1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 22 Jun 2003	Volume 2003 : Issue 343       Contents:* Re: Does TCPIP_ECO V5.3-182 break SSH EAK? Re: HP to drop hpux? Re: HP to drop hpux? Re: HP to drop hpux? Re: HP to drop hpux? Re: HP to drop hpux? Re: HP to drop hpux? Re: HP to drop hpux? Re: Problems with SYS$GETRMI Who can you trust, then? Re: Who can you trust, then? Re: Who can you trust, then?  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 22:51:19 +0200  From: Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl>3 Subject: Re: Does TCPIP_ECO V5.3-182 break SSH EAK? 2 Message-ID: <bd2gse$lk6$1@news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>   Paul Sture wrote:  > Has anyone seen this?  > E > I applied TCPIP_ECO V5.3-182 and rebooted, as per the instructions.  > I > SSH was no longer recognized as a legitmate command. I reinstalled SSH, H > but it still didn't recognize the SSH command (OK, maybe I should have! > logged in again at that point).  > < > I then went into TCPIP$CONFIG and had to enable SSH again.H > Still no joy until another reboot, when the SSH command was once again > recognizable.  >  Yes, this is normal.M SSH is still a EAK kit, so the install procedures of updates are not made to  N take in account that it is installed. If I'm not mistaken this info is in the  release notes somewhere.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 11:05:23 -0700 & From: Greg Cagle <gregc@gregcagle.com> Subject: Re: HP to drop hpux? / Message-ID: <vf97l5dbluma10@corp.supernews.com>    Paul Sture wrote:  > I > Which is unfortunately exactly what I was saying to my fellow employees I > in 1980, six months before I resigned. The complete computer department 0 > were made redundant less than 12 months later.  G I've already left HP. I don't believe that had any effect on the future  of HP-UX, however 8^).   --  
 Greg Cagle gregc at gregcagle dot com   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 11:54:40 -0700 & From: Greg Cagle <gregc@gregcagle.com> Subject: Re: HP to drop hpux? / Message-ID: <vf9ahk1dct6nb2@corp.supernews.com>    Bill Todd wrote:  H > People 'betting their businesses' on HP-UX (or VMS), just as they wereM > encouraged to bet them on Alpha, don't have that luxury:  they have to make A > plans on the basis of the best information they have right now.  > L > If they were worried about a bug or some other technical issue with HP-UX,K > knowing the people you know in HP-UX development would be useful to them. K > But for making longer-term plans, trust in the *vendor* is also required, I > regardless of the quality and motivation of the development group - and L > neither recent HP leadership nor its acquired leadership from Compaq seems$ > very worthy of that kind of trust.  = So your basic argument is that these people can't be trusted.   C My argument is that at this point it doesn't matter. Think about it ? for a minute. They don't have a *choice*. HP-UX serves a market ; that can't be served with any other HP product. There is no > other enterprise-class Unix operating system in HP's portfolio@ to compete with Sun. At some point Linux may be capable of that,F but right now it doesn't scale or have the HA or RAS features that are? needed at that level. Nor does it have many of the applications 3 that are needed, although that is changing as well.   : The short version is that if you want a Superdome or UE15K< class system, and have a bunch of Unix applications deployed> (and don't feel like migrating from Unix), you will be getting: HP-UX or Solaris or AIX. *This* is why HP won't be walking away from HP-UX any time soon.   - Greg  @ btw - I'm not sure why you focused on the people I know in HP-UXA *development*; I made it clear that I also know people in BCS and  workstation marketing.   --  
 Greg Cagle gregc at gregcagle dot com   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:36:27 -0500 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>  Subject: Re: HP to drop hpux? ' Message-ID: <3EF4C1CB.F7DBE2AB@fsi.net>    Paddy O'Brien wrote: >  > JF Mezei wrote: 	 > [snips]  > N > > So pardon me if I am very weary of certain statements. "We have no plan to > E > I like the possible meanings here.  With the abundance of typos and G > misspellings on newsgroups (or anywhere these days), both "weary" and G > "wary" fit the bill adequately in your sentence :-)  So which did you  > really mean? :-)   I'd do both, myself...   --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 20:38:36 GMT + From: LESLIE@JRLVAX.HOUSTON.RR.COM (leslie)  Subject: Re: HP to drop hpux? 8 Message-ID: <gn3Ja.8285$hV.498242@twister.austin.rr.com>  + JF Mezei (jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com) wrote:  : G : HP-UX is faced with a migration to the uncertain IA64 thing combined  ; : with possibly big changed when Tru64 bits are integrated.  :   B HP-UX's migration to IA64 was complete some time ago, and most of ) the migration team subsequently laid off.     2 --Jerry Leslie   (my opinions are strictly my own)9   Note: leslie@jrlvax.houston.rr.com is invalid for email    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:27:01 GMT 6 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER) Subject: Re: HP to drop hpux? 3 Message-ID: <pJ6Ja.54916$RM6.730946@news.chello.at>   [ In article <3EF49981.FA4D3D0B@fsi.net>, "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> writes: @ >I've already been told internally at work that purchases of newA >Proliants are strictly verboten. All new purchases will be Dell,   < Why DELL ? Why not an ASUS instead ? eg. look at the AP1600R@ Ok, forget it. Rhetorical question. I don't want to discuss PCs.  1 >although new Alphas will be acquired, if needed.   E Hopefully that is true. It could be that they are needed in your eyes > but not in the eyes of the people with the cheque book then...  A >As we are a major, high profile-medical center in the #2 city in G >America, I would sit up and take notice of that if I were HP. I'm not, ) >but that is quite beside the point, IMO.   1 Bashing HP is obviously totally on-topic here ;-)    --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER % Network and OpenVMS system specialist  E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 20:52:56 -0400 * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> Subject: Re: HP to drop hpux? 2 Message-ID: <kwednZve7o1xYGmjXTWJhA@metrocast.net>  3 "Greg Cagle" <gregc@gregcagle.com> wrote in message ) news:vf9ahk1dct6nb2@corp.supernews.com...  > Bill Todd wrote: > J > > People 'betting their businesses' on HP-UX (or VMS), just as they wereJ > > encouraged to bet them on Alpha, don't have that luxury:  they have to makeC > > plans on the basis of the best information they have right now.  > > G > > If they were worried about a bug or some other technical issue with  HP-UX,G > > knowing the people you know in HP-UX development would be useful to  them. C > > But for making longer-term plans, trust in the *vendor* is also 	 required, K > > regardless of the quality and motivation of the development group - and H > > neither recent HP leadership nor its acquired leadership from Compaq seems & > > very worthy of that kind of trust. > ? > So your basic argument is that these people can't be trusted.    Got it in one.   > E > My argument is that at this point it doesn't matter. Think about it + > for a minute. They don't have a *choice*.   @ Compaq didn't with Alpha, either.  They chose to kill it anyway.    HP-UX serves a market1 > that can't be served with any other HP product.   K And when Alpha was killed it served a market that could not be met with any  other Compaq product.   H A year after the Alphacide (after the merger) it *still* served a marketJ that could not be met with any other cHumPaq product - not only because noG one was buying Itanic2s but because the Alpha operating systems weren't  available on them anyway.   G Now it's *two* years after the Alphacide and guess what?  There *still* G isn't a cHumPaq product that can serve Alpha's market (there's still no L significant adoptation of Itanic yet, and Alpha's OSs still aren't available on it anyway).  J Next year it will be *three* years after the Alphacide, and then, finally,G at least VMS will supposedly be available on Itanic (if anyone wants it  there).   L But for the Tru64 customer base there will *never* be a cHumPaq product that= can effectively replace Alpha:  they'll just have to migrate.   J Tell me again how HP can't possibly kill HP-UX because they've got nothingK currently available to replace it with.  Be particularly careful to address J the reasons why they won't put HP-UX into semi-maintenance mode (very muchK as has happened to Alpha - and for that matter to a significant degree VMS: G where is that new file system they've been talking about for close to 4 F years now?) as soon as they can get some incompetent engineers in someL ancillary group (Robison might do it on his own, for that matter:  he's saidG to be a Linux bigot) to tell them that Linux *will* be ready to replace H HP-UX in a year or two, so they might as well start cutting expenses now< (cutting expenses being something they're *really* good at).   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:05:52 -0500 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>  Subject: Re: HP to drop hpux? ' Message-ID: <3EF50F00.2D5B7E89@fsi.net>     Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote: > ] > In article <3EF49981.FA4D3D0B@fsi.net>, "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> writes:  > [snip]3 > >although new Alphas will be acquired, if needed.  > G > Hopefully that is true. It could be that they are needed in your eyes @ > but not in the eyes of the people with the cheque book then...  H Well, believe it or else, we've already maxed out our 12-CPU GS1280s and> are looking toward an upgrade to 16, and possibly another node, eventually. No plans to partition currently.  C > >As we are a major, high profile-medical center in the #2 city in I > >America, I would sit up and take notice of that if I were HP. I'm not, + > >but that is quite beside the point, IMO.  > 3 > Bashing HP is obviously totally on-topic here ;-)   G To any HP people still reading: only your top management should take it  personally.    --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:32:08 GMT # From: Jonas Lindholm <jlhm@usa.net> % Subject: Re: Problems with SYS$GETRMI & Message-ID: <3EF4CEFC.9030102@usa.net>   Hi,   / None of the specific CPU modes return any data. H Instead you need to use the RMI$_MODES item to return an array of data, 1 I believe it is 8 or 9 items for each active CPU.   $ fernando.vallarino@oca.com.uy wrote:  E >>None of these RMI$_ codes are valid when used with SYS$GETRMI. See:  >>N >>  <http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/731FINAL/4527/4527pro_063.html#index_x_616> >> >>for valid RMI_ codes.  >> >> > L > That's right, but the RMI$_LEF returns the exact number of process in that > state.P > What can I do to obtain the cpu usage with the codes defined in that document? > Which of them? >    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 18:20:37 -0700 & From: Greg Cagle <gregc@gregcagle.com>! Subject: Who can you trust, then? / Message-ID: <vfa15847nrop5e@corp.supernews.com>    Bill Todd wrote:   >> I wrote:  >>? >>So your basic argument is that these people can't be trusted.  >  >  > Got it in one.  9 I've got an idea. There seems to be a lot of talk in this 7 group about how you can't trust Compaq and by extension : HP. As a change, I was thinking it might be interesting to8 hear about vendors who CAN be trusted. Who would you bet4 your career and your future (and your company's) on? --  
 Greg Cagle gregc at gregcagle dot com   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:13:21 -0500 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> % Subject: Re: Who can you trust, then? ' Message-ID: <3EF510C1.88E4B572@fsi.net>    Greg Cagle wrote:  >  > Bill Todd wrote: > 
 > >> I wrote:  > >>A > >>So your basic argument is that these people can't be trusted.  > >  > >  > > Got it in one. > ; > I've got an idea. There seems to be a lot of talk in this 9 > group about how you can't trust Compaq and by extension < > HP. As a change, I was thinking it might be interesting to: > hear about vendors who CAN be trusted. Who would you bet6 > your career and your future (and your company's) on?   *WHEW* *THAT*'s a *TOUGH* call!   E With the corporate scandal we've seen over the past almost 18 months?   F Put it this way: I was raised Catholic. It's a long shot, but if JesusE himself were head of a publicly-held U.S. Corporation, I'd still call  for an investigation!   E ...unless He was Chairman and Michael and His Boys were the board and H top management. Then, I'd only distrust their accountants and attorneys!  C Oh, yeah: Advertising? No one's beaten that Red Sea bit yet, or The  Deluge, or ...   --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:21:47 -0400 * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>% Subject: Re: Who can you trust, then? 2 Message-ID: <yTadnUjPsoZCs2ijXTWJkg@metrocast.net>  3 "Greg Cagle" <gregc@gregcagle.com> wrote in message ) news:vfa15847nrop5e@corp.supernews.com...  > Bill Todd wrote: > 
 > >> I wrote:  > >>A > >>So your basic argument is that these people can't be trusted.  > >  > >  > > Got it in one. > ; > I've got an idea. There seems to be a lot of talk in this 9 > group about how you can't trust Compaq and by extension  > HP.   E Indeed.  And it will continue as long as anyone tries to suggest that K perhaps cHumPaq isn't so bad after all:  until they actually *do* something H significant to compensate for the mess they have made, the promises theyD have broken, and the lies they have told, they'll keep being held to account.  F Incidentally, it's not simply 'by extension HP':  they've got a lot toL answer for on their own.  HP screwed its MPE people shortly after reassuringD them with a 5-year roadmap.  Carly was intimately involved in mergerG discussions with Curly (and Robison) well prior to the Alphacide (hence K clearly had some hand in that decision), and HP was clearly responsible for I gutting the EV79 schedule, reducing its clock speed target significantly, L and eliminating the cache expansion that had been planned for it - all afterK having promised to honor Compaq's commitment to follow the 'plan of record' A established after the Alphacide.  Carly also lied to her BoD, her F shareholders, and the general public during the merger preparations byJ touting early rosy projections made about the benefits of the merger whileK simultaneously preventing the supposedly competent people who had made them H from airing their own growing doubts about them.  She engaged in legallyI questionable arm-twisting in the dealings with Deutsche Bank and whatever L that supposedly independent analysis firm was that wound up recommending theH merger.  And the campaign she waged against Walter Hewlett made her look like a back-alley slut.   7  As a change, I was thinking it might be interesting to ( > hear about vendors who CAN be trusted.  H As long as it doesn't lose sight of the reason *why* such a conversationJ needs to take place (i.e., the need to find a vendor more trustworthy thanK cHumPaq), that seems a reasonable (and practically useful) extension to the  discussion.   I But it shouldn't degenerate into a pissing contest.  It would be naive to I claim that *any* vendor can be trusted absolutely never to do things that L may inconvenience its customers, but that doesn't by any means mean that allG vendors are equally sleazy.  If people wish to present reasons why they E think that other vendors may be equally untrustworthy, they should be I prepared to present the details of their purported perfidies so that they ! can be contrasted with cHumPaq's.     Who would you bet6 > your career and your future (and your company's) on?  I The first obvious possibility is IBM.  People as diametrically opposed as J Terry Shannon and myself seem to agree that IBM provides better breadth ofF products and services than anyone else, and tends to do things for its customers rather than to them.  K And for those people whose needs it meets Sun may be a good choice as well: E unlike cHumPaq, which appears to believe that it can shrug off market I segments that it finds inconvenient and and concentrate on other parts of I its empire that are more to its fancy, Sun will likely live or die on the E basis of its support for Solaris (including increasingly strong Linux D coexistence).  And, also unlike cHumPaq, Sun has a recent history ofI listening and responding to its customers' requirements in that area.  So L while Sun has been hurt more than most by the current downturn (since it hadE the farthest to fall from the height of the Internet boom), its loyal E existing customer base, its customer focus, its credible roadmap, its J ability to field cost-effective solutions, and its inclination to stick to> its knitting combine to make it a reasonable long-term choice.  I I'd advance at least those two vendors as reasonably trustworthy options, L though it would be nice to see Sun more solidly back on its feet as well andL Sun is not the place to look for dramatic breadth of product lines.  Not tooI surprisingly, the anecdotal evidence I've heard suggests that IBM and Sun G are exactly where many of the disaffected former cHumPaq customers have 4 gone, which constitutes some kind of recommendation.  L But I suspect that there are many people in a much better position than I amL to evaluate not only vendor fidelity but other aspects as well.  And in someC cases it will probably be true that vendor fidelity is not the most E important aspect (e.g., for those for whom moving away from VMS would J involve almost unbearable migration pain:  they'll just have to suck it up& and take whatever cHumPaq dishes out).   - bill   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2003.343 ************************