0 INFO-VAX	Sun, 16 Feb 2003	Volume 2003 : Issue 94      Contents:+ RE: Concurrent license - process allocation  CPU Serial Number ; Re: How to Avoid the Almost Certain End of Sun Microsystems P Re: IBM says "Itanium is like a science project. There's not a market  for it" fP Re: IBM says "Itanium is like a science project. There's not a market  for it" fM Re: IBM says "Itanium is like a science project. There's not a market for it" M Re: IBM says "Itanium is like a science project. There's not a market for it" M Re: IBM says "Itanium is like a science project. There's not a market for it" M Re: IBM says "Itanium is like a science project. There's not a market for it" H Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyH Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyH Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyH Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyH Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyH Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyH Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyH Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly1 OpenVMS VAX Hobbyist Kit V3.0 and MACRO Assembler 5 Re: OpenVMS VAX Hobbyist Kit V3.0 and MACRO Assembler 8 Re: Possible replacements for PSPA (Performance Advisor)8 RE: Possible replacements for PSPA (Performance Advisor)+ Re: Restore of System to a different Server 3 SCSI cdrom on a microVAX 3100 / 20 with OpenVMS 6.2 	 SDA & ICC M Re: [OT] Windows Calculator (was Re: HP hideousness of the OPenVMS web pages)   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 11:16:30 -0500 ' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> 4 Subject: RE: Concurrent license - process allocationT Message-ID: <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4023D9CC8@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>   Keith,   Re: show license info ..  F I agree this is a good command- another twist of the same command as aD general check to see if any licenses are close to expiring might be:  > ALPHA3> pipe SHOW LICENSE/USAGE/FULL |search sys$pipe term =20   Termination Date: 12-DEC-2003  Termination Date: 12-DEC-2003  Termination Date: (none) Termination Date: (none) Termination Date: 12-DEC-2003  Termination Date: 19-FEB-2003  Termination Date: 29-OCT-2003  Termination Date: 19-FEB-2003 H %SHOW-I-TERMIMM, 2 licenses have terminated or will terminate in 30 days
 ALPHA3>=20   Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co.! Consulting & Integration Services  Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax   : 613-591-4477 Email: kerryDOTmain@hpDOTcom-     (remove the DOT's and replace with "."'s)  OpenVMS DCL - the original .COM    -----Original Message-----6 From: Keith A. Lewis [mailto:lewis@mazda.mitre.org]=20 Sent: February 13, 2003 2:43 PM  To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com 4 Subject: Re: Concurrent license - process allocation    9 "Peter Weaver" <peter.weaver@stelco.ca> writes in article A <b2dpia$1bcvjv$1@ID-141708.news.dfncis.de> dated Wed, 12 Feb 2003  10:34:32 -0500:  >Andrew Rycroft wrote: >>... G >> With OpenVMS layered product concurrent use licenses, is there a way   G >>from OpenVMS that I can see from OpenVMS which licenses are currently   $ >>allocated to which processes ? ... > 3 >$ SHOW LICENSE/USAGE/FULL should do what you want.    Cool!  I've been doing=20   4    $ PIPE SHOW DEV/FILE SYS$SYSTEM | GREP image-name  @ But your way is much better because it shows usage cluster-wide.  + --Keith Lewis              klewis$mitre.org > The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:41:05 GMT / From: Franceskiello <thestraycat71@hotmail.com>  Subject: CPU Serial Number8 Message-ID: <shfv4vsunfg802m3k72ih8i24scl2f7i8k@4ax.com>  < How can I see the CPU Serial Number in a microVAX 3100 / 20?= I noticed this number is required to get an hobbyist licence.  Thanks in advance.  	 Francesco    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:02:41 -0800 * From: "Jack Peacock" <peacock@simconv.com>D Subject: Re: How to Avoid the Almost Certain End of Sun Microsystems2 Message-ID: <UrOdnUkWBeDfT9KjXTWcpw@mpowercom.net>  = "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca> wrote in message ) news:3E4ECFDB.CD7AFFD4@vl.videotron.ca... J > Boeing buying McDonaldDouglas was just the same as HP buying Compaq: you buy a ) > competitor to eliminate the competitor.  > J Boeing had not built a fighter plane since the mid-1930's when the companyG entered the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) competition against a formidable F Lockheed.  Buying McDonald-Douglas after they were eliminated from theJ competition gained Boeing instant credibility and in fact they produced anI excellent design that was nearly as good as the Lockheed plane.  Boeing's I motivation was to obtain expertise and facilities as quickly as possible. K McDonald was eliminated as a competitor the moment they lost out on the JSF  bid.  I Course Boeing lost (disclaimer: ex-Lockheed employee) because their plane L was aesthetically ugly but the Mcdonald fighter knowledge base is sure to beF incorporated in the unmanned aircraft program where Boeing is a strongJ leader.  If you want to draw a comparison I think Intel grabbing the Alpha design team is a better choice.      Jack Peacock   ------------------------------    Date: 16 Feb 2003 05:49:18 -0800( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)Y Subject: Re: IBM says "Itanium is like a science project. There's not a market  for it" f = Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0302160549.13f94b0b@posting.google.com>   ` "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote in message news:<3E4E7D9A.DC61207E@fsi.net>... > Bob Ceculski wrote:  > > h > > "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> wrote in message news:<CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIGEKKGJAA.tom@kednos.com>...K > > > I think you misread, IBM is spending lots of money on Linux, just not  > > > on Itanium.  > > >  > > ; > > should be the other way around ... linux is the science ( > > project, and a lousy one at that ... > F > ...which is interesting: Linux has been running on IA32 since before@ > Emerald was so much as a line of code. Linux is now displacingJ > WhineBloze in some cases, and VMS in others. It's a multi-billion-dollarG > business world-wide, while Itanic continues to founder, and the *BSDs C > are distant runners-up in the race for dollars (but advancing, by  > appearances).  >  > Draw your own conclusions...  ? it is part of the dumming down of the public school systems ...    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:00:06 GMT 7 From: brad@.homeportal.2wire.net (Bradford J. Hamilton) Y Subject: Re: IBM says "Itanium is like a science project. There's not a market  for it" f . Message-ID: <GPM3a.135007$be.105736@rwcrnsc53>  h In article <d7791aa1.0302160549.13f94b0b@posting.google.com>, bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) writes:a >"David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote in message news:<3E4E7D9A.DC61207E@fsi.net>...  >> Bob Ceculski wrote: >> >  i >> > "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> wrote in message news:<CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIGEKKGJAA.tom@kednos.com>... L >> > > I think you misread, IBM is spending lots of money on Linux, just not >> > > on Itanium. >> > > >> >  < >> > should be the other way around ... linux is the science) >> > project, and a lousy one at that ...  >>  G >> ...which is interesting: Linux has been running on IA32 since before A >> Emerald was so much as a line of code. Linux is now displacing K >> WhineBloze in some cases, and VMS in others. It's a multi-billion-dollar H >> business world-wide, while Itanic continues to founder, and the *BSDsD >> are distant runners-up in the race for dollars (but advancing, by >> appearances). >>   >> Draw your own conclusions...  > @ >it is part of the dumming down of the public school systems ...  
 Q.E.D.	:-)  A _________________________________________________________________ 0 Bradford J. Hamilton			"All opinions are my own"/ bMradAhamiPltSon@atMtAbi.cPoSm		"Lose the MAPS"    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 01:27:27 -0500 * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>V Subject: Re: IBM says "Itanium is like a science project. There's not a market for it"2 Message-ID: <iHKdnf8ZouTKstKjXTWcrg@metrocast.net>  8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:IdjTuHPkaqRS@eisner.encompasserve.org... ? > In article <50e71495.0302151119.4654c600@posting.google.com>, # gokrix@hotmail.com (gokrix) writes:    ...   I > > Those billions invested over 10-12 years, they ain't easy to recover,  > > with prices like these.... > >  > 9 > Itanium investment isn't even a billion yet.  Read some   > www.realworldtech.com threads.  K I believe I've pretty much read 'em all, and there's no credible source for G such a low figure.  Intel has been working whole-hog on Itanic since at K least 1995 (8 years or more), and even if you assume that for the first few I years HP was handling the second (McKinley) track Intel's pure R&D by now K for Itanic is well over $1 billion (unless you think they were as efficient L at development as the starved Alpha efforts were, which belief would put youG rather at odds with people who likely know a great deal more about such K things than you do).  Hell, they've got a large fraction of a $billion just H in enticements for other parties to develop software for Itanic (some of) it's supposedly paying for the VMS port).   H IIRC it was the NYT that reported total Itanic expenditures at around $5F billion a few months ago - a credible figure of which Intel likely hasL footed the lion's share (though HP's contribution isn't chicken feed either:L *they've* been working on it for over *14* years now).  It's true that theseG are already-sunk costs (i.e., Intel would probably never have begun the I project if it had had a clue how expensive and risky it would be, but now H that it's irrevocably said bye-bye to that money the question is whetherB investing additional funds will yield a reasonable return on thoseI additional funds without regard to the $billions already poured down that 1 drain), but that doesn't make them any less real.    - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:54:35 +0100 2 From: martin@radiogaga.harz.de (Martin Vorlaender)V Subject: Re: IBM says "Itanium is like a science project. There's not a market for it"; Message-ID: <3e4f279b.524144494f47414741@radiogaga.harz.de>   * Paul Sture (p_sture@elias.decus.ch) wrote:5 > "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> writes: , > > Que es "Q.E.D."? (In Angles, por favor.) > @ > "quod erat demonstrandum". Latin for something like "which was > demonstrated".  A More correct, it would be "Which was to be shown". Mathematicians ? love to put it as the last line of a proof. Not that I remember F much of the latin I learned in school, but I almost made a mathematics degree.    cu,    Martin --  F                           | Martin Vorlaender  |  VMS & WNT programmer3  Cetero censeo            | work: mv@pdv-systeme.de F  Redmondem delendam esse. |   http://www.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/:                           | home: martin@radiogaga.harz.de   ------------------------------    Date: 16 Feb 2003 10:41:35 -0800! From: gokrix@hotmail.com (gokrix) V Subject: Re: IBM says "Itanium is like a science project. There's not a market for it"= Message-ID: <50e71495.0302161041.7229ddae@posting.google.com>   u "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in message news:<M3x3a.360891$pDv.319974@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>... G > Okay, let's dissect that a bit. According to FASB (which rule # slips G > my mind at the present time), the R&D costs are expensed as incurred. A > That means that over the past 10 years while Intel/HP have been A > spending their money, they have each been charging the R&D cost H > against the balance sheet each year in an amount equal to their annualG > expenditures. This lowers earning each year. This money is spent, and  > expensed, and gone.  > E > Once the project reached the stage where it was/is no longer an R&D H > effort [we can argue that it still is ;-) ], the expenditures involvedE > in setting up the fab for it and the certain other other ancilliary F > costs become what are known as capital items and now must be carriedH > on the balance sheet, with a regulated percentage depreciated (writtenA > off) each year. The amount written off each year depends on the E > specific asset class. The actual cost of fabrication of wafers (raw E > materials, wages, production tinkering, broken wafers, electricity,  > water, etc...) is expensed.  > F > I have not followed the capital expenditures incurred for productionE > of Itanic so I cannot comment on their magnitude, nor if the FAB is E > shared with other production.  At present, Intel is probably really B > only concerned about the actual costs of production, and I would9 > guarantee that it is far less than the figure you cite.  > C > That said, they still want to make a buck on it. So if the volume A > isn't there, they will pull a Compaq/HP chip decision and cease G > production pretty fast, and HP will have to take it on the chin. Much E > as I'd like AMD to survive, I don't think it's going to happen. If, C > as, and when, AMD goes down, HP will be stuck with whatever Intel G > decides they want to sell and at whatever price Intel chooses to sell F > it at. HP will become just another Packard Bell, selling white label > boxes produced by Intel.  > A great light shines upon the continued existence of the IA-64: project.  But Mathematically, this still remains a puzzle.  @ From what I can see, the IA-64 sales figures will have to hit anD exponential curve if they are to recoup the money they have put intoD it.  The only way Intel can claim the IA-64 to be a success would be if they C 1. Write off the R&D costs already invested and the interest on it. D 2. Write off the R&D costs of the IA-64 each year and/or cut back on the R&D budget substantially.   A If they are only interested in making a profit on the fabrication B costs, I guess they are on velvet.  Otherwise there will always beC uncomfortable questions like "Tell me once again.  Why did we start  this project?"....  9 With 20/20 hindsight, it would seem that Intel botched up E spectacularly with the timing.  If they had (could have) followed the F original schedule and released Merced in 1997, McKinley would have hitF at the peak of the bubble circa 1999, and they would have had at least@ a chance of making the numbers.  As it is now, they don't have aD chance of making the numbers for recouping even the annual IA-64 R&DA costs.  (I am assuming that Intel feeds IA-64 at least as much as  Compaq fed the Alpha.)   Regards, --GS   ------------------------------    Date: 16 Feb 2003 10:54:51 -0800! From: gokrix@hotmail.com (gokrix) V Subject: Re: IBM says "Itanium is like a science project. There's not a market for it"= Message-ID: <50e71495.0302161054.18073d83@posting.google.com>   ; young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) wrote in message > >  I > > Those billions invested over 10-12 years, they ain't easy to recover,  > > with prices like these.... > >  > : > 	Itanium investment isn't even a billion yet.  Read some! > 	www.realworldtech.com threads.    You're joking, right?    > 4 > > And don't tell me they're moving to the desktop. >   > 	Yes it will be quite a while.  % I would love to see that day.  But...    >  > > C > > If you think the game is over, you're grossly mistaken.  It's a 5 > > question of which of these can outlast the other.  > >  > > > 	Yep.  Certainly isn't Sun.  They don't have a money center.C > 	HP has printers, IBM has several segments to prop up their money B > 	losing FABs.  Microsoft has Office to fuel it.  Sun has nothing# > 	and their financials reflect it:  > ( > http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/s/sunw.html > A > 	They lost $2.6 billion last year and are expected to lose this  > 	year. >   ' Who was talking about Sun?  I wasn't...    Regards, --GS   ------------------------------   Date: 16 Feb 03 08:46:07 +0100) From: p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture) Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly ) Message-ID: <VVjxwr8qDcjh@elias.decus.ch>   P In article <3E4F2106.3090903@rdrop.com>, Dean Woodward <deanw@rdrop.com> writes: > Russell Wallace wrote:F >> It doesn't matter who wants what or who feels what. The reason it'sG >> vastly preferable to have Microsoft instead of IBM or anyone else as 7 >> #1 is very simple: *Microsoft don't sell computers*.  > . > Um, what's the XBox, then? How about MSN TV? >   B Two button mice ('scuse me while I'm sick) and "Natural" keyboards predate those as well.   --  
 Paul Sture   ------------------------------  ! Date: Sun, 16 Feb 03 13:06:52 GMT  From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly + Message-ID: <b2o4rc$j9u$5@bob.news.rcn.net>   0 In article <3e4ebc62.258504087@news.eircom.net>,4    rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace) wrote:: >On 15 Feb 2003 12:59:08 -0500, pechter@shell.monmouth.com >(Bill/Carolyn Pechter) wrote: > F >>IBM seemed to want to be the biggest and strongest computer company.I >>IBM seemed to want to be the leader and the standard.  I feel Microsoft F >>won't give up until EVERY piece of computing machine (including your4 >>car and toaster) boots and runs a Windows varient. > D >It doesn't matter who wants what or who feels what. The reason it'sE >vastly preferable to have Microsoft instead of IBM or anyone else as 5 >#1 is very simple: *Microsoft don't sell computers*.  > G >How quickly people forget. Before the rise of Microsoft, you bought an > >IBM machine running an IBM operating system and then you wereG >restricted to IBM-compatible software. Or you bought a VAX running VMS ? >and then you were restricted to software compatible with that.   A Nope.  The customer was allowed to write his own.  Not only that, B but these companies shipped tools so that the customer could write= his own.  NOt only that, but the customer could open a manual D and get definitions of bits and data and hardware addresses _in use_> and find the information that was "reserved for customer use".@ These companies also considered back doors in the software to be' a bug and set them to be high priority.      > .. Or G >Apple, Commodore, Data General, Acorn, Wang, etc etc. The industry was = >fragmented into a zillion closed, proprietary platforms, all G >incompatible with each other, all sold by companies who behaved not as F >though they had X% market share, but as though they had a monopoly on	 >that X%.  > G >Now you can buy an industry standard PC from whatever manufacturer you D >please, load Windows on it (for a definitely _non_ monopoly price),> >and mostly just not have to worry about compatibility issues.  F Bullshit.  Backwards compatibility is purposely broken.  Extensibility isn't a goal in the design.     <snip>    /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:24:51 GMT ) From: Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly ) Message-ID: <3E4F5D5A.38DCA021@yahoo.com>    Russell Wallace wrote: > ; > On 15 Feb 2003 12:59:08 -0500, pechter@shell.monmouth.com  > (Bill/Carolyn Pechter) wrote:  > G > >IBM seemed to want to be the biggest and strongest computer company. J > >IBM seemed to want to be the leader and the standard.  I feel MicrosoftG > >won't give up until EVERY piece of computing machine (including your 5 > >car and toaster) boots and runs a Windows varient.  > E > It doesn't matter who wants what or who feels what. The reason it's F > vastly preferable to have Microsoft instead of IBM or anyone else as6 > #1 is very simple: *Microsoft don't sell computers*. > H > How quickly people forget. Before the rise of Microsoft, you bought an? > IBM machine running an IBM operating system and then you were ) > restricted to IBM-compatible software.    E Okay, so now I have this Sun I want to run Office on, no problem, eh?    ------------------------------  ! Date: Sun, 16 Feb 03 15:28:38 GMT  From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly + Message-ID: <b2od55$9kj$1@bob.news.rcn.net>   ) In article <3E4F5D5A.38DCA021@yahoo.com>, -    Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:  >Russell Wallace wrote:  >>  < >> On 15 Feb 2003 12:59:08 -0500, pechter@shell.monmouth.com  >> (Bill/Carolyn Pechter) wrote: >>  H >> >IBM seemed to want to be the biggest and strongest computer company.K >> >IBM seemed to want to be the leader and the standard.  I feel Microsoft H >> >won't give up until EVERY piece of computing machine (including your6 >> >car and toaster) boots and runs a Windows varient. >>  F >> It doesn't matter who wants what or who feels what. The reason it'sG >> vastly preferable to have Microsoft instead of IBM or anyone else as 7 >> #1 is very simple: *Microsoft don't sell computers*.  >>  I >> How quickly people forget. Before the rise of Microsoft, you bought an @ >> IBM machine running an IBM operating system and then you were* >> restricted to IBM-compatible software.  > F >Okay, so now I have this Sun I want to run Office on, no problem, eh?  < ROTFLMAO.  Beautifully put.  You might add the qualificationA that you want to read the documents written in 1990 (forget about  1980).   /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:41:39 GMT 0 From: rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace)Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly / Message-ID: <3e4fbf26.52963062@news.eircom.net>   E On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:24:51 GMT, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>  wrote:  F >Okay, so now I have this Sun I want to run Office on, no problem, eh?  D Buy Sun's incompatible proprietary hardware, looks like you're stuck" with running Sun's office package.   --  3 "Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent." + Remove killer rodent from address to reply. ! http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:40:38 GMT 0 From: rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace)Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly / Message-ID: <3e4fbeed.52906570@news.eircom.net>   C On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 21:26:30 -0800, Dean Woodward <deanw@rdrop.com>  wrote:   >Russell Wallace wrote: F >> It doesn't matter who wants what or who feels what. The reason it'sG >> vastly preferable to have Microsoft instead of IBM or anyone else as 7 >> #1 is very simple: *Microsoft don't sell computers*.    >Um, what's the XBox, then?    A game console.    >How about MSN TV?   Never heard of it.   --  3 "Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent." + Remove killer rodent from address to reply. ! http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:44:35 GMT 0 From: rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace)Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly / Message-ID: <3e4fbf89.53062679@news.eircom.net>   2 On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:50:04 +0100, Morten Reistad <mrr@reistad.priv.no> wrote:  D >But none of this belongs as management policy. Does management haveH >policy about using Diesel or Petrol cars or what kinds of transmissionsE >they use? Or if we use DC or AC power? Or the type of lighting used?   ? >All of these have been subject to similar bouts of widespread  ? >flames and policy. All in vain. In college we had a course in  F >industrial economics, where we had some essays where industry leadersC >were hotly discussing the merits of things like alternators versus C >generators. Almost all of these were big issues in their time, and ? >they all got sorted out by the market 10 years later in a very D >quiet fashion; the same way that TCP/IP and the Internet is quietly9 >taking over corporate communication networks these days.   B Yep! The current bout of Microsoft versus this, that and the otherA reminds me of my school days when I had a Commodore 64 like every B right-thinking person, and we used to insult the accursed Spectrum	 owners :)    --  3 "Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent." + Remove killer rodent from address to reply. ! http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 17:24:00 GMT 0 From: rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace)Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly / Message-ID: <3e4fc740.55037260@news.eircom.net>   @ On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 02:46:10 GMT, winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU. ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr") wrote:  H >Thinking about this more, I realize I was answering the wrong question.M >(I do still think that DRI would have been less of a blight on the technical  >landscape than MS.)  F Maybe. Though I doubt they'd have stood up to Apple's attempt to get aF legally enforced monopoly on graphic user interfaces the way Microsoft3 did. (And compared to Apple, Microsoft are saints.)   H >I realize that I'd much prefer the parallel universe where there was noK >company that owned 90% of the desktops.  Software monoculture isn't a good  >thing  B I disagree, I think it is. Or would you rather go back to the daysA when anytime you saw a program you'd like to buy, 80% of the time E you'd have to forget about it because it was for a machine you didn't  own?  D Now I think it would be better if there was a standard API such thatE companies could produce independent but compatible implementations of A it (the way Intel and AMD compete on implementations of x86). But B unfortunately the computer industry never produced such a thing or: even showed the slightest interest in attempting to do so.  K >If there has to be such a company, I'd prefer it to be one that didn't own I >the applications as well as the OS. I'd like the OS not to be completely L >trusting of any application - why is there an OS call that lets you get theF >contents of the Outlook address book? - and I'd like the OS to notice >buffer overflows.  D Now I agree with you about all these things, and I'll add the insaneE stupidity of not only letting applications modify the contents of the > operating system directory, but _encouraging_ them to! There's  definitely room for improvement.   --  3 "Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent." + Remove killer rodent from address to reply. ! http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace    ------------------------------    Date: 16 Feb 2003 09:30:29 -0800* From: d_cymbal@hotmail.com (Damien Cymbal): Subject: OpenVMS VAX Hobbyist Kit V3.0 and MACRO Assembler= Message-ID: <1b0eb888.0302160930.25d9624d@posting.google.com>   	 Hi Folks,   D I assume it is considered to be part of the base OS, but I wanted to confirm before I purchased:   D Does the OpenVMS VAX Hobbyist Kit V3.0 CD include MACRO Assembler as" part of its compiler/language set?  B I have some old VAX assembly code that would be fun to play around with again.   E I plan on trying to run the hobbyist OS one either the simh or charon 
 emulators.   Thanks.    dc   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 19:44:41 +0100 6 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk>> Subject: Re: OpenVMS VAX Hobbyist Kit V3.0 and MACRO Assembler) Message-ID: <3E4FDC19.9080805@vajhoej.dk>    Damien Cymbal wrote:F > I assume it is considered to be part of the base OS, but I wanted to > confirm before I purchased:  > F > Does the OpenVMS VAX Hobbyist Kit V3.0 CD include MACRO Assembler as$ > part of its compiler/language set? > D > I have some old VAX assembly code that would be fun to play around
 > with again.  > G > I plan on trying to run the hobbyist OS one either the simh or charon  > emulators.  ' MACRO-32 is covered by the VMS license.   ; And unless you explicit delete it, then the assembler (VAX) & or compiler (Alpha) will be available.   Arne  ; PS: The hobbyist layered products licenses contain licenses       for lots of compilers.    ------------------------------    Date: 16 Feb 2003 07:47:27 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) A Subject: Re: Possible replacements for PSPA (Performance Advisor) 3 Message-ID: <f8SqlQJch3xl@eisner.encompasserve.org>   U In article <om50SJtEZfoe@elias.decus.ch>, p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture) writes:   K > However, on Friday morning I had to crash a system which had been hanging L > overnight (not a production system, fortunately). According to an in houseF > monitoring program, it had run out of pagefile space and SWAPPER hadC > hit 78% CPU utilization at one point. OPERATOR.LOG only contained G > timestamps for the relevant period - specifically, no "pagefile full"  > or similar messages.  H I thought pagefile full, at least in the past, was one of those messages5 that went directly to the console, not through Opcom.   B > o - Fortel's Sightline. Can anyone tell me if this can do what IC >     am trying to find? - i.e. look at recorded history leading up  >     to a hang or crash.   @ Due to a business relationship with Fortel, I have a copy of the@ Sightline manual and it indicates the program is able to monitor? both pagefile space and CPU utilization.  The general design is ? that you have to decide in advance what aspects of VMS you want ? to be monitoring, and thus how much disk space will be consumed > by the history files. So if you never thought the scenario youB describe would be possible and you had taken very stingy decisionsD regarding how much disk space you wanted to devote to history files,A it is possible you would not have configured the relevant metrics B (or any others).  Presuming a worst case scenario of the VMS crashC erasing the history records on disk :-), there is some salvation in A that history (is/can be) also kept on the PC.  In fact that PC is 8 required for using Sightline in the recommended fashion.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 09:50:28 -0500 ' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> A Subject: RE: Possible replacements for PSPA (Performance Advisor) T Message-ID: <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF402660D7B@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>   Paul,    Re: monitoring and fixing ..  F A few suggestions for consideration wrt to Availability Manager (AM) -@ having just gone through a similar discussion and testing with a Customer last week -  @ Typically, such a request is driven by an organizations businessG requirement to become much more proactive instead of reactive. The "fix H problems before they impact the business" is often used as justificationA for spending resources ($'s, labour, testing etc) on this type of  initiative.   D What I recommended to this Customer is to break the requirement downG into finer granularity as imho, there is no one product that will do it H all. Typical categories are monitoring, reporting, capacity planning and$ dynamic fixing of "now" type issues.  E AM is a free product and is a good entry level dynamic monitoring and B fixing tool that allows you to run on either an OpenVMS or WindowsH client. Although it could be done, AM is not something you would use forD detailed reporting and/or capacity planning without a fair amount of" manual work with spreadsheets etc.  E AM has thresholds that can be established for setting different alarm H levels for monitoring by an operations group. It provides the capabilityH to setup some clients as read only (operators) or read-write e.g. systemA managers can "fix" problems interactively. It can monitor process D quota's and system resources dynamically. It is the only tool that IH know of that can increase quota's and resources dynamically in real timeH e.g. increase pagefile quota of a process that is running low, or adjustG quorum when quorum is lost (it runs at high IPL on server). Seems to be ( very good at monitoring cluster locking.  H AM uses a proprietary network protocol as one of the design requirementsG was to be able to fix TCPIP issues on a node such that even if TCPIP is $ broke, AM can still access the node.  F Current limitation is that the AM tool is LAN only and the protocol isC not yet routable (possible future enhancement in the works). We are B considering some form of remote access "set display back to remoteE client" type access (X-windows, PC Anywhere etc) in the short term ato
 this site.  8 Current version is V2.2-1 plus mand patch. More info at:B http://www.openvms.compaq.com/openvms/products/availman/index.html  F On the "what else are we looking at using" topic: (April go live date)D - ECP for performance reporting with reports (.gif outputs from ECP)- being displayed on Apache OpenVMS web server.eE - OpenVMS Management Station (OMS) for Help Desk mgmt of Users, printtC queues. It provides a Windows based GUI that provides the help deskTF staff with a point-click tool that they are typically more comfortable with.TC - SWCC for monitoring of storage - mainly for giving Operations thec ability to monitor fault lights B - ConsoleWorks with SNMP forwarding of alerts and events. Provides? remote access to consoles and log file of all console activity.   H ConsoleWorks is not free, but wrt to the other products discussed above,D the Customer wants to get more comfortable with what these base freeH products provide before deciding to look at any of the bigger commercial products available.B  H On a related topic at this site, the intent is to separate the differentG protocols into separate VLAN's for performance and security reasons. We * are implementing three separate VLANS -=20  ' 1. INTERNAL (normal TCPIP, DECnet, LAT)  2. CLUSTER (SCS traffic)E 3. MGMT (AM, ConsoleWorks, other monitoring tools as required.). Thiso8 MGMT VLAN will have access restricted by MAC address and username/passwords.I  
 Good luck.   :-)3   Regardst  
 Kerry Main Senior ConsultantO Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co.! Consulting & Integration Servicesp Voice: 613-592-4660- Fax   : 613-591-4477 Email: kerryDOTmain@hpDOTcom-     (remove the DOT's and replace with "."'s)  OpenVMS DCL - the original .COM@     -----Original Message-----3 From: Paul Sture [mailto:p_sture@elias.decus.ch]=20A Sent: February 16, 2003 1:43 AMa To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com>= Subject: Possible replacements for PSPA (Performance Advisor)d     I am seeking advice here.s  E A new system gives us the chance to avoid signing up for another PSPAi1 (Polycenter Performance Advisor) license with CA.L  D I have briefly looked at ECP (now included with VMS) and a couple ofD other things, and with a bit of work, they are possible substitutes.  A However, on Friday morning I had to crash a system which had beeneF hanging overnight (not a production system, fortunately). According toD an in house monitoring program, it had run out of pagefile space andC SWAPPER had hit 78% CPU utilization at one point. OPERATOR.LOG onlyC? contained timestamps for the relevant period - specifically, no6$ "pagefile full" or similar messages.  F Running PSPA OTOH, showed in great detail the events leading up to theF hang, and gave a faster route to determining the offending application than analyzing the crash dump.  ? Now, having just started looking at ECP (on a different cluster H unfortunately), I see that it collects a similar, slightly larger volumeF of data as PSPA (going by disk space consumed - I haven't dug into theE respective file formats), but does not contain anything like the samer reporting facilites.  H My first thought was that Availability Manager could act as a substituteF for this sort of diagnosis, but from what I have read about it so far,G it acts on current live data rather than stuff stored in history files.o  F The timing of this system hang was a blessing in disguise. I was givenG the job of trying to avoid buying another PSPA license on Wednesday, so D started looking at ECP and alternatives then, but now I am forced toA look beyond the pretty workload  graphs we produce every week foreG capacity planning and think about the problem diagnosis side of things.M  9 Alternatives suggested by our OVMS Ambassador include:=20:  B o - T4 (Tabular Timeline Tracking Tool). This was mentioned in the OpenVMS H     Times (Vol 2, #1) and caused enough confusion in this newsgroup that?     it merited an "Ask the Wizard" question. It can be found ata9     http://www.openvms.compaq.com/freeware/freeware50/t4/eF     although it does not exist in our disk copy of the V5 freeware CD.  D     To summarize briefly, it is a chunk of DCL to convert the outputA     from MONITOR/RECORD into CSV files suitable for import into ae     spreadsheet.  A     We can get those graphs out, but can we diagnose the problemst"     leading up to a hang or crash?  C o - ECP - despite my comments above about the interactive interfacerA     lacking the scope provided by PSPA, it can produce CSV files.p+     More research on my part required here.n  D     Again can get those graphs out, but can we diagnose the problemsA     leading up to a hang or crash? Is the format of the recordingt2     files published so that we can "roll our own"?  @ o - Fortel's Sightline. Can anyone tell me if this can do what IA     am trying to find? - i.e. look at recorded history leading upi     to a hang or crash.k  ( Your input and comments are appreciated. --=20e
 Paul Sture   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 19:41:35 +0100L6 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk>4 Subject: Re: Restore of System to a different Server) Message-ID: <3E4FDB5F.3030302@vajhoej.dk>f   Sean Yazdani wrote:iG > Is it possible to restore a complete system backup (standalone image)iB > from one Alpha server to another Alpha server that has differentD > physical device names (e.g. from DRA0,1,2 to DKB0,100,200 but with  > same size, and both on 7.1-2). > ) > Any guidance would be much appreciated.s   Yes.  B But you will probably need to change SCS/DECnet/IP identification.  = And if there also are other ethernet-devices you will need to. reconfigure DECnet and IP.   Arne   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:46:53 GMTL/ From: Franceskiello <thestraycat71@hotmail.com>E< Subject: SCSI cdrom on a microVAX 3100 / 20 with OpenVMS 6.28 Message-ID: <elfv4vcutjro1hebtn8hiq6q2vo46eej3i@4ax.com>  A I want to install a SCSI cdrom drive on a microVAX 3100 / 20 withu OpenVMS 6.2.F I tried a yamaha CDRW unit but it does not work with VAX/VMS cause the% block size not compatible I think...  ? Ultrix boots well but OpenVMS does not... (device offline aftern standalone backup). + Is there a list of compatible cd-rom units?.3 I can get a Plextor 12/20, is this unit compatible?w Thanks,i  	 Francescoo   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 11:27:46 +0300(2 From: "Ruslan R. Laishev" <Laishev@StarLet.SPB.RU> Subject: SDA & ICC- Message-ID: <3E4F4B82.4020602@StarLet.SPB.RU>c  
 Hello All!F 	IS there a way to get an information about ICC connections from SDA ? 	TIA.    --   Cheers, Ruslan.2D +---------------------pure personal opinion------------------------+2               Mobile: +7 (812) 116-3222/NMT/IMT-MCB     TKD (WTF) in Russia, St.-Petersburg - www.TaeKwonDo-WTF.SPb.RU0                  http://starlet.spb.ru/~laishev/   ------------------------------    Date: 15 Feb 2003 23:03:27 -0800. From: spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman)V Subject: Re: [OT] Windows Calculator (was Re: HP hideousness of the OPenVMS web pages)= Message-ID: <b096a4ee.0302152303.7f98354b@posting.google.com>o  s spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman) wrote in message news:<b096a4ee.0302151156.4873a3c1@posting.google.com>...>g > Dave Greenwood <greenwoodde@ornl.gov> wrote in message news:<14FEB03.21520398@feda34.fed.ornl.gov>... J > > In a previous article, spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman) wrote:
 > > [snip] [...]dC > You could also say x**(-1) = x**(0-1) = x**0/x**1. But if x**0 iszF > undefined for x = 0, then so is 0**-1. Ah, but 0**-1 = 1/0, you say.G > But why the 1? It's 1 because that is what x**0 is. I mean, you don'te; > just pick 1 out of the air. You pick it because it is theyC > multiplicative identity and because it is x**0. In which case yous# > could conclude that 0**0 = 1 (!).i  D OTOH, all numbers are effectively the multiplicative identity for 0.C So if you insist on having a unique multiplicative identity for allsD numbers, then 0**0 = 1. If you don't insist on uniqueness, then 0**0B is "undefined". Ultimately, I think it boils down to that. But theD fact that people say 0**(-1) = 1/0 could be construed to mean that 1+ is favored which would also favor 0**0 = 1.    [...]f   Dislcaimer: JMHO Alan E. FeldmanX   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2003.094 ************************