1 INFO-VAX	Wed, 27 Aug 2003	Volume 2003 : Issue 474       Contents: Re: DSSI problem Re: DSSI problem Re: DSSI problem Re: DSSI problem9 Re: OpenVMS Itanium system access for developers via DSPP 9 Re: OpenVMS Itanium system access for developers via DSPP  Re: OpenVMS Security Re: OpenVMS Security Re: OpenVMS Security Re: OpenVMS Security Re: OpenVMS Security Re: OpenVMS Security Re: OpenVMS Security Re: OpenVMS Security Re: OpenVMS Security Re: OpenVMS Security> Re: VMS for small vendors and small sites?  No thanks, says HP> Re: VMS for small vendors and small sites?  No thanks, says HP> Re: VMS for small vendors and small sites?  No thanks, says HP> Re: VMS for small vendors and small sites?  No thanks, says HP> Re: VMS for small vendors and small sites?  No thanks, says HP1 Re: Will OpenVMS I64 run on a Dell PowerEdge 3250 1 Re: Will OpenVMS I64 run on a Dell PowerEdge 3250   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------   Date: 27 Aug 2003 10:28:46 GMT2 From: Thierry Dussuet <thierry@squeeeez.no-ip.com> Subject: Re: DSSI problem 0 Message-ID: <slrnbkp1uv.de.thierry@VENUS.Family>  ? In article <bie697$9iq$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>, nic wrote:  > Paul Repacholi wrote: 7 >> Thierry Dussuet <thierry@squeeeez.no-ip.com> writes:  >>   >>  F >>>- a small green electronic component with a white "O" written below >>>it on the circuit board.  >>   >>  D >> That is one of the Pico Fuses. It should pull out of the terminal >> sockets on the board. > C > However, as the terminator lights up, the pico fuse should be OK.  > D >  From the rest of the messages, I can only think that DSSI cablingC >  from the internal busses has come adrift from the top row of the F >  drives. I've not had a 4000 series chassis in pieces to know how it >  connects.  H If this is what you mean: There are slots in the backplane where you canH put the drives in, and on the backplane you faintly see wires which seemH to go to the processor board.  Then on the processor board there is also9 a ribbon cable going from the board to the control panel. F On the drives themselves, there is a ribbon cable going from the drive) to the plastic thing going into the slot.   D > This would seem logical as none of the drives now appear. They are > receiving power. > B > I suppose one thing to try would be pulling out one of the otherG > drives, it is possible that the interface on one drive is killing the ! > rest of the devices on the bus.   . I've done this now... It still did not help...H But I've seen another thing which happens now, and didn't happen before:D When the VAX starts up, it brings up a menu where you can select theG language.  The button to select this normally is on the right position, ( so it looks like the batteries are down?F Would it be possible that the VAX can't see the DSSI disks because the1 batteries are down?  But then still see the TK70?    Thierry    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:14:26 GMT 1 From: Bob Blunt <robert.blunt@hp.donotspamme.com>  Subject: Re: DSSI problem 0 Message-ID: <mV33b.3380$O05.91@news.cpqcorp.net>   Thierry Dussuet wrote:A > In article <bie697$9iq$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>, nic wrote:  >  >>Paul Repacholi wrote:  >>7 >>>Thierry Dussuet <thierry@squeeeez.no-ip.com> writes:  >>>  >>>  >>> G >>>>- a small green electronic component with a white "O" written below  >>>>it on the circuit board. >>>  >>> D >>>That is one of the Pico Fuses. It should pull out of the terminal >>>sockets on the board. >>C >>However, as the terminator lights up, the pico fuse should be OK.  >>D >> From the rest of the messages, I can only think that DSSI cablingC >> from the internal busses has come adrift from the top row of the F >> drives. I've not had a 4000 series chassis in pieces to know how it >> connects. >  > J > If this is what you mean: There are slots in the backplane where you canJ > put the drives in, and on the backplane you faintly see wires which seemJ > to go to the processor board.  Then on the processor board there is also; > a ribbon cable going from the board to the control panel. H > On the drives themselves, there is a ribbon cable going from the drive+ > to the plastic thing going into the slot.  >  > D >>This would seem logical as none of the drives now appear. They are >>receiving power. >>B >>I suppose one thing to try would be pulling out one of the otherG >>drives, it is possible that the interface on one drive is killing the ! >>rest of the devices on the bus.  >  > 0 > I've done this now... It still did not help...J > But I've seen another thing which happens now, and didn't happen before:F > When the VAX starts up, it brings up a menu where you can select theI > language.  The button to select this normally is on the right position, * > so it looks like the batteries are down?H > Would it be possible that the VAX can't see the DSSI disks because the3 > batteries are down?  But then still see the TK70?  > 	 > Thierry   D Thierry, the TK70 adapter is directly connected to the Q-Bus so you C should always see one.  In my experience, "seeing" the TK70 in the  @ configuration isn't a good indication that you even have a good $ connection to the tape drive itself.    F You DO see the host bus ids when you type "SHOW DSSI" at the console? A Do these match the ID plugs on the front of the console bulkhead?    bob    ------------------------------   Date: 27 Aug 2003 15:55:11 GMT2 From: Thierry Dussuet <thierry@squeeeez.no-ip.com> Subject: Re: DSSI problem 0 Message-ID: <slrnbkpl2v.fo.thierry@VENUS.Family>  A In article <mV33b.3380$O05.91@news.cpqcorp.net>, Bob Blunt wrote:  > Thierry Dussuet wrote:C >>>I suppose one thing to try would be pulling out one of the other H >>>drives, it is possible that the interface on one drive is killing the" >>>rest of the devices on the bus. >>   >>  H >> I've done this now... It still did not help...  But I've seen anotherB >> thing which happens now, and didn't happen before: When the VAXD >> starts up, it brings up a menu where you can select the language.E >> The button to select this normally is on the right position, so it H >> looks like the batteries are down?  Would it be possible that the VAXE >> can't see the DSSI disks because the batteries are down?  But then  >> still see the TK70? >>  
 >> Thierry > E > Thierry, the TK70 adapter is directly connected to the Q-Bus so you D > should always see one.  In my experience, "seeing" the TK70 in theA > configuration isn't a good indication that you even have a good & > connection to the tape drive itself.   Oh... ok...   G > You DO see the host bus ids when you type "SHOW DSSI" at the console? C > Do these match the ID plugs on the front of the console bulkhead?   B Yes I do - they have ID's 6 and 7 (and match).  I've also tried to1 exchange them, and SHOW DSSI reflects the change.    Thierry    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:18:56 +0100 * From: Nic Clews <sendspamhere@[127.0.0.1]> Subject: Re: DSSI problem ' Message-ID: <biili1$hc3$1@lore.csc.com>    Thierry Dussuet wrote: > F > >  From the rest of the messages, I can only think that DSSI cablingE > >  from the internal busses has come adrift from the top row of the H > >  drives. I've not had a 4000 series chassis in pieces to know how it > >  connects. > J > If this is what you mean: There are slots in the backplane where you canJ > put the drives in, and on the backplane you faintly see wires which seemJ > to go to the processor board.  Then on the processor board there is also; > a ribbon cable going from the board to the control panel. H > On the drives themselves, there is a ribbon cable going from the drive+ > to the plastic thing going into the slot.   B I was more thinking you dismantle the system so you can access theF cabling to check it / reseat the connections. This is something I have not had to do.   F > > This would seem logical as none of the drives now appear. They are > > receiving power. > > D > > I suppose one thing to try would be pulling out one of the otherI > > drives, it is possible that the interface on one drive is killing the # > > rest of the devices on the bus.  > 0 > I've done this now... It still did not help...  F And if it's not the cabling, I can only think that the DSSI controllerG is broken, but then again, would you be seeing the controller node plug  ID ?  G I have lost the top of the thread, not sure what system you have, and I G don't know if it is possible to swap the DSSI cabling to use the second > host adapter. THis is also territory I've not been in so it is speculation.  J > But I've seen another thing which happens now, and didn't happen before:F > When the VAX starts up, it brings up a menu where you can select theI > language.  The button to select this normally is on the right position, * > so it looks like the batteries are down?H > Would it be possible that the VAX can't see the DSSI disks because the3 > batteries are down?  But then still see the TK70?   E You are right it is the little battery not getting charged, and no it E won't stop it seeing the DSSI. If the system started to boot you'd be  asked date and time.  H You have my sympathy with this, I'm running out of ideas, the pico fusesF seem OK, the drives spin up and even individually on the DSSI they are@ not working must mean that the DSSI itself has failed somewhere.   --  ? Regards, Nic Clews a.k.a. Mr. CP Charges, CSC Computer Sciences  nclews at csc dot com    ------------------------------    Date: 27 Aug 2003 08:01:42 -0500; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) B Subject: Re: OpenVMS Itanium system access for developers via DSPP3 Message-ID: <NpFalXoZXfBa@eisner.encompasserve.org>   q In article <cf15391e.0308261349.77696f52@posting.google.com>, keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris) writes: @ > The HP Developer and Solution Partner Program (DSPP) is makingF > arrangements for early access to OpenVMS Itanium porting systems for > software developers.  See Y > http://h21007.www2.hp.com/dspp/tech/tech_TechDocumentDetailPage_IDX/1,1701,5354,00.html  > B > "The DSPP migration & testing centers (AMTC) are preparing crossD > development environments for ISVs that would like an early look at< > porting OpenVMS applications to the Itanium architecture."  D    Unfortuneatly it looks like access is only being made as physicalF    access.  Unless the DSPP web site is misleading, one must travel to5    the systems to use them and see the documentation.   9    A step in the right direction, but only a second step.    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:52:44 GMT ( From: Mark Schafer <mark.schafer@hp.com>B Subject: Re: OpenVMS Itanium system access for developers via DSPP2 Message-ID: <wQ13b.3361$mU4.1839@news.cpqcorp.net>  G You must have a "company membership" for many of the program benefits.  H Check them out on the portal at http://www.hp.com/dspp/ or call 800 249 * 3294 (press 4 to speak to a business rep.)   -Mark    Ken Randell wrote:M > Does this include small time (i.e., independent contractor folks) or do you L > have to be part of a company?  I ask this as apparently the OpenVMS SDK isM > not available to independent contractors but only 'companies', so somewhere ' > somebody is making a differentiation.  >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:46:12 +0100 O From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>  Subject: Re: OpenVMS Security 0 Message-ID: <bihul4$b9n$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Bob Koehler wrote: > In article <big30g$m7j$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: >  > = >>Or simply incorrect in the case of OpenVMS where CERTs that ? >>OpenVMS was vunerable to were incorrectly responded to or not  >>responded to at. >  > F >    Or CERTs which pointed at VMS, but were incorrect.  Add all thoseF >    handfulls and you still get a tiny fraction of what other OS get. >       = I only looked at 5 CERTS 4 of them were incorrect for OpenVMS D it was vunerable. I have no idea if OpenVMS was vunerable to others,> but its difficult to see how anyone can be confident about the< accuracy of the others in the past given what appeared to be< a culture security through obscurity which may have resulted in the poor responses to CERTS.   C Its one thing for a vendor to incorrectly respond to a CERT because * they genuinely think they arn't vunerable.  < Its very different when you find that a vendor has respondedC saying that they arn't vunerable while quietly releasing a patch to 2 fix the hole. Which is in essence what Compaq did.   Regards  Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:09:18 +0100 ( From: "John Travell" <john@jomatech.com> Subject: Re: OpenVMS Security 9 Message-ID: <bii7jp$9mahf$1@ID-120847.news.uni-berlin.de>   K "Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy" <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> ; wrote in message news:bihul4$b9n$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com...  > Bob Koehler wrote:J > > In article <big30g$m7j$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK; Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes:  > >  > > ? > >>Or simply incorrect in the case of OpenVMS where CERTs that A > >>OpenVMS was vunerable to were incorrectly responded to or not  > >>responded to at. > >  > > H > >    Or CERTs which pointed at VMS, but were incorrect.  Add all thoseH > >    handfulls and you still get a tiny fraction of what other OS get. > >  >  >  > ? > I only looked at 5 CERTS 4 of them were incorrect for OpenVMS F > it was vunerable. I have no idea if OpenVMS was vunerable to others,@ > but its difficult to see how anyone can be confident about the> > accuracy of the others in the past given what appeared to be> > a culture security through obscurity which may have resulted! > in the poor responses to CERTS.  > E > Its one thing for a vendor to incorrectly respond to a CERT because , > they genuinely think they arn't vunerable. > > > Its very different when you find that a vendor has respondedE > saying that they arn't vunerable while quietly releasing a patch to 4 > fix the hole. Which is in essence what Compaq did. >   2 Can you identify which CERT you are referring to ?  J I see a major difference between being vulnerable and 'the problem exists,2 but trying to exploit it cannot get you anywhere'.  I To me, vulnerable means 'if someone exploits this hole your security, and # possibly data, is shot to ribbons'. E The only way to achieve this latter state is to negate all of the VMS E security, e.g. install a webserver into a fully privileged account...      -- John Travell" Independent VMS crashdump analyst. john- at - jomatech - dot - com  +44-(0)23-92552229 http://www.jomatech.com/         --- & Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).A Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/2003    ------------------------------    Date: 27 Aug 2003 07:58:48 -0500; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)  Subject: Re: OpenVMS Security 3 Message-ID: <Sv8ul1+h+px+@eisner.encompasserve.org>    In article <bihul4$b9n$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: > > > Its very different when you find that a vendor has respondedE > saying that they arn't vunerable while quietly releasing a patch to 4 > fix the hole. Which is in essence what Compaq did.  E    Or to have a competing vendor repeatedly try any excuse to make it A    sound like significantly more CERTs should apply than actually 
    should.  H    And as I've said before, that conclusion is arived at without relying    on CERTs.   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Aug 2003 06:11:46 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) Subject: Re: OpenVMS Security = Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0308270511.1f50ced2@posting.google.com>    Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<big30g$m7j$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...  > = > Or simply incorrect in the case of OpenVMS where CERTs that ? > OpenVMS was vunerable to were incorrectly responded to or not  > responded to at. >  > 	 > Regards  > Andrew Harrison   = didn't sun lay you off yet Andrew ... it would help get their  share price up from $4 ... :)    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:05:15 +0100 O From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>  Subject: Re: OpenVMS Security 0 Message-ID: <biidqr$gep$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Bob Koehler wrote: > In article <bihul4$b9n$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: > > >>Its very different when you find that a vendor has respondedE >>saying that they arn't vunerable while quietly releasing a patch to 4 >>fix the hole. Which is in essence what Compaq did. >  > G >    Or to have a competing vendor repeatedly try any excuse to make it C >    sound like significantly more CERTs should apply than actually  >    should. >   > I have never claimed that Solaris has less CERTS than OpenVMS.  : What I have consistently pointed out is that the excercise7 advocated by people like Bob (which should be enough to : scare anyone off anyway) of counting the CERTS for OpenVMS< and comparing that count with the counts for other platforms: is a waste of time because OpenVMS responses to CERTS were
 not reliable.    Regards  Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:10:24 +0100 O From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>  Subject: Re: OpenVMS Security 0 Message-ID: <biie4h$gep$2@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   John Travell wrote: M > "Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy" <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> = > wrote in message news:bihul4$b9n$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com...  >  >>Bob Koehler wrote: >>I >>>In article <big30g$m7j$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK  >>= > Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes:  >  >>> ? >>>>Or simply incorrect in the case of OpenVMS where CERTs that A >>>>OpenVMS was vunerable to were incorrectly responded to or not  >>>>responded to at. >>>  >>> G >>>   Or CERTs which pointed at VMS, but were incorrect.  Add all those G >>>   handfulls and you still get a tiny fraction of what other OS get.  >>>  >> >> >>? >>I only looked at 5 CERTS 4 of them were incorrect for OpenVMS F >>it was vunerable. I have no idea if OpenVMS was vunerable to others,@ >>but its difficult to see how anyone can be confident about the> >>accuracy of the others in the past given what appeared to be> >>a culture security through obscurity which may have resulted! >>in the poor responses to CERTS.  >>E >>Its one thing for a vendor to incorrectly respond to a CERT because , >>they genuinely think they arn't vunerable. >>> >>Its very different when you find that a vendor has respondedE >>saying that they arn't vunerable while quietly releasing a patch to 4 >>fix the hole. Which is in essence what Compaq did. >> >  > 4 > Can you identify which CERT you are referring to ? >   8 POD, LAND and a number of other IP stack vunerabilities.    L > I see a major difference between being vulnerable and 'the problem exists,4 > but trying to exploit it cannot get you anywhere'. >   : These are all denial of service attacks they don't allow a= hacker to access your system. However they stop you accessing * your system which also isn't a good thing.   Regards  Andrew Harrison K > To me, vulnerable means 'if someone exploits this hole your security, and % > possibly data, is shot to ribbons'. G > The only way to achieve this latter state is to negate all of the VMS G > security, e.g. install a webserver into a fully privileged account...  >  >  > -- > John Travell$ > Independent VMS crashdump analyst.! > john- at - jomatech - dot - com  > +44-(0)23-92552229 > http://www.jomatech.com/ >  >  >  >  > --- ( > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.< > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).C > Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/2003  >  >    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 16:42:12 GMT 9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com>  Subject: Re: OpenVMS Security 2 Message-ID: <Eb53b.3399$E75.1619@news.cpqcorp.net>  K "Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy" <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> ; wrote in message news:biie4h$gep$2@new-usenet.uk.sun.com...  > > 6 > > Can you identify which CERT you are referring to ? > >  > : > POD, LAND and a number of other IP stack vunerabilities. >   J Arguably, VMS "has no IP stack" integrated as part of the OS.  At minimum,G one would need to identify which IP stack is actually installed for the L system to be vulnerable - as they are by no means the same code bases, and IH would expect differing strengths and vulnerabilities.  I would also noteJ that until perhaps 4-5 years ago, most VMS customers probably were runningJ DECnet or DECnet/ISO stacks and so had no such issues... and yes, in orderH to co-exist in a IP world we end up getting at least some of the baggage@ that comes with the UNIX origins of some of the code and design.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:58:11 +0100 O From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>  Subject: Re: OpenVMS Security 0 Message-ID: <biinv3$jnr$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Fred Kleinsorge wrote:M > "Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy" <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> = > wrote in message news:biie4h$gep$2@new-usenet.uk.sun.com...  > 5 >>>Can you identify which CERT you are referring to ?  >>>  >>: >>POD, LAND and a number of other IP stack vunerabilities. >> >  > L > Arguably, VMS "has no IP stack" integrated as part of the OS.  At minimum,I > one would need to identify which IP stack is actually installed for the N > system to be vulnerable - as they are by no means the same code bases, and IJ > would expect differing strengths and vulnerabilities.  I would also noteL > that until perhaps 4-5 years ago, most VMS customers probably were runningL > DECnet or DECnet/ISO stacks and so had no such issues... and yes, in orderJ > to co-exist in a IP world we end up getting at least some of the baggageB > that comes with the UNIX origins of some of the code and design. >  >   9 Arguably but since the IP stack was packaged with OpenVMS  its not a very good defence.  < Sure you could avoid the problem by not installing the stack@ something thats pretty much true for most of the CERT advisories/ don't use bind not vunerable to bind CERTS etc.   > But not responding at all didn't alert OpenVMS admins that had< installed or were thinking of installing the IP stack to the, issues associated with the bundled IP stack.  A This ignorance is dangerous and has interesting side effects like  Bob for example.   Regards  Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------    Date: 27 Aug 2003 10:19:32 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) Subject: Re: OpenVMS Security = Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0308270919.69c0857e@posting.google.com>    Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<biidqr$gep$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...  > Bob Koehler wrote: > > In article <bihul4$b9n$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: > > @ > >>Its very different when you find that a vendor has respondedG > >>saying that they arn't vunerable while quietly releasing a patch to 6 > >>fix the hole. Which is in essence what Compaq did. > >  > > I > >    Or to have a competing vendor repeatedly try any excuse to make it E > >    sound like significantly more CERTs should apply than actually  > >    should. > >  > @ > I have never claimed that Solaris has less CERTS than OpenVMS. > < > What I have consistently pointed out is that the excercise9 > advocated by people like Bob (which should be enough to < > scare anyone off anyway) of counting the CERTS for OpenVMS> > and comparing that count with the counts for other platforms< > is a waste of time because OpenVMS responses to CERTS were > not reliable.  > 	 > Regards  > Andrew Harrison   @ go ahead and attack Bob because you can't attack VMS, and Bob is' smart enough to be running on it ... :)    ------------------------------    Date: 27 Aug 2003 12:12:11 -0500; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)  Subject: Re: OpenVMS Security 3 Message-ID: <0cCLxuuTb7fZ@eisner.encompasserve.org>    In article <biidqr$gep$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: > Bob Koehler wrote: >> In article <bihul4$b9n$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes:  >>  ? >>>Its very different when you find that a vendor has responded F >>>saying that they arn't vunerable while quietly releasing a patch to5 >>>fix the hole. Which is in essence what Compaq did.  >>   >>  H >>    Or to have a competing vendor repeatedly try any excuse to make itD >>    sound like significantly more CERTs should apply than actually
 >>    should.  >>   > @ > I have never claimed that Solaris has less CERTS than OpenVMS.  )    Which has what to do with what I said?    ------------------------------    Date: 27 Aug 2003 05:23:58 -0700. From: mistdragon@zdnetonebox.com (mist dragon)G Subject: Re: VMS for small vendors and small sites?  No thanks, says HP < Message-ID: <7500353b.0308270423.639709e@posting.google.com>  ( > Welcome to Carly's World of Downsizing  B Somehow this fits to hidden agenda I've seen : OVMS is targeted toF large environments with large profits because it cant compete on smallF computers like Rich's. One indicator is from Rich's mail. I believe HP, wants to kill off the small systems in OVMS.  ? Other indicator is that althought official word is that iVMS is F available on 2004, the only boxes are the existing ones replacing DS1*: range and all big models will available from 2005 onwards.  F The new 2005+ boxes are rather different to alpha's on one aspect: youC could scale all alphas from 1-32 processors, whereas in new itanium E boxes you have 2-8, 8 and above models which means basically that you B have to know that you want high-end and the estimated capacity and* those customers are high profit customers.  E The problem of course is, that if HP kills off small range, there are ? very few large customers that will want large itanium boxes. An B example of this is late report of SGI selling 29 large scale boxes running Itaniums.    Doom is near :)    M    ------------------------------    Date: 27 Aug 2003 07:42:24 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) G Subject: Re: VMS for small vendors and small sites?  No thanks, says HP 3 Message-ID: <tlbL$s9Wq1Q1@eisner.encompasserve.org>   m In article <7500353b.0308270423.639709e@posting.google.com>, mistdragon@zdnetonebox.com (mist dragon) writes:   H > The new 2005+ boxes are rather different to alpha's on one aspect: you. > could scale all alphas from 1-32 processors,  B Please post instructions for adding CPUs to my DEC 3000 Model 400.   > whereas in new itaniumG > boxes you have 2-8, 8 and above models which means basically that you D > have to know that you want high-end and the estimated capacity and  < That seems just like the choice between ES45, ES47 and GS80.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:33:29 GMT ( From: David Harrold <DHarrold@wi.rr.com>G Subject: Re: VMS for small vendors and small sites?  No thanks, says HP @ Message-ID: <9f269dd04fc289bf427cb951379adc96@news.teranews.com>  N On 27 Aug 2003 05:23:58 -0700, mistdragon@zdnetonebox.com (mist dragon) wrote:   [snip]   > G >The new 2005+ boxes are rather different to alpha's on one aspect: you D >could scale all alphas from 1-32 processors, whereas in new itaniumF >boxes you have 2-8, 8 and above models which means basically that youC >have to know that you want high-end and the estimated capacity and + >those customers are high profit customers.   L That is not entirely true.  For the GS80/160/320 series, you had to make theN same choice.  If you bought a GS80 and then needed more that 8 cpus you neededL a new system.  Same for the Marvel series of systems.  You pick either a 1-8; cpu system (e.g. ES80) or an 8-64 cpu system (e.g. GS1280).    Dave Harrold    N ..............................................................................N David Harrold                              E-Mail: David_Harrold at aurora.orgI Sr. Software Systems Engineer              Phone:          (414) 647-6204 I                                            Pager:          (414) 941-4634 G Aurora Health Care                         Fax:          (414) 647-4999  3031 W. Montana Street Milwaukee, WI 53215    ------------------------------    Date: 27 Aug 2003 10:15:17 -0700' From: icerq4a@spray.se (David Svensson) G Subject: Re: VMS for small vendors and small sites?  No thanks, says HP = Message-ID: <734da31c.0308270915.598e62e6@posting.google.com>   r mistdragon@zdnetonebox.com (mist dragon) wrote in message news:<7500353b.0308270423.639709e@posting.google.com>...* > > Welcome to Carly's World of Downsizing > H > The new 2005+ boxes are rather different to alpha's on one aspect: youE > could scale all alphas from 1-32 processors, whereas in new itanium G > boxes you have 2-8, 8 and above models which means basically that you D > have to know that you want high-end and the estimated capacity and, > those customers are high profit customers.  C I don't see that there is a difference in alpha and itanium in this  matter.   G > The problem of course is, that if HP kills off small range, there are A > very few large customers that will want large itanium boxes. An D > example of this is late report of SGI selling 29 large scale boxes > running Itaniums.   E I hardly think HP kills off small range in general. They might not be F active with small range on *VMS*, but as has been told by many people,9 VMS sales are currently selling best with 4-CPU machines.    ------------------------------    Date: 27 Aug 2003 10:25:02 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)G Subject: Re: VMS for small vendors and small sites?  No thanks, says HP = Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0308270925.5ad23aa7@posting.google.com>   r mistdragon@zdnetonebox.com (mist dragon) wrote in message news:<7500353b.0308270423.639709e@posting.google.com>...* > > Welcome to Carly's World of Downsizing > D > Somehow this fits to hidden agenda I've seen : OVMS is targeted toH > large environments with large profits because it cant compete on smallH > computers like Rich's. One indicator is from Rich's mail. I believe HP. > wants to kill off the small systems in OVMS. > A > Other indicator is that althought official word is that iVMS is H > available on 2004, the only boxes are the existing ones replacing DS1*< > range and all big models will available from 2005 onwards. > H > The new 2005+ boxes are rather different to alpha's on one aspect: youE > could scale all alphas from 1-32 processors, whereas in new itanium G > boxes you have 2-8, 8 and above models which means basically that you D > have to know that you want high-end and the estimated capacity and, > those customers are high profit customers. > G > The problem of course is, that if HP kills off small range, there are A > very few large customers that will want large itanium boxes. An D > example of this is late report of SGI selling 29 large scale boxes > running Itaniums.  >  > Doom is near :)   F that is not true, as Rich listened to me on this very subject and wentE ahead with vms support on both the ds25 and ds15 ... I would not call  these large smp boxes ...    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:01:37 GMT & From: jlsue <jefflsxxxz@sbcglobal.net>: Subject: Re: Will OpenVMS I64 run on a Dell PowerEdge 32508 Message-ID: <qr5lkvkat301ptjekh2k37pl3ab3nhvpi8@4ax.com>  E On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:07:42 +0100, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy . <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:  
 >jlsue wrote: H >> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 11:38:13 +0100, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy1 >> <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:  >>   >>   >>     >>   >>  J >> I suspect the difference might be that the customers would, ultimately,H >> expect HP to generate patches/fixes for any issues that crop on thoseJ >> 3rd-party systems.  I've seen similar expectations with other 3rd-party1 >> hardware connected to current OpenVMS systems.D >>   > , >Why would Sun be in a different position ??  G I can't answer that for certain, but most of the early Sun systems thatuK were in my previous employer were not considered mission critical.  So theyp' didn't have the expectation of support.   @ OpenVMS customers have different expectations, imho, and from myJ experience.  I'm not a Sun customer so I don't know why they wouldn't have the same expectations.   >  > N >> Note, too, that if they were adding said systems into a VMScluster with (orM >> even without) HP systems, this could get very tricky, and very complicatede >> to qualify. >> V >IE >Well perhaps you could offer two levels of qualification, standalone- >and clustered.- >-  I Obviously, we could possibly do that... but we'll still get customers whoyH would run these "standalone qualified" systems in a cluster.  Some wouldJ understand their responsibility in this configuration, others not so much.E As an example, we do have customers who run more than the "supported"@H number of OpenVMS versions in a VMScluster system.  Some of them do call# the support centers for assistance.w  9 I can't explain why, I can only report that I've seen it.    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:19:20 +0100.O From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> : Subject: Re: Will OpenVMS I64 run on a Dell PowerEdge 32500 Message-ID: <biiel9$gn2$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   jlsue wrote:G > On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:07:42 +0100, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancyo0 > <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote: >  >  >>jlsue wrote: >>H >>>On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 11:38:13 +0100, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy1 >>><Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:  >>>  >>>e >>>e >> >  >>>eJ >>>I suspect the difference might be that the customers would, ultimately,H >>>expect HP to generate patches/fixes for any issues that crop on thoseJ >>>3rd-party systems.  I've seen similar expectations with other 3rd-party1 >>>hardware connected to current OpenVMS systems.. >>>  >>- >>Why would Sun be in a different position ??n >  > I > I can't answer that for certain, but most of the early Sun systems that M > were in my previous employer were not considered mission critical.  So theyn) > didn't have the expectation of support.c >   @ Ohh so people using Sun's for settlement systems, on-line creditE authorisation, supply chain all of which are either entirely critical E to the companies mission or very costly to lose have low expectationss of support !  C You need to get out a bit more, if you like I will introduce you toaF my current engagement in the UK who are fairly typical for a large SunF customer. OLA, supply chain, WMS, WMS-Supplier gateway etc all on Sun.  A All their mission critical apps run either in Sun or on their IBM & mainframes which are being phased out.  C If you want a laugh you can ask them about what they think of their1? other main systems supplier at the same time, should be a major>* eye opener for you given who you work for.    B > OpenVMS customers have different expectations, imho, and from myL > experience.  I'm not a Sun customer so I don't know why they wouldn't have > the same expectations. >  >  >>N >>>Note, too, that if they were adding said systems into a VMScluster with (orM >>>even without) HP systems, this could get very tricky, and very complicated  >>>to qualify. >>>t >>F >>Well perhaps you could offer two levels of qualification, standalone >>and clustered. >> >  > K > Obviously, we could possibly do that... but we'll still get customers who J > would run these "standalone qualified" systems in a cluster.  Some wouldL > understand their responsibility in this configuration, others not so much.G > As an example, we do have customers who run more than the "supported"lJ > number of OpenVMS versions in a VMScluster system.  Some of them do call% > the support centers for assistance.l >   A But you do this currently, you don't support every combination of A AlphaServer, Storage, OpenVMS Version and Interconnect that thereyF is and all that this would do would increase the range of combinations not supported in a cluster.r   regards  Andrew Harrison ; > I can't explain why, I can only report that I've seen it.  >    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2003.474 ************************