1 INFO-VAX	Thu, 28 Aug 2003	Volume 2003 : Issue 475       Contents:- Re: ??== Unicode client as Open VMS terminal. J Re: AlphaStation ES47 is out, but will it support multiple screens in VMS?J Re: AlphaStation ES47 is out, but will it support multiple screens in VMS?P Re: AlphaStation ES47 is out, but will it support multiple screens in VMS? in VM% Re: Cluster node count (was Re: SYSn) % Re: Cluster node count (was Re: SYSn)   Re: decw$mwm change process nameP Re: Enterprise Systems Journal: Benefits of muti-OS support in a hardware platfo( Re: M7940/DHV-11, TU58, and a VAX 11/750( Re: M7940/DHV-11, TU58, and a VAX 11/7509 Re: OpenVMS Itanium system access for developers via DSPP  Re: OpenVMS Security Re: OpenVMS Security Re: OpenVMS Security Re: OpenVMS Security Re: OpenVMS Security Re: OpenVMS Security Re: OpenVMS Security) Re: OT: 64 bit desktop computing is here.  Re: SYSn3 Re: The Dell Effect (Was: Re: Will OpenVMS I64 ...) ( Re: Unicode client as Open VMS terminal.> Re: VMS for small vendors and small sites?  No thanks, says HP> Re: VMS for small vendors and small sites?  No thanks, says HP1 Re: Will OpenVMS I64 run on a Dell PowerEdge 3250 1 Re: Will OpenVMS I64 run on a Dell PowerEdge 3250   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------   Date: 28 Aug 03 07:54:44 +0200) From: p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture) 6 Subject: Re: ??== Unicode client as Open VMS terminal.) Message-ID: <L$z8QSXJvPa8@elias.decus.ch>   q In article <dlHCZ5Atlz2z@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: p > In article <aus-F51DAF.18030120082003@wrzx08.rz.uni-wuerzburg.de>, Hans Aus <aus@vim.uni-wuerzburg.de> writes:E >> Is it possible to tell Open VMS that the client terminal is using   >> Unicode character code?   >>  C >> I'm trying to use the Terminal in Mac OS X with German Umlautes.  > J >    You don't need Unicode to get an umlaute.  You need a better terminalJ >    emulator.   If you get the X server from Apple you can run a DECterm,6 >    and map one of the non-DECish keys to be Compose. >   @ Excuse me Bob, but I went looking for the "X server from Apple",D but only found pointers to a couple of non-Apple sites, one of which appeared to be a Linux version.   7 Do you have any pointers to the "X server from Apple" ?    TIA.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:36:15 GMT 9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> S Subject: Re: AlphaStation ES47 is out, but will it support multiple screens in VMS? 2 Message-ID: <j_53b.3414$uc5.3061@news.cpqcorp.net>  + "Dirk Munk" <munk@home.nl> wrote in message , news:big63d$sk5$1@news2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl... > Fred Kleinsorge wrote: > F > Oops, it seems that previous discussions on this subject did touch a	 sensitive K > nerve :-) :-). But don't worry Fred, I don't think anyone who has the big  money H > to buy a ES47 or ES45 workstation will try to save a couple of hundred dollars  > on the graphics card.  >   J The raw nerve was the fact that our support people began to get calls fromA customers who were going out and buying the cards off the street.   K > But on a more serious note now. With all respect for the engineering team  thatE > builds the drivers for the Radeon 7500, it is just a rather low end  graphics > card these days.  K The R7000 is the low-end card.  The 7500 is a mid-range card with very good I performance 2D, fast copies, and transformation, clipping and lighting in + hardware (the 7000 has no TCL in hardware).   = >No self respecting games lover with a PC would buy it today. J > ATI has much faster chips & cards that would be much more in line with a very9 > expensive high-end workstation like a Marvel or a ES45.  >   H Here is the basic issue in a nutshell.  Almost every computer vendor hasH exited the custom 3D graphics hardware business.  Most of the 3D vendorsK themselves have folded or have been taken over.  The only 2 really left are @ ATI and nVidea, with 3DLabs and Matrox perhaps still hanging on.  J nVidea isn't interested in anything that isn't windows, and sells millionsK of copies.  ATI also has that as their primary focus - but at least they'll I talk to you - and maybe help you.  I loved working with 3DLabs - but will 
 they survive?   D The high-end ATI workstation cards are really the IBM technology theD acquired through the purchase of Dimond.   In fact, when we tried toJ negotiate with IBM for the rights to port their X server code for it, they8 wanted more money than they sold the whole business for.  J We (VMS) don't have the resources to do full development for a card, so weK leverage code.  We had to be able to replace both the 3DLabs VX1 as well as J the Powerstorm 300/350 cards - and not do support for 2 new cards.  So theK requirement was - cheap enough for use as a 2D card, and powerful enough to ( do mid-range 3D graphics - one one card.  K > It was my impression that the Radeon 7500 was no more then a pleasant and  veryH > usable graphics card for 'normal' DecWindows applications like Mozilla etc. TheF > fact that there are PCI and AGP versions no doubt contributed to the
 choice forI > this card as a 'standard' graphics card for Alpha systems. I personally  never F > thought of it as a high-end card for a serious workstation where theE > capabilities and performance of a graphics card are very important.  >   K Well, when we started working on it, it was pretty high-end.  But card half K lives are about 6-9 months, so it is no longer as high end as it could have L been.  I suppose the question is how fast is fast enough?  It really dependsI on what you are doing, and where your bottleneck *really* is.  But if you J are *serious* about high end, or lunatic fringe graphics - then you aren'tF going to get it from VMS or the R7500.  But I know of places where the= rendering end is a trivial part of the visualization process.   L Anyway, the R7500 is faster than the VX1 for 2D (in fact, I think people canI retire their 8-plane TGA2's), it is faster than the PS300/350 for 3D.  It K lacks simultanuious pixel formats and overlay planes.  But it's a heck of a  lot cheaper than the PS350.   I > Now if the VMS drivers would also be generic for all Radeon chips (like  with theH > ATI Windows drivers), you could use any ATI card, even the latest very fast6 > ones. I just don't know how difficult this would be. >   G Dream on.  Radeon is about as generic a term as Powerstorm.  It doesn't G really identify something architecturally pure.  There are Radeons, and L there are Radeons.  We started from the xFree86 code that had been done, andH wrote TCL support for the card (since it wasn't in the xFree86 version).L Our next card will probably be the ATI 7000 (which really *is* the same, butJ without TCL) for 2D on the Itanium (and is built-in on most of the 1-4 CPUJ servers), and we are working on a deal to port the code for the higher-end ATI card for 3D.  ) > What are your thoughts on this matter ?  >   J My thoughts are that everyone thinks there is a magic bullet.  The fact isE that the chip/card vendors pay big teams of very good people to write G Windows support as they develop the hardware.  They run hot and cold on J Linux/xFree86 (they all want to do something, but there isn't any money toK be made in the small volumes).  The Linux/xFree86 code that does exist is a J mixture of good, and really, really bad (take a look at the DRI/DRM designJ sometime).  It is also nowhere near as good as the Windows code.  In fact,I the vendors won't even tell us how to use certain features in the chips - G because it is a competetive advantage that they fear will leak to their C competition, and so it only appears in the Windows implementations.   ? Development time for the *quality* of code that the traditional A UNIX/Workstation customers want for 3D takes significant time and F resources - and we haven't found a way to shrink it.  I can write fromI scratch and *ship* a reasonable 2D DDX and driver in about 4-6 months.  A L high-end 3D card can take anywhere from 9 months to 18 months!  By then, theJ vendors have swept past you in their Windows implementations.  And this isA *not* just VMS talking here.  I've talked to counterparts in UNIX ' development labs in multiple companies.   K It's not like we are writing our own unique 3D code.  We are mostly porting J code.  Little things take time - like the code not doing multi-head 3D, orL the code not really doing a great job on multiple 3D applications running atL the same time.  It's when we take code that supposedly "works" (hey, it runsC on Linux) and start pounding it and find out it only sort-of works.   J So, with "traditional" workstation sales plummetting as they can't competeK with a $2k Windows box with a 2.5GHz x86, and a high-end nVidea card - it's J hard to see good things happening for anyone in the UNIX/VMS or even LinuxE space.  Can Sun maintain a huge graphics development group when their D workstations sales continue to tube and they try to transform into aL "server" company?  Just an example.  Heck, I don't even think Sun has an AGP- bus based card/system (but I could be wrong).   K We here in VMS keep the 3D business alive because we have a small number of J customers who really need it for custom VMS solutions.  Like JSTARS (a bigJ customer, with a mission critical need - and something important to anyoneD who knows someone serving in Iraq for example), or the University ofL Michigan Oncololgy department (a small customer, who uses it for their gammaF scapel - for treating inoperable brain tumors).  Just to name a couple	 examples.   E Otherwise, we could just do 2D and provide a SW based MesaGL.  The 3D C business just isn't profitable enough to expend the resources to be A competetive in the high-performance 3D space.  Tru64 once had SGI ; Reality-Engine level graphics - it didn't save them either.    ------------------------------   Date: 28 Aug 2003 03:47:08 GMT From: healyzh@aracnet.com S Subject: Re: AlphaStation ES47 is out, but will it support multiple screens in VMS? + Message-ID: <bijtvs07u6@enews1.newsguy.com>   8 Fred Kleinsorge <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> wrote:L > So, with "traditional" workstation sales plummetting as they can't competeM > with a $2k Windows box with a 2.5GHz x86, and a high-end nVidea card - it's L > hard to see good things happening for anyone in the UNIX/VMS or even LinuxG > space.  Can Sun maintain a huge graphics development group when their F > workstations sales continue to tube and they try to transform into aN > "server" company?  Just an example.  Heck, I don't even think Sun has an AGP/ > bus based card/system (but I could be wrong).   H Sun uses UPA Slots for thier High-End graphics, but they're using PCI onL thier low-end cards.  As far as I know, all SGI cards are all XIO interface,K BUT they're supposed to be bringing out some new graphics adapters that use I ATI chips (as far as I know they will still be wrapping lots of their own  magic around said chips).     K For me, for VMS, on the occasions want more than a terminal session, I just J redirect my desktop to my Mac or a Windows system.  But then I'm not doing0 anything remotely graphics intensive on OpenVMS.   			Zane    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 23:33:57 +0200  From: Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl>Y Subject: Re: AlphaStation ES47 is out, but will it support multiple screens in VMS? in VM 2 Message-ID: <bij86v$lah$1@news2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>   Fred Kleinsorge wrote:  P >>But on a more serious note now. With all respect for the engineering team thatN >>builds the drivers for the Radeon 7500, it is just a rather low end graphics >>card these days. >  > M > The R7000 is the low-end card.  The 7500 is a mid-range card with very good K > performance 2D, fast copies, and transformation, clipping and lighting in - > hardware (the 7000 has no TCL in hardware).   N  From that point of view I can agree with you. My 'low end' qualification was P merely based on the performance of todays ATI cards compared to the performance P of the 7500. In a recent test the Radeon 9200 products were already regarded as K entry-level graphics cards. The 7500 was by no means designed as a low end  ! product, I fully agree with that.    >  > > >>No self respecting games lover with a PC would buy it today.O >>ATI has much faster chips & cards that would be much more in line with a very 9 >>expensive high-end workstation like a Marvel or a ES45.  >> >  > J > Here is the basic issue in a nutshell.  Almost every computer vendor hasJ > exited the custom 3D graphics hardware business.  Most of the 3D vendorsM > themselves have folded or have been taken over.  The only 2 really left are B > ATI and nVidea, with 3DLabs and Matrox perhaps still hanging on. > L > nVidea isn't interested in anything that isn't windows, and sells millionsM > of copies.  ATI also has that as their primary focus - but at least they'll K > talk to you - and maybe help you.  I loved working with 3DLabs - but will  > they survive?  > F > The high-end ATI workstation cards are really the IBM technology theF > acquired through the purchase of Dimond.   In fact, when we tried toL > negotiate with IBM for the rights to port their X server code for it, they: > wanted more money than they sold the whole business for. > L > We (VMS) don't have the resources to do full development for a card, so weM > leverage code.  We had to be able to replace both the 3DLabs VX1 as well as L > the Powerstorm 300/350 cards - and not do support for 2 new cards.  So theM > requirement was - cheap enough for use as a 2D card, and powerful enough to * > do mid-range 3D graphics - one one card. >  > P >>It was my impression that the Radeon 7500 was no more then a pleasant and veryQ >>usable graphics card for 'normal' DecWindows applications like Mozilla etc. The Q >>fact that there are PCI and AGP versions no doubt contributed to the choice for O >>this card as a 'standard' graphics card for Alpha systems. I personally never F >>thought of it as a high-end card for a serious workstation where theE >>capabilities and performance of a graphics card are very important.  >  > M > Well, when we started working on it, it was pretty high-end.  But card half M > lives are about 6-9 months, so it is no longer as high end as it could have N > been.  I suppose the question is how fast is fast enough?  It really dependsK > on what you are doing, and where your bottleneck *really* is.  But if you L > are *serious* about high end, or lunatic fringe graphics - then you aren'tH > going to get it from VMS or the R7500.  But I know of places where the? > rendering end is a trivial part of the visualization process.  > N > Anyway, the R7500 is faster than the VX1 for 2D (in fact, I think people canK > retire their 8-plane TGA2's), it is faster than the PS300/350 for 3D.  It M > lacks simultanuious pixel formats and overlay planes.  But it's a heck of a  > lot cheaper than the PS350.   Q And a lot cheaper then the 4D20 in my old PWS500 once was :-). No doubt the 7500  N is an improvement over the previous cards, even if those cards once were very  high end (and expensive).    >  > R >>Now if the VMS drivers would also be generic for all Radeon chips (like with theM >>ATI Windows drivers), you could use any ATI card, even the latest very fast 6 >>ones. I just don't know how difficult this would be. >> >  > I > Dream on.  Radeon is about as generic a term as Powerstorm.  It doesn't I > really identify something architecturally pure.  There are Radeons, and N > there are Radeons.  We started from the xFree86 code that had been done, andJ > wrote TCL support for the card (since it wasn't in the xFree86 version).N > Our next card will probably be the ATI 7000 (which really *is* the same, butL > without TCL) for 2D on the Itanium (and is built-in on most of the 1-4 CPUL > servers), and we are working on a deal to port the code for the higher-end > ATI card for 3D.  M Mmmmm. I just don't see why someone would still use the 7000, if the 7500 is  J also available for a peanut price. I suppose there must be a reason.......  O And since you're starting to port for higher end cards, please give us drivers  N for a All-In-Wonder version, so we can watch TV and use the ES47 as a digital 4 VCR (Just kidding of course, I couldn't resist :-) )       >  > ) >>What are your thoughts on this matter ?  >> >  > L > My thoughts are that everyone thinks there is a magic bullet.  The fact isG > that the chip/card vendors pay big teams of very good people to write I > Windows support as they develop the hardware.  They run hot and cold on L > Linux/xFree86 (they all want to do something, but there isn't any money toM > be made in the small volumes).  The Linux/xFree86 code that does exist is a L > mixture of good, and really, really bad (take a look at the DRI/DRM designL > sometime).  It is also nowhere near as good as the Windows code.  In fact,K > the vendors won't even tell us how to use certain features in the chips - I > because it is a competetive advantage that they fear will leak to their E > competition, and so it only appears in the Windows implementations.  > A > Development time for the *quality* of code that the traditional C > UNIX/Workstation customers want for 3D takes significant time and H > resources - and we haven't found a way to shrink it.  I can write fromK > scratch and *ship* a reasonable 2D DDX and driver in about 4-6 months.  A N > high-end 3D card can take anywhere from 9 months to 18 months!  By then, theL > vendors have swept past you in their Windows implementations.  And this isC > *not* just VMS talking here.  I've talked to counterparts in UNIX ) > development labs in multiple companies.  > M > It's not like we are writing our own unique 3D code.  We are mostly porting L > code.  Little things take time - like the code not doing multi-head 3D, orN > the code not really doing a great job on multiple 3D applications running atN > the same time.  It's when we take code that supposedly "works" (hey, it runsE > on Linux) and start pounding it and find out it only sort-of works.    That sounds very familiar...   > L > So, with "traditional" workstation sales plummetting as they can't competeM > with a $2k Windows box with a 2.5GHz x86, and a high-end nVidea card - it's L > hard to see good things happening for anyone in the UNIX/VMS or even LinuxG > space.  Can Sun maintain a huge graphics development group when their F > workstations sales continue to tube and they try to transform into aN > "server" company?  Just an example.  Heck, I don't even think Sun has an AGP/ > bus based card/system (but I could be wrong).   P I don't know either, but I can check tomorrow :-). It seems to me that ATI is a O bit different in this respect. nVidea always was a pure 3D game card producer,  N where as ATI was known to produce cards with high quality 2D performance, and Q very good quality analog video output, making them ideal for 'office' work (just  O as Matrox). And today ATI has the FireGL cards for workstations, incl. drivers  ' for Linux. Maybe there is still hope ??      > M > We here in VMS keep the 3D business alive because we have a small number of L > customers who really need it for custom VMS solutions.  Like JSTARS (a bigL > customer, with a mission critical need - and something important to anyoneF > who knows someone serving in Iraq for example), or the University ofN > Michigan Oncololgy department (a small customer, who uses it for their gammaH > scapel - for treating inoperable brain tumors).  Just to name a couple > examples.   A Ah, the customers-that-can-not-to-be-used-for-VMS-marketing :-) .    > G > Otherwise, we could just do 2D and provide a SW based MesaGL.  The 3D E > business just isn't profitable enough to expend the resources to be C > competetive in the high-performance 3D space.  Tru64 once had SGI = > Reality-Engine level graphics - it didn't save them either.     N Thanks for the extensive reply. Sorry you were not in Atlanta, I really would  have liked to shake hands.   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:44:12 GMT & From: jlsue <jefflsxxxz@sbcglobal.net>. Subject: Re: Cluster node count (was Re: SYSn)8 Message-ID: <03kqkvcec81idq5njhd6j54kltno9p3121@4ax.com>  J On 25 Aug 2003 13:48:32 -0700, keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris) wrote:  F >A cluster of 151 nodes was built (and ran for a number of years) at aE >customer site in Houston, under a special support agreement with VMS < >Engineering.  There were some bugs to fix on the way there:  B Unless there were more than one of these, I'd bet I know that one.I DSVE was a fun project to simplify the management of OpenVMS & VMScluster  systems.   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Aug 2003 23:08:11 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) . Subject: Re: Cluster node count (was Re: SYSn)3 Message-ID: <9f83tJnmFjfI@eisner.encompasserve.org>   a In article <03kqkvcec81idq5njhd6j54kltno9p3121@4ax.com>, jlsue <jefflsxxxz@sbcglobal.net> writes: L > On 25 Aug 2003 13:48:32 -0700, keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris) > wrote: > G >>A cluster of 151 nodes was built (and ran for a number of years) at a F >>customer site in Houston, under a special support agreement with VMS= >>Engineering.  There were some bugs to fix on the way there:  > D > Unless there were more than one of these, I'd bet I know that one.K > DSVE was a fun project to simplify the management of OpenVMS & VMScluster 
 > systems. >   = 	Well to quote a Shannonism... sharp-eyed observers will note @ 	the cluster in question was a Dow Chemical cluster.  I leave it; 	as an exercise (not that difficult - this tidbit is in the  	public domain).  4 	(Hint:  Google this ...   dow openvms cluster 151).     			Rob   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:45:28 GMT 9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> ) Subject: Re: decw$mwm change process name 1 Message-ID: <Y663b.3415$Ib5.546@news.cpqcorp.net>   9 "Keith A. Lewis" <lewis@mazda.mitre.org> wrote in message ( news:bigdvc$acj$1@newslocal.mitre.org...> > "Brian Tillman" <Tillman@sparkingwire.com> writes in article? <3f4bb3c4$1@news.si.com> dated Tue, 26 Aug 2003 15:23:47 -0400: G > >>Aside from that, some non-Motif X functions simply don't work right  using  > >>Windows windows. > > D > >Do you have an example, because I've never run into that problem. > 4 > I don't suggest implementing this yourself, but... > K > When the data in our system is suspected to be less than perfect, there's  a F > red banner at the top of the screen that says so.  It doesn't have a border, H > and if you put anything on top of it it redraws itself so that it's inI > front.  I had a network performance crisis back in the mid 1990s when a F > developer had 2 of these on a single X-terminal, fighting over which should > be in front, but I digress.  > G > Under Exceed with Windows as the WM, it has a border and is moveable, : > minimizeable, etc.  Some might call that a feature.  :^) >   I Yeah, but if you didn't make them override redirect windows, you wouldn't H have had the problem to begin with.  You are just defeating the (perhaps- poor) implementation choice of the developer.    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:52:35 -0400 * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>Y Subject: Re: Enterprise Systems Journal: Benefits of muti-OS support in a hardware platfo 2 Message-ID: <fpWdna_3_5F1ctGiXTWJhw@metrocast.net>  > "Keith Parris" <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message6 news:cf15391e.0308261410.5c49bf9@posting.google.com...G > A 2-part article describes the benefits of being able to run multiple 2 > operating systems on the same hardware platform. > D > Part 1: http://www.esj.com/enterprise/article.asp?EditorialsID=654D > Part 2: http://www.esj.com/enterprise/article.asp?EditorialsID=662 > @ > "HP's Integrity server lines are able to support more than twoG > operating systems -- they're able to handle any combination of HP-UX, , > Linux, Windows, and OpenVMS environments."  @ Wow - just like Alpha in the 1990s (substitute Tru64 for PH-UX).   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 22:50:05 GMT 1 From: Bob Blunt <robert.blunt@hp.donotspamme.com> 1 Subject: Re: M7940/DHV-11, TU58, and a VAX 11/750 2 Message-ID: <xAa3b.3482$Nz5.3401@news.cpqcorp.net>   msell wrote: >  > Hello everyone,  >  > I > I was wondering if anyone on this newsgroup has a suggestion on how to  / > connect a dual-TU58 tape drive to a QBus VAX?  > I > I found a document describing how to configure an M7940 (which I have)  J > for operation with a TU58, and my QBus VAX (MicroVAX II) recognizes the E > drives (the interface, actually) - so the card at least appears to   > partially operate. > F > However - when I try to "mount" a tape, there is no activity on the J > interface (M7940) as tested with a logic probe. This board came from an I > LSI-11/03 in a VAX 11/780, and I believe this board to be operational.  K > The point of using the logic probe is to make a cable to attach the dual   > TU58 to the M7940. > D > The goal is to create a set of boot tapes for my 11/750. I have a J > working VAXCluster with 4000's, and two MicroVAXes, and I'd like to get  > this 11/750 booting. > > > Has anyone here been successful in using a M7940 with TU58s? > ( > Am I barking up the wrong tree?    : ) >  > Thanks for the insight!  >  >  >     - Matt >  >  >  >  >  >   H The M7940 card is what we called a DLV11 in the ancient days, and I can E remember slapping a variant in a MicroVAX and having it come up as a  F device that controlled the TU58 as well.  However, that was because I H had strapped the CSR and Vector (with my wire-wrap tool, no less) to an H alternate address to which VMS responded improperly.  Now the DLV11 did E a bunch of things, but I don't recall that it drove TU58s.  I've got  H various old paperback Interface manuals and whatnot, I'll try and check % to see if some permutation jumps out.   G If you're not getting monitoring any action with a scope at the drive,  I you could still be looking at an interface, cable or drive problem.  The  H add-on TU58s we used to dupe bootable TU58 carts were attached to a PDP F 11/70 with a Unibus controller for the drives.  IIRC, the TU58 didn't D look like a "tape" to VMS, but more like a really teeny, sequential E disk.  Then you've also got to consider you'll be using Exchange (or  F FLX, depending on the age of the O/S you're using to write the tapes).  I None of the 11/75x systems I ran was bootable without the TU58, from the  E rackmount 11/751s we used, built and integrated at Intergraph to the  F pure DEC versions I had in secure environments.  Like the 11/780, you H had to load the "microcode" (or WCS, etc) from the cartridge to get the E system to a point where it would toss control to BOOT58 and load VMB.   H I'll try and locate something on the DLV11 and/or DLV11-J (later called D the DLVJ1, I think).  But that module you have may be something LSI 	 specific.    bob    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:44:28 -0500 / From: Chris Scheers <chris@applied-synergy.com> 1 Subject: Re: M7940/DHV-11, TU58, and a VAX 11/750 3 Message-ID: <3F4D425C.66422A19@applied-synergy.com>    Bob Blunt wrote: > J > None of the 11/75x systems I ran was bootable without the TU58, from theF > rackmount 11/751s we used, built and integrated at Intergraph to theG > pure DEC versions I had in secure environments.  Like the 11/780, you I > had to load the "microcode" (or WCS, etc) from the cartridge to get the G > system to a point where it would toss control to BOOT58 and load VMB.   @ I used to manage two 11/750s that could boot directly from UDA509 attached RA60s.  I think it was boot switch position "D".   F I have a vague recollection that we needed some sort of ROM upgrade to. make this work.  Perhaps we had ROM microcode?  G ----------------------------------------------------------------------- $ Chris Scheers, Applied Synergy, Inc.  C Voice: 817-237-3360            Internet: chris@applied-synergy.com     Fax: 817-237-3074    ------------------------------    Date: 27 Aug 2003 12:39:08 -0700/ From: kenneth.randell@verizon.net (Ken Randell) B Subject: Re: OpenVMS Itanium system access for developers via DSPP= Message-ID: <79de9693.0308271139.6920f731@posting.google.com>   b Mark Schafer <mark.schafer@hp.com> wrote in message news:<wQ13b.3361$mU4.1839@news.cpqcorp.net>...I > You must have a "company membership" for many of the program benefits.  J > 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   > Thanks for the response.  I understand that you must have thisE mentioned "company benefits"...I was simply pointing out that someone A somewhere is making a differentiation (and therefore DSPP program ? 'benefits') between potential small time folks who could/can do > independent VMS contracting work and those who actually have a commercial product(s) for sale.   C The DSPP application process for companies wants information (i.e., A products, etc.) that a small-time consultant guy is not likely to > have, at least not at start-up.  On the DSPP requirements pageU (http://h21007.www2.hp.com/dspp/pp/pp_Requirement_IDX/1,1420,1,00.html?noheader=true) C under the section 'for company membership', it talks about having a / product or service commercially available, etc.   B Perhaps I'm missing something in the DSPP application process, butE this can leave small-time folks in an awkward position.  The hobbiest B license would allows one to run things for strictly non-commercialC purposes, but once you want to do something for compensation (i.e., E consulting) technically you can no longer use the hobbyiest license.  D Purchasing 'real' commercial VMS licenses is prohibitively expensiveE by the time you add in the base license, compilers, etc.  OK, in that D case, the VMS SDK seems like just the ticket, but it's not availableD unless you are a member of a 'company', have a product to sell, etc.  C With older equipment (VAX and ALPHA) readily available via ebay and F other, it would seem to me to be in HP's interest to open this VMS SDKA to a wider audience.  Folks who would take advantage of it likely = don't need the other DSPP 'benefits' such as discounts on new D equipment, rentals, and the like; but more applications on VMS could only be a good thing.    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:24:41 +0100 O From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>  Subject: Re: OpenVMS Security 0 Message-ID: <biipgp$k9e$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Bob Koehler wrote: > In article <biidqr$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$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes:  >>>  >>> @ >>>>Its very different when you find that a vendor has respondedG >>>>saying that they arn't vunerable while quietly releasing a patch to 6 >>>>fix the hole. Which is in essence what Compaq did. >>>  >>> H >>>   Or to have a competing vendor repeatedly try any excuse to make itD >>>   sound like significantly more CERTs should apply than actually
 >>>   should.  >>>  >>@ >>I have never claimed that Solaris has less CERTS than OpenVMS. >  > + >    Which has what to do with what I said?  >     = Perhaps if you had responded to the 2and paragraph instead of  this one, but you didn't shame.    regards  Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:53:47 GMT 9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com>  Subject: Re: OpenVMS Security 2 Message-ID: <Le63b.3417$k75.1453@news.cpqcorp.net>  K "Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy" <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> ; wrote in message news:biinv3$jnr$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com...  > Fred Kleinsorge wrote:' > > "Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy" ' <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> ? > > wrote in message news:biie4h$gep$2@new-usenet.uk.sun.com...  > > 7 > >>>Can you identify which CERT you are referring to ?  > >>>  > >>< > >>POD, LAND and a number of other IP stack vunerabilities. > >> > >  > > E > > Arguably, VMS "has no IP stack" integrated as part of the OS.  At  minimum,K > > one would need to identify which IP stack is actually installed for the J > > system to be vulnerable - as they are by no means the same code bases, and IlL > > would expect differing strengths and vulnerabilities.  I would also noteF > > that until perhaps 4-5 years ago, most VMS customers probably were runningiH > > DECnet or DECnet/ISO stacks and so had no such issues... and yes, in orderoL > > to co-exist in a IP world we end up getting at least some of the baggageD > > that comes with the UNIX origins of some of the code and design. > >u > >  >a; > Arguably but since the IP stack was packaged with OpenVMSe > its not a very good defence. >7  E Hmmm.  Well.  *Our* stack comes as a product that *can* be optionallyMH installed (at least on Alpha, I haven't installed VAX in a dogs age).  AH significant number of customers install 3rd party stacks instead, or the DECnet or OSI stacks.u  > > Sure you could avoid the problem by not installing the stackB > something thats pretty much true for most of the CERT advisories1 > 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. >-  , But are you *sure* it was the bundled stack?  C > This ignorance is dangerous and has interesting side effects like( > Bob for example. >R  L You are pretty much completely ignorant about VMS, but have no problem being a pundit here.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:34:02 +0100pO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>8 Subject: Re: OpenVMS Security 0 Message-ID: <biiq2a$kg5$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Bob Ceculski wrote:a > Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<biidqr$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:m >>>e >>>h@ >>>>Its very different when you find that a vendor has respondedG >>>>saying that they arn't vunerable while quietly releasing a patch tol6 >>>>fix the hole. Which is in essence what Compaq did. >>>r >>> 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 >>>e >>@ >>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.B >>	 >>RegardsF >>Andrew Harrisona >  > B > go ahead and attack Bob because you can't attack VMS, and Bob is) > smart enough to be running on it ... :)n    > Its not about attacking OpenVMS Bob. I have nothing against it as a piece of technology.l  ? Its actually about the attitude that your posts illustrate onlyt too graphically.  > Your OpenVMS is perfect everything else is a lump of S**T type= postings repeated to a lesser degree by other posters on thisa? group are entirely counter productive. They also makes you faire/ game and entirely relevant as a posting target.   ? And if OpenVMS gets damaged in the crossfire then thats a shamen. but thats the price you seem intent on paying.  < It isn't OpenVMS thats the problem Bob you need to look much closer to home.    Regards  Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:17:27 -0700w0 From: Mark Berryman <Mark.Berryman@Mvb.Saic.Com> Subject: Re: OpenVMS Security.' Message-ID: <3f4ca157$1@cpns1.saic.com>d  ( Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote: > Bob Koehler wrote: > J >> In article <big30g$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 thatlA >>> 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.c >> >  >  > ? > I only looked at 5 CERTS 4 of them were incorrect for OpenVMShF > 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.r > E > Its one thing for a vendor to incorrectly respond to a CERT becausen, > 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 tob4 > fix the hole. Which is in essence what Compaq did.  C There are lies, and then there is the stuff the Andrew spews forth.o  G Andrew has been claiming VMS was vulnerable to the attacks in question rH for some time.  He appears desperate to convince others that his stance C is accurate.  It is not, the CERTS are accurate.  I know because I nA explicitly tested several VMS systems for the vulnerabilities in r1 question.  VMS survived every one of the attacks.d  C Note the difference here:  I explicitly tested and found the CERTS t> claims to be accurate.  Andrew has never tested VMS for these 8 vulnerabilities and yet insists that the CERTS are lies.   You decide whom to believe.   
 Mark Berryamn    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:22:43 -0700n0 From: Mark Berryman <Mark.Berryman@Mvb.Saic.Com> Subject: Re: OpenVMS Security ' Message-ID: <3f4ca294$1@cpns1.saic.com>o  ( Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote: > Fred Kleinsorge wrote: > ' >> "Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy" )* >> <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>> >> wrote in message news:biie4h$gep$2@new-usenet.uk.sun.com... >>7 >>>> Can you identify which CERT you are referring to ?e >>>> >>>s< >>> POD, LAND and a number of other IP stack vunerabilities. >>>  >> >>E >> Arguably, VMS "has no IP stack" integrated as part of the OS.  At s >> minimum,tJ >> one would need to identify which IP stack is actually installed for theJ >> system to be vulnerable - as they are by no means the same code bases,  >> and IK >> would expect differing strengths and vulnerabilities.  I would also noteoF >> that until perhaps 4-5 years ago, most VMS customers probably were 
 >> runningH >> DECnet or DECnet/ISO stacks and so had no such issues... and yes, in  >> orderK >> to co-exist in a IP world we end up getting at least some of the baggageeC >> that comes with the UNIX origins of some of the code and design.  >> >> > ; > Arguably but since the IP stack was packaged with OpenVMSe > its not a very good defence.  F Wrong again, Andrew.  No IP stack was bundled with VMS at the time in D question.  It had to be ordered separately and there were (and are)  serveral to choose from.  > > Sure you could avoid the problem by not installing the stackB > something thats pretty much true for most of the CERT advisories1 > don't use bind not vunerable to bind CERTS etc.  > @ > But not responding at all didn't alert OpenVMS admins that had> > installed or were thinking of installing the IP stack to the. > issues associated with the bundled IP stack. > C > This ignorance is dangerous and has interesting side effects like  > Bob for example.  G There is ignorance being displayed here, but you are mistaken in where s it lies.  
 Mark Berrymano   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 20:58:01 GMTi# From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman)i Subject: Re: OpenVMS Security 2 Message-ID: <tX83b.3465$zi5.1960@news.cpqcorp.net>   In article <bihul4$b9n$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes:> :I only looked at 5 CERTS 4 of them were incorrect for OpenVMS :it was vunerable.    G   Assuming that this is a legitimate technical discussion and that yourUI   report here is not simply the furtherence of some Sun marketeering FUD,iF   which CERT reports are being cited here?  I'll get the CERT postingsA   corrected, assuming the problems and the reports are still event
   applicable.   G   On a related topic, I would like to thank your fellow Sun marketeers' F   previous efforts toward FUD-ing this topic, as that effort has been I   quite useful in improving OpenVMS and particularly the OpenVMS handlingw   of CERT security reports.a  N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faqSN  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.comn   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:04:17 GMTa# From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman)I Subject: Re: OpenVMS Securityn2 Message-ID: <l193b.3467$zi5.1829@news.cpqcorp.net>   In article <biidqr$gep$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes:; :What I have consistently pointed out is that the excercisen8 :advocated by people like Bob (which should be enough to; :scare anyone off anyway) of counting the CERTS for OpenVMS = :and comparing that count with the counts for other platforms ; :is a waste of time because OpenVMS responses to CERTS werei :not reliable.  <   I know of non-CERT-reported bugs in all operating systems.  A   But your version certainly sounds better -- particularly if youT?   can assure folks that the Solaris CERT reports haven't missede   the occasional response.  )   Which CERT reports are you citing, BTW?4      N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faqcN  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.coma   ------------------------------   Date: 27 Aug 03 23:31:38 +0200) From: p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture) 2 Subject: Re: OT: 64 bit desktop computing is here.) Message-ID: <abCLbrdcz+mi@elias.decus.ch>o  S In article <bietob$nao$1@news2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>, Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl> writes:  >  >  >> m >>  N >> And another comparison at http://www.theandyzone.com/Computer/shootout.html >> b/ >> I think the author's concluding paragraph attO >> http://www.theandyzone.com/Computer/shootout4.html should not be overlooked:  >> wD >> "It's nice to see that Apple is at least being competitive from aF >> speed standpoint, but it's also easy to lose perspective about whatI >> Macs are all about when looking at speed races. For me, Macs are about), >> elegance and ease of use more than speed. > O > For home use, sure. But please remember that macs are also often in use in a sR > professional surrounding, where they are used for photo editing, video editing, B > sound editing etc. And there the speed will be more then welcome >  >   Getting something doneF >> quickly is part of overall productivity, but even more important isD >> how well it works, how easy it is to use, and how much one enjoysF >> using it. I switched over from Windows because I felt I gained moreF >> than I lost. I have to admit, though, that if I got the speed back,4 >> the rewards of switching would be doubly-sweet!"  >> iI >> Horses for courses, and of course, no Blaster or SoBig to contend withi >> :-)    E Sorry,but I got the impression from that article that that the authoro1 had picked a benchmark close to the work he does.h   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:37:25 GMT.& From: jlsue <jefflsxxxz@sbcglobal.net> Subject: Re: SYSnr8 Message-ID: <imjqkv40r9ot8thv71ted3b3467hh68h3o@4ax.com>  F On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:02:33 +0100, "John Travell" <john@jomatech.com> wrote:   >>J >I remember a UK customer who had a cluster with about 150 nodes active atH >any one time, mostly VAX workstations booting as satellites from one ofG >about a dozen bootnodes. Some users had a habit of shutting down theiruJ >workstation overnight, or when out of the office, so the actual number in >use varied from day to day.I >Very few problems, until they were pushed into migrating to Wintel...:-)h  J I used to work for a company that had a VMScluster system in Houston which; had around 150 nodes.  It was interesting to say the least.    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:43:19 +0100hO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>l< Subject: Re: The Dell Effect (Was: Re: Will OpenVMS I64 ...)0 Message-ID: <biiqjo$kko$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Rob Young wrote: > In article <big7n1$nm1$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: >  >>Rob Young wrote: >> >>>In article <big2p4$m4v$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes:o >>>h >>>e >>>>Rob Young wrote: >>>o >>>  >>>eJ >>>>>	I suspected that some nitpicker would rattle the Packard Bell chain.B >>>>>	The local grocery store chain has higher annual revenue than >>>>>	Packard Bell.s >>>>>0 >>>>K >>>>All you have done is illustrate what everyone knows, if you narrow the  6 >>>>field enough then you can prove anything you want. >>>d >>>e9 >>>	Nonsense.  Things can be wrong even in a narrow view.n >> >>And in this case ??? >> >  > D > 	I narrowed it so that it is a true statement.  What I acknowledge > 	is this:e >  > 			"Dell is unique"t >   A Sure Dell is unique they are the only computer vendor called Dell ? hey lets narrow it a bit more they are the only computer vendorp* called Dell run by someone called Michael.  C As I said earlier your origional statement was incorrect, narrowingmC it as you did of course made it correct up to a point, Dell are the D only computer vendor that doesn't manufacture and develop systems in the top 5 systems vendors.  A So well done your narrowing of the criteria eventualy resulted inq< a correctish point from you. Did it win the argument for you- well sadly no you lost it at the first round.e  * Am I bored with this thread now ? well yes< Am I going to bother responding to any further whittering onA your part ? well no, not much point is there further narrowing of = the criteria on your part won't win an already lost argument.    regardsw Andrew Harrisonf   ------------------------------   Date: 27 Aug 03 23:13:27 +0200) From: p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture)S1 Subject: Re: Unicode client as Open VMS terminal.o) Message-ID: <0YJB74HjSjYB@elias.decus.ch>o  Z In article <QAJ2b.1654$2B6.368893@news.siol.net>, Bob Marcan <bob.marcan@aster.si> writes: >> - > / > ssh has nothing with the accented characters.e > % > $ set terminal/device=vt300/eighbitv >  > is the key    
 Not quite.  ) Telnet rom the Mac can do the rubout key. = telnet -8 can do the accented characters, but canot do ruboutr   ssh gets both right, with   # $ set terminal/device=vt300/eighbits on the VMS sideo   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Aug 2003 12:09:35 -0700& From: jordan@ccs4vms.com (Rich Jordan)G Subject: Re: VMS for small vendors and small sites?  No thanks, says HPd= Message-ID: <cc5619f2.0308271109.605fd524@posting.google.com>o  r mistdragon@zdnetonebox.com (mist dragon) wrote in message news:<7500353b.0308270423.639709e@posting.google.com>... > 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.  D I need to disagree with your first point here.  While it is hard forF VMS to compete at the low end on price, it is not impossible.  And theB main reason remains HP (and Compaq, and DEC's) unwillingness to be? competitive in that area with anything other than wintel.  That7B argument has spawned too many long threads to restart here, but weE _can_ and _have_ placed DS10s in small offices (5-10 users even), and D when we fail to make a sale, it usually isn't price that decided theC issue, but lingering doubts due to the lack of public visibility ofeF VMS support, and the Alphacide (seems they _ALL_ heard about that even< if they had not known VMS was still a living and viable OS).  E Quite often these are companies that have either been burned on otheru= multi-user systems, can no longer get support for their olderaF packages, or who went the wintel route and got sticker shock when theyB added up the prices after the fact, or finally realized that theirC one-person part time support staff could in no way keep up with the E significant increase in management/handling requirements that wintels F mandate, or had their entire office knocked down and data lost for theF n'th time by a virus or worm.  The fact that we can provide referencesE to very long uptimes, reliability, custom software so the system fits E them instead of them forcing themselves into whatever PC package theymE had been using, well known up-front costs, and far better than normalhF PC-level support (if perhaps not as good as it "used to be"), all have helped greatly.   % Your second point remains to be seen.o   Rich Jordano CCSA   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 20:02:01 -0500U, From: "Dave Gudewicz" <k9jdk@NOSPAMarrl.net>G Subject: Re: VMS for small vendors and small sites?  No thanks, says HPs/ Message-ID: <vkql4ai9iedk7c@corp.supernews.com>l  C I emailed the original note, but first removed names to protect the K innocent, to Mark Gorham today.  Within an hour got a reply stating that he E was made aware of this issue and was working it.  So not only is thisrL newsgroup aware of this but also those who can and should do something about it.    Dave...   3 "Rich Jordan" <jordan@ccs4vms.com> wrote in messagey7 news:cc5619f2.0308271109.605fd524@posting.google.com...6; > mistdragon@zdnetonebox.com (mist dragon) wrote in messageg8 news:<7500353b.0308270423.639709e@posting.google.com>... > > F > > Somehow this fits to hidden agenda I've seen : OVMS is targeted toJ > > large environments with large profits because it cant compete on smallJ > > computers like Rich's. One indicator is from Rich's mail. I believe HP0 > > wants to kill off the small systems in OVMS. >nF > I need to disagree with your first point here.  While it is hard forH > VMS to compete at the low end on price, it is not impossible.  And theD > main reason remains HP (and Compaq, and DEC's) unwillingness to beA > competitive in that area with anything other than wintel.  ThatmD > argument has spawned too many long threads to restart here, but weG > _can_ and _have_ placed DS10s in small offices (5-10 users even), andtF > when we fail to make a sale, it usually isn't price that decided theE > issue, but lingering doubts due to the lack of public visibility of H > VMS support, and the Alphacide (seems they _ALL_ heard about that even> > if they had not known VMS was still a living and viable OS). > G > Quite often these are companies that have either been burned on othern? > multi-user systems, can no longer get support for their oldertH > packages, or who went the wintel route and got sticker shock when theyD > added up the prices after the fact, or finally realized that theirE > one-person part time support staff could in no way keep up with theeG > significant increase in management/handling requirements that wintelsbH > mandate, or had their entire office knocked down and data lost for theH > n'th time by a virus or worm.  The fact that we can provide referencesG > to very long uptimes, reliability, custom software so the system fits G > them instead of them forcing themselves into whatever PC package they,G > had been using, well known up-front costs, and far better than normalcH > PC-level support (if perhaps not as good as it "used to be"), all have > helped greatly.. >>' > Your second point remains to be seen.a >s
 > Rich Jordano > CCSh   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:09:48 GMTe& From: jlsue <jefflsxxxz@sbcglobal.net>: Subject: Re: Will OpenVMS I64 run on a Dell PowerEdge 32508 Message-ID: <hphqkv4fg18rf5q2438dpdnd2pb2s960dn@4ax.com>  E On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:19:20 +0100, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancya. <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:  
 >jlsue wrote: H >> On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:07:42 +0100, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy1 >> <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:  >> c >> : >>>jlsue wrote:n >>>sI >>>>On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 11:38:13 +0100, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancyc2 >>>><Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote: >>>>K >>>>I suspect the difference might be that the customers would, ultimately,sI >>>>expect HP to generate patches/fixes for any issues that crop on thosesK >>>>3rd-party systems.  I've seen similar expectations with other 3rd-partye2 >>>>hardware connected to current OpenVMS systems. >>>> >>>e. >>>Why would Sun be in a different position ?? >> t >> wJ >> I can't answer that for certain, but most of the early Sun systems thatN >> were in my previous employer were not considered mission critical.  So they* >> didn't have the expectation of support. >> l >tA >Ohh so people using Sun's for settlement systems, on-line credittF >authorisation, supply chain all of which are either entirely criticalF >to the companies mission or very costly to lose have low expectations
 >of support !-  K Calm down man, I didn't mean it as a slight to Sun in any way.  I even saidi9 I can't answer why Sun would be in  a different position.c  F I can only say that in my experience, customers do call for support in3 non-supported environments.  What else do you want?e   >>>sG >>>Well perhaps you could offer two levels of qualification, standalonen >>>and clustered.w >>  L >> Obviously, we could possibly do that... but we'll still get customers whoK >> would run these "standalone qualified" systems in a cluster.  Some wouldnM >> understand their responsibility in this configuration, others not so much.uH >> As an example, we do have customers who run more than the "supported"K >> number of OpenVMS versions in a VMScluster system.  Some of them do call & >> the support centers for assistance. >> s >eB >But you do this currently, you don't support every combination ofB >AlphaServer, Storage, OpenVMS Version and Interconnect that thereG >is and all that this would do would increase the range of combinationsa >not supported in a cluster.  K Sure, HP could do this.  But there are some very valid reason that HP might  not want to.  " Please re-read the sentence below.< >> I can't explain why, I can only report that I've seen it. >>     ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:13:56 GMTy& From: jlsue <jefflsxxxz@sbcglobal.net>: Subject: Re: Will OpenVMS I64 run on a Dell PowerEdge 32508 Message-ID: <q4iqkvko4kq0jp46l2c7d7asvsran2fa9t@4ax.com>  J On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 01:19:59 +0800, Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com> wrote:  ) >jlsue <jefflsxxxz@sbcglobal.net> writes:o >a> >> I suspect the difference might be that the customers would,F >> ultimately, expect HP to generate patches/fixes for any issues thatC >> crop on those 3rd-party systems.  I've seen similar expectationspF >> with other 3rd-party hardware connected to current OpenVMS systems. >lE >> Note, too, that if they were adding said systems into a VMScluster E >> with (or even without) HP systems, this could get very tricky, and4 >> very complicated to qualify.t >rC >But why? They are all industry *STANDARD* remember? Isn't that whya >the whole mess is happening?o > > >Or is itanic the standard you have when you are non-standard.  K So you really believe that a Dell IA64 system is EXACTLY like an HP system?nE Is this true of the IA32 systems today?  I think not.  For 90% of the-: applications the differences probably won't be noticeable.  I However, VMScluster systems tend to push the envelope on internal designs,I of systems.  Systems not designed with this under consideration may work,sJ but there's no way to be sure.  So, is it worth the risk in your business' environment?   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2003.475 ************************