do strive to be careful with my phrasing, for what shouldaE   be obvious reasons.)  And as was implied in a reply, I am certainlynG   not a corporate officer and cannot make such commitments; what I post-H   are personal opinions (as my sig states), unless identified otherwise.  H   I do recall indicating that the engineers here in OpenVMS Engineering F   have no plans to tie OpenVMS into any specific platform features norG   of requiring specific non-standard features in the Itanium hardware, mF   and that formal support of OpenVMS would very likely target specificH   (now HP) platforms and specific controllers.  I also recall mentioningI   that OpenVMS will likely tie into various specific value-added featureseE   (eg: service and availability) of the supported (now HP) platforms.   I   I also expect that there will be some areas where there are and will betI   ambiguities in the platform specifications, and there will certainly beuH   and continue to be a variety of I/O controllers that are not and will K   not be supported by OpenVMS.  (The byte-code interpreter support proposed K   within ACPI does mean that various compliant widgets are more likely worknJ   and will not specifically require custom drivers when the controller ROMI   code supports the byte-code interpreter interface.  This means somewhatoJ   easier bootstraps and it means the ability to potentially "limp" with anG   otherwise unsupported device.  Performance of the interpreter may not.B   (will not?) match that of a dedicated device driver, of course.)  G   We may well encounter a technical or a business requirement that willaK   require the use of an HP platform, and we certainly won't be particularlybI   testing OpenVMS on third-party platforms.  (But AFAIK, none of this hasd   happened to date.)  H   I expect that at least some folks will now go confirm these statementsI   against those found in the newsgroup archives.  (Please do, of course.)-I   And I expect that my third-party platform statement is not as strong as-!   some folks would like it to be.p  L   As for history... Prior to Compaq becoming part of HP, OpenVMS EngineeringJ   started out the port using a mixture of Itanium platforms available fromH   Compaq and from other vendors; platforms even including those from HP.  C :Additionally, even IF there are no intentional bindings of VMS to  : :specific chipsets, controllers, adapters, for VMS to run G :'industry-standard' hardware as in the quote I original commented on, pJ :they have a giant laundry list of devices to write drivers for.  So this B :still returns us full-circle in that VMS may run on the specific G :hardware HP dictates and not that hardware which I choose (even if it o) :isn't bargain-basement gear as you say).   F   The nice thing about industry standards is that there are so many toF   choose from.  Various industry standards can also include sufficientI   design flexibility for latent support of multiple interpretations, too.t    N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------J       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.comN  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.comp   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Apr 2003 17:27:39 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)Y Subject: Re: OpenVMS on non-HP Itanium boxes (was: Re: OpenVMS Itanium port progressing wS= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0304281627.2b15d275@posting.google.com>   [ hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) wrote in message news:<XKdra.516$k32.238@news.cpqcorp.net>...d > H >   The nice thing about industry standards is that there are so many toH >   choose from.  Various industry standards can also include sufficientK >   design flexibility for latent support of multiple interpretations, too.  >  > P >  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------L >       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.comP >  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------G >         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.comt  B forget bargain basement and third party ... that's micro$oft/linuxB garbage lingo ... I could always rely on DEC hardware and softwareC even if I paid more, it was well worth the investment over time ... ? if you want bargains, then buying DEC stuff used was/is still aa@ better investment than other vendors garbage ... keep the stuff A first class because it is worth paying more and getting alot thani% paying little and getting nothing ...    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Apr 2003 17:58:40 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)Y Subject: Re: OpenVMS.org: Marvel article and HP's press release for Marveland Alpha Retai3< Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0304281658.b95c5f7@posting.google.com>   Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<3E8971CF.6030409@nospamn.sun.com>...n > jlsue wrote:I > > On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:59:00 +0100, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancys2 > > <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote: > >  > >  > >> > >>Main, Kerry wrote: > >  > > M > >>>So, are you saying that these GS Series Customers with Oracle Financials 2 > >>>never considered performance as a criteria??? > >>>uD > >>>Come on, you can do better fud than that .. Lets not get silly. > >>>e1 > >>>While a tad dated now, here are some quotes:g@ > >>>http://h18002.www1.hp.com/alphaserver/gs/quotes/oracle.html > >>>o > >>; > >>So you have some nice sounding testimonials from Oracleo? > >>execs, in return for your porting and joint marketing fees.k > >>? > >>Incedentally they arn't very current, one of the two OracleiA > >>products headlined is Oracle 8i which is in maintenance mode,I > >>9i is the current DBMS.o > >  > > F > > But the point is still that there are testimonials to counter yourB > > argument that the GS160/320 is not scalable enough for runningI > > transaction/database systems.  Apparently in the real world there areM& > > ample examples of happy customers. > >  > 7 > Really so have you actually read the testimonials ???U > C > Acxiom. Avista Advantage, BlueSky Studios, ClearData, Employease,nB > First Health, International Truck and Engine Corporation, Lycos,> > Memorial Herman Healthcare, Parexcel, Southern Freight Lines@ > are all quotes from companies saying how much they are lookingC > forward to getting their GS boxes not how well the boxes perform.  > > > SAIC are a Compaq Integrator, they currently have three jobs? > requiring OpenVMS experience only one of which is a full timetB > OpenVMS placement, no Tru64 jobs, they do on the other hand have0 > they have 131 jobs that require Solaris skills > 	 > Regards  > Andrew Harrison4  ? slowaris skills ... you mean being able to spend 80% of the dayl+ applying patches, rebooting, rebuilding ...    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Apr 2003 18:01:54 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)Y Subject: Re: OpenVMS.org: Marvel article and HP's press release for Marveland Alpha Retaio= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0304281701.3aa7036d@posting.google.com>    Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<3E9D2FA8.7060203@nospamn.sun.com>...r > Bill Todd wrote:8 > > "David Svensson" <icerq4a@spray.se> wrote in message; > > news:734da31c.0304151154.682d0c33@posting.google.com...s > > % > >>Andrew Harrison SUNUK ConsultancylF > >><Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote > I challenge you to/ > >>trawl back through all the public benchmark8 > >>C > >>>results for the 8400-GS140-GS320, compare them with Sun/HP/IBMgA > >>>results for those tests at the same time, you will find that D > >>>except for period between the introduction of the 8400 and when> > >>>Sun introduced the E4500-E10K there is no time when the 39 > >>>servers held a performance lead over Sun/HP and IBM.  > >>G > >>I haven't seen that Sun have been any good on benchmarks the last 4aD > >>years. When they are better they have lots of more CPU's and are: > >>compared and still slower to machines with less CPU's. > >  > > K > > Andrew's point likely being that Sun has supported systems sufficiently P > > larger than Alpha's largest systems to maintain an overall, though certainly* > > not a per-processor, performance lead. > >  >  > No not my point at all.t > ; > If you take the GS320 as the case in point on most of thet? > commercial benchmarks for the system except SPECint and SPECf8> > the Sun's at the time had better total throughput and better > throughput per CPU.p > * > Oracle Apps/SAP and TPC-H all show this. > 	 > Regardst > Andrew Harrison   6 you mean after installing 80,000 cpus into the box ...6 and what a pity with all those cpus, you have to spend8 all of your time patching those 600+ cert advisories ...   ------------------------------   Date: 28 Apr 2003 18:59:38 GMT! From: neilfree@aol.com (NEILFREE) ! Subject: RE: Q - Printer ProblemsK: Message-ID: <20030428145938.19094.00000279@mb-m01.aol.com>  # Try using the following logicals: -s  ? $  DEFINE/SYSTEM TCPIP$TELNETSYM_RETRY_INTERVAL "0 00:00:30.00" = $  DEFINE/SYSTEM TCPIP$TELNETSYM_IDLE_TIMEOUT "0 00:00:30.00"e6 $  DEFINE/SYSTEM TCPIP$TELNETSYM_SUPPRESS_FORMFEEDS 34   Neil Freeman NeilFree@aol.com   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 22:16:33 +0100t- From: Gerald Marsh <gerald@cyfer.demon.co.uk>v3 Subject: SDA's PTHREAD command - Where's the docs?? 8 Message-ID: <b96ravsav7jstovg1js58r6omr8tvooq8o@4ax.com>  @ Still investigating suspected threads problem, I came across the$ PTHREAD command with ANALYZE/SYSTEM.   SDA> pthread helpi  ; produces the usual eunuchs switches of single characters insC practically all combinations of alphabetic characters which are, ofo course, case dependent.   A Any ideas where I can get more info on this. The OpenVMS SDA docse don't even mention it!  " Info gratefully received, as ever.   Bye for now,     Gerald.:   Gerald Marsh  / gerald -at- cyfer -dot- demon -dot- co -dot- uk    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 05:44:31 +0200>2 From: martin@radiogaga.harz.de (Martin Vorlaender)7 Subject: Re: SDA's PTHREAD command - Where's the docs??o; Message-ID: <3eadf51f.524144494f47414741@radiogaga.harz.de>e  . Gerald Marsh (gerald@cyfer.demon.co.uk) wrote:B > Still investigating suspected threads problem, I came across the& > PTHREAD command with ANALYZE/SYSTEM. >i > SDA> pthread help  > = > produces the usual eunuchs switches of single characters inhE > practically all combinations of alphabetic characters which are, ofd > course, case dependent.t >oC > Any ideas where I can get more info on this. The OpenVMS SDA docs  > don't even mention it!  J ...because it's an extension. In fact, all images SYS$SHARE:*$SDA.EXE are.  B These extensions have been implemented by engineers (mostly to aid; debugging) for internal use initially. I'm not aware of anyc3 documentation apart from the included HELP command.i   cu,U   Martin --  A                      | Martin Vorlaender  |  VMS & WNT programmere. Microsoft's answer   | work: mv@pdv-systeme.deA to OpenVMS is        |   http://www.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/ 5 Windows NT 10.0.     | home: martin@radiogaga.harz.deg   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Apr 2003 19:44:51 -0700) From: yeung_kenneth@hotmail.com (Kenneth)g# Subject: Re: SLS change server nodet= Message-ID: <f26516b9.0304281844.5a3da9d3@posting.google.com>*  ? If my SLS server node is going to step down and want to promoten1 another VAX node (prior is a client) to a server,t7 1. do I need to reinstall everything in the new server?eD 2. how can I migrated the previous data file to the new server, just
 copy them?   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:54:35 -0500l1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>2' Subject: Re: StorageTek on SAN with VMS1' Message-ID: <3EADDB5B.82429F35@fsi.net>t   "John N." wrote: >  > David, > J > How did it go?  We just upgraded our GS140 to VMS 7.3-1 this weekend andG > will be firing up our STK L700 (filled with SDLT tapes) soon.  We arelJ > replacing an older STK silo that was directly connected to the GS140 via > multiple scsi boards./  F Well, I dunno, but we have 6 SDLT-320 drives in each of two libraries,E and four FC links to four "NSRs" (they're really STK labelled), on FCs8 link per. Oh yeah, we have six FC paths to the Tape SAN.  > Let's just say that throughput is quite good. Everyone is very
 impressed.  D We have a few SLS wrinkles to iron out, otherwise we're really good.   --   David J. Dachterat dba DJE Systemse http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/-   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 01:24:48 GMT # From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman)jV Subject: Re: telnet connect to network object rejected (was: Re: Q - Printer Problems)0 Message-ID: <Avkra.547$_E2.361@news.cpqcorp.net>  ? In article <sNmdnTKLcbAP2DCjXTWcow@giganews.com>, "David Gray"     <police@spamcop.net> writes:  G > >> TCPIP$TELNETSYM - (...) open_socket_ast invoked with bad IOSB 660:.' > >> connect to network object rejectedi  K :First thing I did was look in the TCP/IP document but nothing sparang out I :as a solution...r  F   If the other box (Microsoft Windows as was mentioned in the originalJ   text, or whatever other system is involved) does not release the printerI   or if the printer does not time out the connection sufficiently quickly F   for your needs, then this does not appear to be centrally an OpenVMSG   problem.  OpenVMS is honoring the printer's back-off request, exactlypF   as it should.  OpenVMS will then retry the connection, as it should.  K   I have seen similar problems before, and these can potentially trace backeL   to ancient and/or buggy printer drivers on Microsoft Windows boxes.  (The J   easiest solution for this is often to relocate the printer to another IPI   address, and get everybody to load new drivers as part of reconnecting.mI   But I digress.)  Find out from the printer which systems are connected, J   and work backward to determine what host was involved and what driver(s)   are in use.  5  K   Existing and related Ask The Wizard topics include topics (2653), (3424),sJ   (4316), (6239), (7596), and particularly please see (1020).  Topics wereK   located with a search for "open_socket_ast" -- the central requirement of L   all of these responses is a requirement to get the printer to time out theK   connection more quickly and/or to configure the other systems involved too<   drop the network connection into the printer more quickly.  K   Again, this behaviour is not specific to OpenVMS.  Any host that respects-M   the printer's busy state will also be subject to this particular behaviour.4   	--:  D   The cross-posting of questions over to the Ask The Wizard area is H   generally discouraged, per the Ask The Wizard rules.  And yes, variousF   of the cross-postings do get noticed.  (If you require an answer andF   particularly if you require an expeditious or an official answer to F   a particular question, please seriously consider direct contact withC   the customer support center.)  Your understanding is appreciated.     N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------J       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.comN  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.com/   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:56:09 GMTo( From: "Mark E. Levy" <mlevy70@attbi.com> Subject: Re: VMS 7.3-1> Message-ID: <Jzgra.123299$gK.227279@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>  5 "Bob Ceculski" <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote in message 7 news:d7791aa1.0304280947.61222dfa@posting.google.com...t   > get TCPware ....  L Another highly helpful answer from Bob. It's completely stupid to think thatD changing the TCP/IP stack will solve all of the problems. If I, as aJ consultant, worked like Bob, I'd be panhandling on street corners. This isK most likely a system resourse problem and will probably impact TCPware in a/ different way.  L While it's true that earlier versions of TCPIP Services were, um, below par,H the current versions are quite good, and in fact, independant benchmarksA show that it performs better than TCPware or Multinet in terms ofd throughput.d  K Don't get me wrong, I happen to like TCPware, and in fact, installed it forrF numerous clients. I used to be able to "sell up" customers when it wasL clearly better, even when they already had a license for TCPIP Services, but no more.   -- e Mark E. Levy" System Management Associates, Inc. www.sysman-inc.com www.openvms.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 00:37:37 +0200 5 From: "Chris Clifford" <chris.clifford@openvms.co.uk>a" Subject: Re: What is a VMS Cluster, Message-ID: <3eadad35$1@news.swissonline.ch>  K "Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy" <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> 9 wrote in message news:3E9D5A39.7070200@nospamn.sun.com...tF > >>>UNIX (Solaris/AIX/HP-UX/Tru64) all support global filesystems and > >>5 > > device access across the nodes in the cluster.>>.a > >sL > > So, in this scenario, are you saying all nodes can write directly to theF > > same block of data at the same time on the same disk (using a lockG > > manager) or are you saying one node acts as a co-ordinator to serve " > > write access to other members? >  > The former  F ...errr... the latter surely, at least in our SunCluster environment?!  L PXFS stands for Proxy File System - the word 'proxy' says it all - where oneI server coordinates all activity to a filesystem. This primary server alsopK passes information to a backup node which can take over the coordination ofA2 the the filesystem should the primary server fail.  K There can be severe performance degradation if a process is trying to writeBF to a filesystem which is not 'managed' by the server on which it runs.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:05:53 -0400d* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>3 Subject: Re: X-windows: adding a widget to a system ) Message-ID: <3EAD8999.C83BB266@istop.com>-   James Gessling wrote:  >  > Also see this manual:p > H > http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/73final/5635/5635pro_015.html#wml_binary  J Thanks will look it up. It is amazing how hard it is to find documentationK about X-windows, in an area where Unix is open source etc etc. It does seem.D like the manuals are slowly being released onto the net by o'reiley.< Universities have the Motif reference manuals available now.   > I did locate my old code at:! > ftp://ftp.decus.org/lib/v00565/2   $define meter_dir <directory>t $run exerciser  ( worked fine on VMS 7.2 (vax, of course).  > Your source will give me a template on how it is done. Thanks.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:47:45 GMTv6 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)N Subject: Re: [DECnet-Plus V7.3-1 ECO2] What has happened to the DECNET_VERSION3 Message-ID: <Bzfra.64749$v62.664272@news.chello.at>a  U In article <wYyb1laM3$JV@elias.decus.ch>, p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture) writes: c >In article <3eabed66$0$49113$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Bart Zorn <B.Zorn@xs4all.nospam.nl> writes:sF >> DECdns is the naming service for DECnet-Plus. Up to VMS V7.3 DECdnsF >> server was only available for VAX (or on Tru64 Unix). Starting withI >> V7.3-1 it is on Alpha, too. If you install or upgrade DECnet-Plus, and J >> you accept the default configuration options, DECdns server will not be
 >> installed.n >nM >Eh? This sounds awfully Windows like. Does that you mean that if I decide tobA >change my configuration to use DECdns I have to reapply the ECO?a  M If you change your configuration to include DECdns server (or DECdts server), L you have to reinstall DECnet-Plus & ECO. It's called an installation option.  I But you could decide to install DECnet-Plus _with_ DECdns server (&DECdtsrE server) and then choose not to configure/start/use it (just like withME parts of OpenVMS or DECwindows-MOTIF which you can taylor on or off).mN And then the ECO installation replace all parts as you obviously like to have.  J But then again, yes, it sounds like windows's way, because VMS's way wouldN be to install all parts _by default_ (and you have to choose "do not install")   -- p Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGERe% Network and OpenVMS system specialisto E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2003.235 ************************m they> > have been asking for a port to a low cost commodity platform8 > which Itanium emphatically isn't unless you think that2 > 100,000 for a 4 way server is commodity pricing. >   J Andrew, 