0 INFO-VAX	Wed, 19 Feb 2003	Volume 2003 : Issue 97      Contents: Re: accounting problem! RE: Acees of files from a PC disk 2 Re: Alpha Software Product Library March 1996 CD 4. Alpha Software Product Library March 1996 CD 4% Re: are there problems with Info-VAX? % Re: are there problems with Info-VAX? ! Re: BACKUP/IGNORE=INTERLOCK fails ! Re: BACKUP/IGNORE=INTERLOCK fails 5 Re: DECwindows hang when using Multinet and VMS patch 5 Re: DECwindows hang when using Multinet and VMS patch 5 Re: DECwindows hang when using Multinet and VMS patch 5 Re: DECwindows hang when using Multinet and VMS patch  Re: FREE VAXstation 4000-60  Re: FREE VAXstation 4000-60 $ fun with F$FAO and the !AD directive( Re: fun with F$FAO and the !AD directive! Re: GNU Patch for OpenVMS (again)  GNU Patch for OpenVMS (again) 7 RE: Heads Up - Next OpenVMS Advanced Technical Bootcamp 7 Re: Heads Up - Next OpenVMS Advanced Technical Bootcamp 7 Re: Heads Up - Next OpenVMS Advanced Technical Bootcamp 7 Re: Heads Up - Next OpenVMS Advanced Technical Bootcamp ; RE: How to Avoid the Almost Certain End of Sun Microsystems ; Re: How to Avoid the Almost Certain End of Sun Microsystems ; Re: How to Avoid the Almost Certain End of Sun Microsystems ; Re: How to Avoid the Almost Certain End of Sun Microsystems ; Re: How to Avoid the Almost Certain End of Sun Microsystems ; Re: How to Avoid the Almost Certain End of Sun Microsystems # RE: hp invite to CeBIT mentions VMS # Re: hp invite to CeBIT mentions VMS # Re: hp invite to CeBIT mentions VMS " HP Press Release on Dual Itanium 2& Re: HP Press Release on Dual Itanium 2& RE: HP Press Release on Dual Itanium 2& RE: HP Press Release on Dual Itanium 2E Re: IBM says "Itanium is like a science project. There's not a market P Re: IBM says "Itanium is like a science project. There's not a market for it" foP Re: IBM says "Itanium is like a science project. There's not a marketfor it" forP Re: IBM says "Itanium is like a science project. There's not a marketfor it" for$ Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5 years ...$ Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5 years ...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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 monopolyP Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly monopolP Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly monopolG Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBMmonopoly ( Re: Just wondering how everyone is doing( RE: Just wondering how everyone is doing( Re: Just wondering how everyone is doing( Re: Just wondering how everyone is doing( Re: Just wondering how everyone is doing netperf 2.2pl3 now available' Re: New (changed) OpenVMS Message Board ' O.T. (Was: Re: FREE VAXstation 4000-60) - Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 31 P Re: OpenVMS.org: Marvel article and HP's press release for Marveland Alpha Retai> RE: OT: Java bugs abound in Slowaris 9 ... becomes memory hog!@ Pathworks ACL entries impact PCSI and system boot during upgrade8 Re: Possible replacements for PSPA (Performance Advisor)' Re: Quest: Readable format of  vmsdate. ' Re: Quest: Readable format of  vmsdate. & Re: Simulating LAT protocol on Windows Re: Soundcards for EV6 Alphas  RE: Soundcards for EV6 Alphas  Re: Soundcards for EV6 Alphas  Re: Soundcards for EV6 Alphas ( Re: Systemcrash after login after reboot VMS & Tru64 Disk I/O timings  Re: VMS & Tru64 Disk I/O timings  Re: VMS & Tru64 Disk I/O timings  Re: VMS & Tru64 Disk I/O timings  Re: VMS & Tru64 Disk I/O timings  Re: VMS & Tru64 Disk I/O timings Re: wwidmgr - (SRM Console)  Re: wwidmgr - (SRM Console) # Re: [VMS V7.3-1] ACCVIO in F$GETSYI # Re: [VMS V7.3-1] ACCVIO in F$GETSYI  [VMS V7.3-1] ACCVIO in F$GETSYI # Re: [VMS V7.3-1] ACCVIO in F$GETSYI # Re: [VMS V7.3-1] ACCVIO in F$GETSYI # Re: [VMS V7.3-1] ACCVIO in F$GETSYI   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  + Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:14:54 +0000 (UTC) , From: lewis@PROBE.mitre.org (Keith A. Lewis) Subject: Re: accounting problem . Message-ID: <b2u7oe$mpp$1@newslocal.mitre.org>   "Arindam" <arindam-dsp@sail-steel.com> writes in article <012b01c2d651$52fb6f60$3c03e980@bofpc> dated Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:19:19 +0530:K >lets suppose that some one tries to run some  system admin's commands like 1 >authorize and ncp by using a privilized account. L >moreover to conceal his time of doing so, he changed the system time at theC >time of executing these commands and then restored the system time K >afterwards,  so that by running accounting he cannot be traced even though   >the "set" entry will be logged. > ; >he has not created a new accounting file by set/acc = new.  > J >my question is IS IT POSSIBLE TO MODIFY THE ENTRIES OF THE ACCOUNTING.DATH >FILE SO THAT THEY CAN BE FAKED OR  MANUPULAED IN ANY WAY OTHER THAN THE. >ABOVE CRUDE METHORD THAT OUR INTRUDER TRIED ? >any suggetions ?   G Yes, there are always other ways.  No point in inventing them here in a  public forum, though.     K With the crude method you describe, the records in ACCOUNTNG.DAT will be in I true chronological order, and an unfiltered run of the ACCOUNTING utility  will show them.     J The AUDIT tools (SET AUDIT, ANALYZE/AUDIT) are even better than ACCOUNTING for tracking who did what.  + --Keith Lewis              klewis$mitre.org > The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:46:18 -0800 / From: Terry Marosites <TMarosites@unitedad.com> * Subject: RE: Acees of files from a PC diskK Message-ID: <5F43FCBF2789D611B6F500105A1D521302DA17@seantexch.unitedad.com>   7 If you want to take a file on a pc and put it on vms=20    on the PC=20 click start  click run=20A type ftp in the open window  ( this will open a black ftp window)   >ftp Open myalpha.somedomain.com user --  password --- binary put c:\myfile=20 bye   " Now go to you vms and see the file   hope this helps=20 Terry    -----Original Message----- From: dm [mailto:dimez@gmx.ch]' Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 5:31 AM  To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com * Subject: Re: Acees of files from a PC disk    1 yes, access of files stored on a PC disk FROM VMS   ) I have no idea and experience with SAMBA,    Dieter   Jan-Erik S=F6derholm wrote:    >John Travell wrote: > =20  > H >>If it is more than just a 'one time' need, you might try Samba. This = is open >>source/freeware.G >>The link from http://us1.samba.org/ pointing to the VMS port goes to: 6 >>http://www.ifn.ing.tu-bs.de/ifn/sonst/samba-vms.html >> >>   =20 >> > > >I thought the need was to access file *on the PC* *from VMS*. >Does Samba solve that ?=20  > 
 >Jan-Erik. > =20  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:35:42 -0600 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> ; Subject: Re: Alpha Software Product Library March 1996 CD 4 ' Message-ID: <3E52ED7E.743EA3CC@fsi.net>    "Mark E. Levy" wrote:  >  > Cancel that, I found mine. > 5 > "Mark E. Levy" <mlevy70@attbi.com> wrote in message ) > news:Var4a.152784$tq4.3959@sccrnsc01...  > > Hi all,  > > N > > I need to re-install my Polycenter Console Manager software. It seems thatM > > I'm missing CD 4 from my March 1996  Alpha Software Products Library set.  > IfL > > anyone has this and can put the PCM kit somewhere so I can download it I  > > would be eternally grateful.   Clone it! It's GOLD!   --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:12:05 GMT ( From: "Mark E. Levy" <mlevy70@attbi.com>7 Subject: Alpha Software Product Library March 1996 CD 4 - Message-ID: <Var4a.152784$tq4.3959@sccrnsc01>    Hi all,   J I need to re-install my Polycenter Console Manager software. It seems thatL I'm missing CD 4 from my March 1996  Alpha Software Products Library set. IfH anyone has this and can put the PCM kit somewhere so I can download it I would be eternally grateful.   TIA!   -- Mark E. Levy" System Management Associates, Inc. Phone: 847-730-3193  Fax:      847-730-3194 Cell:      847-370-3071  Text:     melevy@vtext.com or               melevy@skytel.com   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Feb 2003 16:14:20 -0800. From: spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman). Subject: Re: are there problems with Info-VAX?= Message-ID: <b096a4ee.0302181614.6c40a56b@posting.google.com>    afvasdc:vqfdvqsfqwb  a  vq[]ev\=-icqa]inc'q    > qs  .> q  v   ! I'm sorry, could you repeat that?    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:12:39 GMT L From: winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr"). Subject: Re: are there problems with Info-VAX?6 Message-ID: <00A1BA84.0EF1F0EC@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>  x In article <917991b.0302180231.78f82399@posting.google.com>, helbphi@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com (Phillip Helbig) writes: >Hi all, >  > C >Since I haven't received any Info-VAX messages for a while, here's   >a question: is there a problem?  K Apparently; at least there's been a more traffic than usual on comp.os.vms.    >  > > >I prefer Info-VAX to a WWW interface to the newsgroup, though@ >only because I wrote a DCL procedure to let me selectively read; >threads in a newsgroup from messages in a VMS MAIL folder.  > B >Even more I prefer an NNTP interface, using NEWSRDR.  Since I now@ >have a DSL flatrate connection at home, I will probably go backC >to reading comp.os.vms from home via NEWSRDR.  The only problem is  >a news server.  > A >Yes, there are some publicly accessible ones out there, but they ? >either cost money, don't allow posting or don't carry all the  @ >groups I want.  (I definitely want to have just ONE news server >to deal with.)  > > >A while back, someone here offered me access to a news server? >based on IP address.  Soon after that my ISP changed my static < >IP address, but I never pursued this option further becauseA >of lack of time and since at the time my only option was an ISDN < >connection (with fixed IP address) which was too expensive. > = >Is anyone willing to offer me access to a news server from a A >dynamic IP address, or know of a publicly available one which is @ >a) free or cheap, b) carries a lot of groups, c) is dependable,F >quick and retains articles for at least a week and d) allows posting?   Second option:   http://news.cis.dfn.de/   I (Haven't used it, but have had it recommended to me.  According to their  I posted policies: Free, allows posting (100kb limit, no binaries), carries L lots of hierarchies, retains comp.* for 158 days (and most other hierarchiesG for 26 days).  The person who recommended it  said they'd been using it N for a year with no problems.  Note: munging from addresses is barred, spamming is barred.)   N On the web page you'll have your choice of German or English; as I recall, you) speak both, so you'll have a real choice.    HTH!   -- Alan     O =============================================================================== 0  Alan Winston --- WINSTON@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDUM  Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL   Phone:  650/926-3056 M  Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA   94025 O ===============================================================================    ------------------------------    Date: 18 Feb 2003 12:32:01 -0800. From: spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman)* Subject: Re: BACKUP/IGNORE=INTERLOCK fails= Message-ID: <b096a4ee.0302181232.7cecc53d@posting.google.com>   l dennisb@wvhmhc.org (Dennis Baker) wrote in message news:<6f29699e.0302180759.3bc69e61@posting.google.com>...G > We've recently added /ignore=interlock to our backup command files in F > an attempt to get copies of open user files.  Yes, we are aware thatD > this could lead to "inconsistencies".  We run backups in the earlyH > morning, and occasionally a user leaves a file open when they go home,E > so a backup of their last saved file is better than nothing at all.  > B > However, some backups seem to bomb out as soon as the warning isH > logged, and some seem to log but ignore warnings then bomb out later! E > Here's one command file BACK2.COM with irrelevant commands stripped F > out: (Okay, please don't flame me for using /noverify; we back up 25F > GB daily on mostly three drives, and doubling the time would requireE > overtime to complete all the jobs in one shift!  We are planning to  > upgrade the whole system.) >  [...]    > $set proc/prior=10  $ Why do you set this to priority 10?    > $BACKUP DKA0:[*...]*.*- X >  MKA500:A2A0/REWIND/NOVERIFY/NOCRC/MEDIA=COMPACT/LIST/FAST/BLOCKSIZE=49152/IGN=(LABEL, > INTERLOCK)  E Why are you using /FAST here? I don't think it would speed it up. Why  not use /IMAGE instead?   D The qualifier /FAST is for when your input-specifier includes all or< most of the disk and your selection qualifiers select only aD relatively few files to be copied. Here you are backing up all files0 except any in [000000], so /FAST is not helpful.  @ And just curious: How do you arrive at 49152 for the block size?   [...] A > [MULTINET.ALPHA2.MULTINET]DELME.LIS;2                    1908    > 3-SEP-1998 16:57A > [MULTINET.ALPHA2.MULTINET]DELME.LIS;1                    1275    > 3-SEP-1998 16:44@ > [MULTINET.ALPHA2.MULTINET]DHCP-BACKUPSTATE.DAT;1          182  > 20-MAY-1999 13:13 H > %BACKUP-W-ACCONFLICT, DKA0:[MULTINET.ALPHA2.MULTINET]DHCPD.LEASES;1 is  > open for write by another user > $!
 > $ SHOW TIME  >   17-FEB-2003 22:41:43  + I can't see any reason this should happen.     > $ SHOW ERROR. > Device                           Error Count, > ALPHA2$PKA0:                           101, > $1$DKA0: (ALPHA2)                        3, > $1$DKA100: (ALPHA2)                      3, > $1$DKA300: (ALPHA2)                      3, > PEA0:                                    4, > $1$DKB0: (ALPHA2, ALPHA1)               34, > $1$DKB100: (ALPHA2, ALPHA1)             27, > $1$DKB200: (ALPHA2, ALPHA1)             27, > $1$DKB300: (ALPHA2, ALPHA1)             27, > $1$MKA500: (ALPHA2)                   4125 > $!) > $BACKUP DKA300:[BACKUP_DKB300*...]*.* - S >  MKA500:A2A300/NOCRC/MEDIA=COMPACT/NOVERIFY/LIST/FAST/BLOCKSIZE=49152/IGN=(LABEL,  > INTERLOCK)/RELEASE > Listing of save set(s) > ? > %BACKUP-F-POSITERR, error positioning MKA500:[000000]A2A300.; . > -SYSTEM-F-OPINCOMPL, operation is incomplete > $! > $DISM MKA500:  > $SHOW TIME >   17-FEB-2003 22:41:45 > $ SHOW ERROR. > Device                           Error Count, > ALPHA2$PKA0:                           101, > $1$DKA0: (ALPHA2)                        3, > $1$DKA100: (ALPHA2)                      3, > $1$DKA300: (ALPHA2)                      3, > PEA0:                                    4, > $1$DKB0: (ALPHA2, ALPHA1)               34, > $1$DKB100: (ALPHA2, ALPHA1)             27, > $1$DKB200: (ALPHA2, ALPHA1)             27, > $1$DKB300: (ALPHA2, ALPHA1)             27, > $1$MKA500: (ALPHA2)                   4126 > $! > B > So, why did the first backup command fail after the warning?  OnF > another post topic, it was suggested to add ON WARNING THEN CONTINUEF > before the backup command.  Doesn't SET NOON at the beginning of the, > command file disable all error checking?    C Yes, except when you have a statement of the form GOTO _NOSUCHLABEL , where there is no label called _NOSUCHLABEL.   > Does anyone suggest this as  > a fix?   Not I.   > + > Now for the other command file BACK1.COM:  [...] @ > [MULTINET.ALPHA1.MULTINET]TGVSNMPC.LOG;75                   1  > 10-FEB-2003 11:39 A > [MULTINET.ALPHA1.MULTINET]TGVSNMPC.LOG;74                   1    > 6-FEB-2003 19:30 > . ! > . (files logged without errors)  > . F > [MULTINET.ALPHA1.SYSCOMMON.MULTINET]MULTINET_NW_CLIENT_LIBRARY.IIF;5@ >                                                            34  > 14-OCT-1994 13:35 9 > [MULTINET.ALPHA1.SYSCOMMON.MULTINET]MULTINET_PING.EXE;5 A >                                                           232    > 5-JAN-2002 13:47 > %BACKUP-W-ACCONFLICT, E > DKC0:[MULTINET.ALPHA1.SYSCOMMON.MULTINET]MULTINET_PROFILE.DATA;1 is   > open for write by another user= > [MULTINET.ALPHA1.SYSCOMMON.MULTINET]MULTINET_PROFILE.DATA;1 @ >                                                             4  > 18-APR-1999 18:24 : > [MULTINET.ALPHA1.SYSCOMMON.MULTINET]MULTINET_RDATE.EXE;5A >                                                           204    > 5-JAN-2002 13:47; > [MULTINET.ALPHA1.SYSCOMMON.MULTINET]MULTINET_REPORT.TXT;5 @ >                                                             3  > 15-JAN-2002 10:18  > . F > . (files logged without errors, or cases similar to those above with3 > %BACKUP-W-ACCONFLICT, but still logged backed up)  > . @ > [SYS0.SYSCOMMON.SYSEXE]UNZIP-AXP.EXE;1                    315  > 28-FEB-2001 11:17 @ > [SYS0.SYSCOMMON.SYSEXE]UNZIP-AXP.EXE_51;1                 249  > 19-SEP-1997 08:37 @ > [SYS0.SYSCOMMON.SYSEXE]UNZIP542.EXE;1                     285  > 17-JUL-2001 13:23 @ > [SYS0.SYSCOMMON.SYSEXE]UTC$CONFIGURE_TDF.EXE;1             16  > 25-NOV-1996 22:03 @ > [SYS0.SYSCOMMON.SYSEXE]VERIFY.EXE;1                       434  > 25-NOV-1996 22:23 H > %BACKUP-W-ACCONFLICT, DKC0:[SYS0.SYSCOMMON.SYSEXE]VMS$OBJECTS.DAT;1 is  > open for write by another user > $!
 > $ SHOW TIME  >   17-FEB-2003 22:36:17 > $ show error. > Device                           Error Count, > $1$MKA100: (ALPHA1)                   1765, > $1$MKC400: (ALPHA1)                   1296 > F > Why does the backup job fail after the last warning, but none of theC > previous ones?  It appears to be the same error.  In all previous H > cases, the file noted in the warning is logged soon after the warning, > as shown.  >  > I'm baffled.  Any ideas?   Any ECO kits missing?   B > As an aside, anybody know an EASY way to preserve long lines?  IE > composed this message in write, then pasted it.  If I pasted just a H > few lines with no return at the end, they displayed as I intended, butE > when I tried to paste the whole message, it wrapped the long lines: A > yuck.  Pasting pieces at a time didn't seem to work, either.  I F > realize the posting style guide says keep lines short, but log files > were meant to be 132 cols!  F Evidently you use Google and Google posts have the equivalent of EDT's< SET WRAP 70, even though the window you paste into allows 80? characters per line. I find that strange, but that's how it is.    80-char line follows:   P 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890   80-char line with gaps follows  E 123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 	 123456789    Disclaimer: JMHO Alan E. Feldman    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:40:28 -0600 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> * Subject: Re: BACKUP/IGNORE=INTERLOCK fails' Message-ID: <3E52EE9C.83DC2937@fsi.net>    Dennis Baker wrote:  > [snip] > I'm baffled.  Any ideas?  G The error count on your tape drive outrageous, unless you have years of : uptime. I'd start there, based on the message in your log.  . Also, /RELEASE is meaningless without /RECORD.   --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 20:06:15 -0500   From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com>> Subject: Re: DECwindows hang when using Multinet and VMS patch6 Message-ID: <1030217195540.15004A-100000@Ives.egh.com>  " On 17 Feb 2003, Bob Koehler wrote:   > D >     On my hobbyist Alpha, I've been having trouble with a conflict2 >    between Multinet and a couple of VMS patches. > J >     Every time I apply VMS721_SYS V11.0 or VMS721_UPDATE V3.0 DECwindowsF >    stops working unless I leave out Multinet in SYSTARTUP_VMS.COM.  K >    During boot the startup process will logout and the cursor changes to  J >    X, and then the system sits (IIRC the DECW server process is in LEF).8 >    I can log in to the console only in character mode. > E >     If I try to start Multinet after boot, the X server hangs after  >    Multinet starts.  > H >     Prior to installing either of these patches everything seems to be >    OK. > C >     I've been through this a couple times and finally yesterday I E >    installed DEC TCPIP services instead of Multinet and that seemed 
 >    to work.  > / >     Is there an ECO or something I'm missing?  > H >    Right now I've got the following OS, Windows, and network software: >    VMS721_SYS V11.0  >    VMS721_ACRTL V3.0 >    TCPIP V5.0-10 >    VMS721_UPDATE V3.0  >    VMS721_PCSI V1.0  >    VMS721_SYS V1.0 >    VT V2.1-H   (VTAM)  >    FTAM V3.2-N >    OSAK V3.0-Q >    DECNET_OSI V7.2-1 >    DWMOTIF V1.2-5  >    OPENVMS 7.2-1 >    Multinet V4.3 Rev A  < VMS721_SYS V11.0 has a bug that causes a system crash in NFS= using TCPWARE (definitely) and TCP/IP Services (IIRC).  Don't > know about Multinet.  This is fixed in VMS721_SYS V12.0, which< was available at ftp.support.compaq.com, last time I looked.  > The problem was in SECURITY.EXE and SECURITY_MON.EXE.  I don't( know if it had any effect on DECWindows.   --   John Santos  Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Feb 2003 19:47:35 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) > Subject: Re: DECwindows hang when using Multinet and VMS patch3 Message-ID: <DTT6Ces6IIl$@eisner.encompasserve.org>   ` In article <17FEB03.17020423@feda01.fed.ornl.gov>, Dave Greenwood <greenwoodde@ornl.gov> writes:> > koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote: >>  E >>     On my hobbyist Alpha, I've been having trouble with a conflict 3 >>    between Multinet and a couple of VMS patches.  >>     > D > I have 2 VMS 7.2-1 systems with both the SYS v12.0 and UPDATE v3.0D > patches installed with Multinet (v4.4) running fine.  According toF > the log files, both systems were running the VMS 7.2-1 / SYS v11.0 /D > UPDATE v3.0 / MultiNet v4.3 combination without problems for about > 2 months.  > H > I'm trying to help out on a VMS 7.3, MultiNet 4.3 system with problemsD > similar to yours - ie, DECwindows doesn't start.  SHOW USERS shows@ > a SYSTEM user on device WSA1:.  If we don't start MultiNet viaD > systartup_vms.com, then DECwindows starts fine (no process holdingE > WSA1:) and we can start MultiNet later.  This system has UPDATE 1.0  > and SYS 2.0 installed. >   E    The combination of the latest kernel and ucxdriver patches seem to G    have cured it.  Felt so good, I downloaded most of the other patches C    for 4.3.  Just had to remember to reinstall MULTINET:USER.CLD in F    DCLTABLES tso that telnet would be Multinet's telnet and not DEC's.  H    I really aught to bring home the 4.4 kit from work, though , so I can    ssh2.   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Feb 2003 19:49:01 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) > Subject: Re: DECwindows hang when using Multinet and VMS patch3 Message-ID: <j90pn5NFWeQ6@eisner.encompasserve.org>   Y In article <1030217195540.15004A-100000@Ives.egh.com>, John Santos <JOHN@egh.com> writes:  > > > VMS721_SYS V11.0 has a bug that causes a system crash in NFS? > using TCPWARE (definitely) and TCP/IP Services (IIRC).  Don't @ > know about Multinet.  This is fixed in VMS721_SYS V12.0, which> > was available at ftp.support.compaq.com, last time I looked.  C    Not using NFS right now anyhow.  But when I looked V11.0 was the 0    last.  When I get time maybe I'll look again.   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Feb 2003 13:15:23 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) > Subject: Re: DECwindows hang when using Multinet and VMS patch3 Message-ID: <o8FQvee4I5gt@eisner.encompasserve.org>   f In article <b2r3ru$1la$1@n.ruf.uni-freiburg.de>, gartmann@immunbio.mpg.de (Christoph Gartmann) writes:L > I had a similar problem after I installed VMS712_GRAPHICS V4.0 . This fileQ > provided a new SYS$LIBRARY:DECW$TRANSPORT_TCPIP.EXE which was incompatible with  > Multinet.  > Workarounds:O > 1) Remove transport TCP/IP from SYS$MANAGER:DECW$PRIVATE_SERVER_SETUP.COM for L >    the nodes in question. Disadvantage: no X-sessions for Desktops anymoreO > 2) use the old "pre-patch" version of the file (worked all right in my case).       I'll try that.   Q > Process Software released a UCX-driver patch that fixed the problem and allowed  > me to use the new file again.   H    I thought it would be something like that.  Do you remember the patch
    number?   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 20:24:12 -0500   From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com>$ Subject: Re: FREE VAXstation 4000-606 Message-ID: <1030217202242.15004C-100000@Ives.egh.com>  % On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Don Sykes wrote:    > J > If anyone has an interest in the following old system, let me know ASAP.D > I have to be out of my office by EOM and have nowhere to put this. > . >   Hardware........:       VAXstation 4000-60( >   Operating System:       VMS Ver.V6.1 >   *Full License set* >   Main Memory (32.00Mb)       >   2-RZ56 (1299174 blocks each) >   1-RZ55 (649040 blocks) >   1-RZ24 (409792 blocks) >   2-TK50Z 
 >   1-RD40 >   1-TLZ04 $ >   1-VRT19DA (VT200 style RGB sync) >  >   Includes All cables  >  >  > --   >  > Have VMS, Will Travel  > Wire paladin, San Francisco  >  > (paladinATalphaseDOTcom)  6 Is this system in San Francisco, as your .sig implies?  < If it's in the Greater Boston area, I would be interested...     --   John Santos  Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:12:20 GMT ' From: Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> $ Subject: Re: FREE VAXstation 4000-60+ Message-ID: <3E52BE9A.B8142671@pacbell.net>   H At this point (18-Feb 15:33 PST) I think I have enough serious interest,F including several locals. If for any reason they all fall through I'll re-post.   Thanks for your interest.    Don Sykes wrote: > J > If anyone has an interest in the following old system, let me know ASAP.D > I have to be out of my office by EOM and have nowhere to put this. > . >   Hardware........:       VAXstation 4000-60( >   Operating System:       VMS Ver.V6.1 >   *Full License set* >   Main Memory (32.00Mb)   >   2-RZ56 (1299174 blocks each) >   1-RZ55 (649040 blocks) >   1-RZ24 (409792 blocks) >   2-TK50Z 
 >   1-RD40 >   1-TLZ04 $ >   1-VRT19DA (VT200 style RGB sync) >  >   Includes All cables  >    --     Have VMS, Will Travel  Wire paladin, San Francisco    (paladinATalphaseDOTcom)   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Feb 2003 14:51:58 -0600; From: kaplow_r@eisner.encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) - Subject: fun with F$FAO and the !AD directive 3 Message-ID: <VkpxbflTeWWj@eisner.encompasserve.org>   L I've been trying to use F$FAO and the (undocumented but referenced in a DSINK article) !AD directive to get values like PFL$L_MINFREPAGCNT (which SHO MEM K /PAGE /FULL doesn't even display) and PFL$L_RSRVPAGCNT with no success. Yet = it works fine getting SYS$GL_IJOBCNT and other juicy tidbits.   K Any idea what I'm doing wrong, or why I can get some system data structures  but not others?   < Is there any documentation on !AD? Is it acutally supported?   From within ANAL/SYSTEM:  
 exam 8E186508 / SYS$GL_IJOBCNT:  00000000.000001AA   "......."  eval @8E186508' Hex = 00000000.000001AA   Decimal = 426 
 exam 81b50fa0 2 FFFFFFFF.81B50FA0:  0000EC7A.0005B8D0   "..z.." eval @81b50fa0G Hex = 00000000.0005B8D0   Decimal = 374992              SDA$SHARE+298D0 
 exam 81b50fa4 % FFFFFFFF.81B50FA4:  0000EC7A   "z.."  eval @81b50fa48 Hex = 00000000.0000EC7A   Decimal = 60538                 	 From DCL:   A $ write sys$output f$cvui( 0, 32, f$fao( "!AD", 4, %x8E186508 ) )  426 A $ write sys$output f$cvui( 0, 32, f$fao( "!AD", 4, %x81b50fa0 ) ) P %SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=00, virtual address=000000000003& 8248, PC=0000000000110001, PS=7FFABBF0A $ write sys$output f$cvui( 0, 32, f$fao( "!AD", 4, %x81b50fa4 ) )oP %SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=00, virtual address=000000000003& 8248, PC=0000000000110001, PS=7FFABBF0    1 	26-October, 2001: A day that will live in infamya4 	Support Freedom: http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/  B 	Homeland Security Administration: The Gestapo of the 21st Century   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Feb 2003 20:10:32 -0800/ From: chris@applied-synergy.com (Chris Scheers)h1 Subject: Re: fun with F$FAO and the !AD directiveo= Message-ID: <754a27c1.0302182010.6811068e@posting.google.com>   v kaplow_r@eisner.encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote in message news:<VkpxbflTeWWj@eisner.encompasserve.org>...N > I've been trying to use F$FAO and the (undocumented but referenced in a DSINM > article) !AD directive to get values like PFL$L_MINFREPAGCNT (which SHO MEMTM > /PAGE /FULL doesn't even display) and PFL$L_RSRVPAGCNT with no success. Yete? > it works fine getting SYS$GL_IJOBCNT and other juicy tidbits.  > M > Any idea what I'm doing wrong, or why I can get some system data structures  > but not others?t  F I haven't checked the specifics of these particular locations, but notE all system memory is readable from user mode.  (Does DCL run F$FAO indF supervisor mode?  It shouldn't make any difference for kernel access.)  = Note that the error you get is an ACCVIO.  I suspect that theeC particular locations you are trying to read are protected from user  mode access.    B> > Is there any documentation on !AD? Is it acutally supported?  @ $FAO and the !AD directive are documented in the system services manual.e   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Feb 2003 17:09:59 -0800: From: craig.berry@SignalTreeSolutions.com (Craig A. Berry)* Subject: Re: GNU Patch for OpenVMS (again)= Message-ID: <7f15589f.0302181709.34eb11b7@posting.google.com>"  j robert.sundstrom@upright.se (Robert Sundstr m) wrote in message news:<b2ta1g$1m5$1@yggdrasil.utfors.se>... > Hello again.P > A few weeks ago I asked about a proper distribution of Gnu Patch for OpenVMS. I > Thanks to Craig Barry who directed me to the OpenVMS Freeware website. s > M > Unfortunately, when I use that Patch I get new line breaks inserted in the oJ > destination file. The new line breaks appears to be inserted at regular I > intervals so I searched the source for a buffer whose size would match yL > the intervals but at no immediate success. Before I try harder, is anyone  > familiar with this problem?   F I use that version all the time and have never encountered the problemE you describe.  One possibility is that there is a record-oriented vs..D stream-oriented issue; you might try making sure both your patch andB the file it applies to are STREAM_LF with carriage return carriageA control.  Certainly there are other possibilities, and they mightDB depend on your version of the C run-time (and thus VMS version) orB other variables.  If you can create a modest-sized reproducer, zipC -"V" and send it to me via "craigberry AT mac DOT com" and I'll see  what I can do.   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:51:13 GMTD4 From: robert.sundstrom@upright.se (Robert Sundstrm)& Subject: GNU Patch for OpenVMS (again). Message-ID: <b2ta1g$1m5$1@yggdrasil.utfors.se>   Hello again.N A few weeks ago I asked about a proper distribution of Gnu Patch for OpenVMS. G Thanks to Craig Barry who directed me to the OpenVMS Freeware website. .  K Unfortunately, when I use that Patch I get new line breaks inserted in the MH destination file. The new line breaks appears to be inserted at regular G intervals so I searched the source for a buffer whose size would match MJ the intervals but at no immediate success. Before I try harder, is anyone  familiar with this problem?o   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:15:57 -0800y$ From: Shane Smith <ssmith@icius.com>@ Subject: RE: Heads Up - Next OpenVMS Advanced Technical Bootcamp0 Message-ID: <01C2D73F.1F1A6450@sulfer.icius.com>  0 It's too tempting to misinterpret that question:   1. Major VMS advertising.s& 2. A port to Hammer as well as Itanic.H 3. Lexa Doig in a neglige holding a slice of cheesecake* when I get home tonight.  & All are equally likely, I suspect. ;')   Shanec  F * = it's an obscure Bloom County reference, and originally referred to Brooke Shields.s   >  >Dear Newsgroup, >sD >If you have suggestions on what you would like to see please let me3 >know, either in this notes stream or send me mail.B >o >Warm Regards, >Sue >d > = >susan_skonetski@hotmail.com (Sue Skonetski) wrote in messages; news:><857e9e41.0302121642.4d3c4195@posting.google.com>...1 I >> Previously known as the OpenVMS Symposium will be the week of Novembere
 >> 10th 2003.d >> nI >> We do not have an agenda yet but I wanted to give you the dates.  Some5 >> of the changes. >> pF >> This one will be four days Tues-Friday, we had feedback that 3 days >> was not long enough.e" >> We will be doing more hands on.* >> It will be at the Sheraton in Nashua NH >> AC >> This is all I know so far, we will update the web as we get morea >> information.r >>   >> Warm Regards, >> Sue   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 19:26:58 -0600B1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>c@ Subject: Re: Heads Up - Next OpenVMS Advanced Technical Bootcamp' Message-ID: <3E518BE2.38891D6D@fsi.net>    Sue Skonetski wrote: >  > Dear Newsgroup,M > E > If you have suggestions on what you would like to see please let men4 > know, either in this notes stream or send me mail.  C How 'bout a comparison of SRM to the Itanic equivalent. An in-depthrF discussion of the Itanic console environment, drawing parallels to the familiar SRM where appropriate.   > Another good one might be performance management and tuning of OpenVMS-IPF.   Whaddaya think?s   -- a David J. Dachterac dba DJE Systemss http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/s   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 06:57:53 -0500A2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger)@ Subject: Re: Heads Up - Next OpenVMS Advanced Technical BootcampL Message-ID: <rdeininger-1802030657530001@user-uinj459.dialup.mindspring.com>  ; In article <3E518BE2.38891D6D@fsi.net>, "David J. Dachtera"p <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote:   >Sue Skonetski wrote:- >> o >> Dear Newsgroup, >> oF >> If you have suggestions on what you would like to see please let me5 >> know, either in this notes stream or send me mail.M >pD >How 'bout a comparison of SRM to the Itanic equivalent. An in-depthG >discussion of the Itanic console environment, drawing parallels to theM  >familiar SRM where appropriate. > ? >Another good one might be performance management and tuning ofo
 >OpenVMS-IPF.  >  >Whaddaya think?  ? Both sound like worthy topics, but probably for 2004, not 2003.h   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:10:19 -0600n1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>w@ Subject: Re: Heads Up - Next OpenVMS Advanced Technical Bootcamp' Message-ID: <3E52E78B.2B5C1339@fsi.net>d   Robert Deininger wrote:. > = > In article <3E518BE2.38891D6D@fsi.net>, "David J. Dachtera"m  > <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote: >  > >Sue Skonetski wrote:e > >> > >> Dear Newsgroup, > >>H > >> If you have suggestions on what you would like to see please let me7 > >> know, either in this notes stream or send me mail.e > > F > >How 'bout a comparison of SRM to the Itanic equivalent. An in-depthI > >discussion of the Itanic console environment, drawing parallels to thea" > >familiar SRM where appropriate. > >rA > >Another good one might be performance management and tuning off > >OpenVMS-IPF.e > >n > >Whaddaya think? > A > Both sound like worthy topics, but probably for 2004, not 2003.n  F Why wait? Just because VMS is traditionally "behind the curve" doesn't necessarily mean it's right.   -- M David J. Dachterat dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/A   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:02:50 -0800I$ From: Shane Smith <ssmith@icius.com>D Subject: RE: How to Avoid the Almost Certain End of Sun Microsystems0 Message-ID: <01C2D73D.70057D20@sulfer.icius.com>  F That Lockheed VTOL system looks over complicated and kind of a gamble.C Wouldn't want shrapnel near that fan. The Boeing system looked likej7 solid, proven technology. Kind of like Itanic vs Alpha.e  H Hey, I just brought this thread back to computers. I must be slipping...   Shane1    = "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca> wrote in message3) news:3E4ECFDB.CD7AFFD4@vl.videotron.ca...nJ > Boeing buying McDonaldDouglas was just the same as HP buying Compaq: you buy au) > competitor to eliminate the competitor.g >,B Boeing had not built a fighter plane since the mid-1930's when the companynG entered the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) competition against a formidableeF Lockheed.  Buying McDonald-Douglas after they were eliminated from theG competition gained Boeing instant credibility and in fact they producedi an? excellent design that was nearly as good as the Lockheed plane.L Boeing's? motivation was to obtain expertise and facilities as quickly asE	 possible.OG McDonald was eliminated as a competitor the moment they lost out on the  JSF  bid.  C Course Boeing lost (disclaimer: ex-Lockheed employee) because theirh planeuF was aesthetically ugly but the Mcdonald fighter knowledge base is sure to begF incorporated in the unmanned aircraft program where Boeing is a strongD leader.  If you want to draw a comparison I think Intel grabbing the AlphaC design team is a better choice.a     Jack Peacock   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 20:21:56 -0500n  From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com>D Subject: Re: How to Avoid the Almost Certain End of Sun Microsystems6 Message-ID: <1030217201504.15004B-100000@Ives.egh.com>  ' On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, John Santos wrote:   ( > On 17 Feb 2003, Bill Gunshannon wrote: > 7 > > In article <PI2FQ4UWdeUZ@eisner.encompasserve.org>,dB > > 	koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:g > > > In article <b2r7nu$1g5d1p$1@ID-135708.news.dfncis.de>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:  > > >> dF > > >> The various PDP-11 OSes predated it and all had .COM's as well. > > >> As did CPM in 1974. > > > 0 > > >    I don't remember using .COM on RSX-11M. > > >  > > K > > OK, you got me on that one.  Looks like RSX called them .CMD files. :-):= > > (I was never much of an RSX person.  Much prefered RSTS.)  > > 4 > > But that hardly detracts from the comment above. > >  > > bill >  > H > RSTS called them .CMD files, too.  (Until RSTS got DCL, which was longG > after VMS.)  Also, I'm pretty sure VMS was available (field test, pre  > V1.0) in 1977.  B Thinking some more, I'm pretty sure they were .CTL files under theA original RSTS batch package, and .CMD files with ATPK, which only>, arrived with RSTS/E V8.0, about 1979-1980...  A System startup used .CTL files as well.  I don't remember if thisJ? was standard procedure, but I think we always set our START.CTLu@ to just run ATPK and execute START.CMD under it.  This gave us aB log and better control.  With V9.0, everything was DCL and .COM's, but this was much later.   > A > Was CP/M really around in 1974?  I thought the original articleI> > about building your own computer using an 8008(?) in Popular@ > Electronics(?) was in Jan/Feb 1975, and the various O/S (CP/M,- > DR-DOS, etc.) followed a year or two later.C   -- M John Santosr Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Feb 2003 13:33:23 +0100( From: Andreas Davour <ante@update.uu.se>D Subject: Re: How to Avoid the Almost Certain End of Sun Microsystems0 Message-ID: <cs9u1f1rcoc.fsf@Tempo.Update.UU.SE>  Q Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes:y   > Rob Young wrote:0 > > 	Very good read found via realworldtech.com. > > 	Cringely is a wise one.5 > > 	Here are a few lift quotes to whet the appetite: : > > http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030213.htmlF > > Sun did not invent the engineering workstation, but they certainly
 > > perfectedsK > > it.  But where are workstations today?  Gone, for the most part.  Sun'srE > > workstation business is about the same size as SGI's, which is torD > > say small. Sun is now a server company, but that won't last long > > either under theO > > onslaught of Linux.  Cheap Intel and AMD hardware running Linux is going to E > > kill Sun unless the company does something so stop it, which theyk > > aren't.- > = > Humm. Sun has a range of cheap Intel and AMD based hardwarer; > running Solaris or Linux. So the products that apparentlye< > are going to kill Sun are also ones that Sun sells, tricky > piece of logic..  B So what did you think made people so unsure about buying from SGI?: Could it have been that they were competing with themself?  B >  From a hardware standpoint Intel/AMD and Linux arn't that cheapC > either. Sun currently builds SPARC based systems to the same sortr- > of price points as Intel/AMD based systems.A  E Eh? Like what? SunBlade100? It sure had a fairly nice price tag, but < not much power for the price.t  .> > Linux cost more to own than Solaris, well to be more precise; > according to Meta Linux cost more to own than Win2000 ando( > Win2000 cost more to own than Solaris.  F Who told you that? Nobody but a markteting droid from Microsoft could C come up with that equation. I'm not aguing that win2000 costs a lotW= in licencing fees. So how can Solaris be cheaper than Linux? CG Support costs quite a bit, except from that, what else are you thinkingaB of? (and I don't think a support contract from Sun costs less than% a similar contract from a Linux firm)   9 > Sun is also the goose that lays the golden eggs for the 9 > Linux community. It is with StarOffice, NFS, Grid, Javam@ > etc the most significant donor of technology to the OpenSource > community. > = > Without Java for example Linux would be dead in Investementr
 > Banking.  S > > So here is the prognosis.  Sun lost $2 billion last year and will probably lose S > > another $2 billion this year.  At that rate, the company has at most five yearssR > > to live.  They have just renewed a commitment to the Solaris operating system,R > > which is no longer really viable from an economic standpoint.  I know, I know,O > > Solaris users love Solaris, but they don't love Solaris prices.  And with aoO > > falling market share, Sun can't afford to make Solaris any cheaper.  Sun isnQ > > having the same problem in hardware where their SPARC architecture is fallingoR > > behind, and -- worse still -- has lost nearly all of its manufacturing supportS > > in Japan.  Both Solaris and SPARC will absorb vast sums in the coming years andeC > > yield absolutely no increase in Sun's market share as a result.e > E > Sun lost 2 billion after book value write downs. If you include the,E > equivalent in HP's balance sheet then HP are also bleeding red ink.  > B > The bottom line is that you have been predicting SPARC/Solaris's; > demise since I have started reading this newsgroup. Apartm= > from a wolrdwide recession and cut back in IT spending yourf4 > analysis seems no more valid now than it did then.  3 I'm starting to wonder why you read this newsgroup?=8 But I think you are missing one point, it's not just the: recession that is hurting Sun. Customers and investors are; brginning to think Sun is on the slide. In the capitalisticS: economy expectations is what drives the economy. If Sun is) thought to lie bleeding she soon will be.2  ; If your boastful CEO doesn't see that one coming he is even=7 more blind than I thought. I used to work for Sun and I ) know it is not a healthy company anymore.m   Good luck, you'll need it.   /andreas   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Feb 2003 13:42:52 +0100( From: Andreas Davour <ante@update.uu.se>D Subject: Re: How to Avoid the Almost Certain End of Sun Microsystems0 Message-ID: <cs9ptpprc8j.fsf@Tempo.Update.UU.SE>  * Andreas Davour <ante@update.uu.se> writes:  3 [sorry, I did miss once think I thought to comment]e  S > Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes:t  e; > > Sun is also the goose that lays the golden eggs for theh; > > Linux community. It is with StarOffice, NFS, Grid, JavaeB > > etc the most significant donor of technology to the OpenSource > > community. > > ? > > Without Java for example Linux would be dead in Investement  > > Banking.  7 Check out what IBM is sharing with the Linux community.m3 I think they are the "good guys" in the eyes of theo Linux community these days.   < If you didn't know, I can tell you that since Sun had such a1 block header attityde towards opening up Java to o= standardisation developers of Free Software have implemented  < their own JVM and base classes. What Sun have is a expensive< thing they call Enterprise Java, which isn't worth all that 
 money anyway.C  : Don't you worry about Java, it's being taken care of, now 
 it's Free.   /andreas   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:31:09 +0000e' From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK ConsultancyoD Subject: Re: How to Avoid the Almost Certain End of Sun Microsystems. Message-ID: <3E5243AD.4070101@nospamn.sun.com>   Andreas Davour wrote:rS > Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes:c >  >  > D > So what did you think made people so unsure about buying from SGI?< > Could it have been that they were competing with themself?  6 This could have more to do with SGI than their product overlap.     > B >> From a hardware standpoint Intel/AMD and Linux arn't that cheapC >>either. Sun currently builds SPARC based systems to the same sort0- >>of price points as Intel/AMD based systems.  >  > G > Eh? Like what? SunBlade100? It sure had a fairly nice price tag, but   > not much power for the price.d >  e  : Actually I wasn't thinking of the Blades I was thinking of the small 1-8 way servers.   > > >>Linux cost more to own than Solaris, well to be more precise; >>according to Meta Linux cost more to own than Win2000 and:( >>Win2000 cost more to own than Solaris. >  > H > Who told you that? Nobody but a markteting droid from Microsoft could E > come up with that equation. I'm not aguing that win2000 costs a lotL? > in licencing fees. So how can Solaris be cheaper than Linux? 7I > Support costs quite a bit, except from that, what else are you thinkingKD > of? (and I don't think a support contract from Sun costs less than' > a similar contract from a Linux firm)N >   . Meta did a TCO study and thats the result that came out of it.r  0 As for Solaris's price vs Linux, Solaris is free- with any SPARC based system and Solaris 9 x86D3 if you pay for it for commercial use is 95 dollars, 0 if you can find a Linux distro with the packaged. supported software stack and the OS capability- of Solaris 9 for 95 dollars then let me know.   . Last time I looked SuSE and RedHat both wanted- over 1000 dollars for something that everyone  knows is less functional.   1 Of course you may want to pay for Solaris support 2 but then you also have to do the same for Linux if you want paid support.  3 In addition with Linux you end up having to pay forH1 for support on apps like Apache etc which you get 1 as part of the Solaris bundle, this is one reasonk, why Stronghold and Covalent exist after all.  0 Want a supported Firewall with NAT, Stealth, VPN% etc you get it for free with Solaris.n  + Want a supported LDAP directory, you get it  for free with Solaris.  9 Then you get to how much resource it costs you to supportf0 a Linux system and thats where you have to laugh/ any OS that requires you to edit and re-compile / the kernel in order to add a device driver as I . had to do for a FC adaptor is high maintenance2 particularly when the FC adaptor instructions only1 cover RedHat with a your mileage may vary commentI# on support for other Linux distros.   4 In reality server side Linux is headline Capx saving masking hidden support costs.L  4 The desktop is a more interesting discussion because/ the predominant desktop OS vendor MS unlike Sun 0 with Solaris is intent on taxing their customers) at the maximum that the market will bear.X   regards  Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:03:05 +0000-' From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK ConsultancyCD Subject: Re: How to Avoid the Almost Certain End of Sun Microsystems. Message-ID: <3E524B29.6030805@nospamn.sun.com>   Andreas Davour wrote: , > Andreas Davour <ante@update.uu.se> writes: > 5 > [sorry, I did miss once think I thought to comment]S >  > S >>Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes:  >  >    > : >>>Sun is also the goose that lays the golden eggs for the: >>>Linux community. It is with StarOffice, NFS, Grid, JavaA >>>etc the most significant donor of technology to the OpenSourcel
 >>>community.r >>> > >>>Without Java for example Linux would be dead in Investement >>>Banking.d >> > 9 > Check out what IBM is sharing with the Linux community. 5 > I think they are the "good guys" in the eyes of theO > Linux community these days.  >    Yes but thats all BS.9  A IBM have shared the JFS but then there are plenty of alternatives ; for this anyway almost everything else , DB2, WebSphere etcI; which incedentally requires Java is for sale not for share..  ; If this makes IBM the good guys to the opensource communityN? then it doesn't say very much thats good about their judgement.X    > > If you didn't know, I can tell you that since Sun had such a3 > block header attityde towards opening up Java to  ? > standardisation developers of Free Software have implemented H> > their own JVM and base classes. What Sun have is a expensive> > thing they call Enterprise Java, which isn't worth all that  > money anyway.t >   9 Sort of the GCJ compiler supports most but not all of thee= Java 2 platform edition, its missing a bunch of functionalityf1 thats part of Java 2 and it way off J2EE support.   > Kaffe the only other clean room Java implimetation is limitted  to 1.1 personal edition support.  8 So neither versions are going to make much impact in the server side Java arena.   = And how can Enteprise Java be expensive since we don't charget= for the implimetation its free for Solaris, Windows and Linuxg from the www.java.comi    < > Don't you worry about Java, it's being taken care of, now  > it's Free. >   9 Well yes it is but only because of the Sun donation which12 is of course free and is a complete implimenation.9 None of the other free JVM's are complete implimentationse4 so their cost or otherwise is hardly relevant is it.     Regardss Andrew Harrisons   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Feb 2003 16:17:25 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)6, Subject: RE: hp invite to CeBIT mentions VMS3 Message-ID: <I9Bco2WSxdXg@eisner.encompasserve.org>8  W In article <01C2D73A.106A6B80@sulfer.icius.com>, Shane Smith <ssmith@icius.com> writes:-  H > I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that the Itanium port may beJ > one of the best things to come along for VMS in some time. Not that I've* > magically gained any faith in the chip -  B Whether Itanium is better or worse than Alpha on a technical basisA is not so important as how Itanium VMS fares in a business sense.'E Microsoft has lots of business success without technical superiority.e   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 19:10:38 -0400t0 From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca>, Subject: Re: hp invite to CeBIT mentions VMS/ Message-ID: <3E52BD63.D92D92BA@vl.videotron.ca>,   Shane Smith wrote:H > I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that the Itanium port may be= > one of the best things to come along for VMS in some time. 4  M Perhaps it is the lack of success and lack of clear future for IA64 that willoM help VMS. It will make HP far more desperate to justify its decision to chosenK the losing architecture and that means flounting all the stuff that runs onV it._   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:17:22 -0600Y1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>o, Subject: Re: hp invite to CeBIT mentions VMS' Message-ID: <3E52E932.B85941BC@fsi.net>e   Shane Smith wrote: >  > >Paul Sture wrote: > >>@ > >> CeBIT trade show (Hanover, Germany  - March 12th-19th 2003) > >>$ > >> The hp invite mentions OpenVMS! > >> > >>  [snip] > >> > > @ > >The news of the port to Itanium was on the frontpage of Dutch= > >weekly Computable. For those who want to see it, a scan iseE > >at http://home.wanadoo.nl/erens/openvms/computable01.jpg (135 kb).f > >The article itself is at : : > >http://www.computable.nl/artikels/archief3/d07jb3lx.htm > >  > >--  > >MEn > H > I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that the Itanium port may beJ > one of the best things to come along for VMS in some time. Not that I'veG > magically gained any faith in the chip - I won't go over that again - F > but because it's caused more news stories in public forums, and moreH > pictures in the press than Digital/Compaq/HP marketing have managed inH > the previous five years. I'm seriously beginning to wonder if my IntelG > marketing money theory may be more than the joke I intended it to be.n  2 Sadly, I think you hit the nail right on the head.  F Yes, Itanic has gained more exposure for OpenVMS in the past 20 monthsG or so than those whose job it is to get that exposure have accomplished F in recent history. I'm having to work-around a stonewall at work rightG now, and if that's their case as well, then ya gotta give 'em credit atoA least for finding a creative way to side-step their own marketingD stonewall/blackhole.  H Then again, if this is the best we can hope for OpenVMS, it's time to go get assimilated.   -- 0 David J. Dachterae dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/t   ------------------------------   Date: 18 Feb 2003 21:00:22 GMT- From: Ken Robinson <kenrbnsn1@nospam.rcn.com>l+ Subject: HP Press Release on Dual Itanium 2S> Message-ID: <Xns9326A2D366D1Dkenrbnsnrbnsncom@199.184.165.241>  K This press release <http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030218/180623_1.html> actually b mentions OpenVMS! :-)g   KenS   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:09:54 GMTr7 From: brad@.homeportal.2wire.net (Bradford J. Hamilton)o/ Subject: Re: HP Press Release on Dual Itanium 2s/ Message-ID: <yix4a.168178$vm2.120571@rwcrnsc54>r  n In article <Xns9326A2D366D1Dkenrbnsnrbnsncom@199.184.165.241>, Ken Robinson <kenrbnsn1@nospam.rcn.com> writes:L >This press release <http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030218/180623_1.html> actually  >mentions OpenVMS! :-) >D >Ken  < Thanks to the marketing folks at HP!  Keep up the good work!  A _________________________________________________________________o0 Bradford J. Hamilton			"All opinions are my own"/ bMradAhamiPltSon@atMtAbi.cPoSm		"Lose the MAPS"I   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:12:47 -0800n$ From: Shane Smith <ssmith@icius.com>/ Subject: RE: HP Press Release on Dual Itanium 2n0 Message-ID: <01C2D74F.87890F90@sulfer.icius.com>  F Seconded. Incidentally, when I read back my last set of comments aboutG VMS marketing they didn't say what I meant. Sorry, Sue and co. I wasn'tVD trying to insult you, I should have made it clear I believe it's theC people above you not letting giving you the funds or opportunities.e   Shaner   -----Original Message-----D From: brad@.homeportal.2wire.net [mailto:brad@.homeportal.2wire.net]( Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 1:10 PM To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Coms/ Subject: Re: HP Press Release on Dual Itanium 2a    B In article <Xns9326A2D366D1Dkenrbnsnrbnsncom@199.184.165.241>, Ken+ Robinson <kenrbnsn1@nospam.rcn.com> writes: L >This press release <http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030218/180623_1.html> actually  >mentions OpenVMS! :-) >2 >Ken  < Thanks to the marketing folks at HP!  Keep up the good work!  A _________________________________________________________________p0 Bradford J. Hamilton			"All opinions are my own"/ bMradAhamiPltSon@atMtAbi.cPoSm		"Lose the MAPS"e   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:25:34 -0500 ' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com>G/ Subject: RE: HP Press Release on Dual Itanium 2BT Message-ID: <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF402660D8C@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>   Ken,   Same info on news.com at: 5 http://news.com.com/2100-1001-984813.html?tag=3Dcd_mheD "HP's servers can be subdivided into many independent machines, eachH with its own operating system. Itanium versions of Windows, Linux, HP-UX@ and HP's venerable OpenVMS will be able to run simultaneously in! different partitions, Ozil said."    Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co.! Consulting & Integration Servicesr Voice: 613-592-4660? Fax   : 613-591-4477 Email: kerryDOTmain@hpDOTcom-     (remove the DOT's and replace with "."'s)H OpenVMS DCL - the original .COMs     -----Original Message-----7 From: Ken Robinson [mailto:kenrbnsn1@nospam.rcn.com]=202 Sent: February 18, 2003 4:00 PMf To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Comt+ Subject: HP Press Release on Dual Itanium 2     A This press release <http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030218/180623_1.html>  actually=20. mentions OpenVMS! :-)n   Ken0   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 19:36:45 -0600n1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>eN Subject: Re: IBM says "Itanium is like a science project. There's not a market' Message-ID: <3E518E2D.89D4F35D@fsi.net>0   Rob Young wrote: > X > In article <3E50DD1F.90508@sun.com>, Andrew Harrison <andrew.harrison@sun.com> writes: > [snip]> > > Perhaps IBM have worked out that Itanium assembly is going9 > > to be just as low margin as x86 assembly with all the ) > > margins going to Intel and Microsoft.o > 5 >         Yes.  And this is a good thing all around. 5  # It is? Sounds monopolistic to me...    > Unless of courseE >         as a business you are counting on high margins to fund yourFL >         R&D.  That's why Scott Stallard is quick to point out that ItaniumH >         will save HP companywide $400 to $500 million annually in R&D.  E How much money can HP *AFFORD* to save? That is, they may not have to.H shell out for Alpha R&D, but what will the loss of so many Alpha and VMSH sites do to their cashflow in the long run? (I don't REALLY have to tell  anyone at this late date, do I?)  F >         Without that savings, selling cheaper hardware just won't be >         sustainable.    B ...and without that cash flow selling systems at all just won't be	 possible.9  2 > i.e. when it comes to Itanium HP and Dell appear% >         to be on more level ground,-  F ...with the exception that Dell has cooled to Itanic significantly, if I'm not too badly mistaken.a  # > especially going forward as Intel Q >         stuffs everything you need for a server on the CPU (memory controllers,8 >         interconnects).r  F Really? The SCSI card will be part of the CPU now? How do I add a SCSI bus?  I >         Now the question is if Sun goes the Opteron route can AMD stillg >         make a go of it?    F Depends how many other folks lose patience with, as Terry Shannon once% called it, "unobtanium" (Unobtanic?).T  1 >  Can they fund the x86-64 development?  PerhapsnI >         it will take a merger of AMD and IBM to make a go of it.  SeemsC >         that way.d  D Perhaps, but that would restore competition and in so doing make theG quality stays in and the price stays right. Can't have that now, can we  Uncle Bill (Gates)??   -- m David J. Dachtera: dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:39:41 +0000 ' From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy Y Subject: Re: IBM says "Itanium is like a science project. There's not a market for it" foA. Message-ID: <3E5253BD.8000102@nospamn.sun.com>   Rob Young wrote:@ > In article <OoKcnV7QOYxI_dGjXTWc2Q@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd" > <billtodd@metroca8 > st.net> writes:  > : >>"Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message >  > J >>Since, of course, POWER4+ processors *already* out-perform Itanic2s (andN >>even POWER4 was at no net performance disadvantage), the above clarifies theN >>fact (which regular readers of L'Inq should already know) that Egan Orion isI >>not exactly an expert on the relative merits of the two platforms:  his K >>primary interest is Linux, hence his comments fail to address some of thew7 >>more significant aspects of the article he refers to.r >>M >>In particular, not only is IBM now apparently comfortable making statements8N >>that marginalize Itanic, but industry analysts seem comfortable going along: >>	 >><quote>t >>N >>Illuminata's Haff agreed that the Itanium chip has proved to be a formidableK >>competitor to Power and Sun Microsystems' UltraSPARC processors but addedm9 >>that he senses the industry cooling on Itanium overall.' >>N >>"I think the industry is starting to shift a bit around Itanium," Haff said.M >>"Two years ago people looked at Itanium and thought it would be the natural M >>order of things to have Intel as the 64-bit chip supplier. The fact is thatrJ >>Itanium is still basically an HPCC [high-performance computing clusters]L >>play, so IBM is looking to go their own route if they can get just as much >>market share with Power."h >>
 >></quote> >>L >>Gordon Haff is not exactly an anti-Itanic fanatic, by the way:  he was theL >>author of the highly complimentary article about HP's McKinley zx1 chipset >>last year. >>N >>There might be a parallel with political campaigns, where lots of early hypeL >>results in a candidate 'peaking' too early and losing public interest (or,N >>worse yet, being caught out on statements made sufficiently early that thereN >>was time to prove them false) before the actual election occurs.  The ItanicK >>juggernaut has been enough of a sluggernaut (both in appearance and in atrL >>least initial performance) that it may be starting to face a sea change inL >>the perception of its aura of invincibility before there's really anything >>actually invincible about it.) >> >> >  > M >         All good.  But the battle really hasn't even begun yet.  Give Intel F >         2 or 3 more rounds of Itanium to turn the tables.  Here is a! >         hint of things to come:t > 5 > http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0107sgirelea.html  > M > The entry-level Altix 3300 server starts at US$70,176 in the U.S. with four & > processors and 32G bytes of memory.  > ! >         That is a sweet spot.  o > O >         Now we can dig about and have a good pissy back and forth on pricing.s > O >         Here is IBM, one of their latest, we see that they list 64 GBytes of i, >         RAM for a high-end box at $241000: >   F Seems a lot we list 64 GB of RAM for any of the larger Sun Fire server- up to and including the F15K for 96K dollars.   ? Incedentally don't get too excited about the Altix it may spoil < the HP party after all if your claims about Itanium are true< then the Altix is faster than a 64 way SuperDome and HP wantC rather more than 3 million for a 64 way Dome and no one is going toe; be happy in the HP camp if thy have to kiss over half theira# revenue away by going with itanium.   8 Incedentally HP want 800K for a 16 way rp8400 with 64 GB7 mid range server so if the Altix pricing is linear thenmA you can get a 16 way Altix for 280K ouch ouch ouch but then thatsi the Itanium market for you.@  8 Not that the Altix looks that interesting for commercial7 workloads. The only commercial benchmark that they have 3 run on the Altix 3000 shows a 3.25x speedup with 28F( CPU's when compared with a 4 way system.  6 On I/O it currently does ~1 GB/s RAW reads using XSCSI3 something like a factor of 12 less than a F15K doesn7 through the filesystem and using Oracle on a full tabler5 scan. This may give you some idea of how far Linux ist away from a commercial UNIX.   regardsr Andrew Harrisoni   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 19:48:17 -0600 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>@Y Subject: Re: IBM says "Itanium is like a science project. There's not a marketfor it" for0' Message-ID: <3E5190E1.3B1D950C@fsi.net>s  ( Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote: >  > John Smith wrote:i@ > > "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote in message% > > news:3E4E7D9A.DC61207E@fsi.net...e > >e > >>Bob Ceculski wrote:r > >>3 > >>>"Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> wrote in messageb > >>9 > > news:<CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIGEKKGJAA.tom@kednos.com>...S > >sB > >>>>I think you misread, IBM is spending lots of money on Linux, > >>>l > > just not > >e > >>>>on Itanium.  > >>>> > >>>t< > >>>should be the other way around ... linux is the science) > >>>project, and a lousy one at that ...o > >>H > >>...which is interesting: Linux has been running on IA32 since beforeB > >>Emerald was so much as a line of code. Linux is now displacing7 > >>WhineBloze in some cases, and VMS in others. It's ae > >  > > multi-billion-dollar > > C > >>business world-wide, while Itanic continues to founder, and theF > >,	 > > *BSDsd > >tE > >>are distant runners-up in the race for dollars (but advancing, by. > >>appearances).t > >>  > >>Draw your own conclusions... > >l > >o- > > Not meaning to be picky, but here goes...aH > > Emerald was a late 80's thing at its genesis. Linus didn't start his > > work until 1991-92.1  H Seems to me I first downloaded Linux from a U.S. BBS back around 1992 orG so when my 386SX/16 was young. Actually booted it up once or twice justs< for chuckles. May still have the files somewhere, and/or theH diskette(s). I spent some time last winter and put the files from my old backup tapes onto CD-Rs.  - > Not to be picky but Linux is just a Kernel.i  @ I understood that. It is outlined in great detail on a number of	 websites.c  4 > GNU and all the other OpenSource/Freeware projects3 > which make up 95% of what most people think of ase  > Linux all started in the 80's.  F That's a whole separate thread entirely - and one I'd just as soon not revive.c   -- J David J. Dachteraw dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/-   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:44:11 -0800n% From: Dean Woodward <deanw@rdrop.com>HY Subject: Re: IBM says "Itanium is like a science project. There's not a marketfor it" for1( Message-ID: <3E52B73B.6010305@rdrop.com>   David J. Dachtera wrote:  H  > Seems to me I first downloaded Linux from a U.S. BBS back around 1992$  > or so when my 386SX/16 was young.  C Somewhere in there; I've still got a Slackware 0.9A distro, with X  " server- takes 28 1.44MB diskettes.   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Feb 2003 14:42:04 -0600; From: kaplow_r@eisner.encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow)s- Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5 years ...m3 Message-ID: <zGbJE5j9KjFE@eisner.encompasserve.org>i  K Actually, I'm surprised that AMD has lasted as long as it has. Ever since InL heard that "GQ" Bob Palmer and his golden parachute landed at AMD, I've been) expecting them to go under any day now...    MOSTEK DEC1 AMD0 Who's next?v    1 	26-October, 2001: A day that will live in infamyH4 	Support Freedom: http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/  B 	Homeland Security Administration: The Gestapo of the 21st Century   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Feb 2003 19:37:20 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) - Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5 years ...e3 Message-ID: <C+Qgt+GUayut@eisner.encompasserve.org>   a In article <b2re2i$1fjr24$3@ID-135708.news.dfncis.de>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:t2 > In article <3e4e51f7.231256839@news.eircom.net>,5 > 	rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace) writes: I >> On 12 Feb 2003 09:38:50 -0600, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.orge >> (Bob Koehler) wrote:n >> iG >>>   What I mind is the decision to sub out the software to Billy boy.  >> y  >> You'd prefer an IBM monopoly? >> 3 > 0 > As opposed to a Microsoft monopoly?  Probably.  ?    Yes, but just barely.  I think Billy boy learned lots of his A    lessons from IBM.  I was thinking more in the terms of what iflH    they'd choosen some fairly respectable folks to contract the software    to.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:57:37 -0800t$ From: Shane Smith <ssmith@icius.com>Q Subject: RE: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly00 Message-ID: <01C2D73C.A55D9B20@sulfer.icius.com>  7 EAT FLAMING DEATH, ACCURSED COMMODORE OWNER!!!!!!!! :-)h  G Yup, I had a Spectrum. Three, in fact, and briefly worked for Melbourneo House.   ShaneI   -----Original Message-----@ From: rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net [mailto:rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net]' Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 8:45 AMl To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.ComsH Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly    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?i  ? >All of these have been subject to similar bouts of widespread  ? >flames and policy. All in vain. In college we had a course in oF >industrial economics, where we had some essays where industry leadersC >were hotly discussing the merits of things like alternators versussC >generators. Almost all of these were big issues in their time, andB? >they all got sorted out by the market 10 years later in a verynD >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 :):   -- 03 "Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent."H+ Remove killer rodent from address to reply.r! http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace4   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Feb 2003 21:22:51 +0100- From: Andreas Eder <Andreas.Eder@t-online.de> Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyo* Message-ID: <m31y25jq3o.fsf@elgin.eder.de>  2 rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace) writes:  E > You don't get it. I know very well Unix geeks are prone to refer toeF > machines as "compatible" if it takes fewer than N man-months of work5 > to port application software from one to the other.n > G > That's not how the people who pay for our industry's existence think. @ > They figure if they buy a computer and they buy a program, the- > computer should be able to run the program.h > E Then buy a Sun box with Solaris and Oracle for Solaris and it runs onc the box - voila!> Now try to run that on a wintel box and it will choke - end of discussion.t   'Andreas -- a+ Wherever I lay my .emacs, theres my $HOME.    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:19:55 -0500l( From: J. Clarke <nospam1@nospam.invalid>Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolye, Message-ID: <b2u4ha42lrf@enews2.newsguy.com>  H In article <1045587168.20690@saucer.planet.gong>, roo@dark-try-removing- this-boong.demon.co.uk says...7 > "J. Clarke" <nospam1@nospam.invalid> wrote in message ( > news:b2tin001p3s@enews2.newsguy.com... >  > [SNIP] > I > > And for "uninformed users", there is no excuse whatsoever to not keepIJ > > your patches current--Windows annoys the Hell out of you with messages> > > about needing patches any time there is a patch available. > >.K > > There are problems with Windows, but blame it for what it does, not fort* > > what applications running under it do. > ; > Hmm, the problem is : A fair few exploits have been foundr= > for the services supplied with the system by default, whichl= > the user takes no part in configuring. Furthermore the userf6 > may well not even be aware of the existance of those > services !  G This is true and for this Microsoft is squarely to blame.  However the d/ above listed problems are not in that category.   a& > That is an OS Vendor Policy problem. > ; > Furthermore, many applications, following the pattern sett> > by Microsoft, require Superuser priveledges to be installed.< > It is therefore impossible to *confine* the application to< > something akin to a chroot jail or an LPAR. Microsoft's OS8 > and Applications are to blame for that one. It's a bad- > example to set to 3rd party developers too.r  E That's not so much a pattern set by Microsoft, it's more the way the fC whole mess developed.  Vendors were used to producing products for  I Windows 9X, which had no security to speak of, and so they never had any nB incentive to develop installation procedures that did not require G privileged access.  Once that was in place there wasn't a whole lot of  G choice but to run at high privilege or not run apps.  And if you don't .F run apps then the Powers That Be say "why did we spend all this money 6 for NT when it won't run this app that runs under 9x".  G Some of this is just plain stupidity on the part of the developers.  I  G remember one application that I have dealt with that is implemented to pC access its data via SQL Anywhere however there is one file that it 0I places in the same directory where SQL Anywhere stores its databases and tI it requires that the user have administrator privilege in that directory oA on the server in order to access that one file.  Thereby handily oB defeating the whole point of using a database server.  That's not H Microsoft, that's an incredibly stupid developer.  Much as I'd like to, ; I cannot hold Microsoft accountable for that sort of thing.   < > You can see the net result of this : Proliferation of lots> > of over powered single-application boxes, the number roughly< > being the product of the number of different apps required; > by the number of domains... Naturally this creates a much < > greater management burden, and the complexity ensures that< > failures are more frequent and security holes are far more: > likely to exist - and probably be more insidious too. ;) > > > Microsoft clearly does not get this really... The marketoids@ > and analysts bang on about how many processors it can support.9 > If they took the trouble to actually ask people who runr? > the bloody systems in the field what they wanted, they'd find : > that that they want easier management... If they thought< > about it a bit more they might work out that looking after> > one box with 100 apps is easier than looking after 100 boxes' > running one app... Plus it's cheaper.   H <sarcasm>Oh, haven't you heard, the big advantage of Windows over, say, ' Novell, is easier management.</sarcasm>r   > 	 > Cheers,R > Rupert >  >  >    --   -- --John- Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot netm* (used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 02:01:47 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>tQ Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly E Message-ID: <fug4a.1669$St5.452@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>i  7 "Morten Reistad" <mrr@reistad.priv.no> wrote in messager) news:cnjm2b.liv.ln@via.reistad.priv.no...h: > According to Russell Wallace <rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net>:< > >On 15 Feb 2003 12:59:08 -0500, pechter@shell.monmouth.com  > >(Bill/Carolyn Pechter) wrote: > > ? > >>IBM seemed to want to be the biggest and strongest computern company.A > >>IBM seemed to want to be the leader and the standard.  I feel.	 MicrosoftaC > >>won't give up until EVERY piece of computing machine (includingt your6 > >>car and toaster) boots and runs a Windows varient. > >sF > >It doesn't matter who wants what or who feels what. The reason it'sD > >vastly preferable to have Microsoft instead of IBM or anyone else as7 > >#1 is very simple: *Microsoft don't sell computers*.y >e3 > And IBM was probably the best behaved of the lot.-    E Only because of the heat the DOJ put on them for many years while the + anti-trust case was proceeding against the,t  1 Since that time IBM has behaved fairly hororably.e    C And despite the DOJ case against Microsoft, so far the Borg has notd/ shown the same kind of contrition that IBM did.n   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:27:57 -0000HD From: "Rupert Pigott" <roo@dark-try-removing-this-boong.demon.co.uk>Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyG2 Message-ID: <1045603661.450322@saucer.planet.gong>  5 "J. Clarke" <nospam1@nospam.invalid> wrote in messageh& news:b2u4ha42lrf@enews2.newsguy.com...J > In article <1045587168.20690@saucer.planet.gong>, roo@dark-try-removing-  > this-boong.demon.co.uk says...9 > > "J. Clarke" <nospam1@nospam.invalid> wrote in messagea* > > news:b2tin001p3s@enews2.newsguy.com... > >i
 > > [SNIP] > >aK > > > And for "uninformed users", there is no excuse whatsoever to not keepeL > > > your patches current--Windows annoys the Hell out of you with messages@ > > > about needing patches any time there is a patch available. > > >hI > > > There are problems with Windows, but blame it for what it does, notc forf, > > > what applications running under it do. > >-= > > Hmm, the problem is : A fair few exploits have been foundn? > > for the services supplied with the system by default, whichl? > > the user takes no part in configuring. Furthermore the user08 > > may well not even be aware of the existance of those > > services ! >aH > This is true and for this Microsoft is squarely to blame.  However the1 > above listed problems are not in that category.f > ( > > That is an OS Vendor Policy problem. > >t= > > Furthermore, many applications, following the pattern sett@ > > by Microsoft, require Superuser priveledges to be installed.> > > It is therefore impossible to *confine* the application to> > > something akin to a chroot jail or an LPAR. Microsoft's OS: > > and Applications are to blame for that one. It's a bad/ > > example to set to 3rd party developers too.o >uF > That's not so much a pattern set by Microsoft, it's more the way theD > whole mess developed.  Vendors were used to producing products for  J > Windows 9X, which had no security to speak of, and so they never had any  9 The earliest reference I can find to a production releaset6 of NT is August '93... NT introduced Win32, along with8 Win32s for the old '16bit' Windows, '95 et al came along a fair bit later.   C > incentive to develop installation procedures that did not requireiH > privileged access.  Once that was in place there wasn't a whole lot ofH > choice but to run at high privilege or not run apps.  And if you don'tG > run apps then the Powers That Be say "why did we spend all this money 8 > for NT when it won't run this app that runs under 9x".  5 Most of the claims of Windows being "required" appeare5 to boil down to "We need Office", which happens to beu4 an MS product. God only knows how you would research6 it, but I'd lay odds that MS had the largest portfolio4 of apps for NT at it's introduction and for the next5 few years. What's more they've probably maintained it 3 by buying anyone who shows promise of competing. Son they really do have NO EXCUSE.   [SNIP]  6 I can't claim to like NT having spent a fair amount of6 time with it. But it could be about 200x better if the6 basics had been taken care of in the userland at day 15 and had been continued to be maintained... MS has the 5 tools and capability to do that, they just never did.o  ( Fuck'em and the horse the rode in on. ;)   Cheers,. Rupert   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:00:13 GMTh0 From: rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace)Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyt0 Message-ID: <3e50ce3d.122373091@news.eircom.net>  3 On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 20:41:11 -0000, "Rupert Pigott"p5 <roo@dark-try-removing-this-boong.demon.co.uk> wrote:   < >Oh, you mean SVR4, BSD & Linux ? All of them "multi-vendor"$ >all of them present a standard API.  E The various Linux distros aren't independent implementations (most ofnE the code in them comes from the same original source) - but yes, theyaC do come closer than anyone except Microsoft has ever come before toc? solving this problem, which is exactly why Linux is becoming so  successful.i   -- t3 "Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent."a+ Remove killer rodent from address to reply. ! http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:39:01 GMTs0 From: rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace)Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyr0 Message-ID: <3e52b57b.247125579@news.eircom.net>  F On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:40:38 -0500, J. Clarke <nospam1@nospam.invalid> wrote:  G >As for BAH being a Unix geek, you owe me a screen and a cup of coffee.m  * They say laughter is good for the soul ^.~  C (As I remarked in another reply, I don't know what kind of machinesSC BAH uses; but apparently ones that lead their users to believe Unixn+ and VMS systems aren't "real computers" :))    -- t3 "Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent."e+ Remove killer rodent from address to reply.M! http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallacey   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:45:00 GMTn0 From: rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace)Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly 0 Message-ID: <3e52b64e.247336825@news.eircom.net>  F On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:40:31 -0500, J. Clarke <nospam1@nospam.invalid> wrote:  G >However this is really a straw man.  Unix is cross-platform--binaries  J >that run on the ARM processor in a Zaurus are not going to run on a 3090 G >due to differences in the hardware instruction set.  Nonethelesss the  A >same source will compile and run on both.  For this reason most  J >applications used on Linux or BSD are distributed as source, and in that C >universe "compatibility" does not necessarily mean "runs the same   >binaries".   ? Yes, I know. If you're happy with that, that's fine. I'm merely E pointing out that most people who aren't computer specialists are notd happy with it.   >> Do F >> the same keyboard shortcuts work on all the different applications? >pD >This is an application programming issue, not an OS issue.  If the H >application supports a particular set of keyboard shortcuts it usually 8 >supports the same shortcuts on all supported platforms.  C That's fine until someone tries Unix, notes the shortcuts aren't asoF consistent between programs as they were on Windows, and switches backA to Windows for that reason. Not that you're obliged to care aboutsC that; I personally don't much care either way. But some Unix peoplerC care a great deal - and very vocally - that Windows is more popular @ than Unix. I figured someone might as well point out some of the reasons for it.-  0 >> Can you reliably copy and paste between them? >eF >I don't have any problem doing this.  Heck, I don't have any trouble 6 >cutting from a Windows box and pasting to a Unix box.   That's good, then.   -- 13 "Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent."c+ Remove killer rodent from address to reply.t! http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:33:09 -0500a( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyn, Message-ID: <3E519B65.6060207@tsoft-inc.com>   Russell Wallace wrote:    E > Not from my side it isn't. My argument all along has been precisely-E > that whether you want to say one company or another is "predatory",FG > "evil", "a monopoly" etc etc (in practice, those labels are earned by G > being successful, not by being nasty) isn't what really matters. WhatmE > matters is that it's much better to have a standard than a bunch ofm? > incompatible proprietary systems. (If it happens to be a goodoF > standard, so much the better. If it doesn't, it's still a lot better > than none at all.)    I I've been trying to stay out of this rather useless discussion, but, the  3 implication above is that MS is not evil and nasty.t  5 1) Legally found to have used monopolistic practices.-& 2) Wipes out any possible competition.  3) Illegally destroyed Netscape.( 4) "Your problem is that you trusted us"  5 This list could be long, but you should get the idea.1  K MS Windows is a decent desktop system.  Not too secure, but, hey, it's the tN desktop.  I could live with MS if they stayed with technical accomplishments. N but MS is basically evil and nasty.  To them, there are no competitors, there P are just those whom they will attempt to destroy.  It's the business practices,  not the products.   Q MS has dumbed down the world's expectations of computers.  This is it's greatest i evil.s  K MS will attempt to sell it's products into a market for which they are not  O suited.  For one, the datacenter.  Neither secure, not capable.  Computers are a1 more than office automation and storage of files.S   Dave   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:53:19 GMTg0 From: rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace)Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolym0 Message-ID: <3e52b79f.247673245@news.eircom.net>  F On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:40:56 -0500, J. Clarke <nospam1@nospam.invalid> wrote:  H >You !@#$%^&*()_, that's TWO screens now.  Would you start putting spew  >alerts on these things?   lol!  F Well what sort of background _does_ lead someone to think Unix systemsB aren't "real computers" then? It's a term I've only ever seen Unix	 guys use.i  + >Ever try to use a US appliance in England?   C No, never had a reason to; nor has anyone else that I've ever hearde of.d   >Has NYC ever gotten  < >completely transitioned off of the old Edison DC equipment?   No idea.  J >Every plug an analog modem into a jack connected to a digital switch and - >then wonder why everybody is angry with you?J   No.m   >So you've got your digital TV?i   No.f  * >Is it HD or SD?  And it receives DirecTV A >and Dish Network transmissions without any proprietary hardware?0  E Don't know anything about digital TV. If you say it has big problems,H I'll take your word for it.u  G >????  You put something in a box, somebody puts the box on a truck or sG >ship or plane or train or mule or camel or whatever and carries it to  J >somewhere else and then takes it off the whatever.  I don't see any room  >there for "compatibility".   D Standard containers. Move stuff from Timbuktu to Alaska without ever4 having to repackage it into a different form factor.   >> even fax machines.c >rH >So why do half the faxed newsletters that the local food bank tries to H >send out bounce because the destination fax is incompatible with their  >fax server?  > Don't know, never seen fax machines do anything but just work.  F >You seem to have some misconceptions about the "level of service" in  >many industries._  ? Are you seriously suggesting the ones I've mentioned give their B customers anything like as many headaches as the computer industry does?-   -- -3 "Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent."4+ Remove killer rodent from address to reply.>! http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallaceD   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:54:37 GMTd0 From: rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace)Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolys0 Message-ID: <3e52b996.248176751@news.eircom.net>  B On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:57:37 -0800, Shane Smith <ssmith@icius.com> wrote:  8 >EAT FLAMING DEATH, ACCURSED COMMODORE OWNER!!!!!!!! :-)   ^.^d  H >Yup, I had a Spectrum. Three, in fact, and briefly worked for Melbourne >House.8   Cool! What did you work on?b   -- o3 "Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent." + Remove killer rodent from address to reply.c! http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace<   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:46:24 -0800o5 From: Brooks Moses <bmoses-usenet@cits1.stanford.edu>!Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly_2 Message-ID: <3E52B7C0.D24D3F0A@cits1.stanford.edu>   rmk@rmkhome.com wrote:R > In alt.folklore.computers Brooks Moses <bmoses-usenet@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote:K > > Certainly true.  But would your average untrained desktop user/sysadmin I > > know that?  I suspect, if a program had an install routine claimed tonJ > > need to be run as root, and gave error messages if run otherwise, many/ > > of them would simply su to root and run it.n > N > In most secure environments, users cannot be root or admin on their machines1 > whether they are running Windows, UNIX, or VMS.   G Well, certainly.  And, in those environments, the sort of "I need to be-H root to be installed" trojan that I was talking about wouldn't do much. G But that's sort of irrelevant to my point, which was that if some othern@ OS were in Windows's place as a common home desktop OS, it wouldF probably have many of the same problems that Windows does, such as (in? that example) susceptibility to infection by obnoxious trojans.    - Brooks   ------------------------------   Date: 18 Feb 2003 03:31:35 GMT From: rmk@rmkhome.comoQ Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyr3 Message-ID: <3e51a916$0$197$75868355@news.frii.net>e  P In alt.folklore.computers Brooks Moses <bmoses-usenet@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote:  D > My suspicion is that a large number -- not all, but many -- of theI > problems that people seem to have with Windows come from the competence:H > of the sysadmin, and that if the same sysadmins were running any otherG > OS en masse, that other OS would have similar problems.  All it wouldcH > take is a few Kazaa-like apps that "need to be installed as root".... G > And a .bashrc-infecting virus shouldn't be that hard to make, either;g > who'd notice it?  A Take a look at the bugtraq mailing list or www.securityfocus.com.t  ! Worst OS - any version of Windows. 2nd Worst OS - Linux$ And then everything else after that.  F Windows, by the nature of it's GUI interface, even hides problems from
 the sysadmin.i  E Meanwhile, I can still see NIMDA, Code Red, and that latest port 1433iH virus still slamming their way around the internet. Windows was designedE for private networks, and then jury-rigged to work with the internet.  -- i, rmk@rmkhome.com		http://www.rmkhome.com/~rmk   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:26:34 -0000hD From: "Rupert Pigott" <roo@dark-try-removing-this-boong.demon.co.uk>Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly'2 Message-ID: <1045610778.532553@saucer.planet.gong>  B "Brooks Moses" <bmoses-usenet@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote in message, news:3E52B7C0.D24D3F0A@cits1.stanford.edu... > rmk@rmkhome.com wrote:* > > In alt.folklore.computers Brooks Moses) <bmoses-usenet@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote: ? > > > Certainly true.  But would your average untrained desktope
 user/sysadmintK > > > know that?  I suspect, if a program had an install routine claimed to L > > > need to be run as root, and gave error messages if run otherwise, many1 > > > of them would simply su to root and run it.n > >fG > > In most secure environments, users cannot be root or admin on their  machines3 > > whether they are running Windows, UNIX, or VMS.n > I > Well, certainly.  And, in those environments, the sort of "I need to be I > root to be installed" trojan that I was talking about wouldn't do much.aI > But that's sort of irrelevant to my point, which was that if some othertB > OS were in Windows's place as a common home desktop OS, it wouldH > probably have many of the same problems that Windows does, such as (inA > that example) susceptibility to infection by obnoxious trojans.   5 I suspect that considerable steps forward in securityy5 are possible. It requires a radical rethink of what aa6 "consumer" (bleah) OS should look like. By implication6 this also means a radical rethink of the applications.  7 Microsoft appears to be unable or unwilling to do this.   4 I know for a fact that it's possible to put together6 near zero maintenence applications, and I know that it0 is possible to fully partition applications too.  # It's been done to death. For years.r   Cheers,r Rupert   ------------------------------   Date: 18 Feb 2003 03:35:33 GMT From: rmk@rmkhome.comiQ Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolys3 Message-ID: <3e51aa05$0$197$75868355@news.frii.net>l  P In alt.folklore.computers Brooks Moses <bmoses-usenet@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote:  I > Certainly true.  But would your average untrained desktop user/sysadmintG > know that?  I suspect, if a program had an install routine claimed torH > need to be run as root, and gave error messages if run otherwise, many- > of them would simply su to root and run it.t  L In most secure environments, users cannot be root or admin on their machines/ whether they are running Windows, UNIX, or VMS.  --  , rmk@rmkhome.com		http://www.rmkhome.com/~rmk   ------------------------------   Date: 18 Feb 2003 03:45:33 GMT From: rmk@rmkhome.comiQ Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly,3 Message-ID: <3e51ac5d$0$197$75868355@news.frii.net>u  C In alt.folklore.computers J. Clarke <nospam1@nospam.invalid> wrote:   G > SVR4 and BSD are not "various Linux distros".  In the beginning AT&T yK > Bell Labs created Unix.  System V Release 4, which is what "SVR4" stands gH > for, was their final version before USL was sold to Novell.  BSD is a J > descendant of an earlier AT&T Unix release, which has subsequently been C > developed independently of the AT&T products, and in its NetBSD, eK > OpenBSD, and FreeBSD forms has been completely sanitized of AT&T code so eF > that it may be distributed as open source.  Linux is an independent J > development which never contained any AT&T code.  So you have now three J > independent code bases, not one.  If you want to add the Hurd (which at H > release 0.2 is running but not yet feature-complete) to the mix, then  > you have four.  : And SVR4 is the union of AT&T SVR3 with Sun's take on BSD.  F Across Linux distributions, the only factor that stays the same is theD kernel itself. The rest of a particular distribution is whatever the packager felt like.i -- b, rmk@rmkhome.com		http://www.rmkhome.com/~rmk   ------------------------------   Date: 18 Feb 2003 03:59:42 GMT From: rmk@rmkhome.com Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyt3 Message-ID: <3e51afae$0$197$75868355@news.frii.net>   K In alt.folklore.computers Glen Herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:   L > StarOffice, and now the version from OpenOffice.org, run on Solaris-sparc,L > Solaris-x86, Linux, and Win32.  I think they are working on a Mac version.  L And you can always buy the x86 PCI card from Sun and run Solaris and Windows) apps simultaneously on a Sun workstation.d -- a, rmk@rmkhome.com		http://www.rmkhome.com/~rmk   ------------------------------   Date: 18 Feb 2003 04:05:58 GMT From: rmk@rmkhome.com Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyt3 Message-ID: <3e51b126$0$197$75868355@news.frii.net>e  K In alt.folklore.computers Russell Wallace <rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net> wrote:n  E > However, I wasn't saying Star Office is more closed and proprietaryyE > than Microsoft Office (indeed it isn't), I was saying Sun boxes are ' > more closed and proprietary than PCs.8  I You can run NetBSD, OpenBSD, Linux, Solaris, NextStep, Minix, SunOS 4 and E who knows wthat else on a Sun box. You can do the same thing on a PC.n  D A PC running a Microsoft operating system is closed and proprietary.G Microsoft likes to pervert industry standards so that others are lockednA out. A computer running a Microsoft operating system is not open.  -- a, rmk@rmkhome.com		http://www.rmkhome.com/~rmk   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 23:57:25 -0400d0 From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca>Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyo/ Message-ID: <3E51AF23.36041531@vl.videotron.ca>-   rmk@rmkhome.com wrote:F > A PC running a Microsoft operating system is closed and proprietary.I > Microsoft likes to pervert industry standards so that others are lockedpC > out. A computer running a Microsoft operating system is not open.5  L Yes, it is open. Open to any and all viruses , trojan horses etc etc etc :-)   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 06:29:22 GMT 0 From: rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace)Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly 0 Message-ID: <3e51d0a7.188536110@news.eircom.net>  F On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:33:09 -0500, David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:  J >I've been trying to stay out of this rather useless discussion, but, the 4 >implication above is that MS is not evil and nasty. >o6 >1) Legally found to have used monopolistic practices.' >2) Wipes out any possible competition.I! >3) Illegally destroyed Netscape.o  > By giving away a competing product for free? Ah, then assumingE something resembling a consistent set of standards is to be followed,rF GNU are crimimals for giving away Linux and GCC, Sun for Java and Star Office etc.   @ No? I see, so the complaint about destroying Netscape is just anC excuse then. Excuses are cheap; you'd find one irrespective of whatu Microsoft did or didn't do.   6 >This list could be long, but you should get the idea.  F I get the idea just fine. What Microsoft are really hated for is beingC successful; these days, that seems to be the greatest crime of all.r  R >MS has dumbed down the world's expectations of computers.  This is it's greatest  >evil.  E They made computers useful to people who aren't geeks. (You know, theeA people who pay our wages, the ones for whose benefit our industrysA exists in the first place.) If you regard that as evil... *shrug*    -- o3 "Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent."f+ Remove killer rodent from address to reply.o! http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallacee   ------------------------------   Date: 18 Feb 2003 06:35:33 GMT- From: djweath@attglobal.net (Dave Weatherall)lQ Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyt5 Message-ID: <DTiotGxQ0bj6-pn2-8Ly6Uoepvn0c@localhost>p  D On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:41:39 UTC, rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell  Wallace) wrote:a  G > On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:24:51 GMT, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>H > wrote: > H > >Okay, so now I have this Sun I want to run Office on, no problem, eh? > F > Buy Sun's incompatible proprietary hardware, looks like you're stuck$ > with running Sun's office package.  D Very true but al least they have one now. How well it works and its = compatibility with Word is another question. However, in our oF environment, it enabled another task, test documentation, to be moved F from VMS to Solaris. In some respects for the better...it certainly is	 prettier.r   -  Cheers - Dave.   ------------------------------   Date: 18 Feb 2003 06:59:48 GMT- From: djweath@attglobal.net (Dave Weatherall) Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly 5 Message-ID: <DTiotGxQ0bj6-pn2-dK8cuEujHXRe@localhost>   D On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 06:29:22 UTC, rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell  Wallace) wrote:   H > On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:33:09 -0500, David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> > wrote: > L > >I've been trying to stay out of this rather useless discussion, but, the 6 > >implication above is that MS is not evil and nasty. > > 8 > >1) Legally found to have used monopolistic practices.) > >2) Wipes out any possible competition.M# > >3) Illegally destroyed Netscape.C > @ > By giving away a competing product for free? Ah, then assumingG > something resembling a consistent set of standards is to be followed, H > GNU are crimimals for giving away Linux and GCC, Sun for Java and Star
 > Office etc.l  F A slight over-simplification methinks. The 'competition' with NetscapeD was not free and fair and IIRC that's the original judges position. E That's precisely where they abused their monopoly position and where eF 'embrace, extend and exclude the opposition' became so very apparent. E You may recall that MS coupled discounts with the instruction not to   preload Netscape on PC's.  --   Cheers - Dave.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:13:52 +0100c+ From: Morten Reistad <mrrz@reistad.priv.no>-Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyt0 Message-ID: <gneu2b.di11.ln@via.reistad.priv.no>  1 According to J. Clarke  <nospam1@nospam.invalid>:g2 >In article <3e523c53.216104475@news.eircom.net>, ! >rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net says...E; >> On Tue, 18 Feb 03 11:37:21 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:b >> y4 >> >In article <3e515058.155684634@news.eircom.net>,8 >> >   rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace) wrote:K >> >>On 17 Feb 2003 20:27:03 GMT, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:V
 >> ><snip> [snap] >> *rolls eyes*y >>  F >> You don't get it. I know very well Unix geeks are prone to refer toG >> machines as "compatible" if it takes fewer than N man-months of work 6 >> to port application software from one to the other. >> nH >> That's not how the people who pay for our industry's existence think.A >> They figure if they buy a computer and they buy a program, thet. >> computer should be able to run the program. >> lE >> *And they're right.* It should. That's the level of service we gete8 >> from the industries that provide us with electricity, >eA >Ever try to use a US appliance in England?  Has NYC ever gotten t< >completely transitioned off of the old Edison DC equipment?  > Or operated three-phase equipment at any time, including motor start sequencing?r  G BTW: when refurbishing this flat we found an old Edison DC installationeB in the walls. This style of installation was outlawed for consumer purposes here in 1928.   >> telephones, >rJ >Every plug an analog modem into a jack connected to a digital switch and - >then wonder why everybody is angry with you?d  D Or bring with you an old pulse-signalling phone from the countryside0 into the city of Oslo? (or, similar UK-> London)  % >> television and radio broadcasting,t >/J >So you've got your digital TV?  Is it HD or SD?  And it receives DirecTV A >and Dish Network transmissions without any proprietary hardware?e  B And, is your TV NTSC, PAL, SECAM, SECAM-EST. or something entirelyK different? And does it support the bands your local FCC (or equivalent) hasyB assigned to programming; or do you get to enjoy listening to radio3 beacons. And which teletext system does it support?s   >> cargo shipping, >kG >????  You put something in a box, somebody puts the box on a truck or nG >ship or plane or train or mule or camel or whatever and carries it to yJ >somewhere else and then takes it off the whatever.  I don't see any room  >there for "compatibility".   ? Oh, take a look at "container standards" if you wonder how muchn4 fun anyone can make out of moving steel enclosures.    >> even fax machines.a >nH >So why do half the faxed newsletters that the local food bank tries to H >send out bounce because the destination fax is incompatible with their  >fax server?  * And, does your fax support weather faxes?    >1H >> It's the level of service the rest of the world is entitled to demand >> from our industry in return.g >DF >You seem to have some misconceptions about the "level of service" in  >many industries.@  - And, technical differences we get stuck with..   -- mrr   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:06:59 GMTs3 From: "Kelli Halliburton" <kelli217@crosswinds.not>fQ Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly-= Message-ID: <DUz4a.62$ef1.7993563@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>d   jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:2 > In article <3e5101b4.135549904@news.eircom.net>,6 >    rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace) wrote:. >> On 17 Feb 2003 13:39:53 +0100, Andreas Eder$ >> <Andreas.Eder@t-online.de> wrote: >>G >>> The point is not teh various linux distros, but linux, the BSDs and : >>> the SVR4 compliant unix versions from several vendors. >>9 >> Which aren't compatible with each other, last I heard.o >>) >>> By the way, do you know about posix ?i >>F >> Yes, it makes porting easier, but Posix-compliant operating systems, >> are still not compatible with each other. >>8 > Errmmm...I don't think you know what compatible means.   Maybe he doesn't.   K But I do know that not all POSIX-compliant operating systems are capable ofrA error-free compilation of even lowest-common-denominator sources.    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 19:17:54 -0400 0 From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca>Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyw/ Message-ID: <3E52BF16.6570A375@vl.videotron.ca>d   Shane Smith wrote:E > The XBox isn't meant to be a computer, in fact they've put a lot ofrJ > effort into making it as hard as possible to make it work as a computer.  K It's got a CPU. A video interface. Sophisticated input devices with tactilehS feedback, CD-ROM, ability to connect to the internet. It can load and run software.   J A computer by any definitions, escept that Microsoft had to make marketingM such that MS didn't appear to be selling computers that could compete againsth Wintel assemblers.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:21:01 -0800n$ From: Shane Smith <ssmith@icius.com>Q Subject: RE: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyy0 Message-ID: <01C2D769.DD100DF0@sulfer.icius.com>  F Oh, there's a much bigger reason than that. Consoles are traditionallyG sold at a big loss on the hardware end, expecting to recoup more on the D software end. The manufacturer always gets a cut on the games sales.G They're losing a fortune on the project because the games market for itf" is nowhere near critical mass yet.  B This is why the Linux guys were so interested in getting it to runF Linux. It is more computer than you could get for the money otherwise,? although the gap is closing. Originally it was being sold at aneC estimated fifth of its build price. It has to be locked down into ab> dedicated games box, or everyone who wanted a cheap machine atH Microsoft's expense could just buy one and replace the OS. Then MS never7 get the recurring revenue from people buying the games.g  G Apparently someone over at HardOCP is working on a Beowolf-type clustercB of XBoxes. I love the idea; the machine MS makes, running an OS MSE doesn't want on it, doing better clustering than MS have been able toy achieve themselves...h   Shanea   -----Original Message-----7 From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca]i( Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 3:18 PM To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.ComxH Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly     Shane Smith wrote:E > The XBox isn't meant to be a computer, in fact they've put a lot ofRJ > effort into making it as hard as possible to make it work as a computer.  C It's got a CPU. A video interface. Sophisticated input devices with- tactile-E feedback, CD-ROM, ability to connect to the internet. It can load and<
 run software.t  @ A computer by any definitions, escept that Microsoft had to make	 marketingpE such that MS didn't appear to be selling computers that could competec againstM Wintel assemblers.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:02:38 GMTo0 From: rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace)Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyi0 Message-ID: <3e50cef1.122552660@news.eircom.net>  C On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:30:35 GMT, CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>m wrote:  ? >There are international standards for C, Pascal, Ada, Fortran,'B >C++, and others.  Programs written to the standards are portable,@ >and most programs can be so written if you are willing to forgo >the whiz-bangs.  F Only for command line utilities; it's been a long time since there was a market for those.d  C >However it seems to me that once the hardware differs, so must the > >capabilities.  So there will always be non-portable programs.  F Sure, there'll always be occasions when it's worth tossing portability@ to squeeze the last few megaflops out of the graphics chipset orD whatever. But the percentage of programs for which that's worthwhile- is very small and getting smaller every year.    -- h3 "Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent."-+ Remove killer rodent from address to reply.3! http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallaceo   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 19:12:49 -0500M( From: J. Clarke <nospam1@nospam.invalid>Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly + Message-ID: <b2ui6429jf@enews1.newsguy.com>e  1 In article <3e52b64e.247336825@news.eircom.net>, 0  rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net says...H > On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:40:31 -0500, J. Clarke <nospam1@nospam.invalid> > wrote: > I > >However this is really a straw man.  Unix is cross-platform--binaries  L > >that run on the ARM processor in a Zaurus are not going to run on a 3090 I > >due to differences in the hardware instruction set.  Nonethelesss the  C > >same source will compile and run on both.  For this reason most iL > >applications used on Linux or BSD are distributed as source, and in that E > >universe "compatibility" does not necessarily mean "runs the same  
 > >binaries".  > A > Yes, I know. If you're happy with that, that's fine. I'm merelyhG > pointing out that most people who aren't computer specialists are nots > happy with it.  F I don't see why it's an issue.  BSD and all popular releases of Linux H have facilities for installing applications that are transparent to the  user.l  I And for apps that aren't supported by the installer, ./configure, make,   $ make install usually does the trick.   >  > >> Do H > >> the same keyboard shortcuts work on all the different applications? > > F > >This is an application programming issue, not an OS issue.  If the J > >application supports a particular set of keyboard shortcuts it usually : > >supports the same shortcuts on all supported platforms. > E > That's fine until someone tries Unix, notes the shortcuts aren't asoH > consistent between programs as they were on Windows, and switches back > to Windows for that reason.n  F If consistency of shortcuts is so important then I would expect these = same people to abandon Windows in droves and move to the Mac.f  ' > Not that you're obliged to care about E > that; I personally don't much care either way. But some Unix peopleoE > care a great deal - and very vocally - that Windows is more populartB > than Unix. I figured someone might as well point out some of the > reasons for it.e  G I suspect that the size of Microsoft's marketing budget has a lot more   to do with it.  n2 > >> Can you reliably copy and paste between them? > > H > >I don't have any problem doing this.  Heck, I don't have any trouble 8 > >cutting from a Windows box and pasting to a Unix box. >  > That's good, then. >  >    --   -- --John- Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot neto* (used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:09:58 +0100u* From: Morten Reistad <mrr@reistad.priv.no>Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly./ Message-ID: <6a4t2b.55m.ln@via.reistad.priv.no>   0 According to Bill Gunshannon <bill@cs.uofs.edu>:+ >In article <m3isvjjcye.fsf@elgin.eder.de>,b1 >	Andreas Eder <Andreas.Eder@t-online.de> writes:u5 >> rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace) writes:e >> MG >>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:30:35 GMT, CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>k
 >>> wrote: >>> C >>> >There are international standards for C, Pascal, Ada, Fortran,-F >>> >C++, and others.  Programs written to the standards are portable,D >>> >and most programs can be so written if you are willing to forgo >>> >the whiz-bangs. >>> J >>> Only for command line utilities; it's been a long time since there was >>> a market for those.r >>> D >> You do know about X Windows, do you? It has been here for over 10
 >> years.  >SB >Now there's an understatement.  The MIT-Athena Project that begat7 >X-Windows dates to 1984.  I make that almost 20 years.i    And is thus ON TOPIC for a.f.c.   $ Topic drift comes full circle again.     -- mrr   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:05:29 +0100t* From: Morten Reistad <mrr@reistad.priv.no>Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyo/ Message-ID: <p14t2b.n9l.ln@via.reistad.priv.no>s  8 According to Russell Wallace <rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net>:G >On 17 Feb 2003 13:42:17 +0100, Andreas Eder <Andreas.Eder@t-online.de>v >wrote:y >c& >>You do know about X Windows, do you? >sF >Been a long time since I had the displeasure of trying to use it, butE >last I heard X programs can't even interoperate properly on the same:B >operating system let alone be compatible with different operating	 >systems.x  F Not to fan a flame war, but I never had much interoperability problemsH with X. And I run X between SunOS, FreeBSD, Linux and Irix almost daily.L I also do some real X stunts like X tunnelled over a chain of ssh sessions, 1 with X compressors and decompressors in the pipe.   ? Motif is another matter; as well as weird performance problems, F but X keeps trudging along. OK, the X server is possible to crash whenB abused; but as a baseline for graphics displays X does fairly OK.   D And it is properly separated out from the operating system, which isC good. It does show its age though. But, as with C, even if there isnF a broad consensus about faults noone has come up with anything better.   -- mrr   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:09:50 GMT 0 From: rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace)Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly 0 Message-ID: <3e50d02b.122866870@news.eircom.net>  3 On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 20:48:24 -0000, "Rupert Pigott" 5 <roo@dark-try-removing-this-boong.demon.co.uk> wrote:d  8 >Actually Sun have been particularly nice in this regard9 >because not only is their SPARC architecture practically 7 >given away to anyone who asks for it... They have also : >allowed their OSes to run on other people's hardware such >as Solbourne, Fujitsu etc...t   Yes, kudos to Sun for that.>  8 >Also Microsoft have a habit of practicing data-lock-in,7 >AFAIK it's impossible to get a full spec for MS Office  >file formats for example.  @ Yes, that's a pain in the arse. (If you're using Microsoft Word,E remember to always save a backup copy of your documents in plain text F format. That way if a cosmic ray flips a bit in a critical part of theC .doc version, you only have to redo the formatting, not rewrite the  whole document.)  6 >Sun is a long way from the top of my list of computer >biz villains.  B Sure, I wasn't calling them villains. I was simply noting that theA reason their computers are unable to run most software is becauses4 they're nonstandard. That's just the way things are.   --  3 "Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent."e+ Remove killer rodent from address to reply.,! http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallaceg   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:49:40 GMT-L From: winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr")Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly-6 Message-ID: <00A1BAF6.315121C6@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>  U In article <3E5248BD.8E1A9863@yahoo.com>, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:r >Russell Wallace wrote:nI >> I get the idea just fine. What Microsoft are really hated for is beingtF >> successful; these days, that seems to be the greatest crime of all. >> -H >No, they're hated for being Assh*l*s (corporate culture, I'm sure thereH >are many fine people that happen to work there.)  You compete fairly byE >marketing a good product at a fair price that attempts to follow (ormH >lead) generally accepted standards.  Foisting cr*p that doesn't pretendE >to interoperate onto the public at prices that reflect the degree ofnG >competition in a market area and not the cost of producing the productn >is not good citizenship.   K I think "that only pretends to interoperate" is worse than "doesn't pretendb to interoperate".o   -- Alann    O ===============================================================================s0  Alan Winston --- WINSTON@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDUM  Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL   Phone:  650/926-3056uM  Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA   94025eO ===============================================================================c   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:53:42 GMT L From: winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr")Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolys6 Message-ID: <00A1BAF6.C18FD98F@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>  c In article <3e523c53.216104475@news.eircom.net>, rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace) writes: 9 >On Tue, 18 Feb 03 11:37:21 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:e > 2 >>In article <3e515058.155684634@news.eircom.net>,6 >>   rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace) wrote:I >>>On 17 Feb 2003 20:27:03 GMT, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:  >><snip> >>D >>>>You spent too much time with that Commodore 64.  You should have  >>>>had a real computer instead. >>>rE >>>I used real computers in college at the tail end of the 80s; a VAXa8 >>>6230 running VMS, and various assorted Unix machines. >>	 >><snort>u >aF >Well, I know old Unix and VMS guys tend to define "real computers" asG >being restricted to the above. What's your definition, "real computer"e >== IBM mainframe? :)' >o> >>You definitely do not know the definition of incompatible asB >>it is used in this biz.  You do NOT boot your system, try to run0 >>LINUX.EXE, then declare it to be incompatible. >c
 >*rolls eyes*i >nD >You don't get it. I know very well Unix geeks are prone to refer toE >machines as "compatible" if it takes fewer than N man-months of workr4 >to port application software from one to the other. >gF >That's not how the people who pay for our industry's existence think.? >They figure if they buy a computer and they buy a program, thea, >computer should be able to run the program.  I You'd save some argument if you said "binary compatible" (or, poetically,pH "plug compatible", although that has a specific meaning about hardware).  E But does this mean that if they bought a Java program, suddenly everyeC incompatible computer that happens to run Java is compatible again?e   >"C >*And they're right.* It should. That's the level of service we getAB >from the industries that provide us with electricity, telephones,F >television and radio broadcasting, cargo shipping, even fax machines.  H No it's not.  You need different hardware or adapters to make electricalL equipment interoperate in the US and Europe; you need cable boxes, satelliteN receivers, descramblers, etc, etc to get TV working right in different places.  K Cargo shipping; yeah, if you can get it into a container you're set, exceptiE that there are still some old ships that aren't container-compatible.    -- Alans  O ===============================================================================n0  Alan Winston --- WINSTON@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDUM  Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL   Phone:  650/926-3056aM  Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA   94025lO ===============================================================================n   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 01:01:23 GMTbL From: winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr")Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly,6 Message-ID: <00A1BAF7.D4960A23@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>  W In article <b2tin001p3s@enews2.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke <nospam1@nospam.invalid> writes:   H >> Meanwhile, I can still see NIMDA, Code Red, and that latest port 1433K >> virus still slamming their way around the internet. Windows was designed0H >> for private networks, and then jury-rigged to work with the internet. >sA >Uh, those virii are not relying on anything inherent in Windows.e >gG >A virus similar to the Port 1433 virus could be written to attack the  C >System/390 or the AS/400 or VMS just as easily--it depends on the eJ >administrator failing to put a password on the administrator account for F >SQL Server.  Since (a) SQL Server is not a part of Windows, it is an E >applications that runs under Windows, and (b) any administrator who fF >doesn't at least put an effing password on the root account deserves J >what happens.  Putting _any_ password, even "password" on the SQL Server D >sa account should block that particular virus.  And the SQL Server I >installation procedure _does_ give an opportunity to rename the account eH >and to put a password on it during the initial installation.  Further, I >for SQL Server to do damage to anything except itself, it has to be run W/ >at a higher privilege level than is necessary.u  M But, see, this is why software monoculture is bad.  Even if it's the fault ofeK incompetent sysadmins that Port 1433 has SQL/Server listening on it and not-N requiring a password, the fact that there are _so many_ systems like that, andN so high a percentage of the IT substructure is affected, that it's a bad thing in itself.     >DI >NIMDA spreads using Outlook, Outlook Express, and/or IIS, none of which oE >are fundamental parts of Windows.  Microsoft has issued patches for  J >their products which address this particular issue and any administrator B >who has not installed them is remiss.  In any case, NIMDA can be C >completely blocked by running a mail client other than Outlook or sJ >Outlook Express, a Web browser other than Internet Explorer, and using a  >Web server other than IIS.t  C Microsoft claimed in court, at length, than Internet Explorer was a K fundamental part of the operating system.  Who should we believe about thatr - them or you?   >wF >Code Red exploits a known vulnerability in IIS, for which there is a H >patch available.  Again, this is not anything fundamental to Windows.    H Only kind of.  Windows doesn't easily enforce a distinction between codeJ and data space - as VMS does - so buffer overflow vulnerabilities can moreF easily introduce executable code.  In VMS, it's likelier that a bufferI overflow will result in an access violation, which does allow a denial ofmF service attack but keeps VMS boxes from participating in spreading the@ virus further, or from being compromised with no external trace.   >-G >And for "uninformed users", there is no excuse whatsoever to not keep yH >your patches current--Windows annoys the Hell out of you with messages ; >about needing patches any time there is a patch available.s  D People ill-advisedly running 24x7 mission-critical infrastructure on6 Windows have trouble shutting down to install patches.   >rI >There are problems with Windows, but blame it for what it does, not for  ' >what applications running under it do.e  I I blame Microsoft in general, but Windows both has vulnerabilities of itsa8 own and enables vulnerabilities in application software.   -- Alanm  O =============================================================================== 0  Alan Winston --- WINSTON@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDUM  Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL   Phone:  650/926-3056NM  Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA   94025IO ===============================================================================    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 01:05:20 GMTmL From: winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr")Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolya6 Message-ID: <00A1BAF8.6196312B@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>  g In article <b2tloo$t3e$1@shell.monmouth.com>, pechter@shell.monmouth.com (Bill/Carolyn Pechter) writes:w/ >In article <3E521C74.1020107@nospamn.sun.com>,y" >Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy# >  <Andrew.Harrison@Sun.COM> wrote:i >>< >>Sounds rather like all the smaller UNIX vendors ganging up> >>against Sun and AT&T to form OSF. (lets call it a foundation >>it makes it sound better). >> > F >IIRC -- AT&T and Sun were to control Unix and have a lead on featuresF >and the implementation of the OS.  After pushing System V consider itF >standard and joining up with Sun (since AT&T couldn't sell or supportI >software worth a damn...on it's hardware or anyone elses) the other UnixgA >vendors who had paid for a source license saw the formation of aoE >Pre-Microsoft Microsoft... A monopoly vendor of "True Unix" with a 6t: >month lead on the rest by virtue of controlling the code.  - AT&T had bought 10% of Sun, if memory serves.a   >iE >And in addition to controlling the code  Intellectual Property, theys9 >began to up the price of source licenses with SysIII....r >  > ; >>Lets just hope that United Linux doesn't go the OSF route ; >>of broken promises, wasted investment and lack of support  >>by its own members.m >mI >Well, OSF was a disaster.  HP even was a member of both groups trying to E >protect their SysV based HPUX while retaining an option if Sun beganMJ >to make inroads into their base.  Interesting how Tru64's merge into HPUX  >kind of brings that back to me.  J Tru64 (er, I mean Digital Unix) was, as far as I know, the only commercialH implementation of OSF/1.  Digital was the only OSF member that kept thatM promise, but with their tremendous skill at pissing off their installed base,nK they first upset the MIPS users by announcing that they wouldn't put OSF on H MIPS, then flipflopped and announced they would and (IIRC) got as far asM distributing a beata and _then_ flipflopped again and announced they wouldn'tnL after all, changing pretty much every MIPS user from feeling disappointed toH feeling betrayed, and convincing some number of people to never ever buy! anything from Digital ever again.T   -- Alany  O =============================================================================== 0  Alan Winston --- WINSTON@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDUM  Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL   Phone:  650/926-3056fM  Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA   94025oO ===============================================================================n   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:44:41 +0100m* From: Morten Reistad <mrr@reistad.priv.no>Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyy/ Message-ID: <9b6t2b.55m.ln@via.reistad.priv.no>I  A According to Bob Koehler <koehler@eisner.aspm.encompasserve.org>: f >In article <b2rqga$1f68hg$1@ID-135708.news.dfncis.de>, bill@gw5.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >> sI >> In 1984 the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) formed ProjectiG >> Athena. The goal was to take the existing assortment of incompatibleyI >> workstations from different vendors and develop a network of graphical G >> workstations that could be used as teaching aids. The solution was akH >> network that could run local applications while being able to call onF >> remote resources. They thus created the first operating environmentI >> that was truly hardware and vendor independent - the X Window System. r >nB >   I wonder who writees this stuff, the latest batch of kids?  I @ >   recall trying to port around hardware and vendor independent  >   graphics stuff from the 70s.  ? X has had its rounds through variuous groups, from MIT studentsoC to Open<something> senior employees and back to XFree86 youngsters.L: The bulk of the code still dates from the MIT days though.  E >   And X11 alone isn't an operating environment, its just a begininga
 >   of a GUI.a  C X alone was never meant to be a full gui. Never was, never will be.s$ The gui will have to be ON TOP of X.  C X11 forms a very necessary abstraction layer for graphics, pointing F and network devices; and some hooks for managing higher level objects.B It is mature, stable and well deployed, and runs on most operating> systems. It is therefore a good platform for a GUI to support.D And may GUIs do support X; just look at any favourite Linux distro.   D This leads to some "undeserved" interoperability, where a KDE clientH can talk to a Gnome server using the underlying X API. But if KDE, gnomeB and others cannot interoperate on top of X, please do not blame X.   -- mrr   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:47:17 +0000.' From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK ConsultancysQ Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly9. Message-ID: <3E521D45.8010002@nospamn.sun.com>   Bob Koehler wrote:Z > In article <3E511575.6050205@nospamn.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy writes: >  > 6 >>Server side applications and you arn't. The majority4 >>of Sun's business comes from servers and we have a5 >>very very strong ISV portfolio in the server arena.u >  > > >    Defined in:  units sold, dollars sold, or dollars profit? >     
 Units sold Dollars sold- And currently like HP, IBM etc slim->profits.s   regardsi Andrew Harrisona   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:43:48 +0000,' From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK ConsultancynQ Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyu. Message-ID: <3E521C74.1020107@nospamn.sun.com>   rmk@rmkhome.com wrote:E > In alt.folklore.computers J. Clarke <nospam1@nospam.invalid> wrote:p >  > G >>SVR4 and BSD are not "various Linux distros".  In the beginning AT&T tK >>Bell Labs created Unix.  System V Release 4, which is what "SVR4" stands tH >>for, was their final version before USL was sold to Novell.  BSD is a J >>descendant of an earlier AT&T Unix release, which has subsequently been C >>developed independently of the AT&T products, and in its NetBSD, oK >>OpenBSD, and FreeBSD forms has been completely sanitized of AT&T code so rF >>that it may be distributed as open source.  Linux is an independent J >>development which never contained any AT&T code.  So you have now three J >>independent code bases, not one.  If you want to add the Hurd (which at H >>release 0.2 is running but not yet feature-complete) to the mix, then  >>you have four. >  > < > And SVR4 is the union of AT&T SVR3 with Sun's take on BSD. > H > Across Linux distributions, the only factor that stays the same is theF > kernel itself. The rest of a particular distribution is whatever the > packager felt like.r  A In a move reminiscent of the early UNIX days smaller Linux distro0? vendors are now ganging up against the dominant Linux (RedHat).   ? SuSE, Caldera and a number of other smaller Linux distributionse> have banded together to form United Linux. The aim is to based: their common Linux on a core distribution with the vendors? providing differentiation in the additional product they bundlet and the management layers.  : Sounds rather like all the smaller UNIX vendors ganging up< against Sun and AT&T to form OSF. (lets call it a foundation it makes it sound better).  9 Lets just hope that United Linux doesn't go the OSF routev9 of broken promises, wasted investment and lack of support6 by its own members.e   Regardsa Andrew Harrisone   ------------------------------   Date: 19 Feb 2003 02:36:43 GMT From: rmk@rmkhome.com Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly:3 Message-ID: <3e52edbb$0$190$75868355@news.frii.net>w  P In alt.folklore.computers Brooks Moses <bmoses-usenet@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote:  I > Well, certainly.  And, in those environments, the sort of "I need to beoJ > root to be installed" trojan that I was talking about wouldn't do much. I > But that's sort of irrelevant to my point, which was that if some othernB > OS were in Windows's place as a common home desktop OS, it wouldH > probably have many of the same problems that Windows does, such as (inA > that example) susceptibility to infection by obnoxious trojans.   M That's the beauty of NetBSD and OpenBSD. By default all services that connecteJ to the outside are shutoff. On the other hand, Windows requires net access= so that it can register itself with the emperor of ice cream.o -- n, rmk@rmkhome.com		http://www.rmkhome.com/~rmk   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Feb 2003 07:37:56 -0900* From: Floyd Davidson <floyd@ptialaska.net>Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolys' Message-ID: <87vfzi6exn.fld@barrow.com>-  < koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote:d >In article <3e510275.135742199@news.eircom.net>, rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace) writes:I >> On 17 Feb 2003 13:42:17 +0100, Andreas Eder <Andreas.Eder@t-online.de> 	 >> wrote:o >> l' >>>You do know about X Windows, do you?i >> 3H >> Been a long time since I had the displeasure of trying to use it, butG >> last I heard X programs can't even interoperate properly on the samenD >> operating system let alone be compatible with different operating >> systems.s >lC >   I've been using it for over a decade and have not seen any such( >   problem.  E I've seen X interoperating on a WAN that included Mac's, VMS, WinNT4,iG AIX, and Linux machines.  I would challenge Mr. Wallace to suggest whatp is going to compete with that?   -- n; Floyd L. Davidson         <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd> ; Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                 floyd@barrow.comd   ------------------------------   Date: 19 Feb 2003 02:52:36 GMT From: rmk@rmkhome.comtQ Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolys3 Message-ID: <3e52f174$0$190$75868355@news.frii.net>h  R In alt.folklore.computers Bill/Carolyn Pechter <pechter@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:  H > The IBM and DEC VAX/VMS POSIX layers were supposedly pretty compliant.I > The Microsoft one in WinNT was deliberately made the minimal needed foriI > meeting the spec for a US Coast Guard systems bid (IIRC Unisys had it).n  G This was about when Unisys was telling the Coast Guard (largest user ofoK CTOS/BTOS) that they were going to get a brand new shiny OS from Microsoft.u     -- o, rmk@rmkhome.com		http://www.rmkhome.com/~rmk   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:48:29 -0800o$ From: Shane Smith <ssmith@icius.com>Q Subject: RE: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyn0 Message-ID: <01C2D77E.66824620@sulfer.icius.com>  / >From: rmk@rmkhome.com [mailto:rmk@rmkhome.com] J >In alt.folklore.computers Brooks Moses <bmoses-usenet@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote: > J >> Well, certainly.  And, in those environments, the sort of "I need to beK >> root to be installed" trojan that I was talking about wouldn't do much. ;J >> But that's sort of irrelevant to my point, which was that if some otherC >> OS were in Windows's place as a common home desktop OS, it wouldiI >> probably have many of the same problems that Windows does, such as (in B >> that example) susceptibility to infection by obnoxious trojans. >hN >That's the beauty of NetBSD and OpenBSD. By default all services that connectK >to the outside are shutoff. On the other hand, Windows requires net accessn> >so that it can register itself with the emperor of ice cream. >-- - >rmk@rmkhome.com		http://www.rmkhome.com/~rmkh  H I believe this is one of the things MS has announced it's going to startD doing, thanks to their security drive. I'm not looking forward to itD shipping; I'm a lot of my friends' first port of call when their PCs@ play up, and several of them would benefit from a being hit by a
 clue-by-four.o   Shanee   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:49:08 -0500,( From: J. Clarke <nospam1@nospam.invalid>Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolys+ Message-ID: <b2s74j2fm6@enews3.newsguy.com>n  1 In article <3e510275.135742199@news.eircom.net>, -  rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net says...H > On 17 Feb 2003 13:42:17 +0100, Andreas Eder <Andreas.Eder@t-online.de> > wrote: > ' > >You do know about X Windows, do you?4 > G > Been a long time since I had the displeasure of trying to use it, but>F > last I heard X programs can't even interoperate properly on the sameC > operating system let alone be compatible with different operatingi
 > systems.  A I regularly sit at a Windows box and run X applications that are >H resident on a BSD or Linux box.  Whatever you heard you must have heard  a very long time ago.u   --   -- --John- Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot nett* (used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:48:57 -0500 ( From: J. Clarke <nospam1@nospam.invalid>Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyi+ Message-ID: <b2s74k3fm6@enews3.newsguy.com>c  1 In article <3e5101b4.135549904@news.eircom.net>, 1  rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net says...H > On 17 Feb 2003 13:39:53 +0100, Andreas Eder <Andreas.Eder@t-online.de> > wrote: > F > >The point is not teh various linux distros, but linux, the BSDs and: > >the SVR4 compliant unix versions from several vendors.  > 8 > Which aren't compatible with each other, last I heard.  + Any incompatibility is greatly exaggerated.r  ( > >By the way, do you know about posix ? > E > Yes, it makes porting easier, but Posix-compliant operating systemsl+ > are still not compatible with each other.n   -- o -- --John- Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot neto* (used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:59:24 -0500m( From: J. Clarke <nospam1@nospam.invalid>Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyj+ Message-ID: <b2s7i64fm6@enews3.newsguy.com>r  1 In article <3e514f0b.155351977@news.eircom.net>, 6  rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net says...E > On 17 Feb 2003 10:51:12 -0900, Floyd Davidson <floyd@ptialaska.net>o > wrote: > @ > >That would be nice... except there is no version of Microsoft@ > >Windows which can run the massive alarm and monitoring systemC > >nor the large trouble ticket system that the dual VMS systems on B > >that WAN run.  Nor will any Unix or VMS run the office software9 > >that had been selected as standard (hence the WinNT4),p   Which office software is that?   > and noA > >non-commercial Unix system was able to run the particular dataeA > >base and remote testing facility that the AIX boxes have.  The @ > >Mac's and the Linux boxes just happened to be comfortable for" > >the set of users that had them. > >aC > >Simply put, Microsoft Windows *cannot* compete with the existingl	 > >setup.e > G > *nods* For that setup, I guess you're right, though most companies atlG > least go as far as to standardize on Unix (or maybe VMS or OS/400) onS( > the server and Windows on the desktop. >  >    -- e -- --John- Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot neti* (used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)   ------------------------------   Date: 19 Feb 2003 03:34:44 GMT From: rmk@rmkhome.combQ Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyM3 Message-ID: <3e52fb54$0$190$75868355@news.frii.net>m  K In alt.folklore.computers Russell Wallace <rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net> wrote:s  H > Well what sort of background _does_ lead someone to think Unix systemsD > aren't "real computers" then? It's a term I've only ever seen Unix > guys use.o  H Look at it a different way. A contemporary Intel x86 IBM AT clone is notH a UNIX box. It is a box that was designed to run MSDOS 1.x, and has beenM updated to the point where it can run UNIX. It does not have the coprocessorsaJ and multiple busses of workstations, server and minis. It was not designed as a multi-user machine.  H To me, the only thing interesting about the Intel x86 commodity platformH is that it can run UNIX, otherwise it's just an overpriced space heater.  I This probably why 12 of the 16 systems on my network are not Intel boxes,y and why all 16 run UNIX. -- e, rmk@rmkhome.com		http://www.rmkhome.com/~rmk   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:57:21 GMTl) From: Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly ) Message-ID: <3E524A22.AF70D9DC@yahoo.com>f   Peter Ibbotson wrote:  > : > I suspect you've forgotten just how awful Netscape was.   H Not my experience,  I use Nav 4.x as my prefered browser on all systems,F except Winblows 2K, where I use Nav 6.  What I *like* about it is it'sF cross-platform-ness.  I use OS/2, two flavors of Win, formerly AIX andE shortly Linux.  Same browser on all, and it works well (mostly).  ThenG only problem I've found are a few pages that only seem to work with IE,i< and I suspect that incompatibility was deliberately planted.   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:51:21 GMT ) From: Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>CQ Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolys) Message-ID: <3E5248BD.8E1A9863@yahoo.com>    Russell Wallace wrote:H > I get the idea just fine. What Microsoft are really hated for is beingE > successful; these days, that seems to be the greatest crime of all.n > G No, they're hated for being Assh*l*s (corporate culture, I'm sure there G are many fine people that happen to work there.)  You compete fairly by D marketing a good product at a fair price that attempts to follow (orG lead) generally accepted standards.  Foisting cr*p that doesn't pretend D to interoperate onto the public at prices that reflect the degree ofF competition in a market area and not the cost of producing the product is not good citizenship.   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Feb 2003 19:40:10 -0900* From: Floyd Davidson <floyd@ptialaska.net>Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyh' Message-ID: <87k7fymcb9.fld@barrow.com>S  ) J. Clarke <nospam1@nospam.invalid> wrote:c2 >In article <3e514f0b.155351977@news.eircom.net>, ! >rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net says...sF >> On 17 Feb 2003 10:51:12 -0900, Floyd Davidson <floyd@ptialaska.net>	 >> wrote:y >>  A >> >That would be nice... except there is no version of MicrosoftnA >> >Windows which can run the massive alarm and monitoring systemrD >> >nor the large trouble ticket system that the dual VMS systems onC >> >that WAN run.  Nor will any Unix or VMS run the office softwaree: >> >that had been selected as standard (hence the WinNT4), >  >Which office software is that?r  A AT&T uses a great deal of proprietary software developed inhouse,w" on contract specifically for them.   --  ; Floyd L. Davidson         <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>I; Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                 floyd@barrow.coms   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 19:00:08 GMTt0 From: rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace)Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolya0 Message-ID: <3e5130e1.147628368@news.eircom.net>  E On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:11:57 +0000, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancyc. <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:  7 >The spec for SPARC is publically available and for then8 >cost of the documentation you could go away and produce6 >a SPARC CPU and a number of organisations and vendors >have. >t< >Intel have gone to great lengths to make Itanium unclonable9 >ironic because it forced AMD to do Hammer rather than an 4 >Itanium Clone which could end up being Intels great	 >mistake.-  C Indeed so, that's a big disadvantage of Itanium, and a major reasontF why x86-64 is a much more credible candidate for becoming the industry standard 64 bit chip.I   -- p3 "Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent." + Remove killer rodent from address to reply.s! http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace@   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:10:52 GMTr0 From: rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace)Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly>0 Message-ID: <3e523c53.216104475@news.eircom.net>  8 On Tue, 18 Feb 03 11:37:21 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:  1 >In article <3e515058.155684634@news.eircom.net>,a5 >   rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace) wrote:oH >>On 17 Feb 2003 20:27:03 GMT, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: ><snip>a >nC >>>You spent too much time with that Commodore 64.  You should havew >>>had a real computer instead.b >>D >>I used real computers in college at the tail end of the 80s; a VAX7 >>6230 running VMS, and various assorted Unix machines.  >m ><snort>  E Well, I know old Unix and VMS guys tend to define "real computers" as F being restricted to the above. What's your definition, "real computer" == IBM mainframe? :)  = >You definitely do not know the definition of incompatible as:A >it is used in this biz.  You do NOT boot your system, try to runn/ >LINUX.EXE, then declare it to be incompatible.i   *rolls eyes*  C You don't get it. I know very well Unix geeks are prone to refer to4D machines as "compatible" if it takes fewer than N man-months of work3 to port application software from one to the other.g  E That's not how the people who pay for our industry's existence think. > They figure if they buy a computer and they buy a program, the+ computer should be able to run the program.e  B *And they're right.* It should. That's the level of service we getA from the industries that provide us with electricity, telephones,FE television and radio broadcasting, cargo shipping, even fax machines. E It's the level of service the rest of the world is entitled to demandm from our industry in return.   -- o3 "Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent." + Remove killer rodent from address to reply.i! http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallaceu   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 04:43:46 GMTp  From: CJT <cheljuba@prodigy.net>Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolye* Message-ID: <3E530B8F.6060501@prodigy.net>   Bill/Carolyn Pechter wrote:e <snip> 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. <snip>  ? If it doesn't, how do they justify their market capitalization?g   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:33:06 GMT40 From: rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace)Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly 0 Message-ID: <3e50d3a3.123755261@news.eircom.net>  C On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 12:39:43 -0800, Dean Woodward <deanw@rdrop.com>s wrote:    > >>>>Um, what's the XBox, then? > >> > >> A game console. >n2 >Quoting The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing: >A >[...]= >The physical components from which a computer is constructedo >[...] >eF >I'd have to say an XBox meets those criteria. Open it up, what do you' >see? A CPU, memory, a HD, I/O devices.o  D If this were a discussion of the internal workings of the technologyE I'd agree with you, but it's not - it's a discussion of the business.p: And in that context, an Xbox isn't a computer, it's a home8 entertainment device, like a video recorder or a stereo.   >As currently marketed, it's aB >specialized computer, but it's not beyond my imagination to add aF >keyboard and mouse instead of a game controller to the thing, pop the/ >"XBox Office" cartridge in, and start working.u  D And in the unlikely event Microsoft start doing that I'll agree withE you that they are then selling computers, and furthermore I'll advisee. people to refrain from buying that package ^.~   > >>>>How about MSN TV?e > >> > >> Never heard of it.s >@G >Honestly, some of the denizens here, while I appreciate y'all, need toRJ >get your head out of the silicon and look around a bit once in a while...   *grin*  E >It's another appliance aimed at getting the not-as-computer-literate6F >folk up and going on a computer.  Sure, it's a fairly simple, limitedC >device. I'd argue that it's as much computer as the average personh >actually "needs".  C I'd argue it isn't, on the basis that the primary uses of most home ( computers are games and word processing.  4 >Who's to say in a few years there won't be an "MSN I >Home Office" package, that for $XX a month includes web-based apps that r+ >do the things Joe Consumer needs it to do?   E If such things started replacing PCs (which fortunately I don't thinkeE will happen) I'd certainly agree that was a bad thing for the reasonse I already mentioned.   >For that matter, set up on I >an internal enterprise network, I could make the argument that it would p/ >do what the typical office worker needs to do.r  @ I'd argue it wouldn't. Nobody needs 100% of the things a generalF purpose PC can do, but everyone ends up needing _something_ other thanD Office, Outlook and IE, and it's generally a different something for	 everyone.C   -- L3 "Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent."C+ Remove killer rodent from address to reply.4! http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace=   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Feb 2003 13:06:41 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly:3 Message-ID: <fPmSm60b6QXg@eisner.encompasserve.org>v  X In article <3E511575.6050205@nospamn.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy writes:  6 > Server side applications and you arn't. The majority4 > of Sun's business comes from servers and we have a5 > very very strong ISV portfolio in the server arena.1  <    Defined in:  units sold, dollars sold, or dollars profit?   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 07:30:31 -0500(( From: J. Clarke <nospam1@nospam.invalid>Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyc, Message-ID: <b2t914410cj@enews2.newsguy.com>  C In article <87k7fymcb9.fld@barrow.com>, floyd@ptialaska.net says...a+ > J. Clarke <nospam1@nospam.invalid> wrote:o4 > >In article <3e514f0b.155351977@news.eircom.net>, # > >rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net says...sH > >> On 17 Feb 2003 10:51:12 -0900, Floyd Davidson <floyd@ptialaska.net> > >> wrote:  > >> oC > >> >That would be nice... except there is no version of MicrosoftsC > >> >Windows which can run the massive alarm and monitoring system,F > >> >nor the large trouble ticket system that the dual VMS systems onE > >> >that WAN run.  Nor will any Unix or VMS run the office softwares< > >> >that had been selected as standard (hence the WinNT4), > >t! > >Which office software is that?h > C > AT&T uses a great deal of proprietary software developed inhouse,e$ > on contract specifically for them.  G If they control the source then they can write it for any OS that they  / want to, so why would they be forced to use NT?"   -- c -- --John- Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot neth* (used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Feb 2003 04:54:41 -0900* From: Floyd Davidson <floyd@ptialaska.net>Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolye' Message-ID: <87wujxlmn2.fld@barrow.com>s  ) J. Clarke <nospam1@nospam.invalid> wrote:, > floyd@ptialaska.net says...s, >> J. Clarke <nospam1@nospam.invalid> wrote:5 >> >In article <3e514f0b.155351977@news.eircom.net>, m$ >> >rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net says...I >> >> On 17 Feb 2003 10:51:12 -0900, Floyd Davidson <floyd@ptialaska.net>l >> >> wrote: >> >> D >> >> >That would be nice... except there is no version of MicrosoftD >> >> >Windows which can run the massive alarm and monitoring systemG >> >> >nor the large trouble ticket system that the dual VMS systems on=F >> >> >that WAN run.  Nor will any Unix or VMS run the office software= >> >> >that had been selected as standard (hence the WinNT4),I >> >" >> >Which office software is that? >> eD >> AT&T uses a great deal of proprietary software developed inhouse,% >> on contract specifically for them.= >=H >If they control the source then they can write it for any OS that they 0 >want to, so why would they be forced to use NT?  > You're missing the point, and trying to find holes in the fact> that it existed as it did won't change the significance a bit.  > AT&T standardized on NT for it's desktop machines.  Once that 8 decision was implemented, there is no way to reverse it.  > AT&T later acquired a company that had a trouble ticket system? and an alarm and monitoring system running on a dual VMS systemaA (a multi-million dollar system that is also not easily replaced).e? They added a remote circuit testing and circuit database systemr? that ran on AIX.  (And I forgot to add that typically a 4E tolll switch uses Sun workstations.)  > Within that particular portion of the company, X is central to the functionality of their WAN.r  ? Within the entire company, HTTP somewhat fills the same roll oft9 connecting anyone and everyone together via the Internet.o  > There were two points which this scenario brought out.  One is@ that X is indeed a very workable system that does inter-operate.> The other is that Microsoft is simply not the answer for every computing need.r   -- w; Floyd L. Davidson         <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>S; Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                 floyd@barrow.comA   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Feb 2003 13:42:17 +0100- From: Andreas Eder <Andreas.Eder@t-online.de>dQ Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly * Message-ID: <m3isvjjcye.fsf@elgin.eder.de>  2 rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace) writes:  E > On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:30:35 GMT, CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>o > wrote: > A > >There are international standards for C, Pascal, Ada, Fortran, D > >C++, and others.  Programs written to the standards are portable,B > >and most programs can be so written if you are willing to forgo > >the whiz-bangs. > H > Only for command line utilities; it's been a long time since there was > a market for those.e > A You do know about X Windows, do you? It has been here for over 10e? years. I've been doing graphical apps way before there even wasa windows 3.1.   'Andreas -- e+ Wherever I lay my .emacs, theres my $HOME.m   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Feb 2003 13:39:53 +0100- From: Andreas Eder <Andreas.Eder@t-online.de> Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly * Message-ID: <m3n0kvjd2e.fsf@elgin.eder.de>  2 rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace) writes:  5 > On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 20:41:11 -0000, "Rupert Pigott"l7 > <roo@dark-try-removing-this-boong.demon.co.uk> wrote:  > > > >Oh, you mean SVR4, BSD & Linux ? All of them "multi-vendor"& > >all of them present a standard API. > G > The various Linux distros aren't independent implementations (most ofuG > the code in them comes from the same original source) - but yes, they E > do come closer than anyone except Microsoft has ever come before to A > solving this problem, which is exactly why Linux is becoming soV
 > successful.a  C The point is not teh various linux distros, but linux, the BSDs andw7 the SVR4 compliant unix versions from several vendors. ,% By the way, do you know about posix ?e   'Andreas -- e+ Wherever I lay my .emacs, theres my $HOME.    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:20:06 GMTe' From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>iQ Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopolyc) Message-ID: <3E524D2F.9FC10CB1@yahoo.com>s   John Travell wrote: 6 > "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > Brooks Moses wrote:  > > >r > > ... snip ... > > >vD > > > My suspicion is that a large number -- not all, but many -- of > > > ... snip ... > > F > > I believe that many problems arise from the use of non-ECC memory,D > > where soft faults can lay eggs that hatch far far in the future,# > > make backups useless, etc. etc.o > >LB > ECC memory will never save you from SOFTWARE faults, as when theA > errant s/w writes its junk to the wrong place the hardware will=, > re-write the ECC to match the new content. > B > What ECC _WILL_ do is allow the hardware to detect, and possiblyB > correct, hardware errors in whatever the ECC is protecting. MostD > (possibly all) modern Alpha systems have ECC protection all of theB > way from the cpu cache out to memory and all the way back again.A > This is most certainly not true of PC's, which in most cases do 1 > not even have the ability to parity check data.r  A Which, in turn, will avoid apparent SOFTWARE faults.  The typicalr scenario is:  ,    defrag disk, using correct object module.;    error during moving object module, not detected, no ECC.      < time elapses, maybe years >/    defrag disk, using now fouled object module.o    disk content is destroyed.A(    user curses writer of defrag utility.  > when he should be cursing himself for failing to insist on ECC	 hardware.V   -- e< Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net);    Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.a:    <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:01:11 +0000y/ From: Andrew Harrison <andrew.harrison@sun.com>tQ Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly & Message-ID: <3E50DD17.8050408@sun.com>   Russell Wallace wrote:H  > On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:24:51 GMT, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>	  > wrote:   >  >H  >>Okay, so now I have this Sun I want to run Office on, no problem, eh?  >  >G  > Buy Sun's incompatible proprietary hardware, looks like you're stuckO%  > with running Sun's office package.r  >    9 Humm. not entirely true, you can run that non-proprietaryt4 Office product from Microsoft on Sun's. Just get the SunPCi card.  6 StarOffice is hardly proprietary either, its available7 in OpenSource form as OpenOffice and its file specs are 6 XML and publically available for developers. Radically different from MS-Office.O   Regardsh Andrew Harrisonm   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:15:48 -0500 ( From: J. Clarke <nospam1@nospam.invalid>Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly , Message-ID: <b2tin001p3s@enews2.newsguy.com>  D In article <3e51a916$0$197$75868355@news.frii.net>, rmk@rmkhome.com  says...rR > In alt.folklore.computers Brooks Moses <bmoses-usenet@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote: > F > > My suspicion is that a large number -- not all, but many -- of theK > > problems that people seem to have with Windows come from the competence=J > > of the sysadmin, and that if the same sysadmins were running any otherI > > OS en masse, that other OS would have similar problems.  All it wouldfJ > > take is a few Kazaa-like apps that "need to be installed as root".... I > > And a .bashrc-infecting virus shouldn't be that hard to make, either;= > > who'd notice it? > C > Take a look at the bugtraq mailing list or www.securityfocus.com.o > # > Worst OS - any version of Windowsc > 2nd Worst OS - Linux& > And then everything else after that.  F Does this reflect that quality of the OS or the number of users?  The D more users the more bugs will be found.  The more people attempting $ cracks the more holes will be found.  H > Windows, by the nature of it's GUI interface, even hides problems from > the sysadmin.s > G > Meanwhile, I can still see NIMDA, Code Red, and that latest port 1433hJ > virus still slamming their way around the internet. Windows was designedG > for private networks, and then jury-rigged to work with the internet.d  @ Uh, those virii are not relying on anything inherent in Windows.  F A virus similar to the Port 1433 virus could be written to attack the B System/390 or the AS/400 or VMS just as easily--it depends on the I administrator failing to put a password on the administrator account for iE SQL Server.  Since (a) SQL Server is not a part of Windows, it is an rD applications that runs under Windows, and (b) any administrator who E doesn't at least put an effing password on the root account deserves oI what happens.  Putting _any_ password, even "password" on the SQL Server  C sa account should block that particular virus.  And the SQL Server  H installation procedure _does_ give an opportunity to rename the account G and to put a password on it during the initial installation.  Further,  H for SQL Server to do damage to anything except itself, it has to be run . at a higher privilege level than is necessary.  H NIMDA spreads using Outlook, Outlook Express, and/or IIS, none of which D are fundamental parts of Windows.  Microsoft has issued patches for I their products which address this particular issue and any administrator sA who has not installed them is remiss.  In any case, NIMDA can be eB completely blocked by running a mail client other than Outlook or I Outlook Express, a Web browser other than Internet Explorer, and using a e Web server other than IIS.  E Code Red exploits a known vulnerability in IIS, for which there is a  G patch available.  Again, this is not anything fundamental to Windows.  cF Run Apache on your Windows box instead of IIS and Code Red can't do a B thing to you except tie up Port 80 by throwing packets at it from I another machine.  However, again, any administrator who doesn't keep his N patches current is remiss.  H Furthermore, Code Red can also disable a Cisco 600 series router due to B a bug in the code on _that_ device which, which AFAIK contains no  Microsoft code whatsoever.  F And for "uninformed users", there is no excuse whatsoever to not keep G your patches current--Windows annoys the Hell out of you with messages s: about needing patches any time there is a patch available.  H There are problems with Windows, but blame it for what it does, not for & what applications running under it do.   -- i -- --John- Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net-* (used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:15:50 -0500.( From: J. Clarke <nospam1@nospam.invalid>Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly , Message-ID: <b2tin311p3s@enews2.newsguy.com>  7 In article <b2svci$1eo5v7$1@ID-120847.news.dfncis.de>,   john@travell.uk.net says...a > 6 > "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message% > news:3E510611.C9CDB7F4@yahoo.com...A > > Brooks Moses wrote:N > > >o > > ... snip ... > > >fD > > > My suspicion is that a large number -- not all, but many -- of > > > ... snip ... > >cF > > I believe that many problems arise from the use of non-ECC memory,D > > where soft faults can lay eggs that hatch far far in the future,# > > make backups useless, etc. etc.  > >eM > ECC memory will never save you from SOFTWARE faults, as when the errant s/weJ > writes its junk to the wrong place the hardware will re-write the ECC to > match the new content.K > What ECC _WILL_ do is allow the hardware to detect, and possibly correct,sH > hardware errors in whatever the ECC is protecting. Most (possibly all)L > modern Alpha systems have ECC protection all of the way from the cpu cacheN > out to memory and all the way back again. This is most certainly not true ofN > PC's, which in most cases do not even have the ability to parity check data.  F Whether a PC has ECC or not is buyer's choice.  Nearly all server and F workstation class machines can support it if the purchaser chooses to A put in the appropriate RAM modules.  Some "desktop" and consumer aF machines can support it as well.  The machine I'm using right now has 6 ECC "from the CPU cache out to memory and back again".  I And you'll find no PC in current production that will provide parity but tI not ECC.  With 32-bit and higher memory the overhead for ECC is the same wE as the overhead for parity so all vendors have chosen to support ECC.:  3 But all of this is going rather far afield for AFC.M  e > -- > John Travell" > VMS crashdump expertise for hire > john@travell.uk.net9 > http://www.travell.uk.net/ >  >  >    -- p -- --John- Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net:* (used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 01:40:59 GMT + From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>hY Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly monopolp) Message-ID: <un0ku744r.fsf@earthlink.net>   . bill@gw5.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > History of X >(H > In 1984 the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) formed ProjectF > Athena. The goal was to take the existing assortment of incompatibleH > workstations from different vendors and develop a network of graphicalF > workstations that could be used as teaching aids. The solution was aG > network that could run local applications while being able to call on-E > remote resources. They thus created the first operating environment<H > that was truly hardware and vendor independent - the X Window System.   ! athena news letters from 84 & 85:g> http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena/system/usrdoc/athena/newsletter/  @ some past athena related posts. dec & ibm jointly/equally funded> athena. there were reps from both companies at project athena:4 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/98.html#30 Drive letters5 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/98.html#35a Drive letters 7 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/98.html#37 What is MVS/ESA? D http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#64 distributed locking patentsQ http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#20 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?^lE http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#33 John Mashey's greatest hitsbC http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#54 Unisys A11 worth keeping?eA http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002o.html#32 I found the Olsen Quote N http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003.html#18 cost of crossing kernel/user boundaryR http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003.html#46 Horror stories: high system call overhead; http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003.html#50 Origin of Kerberos    -- d3 Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ eA Internet trivia 20th anv http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/rfcietff.htmM   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 02:04:36 GMTg+ From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>hY Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly monopol ) Message-ID: <ubs1a731s.fsf@earthlink.net>u  = koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:bF > I wonder who writees this stuff, the latest batch of kids?  I recallF > trying to port around hardware and vendor independent graphics stuff > from the 70s.a > F > And X11 alone isn't an operating environment, its just a begining of > a GUI.  B ou still had terminal rooms ... except in project athena case they@ eventually became workstation rooms (workstations were still too> expensive for every student to have one) .... sort of half decB workstations and half (ibm) pc/rt. they were on a lan connected toE various university servers. the concept was that you could walk up tokF any machine, sit down ... and with a few magic keystrokes you had your, complete personalized computing environment.   see previous post with:A> http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena/system/usrdoc/athena/newsletter/   as in the 10/1/84 newsletter:tF http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena/system/usrdoc/athena/newsletter/84-10-01  ) the terminal rooms started out with pc/xte  
 and as in C http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena/system/usrdoc/athena/newsletter/85-09   C unix service start out with 45 vax 11/750 running unix timesharing.sD also in the above. there is an introduction to "The X Window System"? by Win Treeese (getting started on a VS100). There is referencet to more about x in:tC http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena/system/usrdoc/athena/newsletter/85-05      -- i3 Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ oA Internet trivia 20th anv http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/rfcietff.htme   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:56:04 -0400t0 From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca>P Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBMmonopoly/ Message-ID: <3E52B9FA.E66A3F53@vl.videotron.ca>b   Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:# > athena news letters from 84 & 85:1@ > http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena/system/usrdoc/athena/newsletter/    N While it is obvious from those newsletters that Athena was started in the veryJ early 1980s, I saw nothing in those newsletters about the development of aL standard GUI (X-windows). In fact, they consider VT241s as graphic terminalsV (not quite a GUI, just a terminal able to display SIXEL, REGIS or Textronix graphics).  L Interestingly, it talks about VAXstation 100s in 1984 time frame. Was that a Microvax I ?  N At what year did Digtal release the VWS software ? I was under the impression 9 That VWS was released because there was no standard yet. p   Also one big question:  M There are a few features of X which seem to be common with Windows 3.1. Did XS+ inspire itself from Windwos or vice-versa ?h   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 20:05:27 -0600 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>e1 Subject: Re: Just wondering how everyone is doing-' Message-ID: <3E5194E7.EBB426C6@fsi.net>    Sue Skonetski wrote: >  > Dear Newsgroup,j > H > Nothing important just wondering how everyone is.  We are about to getH > another 15-18 inches of snow, we have had snow since October and cabin > fever has set in.t >   > Please take care of your self. > 
 > Big hug, >  > Sue   D Just grazed us here in Chicago. Less than thre inches generally, but; much blowing and drifting. South of here is another matter.   F Where we lived two years agao, we had a 120-foot long driveway. So, weH bought a 10-horse two-stage snow thrower. Now, we have less than 40 feetG - most of the neighbors have those little "power shovels". I look kindae+ weird out there with the big ol' machine...n   -- t David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systemsb http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:07:32 -0500o' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com>C1 Subject: RE: Just wondering how everyone is doingyT Message-ID: <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF402660D8D@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>   Mike,n  G >>> No injuries. Pictures coming, as soon as I can get myself back overa there with the camera. <<<  @ Reminds me of Ice Storm of '98. Here are some pictures to remind	 everyone:   > http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSIceStorm/menu.html (lots of pictures)5 http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSIceStorm/home.html (details)t  E And here is one of my favourites - I figure it must be a company car:s. http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSIceStorm/nphoto3.html   :-)n   Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultante Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co.! Consulting & Integration Servicesa Voice: 613-592-4660n Fax   : 613-591-4477 Email: kerryDOTmain@hpDOTcom-     (remove the DOT's and replace with "."'s)h OpenVMS DCL - the original .COMM   -----Original Message-----. From: Mike Duffy [mailto:Duffy@process.com]=20 Sent: February 18, 2003 1:35 PMl To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Coma1 Subject: FW: Just wondering how everyone is doing      > -----Original Message-----# > From: susan_skonetski@hotmail.com ) > [mailto:susan_skonetski@hotmail.com]=20 * > Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 10:16 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com / > Subject: Just wondering how everyone is doingt >=20 >=20 > Dear Newsgroup,o >=20H > Nothing important just wondering how everyone is.  We are about to get  H > another 15-18 inches of snow, we have had snow since October and cabin   > fever has set in.s >=20  E Near Baltimore, MD, we got about 28".  The carport collapsed from thenE weight and crushed my mother's car.  No injuries. Pictures coming, as.9 soon as I can get myself back over there with the camera.s  3 I'm sure I don't have the only story like this one.     > Please take care of your self. >=20
 > Big hug, >=20 > Sue  >a   Thanks, Sue.   -Mike DuffyI =20x   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Feb 2003 14:44:28 -0800+ From: seanobanion@attbi.com (Sean O'Banion)i1 Subject: Re: Just wondering how everyone is doingo= Message-ID: <f883d5a4.0302181444.471230b8@posting.google.com>.  C I was tempted to complain about having to wash the frost off my car C for the second morning this month, but I don't think I will now ...n  F It might go below freezing tonight at home ( inland from SF Bay ), but7 the clear night also makes for a very bright full moon.y  F I had family in the house in the Sierra&#8217;s ( about 40 miles southB of Yosemite and about 5200 feet ) who said that they got about twoB inches of snow this weekend, but the existing snow pack was almostB gone.  We might be in for a dry summer: the spring run off is what) helps keep California irrigation running.m       Sean  u susan_skonetski@hotmail.com (Sue Skonetski) wrote in message news:<857e9e41.0302170716.895eb34@posting.google.com>...m > Dear Newsgroup,o > H > Nothing important just wondering how everyone is.  We are about to getH > another 15-18 inches of snow, we have had snow since October and cabin > fever has set in.. >   > Please take care of your self. > 
 > Big hug, >  > Sueo   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Feb 2003 17:36:16 -0800) From: P.Young@unsw.EDU.AU (Patrick Young)t1 Subject: Re: Just wondering how everyone is doinga= Message-ID: <55f85d77.0302181736.275987f6@posting.google.com>a  u susan_skonetski@hotmail.com (Sue Skonetski) wrote in message news:<857e9e41.0302170716.895eb34@posting.google.com>.... > Dear Newsgroup,  > H > Nothing important just wondering how everyone is.  We are about to getH > another 15-18 inches of snow, we have had snow since October and cabin > fever has set in.  >   > Please take care of your self. > 
 > Big hug, >  > Sues  @ The report from Sydney Australia is not good. Always hot. AlwaysB Humid. Always draining the water from my portable office A/C unit.  < Major drought. Water restrictions. Can't even wash my truck. Usual bush fires.   @ Could not go to my boat a few weeks ago - 43c in the shade. It's- also dirty - the bay around it was burnt out.t   Care to share that snow?  , PS: I HATE/LOATHE/DETEST Australian summers.   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:24:55 GMTs# From: "John N." <JNixon@cfl.rr.com>:1 Subject: Re: Just wondering how everyone is doingy> Message-ID: <Huq4a.108392$AQ3.2040729@twister.tampabay.rr.com>  = "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca> wrote in message.) news:3E515663.AF00FD91@vl.videotron.ca...n > "Bradford J. Hamilton" wrote:b"   The advantage of cycling when itH > is *that* cold if that people don't even bother joking about you beingJ > crazy... (the argument that cycling in winter is no worse than skiing inI > winter in terms of cold doesn't seem to work on people - heck, one doese more; > exercise cycling tha skiing, so one doesn't get as cold).u  G I get more exercise skiing, what with all that tumbling, retrieving andiJ putting skis back on, getting back up,  tumbling, retrieving skis, getting back up,  tumbling . . .   >hD > If anyone had *any* doubt that I was strange prior to reading this message,4 > thos doubts should now be gone :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) >k  ! Who had any doubts before   : - )    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:32:20 GMT & From: Rick Jones <foo@bar.baz.invalid>% Subject: netperf 2.2pl3 now availabled- Message-ID: <Uvy4a.11$6F2.6@news.cpqcorp.net>p   Folks -g  F Thanks to a number of people, I have an update to netperf to announce.( The "big" changes in netperf 2.2pl3 are:  = *) Initial support for OpenVMS (Read README.ovms for details) % *) Support for sendfile() under Linuxh
 *) IPv6 fixese   The bits can be found under:  8 ftp://ftp.cup.hp.com/dist/networking/benchmarks/netperf/  ? As always, your feedback/comments/corrections are most welcome!n   happy benchmarking,   
 rick jones -- M= denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth...uC                                      where do you want to be today?aF these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)A feel free to post, OR email to raj in cup.hp.com  but NOT BOTH...    ------------------------------    Date: 18 Feb 2003 13:52:13 -0800- From: goathunter@goatley.com (Hunter Goatley)e0 Subject: Re: New (changed) OpenVMS Message Board= Message-ID: <3ff5fed3.0302181352.7eb5d040@posting.google.com>i  e "Tom Wade" <t.wade@vms.eurokom.removespam.ie> wrote in message news:<b2qq1i$ci2$1@kermit.esat.net>...p< > "Hunter Goatley" <goathunter@goatley.com> wrote in message9 > news:3ff5fed3.0302150626.2257859e@posting.google.com... : > > Hello.  For several years now, I've run a VMS freeware= > > message board.  I just changed the message board software:> > > I used to run the board and have opened it up to any topic > > relating to OpenVMS. > G > Does this message board software run on VMS ?  If so, I would be verydG > interested in using it for company internal stuff.  Is it expensive ?V  D Yes, it runs on OpenVMS (the system is running the OSU server).  The@ software is freeware written in Perl.  I had to make a few minorE modifications to the Perl scripts for VMS, and I added a DCL wrapper.l  @ I'm going to put together some instructions and post them to the$ message board in the next day or so.   Hunter ------& Hunter Goatley, goathunter@goatley.com   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:59:38 -0500  From: norm.raphael@metso.com0 Subject: O.T. (Was: Re: FREE VAXstation 4000-60)? Message-ID: <OF00E0379A.0C820938-ON85256CD1.0065CD13@metso.com>p  ( "Paladin, Paladin, Where do you roam..."  ? From:  Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> on 02/17/2003 06:24 PMi  3 Please respond to Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net>    To:    Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com cc:   # Subject:    FREE VAXstation 4000-60g      H If anyone has an interest in the following old system, let me know ASAP.B I have to be out of my office by EOM and have nowhere to put this.  ,   Hardware........:       VAXstation 4000-60&   Operating System:       VMS Ver.V6.1   *Full License set*   Main Memory (32.00Mb)n   2-RZ56 (1299174 blocks each)   1-RZ55 (649040 blocks)   1-RZ24 (409792 blocks)	   2-TK50Zo   1-RD40	   1-TLZ04 "   1-VRT19DA (VT200 style RGB sync)     Includes All cables-     --   Have VMS, Will Travel0 Wire paladin, San Franciscoj   (paladinATalphaseDOTcom)   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:23:27 -0400e0 From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca>6 Subject: Re: OpenVMS Boots on Itanium on Friday Jan 31/ Message-ID: <3E5136AD.A3F586F1@vl.videotron.ca>(  ( Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote:B > SPARC processors cost us a fraction of that and we don't have to  > include the FAB costs in that.  L You may not have to pay for the construction and upkeep of your own FAB, butT you end up paying a higher price per chip so that the builder can pay its FAB costs.  E The Digital model was a flawed one: they worked hard to prevent their@M expensive FAB from being used at capacity, reserving most or its capacity forrM Alpha, just in case it became high volume. Had they  rented capacity to build.F many other chips, perhaps their FAB might not have lost so much money.  M As long as IA64 can use the same facilities that Intel uses to build the highvN volume 8086, then IA64 will ride on the back of the 8086. Intel need not worry: about FABs that are underused, so its FABs are profitable.  N If Dell or Southwest Airlines wanted to build a FAB, I am sure they could makeH it a profitable endeavour. It is a question of having the right businessM practices, markleting etc and attracting the customers to make your FAB fullyu7 utilised, instead of leaving it at well below capacity.   N Intel is perhaps the only one whose own volumes can justify FABs of their own.M But if you have enough external customers, you can make a FAB profitable evenn if yor own chip is low volume.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:01:27 -0500s& From: jlsue <jlsuexxxz@screaminet.com>Y Subject: Re: OpenVMS.org: Marvel article and HP's press release for Marveland Alpha Retaio8 Message-ID: <j8i45vgs6a29lfdhtmupar5ir7a3b60sjk@4ax.com>  E On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:00:50 +0000, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancyo. <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:   >e   >> a	 >> [etc.]t >> i8 >> You backpedal more than anyone I've ever seen before. >> t > 
 >Nice try. >a5 >You ask me to put up or shut up. I offered to put upu >but you declined my offer.r >h  ? Ha!  I asked you to provide evidence for two years for all yourrB constant bilge about there being loads of customers with GS160/320@ that were slower than their GS140.  For TWO YEARS you constantlyD spewed crap that it was all over the news group.  I even provided my? search criteria and the results in order to get some additionaldA information from you to back up your claim.  And when you finallycD relent and provide something, it's only 1 or 2 data points.  And forD the 2nd one, I, once again, have to do all the work.  The irony, andD the reason I reject this argument from you, is that you consistentlyB reject such claims from us of a similar nature (re. customers with9 VMSclusters who get perfect uptime, and great applications compatibility).t  C But sure, that must prove your contention that Wildfire systems aretE slower than older 8400/gs140 technology.  I suppose for a Sun FUDsteroD extraordinairre such as yourself there must be lots of customers you% can convince with such thin evidence.-   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:56:41 -0500i' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com>rG Subject: RE: OT: Java bugs abound in Slowaris 9 ... becomes memory hog!IT Message-ID: <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF402660D8E@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>   Arne,2  6 <<< I doubt that JRockit makes so big a difference.>>>  J Fwiw - As I recall, not to take anything away from the 2.8Ghz dual 32bit =H cpu desktop box, but the Alpha 64bit server number was also using Java =G V1.3 which, by most reports I have seen, is significantly slower than =a
 Java V1.4.   Regards-  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant, Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co.! Consulting & Integration Servicesa Voice: 613-592-4660M Fax   : 613-591-4477 Email: kerryDOTmain@hpDOTcom-     (remove the DOT's and replace with "."'s). OpenVMS DCL - the original .COMy     -----Original Message-----/ From: Arne Vajh=F8j [mailto:arne@vajhoej.dk]=20n Sent: February 17, 2003 3:24 PM5 To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com.G Subject: Re: OT: Java bugs abound in Slowaris 9 ... becomes memory hog!2     Keith A. Lewis wrote:yJ > Alpha/Tru64 was actually a player in the high-performance Java arena,=20I > but Dell recently beat the fastest Alpha with a Wintel box running a=20l" > P4-optimized JVM by BEA Systems.  / I doubt that JRockit makes so big a difference.    2.8 GHz is just fast.N   Arne   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Feb 2003 13:39:31 -0800& From: jordan@ccs4vms.com (Rich Jordan)I Subject: Pathworks ACL entries impact PCSI and system boot during upgrade = Message-ID: <cc5619f2.0302181339.41234c0a@posting.google.com>c  D I could swear I read something about this a while ago (probably fromB Hoff or Fred) but I can't find it now.  I know there were comments@ about multi-headers on files needed early in system boot causingA problems though.  I'm posting for future reference; the immediate-E problems have been bypassed but obviously still need to be corrected.<  E We have a customer who was running Pathworks V6.0c and OpenVMS V7.2-1sD on a DS20 6/500 dual system.  We performed an upgrade to V7.3-1 VMS,@ Pathworks V6.1, and some layered products this past weekend.  MyE company did not do the original install or significant maintenance ontE this (not normally shutdown-able) system, and never touched PathworksnA before.  Backups were performed at all critical points but aren'to= mentioned here (stated to forestall comments to that effect!)n  A We tried to install the rename_old patch on the system; it failedcD because this system had not been patched (I know, I know...) and wasD still basically raw V7.2-1 with no remedial file to update.  HoweverF on failing PCSI went into an continuous loop complaining about the VMSE PCSI$DATABASE file.  We aborted and checked things out, couldn't findfD a problem.  So we tried installing the PCSI patch (pre-req to UPDATED and nearly all other V7.2-1 patches, but NOT 'rename_old').  It wentB to 100% and died on the same error (looping continuously trying to" close the VMS PCSI$DATABASE file).  D CSC found the problem was pathworks ACLs on the database files.  TheE product show product commands would work but apparently anything that.D tried to write to the files caused a loop.  We removed the pathworksE ACLs and were able to install both PCSI and 'rename_old' patches (theqD latter, of course, again did nothing, but at least it then showed up in product show commands).  F The VMS/TCPIP/DECnet upgrade ran smoothly.  Upon completion the rebootD failed with an error about being unable to load the firmware look-upF table.  Didn't think about pathworks again, but CSC pointed us back atF that and sure enough, nearly all the .EXEs in SYS$SYSTEM had pathworks@ ACEs on them.  They also provided a workaround of doing an image? backup/restore to defrag the file headers as opposed to pickingoA through all the files and killing the ACLs or doing copy's.  Thate= worked, but I really don't want to leave those ACLs in place.i  E I assume it would be safe to just go through the directory and removea/ all the pathworks ACLs.  Any opposing thoughts?o  F The customer does not know how the ACLs got there; I assume they tried> to share the system disk at some point, and did the dirty thatE propogated ACLs over the whole directory tree.  Since the system disk7D is not currently shared, I can't tell if that was what happened.  ItF didn't prevent V7.2-1 from booting, but the ACLs were definitely there prior to the upgrade.s  E So if you have wierd problems with PCSI installs blowing up, saying a E PCSI database can't be closed because its not there, or if boots fail F with errors about being unable to load files around the time the firstF OpenVMS banner shows up on the console, take a look for pathworks ACLsE on those files; they should not be there, but if they are you need torB get rid of them, and possibly take corrective action like an image backup/restore.s  < Thanks to the CSC for reasonably fast and emminently correct3 workarounds and fixes that let us get the job done..  C And a hiss to pathworks, which once again, after all these years of.0 being able to ignore it, reached out and bit me.   Rich Jordan  CCS-   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Feb 2003 09:29:42 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)cA Subject: Re: Possible replacements for PSPA (Performance Advisor)m3 Message-ID: <iRAsUYgBY4RT@eisner.encompasserve.org>   U In article <AypgSnca4gsN@elias.decus.ch>, p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture) writes:0e > In article <f8SqlQJch3xl@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:4   >> In fact that PC ise; >> required for using Sightline in the recommended fashion.  >   B > Does "recommended" mean "absolutely necessary"? This brings backH > memories of the Friday afternoon I decided to clean my PC keyboard andD > locked myself out by too many password failures*, only to find the@ > helpdesk closed for the weekend due to maintenance work on the > switchboard :-(   E Sightline communicates between the PC and the VMS systems via TCP/IP,hB but not Telnet.  Authentication does not involve your VMS passwordA and is handled automatically (authenticating your PC, rather thana the person using it).   F There is an alternate method documented for getting at least some dataF directly on the VMS system, but you won't get any of the pretty graphsC someone else mentioned.  Also, I doubt the Fortel telephone support5C folk have much experience with using the VMS-specific interface, asbA the questions they typically get involve the PC graphic interface C (which is also used for the other systems it can monitor like Unix,e Unisys and Microsoft).   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 06:09:19 +0100 2 From: martin@radiogaga.harz.de (Martin Vorlaender)0 Subject: Re: Quest: Readable format of  vmsdate.; Message-ID: <3e53117e.524144494f47414741@radiogaga.harz.de>e  " Albert (kinace@hotmail.com) wrote:H > Dump the vmsdata from RMS file, the data is 009CF82606617BC0, which is8 > shown in readsble format is "20-NOV-1998 15:50:56.00". >CG > Could you  advise aby idea how the relationship betweeen the hex dumpw > data and the readable date?i  K The "hex dump" is a quadword (64 bit integer) containing the 100 nanosecondlJ units since 1-JAN-1858 0:00. The MSB always is 0 (if it is 1, the quadwordB is interpreted as a delat time), so it really is a 63 bit integer.  ' > Or any tools can make the conversion?c  @ On my site, you can find a (Visual) C++ class to deal with them.   cu,a   Martin -- :B                         | Martin Vorlaender | VMS & WNT programmer1  OpenVMS: Where do you  | work: mv@pdv-systeme.demD  want to BE today?      |   http://www.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/8                         | home: martin@radiogaga.harz.de   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 01:10:35 -0500s( From: "hein" <hein_news@eps.zko.dec.com>0 Subject: Re: Quest: Readable format of  vmsdate.. Message-ID: <piF4a.40$LX2.23@news.cpqcorp.net>  . "Albert" <kinace@hotmail.com> wrote in message. news:1045623132.206874@sky.aect.cuhk.edu.hk...  H > Dump the vmsdata from RMS file, the data is 009CF82606617BC0, which is  8 > shown in readsble format is "20-NOV-1998 15:50:56.00".   >s  F > Could you advise aby idea how the relationship betweeen the hex dump  C > data and the readable date? Or any tools can make the conversion?M  ) RTFM... RTFAQ... SYS$ASCTIM... SYS$FAO...o    OpenVMS programming concepts....L http://www.openvms.compaq.com/doc/731FINAL/5841/5841pro_070.html#111_thesyst emtimeformat       OpenVMS Calling standard...tK http://www.openvms.compaq.com/doc/731FINAL/4527/4527pro_009.html#index_x_77,  ' DSC$K_DTYPE_ADT: Absolute date and timep  I A 64-bit unsigned, scaled, binary integer representing a date and time inaK 100-nanosecond units offset from the OpenVMS operating system base date andiJ time, which is 00:00 o'clock, November 17, 1858 (the Smithsonian base dateI and time for astronomical calendars). The value 0 indicates that the date-I and time have not been specified, so a default value or distinctive printn format can be used.>  F Note that the ADT data type is the same as the OpenVMS date format for positive values only.   K http://www.openvms.compaq.com/doc/73final/5973/5973pro_009.html#index_x_272i  C http://www.openvms.compaq.com/wizard/faq/vmsfaq_003.html#index_x_80M   hth,   Hein.e   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 02:08:18 GMT  From: dittman@dittman.nett/ Subject: Re: Simulating LAT protocol on Windowsn7 Message-ID: <mAg4a.17100$Yv2.7668@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>t  ' Frank da Cruz <fdc@columbia.edu> wrote:o2 > In article <q8V3a.314$u%5.207@news.cpqcorp.net>,& > Hoff Hoffman <hoff@hp.nospam> wrote:g > : In article <76439473.0302161342.4d133938@posting.google.com>, dliberty@inter.net.il (Danny) writes:d > : I > : :I want to know if it is possibe to write a Windows application whicheH > : :will be able to receive data in the LAT protocol (i.e. act as a LATE > : :server), and if so, what interface / API can be used to do this.t > : ... O > :   The PATHWORKS32 client product MIGHT have a LAT stack available, I do noteO > :   know that off-hand.  (If it does, I have no idea how it or if it could beeO > :   programmed from an application.  I'd tend to point you at the PATHWORKS32oJ > :   product documentation for any available details -- as a first step.) > : I > It does.  Kermit 95 can use the PATHWORKS or SuperLAT network stacks ton > make LAT connections to VMS: > * >  http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/k95.html  = Can the SuperLAT stack be used on Windows 2000 or XP?  I seem 1 to recall the answer is no, but I could be wrong.  -- v Eric Dittman dittman@dittman.net = Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 20:00:45 -0600f1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>r& Subject: Re: Soundcards for EV6 Alphas' Message-ID: <3E5193CD.95C58B0A@fsi.net>i   Fred Kleinsorge wrote: > I > We are currently working with HP-UX to determine the sound card we williM > support.  The one that EOL'ed was 5V only, we are looking to standardize on  > a universal card..  ' "Universal" and "sound card": oxymoron?u   -- s David J. Dachterat dba DJE Systemsc http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/o   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:25:59 -0800 $ From: Shane Smith <ssmith@icius.com>& Subject: RE: Soundcards for EV6 Alphas0 Message-ID: <01C2D751.58608AC0@sulfer.icius.com>  E Not quite. When Creative brought out the Sound Blaster way back when,tA they narrowed the market considerably. Notice the "requires sound H blaster compatible soundcard" on so many pieces of software. A few yearsG back they brought out the Sound Blaster Live and for years (yes, years)hE that was the only thing any self respecting performance builder would F touch. If you ask me, it's still the best. The two supposed successorsH had some digtal rights management stuff built in, which I have a problemG with. A manufacturer shouldn't have the ability to arbitrarily redefineh@ "fair use". The Live is still in there slugging and commanding aC respectable price, doesn't look like it's going away any time soon.h  E So I vote for the Sound Blaster Live. Audigy 2 if the live is gettingeB eol'd by Creative too soon. Whichever, please support the platinumE version with the extra inputs so it'll be more appealing to the musico crowd.  E If not, there are also good cards from Turtle Beach and Hercules, butr? apart from those the rest all seem to be cheap throwaway stuff.e   Shanec   -----Original Message-----6 From: David J. Dachtera [mailto:djesys.nospam@fsi.net]' Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 6:01 PMi To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com.& Subject: Re: Soundcards for EV6 Alphas     Fred Kleinsorge wrote: > I > We are currently working with HP-UX to determine the sound card we will M > support.  The one that EOL'ed was 5V only, we are looking to standardize oni > a universal card.s  ' "Universal" and "sound card": oxymoron?o   -- I David J. Dachterag dba DJE Systemss http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:35:48 -0500s* From: "Paul A. Jacobi" <nospan@nospam.com>& Subject: Re: Soundcards for EV6 Alphas- Message-ID: <VDy4a.14$KG2.4@news.cpqcorp.net>m  K "Patrick MOREAU, CENA Athis, Tel: 01.69.57.68.40" <pmoreau@dev.ath.cena.fr>n, wrote in message news:WL7YuN++I4Ip@sinead... > Hi,  >rJ > what soundcard are currenty supported on alphas llike DS10, 20 etc ... ?I > The Compaq Ensoniq AudioPCI seems to be EOLed now (I was able to find aEG > refurbished one for a DS10 recently bought at work). Is there anothere modelr@ > available ? Or is it possible to use some SoundBlaster cards ?  J The OpenVMS sound driver supports Ensoniq PCI sound cards with a PCI ID ofH 0x1373.  I can also provide a unsupported patched driver that works withK Ensoniq sound cards with a PCI ID of 0x5880.  You might be able to find onemK of these cards still on the shelf at the local computer store for less thanhL $20.00.  Of course, it is also possible that Ensoniq may be substituting theG flavor-of-the-week sound card inside the Ensoniq box that will never bet supported by VMS.c  K Look around local computer shows for a sound card with a large chip labeled  either ES1371/ES1373 or CT5880.a       Paul A. Jacobi Hewlett Packard Company ! OpenVMS Systems Group, ZKO3-4/U14  110 Spitbrook Road Nashua, NH 03062-2698 $ Email: Paul dot Jacobi at hp dot com   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 06:51:43 -0500r2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger)& Subject: Re: Soundcards for EV6 AlphasL Message-ID: <rdeininger-1802030651430001@user-uinj459.dialup.mindspring.com>  ; In article <3E5193CD.95C58B0A@fsi.net>, "David J. Dachtera"n <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote:   >Fred Kleinsorge wrote:  >> pJ >> We are currently working with HP-UX to determine the sound card we willN >> support.  The one that EOL'ed was 5V only, we are looking to standardize on >> a universal card. >r( >"Universal" and "sound card": oxymoron?  D Here, I think "universal" refers to PCI bus compatibility:  works inD either a 5V slot or a 3.3V slot.  Or, it works with both old and newB systems.  5V slots are getting to be as rare as hen's teeth in new systems.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:12:28 -0500 2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger)1 Subject: Re: Systemcrash after login after rebooteL Message-ID: <rdeininger-1702030812290001@user-uinj4ck.dialup.mindspring.com>  ; In article <b2qool$67r$1@news.dtag.de>, "Thomas Egenberger"n( <thomas.egenberger@technidata.de> wrote:   >Hello,h >t3 >after an Update to OpenVMS 7.31 and installing allw4 >neccessary patches the Alphaserver is crashing with6 >INVTQEFMT, if you try to login directly after reboot,7 >or if you starting for example Oracle in a batch queue  >from systartup_vms.com. >s7 >If you wait some time after reboot, you can log in andrG >you can start Oracle by hand in the same way as from systartup_vms.com8  E TQEs (Timer Queue Entry) are internal data structures used by VMS fortE "alarm clock" timer functions.  The "timer queue", the structure thatwH holds the collection of TQEs, is very active.  On a busy system, severalI tens of thousands of TQEs can fire each second.  Just about everything inp VMS uses TQEs.  @ The TQE subsystem was completely rewritten for V7.3-1 to improveJ performance.  The internal data structure is no longer a queue, but a pairC of interlocking trees.  INVTQEFMT crashes occur when the timer codelF detects a mangled TQE, or inconsistencies in the tree data structures.  J TQEs are the same size (64 bytes) as many other non-paged data structures,F so anything that corrupts non-paged pool _can_ show up as an INVTQEFMTJ crash.  I know of one application that will do this if conditions are just. right, but I'm not at liberty to name it here.  E But more often, this shows up after an upgrade to V7.3-1 because someLD application is manipulating the timer queue by hand.  Since it is no> longer a queue, the code quickly corrupts the data structures.  
 I suggest:  I Since you seem to be able to reproduce this crash (which is somewhat rarerC for pool corruptors), log a call if you can.  You will be asked for C details of your software configuration, and a crash dump file.  Thep7 support center is best equipped to diagnose this crash.n  E Check that your applications and layered products are supported undert+ V7.3-1.  Some might require newer versions.s   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 20:02:46 -0600x. From: Lyndon Bartels <lbartels@pressenter.com>% Subject: VMS & Tru64 Disk I/O timingsm- Message-ID: <3E513FE5.5D37F51@pressenter.com>u  
 OpenVMS7.2-1,e$ Tru64 v4.x or 5.x (don't know which)  B We've been working with some new fibre storage, and doing some I/OG timings. And I've run across something that I hope somebody can explainp it.i  A One of the timing tests was to write a 2Gig text file. A simple C H program was written, and compiled on both platforms. Both platforms were attached to the same storage. (   E On Tru64, the run time was about 30 seconds. On VMS it was 2 minutes.e  G On another test, Tru64 copied that same 2Gig file to another version ofo3 itself in 20 seconds, while VMS took over a minute.o       Why the disparity?        F I don't know enough about the internals of either OS to come up with a reason.e  H One though I has was that the fopen(), fprintf(), and fclose() functionsG weren't all that efficient. So I rewrote the procedure with sys$open(),wG sys$connect(), sys$put(), and sys$close() calls. The time was about then$ same. Only a few seconds difference.     Any thoughts at all?     Thanks in advance,   Lyndon       -- fG My opinions are mine and mine alone. They seldom align with those of my.	 employer.f    H The only good thing about putting the cart before the horse is you don't have to look at the horse's butt.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:12:47 -0500o From: norm.raphael@metso.com) Subject: Re: VMS & Tru64 Disk I/O timings ? Message-ID: <OF39474892.1A57CD4F-ON85256CD1.0079D58D@metso.com>s  J IIRC OpenVMS actually writes the file to disk before reporting it written, while Tru64VH caches it and reports it written, but it's not necessarily actually _on_	 the disk.R% It depends on how you value the data.t& I could be misremembering, however....  F From:  Lyndon Bartels <lbartels@pressenter.com> on 02/17/2003 09:02 PM  : Please respond to Lyndon Bartels <lbartels@pressenter.com>   To:    Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com cc:d  ( Subject:    VMS & Tru64 Disk I/O timings    
 OpenVMS7.2-1,s$ Tru64 v4.x or 5.x (don't know which)  B We've been working with some new fibre storage, and doing some I/OG timings. And I've run across something that I hope somebody can explainm it.v  A One of the timing tests was to write a 2Gig text file. A simple C H program was written, and compiled on both platforms. Both platforms were attached to the same storage. (o  E On Tru64, the run time was about 30 seconds. On VMS it was 2 minutes.u  G On another test, Tru64 copied that same 2Gig file to another version ofd3 itself in 20 seconds, while VMS took over a minute.o       Why the disparity?        F I don't know enough about the internals of either OS to come up with a reason.u  H One though I has was that the fopen(), fprintf(), and fclose() functionsG weren't all that efficient. So I rewrote the procedure with sys$open(),sG sys$connect(), sys$put(), and sys$close() calls. The time was about thee$ same. Only a few seconds difference.     Any thoughts at all?     Thanks in advance,   Lyndon       --G My opinions are mine and mine alone. They seldom align with those of myi	 employer.a    H The only good thing about putting the cart before the horse is you don't have to look at the horse's butt.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:26:59 -0500J9 From: Hein van den Heuvel <hein_netscape@eps.zko.dec.com>A) Subject: Re: VMS & Tru64 Disk I/O timingse/ Message-ID: <3E52B333.89D4AE4F@eps.zko.dec.com>P   Sean O'Banion wrote:  b > It sounds like the Direct IO Limit ( DIOLM ) was reached for the account you used for the tests.  	 Nonsense.s    G > The purpose of limiting a process' IO is to prevent a process, or onef) > user, from consuming the entire system.r  U Correct, but it prevents the program from doing more then DIOLM IOs AT THE SAME TIME.ya The program as descrivbed will not get there. DIOLM=1 is enough for your typical synchroneous C /ng Basic  applicaitons. Add in DFW or RAH or WBH and you'll need a few more. 20-ish is normally enough for d just about any program except for dedicated SERVERS with ASYNC coding. Folks writing those will know` all this. DIOLM = 1000 will not hurt (a little memory wasted, but it will not speed up anything.  ; > Lyndon Bartels <lbartels@pressenter.com> wrote in messagea >uG > While they were running, I monitored the process doing the test "SHOWsH > PROC/CONT" and it wasn't CPU bound at all. Direct I/O and Buffered I/O7 > were mounting, and CPU usage increased, but not much.   W Ah! There is a problem point. The program as described does not do explicit BUFIO, only=f implicit as a result of file-extents. File extents will slow you down quite a bit. Preferably ALLOCATEK the whole file in one go, or at least grab very large extent (max = 65535).   
 Carl wrote...n= > fopen(name, mode, "ALQ=32", "DEQ=4096", "MBF=6", "MBC=128",c   Ooops, MBC max = 127!t  A I prepared the following reply last night, but it failed to post.n# Sorry for duplicate information....w  ; > Lyndon Bartels <lbartels@pressenter.com> wrote in messageh  :G > On Tru64, the run time was about 30 seconds. On VMS it was 2 minutes.   M Unix has a write-behind cache (UBC) design you write, the OS accepts and willeT try to write it out later. (update daemon). If that write fails, yo will never know.R So un Unix you only measured the time to put the data in the system buffer and youX have no idea whether it made it out all the way. (Admittedly, 2gb is a pretty good test,\ likely to push through quite a bit of the data). You'd have to call SYNC to measure the IOs.  b 2 gb / 30 sec = 70mb/sec. Pretty good... you'd need 2gb fiber and 10+ striped diskes to do better.? It is in fact too good for 'normal' fiber and just a few disks.uW 2gb / 120sec =  18mb/sec. Nice, but nothing to exiting. Clearly not much parralel work.h  a VMS uses write-through, or no, caching. If you say write, the system will go to the disk for you.r^ If that fails it will let you know there and then. The RMS and C-rtl layer muddle that picture	 somewhat.m  g They will buffer for you, performing a write to disk when the buffer is full.If that fails, you programN  b is still garantueed to be still around, so you can be informed allthough you will not know exactly what made it put, what not.a  K >  One though I has was that the fopen(), fprintf(), and fclose() functions I > weren't all that efficient. So I rewrote the procedure with sys$open(), J >  sys$connect(), sys$put(), and sys$close() calls. The time was about the' >  same. Only a few seconds difference.e  # Cool. Did you turn a few RMS knobs?8K  Try:   - fab$v_wbh = 1, fab$w_deq=10000, fab$b_shr=nil, fab$l_alq=4000000,s&             rab$b_mbf=8, rab$b_mbc=127! That should get VMS close toTru64.  a Still, I suspect Tru64 will always remain faster. The UBC allows for more parralel and larger IO. c The Unix box can exploit multiple fibre (if you have those) and will do what vms call 'fast[-path'. c If you have a numa-box with multiple fibres, Tru64 will also select the 'nearest' IO hose. VSM will  not.   hope this helps some,.   Hein.r   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:20:46 -0600r. From: Lyndon Bartels <lbartels@pressenter.com>) Subject: Re: VMS & Tru64 Disk I/O timings . Message-ID: <3E52959D.5F56EC4D@pressenter.com>   Lyndon Bartels wrote:r  & I did more tests with the RMS changes.  H On my 500au, I ran 6 tests changing DIOLM, BIOLM, and BYTLM. These tests) ran from 1394 seconds up to 1580 seconds.r    D After I made the RMS changes, I made three tests, the times ran from 341, 351, and 358 seconds.   That's a cut off 75%.....e    G I know that making the RMS changes is the "silver bullet." So I haven'te made any changes to the system..  D I've been reading the performance management manual, and I've prettyE much concluded that the computer isn't CPU bound. Memory doesn't lookg@ bad, but I haven't got to that part of the manual yet. I/O, both buffered and direct, are high.      H Now... the question I have.... Is how do I figure out how/why to correctH the I/O bind. My gut tells me that the I/O rate is high, but the size isG too small. The computer is spending more time keeping track of the I/OssF than actually doing the I/Os.... If I could make the size larger, then  the number might be reduced....      Now... What's next?w           -- rG My opinions are mine and mine alone. They seldom align with those of my:	 employer.     H The only good thing about putting the cart before the horse is you don't have to look at the horse's butt.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:32:48 -0000d, From: seibel_r@rich.ociweb.com (Rich Seibel)) Subject: Re: VMS & Tru64 Disk I/O timingsp5 Message-ID: <slrnb54h0c.hqd.seibel_r@rich.ociweb.com>   B On 18 Feb 2003 02:39 CDT, Carl Perkins <carl@gerg.tamu.edu> wrote:3 >Lyndon Bartels <lbartels@pressenter.com> writes...  >}OpenVMS7.2-1,I& >}Tru64 v4.x or 5.x (don't know which) >}  D >}We've been working with some new fibre storage, and doing some I/OI >}timings. And I've run across something that I hope somebody can explaing >}it.i >} nC >}One of the timing tests was to write a 2Gig text file. A simple C.J >}program was written, and compiled on both platforms. Both platforms were! >}attached to the same storage. (  >}  G >}On Tru64, the run time was about 30 seconds. On VMS it was 2 minutes.c >} uI >}On another test, Tru64 copied that same 2Gig file to another version of:5 >}itself in 20 seconds, while VMS took over a minute.e >} j >}Why the disparity? >} V >}Lyndon >aI >On VMS the data is on the disk's platter when it is done - it doesn't doWI >write-back caching and it turns of the on-disk cache (but probably can't@I >change the caching that some of these fibre controllers do on their own,mF >you'd have to configure that yourself). On Tru64 there may be a chunkK >of data in some cache somewhere along the way unless you are very carefull E >about your configuration and flushing it to disk. On the other hand,nB >I might expect it to be a larger disparity if that were the case. >tJ If this analysis is correct, and I believe it is, then adding an fsync(fd)E after each fwrite or fprintf should make the Tru64 version flush the iK buffers to the disk after each write as VMS does and should not affect the r# VMS numbers (it should be ignored).e  K >The VMS C RTL and such have gotten better performance in recent years, butpI >it still doesn't do much multibuffering and such by default (although iteK >is a lot better than it used to be). If you apply some optional qualifierstK >to your [f]open() you can probably improve the throughput on VMS, possibly: >considerably. > / >Some possibilities which might narrow the gap:R >V< >fopen(name, mode, "ALQ=32", "DEQ=4096", "MBF=6", "MBC=128",' >     "FOP=cbt,tef,sqo", "ROP=rah,wbh")i >WH >Depending on what you are doing, some of these may not be appropriate -) >but in this case they are probably fine.e >a >Give it a try and compare.  >I	 >--- Carl.     --  D --------------------------------------------------------------------D Rich Seibel, Software Engineer                 (314)579-0066 ext 211D Object Computing, Inc.                           seibel_r@ociweb.comD Need ACE training?                      See http://www.theaceorb.comD --------------------------------------------------------------------   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 01:14:38 -0500 ( From: "hein" <hein_news@eps.zko.dec.com>) Subject: Re: VMS & Tru64 Disk I/O timings . Message-ID: <cmF4a.41$OV2.35@news.cpqcorp.net>  ; "Lyndon Bartels" <lbartels@pressenter.com> wrote in message-( news:3E52959D.5F56EC4D@pressenter.com... > Lyndon Bartels wrote:i  > > On my 500au, I ran 6 tests changing DIOLM, BIOLM, and BYTLM.7 > These tests ran from 1394 seconds up to 1580 seconds.v  ? As per my previous reply, nice experiment, but a waste of time.RH Very, very, few, programs know how to honor these process limits. Backup being one of the few. G For normal program it suffices to have enough. More will not help more.b    F > I've been reading the performance management manual, and I've prettyG > much concluded that the computer isn't CPU bound. Memory doesn't lookrB > bad, but I haven't got to that part of the manual yet. I/O, both  > buffered and direct, are high.  A Fix the buffered IO by pre-allocating and/or using large extents..J > Now... the question I have.... Is how do I figure out how/why to correctJ > the I/O bind. My gut tells me that the I/O rate is high, but the size isI > too small. The computer is spending more time keeping track of the I/OstH > than actually doing the I/Os.... If I could make the size larger, then! > the number might be reduced....   C The RMS knob for this is MULTI BLOCK COUNT = RAB$B_MBC ( 0 - 127 ).s   hth,
      Hein.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:57:25 -0500s+ From: "Martin O'Connor" <moconnor@dvfs.com>f$ Subject: Re: wwidmgr - (SRM Console)6 Message-ID: <b2u375$1gdcgu$1@ID-118202.news.dfncis.de>  L "Patrick Young" <P.Young@unsw.EDU.AU> wrote in message : P00>>>wwidmgr -show : qualifier value not foundy : P00>>>wwidmgr -helpm : unrecognized qualifiers- : P00>>>wwidmgr -show port : [0] 1000-0000-c930-429em : ....     The VMS syntax for help works:    P00>>>help wwidmgrl  NAMEe    wwidmgr  	  FUNCTIONo    Manage the wwid registration.  	  SYNOPSIS6  .  wwidmgr [-quickset {-item <#>], -udid <#> } ]  L  [-set {wwid] | port} -item <#> [-unit <#>] [-col <#>] [-filter <'string>] ]  5  [-show {wwid] | port} [-full] [-filter <'string'>] ]i    [-show {ev | reachability} ]n  !  [-clear {all | wwid<#> | N<#>} ]N     Diagnostic mode commandp   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Feb 2003 16:32:31 -0800) From: P.Young@unsw.EDU.AU (Patrick Young)f$ Subject: Re: wwidmgr - (SRM Console)= Message-ID: <55f85d77.0302181632.32379c53@posting.google.com>w  i "Martin O'Connor" <moconnor@dvfs.com> wrote in message news:<b2u375$1gdcgu$1@ID-118202.news.dfncis.de>... N > "Patrick Young" <P.Young@unsw.EDU.AU> wrote in message : P00>>>wwidmgr -show > : qualifier value not founda > : P00>>>wwidmgr -helpe > : unrecognized qualifierso > : P00>>>wwidmgr -show port > : [0] 1000-0000-c930-429e  > : .... >  >   > The VMS syntax for help works: >   A Sigh... didn't think of that, as you don't at 3am. System is backs@ up and running with the OS on the old disks and the users on the new SAN:  P Filesystem                512-blocks        Used   Available Capacity  Mounted nL newhome_domain#newhome    1433047200   640041790   792588048    45%    /home  8 Adding the OpenVMS systems will be (less stressfull) :-)   Many thanks.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:47:58 -0500u+ From: "Martin O'Connor" <moconnor@dvfs.com>-, Subject: Re: [VMS V7.3-1] ACCVIO in F$GETSYI6 Message-ID: <b2u65u$1fgmi6$1@ID-118202.news.dfncis.de>  A "Rob Brooks" <brooks@cuebid.zko.dec.nospam> wrote in message : >>g- : >>$ write sys$output f$gets("CPU_FAILOVER")@ : >>F : >>  Improperly handled condition, bad stack or no handler specified. : F : This bug has already been found and corrected for V7.2-2 and beyond.     I still see it in VMS 7.3-1o   Marty O'Connor   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:31:04 -0500  From: norm.raphael@metso.com, Subject: Re: [VMS V7.3-1] ACCVIO in F$GETSYI? Message-ID: <OF83A477DA.8437478B-ON85256CD1.0076171A@metso.com>g   Rob,E I saw it in OpenVMS Alpha V7.2-2, but I do not have _all_ the level 1r patches in yet.m/ Do you know in what V7.2-2 patch this is fixed?  -Norm   C From:  "Martin O'Connor" <moconnor@dvfs.com> on 02/18/2003 03:47 PMj  7 Please respond to "Martin O'Connor" <moconnor@dvfs.com>    To:    Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com cc:   / Subject:    Re: [VMS V7.3-1] ACCVIO in F$GETSYI       A "Rob Brooks" <brooks@cuebid.zko.dec.nospam> wrote in message : >>l- : >>$ write sys$output f$gets("CPU_FAILOVER")= : >>F : >>  Improperly handled condition, bad stack or no handler specified. : F : This bug has already been found and corrected for V7.2-2 and beyond.     I still see it in VMS 7.3-1a   Marty O'Connor   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:11:17 GMTo. From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter LANGSTOEGER)( Subject: [VMS V7.3-1] ACCVIO in F$GETSYI2 Message-ID: <FUl4a.8273$AH2.116351@news.chello.at>  ; Here is another bug for someone with a support contract ;-)a  ) $ write sys$output f$gets("CPU_FAILOVER")   B   Improperly handled condition, bad stack or no handler specified.1     Signal arguments:   Number = 0000000000000005i1                         Name   = 000000000000000Cn1                                  0000000000000004 1                                  000000007FFAE000 1                                  FFFFFFFF800078ECS1                                  0000000000000012d       Register dump:J     R0  = 0000000000000001  R1  = FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF  R2  = 000000007FFAC4D5J     R3  = 0000000000000036  R4  = 0000000000000001  R5  = 0000000000000000J     R6  = FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF  R7  = 000000007FFAC314  R8  = 000000007FFAC308J     R9  = 000000007FFAC124  R10 = 000000007FFAD230  R11 = 000000007FFCE3E0J     R12 = 0000000000000000  R13 = 000000007AF416C0  R14 = 0000000000000000J     R15 = 000000007AF43C20  R16 = 0000000000000000  R17 = 0000000000000000J     R18 = 000000007FFAE399  R19 = 000000007FFAE0E8  R20 = 000000000000DFF3J     R21 = 000000007FFABF30  R22 = FFFFFFFFFFFFFF9E  R23 = 000000007FFABF6CJ     R24 = 0000000000000001  R25 = 0000000000000002  R26 = 000000007AF72D20J     R27 = 0000000000000000  R28 = 000000007FFAE398  R29 = 000000007FFAC400J     SP  = 000000007FFAC124  PC  = FFFFFFFF800078EC  PS  = 24000000000000122 %DCL-S-RETURNED, control returned to process EPLANP %SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=00, virtual address=000000000000& 000C, PC=000000000000000C, PS=7FFAC4B3  L Note the process termination (I did this in a SPAWNed process for demo only)1 It does happen only on single processor machines.vG I've tried it without the VMS731_SYS-V0200 and VMS731_ACRTL-V0100 ECOs,' but all other ECOs are inc   	VMS731_CPU2208-V0100  	VMS731_CPU2308-V0100o 	VMS731_DCL-V0200s 	VMS731_EV7-V0100h 	VMS731_F11X-V0100 	VMS731_FIBRE_SCSI-V0100 	VMS731_IIDRIVER-V0100 	VMS731_LAN-V0100r 	VMS731_LINKER-V0100 	VMS731_MSCP-V0100 	VMS731_PTHREAD-V0100t 	VMS731_QMAN-V0100 	VMS731_RMS-V0200n  7 (but it does also happen on a pure V7.3-1 without ECOs)i   TIAY   -- d Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGERT% Network and OpenVMS system specialist  E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 05:43:18 -0500o  From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com>, Subject: Re: [VMS V7.3-1] ACCVIO in F$GETSYI6 Message-ID: <1030218053328.15004A-100000@Ives.egh.com>  - On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Peter LANGSTOEGER wrote:w  = > Here is another bug for someone with a support contract ;-)k > + > $ write sys$output f$gets("CPU_FAILOVER")d > D >   Improperly handled condition, bad stack or no handler specified.3 >     Signal arguments:   Number = 0000000000000005 3 >                         Name   = 000000000000000Cw3 >                                  0000000000000004 3 >                                  000000007FFAE000,3 >                                  FFFFFFFF800078EC 3 >                                  0000000000000012  >  >     Register dump:L >     R0  = 0000000000000001  R1  = FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF  R2  = 000000007FFAC4D5L >     R3  = 0000000000000036  R4  = 0000000000000001  R5  = 0000000000000000L >     R6  = FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF  R7  = 000000007FFAC314  R8  = 000000007FFAC308L >     R9  = 000000007FFAC124  R10 = 000000007FFAD230  R11 = 000000007FFCE3E0L >     R12 = 0000000000000000  R13 = 000000007AF416C0  R14 = 0000000000000000L >     R15 = 000000007AF43C20  R16 = 0000000000000000  R17 = 0000000000000000L >     R18 = 000000007FFAE399  R19 = 000000007FFAE0E8  R20 = 000000000000DFF3L >     R21 = 000000007FFABF30  R22 = FFFFFFFFFFFFFF9E  R23 = 000000007FFABF6CL >     R24 = 0000000000000001  R25 = 0000000000000002  R26 = 000000007AF72D20L >     R27 = 0000000000000000  R28 = 000000007FFAE398  R29 = 000000007FFAC400L >     SP  = 000000007FFAC124  PC  = FFFFFFFF800078EC  PS  = 24000000000000124 > %DCL-S-RETURNED, control returned to process EPLANR > %SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=00, virtual address=000000000000( > 000C, PC=000000000000000C, PS=7FFAC4B3 > N > Note the process termination (I did this in a SPAWNed process for demo only)3 > It does happen only on single processor machines.aI > I've tried it without the VMS731_SYS-V0200 and VMS731_ACRTL-V0100 ECOs,e > but all other ECOs are ine >  > 	VMS731_CPU2208-V0100  > 	VMS731_CPU2308-V0100  > 	VMS731_DCL-V0200c > 	VMS731_EV7-V0100n > 	VMS731_F11X-V0100 > 	VMS731_FIBRE_SCSI-V0100 > 	VMS731_IIDRIVER-V0100 > 	VMS731_LAN-V0100d > 	VMS731_LINKER-V0100 > 	VMS731_MSCP-V0100 > 	VMS731_PTHREAD-V0100h > 	VMS731_QMAN-V0100 > 	VMS731_RMS-V0200t > 9 > (but it does also happen on a pure V7.3-1 without ECOs)  >  > TIAt  D Replicated on a AlphaServer 200 4/100, V7.3-1, with same set of ECOsA plus VMS731_SYS-v0100 (which has been replaced by V0200, but thateC causes problems on uniprocessors) and on an DEC 3000 Model 300 withp V7.3 and all current ECOs.  0 Register contents are similar but not identical.   V7.3-1:c* $ write sys$output f$getsi("CPU_FAILOVER")  B   Improperly handled condition, bad stack or no handler specified.1     Signal arguments:   Number = 0000000000000005r1                         Name   = 000000000000000Cm1                                  0000000000000004d1                                  000000007FFBBFF8t1                                  FFFFFFFF800085D401                                  0000000000000012t       Register dump:J     R0  = 0000000000000001  R1  = FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF  R2  = 000000007FFAC4D6J     R3  = 0000000000000407  R4  = 0000000000000001  R5  = 000000007FFAC01CJ     R6  = FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF  R7  = 000000000C001200  R8  = 000000000000000CJ     R9  = 0000000000000000  R10 = 000000007FFAD230  R11 = 000000007FFCE3E0J     R12 = 000000007FFAC010  R13 = 000000007AF3B4B8  R14 = 0000000000000000J     R15 = 000000007AF39C20  R16 = 000000007FFBC4D5  R17 = 000000007FFBBFF8J     R18 = 000000007FFBBFF8  R19 = 0000000000000000  R20 = 000000000000FB1AJ     R21 = 000000007FFABF30  R22 = FFFFFFFFFFFFFF9E  R23 = 000000007FFABF68J     R24 = 0000000000000001  R25 = 0000000000000002  R26 = 000000007AF9C6D8J     R27 = 0000000000000000  R28 = 0000000000000000  R29 = 000000007FFAC400J     SP  = 000000007FFAC000  PC  = FFFFFFFF800085D4  PS  = 0000000000000012     V7.3:u  * $ write sys$output f$getsi("CPU_FAILOVER")  B   Improperly handled condition, bad stack or no handler specified.1     Signal arguments:   Number = 000000000000000541                         Name   = 000000000000000C 1                                  0000000000000004 1                                  000000007FFBBFF8.1                                  FFFFFFFF800085D4e1                                  0000000000000012r       Register dump:J     R0  = 0000000000000001  R1  = FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF  R2  = 000000007FFAC4E6J     R3  = 0000000000000407  R4  = 0000000000000001  R5  = 000000007FFAC02CJ     R6  = FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF  R7  = 000000000C001200  R8  = 000000000000000CJ     R9  = 0000000000000000  R10 = 000000007FFAD238  R11 = 000000007FFCE3E0J     R12 = 000000007FFAC020  R13 = 000000007AFD50E0  R14 = 0000000000000000J     R15 = 000000007AFD38C0  R16 = 000000007FFBC4E5  R17 = 000000007FFBBFF8J     R18 = 000000007FFBBFF8  R19 = 0000000000000000  R20 = 000000000000FB0AJ     R21 = 000000007FFABF40  R22 = FFFFFFFFFFFFFF9E  R23 = 000000007FFABF7CJ     R24 = 0000000000000001  R25 = 0000000000000002  R26 = 000000007B025854J     R27 = 0000000000000000  R28 = 0000000000000000  R29 = 000000007FFAC410J     SP  = 000000007FFAC010  PC  = FFFFFFFF800085D4  PS  = 1000000000000012   --   John Santose Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:33:58 -0600d1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> , Subject: Re: [VMS V7.3-1] ACCVIO in F$GETSYI' Message-ID: <3E52ED16.C8A995E6@fsi.net>@  * Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr wrote: > [ > In article <1030218053328.15004A-100000@Ives.egh.com>, John Santos <JOHN@egh.com> writes:c0 > >On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Peter LANGSTOEGER wrote: > >e@ > >> Here is another bug for someone with a support contract ;-) > >>. > >> $ write sys$output f$gets("CPU_FAILOVER") > >>G > >>   Improperly handled condition, bad stack or no handler specified.p6 > >>     Signal arguments:   Number = 00000000000000056 > >>                         Name   = 000000000000000C6 > >>                                  00000000000000046 > >>                                  000000007FFAE0006 > >>                                  FFFFFFFF800078EC6 > >>                                  0000000000000012 > >wG > >Replicated on a AlphaServer 200 4/100, V7.3-1, with same set of ECOsoD > >plus VMS731_SYS-v0100 (which has been replaced by V0200, but thatF > >causes problems on uniprocessors) and on an DEC 3000 Model 300 with > >V7.3 and all current ECOs.w > >t3 > >Register contents are similar but not identical.: > >. > K > Replicated on 7.2-2, all current patches, on Islandco noname workstation, : > and on unpatched 7.2-2 on single processor AS2100 4/275.  9 Worked fine for me on an ES40, V7.2-2. Returns "0,0,0,0".   = Puked on my ISP's DS10 running V7.3. Also, killed my process.-   -- - David J. Dachterao dba DJE Systems: http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/h   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 07:18:40 +0200 " From: Guy Peleg <guy.peleg@hp.com>, Subject: Re: [VMS V7.3-1] ACCVIO in F$GETSYI& Message-ID: <3E5313B0.1374E143@hp.com>  H F$GETSYI("CPU_FAILOVER") will fail (gentle word) on any system that does not support partitioning.-8 That's why ES40 returns 0,0,0,0 and workstation doesn't.  I I have fixed this bug three weeks ago, the next DCL eco kit will have the/ fix for it.-  	 Guy Peleg- OpenVMS  Engineering.u   norm.raphael@metso.com wrote:r   > Rob,G > I saw it in OpenVMS Alpha V7.2-2, but I do not have _all_ the level 1- > patches in yet.A1 > Do you know in what V7.2-2 patch this is fixed?o > -Normt >SE > From:  "Martin O'Connor" <moconnor@dvfs.com> on 02/18/2003 03:47 PMt > 9 > Please respond to "Martin O'Connor" <moconnor@dvfs.com>a >p > To:    Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > cc:e >r1 > Subject:    Re: [VMS V7.3-1] ACCVIO in F$GETSYI, >aC > "Rob Brooks" <brooks@cuebid.zko.dec.nospam> wrote in message : >> / > : >>$ write sys$output f$gets("CPU_FAILOVER"). > : >>H > : >>  Improperly handled condition, bad stack or no handler specified. > : H > : This bug has already been found and corrected for V7.2-2 and beyond. >y > I still see it in VMS 7.3-1e >  > Marty O'Connor   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2003.097 ************************