1 INFO-VAX	Mon, 16 Aug 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 452       Contents: Re: If OVMS is killed by HP.... $ Looking for DBL/Synergex programmers( Re: Looking for DBL/Synergex programmers+ Re: TCP Server  SYSTEM-F-DUPLNAM on restart   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 20:43:48 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> ( Subject: Re: If OVMS is killed by HP...., Message-ID: <4120033F.7479A42F@teksavvy.com>   david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: Q > Now that we have VMS on Itanium, VMS and it's development staff will be sold to  > Intel.  K that should read "donated to Intel". Just like the VMS compiler people were 9 donated to Intel, or VMS clustering donated to Microsoft.   L > Intel will then only continue development of VMS as an internal system for$ > controlling it's chip fabrication.  J No. VMS can't survive on a simgle customer/application. Intel would simply migrate to Tandem or VxWorks.   P > For this donation HP will get a special deal on Intel chips for a short period
 > of time.  M Big question is whether HP would get a bigger chocolate bar if it donated the ' VMS engineers to Microsoft or to Intel.    <BREAKING NEWS> * Gateway to relieve HP from its VMS burden.  E In an effort to remain relevant in the industry, Gateway Computers is I announcing a new cooperative deal with HP. In exchange for access to HP's N greater purchasing power and lower parts costs, Gateway will take over the VMSK operating system from HP, a product HP never wanted to begin with and which K was a big burden because its potential for profits has always prevented its  owner to kill the product.  L In a related move, IBM and AMD have been in negotiations with Gateway in theW hopes of getting Gateway to move its new VMS product to their respective architectures.   J Wall Street analysts are applauding the move, saying that getting rid of aL profitable product was HP's wisest move so far, and with VMS under competentG management, Gateway will be able to enter the enterprise market with an N industry leading operating system that its former owner won't be able to matchL with its inferior windows and Hp UX offerings. As a result, HP may be forcedM to abandon its proprietary enterprise product line, allowing Intel to finally L stop wasting money on its IA64 architecture, and allowing HP to focus on itsI money losing wintel business. With luck, HP may be able to grow its money L losing Wintel operations to a point where its losses will totally offset theL profits generated by its printer division, allowing HP to restructure itselfF into a non-profit corporation, granting it significant tax advantages.  E Despitel the fact that HP may reach its long term goal of becoming an M unprofitable company, HP shareholders applauded the deal with Gateway stating > that it was a clear case of good leadership with vision at HP.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 21:54:45 -0400 ! From: Hal Kuff <kuff@comcast.net> - Subject: Looking for DBL/Synergex programmers < Message-ID: <kuff-AB1B34.21544415082004@library.airnews.net>  I If you have DBL/Synergex experience or know of someone that does, please  " respond to kuff at tessco dot com - Located in baltimore maryland and reno nevada    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 21:39:34 -0500 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>1 Subject: Re: Looking for DBL/Synergex programmers + Message-ID: <41201E66.FAED4709@comcast.net>    Hal Kuff wrote:  > J > If you have DBL/Synergex experience or know of someone that does, please# > respond to kuff at tessco dot com / > Located in baltimore maryland and reno nevada   ) Any option for long-distance telecommute?    D.J.D.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 10:01:59 +0600 & From: Valentin Likoum <me@privacy.net>4 Subject: Re: TCP Server  SYSTEM-F-DUPLNAM on restart* Message-ID: <2oate4F8h12uU1@uni-berlin.de>   Dugald Peacock wrote: 
 > Dear Group,  > . > I am writing a TCP server on Open VMS using:8 > "Compaq TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS Alpha Version V5.3@ > on a COMPAQ AlphaServer DS20E 666 MHzP running OpenVMS V7.3-1" > G > I have a question about restarting my server.  I am currently running E > my server using the OpenVMS debugger and stopping it with control-Y H > and entering stop at DCL.  In the long run I will run it as a detached
 > process. > B > When I have no clients attached I can stop and restart my serverD > immediately.  However if there is one or more clients and I try toH > restart my server as described above I get SYSTEM-F-DUPLNAM when I tryH > to set the server options.  After one minute it is possible to restart > my server without any errors.  > G > When I look at the TPCIP devices immediately after stopping my server - > I cannot see the device I was listening on.  > H > What is the cause of this?  Is it the linger timer or some thing else?6 >  I have tried to disable linger but with no success. [snip]  ;    When I asked the same question some kind soul (sorry, I  = forgot the name) provided me with the solution: TCPIP driver  < processes QIO params list from P1 to P6 sequentially, so it : tries to declare network process (P1 param) at first, and 9 only after that it sets REUSEADDR option (P6 param). The  9 cure is to split single QIO to 2 parts: set REUSEADDR on  7 socket in the first QIO (P1 = 0, P6 = option_list) and  = declare network process in the second QIO (P1 = bind_params,   P6 = 0).   --  
 Best regards, 
   Valentin)   valentin.likoum at ncc dot volga dot ru    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.452 ************************