0 INFO-VAX	Mon, 03 Feb 2003	Volume 2003 : Issue 67      Contents: Re: Columbia Re: Columbia Re: Columbia Re: Columbia Re: Columbia Re: Columbia Re: Columbia Re: Columbia Re: Columbia Re: Columbia Re: Columbia Re: Columbia- Re: Could IBM Be the Next Computer Chip King?  Re: ev7 specK How many Publications/Magazines has your software company /product been in? . Re: Most common OpenVMS versions in use today? Newbie with dumb questions Re: Newbie with dumb questions Re: Newbie with dumb questions Re: Newbie with dumb questions% Re: OpenVMS 7.2 (Alpha) Boot Problems - Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 31 - Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 31 - Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 31 - Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 31 - Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 31 - Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 31 - Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 31 - Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 31 - Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 31 - Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 31 - Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 31 , Re: Privileges in a shareable image question Re: Rogues Gallery Re: Rogues Gallery Re: Rogues Gallery2 Re: SKHPC slaps Gartner, naysayers on comp vms ...2 Re: SKHPC slaps Gartner, naysayers on comp vms ...P Re: What makes newsgroups so much fun ... (was: HP Sets the Stage for Alpha's La  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 13:44:51 -0500* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> Subject: Re: Columbia 2 Message-ID: <_HadnYc9ur-t-qCjXTWcpw@metrocast.net>  - "John Santos" <JOHN@egh.com> wrote in message 0 news:1030202120329.44437B-100000@Ives.egh.com...   ...   G > Columbia was in a very different orbit than the station.  Its orbital C > plane was about 30 degrees, vs 55 degrees for the station.  Plane G > changes require a very large amount of fuel; it is extremely unlikely D > Columbia could have changed planes sufficiently to rendezvous with > the station.  I That may well be true, since I have no idea how much fuel is required for J reentry (it seems to be fairly quick, but that still might not require allL that much delta-v - and I assume the shuttle doesn't normally carry all thatK much more fuel than the mission requires) and changing the orbital plane is E not subject to the time/fuel trade-off that often characterizes other A maneuvers (assuming the crew had adequate supplies to make such a  trade-off).    > G > However, one of the benefits having a space station is it is supposed D > to be a safe refuge; maybe NASA should consider in the future onlyD > launching shuttles into orbits where a rendezvous with the stationG > would be possible, even when the particular mission has nothing to do  > with the station.   J That's not always feasible - but including sufficient extra fuel to make a rendevous might be.    > - > >  I tend to get steamed up at the level of I > > incompetence in our health care system (where so-called professionals  justJ > > don't bother with a lot of details that don't appear important to them atJ > > the time - while encouraging their patients and associated families toF > > believe that they're right on top of things):  my father died as a	 result of K > > it, and my mother is having a rough time right now for similar reasons.  IfG > > the same kind of casual negligence can happen even in NASA, then it  seems asE > > if it may be something more in the nature of a pervasive societal  > > deficiency.  > > 
 > > - bill > ( > I am sorry to hear about your parents,  G Thanks.  My dad died 10 years ago and AFAICT my mother isn't in serious K danger (just failing to recuperate nearly as quickly as she might), so it's L not an immediate hot-button for me, just a continuing cause for concern that* seemed an appropriate parallel to mention.    and am sorry to have called > you a jerk in another thread.   B That's OK:  as I said, it's what you felt was called for under the? circumstances, which is exactly why I act the way I do as well.   "   I think we're all under a lot of > stress right now.   D While the shuttle tragedy grabs the emotions, I'd say that there areJ considerably more important, and long-term, reasons for stress these days.  4   Please accept my apology, and I'll try to exercise > more restraint in the future.   L I certainly accept it, but urge you to remember that restraint is not alwaysG a virtue - though a willingness to continue discussions, even at a less K restrained energy level if necessary, probably is.  A long-term attitude of J confrontation, however appropriate it may be, does sometimes tend to spillL over into discussions where it may not be as appropriate, and it's somethingG I try at least to remain aware of but do not always succeed in averting  before the fact.   - bill   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Feb 2003 16:04:38 -0600 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)  Subject: Re: Columbia 3 Message-ID: <yrluNH1KOVDb@eisner.encompasserve.org>   Y In article <1030202120329.44437B-100000@Ives.egh.com>, John Santos <JOHN@egh.com> writes:  > G > However, one of the benefits having a space station is it is supposed D > to be a safe refuge; maybe NASA should consider in the future onlyD > launching shuttles into orbits where a rendezvous with the stationG > would be possible, even when the particular mission has nothing to do  > with the station.   A    Not everything can be in the same orbit.  Getting to the space B    station orbit can make some other things impossible.  The spaceD    station was never intended as safe refuge for a troubled shuttle.        ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 23:23:40 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>  Subject: Re: Columbia K Message-ID: <0Mh%9.538943$F2h1.144049@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>   3 "Jan-Erik Sderholm" <aaa@aaa.com> wrote in message   news:3E3DA1D8.2B96DAE@aaa.com...> > Well, I don't know, but there must be something here I don't
 > understand.  > B > 7 people got killed in the first shuttle accident in *17 years*.2 > That is of course terrible for those 7 families. > ? > Now, 40.000 people get killed in car accidents *each year* in 	 > the US.  > B > When did the US President hold a specific TV speach about that ?    < Have not done the math yet, but I'd guess that computed on aF fatalities per million miles traveled basis, space flight looks pretty: good. On the other hand, if calculated on a fatalities perE launch/landing basis, it doesn't look so good. But that's what pilots E everywhere know - takeoffs, and particularly landings, are always the ! most dangerous aspects of flight.   F On the other hand if one assumes that on average (made up stat) that 2C people are killed in each auto crash, and the President gets on his E soapbox and says that is 20,000 stupid acts or conscious decisions by @ American drivers each year that result in the 40,000 fatalities,A there's going to be a large percentage of voting surviving family D members who might get p*ssed and not vote for him next time, even if he is just the messenger.   D Remember, you can put a price on a human life. The auto companies doB it all the time with their design/manufacturing tradeoffs, and theC Federal government does it too in legislation they various enact or C repeal. Since the direct costs of hospitalization/rehabilitation is E paid mostly by private insurance in the U.S., and not by single-payer D public health insurance as in U.K., Canada, and other countries, one@ winds up with less incentive for the government to mandate saferE designs, or to enact mandatory seatbelt laws, or other active/passive  safety measures.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 20:35:46 -0500* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> Subject: Re: Columbia 2 Message-ID: <6e2dnTflq-0dWqCjXTWcqg@metrocast.net>  H "Bob Koehler" <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:Maik0JedttQA@eisner.encompasserve.org... @ > In article <-OqdnY4Mput5ZaGjXTWcoA@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd"  <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes: >  > > (e.g., so that they L > > could have bunkered down in the space station if they looked bad until a > > rescue could be arranged)  > H >    The orbit of the Columbia would not allow it to divert to the spaceI >    station if the problem had been known.  It takes almost as much fuel C >    for that kind of orbit change as it did to get off the ground.   H That's somewhat counter-intuitive.  For example, it should take far lessJ than twice as much fuel as it takes to get to orbit to reverse the orbit aB full 180 degrees, since you're already up there (no gravity or airL resistance to fight during the initial - extremely fuel-expensive - velocityF build-up), so all you need is what's required for the velocity change.  H However, it might take just about the same amount to change the orbit byI only 90 degrees, since you effectively need to cancel the existing vector L and substitute an entirely new one - though that's somewhat beyond the levelJ of physics I'm comfortable doing in my head (and after 35 years that levelC is nowhere near what it once was), so there might be a cheaper way.   F If indeed the difference in orbital inclination was 25 degrees (as wasK stated elsewhere), then to a first approximation (if the model I have in my J head is at all applicable) you'd need about 52% of the fuel you'd need forK the pure ground-to-orbit delta v (neglecting the large amount of additional @ fuel required to get up out of the gravity well and overcome airJ resistance) - effectively, about the sum of the sin and (1 - cosine) of 25F degrees.  While this would certainly be non-negligible, it should be a/ relatively small fraction of the launch amount.    - bill   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Feb 2003 19:59:25 -0600 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)  Subject: Re: Columbia 3 Message-ID: <5n6D6ZZrvfVd@eisner.encompasserve.org>   _ In article <6e2dnTflq-0dWqCjXTWcqg@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:  > J > "Bob Koehler" <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote in message >>I >>    The orbit of the Columbia would not allow it to divert to the space J >>    station if the problem had been known.  It takes almost as much fuelD >>    for that kind of orbit change as it did to get off the ground. > J > That's somewhat counter-intuitive.  For example, it should take far lessL > than twice as much fuel as it takes to get to orbit to reverse the orbit aD > full 180 degrees, since you're already up there (no gravity or airN > resistance to fight during the initial - extremely fuel-expensive - velocityH > build-up), so all you need is what's required for the velocity change. > J > However, it might take just about the same amount to change the orbit byK > only 90 degrees, since you effectively need to cancel the existing vector N > and substitute an entirely new one - though that's somewhat beyond the levelL > of physics I'm comfortable doing in my head (and after 35 years that levelE > is nowhere near what it once was), so there might be a cheaper way.  >   H > If indeed the difference in orbital inclination was 25 degrees (as wasM > stated elsewhere), then to a first approximation (if the model I have in my L > head is at all applicable) you'd need about 52% of the fuel you'd need forM > the pure ground-to-orbit delta v (neglecting the large amount of additional B > fuel required to get up out of the gravity well and overcome airL > resistance) - effectively, about the sum of the sin and (1 - cosine) of 25
 > degrees.  M    The caulcation isn't all that simple, you need more additional fuel to get J    that additional fuel to orbit.  For practial purposes the 52% is order K    of manitude the same as 100%.  Most folks think "turning left" while in  H    orbit is as easy as it is for a car.  So I exagerted, but not by all 
    that much.    ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 21:12:13 -0500* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> Subject: Re: Columbia 2 Message-ID: <QrOdnWwL_L-WTaCjXTWcpQ@metrocast.net>  H "Bob Koehler" <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:5n6D6ZZrvfVd@eisner.encompasserve.org... @ > In article <6e2dnTflq-0dWqCjXTWcqg@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd"  <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes: > > L > > "Bob Koehler" <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote in message > >>K > >>    The orbit of the Columbia would not allow it to divert to the space L > >>    station if the problem had been known.  It takes almost as much fuelF > >>    for that kind of orbit change as it did to get off the ground. > > L > > That's somewhat counter-intuitive.  For example, it should take far lessL > > than twice as much fuel as it takes to get to orbit to reverse the orbit a F > > full 180 degrees, since you're already up there (no gravity or airG > > resistance to fight during the initial - extremely fuel-expensive -  velocityJ > > build-up), so all you need is what's required for the velocity change. > > L > > However, it might take just about the same amount to change the orbit byF > > only 90 degrees, since you effectively need to cancel the existing vectorJ > > and substitute an entirely new one - though that's somewhat beyond the level H > > of physics I'm comfortable doing in my head (and after 35 years that level G > > is nowhere near what it once was), so there might be a cheaper way.  > >  > J > > If indeed the difference in orbital inclination was 25 degrees (as wasL > > stated elsewhere), then to a first approximation (if the model I have in myJ > > head is at all applicable) you'd need about 52% of the fuel you'd need for D > > the pure ground-to-orbit delta v (neglecting the large amount of
 additionalD > > fuel required to get up out of the gravity well and overcome airK > > resistance) - effectively, about the sum of the sin and (1 - cosine) of  25 > > degrees. > * >    The caulcation isn't all that simple,  6 I know - that's why I called it a first approximation.  %  you need more additional fuel to get # >    that additional fuel to orbit.    Absolutely.   (   For practial purposes the 52% is order" >    of manitude the same as 100%.  K However, the real number arrived at by the approximation is a lot less than F 52% (that's just the delta-v approximation, neglecting gravity and air resistance).  *   Most folks think "turning left" while in) >    orbit is as easy as it is for a car.    Good point.       So I exagerted, but not by all >    that much.   G I was just trying to get to a more realistic approximation to determine K whether carrying sufficient extra fuel for that kind of velocity change was I at all feasible.  But without knowing what percentage of take-off fuel is H devoted to other than delta-v use (my guess is a rather high percentage,J just from the vague recollection that the entire Saturn V first stage onlyC got the beast up to 1000 mph or so), that may not be possible here.    - bill   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 21:43:59 -0500* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> Subject: Re: Columbia 2 Message-ID: <2ducnRYPFdfgSqCjXTWcqw@metrocast.net>  5 "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message , news:QrOdnWwL_L-WTaCjXTWcpQ@metrocast.net...   ...   4  without knowing what percentage of take-off fuel isJ > devoted to other than delta-v use (my guess is a rather high percentage,L > just from the vague recollection that the entire Saturn V first stage onlyE > got the beast up to 1000 mph or so), that may not be possible here.   L Since I've learned not to trust my vague recollections over-much, I checked.F Looks like the first stage actually got the vehicle up to about 6K mphJ (still well under 1/4 of the total delta-v for the mission - even ignoringK lunar landing and take-off) and 38 miles.  However, it also comprised about K 80% of the total vehicle launch weight, suggesting that rather a lot of its G fuel was spent fighting gravity and air resistance rather than building L velocity (consider, for example, that at lift-off about 80% of the thrust isF taken up merely balancing gravity, leaving only about 20% for relativeG acceleration - though as fuel consumption rapidly decreases the overall $ vehicle weight this ratio improves).   - bill   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 05:54:16 -0500* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> Subject: Re: Columbia 2 Message-ID: <-OqdnY4Mput5ZaGjXTWcoA@metrocast.net>  > "SAP Trainee" <Didier.Morandi.nospam@Free.fr> wrote in message  news:3E3CCAA5.3050806@Free.fr...D > I'm very affected by the Columbia crew tragedy, 17 years after theJ > Challenger accident. It is sad, for them and for their families, and for! > the whole scientific community.   I Even sadder that there seems to be some real chance that it resulted from L failure to learn the lessons of the Challenger disaster.  If it indeed turnsK out that the insulation from the ET damaged the tiles on the left wing, the F cavalier assumption that it had not (just because some vaguely similarD incidents in the past had not) bears a disturbing resemblance to theL attitude that a few degrees more chill wouldn't make any difference 17 years ago.  K One of the commentators mentioned that early shuttle flights carried repair K tiles just in case damage was discovered in orbit - but the NASA commentary H in the afternoon made it clear that this was no longer the case, nor wasH there any provision even to get out and examine them (e.g., so that theyH could have bunkered down in the space station if they looked bad until aD rescue could be arranged).  I tend to get steamed up at the level ofJ incompetence in our health care system (where so-called professionals justI don't bother with a lot of details that don't appear important to them at F the time - while encouraging their patients and associated families toL believe that they're right on top of things):  my father died as a result ofK it, and my mother is having a rough time right now for similar reasons.  If L the same kind of casual negligence can happen even in NASA, then it seems asA if it may be something more in the nature of a pervasive societal  deficiency.    - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 03:47:22 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>  Subject: Re: Columbia J Message-ID: <eDl%9.204876$ej1.115884@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  5 "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message , news:6e2dnTflq-0dWqCjXTWcqg@metrocast.net... > B > "Bob Koehler" <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote in message / > news:Maik0JedttQA@eisner.encompasserve.org... B > > In article <-OqdnY4Mput5ZaGjXTWcoA@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd"" > <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes: > >  > > > (e.g., so that they F > > > could have bunkered down in the space station if they looked bad until a  > > > rescue could be arranged)  > > D > >    The orbit of the Columbia would not allow it to divert to the space F > >    station if the problem had been known.  It takes almost as much fuelE > >    for that kind of orbit change as it did to get off the ground.  > E > That's somewhat counter-intuitive.  For example, it should take far  lessD > than twice as much fuel as it takes to get to orbit to reverse the orbit a D > full 180 degrees, since you're already up there (no gravity or airE > resistance to fight during the initial - extremely fuel-expensive -  velocity@ > build-up), so all you need is what's required for the velocity change.  > A > However, it might take just about the same amount to change the  orbit byD > only 90 degrees, since you effectively need to cancel the existing vectorD > and substitute an entirely new one - though that's somewhat beyond	 the level F > of physics I'm comfortable doing in my head (and after 35 years that level E > is nowhere near what it once was), so there might be a cheaper way.  > D > If indeed the difference in orbital inclination was 25 degrees (as was B > stated elsewhere), then to a first approximation (if the model I
 have in myC > head is at all applicable) you'd need about 52% of the fuel you'd  need forB > the pure ground-to-orbit delta v (neglecting the large amount of
 additionalB > fuel required to get up out of the gravity well and overcome airF > resistance) - effectively, about the sum of the sin and (1 - cosine) of 25 F > degrees.  While this would certainly be non-negligible, it should be a 1 > relatively small fraction of the launch amount.     ? I suppose NASA could park an orbiting 'tanker' in LEO where the ? shuttle could get to it, using a Titan or other similar totally E expendable booster. The 'tanker' could use the on-board fuel for both ; emergency mid-flight refueling as well as altitude/attitude > adjustments for the tanker itself. Of course the shuttle isn't. equipped for drogue/probe in-flight refueling.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 04:18:56 GMT 8 From: "Jerome H. Fine" <jhfineb9rv@b9rvnospamcompsys.to> Subject: Re: Columbia 4 Message-ID: <3E3DEDA3.1194B8D1@b9rvnospamcompsys.to>   >Bill Todd wrote:   O > >    "Bob Koehler" <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote in message J > >    The orbit of the Columbia would not allow it to divert to the spaceK > >    station if the problem had been known.  It takes almost as much fuel E > >    for that kind of orbit change as it did to get off the ground. J > That's somewhat counter-intuitive.  For example, it should take far lessL > than twice as much fuel as it takes to get to orbit to reverse the orbit aD > full 180 degrees, since you're already up there (no gravity or airN > resistance to fight during the initial - extremely fuel-expensive - velocityH > build-up), so all you need is what's required for the velocity change.   Jerome Fine replies:  B Perigee - closest distance from the center of the earth during the5               orbit, also the velocity is the highest B Apogee - furthest distance from the center of the earth during the4               orbit, also the velocity is the lowest Delta-v   velocity change   C There are a number of other methods that allow an orbit change that A probably take far less delta-v.  One method that substitutes time H is to first change from an almost circular orbit to an elliptical orbit.  F I can't remember my orbital mechanics very well since it has been overG 40 years, but I suspect that a relatively small increase in velocity at D perigee will cause an out-of-proportion change from a circular orbitE to an elliptical orbit.  Although the new orbit would take many times I longer than the 90 minutes for low earth circular orbits, the velocity at F apogee would also be many time less.  Assuming that the shuttle itselfG was not in any immediate danger (except from reentry), a very elongated E orbit with a much lower velocity at apogee would allow the shuttle to J change orbit with a rather small delta-v when the shuttle is at the apogee/ as compared with the delta-v needed at perigee.   J > However, it might take just about the same amount to change the orbit byK > only 90 degrees, since you effectively need to cancel the existing vector N > and substitute an entirely new one - though that's somewhat beyond the levelL > of physics I'm comfortable doing in my head (and after 35 years that levelE > is nowhere near what it once was), so there might be a cheaper way.  > H > If indeed the difference in orbital inclination was 25 degrees (as wasM > stated elsewhere), then to a first approximation (if the model I have in my L > head is at all applicable) you'd need about 52% of the fuel you'd need forM > the pure ground-to-orbit delta v (neglecting the large amount of additional B > fuel required to get up out of the gravity well and overcome airL > resistance) - effectively, about the sum of the sin and (1 - cosine) of 25H > degrees.  While this would certainly be non-negligible, it should be a1 > relatively small fraction of the launch amount.  >  > - bill  M Your assumptions are based on remaining in a low earth almost circular orbit.   M And while I can't remember the delta-v required to elongate the orbit, I tend N to remember it as a appropriate method.  The key point is that if the velocityL at apogee is only 5% of the velocity at perigee, then an orbit change can beN done with very little delta-v.  But the offset is that there is a delta-v cost toK making the orbit elongated and a time cost to wait until apogee is reached.   1 Does anyone have a recent orbital mechanics test?    Sincerely yours,   Jerome Fine  --4 To obtain the original e-mail address, please remove5 the ten characters which immediately follow the 'at'. 8 If you attempted to send a reply and the original e-mail7 address has been discontinued due a high volume of junk 5 e-mail, then the semi-permanent e-mail address can be 7 obtained by replacing the four characters preceding the . 'at' with the four digits of the current year.   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Feb 2003 22:52:49 -0600 4 From: cornelius@encompasserve.org (George Cornelius) Subject: Re: Columbia 3 Message-ID: <KSeLqS31KAhm@eisner.encompasserve.org>   q In article <Maik0JedttQA@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: a > In article <-OqdnY4Mput5ZaGjXTWcoA@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:  >  >> (e.g., so that theyK >> could have bunkered down in the space station if they looked bad until a  >> rescue could be arranged) > H >    The orbit of the Columbia would not allow it to divert to the spaceI >    station if the problem had been known.  It takes almost as much fuel C >    for that kind of orbit change as it did to get off the ground.   E I did an off the cuff calculation [see below] which indicates that in G free space, firing thrusters perpendicular to motion to effect a change I of direction of theta radians requires an 'impulse' - thrust times time -  of        I = m v theta ,  D that is, the space vehicle's momentum times the amount of correctionF in radians.  A typical orbital change might be 30-90 degrees, or about> .5 - 1.5 radians, so I is on the order of m v, the momentum ofA the space craft.  A basic theorem of mechanics states that m v is @ precisely the impulse reguired to accelerate mass m from rest toD velocity v, so on the surface this is an exact corroboration of your claim.  ? To complicate things a bit, this value of I is only the impulse ? applied to the payload itself when in fact the vast majority of A the thrust needed for orbit is used to accelerate (and lift!) the B to-orbit fuel itself along with non-payload infrastructure such asB the boosters and the fuel pod.  But that's the nature of putting aB payload into orbit - there is a huge multiplier applied to payload? mass to determine launch-time mass, and this multiplier applies = to fuel used for orbital maneuvering as well.  To have enough ? fuel in orbit to perform an expensive maneuver such as an orbit C change either requires massive additional amounts of fuel at launch @ time - and we're back to equivalence again - or elimination of a- large portion of the science project payload.   ; George [but what do I know - I'm not the rocket scientist!]    --9 George Cornelius              cornelius@encompasserve.org 0                               cornelius@mayo.edu  J --------------------------------------------------------------------------  >  Centripetal force required for a circular motion: m v^2 / r .  C  Time to travel through arc length theta at radius r: r theta / v .   E  Multiplying these two, we get force times time, called 'impulse', of   $    I = ( m v^2 / r ) ( r theta / v )        = m v theta  E  Observe that this is independent of r, so a large thrust for a short A  period has the same effect in free space as a small thrust for a   correspondingly longer period.   @  Note that gravity, being perpendicular to the motion as well asA  the applied thrust, is being neglected here, as is the fact that B  the required force becomes smaller over time as fuel is consumed.  J --------------------------------------------------------------------------   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Feb 2003 00:38:27 -0600 4 From: cornelius@encompasserve.org (George Cornelius) Subject: Re: Columbia 3 Message-ID: <9eMZbWLEBPPK@eisner.encompasserve.org>   E In article <3E3DEDA3.1194B8D1@b9rvnospamcompsys.to>, "Jerome H. Fine" ) <jhfineb9rv@b9rvnospamcompsys.to> writes: O > Your assumptions are based on remaining in a low earth almost circular orbit.  > O > And while I can't remember the delta-v required to elongate the orbit, I tend P > to remember it as a appropriate method.  The key point is that if the velocityN > at apogee is only 5% of the velocity at perigee, then an orbit change can beP > done with very little delta-v.  But the offset is that there is a delta-v costP > to making the orbit elongated and a time cost to wait until apogee is reached.  H I thought about that as well and almost included it in my post about theE impulse required for an orbital change but wasn't sure it would work, E especially since I initially only thought of effecting the change via E a downward thrust to force the path down towards earth and thus raise C it at some later point in the orbit.  Making the change by applying H forward thrust may work better - after all, applying force perpendicularE to the motion vector adds no net orbital energy but instead puts 100% H of its energy into making gas molecules fly at high speed through space.  E As far as making the correction at apogee, I worried about being able F to get the full burn in during the apogee time, but I guess it doesn'tG matter - just use successive apogees until you get it done.  And apogee > lasts longer than perigee anyway because you're moving slower.   George   --9 George Cornelius              cornelius@encompasserve.org 0                               cornelius@mayo.edu   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 17:33:41 -0800 & From: Greg Cagle <gregc@gregcagle.com>6 Subject: Re: Could IBM Be the Next Computer Chip King?/ Message-ID: <v3rhla4j8ft617@corp.supernews.com>    David Froble wrote:  > J > Rather interesting claim.  Anyone have any idea who, besides HP, really I > has to use the beast?  How many of those 7 OSs are some form of Unix?   H >  From my limited sight, I can see windoze, Unix, and VMS.  Aside from 5 > VMS, how many of the others will NOT run on Hammer?   - HP-UX for one, and I imagine NSK for another.   9 As for what the 7 are, I can only identify five distincet  OSes from Intel's website:   Windows M six varieties of Linux (RH, Caldera, MSC, SUSE, TurboLinux, and United Linux)  HP-UX  NSK  VMS    --  
 Greg Cagle gregc at gregcagle dot com   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 23:18:10 -0000* From: "John Travell" <john@travell.uk.net> Subject: Re: ev7 spec 6 Message-ID: <b1k9fc$13osbm$1@ID-120847.news.dfncis.de>  L "peter.watkinson1@ ntlworld.com (Peter Watkinson)" <nospam> wrote in message+ news:3e3d57a0.6389375@news.cable.ntl.com...  >  > 0 > http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q1/ >  >   K Interesting how the results scale with the number of CPU's. You would never I see that much per cpu increment with Windows, and while this is with T64, 1 VMS would have shown a generally similar pattern.      -- John Travell  VMS crashdump expertise for hire john@travell.uk.net  http://www.travell.uk.net/       --- & Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).A Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Feb 2003 17:57:12 -0800  From: info@phaze-9.com (Jana) T Subject: How many Publications/Magazines has your software company /product been in?= Message-ID: <b6addd01.0302021757.22792dfe@posting.google.com>   B How many Publications/Magazines has your software company /product been in?  E Many software companies do not take full advantage of the opportunity = to hone in on top quality leads through publicity in industry  magazines and trade journals.   E Even in current economic trends and with reduced advertising budgets, C companies can still maintain a healthy influx of high quality leads F through cost effective and timely publicity in industrially recognized trade journals.   E We achieve to get our clients  extremely high press release hit rate,uE averaging between three to 36 media placements per month. Having madeuC many contacts with major software/computer and programming magazineuF editors, We can provide you with the exposure you need.  Our strengthsB include press release development, distribution, article placement< (negotiating and interacting with editors), promotion, and C ultimately - revenue generation via media placement.  We can revamptE old press releases and resend them to get proper coverage,  or we cane write new ones.b  A Our clients have benefited from front cover publicity and feature @ articles in several prominent magazines including the following:= Dr.Dobbs, Cnet, PC Magazine,  Linux World, Network Computing, A Software,  Java World,  Embedded Systems Programming, Informationa  Weekly, Windows Developer, Byte,  D With the economy in the doldrums and with so many companies slashingC their advertising budget, this is an excellent method of promotion.n@ Research indicates that one small paragraph of publicity located@ anywhere inside a magazine will bring in a higher rate of hits -< generally 40 to 80% more leads - than a full page full color* advertisement located in the top position.  D To obtain more information on how I can get your company coverage inE industry publications where your clients will view you, please do notuC hesitate to check out our website at http://www.phaze-9.com You can-2 use the "Press Release Distribution" link or visitE http://www.phaze-9.com/PressReleaseDistribution.htm to obtain pricingc or more information:  ! Thank you for your consideration.-   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Feb 2003 16:48:40 -0800s' From: jbecker@ui.urban.org (Jim Becker)e7 Subject: Re: Most common OpenVMS versions in use today?t= Message-ID: <c113b52c.0302021648.2794ef97@posting.google.com>g  C The Encompass "instapoll" on VMS versions has completed as of a fewlD days ago. It ran for two weeks, which is the usual Encompass and ASC instapoll schedule. See:8 http://www.encompassus.org/pollarchive.cfm?QuestionID=67  D The clear "winner" was 7.x on Alpha with 70.6% of the 194 entries inD the sample. That was 10 or more times higher than any other version,7 except for the VAX version of 7.x, which garnered 8.8%.r    l jbecker@ui.urban.org (Jim Becker) wrote in message news:<c113b52c.0301160947.755a9d0d@posting.google.com>...g > otto@programmer.net (Otto) wrote in message news:<c0b935a5.0301130226.46f4ce7a@posting.google.com>...e
 > > Hello! > > @ > > Could anybody please tell us which OpenVMS versions that are4 > > commonly used in production environments today?  > > Both VAX and Alpha?t > > OpenVMS 5.x, 6.x, 7.x. > >  > > Thanks in advance. > > 
 > > //Otto > D > The current Encompass instapoll, running today and running for two& > weeks, addresses this question. See: > http://www.encompassus.org/s   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 16:08:36 -0800g  From: jasper <jasper@never.tell># Subject: Newbie with dumb questionst8 Message-ID: <2tbr3vghrg346708em00dqg23ntau2vcae@4ax.com>  F Okay, here is my situation. I am totally new to VMS. I normally run XPF and Linux. My main interest is processing data for the SETI program. I@ obtained a DEC Ultimate Workstation 533au2 with dual Alpha 21164E processors (EV56) with 4mb B-cache per cpu. It is set up to dual bootsF between RH Linux 7.2 for Alpha and Open VMS 7.2-1. I currently have itE running the RH os and it is processing SETI data as I write. I have aeA gut feeling that VMS would probably process data faster than doeslD Linux. As I am new, I have today received a book I ordered "Open VMSD User's Guide" by Patrick Holmay. Additionally, I have d/l'ed variousC info from the web on VMS. In perusing the book, I see no mention ofiC GUI interfaces included---are there any automatically included with F 7.2-1? I am of the opinion that VMS will run CDE, KDE and Motif Gui's,D but how do I obtain and install them for VMS? I have nothing againstF command line interface, but prefer a GUI. If you could point me in the= proper direction regarding material to read, acquiring a gui,o? installing it, etc., I sure would appreciate it. Thanks for any  assistance in advance.    > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----A http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!r> -----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Feb 2003 20:04:20 -0600o; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)e' Subject: Re: Newbie with dumb questionsb3 Message-ID: <6oCv2fzd8orF@eisner.encompasserve.org>v  [ In article <2tbr3vghrg346708em00dqg23ntau2vcae@4ax.com>, jasper <jasper@never.tell> writes:b  A > I am of the opinion that VMS will run CDE, KDE and Motif Gui's,oF > but how do I obtain and install them for VMS? I have nothing against+ > command line interface, but prefer a GUI.   A    MOtif and CDE are included with VMS.  KDE has not been ported.BG    If VMS and DECwindows (whcih is X11 windows with both Motif and CDE)cA    is properly installed and licensed it should start on boot andh    presetn a GUI login screen.  G    You need to find out what's installed, what's licensed (running SETI F    should be well within the boundaries of a free hobbyist license forD    just about everything VMS), and then look in the system manager's2    maunal to try having autogen set it up for you.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 20:19:13 -0800   From: jasper <jasper@never.tell>' Subject: Re: Newbie with dumb questions 8 Message-ID: <47rr3vk2eb3rgpdi9tfi287oevgq0ehd04@4ax.com>  E On 2 Feb 2003 20:04:20 -0600, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org- (Bob Koehler) wrote:  \ >In article <2tbr3vghrg346708em00dqg23ntau2vcae@4ax.com>, jasper <jasper@never.tell> writes: > B >> I am of the opinion that VMS will run CDE, KDE and Motif Gui's,G >> but how do I obtain and install them for VMS? I have nothing against3, >> command line interface, but prefer a GUI. >uB >   MOtif and CDE are included with VMS.  KDE has not been ported.H >   If VMS and DECwindows (whcih is X11 windows with both Motif and CDE)B >   is properly installed and licensed it should start on boot and >   presetn a GUI login screen.* > H >   You need to find out what's installed, what's licensed (running SETIG >   should be well within the boundaries of a free hobbyist license fornE >   just about everything VMS), and then look in the system manager'st3 >   maunal to try having autogen set it up for you.iE  I thank you for your response--also the first responder. Your answertF here brings up another dumb question. I have joined Encompass and haveD received my license. But, I have no idea how or where to install it.! Could you help with that as well?     > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----A http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!c> -----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 22:17:03 -0800i  From: jasper <jasper@never.tell>' Subject: Re: Newbie with dumb questionse8 Message-ID: <342s3vsqkdtv79duc7u53vq3qpcl49n4ie@4ax.com>  E On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 20:19:13 -0800, jasper <jasper@never.tell> wrote:e  F >On 2 Feb 2003 20:04:20 -0600, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org >(Bob Koehler) wrote:r >s] >>In article <2tbr3vghrg346708em00dqg23ntau2vcae@4ax.com>, jasper <jasper@never.tell> writes:y >>C >>> I am of the opinion that VMS will run CDE, KDE and Motif Gui's,nH >>> but how do I obtain and install them for VMS? I have nothing against- >>> command line interface, but prefer a GUI.e >>C >>   MOtif and CDE are included with VMS.  KDE has not been ported.eI >>   If VMS and DECwindows (whcih is X11 windows with both Motif and CDE)3C >>   is properly installed and licensed it should start on boot andC  >>   presetn a GUI login screen. >>I >>   You need to find out what's installed, what's licensed (running SETIeH >>   should be well within the boundaries of a free hobbyist license forF >>   just about everything VMS), and then look in the system manager's4 >>   maunal to try having autogen set it up for you.F > I thank you for your response--also the first responder. Your answerG >here brings up another dumb question. I have joined Encompass and haveaE >received my license. But, I have no idea how or where to install it. " >Could you help with that as well?  < Ignore this request--I jumped in and finally got the licenseB installed. No gui, so now I don't have the foggiest idea of what ID should do next. Darn, I had forgotten how hard it is to be a newbie!    > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----A http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!i> -----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Feb 2003 20:23:03 -0800 : From: craig.berry@SignalTreeSolutions.com (Craig A. Berry). Subject: Re: OpenVMS 7.2 (Alpha) Boot Problems= Message-ID: <7f15589f.0302022023.52d33d95@posting.google.com>o  ] "Douglas H. Quebbeman" <dougq@iglou.com> wrote in message news:<3e3c1ebd_1@news.iglou.com>...e  0 > The SCSI controller is a PCS3100 (Professional. > Computer Systems), SymbiosLogic-based 53c8751 > adapter... which works fine with Debian so far,(, > though it's not bootable for Windows 2000. > 2 > Trying to boot OpenVMS leads to several possible4 > error scenarios, but the most frequent can be seen > in the session below:o   <major snippage>  7 >     OpenVMS (TM) Alpha Operating System, Version V7.2u >  > C > %PKA0, Copyright (c) 1998 IntraServer Technology Inc. PKW V2.1.20t@ > %PKA0, SCSI Chip is SYM53C875, Operating mode is SE Ultra SCSI+ > %PKA0, OFFLINE.  ROM Checksum read error.a  ? The driver has a poison pill in it.  It looks to see if the ROM-E identifies the Symbios card as a DEC-branded one and takes the deviceoE offline if not.  It's unlikely there is anything wrong with your cardmC but even more unlikely it will run VMS unless you successfully (andcC probably illegally) reprogram the ROM.  I don't even know if that'so@ technically possible.   What you need is a DEC-branded KZPCA (orD KZPCM?).  Alternately, the generic Qlogic 1020 and 1040 cards should@ work fine as I don't think there are any evil limitations on the Qlogic driver.   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Feb 2003 11:11:41 -0800a" From: xeio77@hotmail.com (Tsarkon)6 Subject: Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 31= Message-ID: <baa86a4a.0302021111.2db94598@posting.google.com>   D Snore. Snore. Snore. Itanium is a pipe dream. I hope you know. Where can I buy an 8-way IA-64?t  F DEC knew how to make customers happy. Compaq did a halfway decent job.E HPQ is a joke, being driven into the ground by Carly Fiorina. Agilent A was the sending of the "smart people" away from the company, theyaE don't make enough money. HP Calculators? Not profitable enough - firenE all the engineers in the calculator division. Shut the division down.eA What I don't understand is why HP keeps this bloated pig of a CPUtE around not to sell. I have had the displeasure of testing an Itanium, D and you know what? Its a joke. IBM, man, even Sun, has a much betterE shot now at culling HP's business. As Andrea Bocelli says, and I singdB it now for VMS customers as they will sing to you when they leave:  "Time to say Gooooodbyeeeeeeeee"  C Whoever you are at HP that posted this: Platt. Gone. Agilent. Gone.bF Capellas, lied to and drummed out. HP Calculators. Gone. BRUCE PERENS.C Gone. DEC's legendary dedication to the advancement of the field offF computing, gutted and stripped. HP OpenMail. Cancelled. Customers toldC to use that god damn joke named Microsoft Exchange Server. Compaq'suE superior handhelds  stolen and assimilated into the Borg Hive at HP.eD GET off while you still can. Or Carly just might pink slip your ass.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 20:02:37 -0600r1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>-6 Subject: Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 31' Message-ID: <3E3DCDBD.C33E7D58@fsi.net>.   Bill Gunshannon wrote: > . > In article <3e3b45cb_2@news.chariot.net.au>,; >         Mark Daniel <Mark.Daniel@wasd.vsm.com.au> writes:  > > 8< snip 8< > >sF > > Many congratulations to VMS Engineering (who in spite of not a fewI > > obstacles and many naysayers have shown, once again, that they can do ? > > whatever they set their minds - and are permitted - to do!)t > >m > G > I don't think that there was anyone here who doubted that engineeringtH > could make VMS boot and even run on IA64.  The naysayers just doubt it% > is the path they should be taking.    > I'd like to go on record as saying that VMS on Itanic is fine,F especially if marketable, mass-producible, ready-for-prime-time ItanicA systems ever see the light of VMS day. Needless to say, I have myoB doubts, and everyday that Itanic is delayed further fortifies that doubt.  A On the other hand, if Itanic only is the target, than no, that iseG *DEFINITELY* not the path to take, especially now that AMD seems poised  to take the 64-bit lead.  % > But that's a managment issue and weh > all know how good that is.  G It would be more correct to say that management, or more correctly, thei lack thereof, *IS* the issue!a  H OVMS Engr. is, IMO, by far the greatest bunch of tech. folks you'll everF find. I do not hold their loyalty to their management against them. BeH there a wolf or two among the sheep who has yet to rise up in defense of8 VMS, then such is(are) the one(s) I would hold at fault.   -- 5 David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systemse http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/e   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 03:03:25 -0000a! From: Z  <zarlenga@conan.ids.net> 6 Subject: Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 31/ Message-ID: <v3rmvtgbpdele7@corp.supernews.com>t  8 Kudos to VMS Engr, a very knowledgeable bunch of people.   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Feb 2003 19:06:49 -0800-( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)6 Subject: Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 31< Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0302021906.ac16ae9@posting.google.com>  t Brannon_Batson@yahoo.com (Brannon Batson) wrote in message news:<4495ef1f.0302020123.4d3c7e81@posting.google.com>...o > bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in message news:<d7791aa1.0302011833.2fb6a7b0@posting.google.com>... 
 > > [snip] > > A > > true, but what is one mans junk is another mans treasure, and @ > > Intel now has alpha and the alpha engineering team, and they> > > will take alpha and incorporate it bit by bit into itanium& > > and they will reap the rewards ... > . > oh, is that what we're supposed to be doing? > 	 > Brannonl > not speaking for Intel  : yes, that is exactly what you are doing, otherwise itanium6 will be just another boat anchor like all the rest ...7 you needed alpha technology ... epic will never get outt8 of port unless you add alpha technology ... what did you: think you did and got caught in 95-96, you ended up making8 alpha chips over that one ... you stole alpha technology8 then and now you wnet and bought the whole alpha team to6 help you save the good ship itanic ... the only reason8 I hold hope for itanium is the alpha team may be able to3 save it ... we shall see with chivano and after ...t   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 05:40:36 -0500* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>6 Subject: Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 312 Message-ID: <oMGdndKA5v4saKGjXTWcqA@metrocast.net>  < "Brannon Batson" <Brannon_Batson@yahoo.com> wrote in message7 news:4495ef1f.0302020123.4d3c7e81@posting.google.com...h5 > bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in messagei9 news:<d7791aa1.0302011833.2fb6a7b0@posting.google.com>...d
 > > [snip] > >sA > > true, but what is one mans junk is another mans treasure, andw@ > > Intel now has alpha and the alpha engineering team, and they> > > will take alpha and incorporate it bit by bit into itanium& > > and they will reap the rewards ... >b. > oh, is that what we're supposed to be doing?  D Didn't you know?  Bob has certainly made it clear enough, many, many times...   - bill   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 05:41:15 -0500* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>6 Subject: Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 312 Message-ID: <IVWdnX9BP-tFaKGjXTWcqg@metrocast.net>  < "Mark Daniel" <Mark.Daniel@wasd.vsm.com.au> wrote in message& news:3e3cd591_1@news.chariot.net.au... > Bill Todd wrote:@ > > "Mark Daniel" <Mark.Daniel@wasd.vsm.com.au> wrote in message* > > news:3e3c6c2c_1@news.chariot.net.au... > 8< snip 8<L > > OK:  once was merely inane, but repetition after correction demonstratesD > > active incompetence - unless, of course, you can point out (with
 citations)J > > several individuals who have repeatedly opined that the VMS team would noteA > > succeed in this endeavor (i.e., 'some persistent naysayers').t > >s > > Clearer now? >aF > ;^)   OK Bill, I don't really mind.  Wouldn't be the first time I'veI > been told I was wrong.  In the so-called grand scheme of things I doubtsE > whether this small item oft' will be recorded amongst the annals oflJ > Computer Science 101.  Let me rephrase the entire heart-felt citation soA > as not to give (or at least reduce as much as humanly possible)e" > opportunity for further polemic. >h% > Congratulations to VMS Engineering.d  @ Now that's a formulation I have no trouble at all agreeing with.   - bill   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 00:00:01 -0500* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>6 Subject: Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 312 Message-ID: <siadnciI_u7CaqCjXTWcqw@metrocast.net>  5 "Bob Ceculski" <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote in messagew6 news:d7791aa1.0302021906.ac16ae9@posting.google.com...< > Brannon_Batson@yahoo.com (Brannon Batson) wrote in message9 news:<4495ef1f.0302020123.4d3c7e81@posting.google.com>...)7 > > bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in messagev9 news:<d7791aa1.0302011833.2fb6a7b0@posting.google.com>...a > > > [snip] > > >lC > > > true, but what is one mans junk is another mans treasure, andiB > > > Intel now has alpha and the alpha engineering team, and they@ > > > will take alpha and incorporate it bit by bit into itanium( > > > and they will reap the rewards ... > > 0 > > oh, is that what we're supposed to be doing? > >. > > Brannon. > > not speaking for Intel > < > yes, that is exactly what you are doing, otherwise itanium8 > will be just another boat anchor like all the rest ...9 > you needed alpha technology ... epic will never get outs: > of port unless you add alpha technology ... what did you< > think you did and got caught in 95-96, you ended up making: > alpha chips over that one ... you stole alpha technology: > then and now you wnet and bought the whole alpha team to$ > help you save the good ship itanic  J Bob, you seem to be unaware (surprise, surprise!) that you're talking to aJ member of that Alpha team rather than to a 'native' Intel person.  But I'mK sure that won't stop you from telling him what he ought to be doing:  after ' all, what does he know compared to you?t   - bill   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 16:25:12 +1100- From: "Paul Nankervis" <paulnank@hotmail.com>v6 Subject: Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 311 Message-ID: <b1kud9$etc$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com>i  @ "Sue Skonetski" <susan.skonetski@hp.nospam.com> wrote in message$ news:b1et1g$1nc$1@web1.cup.hp.com...  $ > To: OpenVMS Systems Software Group >e > Subject: VMS boots on Itanium  >eJ > We are please to announce that OpenVMS has booted on an HP i2000 ItaniumI > system. By successfully executing a DIRECTORY command the official datet and < > time for the Boot Contest is January 31, 2003 3:31 PM EST.  C Congratulations to all involved. This is indeed a good bit of news.   . Now how long before we see the I386 port?  :-)  L And I notice that the boot contest entry page is still there. Is it too late for someone to enter? :-)eA http://h18003.www1.hp.com/hps/ipf-enterprise/openvms_contest.htmlt  I Also I notice lots of commentory on the slashdot web site. Looks like note everyone is a VMS fan... :-(L http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/02/01/1814211  There is also a mention" of this feat on the inquirer pagesL http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7551 but no mention on the register yet?  F Anyhow this news was good to hear!  It would be nice if there are someG followups to provide technical information and war stories about how itdH went. And some information about how much had to be rewritten (eg did itJ involved moving any BLISS/MACRO modules to C? - And has getting rid of VAX- and PAL dependencies helped performance any?)-  F Now I just need to figure out where I can get a cheap Itanium....  :-(   Paul Nankervis   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Feb 2003 06:25:46 GMT - From: djweath@attglobal.net (Dave Weatherall)06 Subject: Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 315 Message-ID: <DTiotGxQ0bj6-pn2-UdUdddUdrdVy@localhost>s  D On Sat, 1 Feb 2003 15:10:33 UTC, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)  wrote:  . > In article <3e3b45cb_2@news.chariot.net.au>,4 > 	Mark Daniel <Mark.Daniel@wasd.vsm.com.au> writes: > > Sue Skonetski wrote: > >> -----Original Message-----i > >> h > >> From: Grant, Clair  > >> e+ > >> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 3:40 PMo > >>  ' > >> To: OpenVMS Systems Software Group  > >> s" > >> Subject: VMS boots on Itanium > >> iM > >> We are please to announce that OpenVMS has booted on an HP i2000 Itaniumo > >> system. > > 8< snip 8< > > G > > Many congratulations to VMS Engineering (who in spite of not a few iJ > > obstacles and many naysayers have shown, once again, that they can do ? > > whatever they set their minds - and are permitted - to do!)o > >  > G > I don't think that there was anyone here who doubted that engineeringtH > could make VMS boot and even run on IA64.  The naysayers just doubt itI > is the path they should be taking.  But that's a managment issue and wea > all know how good that is.  E Quite right Bill. There's a difference between criticising Alphacide a< and criticising a port to Itanium. I don't remember anybody F criticising the _principle_ of the latter, even if they did cast doubtD on the efficacy of Itanium as a CPU per se. Again, any work done in E moving the hardware depencies of VMS down the code ladder has got to r- make it easier to put VMS on other platforms.e  % Now all they've got to do is sell it!f   Cheers - Dave.  F PS. I almost forgot to say well done to those involved. So : WELL DONE all !.   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Feb 2003 06:25:48 GMT - From: djweath@attglobal.net (Dave Weatherall)g6 Subject: Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 315 Message-ID: <DTiotGxQ0bj6-pn2-M5hi7NeKMVqs@localhost>a  D On Sat, 1 Feb 2003 19:55:54 UTC, Alder <PGDEHMKOKIMD@spammotel.com>  wrote:   > Sue Skonetski wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > >  > > From: Grant, Clair > > * > > Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 3:40 PM > > & > > To: OpenVMS Systems Software Group > > ! > > Subject: VMS boots on Itaniumn > >  > > 8 > > list of wonderful engineers removed by Sue Skonetski > >    And again by me :-)e  0 I'm sure the list is incomplete, Where's Hoff ??   -- a Cheers - Dave.   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Feb 2003 22:50:44 -0800 / From: Brannon_Batson@yahoo.com (Brannon Batson)e6 Subject: Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 31= Message-ID: <4495ef1f.0302022250.1bf14682@posting.google.com>   l bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in message news:<d7791aa1.0302021906.ac16ae9@posting.google.com>... > [snip] > < > yes, that is exactly what you are doing, otherwise itanium8 > will be just another boat anchor like all the rest ...9 > you needed alpha technology ... epic will never get outo: > of port unless you add alpha technology ... what did you< > think you did and got caught in 95-96, you ended up making: > alpha chips over that one ... you stole alpha technology: > then and now you wnet and bought the whole alpha team to8 > help you save the good ship itanic ... the only reason: > I hold hope for itanium is the alpha team may be able to5 > save it ... we shall see with chivano and after ...h  C Jesus, Bob, when do you graduate from high school?  I am one of thel@ Alpha team members that Intel 'bought'.  I think you have a very warped view of reality.a  D I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'alpha technology'.  I'm notD sure what most people mean when they say that.  The way you use thatE phrase, you make it sound like some sort of magic pixie dust.  That'se; like saying that the New York yankees have better 'baseballe technology'.  E There is no pixie dust.  The truth is much less glamorous than that. jA Listen closely, because truer words were never spoken...Alpha wasnD never about the technology.  Technology is the easy part.  Alpha was* always about the people, and the attitude.   It still is.   Brannon  not speaking for Intel   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 16:54:59 -0400m0 From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca>5 Subject: Re: Privileges in a shareable image questionv/ Message-ID: <3E3D8598.4E2AF29D@vl.videotron.ca>B   Richard Maher wrote:E > If worst comes to worst you could always opt for a server solution.d  G I guess I could. But then the server must somehow authenticate that thedN "thing" that is talking to it is my shareable image. Otherwise a rogue programA could pretend to be anyone and send messages on behalf of anyone.r  L > documentation (and Stephen Hoffman) says that you should never call out toM > another shareable from a UWSS. Having said that, go into INSTALL and pick a N > couple of shareables that were installed /PROTECTed then do an analyze/imageC > on them and just see how many other shareables they call out to.     Yes, this is what puzzles me.   G Is it safe for the user written service to change mode to exec, set thetM privilege, then change mode back to user, call all the shareable images, thenA/ change mode back to kernel to remove the priv ?r  N > secureshrp. So why shouldn't you be allowed to call your SFF routine you mayA > ask? I've yet to come across a comprehensive answer on that :-(   N if the routine in a calles shareable image fails, can I make sure that code to4 disable sysprv gets executed before image run down ?   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 01:53:28 GMT  From: ian@hammo.com (paramucho)t Subject: Re: Rogues Galleryh3 Message-ID: <3ed5caf5.315229718@news.supernews.com>!  C On 30 Jan 2003 14:34:08 GMT, bill@gw5.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)  wrote:  A >I have often wondered who the people featured in many of the oldaA >DEC books were.  Is there any chance a "Rogues Gallery" could bet@ >created (I am willing to scan and put up the pictures on my web? >page) and some of our "old-timers" from Digital could identify @ >them for posterity??  Or were they all actually models in posed@ >shots rather than the candid office photos they look like??  Is> >it possible some of our more famous (infamous?) group members, >are actually pictured in these tomes??  :-)  E Now that I think about it, I managed to meet most of the people I canrD think of at DEC, either at Decus meetings all around the world or in# Maynard when I used to visit there.   E Then again, I saw a photo of myself from that period a couple of days-+ ago and had problems recognising myself :-)r  C I think Meagan mentioned an ad in which many of the RT-11 folk tooki3 part and where they painted out the DEC tee-shirts.t     -- Iant" Impressive If Haughty - Q Magazine   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Feb 03 12:49:14 +0100 ) From: p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture)  Subject: Re: Rogues Gallery ) Message-ID: <lr76KKkitLx0@elias.decus.ch>   h In article <Mqy_9.429$6P2.63412@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, Andy Ball <ball@invalid.null> writes:   <snip>   > 6 >    JA> in the server, no-one can hear you scream!!!! > < > In the machine room no-one can hear anyone else speak, but= > in the print room you can't even hear yourself think!!  :-)- >   H In certain company, a normal meeting room is sufficient to achieve that.   -- m
 Paul Sture   ------------------------------  " Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 04:45:42 GMT From: mbg@world.std.com (Megan)r Subject: Re: Rogues GalleryD) Message-ID: <H9puK7.1uqEF1@world.std.com>H  ! ian@hammo.com (paramucho) writes:y  D >I think Meagan mentioned an ad in which many of the RT-11 folk took4 >part and where they painted out the DEC tee-shirts.  E Yes... we were working at PK3 (parker street, bldg 3) at the time andtE there was an advertising photo which was being taken for Vaxen, abouta@ how there are so many engineers who stand behind the vax... they@ were looking for everyone they could find.  So many of the RT-11> team members went out for the photo (taken from a copter which? did a descending approach from the east over parker street witha? PK3 behind us but not in the picture).  We were all wearing ourrA yellow RT-11 T-shirts and were in the front two lines just behindy> and to the right of the vax in the picture... when we actually> saw the ad when it ran later (and I have a couple of copies of@ the full two-page ad on one color print), we found that they had> retouched to photos and only *one* yellow t-shirt was visible.+ The faces are still there (albeit small)...   1 Oh... the photo and ad was about 1986,87 or so...e   					Megan Gentry  					Former RT-11 Developerh  H +--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+H | Megan Gentry, EMT/B, PP-ASEL   | email: mbg at world.std.com         |H |                                |                                     |H | "this space                    |             (s/ at /@/)             |I |  unavoidably left blank"       | URL:     http://world.std.com/~mbg/ |  H |                                | "pdp-11 programmer - some assembler |H |                  (DEC '77-'98) |  required." - mbg            KB1FCA |H +--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 03:59:15 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>n; Subject: Re: SKHPC slaps Gartner, naysayers on comp vms ...aI Message-ID: <nOl%9.205002$ej1.38870@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>s  5 "David Froble" <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote in messageM& news:3E3DB587.4090205@tsoft-inc.com... > John Smith wrote:o >n9 > > "Bob Ceculski" <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote in message,; > > news:d7791aa1.0302011840.1a150a39@posting.google.com...t > > : > >>well, I guess you can put a square peg in a round hole7 > >>after all says Terry on the inquirer ... click here  > >>, > >>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7551 > >> > >- > >-' > > Poor Terry. He just doesn't get it.0 > >m< > > I don't think anyone here in c.o.v. doubted that OpenVMS Engineering C > > could accomplish the task set before them. We merely questionedo theo > > choice of platform.p >  >tE > Regardless of the platform choice, the port to another architecturet	 is a verye
 > good thing.e >t1 > 1) it shows that VMS is not DEC/VAX/Alpha only.   E It never would have been required/desired/necessary had Ben Rosen andnA his cronies let Ekhardt do what he was trying to do. Capellas wass/ merely the puppet at the end of a short string.T    E > 2) in both the OS and the compilers there is very likely to be somet development/% > that would make both more portable.d  C No doubt. I have no sure way of knowing exactly how much effort was.D expended by the list of engineers who accomplished this task, nor ofE the innumerable man-hours of management time expended on all of this,rC but I can't help feeling that all that effort/time/money would havesA been better spent making VMS on Alpha work better than it already.F does. To my way of thinking, the IA-64 porting effort was more lateralF effort rather than forward progress of the OS. (Yes Fred, I'm still at it.)      D > The doing of the port was by no means a 'sure thing'.  It wouldn't	 have beenuC > technical problems that would have stopped it.  That the port hasn seemed to haveD > successfully run the gauntlet of Capallas/Winkler is a good thing. I cannotE > imagine why they would refuse to spend the Intel money, unless theyc figured outrE > some way to channel the money elsewhere, but Intel isn't a bunch oft idiots likerC > Capellas/Winkler, and that probably wasn't possible.  Good thing.s  E HP probably needed to buy Compaq in order to protect the relationshippE with Intel, otherwise abandoning PA-RISC would have looked pretty dim D when Intel said "Boys, we don't have enough critical mass to supportA IA-64".  HP probably can't affort to offer IA-64 to VMS customersmC until (and if) IA-64 performance in real systems is at least 30-50%eD better than Alpha. So which decade are we talking ...'10's or '20's?    @ > Regardless of how good IA-64 gets, unless Hammer fails (highly unlikely now),A > Intel will not be the volumn player in 64 bit land.  Seems that 
 their desktop C > plans are 32 bit for the forseeable future.  So, it's a move froma
 running onC > your own low volumn chip, to running on someone else's low volumne chip.  Hope F > that person that was promised a $1000 IA-64 system by Capellas has a	 plan 'B'.t  B Capellas didn't know what he was talking about. Unlike Clinton, heF obviously inhaled. Plan B for many will be Sun, IBM Power, or Linux on AMD Opteron.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 00:09:13 -0500* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>; Subject: Re: SKHPC slaps Gartner, naysayers on comp vms ...a2 Message-ID: <WPWdnQBmHJ8aZKCjXTWcog@metrocast.net>  . "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in messageC news:nOl%9.205002$ej1.38870@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...-   ...h  :   HP probably can't affort to offer IA-64 to VMS customersE > until (and if) IA-64 performance in real systems is at least 30-50%tF > better than Alpha. So which decade are we talking ...'10's or '20's?  L Probably in 2006:  given that Alpha has reached the end of its road save forK one more shrink (and rumored clock rates for EV79 seem to be decreasing, to1J make sure it doesn't reflect too badly on Itanic) even the current Itanic2H core would meet that criterion in a 65 nm process with EV7-style on-chipJ glue (which it could have by then unless Intel decided to bundle it with aJ completely new core, in which case perhaps 2007).  You might even get thatL level of performance without the EV7 glue, but from SGI rather than from HP.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 08:49:49 -0600 6 From: "Eric S. Harris" <eric_harris_76@mindspring.com>Y Subject: Re: What makes newsgroups so much fun ... (was: HP Sets the Stage for Alpha's Lat. Message-ID: <3E3D300D.56575581@mindspring.com>   Bob Ceculski wrote:o > n > "Eric S. Harris" <eric_harris_76@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3E32D5D3.CD2FFC03@mindspring.com>...- > > Time for me to ignore yet another thread.A > >t > > Why?  Read on. > >.> > > [snipped: nastiness, leavened by possibly useful comments] > >  > > > shit.t > >,> > > [snipped: nastiness, leavened by possibly useful comments] > >  > > > idiot. > >e> > > [snipped: nastiness, leavened by possibly useful comments] > >e > > 'Nuff said?   -Eric S. > 7 > sounds like you have been reading Bill Todd posts ...i  6 Could be.  I don't recall who the original poster was.  O And I deliberately omitted the name of the name-caller from my message, so that N if someone were to see that "the shoe fits", they might pay attention and be aL bit more helpful in their responses.  Or at least a little less belligerent.  M Unlikely.  A$$holes don't seem to recognize themselves.  Not without explicitdO notification, and sometimes not even then.  At least, that's been my experience O (and the experience of others when dealing with me when I'm in a$$hole mode).  e -Eric S.   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2003.067 ************************