1 INFO-VAX	Mon, 03 Mar 2003	Volume 2003 : Issue 121       Contents:6 RE: 6-month free trial of BEA's WebLogic Server on VMS6 Re: Anyone use a Compaq 20/40 dlt tape drive in a vax?+ Backup options (external SCSI) for PWS500au 6 Re: Editor wars - Was: Re: Upcoming VMS improvements ? FA: DEC Board Case; 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: HUGE showstopper *bug* in HELP/MESSAGE* Re: HUGE showstopper *bug* in HELP/MESSAGE
 Re: I am back 
 Re: I am back P 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 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 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 oracle benchmarks on VMS, Re: OT: America's Cup  [ was Re: I am back ] Re: Questions on SSH for VMS Re: Questions on SSH for VMS Re: Questions on SSH for VMS7 Re: Robert Deininger's 100 Quatloos are still unclaimed  SCS/DECnet over IP% Re: technical question re. vms editor % Re: technical question re. vms editor  Re: The End of OpenVMS Re: unix. Re: VMS AS400 Coboler needed in PA immediately Re: Volume set across RAID5   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 15:58:22 -0500' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> ? Subject: RE: 6-month free trial of BEA's WebLogic Server on VMS T Message-ID: <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4023D9D77@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>   Re: BEA web site ..   C As you mentioned, BEA did some major changes on their web site that 0 broke lots of stuff (not just OpenVMS pointers).  H As I understand it, check back to that same web site later on Monday and7 the download pointers are supposed to be back in place.    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-----. From: RC Bryan [mailto:rcbryan@hotmail.com]=20 Sent: February 28, 2003 4:40 PM  To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com ? Subject: Re: 6-month free trial of BEA's WebLogic Server on VMS     6 kuhrt@encompasserve.org (Marty Kuhrt) wrote in message/ news:<wUTAffnlM+sF@eisner.encompasserve.org>... H > Found this interesting bit of stealth promotion today and I thought=20 > I'd pass it along. >=20G > When digging through the 7.3-1 box I ran across a small flyer that=20 J > said BEA is offering an HP-only offer for OpenVMS customers that will=20F > provide a FREE 6-month trial license of BEA's WebLogic Server for=20H > OpenVMS.  If you are interested in _THE_ premium application server on  J > the best OS (no bias, here, what?) then you might want to dig through=20. > your 7.3-1 kit and check it out, or go to=20< > http://www.bea.com/hpvmsbundle/ and sign up for more info. >=20+ > (Disclaimer: I don't work for hp or BEA.)    I have good news and bad news:  F The good: The link now works.  BEA majorly reorganized their website aE short time ago and a few things broke, including the link.  They have  since fixed things.   A The bad: The web page says: "You will be able to download ... the E application server ... in early December 2002..." and they give you a ; form to fill in to be notified "when it becomes available."   A More good:  A quick search shows WLS 7.0 SP1 is available on VMS.   C More bad: It is not available for download from the web (that I can  find.)  A All I can suggest is that you send them your email address on the 3 hpvmsbundle page and wait for sales to contact you.    Regards,	 /RC Bryan    PS: H The Bad: I _DO_ work for BEA. (Yes, I know advertising in a newsgroup isD vulgar, sorry. I thought this was a neat promotion and since someone; else thought it was worth mentioning, it was worth clearing  up.)F The Good: I don't work on WLS and I have nothing to do with sales.  (I: am just a worker-bee on Tuxedo but that is another story.)   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 06:11:12 GMT 3 From: Vance Haemmerle <vance@toyvax.Glendale.CA.US> ? Subject: Re: Anyone use a Compaq 20/40 dlt tape drive in a vax? 5 Message-ID: <3E628189.325DE11C@toyvax.Glendale.CA.US>    Jeremy Begg wrote: > 	 > Hi Jim,  > P > I believe the highest-capacity DAT drive supported on OpenVMS is 12/24GB (e.g.I > TLZ10).  Apparently the 20/40 drives don't support the writing of "odd" N > blocks, i.e. tape blocks with an odd number of bytes, and this functionality# > is assumed by the BACKUP utility. * > Of course, you may find it works anyway.  B   I've got a Sony SLT-11000 20/40 DAT drive and it works fine with BACKUP. = On both VAX and Alpha.  I've always used /BLOCK=32256 though.    -- Vance Haemmerle    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Mar 2003 20:54:12 -0800 , From: mcbill20@hotmail.com (Bill McLaughlin)4 Subject: Backup options (external SCSI) for PWS500au= Message-ID: <e9cbc4f2.0303022054.399a2759@posting.google.com>   C Anyone else here have a PWS500au? What do you use for backup. I was E surprised to find the box without external SCSI. I have a BA364 tower E with a TZ87 and a storageworks drive as well as an external TLZ09 but  no way to connect them.    Bill   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Mar 2003 15:52:07 -0800 . From: spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman)? Subject: Re: Editor wars - Was: Re: Upcoming VMS improvements ? = Message-ID: <b096a4ee.0303021552.620c4608@posting.google.com>   @ My apologies for this repost, but I found too many errors in theD original. So I fixed the errors and made small modifications. I willD attempt to delete the original. Please ignore the other one if it is still present.  Z p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture) wrote in message news:<5RTFv+yPlo$I@elias.decus.ch>...p > In article <b096a4ee.0302270823.669a2b0e@posting.google.com>, spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman) writes:^ > > Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<3E58148E.4B1FC938@pacbell.net>... > >> "Alan E. Feldman" wrote:  > >> >  a > >> > Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<3E569B38.2FBEE3FD@pacbell.net>...  > >> >  N > >> > > I often hear the "EDT is better" stuff, but I can't think of a singleM > >> > > thing that EDT can do that I can't do with my customized TPU editor.  > > H > > Right here you're already in trouble. I don't think anyone ever saidC > > that EDT is better than your customized editor. No one has your  > > customized editor but you! > D > And by the same token, you are in trouble too. Let's snip a bit... >  > <major snip> > 1 > >> > My EDT script is 262 lines (some lines are 7 > >> > comments) and it runs almost instantaneously!!!)  > F > Eh? I find those two statements contradictory. My view of EDT is theM > pure default (without the clutter of someone else's ideas, as contained in  J > SYS$MANAGER:EDTINI.TEMPLATE), and almost certainly doesn't look anything > like yours.   D Well, then you have to compare it with the pure default of EVE! EvenF then, EDT wins hands down for me. And even the EVE fans admit that the' default EVE keypad is somewhat lacking.   . > Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!  < Sorry, but you misunderstand. I can see how you came to this$ misunderstanding, so I will explain.  F The original poster seemed to be wondering why anyone *still* uses EDTB when *his* customized TPU editor does everything EDT does and then@ some. Well, first of all, it doesn't do everything EDT does. AndE second, none of us have *his* customized version. But never mind that F for now. But let me add here that the relevant question is, "Why don't all EDT users switch to EVE?"   D Now, Don Sykes (the original poster of this subthread) is apparentlyB wondering why anyone uses EDT. Well, EDT came before EVE. So usersF couldn't use EVE until EVE came out, so they used EDT. While they wereA using EDT, they customized it to their liking. So, the choice for 8 old-time EDT users *is* between their customized EDT andE starting from scratch with EVE. The fact that I have a 262-line setup F file doesn't change that. In fact, it makes my case stronger. When EVEB came out, I had a choice: learn the new EVE editor and recustomize> it, or stick with EDT and use EVE only when I need things likeD long lines, convert tabs, paste from Windows, wildcard searches, boxD cut and paste, overstrike mode, or two (or is it multiple?) windows.@ So the longer my customization file, the *harder* it would be to: switch to EVE. Additionally, I found many things about EVEC that I didn't like and I couldn't customize them away. So for these E reasons, I found EDT to be better for me. OK? And just to repeat, the = disavantages of EVE outweigh its advantages, for me. I'll not @ repeat all the details here, except to say that while I find the featuresA mentioned above useful, for things that both EVE and EDT can do I D much prefer EDT because it's easier and takes less time (yes, that'sC *in part* because I am already very familiar with EDT), and because ? cursor movement, startup, certain editor behaviors (a catch-all @ statement for anything I've overlooked :-), and the frequency of9 annoying questions heavily weigh in favor of EDT, for me.   B Now you can still say, "Well, if EDT is so good, why do you have a 262-line EDT startup file?"   A That is a good question. First of all, see the first part of this C post. Remember, the question really is "Should I switch from EDT to  EVE?"   C Second, it EVE is so good, why is the answer to my complaints about C it always "Well, you could write a TPU program!" and why is it that B the EVE advocates always have so many of these TPU programs (well,D they seem to) and I bet these programs add up to a lot more than 262 lines!  F Third, I was lazy and didn't count the comment lines. So, I have sinceF sorted the file and deleted all the commented out lines and found onlyC 84 lines of actual EDT line mode code. Only five of these lines are $ modifications of "default settings":  $ SET CURS 8:12 ! Adjust cursor range.? SET ENTITY SENTENCE '.%?!' ! Define delimiters for the sentence  entity. (WAS '. ?!'), SET ENTITY WORD ' <HT><FF><CR><LF><VT><ESC>'- SET NOTRUNCATE ! How to deal with long lines. = SET QUIET  ! Suppress the bell or buzzer that signals errors.   E These were easy customizations for me to make and are simply settings C offered by EDT. I like these settings, so I put them in the startup C file to make them my default settings. The SET QUIET and SET ENTITY A commands were copied from a sample EDTINI.EDT file that was lying E around in my early VMS days. SET NOTRUNCATE can't be done with EVE or F a TPU program. SET CURS can be. So this is not too bad. The rest of my) EDT init file is all DEFINE KEY commands.   E A few of these DEFINE KEY commands are modifications of normal EDT. I B moved a couple of keys for easier use and redefined two other keysE that I found useless: the CHAR key, which pretty much just duplicates C the left and right arrow keys; and the PF2 key which I redefined to C null so that I don't bring up the slow HELP screen via pressing PF2 F inadvertently and it also serves as a "GOLD canceller". So that was no	 big deal.   A Many others are simply shortcuts for frequently used commands and D multiple keystroke combinations. You're *supposed* to use DEFINE KEY? to do that. No big deal. Others are features I designed and the E majority of them weren't that hard to write. Three of them allowed me : to vary the WORD entity allowing small, regular, and large? "words". Some of them I copied from that sample EDT init file I : mentioned already, but don't use much. Others are leftoverA one-time-project uses like inserting certain then-frequently-used D strings that contained LaTeX secret codes. One of them inserts a '>'? character at the beginning of all lines. I got that from c.o.v. F Another is a very cool macro (also from c.o.v.) that allows one to put& the select range into the find buffer.  E Furthermore, it seems to me that it would be a lot more work to write D these customizations in EVE and TPU than it was for me to write them in EDT.    D So, in summary, the 262-line file really boils down to only 84 linesF of actual EDT code and simply uses EDT features, changes defaults, and? adds cool features, and they are relatively easy to write. With C EVE I have to do a lot more work to achieve the same customizations D *and* I have to put up with many things I don't care for, like being@ told that the string was found in the other direction, even in aC 13-line file that contains two occurrences of the search string and D even when I start from the beginning of the file, and even though itE had already found all occurrences of the given search string! What is D the point of this "feature"? It seems really, really pointless to meA to have to have that happen with every "Find Next" adventure. The C editor is basically treating the user like an idiot and wasting his 7 time. Is there any way to turn this stupid feature off?   K > I totally fail to see why this subject raises such passions. I use EDT or G > TPU according to the job in hand, with an occasional foray into TECO.   D The reason it raises such passions is that the EVE/TPU people always seemE to be implying that anyone using EDT or TECO is an idiot, so I really D resent that. (I also really hate certain things about EVE which I'veF already mentioned, and some EVE/TPU-ers really hate EDT and TECO. ) IfF they want to use EVE, I have no problem with it. But they seem to haveC a problem with people using EDT and/or TECO, and, well, they can go F write a TPU program! We EDT-ers are also annoyed when we are told thatF all we have to do is write yet another TPU program as if it would take only a minute to write.   F BTW, a second thanks to the posters who posted useful EVE and TPU code thatE will make my life much easier when using the EVE editor. Thank you!!!  It is much appreciated.   O > For multiple source code changes (have you ever edited 150 programs at a time H > and had them all compile cleanly?), EDT and a bit of DCL are the tools > of my choice.    Cool.   J > For viewing several source code or documentation files interactively andG > pasting between them, or simply working through a compilation listing L > and at the same time editing the source to remove typos, TPU is my choice.   OK.   ( > TECO is magic for certain other tasks.  1 I never used TECO. It sounds fascinating, though.   G > As for huge initialization files, I went off them when I was visiting I > multiple customers and/or dealing with virgin systems. I learnt to deal  > with the defaults. > : > The latter point also applies to my LOGIN.COM files too.  ? Seems like quite reasonable behaviour given your circumstances.    J > It is perhaps worth mentioning here that a well respected Unix colleagueH > swears by vi, even when the emacs crowd laugh at him. His reasoning isI > simple - vi exists on every Unix system and is often the only available  > editor in standalone mode.  F And for me, in my graduate student days, EDT worked everywhere and EVE1 worked only on our own VAX 11/750. So I used EDT.    [...]    Disclaimer: JMNSHO Alan E. Feldman    ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 22:34:11 -05003 From: "Homer J. Simpson" <hsimpson@burnsenergy.com>  Subject: FA: DEC Board Case ; Message-ID: <gWz8a.58513$sA1.24087@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>   K http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1461&item=3210936026    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 03:30:11 GMT - From: bdc@world.std.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) D Subject: Re: How to Avoid the Almost Certain End of Sun Microsystems) Message-ID: <piraj-0um.ln1@pez.jarai.com>   . In article <3E537675.7020507@nospamn.sun.com>,C Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy  <Andrew.Harrison@Sun.COM> wrote:  > Andreas Davour wrote:   D > > Maybe you feel it's just bullshit, but I surely see more coming C > > from IBM if you count kernel patches. And considering that IBM  E > > is phasing out AIX in favour of Linux sure tells me they are part H > > of the gang. Hell knows what Sun wants more that to protect Solaris. > < > That is entirely untrue. IBM's public statements about AIXA > indicate that they expect it to be their high end UNIX offering < > in 10 years time. A decade is a hell of a long time in the9 > computer industry and if the statements subtext is that > > they are phasing out AIX in 11 years time in favour of Linux? > well sorry but that is just too far off to have any relevance 	 > at all.  > C > How about listing IBM's contributions to the OpenSource community  > [...]   A The credibility and legitimacy they give Linux by overtly stating @ their support of Linux and opensource.  That alone is worth moreE than any code contribution they can offer.  The heads of corporations  pay attention when IBM speaks.  E Obviously they're not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. E IBM do it because it causes Microsoft pain.  It's not entirely unlike A the help they're offering AMD; that is causing Intel and HP some  E small amount of pain.  IBM's greatest value is in the weight of their  longstanding reputation.  F The difference between IBM and Sun, with regards to opensource, and inE particular with Linux itself, is that they unflinchingly state they'd @ drop AIX in favor of Linux (when/if the time is ready).  I can'tD imagine Sun would /ever/ have the balls to do the same with Solaris.E Sun look very indecisive in comparision.  Of course Sun are also in a E lot weaker position w.r.t. to the negative impact the Linux operating " system can have on their business.   -brian.    ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 22:52:41 -0500' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> D Subject: RE: How to Avoid the Almost Certain End of Sun MicrosystemsT Message-ID: <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4023D9D7F@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>   Brian,  H >>>> The difference between IBM and Sun, with regards to opensource, andH in particular with Linux itself, is that they unflinchingly state they'd: drop AIX in favor of Linux (when/if the time is ready).<<<  B In fairness to Solaris and HP-UX, AIX is third in the overall UNIXF space, so attempting to become number 1 in Linux and provide some painF for the number 1 and number 2 UNIX leaders is one way to get back into	 the lead.    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-----7 From: Brian 'Jarai' Chase [mailto:bdc@world.std.com]=20  Sent: March 2, 2003 10:30 PM To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com D Subject: Re: How to Avoid the Almost Certain End of Sun Microsystems    . In article <3E537675.7020507@nospamn.sun.com>,C Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy  <Andrew.Harrison@Sun.COM> wrote:  > Andreas Davour wrote:   C > > Maybe you feel it's just bullshit, but I surely see more coming E > > from IBM if you count kernel patches. And considering that IBM=20 E > > is phasing out AIX in favour of Linux sure tells me they are part H > > of the gang. Hell knows what Sun wants more that to protect Solaris. >=20H > That is entirely untrue. IBM's public statements about AIX indicate=20G > that they expect it to be their high end UNIX offering in 10 years=20 I > time. A decade is a hell of a long time in the computer industry and=20 H > if the statements subtext is that they are phasing out AIX in 11 years  G > time in favour of Linux well sorry but that is just too far off to=20  > have any relevance at all. >=20F > How about listing IBM's contributions to the OpenSource community=20 > [...]   G The credibility and legitimacy they give Linux by overtly stating their H support of Linux and opensource.  That alone is worth more than any codeE contribution they can offer.  The heads of corporations pay attention  when IBM speaks.  E Obviously they're not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. E IBM do it because it causes Microsoft pain.  It's not entirely unlike C the help they're offering AMD; that is causing Intel and HP some=20 E small amount of pain.  IBM's greatest value is in the weight of their  longstanding reputation.  F The difference between IBM and Sun, with regards to opensource, and inE particular with Linux itself, is that they unflinchingly state they'd H drop AIX in favor of Linux (when/if the time is ready).  I can't imagineE Sun would /ever/ have the balls to do the same with Solaris. Sun look G very indecisive in comparision.  Of course Sun are also in a lot weaker E position w.r.t. to the negative impact the Linux operating system can  have on their business.    -brian.    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 05:02:49 GMT   From: CJT <cheljuba@prodigy.net>D Subject: Re: How to Avoid the Almost Certain End of Sun Microsystems* Message-ID: <3E62E1FA.6080705@prodigy.net>   John Smith wrote:  ><snip>  > F > I vaguely seem to recollect the SWTP machines - I was assembling kitG > computers around that time and SWTP rings a bell - were they the ones + > in the long, skinny orange-ish metal box?  >  <snip>  @ No.  The distinguishing characteristic was a front panel withoutE switches to toggle in code -- black over brushed aluminum, I believe.   G In place of the usual toggles, it came with a simple loader in ROM that  would communicate with a TTY.   B I've still got mine, complete with hand soldered 1K memory boards.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 00:46:48 GMT ( From: "Mark E. Levy" <mlevy70@attbi.com>3 Subject: Re: HUGE showstopper *bug* in HELP/MESSAGE / Message-ID: <YBx8a.326343$vm2.253565@rwcrnsc54>   ? "norm lastovica" <norman.lastovica@oracle.com> wrote in message # news:3E5CBA34.3080604@oracle.com...  > looks like it is time to2 > a) consider upgrading to a modern version of vmsE > b) take advantage of your support contract and formmal report this.   
 On VMS 7.3-1:    ALPHA$ $SET TERM/DEV=UNKNOWN  ALPHA$ $HELP/MESSAGE messagenameB %DCL-I-IGNQUAL, qualifiers appearing before this item were ignored
  \MESSAGE\> %MSGHLP-F-NOTFOUND, message not found in Help Message database ALPHA$     >  > JF Mezei wrote:  > > $SET TERM/DEV=UNKNOWN  > > $HELP/MESSAGE messagename  > > $  > > 8 > > (no output at all, no complaint, no error message.). > >  > > This is with VAX VMS 7.2 > > = > > Tried it both with a telnet connection, and on a DECTERM.  >  >  > --@ > norman lastovica / oracle rdb engineering / usa / 610.696.4685 >    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 02:07:07 -0000 ! From: Z  <zarlenga@conan.ids.net> 3 Subject: Re: HUGE showstopper *bug* in HELP/MESSAGE / Message-ID: <v65e6b3cobid78@corp.supernews.com>   ' Mark E. Levy <mlevy70@attbi.com> wrote:  : On VMS 7.3-1:    : ALPHA$ $SET TERM/DEV=UNKNOWN" : ALPHA$ $HELP/MESSAGE messagenameD : %DCL-I-IGNQUAL, qualifiers appearing before this item were ignored :  \MESSAGE\@ : %MSGHLP-F-NOTFOUND, message not found in Help Message database : ALPHA$   You've got HELP defined.   --    D "France wants more evidence ... The last time the French wanted moreD  evidence, it rolled right over them with a German flag."  Letterman        ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 21:56:11 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>  Subject: Re: I am backJ Message-ID: <%5v8a.122660$UXa.108090@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  6 "Paul Sture" <p_sture@elias.decus.ch> wrote in message# news:ThHv3zw5Eo4x@elias.decus.ch...  > E > Also some good news here - we get a chance to meet Mark Gorham next   > Wednesday here in Switzerland.    D I can understand Capellas coming to Switzerland to visit your lovelyE banks with all his new money, but I don't understand why Gorham would  be there, except to ski.  ) I happen to like Verbier/Sion for skiing.    ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 18:27:08 -05000 From: "Randy Doering" <rdoering@comcast.dot.net> Subject: Re: I am back0 Message-ID: <ldScnY_wFI3XDv-jXTWcqg@comcast.com>  J Well, today Capellas was introduced as one of the "Honorary Observers" forC the Match Play match between Adam Scott and Peter Lonord - They are L competing for 3rd place in the Accenture World Match Play Golf Championship./ Tiger Woods/David Toms are going for 1st place.   J So, if he's headed to Switzerland with his new money, it'll be tomorrow at
 the earliest.    Randy     . "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in messageD news:%5v8a.122660$UXa.108090@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com... > 8 > "Paul Sture" <p_sture@elias.decus.ch> wrote in message% > news:ThHv3zw5Eo4x@elias.decus.ch...  > > G > > Also some good news here - we get a chance to meet Mark Gorham next " > > Wednesday here in Switzerland. >  > F > I can understand Capellas coming to Switzerland to visit your lovelyG > banks with all his new money, but I don't understand why Gorham would  > be there, except to ski. > + > I happen to like Verbier/Sion for skiing.  >  >    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Mar 2003 12:43:35 -0600 - From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Y Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly monopol 3 Message-ID: <XGo2ssyC2aKZ@eisner.encompasserve.org>   Y In article <aeu9j-7mm.ln1@pez.jarai.com>, bdc@world.std.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) writes: ; > In article <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIAEIGGLAA.tom@kednos.com>, $ > Tom Linden <tom@kednos.com> wrote:2 >> bdc@world.std.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) writes: > J >> > Also.  Does anyone else find it sort of ironic that Apple is countingC >> > on IBM's PowerPC 970 for use in their next generation systems? 9 >> > Business is business, but it's a long way from 1984.  >>   >> Why is that ironic? > I > You're unaware of the historic philosophical and near religious rivalry  > between Apple and IBM?  I Are you unaware that since the introduction of the PowerPC, IBM, Motorola G and Apple have been the three members of the PowerPC consortium?  Apple E has been using Motorola-fabricated chips to date since Motorola was a I bit more interested in tailoring toward workstations rather than servers. E IBM has always been an alternate fabricator of PowerPC chips that has ; given Macintosh customers confidence in the PowerPC future.   E Macintosh customers have not had significant animosity toward IBM (as I as a group) since it became obvious the degree to which IBM was snookered ! by Microsoft in the OS/2 debacle.    ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 11:02:38 -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: <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIOEIHGLAA.tom@kednos.com>   I I suspected that is what you were driving at.  However, as you may recall G Motorola was producing the Power PC and when Apple abandoned the 68K in  favourG of that chip, it was simply replacing the CPU.  Their "battle" with IBM E was for the system not the chip.  Although it is conceivable that had J not Motorola had rights to produce the chip, Apple may never have used it.E Since then, of course, IBM has wisely also abandoned the desktop as a 	 strategic F focus, which leaves only Apple and Microsoft.  Their 1984 campaign was	 foolishly H directed at IBM, when it should have been at Microsoft, but it certainly	 gave them 
 better press.    >-----Original Message----- 3 >From: bdc@world.std.com [mailto:bdc@world.std.com] & >Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 10:30 AM >To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.ComI >Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM  >monopoly monopoly monopoly  >  > : >In article <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIAEIGGLAA.tom@kednos.com>,# >Tom Linden <tom@kednos.com> wrote: 2 >> bdc@world.std.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) writes: > J >> > Also.  Does anyone else find it sort of ironic that Apple is countingC >> > on IBM's PowerPC 970 for use in their next generation systems? 9 >> > Business is business, but it's a long way from 1984.  >> >> Why is that ironic? > H >You're unaware of the historic philosophical and near religious rivalryI >between Apple and IBM?  Probably, more correctly, it should be described I >as Apple's fight against IBM.  AFAIK, IBM never directly targeted any of J >their ad campaigns specifically at Apple.  The marketing of Apple doesn'tH >(or didn't) take any measures to be vague about who their enemies were. > J >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> > G >More recent examples are the Apple "Think Different" campaign, which I J >believe was started right around the time that Jobs returned to Apple andF >the original iMac was released (circa 1997?).  This is a very obvious4 >jab at Thomas J. Watson's famous IBM "Think" motto: > C >  <http://www-916.ibm.com/press/prnews.nsf/html/bios_twatson.html> ? >  <http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/Shustek/05-Watson-THINK.gif> 2 >  <http://www.redlightrunner.com/rarthinpos.html> > F >So, the irony of the situation is that Apple, one of the most vocallyC >anti-IBM companies in the recent history of computing, will now be 8 >relying on an IBM processor for their computer systems. >  >-brian. > H >(My personal favorite is still the Apple "Crowd Control" ad which pokesH > fun at Microsoft's Windows 95.  In can be found on the following page:. > <http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/index.html> ) >  >---' >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 20:33:47 GMT L From: winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr")Y Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly monopol 6 Message-ID: <00A1C440.6F1DF6DE@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>  c In article <XGo2ssyC2aKZ@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes: Z >In article <aeu9j-7mm.ln1@pez.jarai.com>, bdc@world.std.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) writes:< >> In article <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIAEIGGLAA.tom@kednos.com>,% >> Tom Linden <tom@kednos.com> wrote: 3 >>> bdc@world.std.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) writes:  >>  K >>> > Also.  Does anyone else find it sort of ironic that Apple is counting D >>> > on IBM's PowerPC 970 for use in their next generation systems?: >>> > Business is business, but it's a long way from 1984. >>>  >>> Why is that ironic?  >>  J >> You're unaware of the historic philosophical and near religious rivalry >> between Apple and IBM?  > J >Are you unaware that since the introduction of the PowerPC, IBM, MotorolaH >and Apple have been the three members of the PowerPC consortium?  AppleF >has been using Motorola-fabricated chips to date since Motorola was aJ >bit more interested in tailoring toward workstations rather than servers.F >IBM has always been an alternate fabricator of PowerPC chips that has< >given Macintosh customers confidence in the PowerPC future.  M Apple and IBM were also the joint parents of Taligent.  (Whatever happened to  Taligent, anyway?)     -- 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: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 21:30:07 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: <q99aj-6pm.ln1@pez.jarai.com>   3 In article <XGo2ssyC2aKZ@eisner.encompasserve.org>, . Larry Kilgallen <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote:D > In article <aeu9j-7mm.ln1@pez.jarai.com>, bdc@world.std.com (Brian > 'Jarai' Chase) writes:= > > In article <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIAEIGGLAA.tom@kednos.com>, & > > Tom Linden <tom@kednos.com> wrote:5 > > > bdc@world.std.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) writes:  > > M > > > > Also.  Does anyone else find it sort of ironic that Apple is counting F > > > > on IBM's PowerPC 970 for use in their next generation systems?< > > > > Business is business, but it's a long way from 1984. > > >  > > > Why is that ironic?  > > K > > You're unaware of the historic philosophical and near religious rivalry  > > between Apple and IBM? > K > Are you unaware that since the introduction of the PowerPC, IBM, Motorola I > and Apple have been the three members of the PowerPC consortium?  Apple G > has been using Motorola-fabricated chips to date since Motorola was a K > bit more interested in tailoring toward workstations rather than servers.   F Yes, but the difference now is that Apple are giving money to IBM, andC are arguably will be dependent on them since the Motorola chips are H increasinly viewed by speed hungry consumers as inadequate for desktops./ The only supplier of fast PowerPC chips is IBM.   G > IBM has always been an alternate fabricator of PowerPC chips that has = > given Macintosh customers confidence in the PowerPC future.   H Yes, as I said, business is business.  This doesn't lessen the fact thatJ it's ironic that Apple need IBM (and that IBM are happy to help!)  It doesD show that, at the end of the day, the bottom line has more sway than0 the advertised philosophy or culture of company.  G > Macintosh customers have not had significant animosity toward IBM (as K > as a group) since it became obvious the degree to which IBM was snookered # > by Microsoft in the OS/2 debacle.   E Yes.  I think you're right in saying that the customers don't care so I much about it anymore.  It may be that it's only Steve Jobs who sometimes F still has visions of taunting IBM.  Or maybe Apple's "Think Different"G campaign wasn't a jab at Big Blue at all; maybe it should be considered $ a form a flattery through imitation?   -brian.    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 03:30:13 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: <jgtaj-hum.ln1@pez.jarai.com>   6 In article <00A1C440.6F1DF6DE@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>,K Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr <winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote: 5 > In article <XGo2ssyC2aKZ@eisner.encompasserve.org>, 1 > Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:   M > > Are you unaware that since the introduction of the PowerPC, IBM, Motorola K > > and Apple have been the three members of the PowerPC consortium?  Apple I > > has been using Motorola-fabricated chips to date since Motorola was a M > > bit more interested in tailoring toward workstations rather than servers. I > > IBM has always been an alternate fabricator of PowerPC chips that has ? > > given Macintosh customers confidence in the PowerPC future.  > M > Apple and IBM were also the joint parents of Taligent.  (Whatever happened   > to Taligent, anyway?)     ? Wow.  Now that's a project I'd almost entirely forgotten about. ? Did Apple and IBM first start work on this before or after Jobs @ left Apple?  My first recollections of hearing about the projectA were sometime in the early 1990s, after Jobs was gone from Apple.    -brian.    ------------------------------   Date: 03 Mar 2003 03:48:30 GMT From: rmk@rmkhome.com Y Subject: Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly monopol 5 Message-ID: <3e62d08e$0$97466$75868355@news.frii.net>   " Tom Linden <tom@kednos.com> wrote:K > I suspected that is what you were driving at.  However, as you may recall I > Motorola was producing the Power PC and when Apple abandoned the 68K in  > favourI > of that chip, it was simply replacing the CPU.  Their "battle" with IBM G > was for the system not the chip.  Although it is conceivable that had L > not Motorola had rights to produce the chip, Apple may never have used it.  F There was also a possibility, at that time, that Apple would switch toF the 88k. Which Motorola orphaned quickly after getting the contract to produce the Power PC.    --  , rmk@rmkhome.com		http://www.rmkhome.com/~rmk   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 23:24:41 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: <uk7fh8i09.fsf@earthlink.net>   N winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr") writes:C > Apple and IBM were also the joint parents of Taligent.  (Whatever   > happened to Taligent, anyway?)  A it seemed like it was picked up by java ... at least the bldg and @ people ... i believe some people continued in their old offices.  E when we started ha/cmp ... the executive we reported to had come from @ motorola. he then headed up somerset .... and then went on to be president of mips.  / http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp   2 some drift ...  taligent, pink, somerset, & spring1 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#10 Taligent q http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#60 "all-out" vs less aggressive designs (was: Re: 36 to 32 bit transition) K http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#42 IBM's Workplace OS (Was: .. Pink) K http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#45 IBM's Workplace OS (Was: .. Pink) P http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#46 Where are they now : Taligent and PinkP http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#48 Where are they now : Taligent and Pink= http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001g.html#23 IA64 Rocks My World > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001i.html#28 Proper ISA lifespan?K http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001j.html#32 Whom Do Programmers Admire Now??? > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001j.html#36 Proper ISA lifespan?> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001j.html#37 Proper ISA lifespan?9 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#93 Buffer overflow K http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#12 "Soul of a New Machine" Computer? K http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#14 "Soul of a New Machine" Computer? C http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#60 Unisys A11 worth keeping? 9 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#81 McKinley Cometh L http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#76 Difference between Unix and Linux?@ http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002l.html#37 Computer ArchitecturesJ http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002m.html#60 The next big things that weren't   --  3 Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/  A Internet trivia 20th anv http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/rfcietff.htm    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Mar 2003 22:39:05 -0800 ' From: timasmith@hotmail.com (Tim Smith) ! Subject: oracle benchmarks on VMS = Message-ID: <a7234bb1.0303022239.54fc5685@posting.google.com>   ) I see Oracle publishes some benchmarks at C http://www.oracle.com/apps_benchmark/, but notably there is nothing E for VMS - is that because Oracle writes to the filesystem, not direct F to device file files directly i.e. VMS filesystem is a lot slower than raw devices?  C If anyone has older benchmarks that include VMS I would like to see  them.    thanks!    Tim    ------------------------------   Date: 3 Mar 2003 06:55:43 GMT - From: djweath@attglobal.net (Dave Weatherall) 5 Subject: Re: OT: America's Cup  [ was Re: I am back ] 5 Message-ID: <DTiotGxQ0bj6-pn2-JotP5E8UPbYW@localhost>   3 On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 11:23:51 UTC, HARANGOZO CSABA     <spameater@spam.invalid> wrote:   , > 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  D Lake Constance/Bodensee, where the submarine fleet is stationed :-).   --   Cheers - Dave.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 23:13:19 GMT ; From: "John Gemignani, Jr." <jon-nope@thiswontworkossc.net> % Subject: Re: Questions on SSH for VMS ; Message-ID: <jew8a.3178$Xu.1530680@news1.news.adelphia.net>   2 "Dan O'Reilly" <dano@process.com> wrote in message; news:5.2.0.9.2.20030301151203.017f85a0@raptor.psccos.com... ( > At 02:47 PM 3/1/2003, Dirk Munk wrote: > H > *BUT* it will only provide an SSH client, no server.  And it certainly won't 7 > run on anything older, unlike Process Software's SSH.   0 TCP/IP V5.4 will include both client and server.   Older than what?   >  > ------L > +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+L > | Dan O'Reilly                  |  "There are 10 types of people in this |L > | Principal Engineer            |   world: those who understand binary   |L > | Process Software              |   and those who don't."                |L > | http://www.process.com        |                                        |L > +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 17:59:15 -0700 % From: Dan O'Reilly <dano@process.com> % Subject: Re: Questions on SSH for VMS A Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030302175456.0148af78@raptor.psccos.com>   0 At 04:13 PM 3/2/2003, John Gemignani, Jr. wrote:  3 >"Dan O'Reilly" <dano@process.com> wrote in message < >news:5.2.0.9.2.20030301151203.017f85a0@raptor.psccos.com...* > > At 02:47 PM 3/1/2003, Dirk Munk wrote: > > J > > *BUT* it will only provide an SSH client, no server.  And it certainly >won't9 > > run on anything older, unlike Process Software's SSH.  > 1 >TCP/IP V5.4 will include both client and server.   F Not per the latest VMS roadmaps I've seen, which show SSH client only.   >Older than what?   J TCP/IP V5.3 supports only 7.2-2 and higher.  MultiNet, TCPware and SSH forI OpenVMS support AXP 6.2 and higher, and VAX 5.5-2 and higher.  That's old A version support.  I would be surprised to see TCP/IP V5.4 support  much older than 7.3.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 02:38:46 GMT ; From: "John Gemignani, Jr." <jon-nope@thiswontworkossc.net> % Subject: Re: Questions on SSH for VMS ; Message-ID: <Wez8a.3670$Xu.1591203@news1.news.adelphia.net>   2 "Dan O'Reilly" <dano@process.com> wrote in message; news:5.2.0.9.2.20030302175456.0148af78@raptor.psccos.com... 2 > At 04:13 PM 3/2/2003, John Gemignani, Jr. wrote: > 5 > >"Dan O'Reilly" <dano@process.com> wrote in message > > >news:5.2.0.9.2.20030301151203.017f85a0@raptor.psccos.com..., > > > At 02:47 PM 3/1/2003, Dirk Munk wrote: > > > L > > > *BUT* it will only provide an SSH client, no server.  And it certainly > >won't; > > > run on anything older, unlike Process Software's SSH.  > > 3 > >TCP/IP V5.4 will include both client and server.  > H > Not per the latest VMS roadmaps I've seen, which show SSH client only.  ? Well, being the person who works on it, wouldn't I know better?    >  > >Older than what?  > L > TCP/IP V5.3 supports only 7.2-2 and higher.  MultiNet, TCPware and SSH forK > OpenVMS support AXP 6.2 and higher, and VAX 5.5-2 and higher.  That's old C > version support.  I would be surprised to see TCP/IP V5.4 support  > much older than 7.3.   How surprised?   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 21:59:57 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> @ Subject: Re: Robert Deininger's 100 Quatloos are still unclaimedI Message-ID: <x9v8a.122671$UXa.38927@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>   6 "Paul Sture" <p_sture@elias.decus.ch> wrote in message# news:PR1gHVsynhIk@elias.decus.ch...  > F > Whilst I am on a Murkyslush bashing, here is something that XP users > should take heed of: > , > http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm > F > A well written article about 16 ways that XP connects to a MicrosoftB > site, which reminds me of a posting I read shortly after it came out: > 6 > "My XP computer spends its own time on the Internet" > ? > At that time I was on ISDN, so each connection cost me money. D > In that context, it is not only about privacy, but my bank balance too.    C I wonder if the Microsoft XP license agreement explicitly warns you  about this.    ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:00:36 +1100B From: "Antony Wardle" <antony.wardle@noooo_spammm_optusnet.com.au> Subject: SCS/DECnet over IP ; Message-ID: <3e62e175$0$9537$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>    SCS/DECnet over IP     can we do this yet?   0 I get a hard time about all the bridging/routing going on, on the network.    antony   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 00:45:16 +0000 ' From: Elliott Roper <elliott@yrl.co.uk> . Subject: Re: technical question re. vms editor2 Message-ID: <030320030045163458%elliott@yrl.co.uk>  C In article <01KSTKETA8EA9FNHX8@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com>, Phillip 2 Helbig <HELBPHI@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com> wrote:   > > $ TECO file.ext   > > j<.u00a-^^C"n0;'1a-^^O"n0;'n > > $;> 	 > > q0j<n  > > CO$;0kk2r>ex$$ > H > Normally, I like the "understandable" language of VMS.  For unix doodsH > who think that kryptic kommands are kool, I will save this one for my  > archives.  > C > No if I could just get my hands on Elliot's LAWNMOWER$STARTU.P...   C I just knew there would be a lawnmower joke when I saw your name on 
 this thread.    % anyhow, Larry's teco is a bit verbose    He could have said j<::sCO$"sl|0;'><::sCO$"s0kk|n $;'>ex$$  4 but I guess he did not want to confuse the reader...  G err.. maybe not. That will die if the header exactly occupies the first  page.    j<::sCO$"u0;|n $'><::sCO$"s0kk|n  $;'>ex$$  C would be more in the spirit. Nope. That won't work if the header is  split over pages....  5 errr....maybe it is not all that verbose after all...    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 02:06:21 -0000 ! From: Z  <zarlenga@conan.ids.net> . Subject: Re: technical question re. vms editor/ Message-ID: <v65e4tlgembk5b@corp.supernews.com>   ( nikki_wire <nikki_wire@yahoo.com> wrote:E : Do any of you guys know the quickest way to remove all comments (CO B : records) from a VMS file except for the header - eg the first 20 : lines?   Perl.    --    D "France wants more evidence ... The last time the French wanted moreD  evidence, it rolled right over them with a German flag."  Letterman        ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 01:47:15 -0400 0 From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca> Subject: Re: The End of OpenVMS / Message-ID: <3E62EC3F.CBFAFBE7@vl.videotron.ca>    Robert Deininger wrote: A > Where would you place VMS in HP's organizational chart?  Why?     M On May 7th, Carly should have announced that VMS was its own division, in the * same way that Tandem got its own division.  F Lumping VMS, Tru64 and Alpha together, and as you said, "status quo inJ organisation" sent the message that VMS was continuing its downward trail,K especially when you consider Scott Stallard's memo which had stated that he + expected VMS customers to migrate to HP-UX.   J Since, at the time of the merger, work had already begun on porting VMS toL that IA64 thing, there was no reason to lump VMS in with the Alpha and Tru64 "mature" products.    L It doesn't mean that the VMS group couldn't have had close ties to the AlphaR group. They would have been under the same umbrella anyways. (enterprise systems).   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Mar 2003 06:55:41 GMT - From: djweath@attglobal.net (Dave Weatherall)  Subject: Re: unix 5 Message-ID: <DTiotGxQ0bj6-pn2-OZcMfoIqdNIW@localhost>   9 On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 10:20:09 UTC, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:   + > In article <0PL33tx$iQG4@elias.decus.ch>, B > >Memories of a DEC comms program back in the late 1970s here. ItD > >could have saved us an awful lot of money but didn't work. We hadD > >the source for at least some of it, but all the comments had been > >stripped. Plain stupid IMO. > > @ > I don't believe that.  I would believe that the comments never > existed.    " Obviously self-commenting then :-)   --   Cheers - Dave.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 05:30:06 GMT - From: bdc@world.std.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) 7 Subject: Re: VMS AS400 Coboler needed in PA immediately ) Message-ID: <io3bj-l1n.ln1@pez.jarai.com>   0 In article <rKg7a.545$rs5.221@news.cpqcorp.net>,$ Hoff Hoffman <hoff@hp.nospam> wrote:C > In article <b3jtn5$73f$1@pcls4.std.com>, bdc@world.std.com (Brian  > 'Jarai' Chase) writes:  K > :Yet another explanation is that the guy is some boneheaded recruiter who J > :is actually looking for an MVS and OS/400 COBOL programmer.  If there'sD > :one good thing to be said about the name OpenVMS vs. VMS, OpenVMS4 > :certainly is less likely to be confused with MVS. > L >   Wander over to google and enter the string OpenMVS -- yes, OpenMVS -- in >   the search box.   F Well I'll be damned.  It is worth noting that even Google suggests the, term "OpenVMS" as a more likely alternative.   -brian.    ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 20:58:47 -0500  From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com>$ Subject: Re: Volume set across RAID56 Message-ID: <1030302200727.26948A-100000@Ives.egh.com>  - On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, David J. Dachtera wrote:    > John Santos wrote: > > 1 > > On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, David J. Dachtera wrote: 	 > > [...]  > >  > > > I > > > Not vaulable to me unless there's some SUPPORTED way to add a third L > > > mirror-set member(-set), split that mirror off and present it as a newB > > > unit or backup from within an OpenVMS batch job (lights-out, > > > unattended). > > A > > If I understand EVA correctly, I think it presents a bunch of F > > virtual disks to the host(s), much as the older RAID-5 controllersE > > can do.  You get to decide how big each virtual disk is, somewhat ? > > like partitioning a disk on a PC or in (many, all?) Unices.  > > F > > The virtual disks are spread across all spindles, with redundancy,0 > > but you don't have to worry about that part. > > F > > If you have a database disk you want to snapshot, I think what youD > > do is take two partitions of the same size and shadow them (with? > > traditional VMS volume shadowing).  When backup time comes, A > > quiese the application, close all the files (or have it flush D > > all pending I/O), split the shadow set by dismounting one memberA > > (or dismount the shadow set and remount just one member), and A > > resume the application.  This should only take a few seconds.  > > ? > > Then remount the split-off snapshot member, back it up, and  > > re-add to the shadow set.  > I > That's *EXACTLY* the part I want to avoid: shadow copies and/or merges.   ? It's never a merge.  It's a copy  (or a minicopy, if possible). ? Depends on how long the copy has been out of the shadow set and  how much activity has occurred.   > Why do you want to avoid this?  You are suddenly springing new
 requirements.   H > ...besides, as I understand snap-shots, when you're done with 'em, youG > don't add 'em back to shadow-sets, you essentially discard them. Tell E > the array to dissolve it (or whatever the command might be - dunno,   > don't have the doc.'s for it).  > Snapshots are something different.  I don't know about them in; detail, but I think it is a way of the EVA saying "here's a = new disk, same as the old disk.  Everytime someone modifies a > block on the old disk, I'll make a copy of the original disk's= data on the new disk (the snapshot), unless it's already been = done.  When reading from the new disk, if it's a block that's < been modified, we get it from the saved snapshot blocks.  If< it's a block that hasn't been modified, we read from the old< disk.  All reads from the old disk happen as normal.  Writes8 to the old disk are checked against a bitmap of modified> blocks.  If set, the block has previously been modified (since= the snapshot), so just write it.  If clear, set the bit, copy ; the old block contents to the snapshot, write the new block ? to the old disk.  Writes to the snapshot: Illegal (the snapshot @ is read-only) or maybe there is a sensible use for this feature,< in which case it would be implemented by writing the data to: the new disk block and setting the "modified" bit for that block in the bitmap."   9 (Doing all this right is of course much more work.  There ; are design decisions.  Do you move the old block or the new : block when the snapshot differs from the original?  Do you8 preallocate space for the snapshot disk at full size, or: store the blocks written to it as needed and keep track of8 the mapping from virtual to physical blocks?  This takes7 much less space, especially for a short-lived snapshot, 6 but probably gets slow after a lot of blocks have been7 modified, or requires a replacement block pointer table ? instead of a bitmap.  Then, you have to do lots of other stuff, ; like handle multiple block transfers and do the whole thing > asynchronously across multiple physical disks.  Need to handle; XOR redundancy blocks (RAID-5), hardware error recovery, do ; this while simultaneaously doing config changes (adding new 6 disks to the EVA), handling multiple hosts, etc. etc.)  ; But I didn't go into this because I thought you were asking ; how to do the stuff you are doing now for backing up shadow  sets by splitting out a member.    > @ > > This is just like doing the same thing now, except the units@ > > of the shadow sets aren't real disks anymore, but are chunks > > of EVA storage.  > > ; > > (BTW, 2 extra points about this snap-shot method... The < > > application needs to be able to record its status in its< > > journal or log files at the time of the snapshot, if you< > > want to be able to recover after restoring the snapshot.= > > A backup is useless if you don't know exactly when it was  > > performed!   > B > That's true of the shadow/mirror-split method, also. Since it isJ > typically fully automated (no mater *HOW* hard the storage people try toJ > prevent you from automating), you know by the time stamp(s) in the OPCOMB > log and/or the job log(s) exactly when the "snapshot" was taken.  > I wouldn't go by the OPCOM log time stamps.  The exact time ofB a backup is of no importance at all.  What matters is the relativeB time with respect to database transactions.  What is usually ideal> is all transactions through transaction X are complete and allB transactions after transaction X haven't yet modified the database? in any way.  Then you need to remember "X", and the transaction E log since then.  Almost as good and perhaps giving better performance F through the split period at the cost of considerably more complexity, A is to remember two transactions, X and Y. Everything through X is @ complete, everything after Y hasn't started yet, and X through Y@ need to be rolled back in the event you have to recover from the> backup, because the backup includes partial modifications fromA those transactions.  (After rolling back, you then need to repost  all transactions after X.)  > It's the X and Y that are important, not the date and time.  IF once had to fight the good fight (and won) with a customer's IT peopleE who wanted to centralize all their backups on ADSM and wanted to pull @ the databases from our application (as disk volume backups) at a@ predetermined time each night.  We had no way to synchronize theA backup to our processing or even to know when it occured.  We had > two options: control the backup from our application (push the? data), or copy all the databases to a staging area (on separate ? disks) during our nightly processing, and then hope we finished A the copy before they pulled the disks, and that they had actually ? successfully done the backup before we started the next night's = copies.  In addition to requiring a large chunk of additional > disk space and processing time (to make the extra copies) this> method had no guarantees, since we couldn't easily tell if theA backups started or finished at appropriate times, and we couldn't B determine in advance how long our overnight processing would take.A (It was highly dependent on transaction volumes, and the customer @ could trigger mass changes to database items to be run overnight? at their whim.)  The actual customer (the end users) eventually ; prevailed over the IT people, and we got to keep the backup ) schedule under our application's control.    > - > > Second, it is possible to write an app to = > > record its progress to a transaction log, rather than the < > > real database, so that processing can continue (maybe at> > > a degraded rate) while the flushing/dismounting/remounting> > > is going on, so the users don't actually see any down time: > > at all.  I think most (all?) DBMS systems use these or< > > similar methods to make online backups, but you can also > > roll your own using RMS.)  > G > ...and of course, you're talking about app.'s where you can make such F > mod.'s without going through months and/or years of re-certification > with gov't agencies.  ? Irrelevent to me.  Once again, you are pulling new requirements ; out of the hat.  Why can you change the underlying hardware : drastically (go from a just a bunch of disks to EVA, etc.); without recertifying, but can't make the slightest software / change?  I think you need to re-certify anyway.    > *SIGH* > I > For my money, full automation remains the way to go, even if that means G > using some unsupported freeware to make my enterprise backup solution  > work.   A You have to certify, but are allowed to use unsupported freeware?    > G > Then again, if the necessary API documentation were readily available  > (even for a price)...  > @ > (PSSST! Larry K. - looking for another programming challenge?) >  > --   > David J. Dachtera  > dba DJE Systems  > http://www.djesys.com/ > * > Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:! > http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/  >  >    --   John Santos  Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2003.121 ************************