1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 02 Mar 2003	Volume 2003 : Issue 120       Contents:9 Re: ?= Javadev118 and Java 1.4 on same OVMS 7.3-1 system. 2 Re: Bill Gates says you "get what you pay for" ... CMSVE04041 ? Re: DECthreads problem on VAX 
 Re: I am back H 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 monopolP Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly monopol+ Looking for Tektronix XP400 X-terminal info 2 Re: New DECwindows 1.3 documentation but no kit ??! Re: Official OpenVMS name for the ( OT: America's Cup  [ was Re: I am back ]7 Re: Robert Deininger's 100 Quatloos are still unclaimed  Re: unix Re: unix Re: unix Re: unix RE: unix Re: unix8 VAXELN vs Posix Threads (Was: DECthreads problem on VAX) Re: VMS Backup solutions  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 13:13:16 GMT 6 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)B Subject: Re: ?= Javadev118 and Java 1.4 on same OVMS 7.3-1 system.5 Message-ID: <Mrn8a.191915$Rb4.2329040@news.chello.at>   s In article <aus-D09A18.10462628022003@wrzx08.rz.uni-wuerzburg.de>, "Hans M. Aus" <aus@vim.uni-wuerzburg.de> writes: . >1) Why is Javadev118 on my OVMS 7.3-1 system?  < Don't know. Maybe it is part of VMS now (don't think so) andA maybe some product who is based on JAVA did install a JRE itself. 7 I've it, too, and I also don't know where it come from.  Did you install eg. AVAIL_MAN ?   8 >2) Can I install JAVA 1.4 with out removing Javedev118?  E Of course. JAVA versions can be installed in parallel. That's why the E product name include (part of) the version number. And that's why the B JAVA images are no longer in SYS$SYSTEM. And newer JDKs do includeH 'cancel' files for all older versions as well, so you can switch between% older and newer JAVA versions easily.   G btw: How to 'remove' Javedev118 when there is/was not an installation ?    --   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: 2 Mar 03 09:18:21 +0100 ) From: p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture) ; Subject: Re: Bill Gates says you "get what you pay for" ... ) Message-ID: <7IEIG39728HS@elias.decus.ch>   M In article <03022816421912@dscis7-0.dalsemi.com>, brandon@dalsemi.com writes:    <snip>  D >>>> And Gates also maintained that software engineers would have toA >>>> resort to labouring to put bread in their mouths. Capitalism ) >>>> dictated that software make profits.  >>>>   > ) > Make that Microsoft software engineers.  >   D Not quite. Instead he has shoved labour intensive practices into ourD workplace, not to mention a laissez faire attitude about losing work+ and rebooting whenever anything goes wrong.   G Meanwhile, his real aim is to put properly qualified software engineers : out of work by replacing them with point and click drones.   --  
 Paul Sture   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 17:17:02 GMT 6 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER) Subject: CMSVE04041 ? 5 Message-ID: <i0r8a.197028$Rb4.2379703@news.chello.at>   G I just noted on the australian ECO site, that there is a CMSAE04041 and I CMSVE04041 since last October but I so far haven't seen them on the usual < ECO sites downloadable. Has anyone managed to see/get them ?  @ No, I don't really need them (but I'd be pleased if I get them)." And, no, I've no support contract.H And, no, I don't think they are only on restricted distribution, because@ 	a) public distribution is growing while restricted is shrinking# 	b) ECO 1 is on public distribution   > It is mere a question of how well is the care of the ECO sites@ and who to turn to with questions/corrections for the ECO site ?   Many TIA   --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER % Network and OpenVMS system specialist  E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Mar 2003 07:43:36 GMT - From: djweath@attglobal.net (Dave Weatherall) & Subject: Re: DECthreads problem on VAX5 Message-ID: <DTiotGxQ0bj6-pn2-BKbmj2ViMS2M@localhost>   D On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 12:01:38 UTC,   VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:  G > I thought this thread died a silent death.  I finally managed to find G > my problem after many runs (2 weeks) and lots of additional bits log- G > ging all sorts of thread status.  I found a very seldom exercised AST F > being fired when another thread held the global mutex.  This AST, onG > occasion, would call a subroutine which also locked the global mutex. G > This is a documented NO-NO and I corrected it.  However, the symptoms F > of puking up in the midst of PTHREAD$RTL with nothing but an ACCVIO F > and textual crap written all over the stack was certainly of no help > in debugging this problem.    C Glad you got it sorted. They certainly aren't the easiest thing to  A debug. I always feel disappointed that I get such a (relatively)  E useless set of error messages from a VMS program (especially if it's  
 one of mine).    F > I implemented a "debug" logical that can be defined with a number ofD > keywords or lists of keywords that now turn on debugging (logging)E > of threads, stacks, tcp/ip, mutexes, conditions, VMS return and IO  E > status, and misc. other items.  Hopefully, I won't need to use them G > anytime in the near future but they're there already if I should have  > need.   9 Sounds useful. I should do something similar. There is a  F synchronisation/close-down/restart fault in our  application that I'veF never traced. When first written, the application was meant to provide@ us with a means of testing our VAX/ELN based test system on VMS E instead of needing a specific embedded processor. i.e. develope/test  F Fortran models of  the equipment  that our target system  communicatesE with. As a result some gotchas remain. We now intend to use the tool  : for host-based testing so it needs to be made more robust.   --   Cheers - Dave.   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Mar 03 10:43:33 +0100 ) From: p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture)  Subject: Re: I am back) Message-ID: <ThHv3zw5Eo4x@elias.decus.ch>   q In article <857e9e41.0303011328.48a308c2@posting.google.com>, susan_skonetski@hotmail.com (Sue Skonetski) writes: F > Just letting everyone know I am back.  I was in Texas visiting my inH > laws.  The had a week of really bad weather.  Freezing rain, I can sayG > that in New England we know how to deal with really bad cold weather, 4 > they know how to deal with really bad hot weather. >  > Any way, whats new?  >   G Sunshine here yesterday. 15 degrees Celcius yesterday, which was a nice ; change from the -10 during the night a couple of weeks ago.   F Please tell me that you weren't daft enough to click on the virus thatI Shane reported. I got it too, and saw your name on the distribution list. ( (it came by the name of Q414183_EXE.VIR)  C Also some good news here - we get a chance to meet Mark Gorham next  Wednesday here in Switzerland.   Regards    --  
 Paul Sture   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 09:30:08 GMT - From: bdc@world.std.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) Q Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly ) Message-ID: <g9s8j-e9l.ln1@pez.jarai.com>   3 In article <9V5L8YYT2nVu@eisner.encompasserve.org>, < Bob Koehler <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote:2 > In article <3e533dee.282061362@news.eircom.net>,4 > rw@vorpalbunnyeircom.net (Russell Wallace) writes:  G > > But that nearly happened. Back around the early 90s, Apple actually E > > got a version of their operating system running on PCs. If they'd F > > played their cards right, they could have seized the market beforeI > > Microsoft had Windows 95 ready. Thank God Apple's management were too  > > stupid to see it.  > L >    Apple has Darwin (the OS X UNIX) running on Pentium, but not the GUI.  B >    Darwin is fairly easy, it's a BSD UNIX on a mach microkernel. > 4 >    I wonder if the GUI is still written in Pascal?  L Given that the lineage of OS X has its roots in NeXTStep, I'm going to guessK that it's either being done in Objective-C or C++.  And actually looking at L Apple's page on OS X software development in the native Cocoa environment...  + http://developer.apple.com/cocoa/index.html    -> Cocoa's History ->  F ->   Cocoa is the descendant of NeXTStep and has a rich design historyH -> reaching back to 1987. Cocoa is implemented in Objective-C, an ANSI CI -> compatible language with dynamic object-oriented extensions modeled on H -> Smalltalk. It has been tailored for efficient development and runtimeE -> performance. Cocoa applications can make use of core functionality D -> contained in traditional C and C++ libraries brought forward fromG -> legacy application environments. It also provides Java interfaces to H -> permit a high performance, full featured Java development environment% -> tailored to Mac OS X specifically. 	 -> [...]    I Also included are tools like Interface Builder and Project Builder, which I originated in NeXTStep.  It's a wonderfully easy and powerful environment  for software developers.  G When NeXT dropped out of the hardware business, they ported their OS to F a number of different platforms: Sun Sparc, HP PA-RISC, and Intel x86.D These were supported under the NeXTStep 3.3 release, and their laterC OpenStep 4.x releases.  Given that Apple's OS X is now running on a I PowerPC based platform, /and/ that the underlying Darwin bits are running B on Intel x86 hardware, I'd be very surprised if Apple weren't ableB to shift gears very quickly to get OS X running on an Intel based D platform, should they decide to do so. (Or AMD?)  I'm guessing it's < retained much of the portability gathered in previous years.  E Also.  Does anyone else find it sort of ironic that Apple is counting > on IBM's PowerPC 970 for use in their next generation systems?4 Business is business, but it's a long way from 1984.   -brian. C (Don't get me wrong.  I'd like for nothing better than for Apple to ;  wipe the walls with the disemboweled corpse of Microsoft.)    ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 07:14:47 -0800# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> Y Subject: RE: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly monopol 9 Message-ID: <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIAEIGGLAA.tom@kednos.com>    >-----Original Message----- 3 >From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler [mailto:lynn@garlic.com] % >Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 6:56 AM  >To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.ComI >Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM  >monopoly monopoly monopoly  >  > 0 >bdc@world.std.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) writes:H >> Also.  Does anyone else find it sort of ironic that Apple is countingA >> on IBM's PowerPC 970 for use in their next generation systems? 7 >> Business is business, but it's a long way from 1984.    Why is that ironic?    > F >just an extension of fort knox. pre 1984 .... fort knox was a projectF >to migrate most of the sundry microprocessors used in controllers andD >various computers to 801/risc (rochester products, low & mide rangeF >370s ... aka boeblingen & endicott, numerous controllers using uc.5s, >jib-primes, etc). > C >fort knox got killed ... and some number of the people went off to B >various other places (including outside the company; slightly amdC >related; i believe 29k had at least one such person) to build risc  >processers. > G >ROMP was 16bit 801 for the OPD (office product division) displaywriter E >follow-on. when that got killed ... the group retargted the hardware G >for unix workstation ... getting the group that had done the AT&T port > >to the pc for pc/ix to do one ... resulting in pc/rt & aixv2. > F >folklore has it that after Future System (FS) got killed, some numberE >of people went off to rochester and built it anyway ... resulting in E >the s/38. The s/38 follow-on, as/400 was initially built on cisc but E >was retargted to power/pc ... and so could be considered "fort knox" . >.... just delayed by something like 15 years. > # >misc 801 &/or fort knox references . >http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#801 >  >misc FS references:4 >http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#futuresys >  >-- 4 >Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ B >Internet trivia 20th anv http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/rfcietff.htm >  >---' >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. ; >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). A >Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/2003  >  --- & Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).@ Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/2003   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 18:30:07 GMT - From: bdc@world.std.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) Y Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly monopol ) Message-ID: <aeu9j-7mm.ln1@pez.jarai.com>   9 In article <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIAEIGGLAA.tom@kednos.com>, " Tom Linden <tom@kednos.com> wrote:1 > bdc@world.std.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) writes:   I > > Also.  Does anyone else find it sort of ironic that Apple is counting B > > on IBM's PowerPC 970 for use in their next generation systems?8 > > Business is business, but it's a long way from 1984. >  > Why is that ironic?   G You're unaware of the historic philosophical and near religious rivalry H between Apple and IBM?  Probably, more correctly, it should be describedH as Apple's fight against IBM.  AFAIK, IBM never directly targeted any ofI their ad campaigns specifically at Apple.  The marketing of Apple doesn't G (or didn't) take any measures to be vague about who their enemies were.   I An early example of this can be found in Apple's famous "1984" commercial ' which announced the original Macintosh:   ;   <http://www.uiowa.edu/~commstud/adclass/1984_mac_ad.html>   F More recent examples are the Apple "Think Different" campaign, which II believe was started right around the time that Jobs returned to Apple and E the original iMac was released (circa 1997?).  This is a very obvious 3 jab at Thomas J. Watson's famous IBM "Think" motto:   B   <http://www-916.ibm.com/press/prnews.nsf/html/bios_twatson.html>>   <http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/Shustek/05-Watson-THINK.gif>1   <http://www.redlightrunner.com/rarthinpos.html>   F So, the irony of the situation is that Apple, one of the most vocally C anti-IBM companies in the recent history of computing, will now be  7 relying on an IBM processor for their computer systems.    -brian.   H (My personal favorite is still the Apple "Crowd Control" ad which pokes G  fun at Microsoft's Windows 95.  In can be found on the following page: -  <http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/index.html> )    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 14:56:04 GMT + From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Y Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly monopol ) Message-ID: <uznod7r27.fsf@earthlink.net>   / bdc@world.std.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) writes: G > Also.  Does anyone else find it sort of ironic that Apple is counting @ > on IBM's PowerPC 970 for use in their next generation systems?6 > Business is business, but it's a long way from 1984.  E just an extension of fort knox. pre 1984 .... fort knox was a project E to migrate most of the sundry microprocessors used in controllers and C various computers to 801/risc (rochester products, low & mide range E 370s ... aka boeblingen & endicott, numerous controllers using uc.5s,  jib-primes, etc).   B fort knox got killed ... and some number of the people went off toA various other places (including outside the company; slightly amd B related; i believe 29k had at least one such person) to build risc processers.   F ROMP was 16bit 801 for the OPD (office product division) displaywriterD follow-on. when that got killed ... the group retargted the hardwareF for unix workstation ... getting the group that had done the AT&T port= to the pc for pc/ix to do one ... resulting in pc/rt & aixv2.   E folklore has it that after Future System (FS) got killed, some number D of people went off to rochester and built it anyway ... resulting inD the s/38. The s/38 follow-on, as/400 was initially built on cisc butD was retargted to power/pc ... and so could be considered "fort knox", ... just delayed by something like 15 years.  " misc 801 &/or fort knox references- http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#801    misc FS references: 3 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#futuresys    --  3 Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/  A Internet trivia 20th anv http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/rfcietff.htm    ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 10:23:37 +0100 From: "JK" <johket@hotmail.com> 4 Subject: Looking for Tektronix XP400 X-terminal info1 Message-ID: <1046593995.121511@tbird.introweb.nl>   	 Hi there,   J I can not locate any information (manuals/software) to use for a tektronix XP-400 X-terminal.< I bought it second hand, the seller did not give any related software/manuals.  (I asked fot it also)   K It has a decnet license, and would like to use it (@ HOME) as a terminal to  my VMS system.   I hope someone can help me!    Thanking you in advance,   Johan    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 03:47:31 -0400 0 From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca>; Subject: Re: New DECwindows 1.3 documentation but no kit ?? / Message-ID: <3E61B6E8.F0BBC80C@vl.videotron.ca>   K Since the majority will stay with the older decwindows, it would be nice if K the VMS folks left the odler decwindows documentation up on the web site as  well.    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Mar 03 09:58:01 +0100 ) From: p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture) * Subject: Re: Official OpenVMS name for the) Message-ID: <5$28vnO4H7t0@elias.decus.ch>   n In article <tU28a.167015$Rb4.2117577@news.chello.at>, peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER) writes:e > In article <IpJ4R2bD0osQ@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes: E >>Suppose they named it OpenVMS Itanium, and Intel later decided that G >>starting with the Munroe chip (to choose a US president starting with D >>"M" at random) their chips would be called Farfenuegel rather than >>Itanium ?  >># >>So what happens to the VMS name ?  > L > So, we're back again at "OpenVMS IPF", because it continues to be a member$ > of the "INTEL Processor Family"... >   J Thank you Peter. Exactly my thoughts too. "IPF" was firmly drilled into usK at the time of the announcement of the port, and I am surprised that people = seem to have forgotten it. It seems the obvious choice to me.    --  
 Paul Sture   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 11:23:51 GMT 0 From: HARANGOZO CSABA   <spameater@spam.invalid>1 Subject: OT: America's Cup  [ was Re: I am back ] 5 Message-ID: <bRl8a.966$L7.85759@nasal.pacific.net.au>   * Paul Sture <p_sture@elias.decus.ch> wrote: [...snip...]  ; 	Congratulations to Switzerland winning the America's Cup !   > 	( I just wonder where they will defend it, being a landlocked
 	country... )  						Cheers,  Csaba  J  -------------------------------------------------------------------------H   CSABA I. HARANGOZO  |d|i|g|i|t|a|l|  csabah(at)zipworld(dot)com(dot)auJ  -------------------------------------------------------------------------;    EARTH::AUSTRALIA:[SYDNEY]HARANGOZO.CSABA;1, delete? [N]:   C 	The careful application of terror is also a form of communication.    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Mar 03 09:52:22 +0100 ) From: p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture) @ Subject: Re: Robert Deininger's 100 Quatloos are still unclaimed) Message-ID: <PR1gHVsynhIk@elias.decus.ch>    In article <rdeininger-0103030750100001@user-uinj4bo.dialup.mindspring.com>, rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger) writes: H > In article <5PdYgT+FBAKv@elias.decus.ch>, p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul > Sture) wrote:  >  >>Morning Robert,  >>M >>Just a quick note to say that despite my former optimism, your 100 Quatloos  >>are safe for the time being. >>H >>I haven't given up yet, but can confirm that posting a complex url viaE >>LookOut and Exchange to a VMS MAIL account makes that url unusable.  > # > Thanks for the continued efforts.  >   @ Thanks for the encouragement. At times I get close to giving up.   L > The PC help desk and the "escalated" help desk at work have gotten nowhere	 > so far.   F One step I am considering is getting myself on a customer mailing list$ and complaining from that direction.   On which subject...   ? Does anyone else get the Friday lunchtime HP-Interex EMEA email @ about the week's HP news? This Friday's version came not as text> (which IIRC was an option I chose at some stage), but as HTML.  I Worse than that, it came with some kind of embedded script (Javascript?). E Now, I criticise OutLook, but our team in charge of that have done an E excellent job of locking it down to the extent that it will refuse to 7 download executables or process nasty pieces of script.   F Result with the Interex mail? None of the links work unless I view the8 source and do it manually. Frankly I cannot be bothered.  D Whilst I am on a Murkyslush bashing, here is something that XP users should take heed of:  * http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm  D A well written article about 16 ways that XP connects to a MicrosoftE site, which reminds me of a posting I read shortly after it came out:   4 "My XP computer spends its own time on the Internet"  = At that time I was on ISDN, so each connection cost me money. G In that context, it is not only about privacy, but my bank balance too.    --  
 Paul Sture   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Mar 03 10:25:10 +0100 ) From: p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture)  Subject: Re: unix ) Message-ID: <0PL33tx$iQG4@elias.decus.ch>   E In article <b3qhii$nu2$4@bob.news.rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:    <snip>  @ > Unix could suck eggs but people will still use it if, and only< > if, they get the sources.  One of DEC's fatal mistakes was< > to try to keep the "knowledge", a.k.a. sources, to itself;; > it was under the misconception that secrecy would protect > > its investment and intellectual property.  This is one case # > where the exact opposite is true.  >   ? Memories of a DEC comms program back in the late 1970s here. It A could have saved us an awful lot of money but didn't work. We had A the source for at least some of it, but all the comments had been  stripped. Plain stupid IMO.    --  
 Paul Sture   ------------------------------  ! Date: Sun, 02 Mar 03 10:18:52 GMT  From: jmfbahciv@aol.com  Subject: Re: unix + Message-ID: <b3sod7$rp0$1@bob.news.rcn.net>   ) In article <en88j-q3l.ln1@pez.jarai.com>, 1    bdc@world.std.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) wrote: H >In article <b3qhii$nu2$4@bob.news.rcn.net>,  <jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:, >> In article <rb26j-hcj.ln1@pez.jarai.com>,4 >>    bdc@world.std.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) wrote: > I >> > Consider the role of subtle differences and diversity in the process H >> > of natural selection and in evolution in general.  One of the greatH >> > strengths of Unix and Unix-like operating systems is their inherentE >> > ability to adapt to the needs of a wide variety of target users.  >>  B >> Sorry, you've got it bass-ackwards and this is a very important= >> point.  The only reason those adaptations are happening is ; >> because enough users have the sources to implement them.  > E >Exactly!  That's one of those intrinsics of Unix I was hinting at.   J >Another very important one was making portability of the OS a fundamentalI >design goal.  Unix goes out of its way to make itself easy to be copied.  > F >> No company exists that has both enough manpower and time to it all. > G >Agreed.  And Unix had the good fortune of AT&T deciding to license the D >source to a wide variety of companies and educational institutions.  > Their licensing policy almost killed it, IMO.  Prying sources E out of their hands was like trying to find an antidote for superglue.   	 > .. This I >is yet another strength of Unix, which allowed for those organization to J >create a diverse collection of Unices with different features and pricingE >schemes, all available on a variety of hardware of even more varying  >characteristics and costs.  > C >> It was one of TOPS-10's strengths to ship its sources.  Not only @ >> could customers do customized changes, they could upgrade ourB >> stuff and still be able to use their stuff after a <ahem>littleA >> bit of work.  My point is that it was possible to evolve their > >> software as ours evolves.  That can't happen if sources and+ >> the tools to mush them aren't available.  > D >Yes, and I'm not trying to say that Unix is technically better than/ >TOPS-10 or any of its other contemporary OSes.   A I wasn't talking about strengths and weaknesses of code execution > either.  I'm talking about the pros and cons of making sources; available.  See my other post about the dangers of shipping  sources.   > ...  My point is that it hasI >the ability to survive and perpetuate itself better than any other OS.   K >That's all; I'm not singing the technical praises of Unix above and beyond I >all other OSes.  I'm saying it's hard to kill, because, really, no /one/ H >controls it anymore.  Between the companies who've already licensed andJ >have been developing their own Unix versions for years, and the untainted< >Unix-like OSes, there's no one place to go to eliminate it.  A On the contrary, this may be its Achilles' heel.  There is no one @ entity to babysit the bits, enforce standards, and have the last@ say on Bad Ideas.  Do not misunderstand me.  Given a choice, I'dA always vote for the side that distributes the knowledge; however, = there's a complete set of other problems that comes with that  choice.    > D >A contrasting approach was that of DEC's.  DEC created non-portableJ >operating systems, whose source they kept control of, and which were tiedH >to specific architectures.  Again and again, the whims of the owners ofF >those OSes and the machines upon which those depended, were such that >those systems were killed.   ? These weren't killed upon a whim.  There were logical "reasons" B for it.  You are forgetting that DEC was in the hardware business.> It's mistake was that it forgot to stay in pure hardware.  DEC= had a choice to make; they didn't carry through their choice.     3 > .. The one exception being VMS, which still isn't H >terribly portable--it seems to require herculean efforts of coding eachK >time it's moved to a new processor architecture--but it is still kicking,   >more or less.  ; Those kicks are called death throes.  Of course it requires = effort to support a new architecture.  You can either do this > effort in the OS or you can do it in the compiler that is used> to make the OS executable.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PORTABLE
 WITHOUT WORK.  <snip>   /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.    ------------------------------  ! Date: Sun, 02 Mar 03 10:20:09 GMT  From: jmfbahciv@aol.com  Subject: Re: unix + Message-ID: <b3sofh$rp0$2@bob.news.rcn.net>   ) In article <0PL33tx$iQG4@elias.decus.ch>, -    p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture) wrote: F >In article <b3qhii$nu2$4@bob.news.rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes: >  ><snip>  > A >> Unix could suck eggs but people will still use it if, and only = >> if, they get the sources.  One of DEC's fatal mistakes was = >> to try to keep the "knowledge", a.k.a. sources, to itself; < >> it was under the misconception that secrecy would protect? >> its investment and intellectual property.  This is one case  $ >> where the exact opposite is true. >>   > @ >Memories of a DEC comms program back in the late 1970s here. ItB >could have saved us an awful lot of money but didn't work. We hadB >the source for at least some of it, but all the comments had been >stripped. Plain stupid IMO. > > I don't believe that.  I would believe that the comments never
 existed.     /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.    ------------------------------  ! Date: Sun, 02 Mar 03 10:04:03 GMT  From: jmfbahciv@aol.com  Subject: Re: unix + Message-ID: <b3snhe$qns$1@bob.news.rcn.net>   ) In article <3E6123E8.4AEB9802@yahoo.com>, -    Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:  >jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:  >>  , >> In article <rb26j-hcj.ln1@pez.jarai.com>,4 >>    bdc@world.std.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) wrote:H >> >Consider the role of subtle differences and diversity in the processG >> >of natural selection and in evolution in general.  One of the great G >> >strengths of Unix and Unix-like operating systems is their inherent D >> >ability to adapt to the needs of a wide variety of target users. >>  B >> Sorry, you've got it bass-ackwards and this is a very important= >> point.  The only reason those adaptations are happening is ; >> because enough users have the sources to implement them.  > D >Yes, but *you* shipped each release, and it was then the customer'sB >problem to retrofit their changes if they wanted to stay current.  > Yup.  We tried to give them enough lead time and warning about? what we were going to do.  These presentations usually happened > at DECUS in the olden days when computer conventions were held, to test ideas before they were cast in bits.   > ..  There G >is no one source for unix, and hence lots of drift.  I still have some . >hope for Linux, but less now than previously.  A Even though it appeared to you guys out there that we had sources ; under control, it was smoke.  Source control is a PITA even = when you have complete control of what gets out to the field. > Every one of our customers wanted us to put their hacks in for; their convenience.  With some of them, it was impossible to = explain that their piece of code was completely orthogonal to ! another customer's piece of code.   : The best compromise that we could do without stiffling the8 computing usage of the customers was to ship the sources; and let them have at it.  This resulted in serious support  8 problems on our end.  Customers had a habit of reporting> bugs that were home-grown.  This caused those SPRs to languish= on somebody's desk (since we could neither debug nor analyze  < what caused the problems).  This caused our backlog to grow.= This gave the fucking idiots a metric to "prove" that PDP-10s < sucked.  It also was the rationale for not shipping sources.  ? So it's a two-edged sword that was very, very sharp.  It didn't > help that we (maintainers) were not allowed to close SPRs with "don't know" answers.      > H >I love having source.  I fought IBM a long time when they went OCO, butC >I'd like to see everyone start out from the same set of sources at E >various points in time, and *then* do whatever they want to it.  The < >next "release" could incorporate the best of what was done.  > <GRIN>  See?  You're proposing exactly what killed us.  We'ld ? probably tell you that we couldn't put your code in and  you'ld B get very upset because you're very proud of your code and deserved> distribution (but you don't want to do the distribution work).   /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.    ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 07:54:36 -0500' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com>  Subject: RE: unix T Message-ID: <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF402660DC6@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>   Re: source control ..   D >>>Even though it appeared to you guys out there that we had sources under control, it was smoke.<<<   F Yep, sounds easy to outsiders until they get some real experience with7 it.. Check out what Linus and Linux have done recently:   G http://news.com.com/2100-1001-963447.html?tag=3Dfd_nbs_ent [October 25,  2002} F "In addition to the feature and code freezes, Torvalds is making otherE changes that underscore the growing maturity of the Linux development E process. In February, he switched the management process for the vast F repository of Linux code from a free-wheeling model to the more formal BitKeeper software. "   = [So, Linux is just now switching to formal code management??]   B ".... The BitKeeper move irked some, including Richard Stallman, aF MacArthur Foundation "genius grant" winner whose work cloning Unix andF founding the Free Software Foundation provided a launching pad for theH Linux movement. BitKeeper is proprietary software, a closed product that@ runs contrary to the shared development model Stallman began and* Torvalds embraced for the Linux kernel.=20  H Torvalds said Thursday he'd prefer to use an open-source equivalent, butH there is none. "I'm hoping that some people in the open-source communityG will see the light and stop pushing CVS (the Concurrent Versions System H code management software) and try to do a BitKeeper-like thing instead,"
 he said. "   Interesting times ..   Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co.! Consulting & Integration Services  Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax   : 613-591-4477 Email: kerryDOTmain@hpDOTcom-     (remove the DOT's and replace with "."'s)  OpenVMS DCL - the original .COM    -----Original Message-----5 From: jmfbahciv@aol.com [mailto:jmfbahciv@aol.com]=20  Sent: March 2, 2003 5:04 AM  To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com  Subject: Re: unix     ) In article <3E6123E8.4AEB9802@yahoo.com>, -    Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:  >jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:  >>=20 , >> In article <rb26j-hcj.ln1@pez.jarai.com>,4 >>    bdc@world.std.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) wrote:H >> >Consider the role of subtle differences and diversity in the process  J >> >of natural selection and in evolution in general.  One of the great=20J >> >strengths of Unix and Unix-like operating systems is their inherent=20D >> >ability to adapt to the needs of a wide variety of target users. >>=20 E >> Sorry, you've got it bass-ackwards and this is a very important=20 H >> point.  The only reason those adaptations are happening is because=203 >> enough users have the sources to implement them.  > G >Yes, but *you* shipped each release, and it was then the customer's=20 B >problem to retrofit their changes if they wanted to stay current.  F Yup.  We tried to give them enough lead time and warning about what weG were going to do.  These presentations usually happened at DECUS in the H olden days when computer conventions were held to test ideas before they were cast in bits.   > ..  There J >is no one source for unix, and hence lots of drift.  I still have some=20. >hope for Linux, but less now than previously.  G Even though it appeared to you guys out there that we had sources under C control, it was smoke.  Source control is a PITA even when you have @ complete control of what gets out to the field. Every one of ourF customers wanted us to put their hacks in for their convenience.  WithG some of them, it was impossible to explain that their piece of code was : completely orthogonal to another customer's piece of code.  D The best compromise that we could do without stiffling the computingG usage of the customers was to ship the sources and let them have at it. # This resulted in serious support=20 8 problems on our end.  Customers had a habit of reportingA bugs that were home-grown.  This caused those SPRs to languish on < somebody's desk (since we could neither debug nor analyze=20F what caused the problems).  This caused our backlog to grow. This gaveH the fucking idiots a metric to "prove" that PDP-10s sucked.  It also was' the rationale for not shipping sources.   D So it's a two-edged sword that was very, very sharp.  It didn't helpF that we (maintainers) were not allowed to close SPRs with "don't know" answers.     > H >I love having source.  I fought IBM a long time when they went OCO, but  F >I'd like to see everyone start out from the same set of sources at=20H >various points in time, and *then* do whatever they want to it.  The=20< >next "release" could incorporate the best of what was done.  @ <GRIN>  See?  You're proposing exactly what killed us.  We'ld=20H probably tell you that we couldn't put your code in and  you'ld get veryF upset because you're very proud of your code and deserved distribution1 (but you don't want to do the distribution work).    /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 11:30:33 -0500 * From: "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> Subject: Re: unix ; Message-ID: <pan.2003.03.02.16.30.32.955283@nospam.invalid>   3 On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 10:04:03 +0000, jmfbahci wrote:   + > In article <3E6123E8.4AEB9802@yahoo.com>, / >    Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:  >>jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: >>> - >>> In article <rb26j-hcj.ln1@pez.jarai.com>, 5 >>>    bdc@world.std.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) wrote: I >>> >Consider the role of subtle differences and diversity in the process H >>> >of natural selection and in evolution in general.  One of the greatH >>> >strengths of Unix and Unix-like operating systems is their inherentE >>> >ability to adapt to the needs of a wide variety of target users.  >>> J >>> Sorry, you've got it bass-ackwards and this is a very important point.F >>>  The only reason those adaptations are happening is because enough- >>> users have the sources to implement them.  >>E >>Yes, but *you* shipped each release, and it was then the customer's C >>problem to retrofit their changes if they wanted to stay current.  > H > Yup.  We tried to give them enough lead time and warning about what weI > were going to do.  These presentations usually happened at DECUS in the J > olden days when computer conventions were held to test ideas before they > were cast in bits. >  >> ..  ThereH >>is no one source for unix, and hence lots of drift.  I still have some/ >>hope for Linux, but less now than previously.  > I > Even though it appeared to you guys out there that we had sources under E > control, it was smoke.  Source control is a PITA even when you have B > complete control of what gets out to the field. Every one of ourH > customers wanted us to put their hacks in for their convenience.  WithI > some of them, it was impossible to explain that their piece of code was < > completely orthogonal to another customer's piece of code. > F > The best compromise that we could do without stiffling the computingI > usage of the customers was to ship the sources and let them have at it. H > This resulted in serious support problems on our end.  Customers had aJ > habit of reporting bugs that were home-grown.  This caused those SPRs toG > languish on somebody's desk (since we could neither debug nor analyze H > what caused the problems).  This caused our backlog to grow. This gaveJ > the fucking idiots a metric to "prove" that PDP-10s sucked.  It also was) > the rationale for not shipping sources.  > F > So it's a two-edged sword that was very, very sharp.  It didn't helpH > that we (maintainers) were not allowed to close SPRs with "don't know"
 > answers. >  >  > I >>I love having source.  I fought IBM a long time when they went OCO, but D >>I'd like to see everyone start out from the same set of sources atF >>various points in time, and *then* do whatever they want to it.  The= >>next "release" could incorporate the best of what was done.  > H > <GRIN>  See?  You're proposing exactly what killed us.  We'ld probablyG > tell you that we couldn't put your code in and  you'ld get very upset G > because you're very proud of your code and deserved distribution (but . > you don't want to do the distribution work).  C I think that over the long term something analogous to mutation and F natural selection is going to happen with operating systems.  VariantsF will be developed with mutually incompatible specializations, the codeI base will branch and then the two branches will continue to develop until I the end product of one bears little resemblance to the end product of the I other, possibly with a certain core commonality.  Some will see this as a G bad thing, I am sure, however it is perfectly reasonable--why should an F operating system specialized for controlling machine tools for exampleJ bear much resemblance to one specialized to support an air traffic control< system?  We've seen something like that happen recently withI Windows--Microsoft tried to make a one-size-fits-all operating system and I found that on handhelds the feature set that they had included was mostly C wrong and ended up going through several revisions in which the two I branches became more and more divergent before they finally had something H that worked satisfactorily on the handhelds.  I suspect that the featureJ set for handhelds is going to continue to diverge from the feature set forH desktops as people find new ways to use the handhelds.  With open sourceI being more amenable to local customizations I suspect that the divergence E there will be wider and more rapid than for the proprietary products.  >  > /BAH > ) > Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.    --   --John- Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net # (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Mar 2003 10:09:54 -0800 2 From: cwhii_google_spam@yahoo.com (C.W.Holeman II)A Subject: VAXELN vs Posix Threads (Was: DECthreads problem on VAX) = Message-ID: <77555df7.0303021009.1f5e9bd4@posting.google.com>   j djweath@attglobal.net (Dave Weatherall) wrote in message news:<DTiotGxQ0bj6-pn2-6pHkIZkuND00@localhost>...  B > One thing I'm sure of, Posix based threading is nowhere near as G > elegant as VAX/ELN's JOB/Process model and the synchronisation tools   > it provides.  & Do you care to expound/expand on this?    --   C.W.Holeman IIB cwhii5@Julian5Locals.com           http://MistyMountain.com/~cwhiiB remove the fives               Send spam to junkmail@earthlink.net   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 14:43:11 +0100/ From: "Marc Van Dyck" <marc.vandyck@brutele.be> ! Subject: Re: VMS Backup solutions * Message-ID: <b3t1pb$540$1@news.brutele.be>  K "Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy" <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> 9 wrote in message news:3E5F8EA5.8080306@nospamn.sun.com...  >   > Humm  > C > The Tape SAN that we have implimented at the retail customer I am @ > engaged with at the moment supports around 120 Sun servers 20+ > SF6800 and 5 SF15000.  > = > We have two STK Silos reach with 20 9740 FC drives. Current : > storage footprint is ~60 TB with ~5 x that in the silos. > . > The largest backup job runs in at >100 MB/s. > * > All managed using UNIX backup utilities. > 	 > Regards  > Andrew Harrison  >   ; Our shop is a mix of OpenVMS, T64 Unix, SUN solaris, Linux, > NT, and Tandem. Total on line storage about 15 TB net, OpenVMSC owning 70% of it. We have centralized the media aspect, but not the @ backup engines. Unix and NT do it with Veritas; OpenVMS with its@ own backup, supplemented by SLS; Tandem with its own gear, which I don't know much.  ) Centralization at the media level means :   J - Tape-specialized SAN built with SCSI/FC mutiplexers made by TD Systems ;, - 4 StorageTEK silos, 5000 cartridges each ;E - A bunch of 9840 (40 GB) or 9940 (400 GB) drives, all FC-connected ;   ? The whole setup, silos included, is distributed over two sites, ; a few km from each other. We have or own fiber, 500+ pairs,  between the two.  6 The interface between OpenVMS and the STK gear is done8 with an HP product that goes along with SLS, named DCSC.9 This is the part that scares us, because we haven't heard : anything about the port to Itanium of this product yet. If8 this product goes away, the alternatives for OpenVMS are
 not clear.  = This setup is quite expensive but incredibly efficient. Those ( interested can mail me for more details.   Marc.    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2003.120 ************************