1 INFO-VAX	Thu, 26 Aug 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 473       Contents:> Re: 450  %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user, <domain.name>> Re: 450  %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user, <domain.name>> Re: 450  %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user, <domain.name>> RE: 450  %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user, <domain.name>> RE: 450  %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user, <domain.name>> RE: 450  %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user, <domain.name>> RE: 450  %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user, <domain.name>> Re: 450  %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user, <domain.name>= Re: 450 %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user, <domain.name> ! Re: A whopping 50 percent...  ??? ! Re: A whopping 50 percent...  ??? 3 Re: CSWS v2.0 & CSWS_PHP v1.2 - "php4_module" error 3 Re: CSWS v2.0 & CSWS_PHP v1.2 - "php4_module" error  Re: Divide instruction in IA64 Re: Divide instruction in IA64 Re: Divide instruction in IA64 RE: Divide instruction in IA64 Re: Divide instruction in IA64 Re: Divide instruction in IA64 Re: Divide instruction in IA64( eWeek 2004/08/23 - HP: Adaptation NeededD Re: Figures on Itanic migration plans by HP-UX, VMS, and Tru64 usersD Re: Figures on Itanic migration plans by HP-UX, VMS, and Tru64 usersD Re: Figures on Itanic migration plans by HP-UX, VMS, and Tru64 users Re: GCC for OpenVMS/VAX? Re: GCC for OpenVMS/VAX? Re: GCC for OpenVMS/VAX?, Re: How can I monitor VMS from Windows/Linux8 How many key pieces of VMS infrastructure depend on BEA? Nematron Device Emulator priority on scacp   Re: Problem with DCPS and HP4300P Re: SKHPC's Latest Take on IPF and Post-Superdome Technology From HP  World HP   Re: VAX Instruction Timings  Re: VAX Instruction Timings  Re: VAX Instruction Timings ! [OT]: Customer Satisfaction Index  [OT]: Server sales Re: [OT]: Whither RAID?   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  + Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:32:26 +0000 (UTC)  From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.ukG Subject: Re: 450  %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user, <domain.name> ) Message-ID: <cgke7q$256$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>   \ In article <412CF3C4.BCBD14D4@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: >sms@antinode.org wrote:C >> recv buf=450 <<lame_user>@<lame.domain.name>>: Recipient address 8 >> rejected: Server is Busy please try again later\0d\0a >>  G >>    I gather that code 450 translates (generically) to something like : >> "Requested mail action not taken: mailbox unavailable", >  > J >Many servers are now configured to reject messages coming from an unknownJ >sender this way. The sending server will then retry within 30 minutes, atN >which point the receiving server will accept the message. This avoids much of< >the spam which does not retry delivery after such messages. > F According to the RFCs the minimum retry interval SHOULD be 30 minutes.9 See http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html section 4.5.4.1   E I've never really understood the idea behind this anti-spam strategy. G At most it will work with badly written smtp engines which are sending   directly to that server.I Open relays might be badly run but there is no reason to suppose they are E running non-compliant smtp software. Similarly ISPs mail servers will & be standards compliant and will retry.N As far as I can see the main result of this anti-spam strategy is to slow down all mail delivery.    
 David Webb Security Team Leader CCSS Middlesex University    O >Omce the receiving SMTP server knows you, it will accept messages on first try  >from then on.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:34:06 +0100 - From: John Laird <nospam@laird-towers.org.uk> G Subject: Re: 450  %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user, <domain.name> 8 Message-ID: <krlri0t5qtdkehbq4t7j0vcerdjucuj235@4ax.com>  I On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:32:26 +0000 (UTC), david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:   F >I've never really understood the idea behind this anti-spam strategy.H >At most it will work with badly written smtp engines which are sending  >directly to that server.   ? Such as that used by spammers and also virus-infected machines.   J >Open relays might be badly run but there is no reason to suppose they areF >running non-compliant smtp software. Similarly ISPs mail servers will' >be standards compliant and will retry. O >As far as I can see the main result of this anti-spam strategy is to slow down  >all mail delivery.   F My ISP say that implementing this "grey-listing", as they call it, hasE significantly reduced the amount of incoming mail they pass on to POP K mailboxes.  It's annoying when you register with a site and that domain has H not already been whitelisted - you must wait for your email verification before proceeding.  L I can choose to run my own mail server, and then I'll be exposed to the fullK horror of current spam volumes.  My choice.  I quite like this intermediate L level of anti-spam protection, it's somewhere between send me everything (ohD my gaad) and filter everything (you stopped mail from who and why?).   --  4 I thought I made a mistake once, but I was wrong...    Mail john rather than nospam...    ------------------------------  + Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:06:27 +0000 (UTC)  From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.ukG Subject: Re: 450  %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user, <domain.name> ) Message-ID: <cgkn8j$4s6$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>   h In article <krlri0t5qtdkehbq4t7j0vcerdjucuj235@4ax.com>, John Laird <nospam@laird-towers.org.uk> writes:J >On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:32:26 +0000 (UTC), david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > G >>I've never really understood the idea behind this anti-spam strategy. I >>At most it will work with badly written smtp engines which are sending   >>directly to that server. > @ >Such as that used by spammers and also virus-infected machines. > I I don't see any particular reason for them to be especially non-compliant  in this area either.L Given the amount of effort spammers make to bypass other anti-spam measures O I'd have thought making sure their mailers could deal with greylisting would be  well within their capabilities.   
 David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University  K >>Open relays might be badly run but there is no reason to suppose they are G >>running non-compliant smtp software. Similarly ISPs mail servers will ( >>be standards compliant and will retry.P >>As far as I can see the main result of this anti-spam strategy is to slow down >>all mail delivery. > G >My ISP say that implementing this "grey-listing", as they call it, has F >significantly reduced the amount of incoming mail they pass on to POPL >mailboxes.  It's annoying when you register with a site and that domain hasI >not already been whitelisted - you must wait for your email verification  >before proceeding.  > M >I can choose to run my own mail server, and then I'll be exposed to the full L >horror of current spam volumes.  My choice.  I quite like this intermediateM >level of anti-spam protection, it's somewhere between send me everything (oh E >my gaad) and filter everything (you stopped mail from who and why?).  >  >-- 5 >I thought I made a mistake once, but I was wrong...   >   >Mail john rather than nospam...   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:17:43 -0500 * From: Michael Clark <MClark@Nemschoff.com>G Subject: RE: 450  %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user, <domain.name> Q Message-ID: <A2A28DB6D52E084783ACD6E6C6F5D79002287414@EMAILSERVER2.nemschoff.com>    > -----Original Message-----6 > From: John Laird [mailto:nospam@laird-towers.org.uk]) > Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 7:34 AM  > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com H > Subject: Re: 450 %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user, <domain.name> >  > , > On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:32:26 +0000 (UTC), ! > david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:  > H > >I've never really understood the idea behind this anti-spam strategy.> > >At most it will work with badly written smtp engines which  > are sending  > >directly to that server.  > A > Such as that used by spammers and also virus-infected machines.  > < > >Open relays might be badly run but there is no reason to  > suppose they areH > >running non-compliant smtp software. Similarly ISPs mail servers will) > >be standards compliant and will retry. 9 > >As far as I can see the main result of this anti-spam   > strategy is to slow down > >all mail delivery.  > H > My ISP say that implementing this "grey-listing", as they call it, hasG > significantly reduced the amount of incoming mail they pass on to POP > > mailboxes.  It's annoying when you register with a site and  > that domain has > > not already been whitelisted - you must wait for your email  > verification > before proceeding.  K Grey listing is amazing!  I have been running a FreeBSD based system using  J Exim/spamassasin/spamd with a grey listing solution for about 9 months now with amazing success!   L The only problems I have had are when people write there own emailing systemH into there websites, and it doesnt retry.  I have not even ran into thisE often.  We push a lot of email for our customers and have not had any 	 problems.   K My main email account was a published address for the past 10 years.  I was  getting I am amazing amount of spam.  Grey listing cut my spam on my person account  down by F almost 90%.  I am actually back to enjoying the use of my email again.   > ; > I can choose to run my own mail server, and then I'll be   > exposed to the full < > horror of current spam volumes.  My choice.  I quite like  > this intermediate @ > level of anti-spam protection, it's somewhere between send me  > everything (ohF > my gaad) and filter everything (you stopped mail from who and why?). >  > --  6 > I thought I made a mistake once, but I was wrong...  > ! > Mail john rather than nospam...  >     A CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This electronic transmission, including all L attachments, is directed in confidence solely to the person(s) to whom it isL addressed, or an authorized recipient, and may not otherwise be distributed,L copied or disclosed. The contents of the transmission may also be subject toJ intellectual property rights and all such rights are expressly claimed andG are not waived. If you have received this transmission in error, please H notify the sender immediately by return electronic transmission and thenH immediately delete this transmission, including all attachments, without* copying, distributing or disclosing same.    ------------------------------  + Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:23:10 +0000 (UTC)  From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.ukG Subject: RE: 450  %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user, <domain.name> ) Message-ID: <cgko7u$586$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>   ~ In article <A2A28DB6D52E084783ACD6E6C6F5D79002287414@EMAILSERVER2.nemschoff.com>, Michael Clark <MClark@Nemschoff.com> writes: >> -----Original Message----- 7 >> From: John Laird [mailto:nospam@laird-towers.org.uk] * >> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 7:34 AM >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.ComI >> Subject: Re: 450 %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user, <domain.name>  >>   >>  - >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:32:26 +0000 (UTC),  " >> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: >>  I >> >I've never really understood the idea behind this anti-spam strategy. ? >> >At most it will work with badly written smtp engines which   >> are sending   >> >directly to that server. >>  B >> Such as that used by spammers and also virus-infected machines. >>  = >> >Open relays might be badly run but there is no reason to   >> suppose they are I >> >running non-compliant smtp software. Similarly ISPs mail servers will * >> >be standards compliant and will retry.: >> >As far as I can see the main result of this anti-spam  >> strategy is to slow down  >> >all mail delivery. >>  I >> My ISP say that implementing this "grey-listing", as they call it, has H >> significantly reduced the amount of incoming mail they pass on to POP? >> mailboxes.  It's annoying when you register with a site and   >> that domain has? >> not already been whitelisted - you must wait for your email   >> verification  >> before proceeding.  > L >Grey listing is amazing!  I have been running a FreeBSD based system using K >Exim/spamassasin/spamd with a grey listing solution for about 9 months now  >with amazing success! > K I can understand spamassassin having an effect but am pretty surprised that / greylisting has anything but a marginal effect.   
 David Webb Security Team leader CCSS Middlesex University        M >The only problems I have had are when people write there own emailing system I >into there websites, and it doesnt retry.  I have not even ran into this F >often.  We push a lot of email for our customers and have not had any
 >problems. > L >My main email account was a published address for the past 10 years.  I was >gettingJ >am amazing amount of spam.  Grey listing cut my spam on my person account	 >down by  G >almost 90%.  I am actually back to enjoying the use of my email again.  >  >>  < >> I can choose to run my own mail server, and then I'll be  >> exposed to the full= >> horror of current spam volumes.  My choice.  I quite like   >> this intermediateA >> level of anti-spam protection, it's somewhere between send me   >> everything (oh G >> my gaad) and filter everything (you stopped mail from who and why?).  >>   >> -- 7 >> I thought I made a mistake once, but I was wrong...   >>  " >> Mail john rather than nospam... >>   >  > B >CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This electronic transmission, including allM >attachments, is directed in confidence solely to the person(s) to whom it is M >addressed, or an authorized recipient, and may not otherwise be distributed, M >copied or disclosed. The contents of the transmission may also be subject to K >intellectual property rights and all such rights are expressly claimed and H >are not waived. If you have received this transmission in error, pleaseI >notify the sender immediately by return electronic transmission and then I >immediately delete this transmission, including all attachments, without + >copying, distributing or disclosing same.   >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 06:26:49 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> G Subject: RE: 450  %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user, <domain.name> 9 Message-ID: <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIEEGDDLAA.tom@kednos.com>    < -----Original Message-----6 < From: John Laird [mailto:nospam@laird-towers.org.uk]) < Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 5:34 AM  < To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com H < Subject: Re: 450 %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user, <domain.name> <  < K < On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:32:26 +0000 (UTC), david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:  < H < >I've never really understood the idea behind this anti-spam strategy.I < >At most it will work with badly written smtp engines which are sending  < >directly to that server.  < A < Such as that used by spammers and also virus-infected machines.  < L < >Open relays might be badly run but there is no reason to suppose they areH < >running non-compliant smtp software. Similarly ISPs mail servers will) < >be standards compliant and will retry. A < >As far as I can see the main result of this anti-spam strategy  < is to slow down  < >all mail delivery.  < H < My ISP say that implementing this "grey-listing", as they call it, hasG < significantly reduced the amount of incoming mail they pass on to POP B < mailboxes.  It's annoying when you register with a site and that < domain hasJ < not already been whitelisted - you must wait for your email verification < before proceeding. < B < I can choose to run my own mail server, and then I'll be exposed
 < to the full @ < horror of current spam volumes.  My choice.  I quite like this < intermediate? < level of anti-spam protection, it's somewhere between send me  < everything (ohF < my gaad) and filter everything (you stopped mail from who and why?).  I We run our own mail server, and with the combination of filtering (we use  MX5.3)E and black-hole lists, only a trickle comes through, and that could be  further A curtailed by new filters, and we do that as the hole gets bigger.  <  < --5 < I thought I made a mistake once, but I was wrong...  < ! < Mail john rather than nospam...  <  < --- ( < Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.< < Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).A < Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004  <  --- & Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).? Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:56:20 -0500 * From: Michael Clark <MClark@Nemschoff.com>G Subject: RE: 450  %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user, <domain.name> Q Message-ID: <A2A28DB6D52E084783ACD6E6C6F5D79002287416@EMAILSERVER2.nemschoff.com>    > -----Original Message-----B > From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk [mailto:david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk]) > Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 8:23 AM  > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com H > Subject: RE: 450 %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user, <domain.name> >  > 
 > In article  @ > <A2A28DB6D52E084783ACD6E6C6F5D79002287414@EMAILSERVER2.nemscho7 > ff.com>, Michael Clark <MClark@Nemschoff.com> writes:  > >> -----Original Message----- 9 > >> From: John Laird [mailto:nospam@laird-towers.org.uk] , > >> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 7:34 AM > >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com> > >> Subject: Re: 450 %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user,  > <domain.name>  > >>   > >>  / > >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:32:26 +0000 (UTC),  $ > >> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > >>  8 > >> >I've never really understood the idea behind this  > anti-spam strategy. A > >> >At most it will work with badly written smtp engines which   > >> are sending   > >> >directly to that server. > >>  D > >> Such as that used by spammers and also virus-infected machines. > >>  ? > >> >Open relays might be badly run but there is no reason to   > >> suppose they are ? > >> >running non-compliant smtp software. Similarly ISPs mail   > servers will, > >> >be standards compliant and will retry.< > >> >As far as I can see the main result of this anti-spam  > >> strategy is to slow down  > >> >all mail delivery. > >>  ? > >> My ISP say that implementing this "grey-listing", as they   > call it, has< > >> significantly reduced the amount of incoming mail they  > pass on to POPA > >> mailboxes.  It's annoying when you register with a site and   > >> that domain hasA > >> not already been whitelisted - you must wait for your email   > >> verification  > >> before proceeding.  > > ; > >Grey listing is amazing!  I have been running a FreeBSD   > based system using  ; > >Exim/spamassasin/spamd with a grey listing solution for   > about 9 months now > >with amazing success! > > ? > I can understand spamassassin having an effect but am pretty   > surprised that1 > greylisting has anything but a marginal effect.   C Not much spam even makes it to spamassasin anymore.  The grey list  A gets most of it.  The majority of spam we see is fire and forget. A I know they will get smart eventually and this will stop working, % but for now I am going to enjoy it =)      > @ > >The only problems I have had are when people write there own  > emailing system > > >into there websites, and it doesnt retry.  I have not even  > ran into this H > >often.  We push a lot of email for our customers and have not had any > >problems. > > > > >My main email account was a published address for the past  > 10 years.  I was
 > >getting> > >am amazing amount of spam.  Grey listing cut my spam on my  > person account > >down by  = > >almost 90%.  I am actually back to enjoying the use of my   > email again. > >  > >>  > > >> I can choose to run my own mail server, and then I'll be  > >> exposed to the full? > >> horror of current spam volumes.  My choice.  I quite like   > >> this intermediateC > >> level of anti-spam protection, it's somewhere between send me   > >> everything (oh ? > >> my gaad) and filter everything (you stopped mail from who   > and why?). > >>   > >> -- 9 > >> I thought I made a mistake once, but I was wrong...   > >>  $ > >> Mail john rather than nospam...   > >  >     A CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This electronic transmission, including all L attachments, is directed in confidence solely to the person(s) to whom it isL addressed, or an authorized recipient, and may not otherwise be distributed,L copied or disclosed. The contents of the transmission may also be subject toJ intellectual property rights and all such rights are expressly claimed andG are not waived. If you have received this transmission in error, please H notify the sender immediately by return electronic transmission and thenH immediately delete this transmission, including all attachments, without* copying, distributing or disclosing same.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:05:22 +0100 - From: John Laird <nospam@laird-towers.org.uk> G Subject: Re: 450  %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user, <domain.name> 8 Message-ID: <op1si01udqn21l36defcl2n5dcim229hgk@4ax.com>  I On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:06:27 +0000 (UTC), david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:   i >In article <krlri0t5qtdkehbq4t7j0vcerdjucuj235@4ax.com>, John Laird <nospam@laird-towers.org.uk> writes: K >>On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:32:26 +0000 (UTC), david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:  >>H >>>I've never really understood the idea behind this anti-spam strategy.J >>>At most it will work with badly written smtp engines which are sending  >>>directly to that server.  >>A >>Such as that used by spammers and also virus-infected machines.  >>J >I don't see any particular reason for them to be especially non-compliant >in this area either. M >Given the amount of effort spammers make to bypass other anti-spam measures  P >I'd have thought making sure their mailers could deal with greylisting would be  >well within their capabilities.  J Maybe some will.  But many are of the "connect using temporary IP address,G spam the known universe, disconnect" variety.  Insert "access open mail L relay" in there as well.  They appear briefly and move on.  I doubt they areK interested in having any sort of retrying capability.  The time interval in L which my ISP will accept a retry from a previously-unknown MTA is I think 10 mins to 1 week.   G This technique also works for virii and worms.  Many of these have some K simple smtp stuff built in - again, possibly unlikely to try more than once 7 but their behaviour is much less predictable of course.    --  " Illiterate?  Write for FREE HELP!    Mail john rather than nospam...    ------------------------------  + Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:09:29 +0000 (UTC) 7 From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) F Subject: Re: 450 %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user, <domain.name>( Message-ID: <cgl1vp$a5l$1@pcls4.std.com>    david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:  M >>Grey listing is amazing!  I have been running a FreeBSD based system using  L >>Exim/spamassasin/spamd with a grey listing solution for about 9 months now >>with amazing success!  >>L >I can understand spamassassin having an effect but am pretty surprised that0 >greylisting has anything but a marginal effect.  K It was already mentioned that an enormous percentage of spam is being sent  J by virus-infected "zombie" systems where the virus is forwarding spam to aM huge list of addresses.  MyDoom, Bagel, etc. are all spam-forwarding viruses. D I don't know what SMTP engines they have, but I do know that an SMTPJ engine which keeps track of and retries addresses with 4xx errors is goingH to be harder to write and will be larger than a blast-and-forget engine.J Sure, since spam and anti-spam systems is nothing but a huge arms race andI "greylisting" is just another weapon in that arms race, some day spammers K will release zombie viruses which retry 4xx errors and greylisting will no  0 longer work.  But for now it is quite effective. --   -Mike    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:01:58 +0100 9 From: Andrew Harrison <andrew_._remove_harrison@su_n.com> * Subject: Re: A whopping 50 percent...  ???0 Message-ID: <cgku17$8kd$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Kenneth Farmer wrote:   < > "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message( > news:412A4867.5B67A58A@teksavvy.com... >  >>John Smith wrote:  >>I >>>First up, there is the Itanium server information discussed last week.  >  > It > K >>>turns out that 50 percent of the HP-UX customers out there have no plans  >  > to > B >>>migrate their software over to Intel's 64-bit processor at all. >>H >>Had a short chat with an ex VMS guy whose shop dumped VMS in favour of >  > HP-UX  > J >>some years ago. They are still buying Pa-Risc machines and when asked if >  > why  > 2 >>not buy IA64 machines, the guy started to laugh. >  > N > Dumped VMS for HP-UX.  Now that deserves a laugh.  Wonder if he had anything > to do with that decision.  > M > Itanium2 isn't that bad.  The rx2600 I have performs very well, it's a nice H > machine.  I wonder how many people that spend so much time criticizing > Itanium actually have one. >   8 I don't have one but I have sat next to one in a lab for a benchmark.  < Regretably the Itanium scored a DNF because HP never managed9 to get the benchmark to run on the system and it has gone  home in disgrace.   7 That left a Sun Opteron box and in IBM Xeon box the Sun 5 won fairly easily, neither Sun nor IBM had any issues 5 getting the benchmark to run though we both had to do 6 a bit of tuning to get the best numbers for the boxes.    K > Some of you guys make it sound like a worthless piece of junk.  Could you # > possibly be exagerating a little?  >    In this case it was.   Regards  Andrew Harrison 7 > Answer me this, which do you love more, Alpha or VMS?  >  > [snip mucho text]  >  > Ken  >    ------------------------------    Date: 26 Aug 2004 08:14:29 -0700( From: tjonard@usa.net (Thomas A. Jonard)* Subject: Re: A whopping 50 percent...  ???; Message-ID: <3ad0fd0.0408260714.9ca5a43@posting.google.com>   \ David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote in message news:<412D4039.3020004@tsoft-inc.com>... > <snip>0 > What's your definition of "industry standard"? >  >  > Dave  $ industry standard = industry default  > We should really stop using this term "industry standard".  No8 standrads are involved.  It's just the industry default.   Tom   ( Thomas A. Jonard,  jonard@XLNsystems.com Senior Consultant, XLNsystems , XLNsystems -- VMS specialists, CharonVAX VAR   ------------------------------   Date: 26 AUG 2004 14:43:36 GMT4 From: karcher@thuria.waisman.wisc.edu (Carl Karcher)< Subject: Re: CSWS v2.0 & CSWS_PHP v1.2 - "php4_module" error6 Message-ID: <26AUG04.14433639@thuria.waisman.wisc.edu>  B In a previous article, Chuck Chopp <ChuckChopp@rtfmcsi.com> wrote:  K ->What is the significance of commenting out this line?  Will it result in  2 ->disabling some portion of the PHP functionality?  L Yep - all of it. Looks like the file will support either V2 or V1.x of CSWS.2 You need to comment it out just to do the shutdown then uncomment before startup.   --G -- Carl Karcher, Waisman Computing Services, Waisman Center, UW-Madison : --                   karcher.nomorespxm@waisman.wisc.edu     ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:32:35 -0400 * From: Chuck Chopp <ChuckChopp@rtfmcsi.com>< Subject: Re: CSWS v2.0 & CSWS_PHP v1.2 - "php4_module" error* Message-ID: <412E1EB3.8040402@rtfmcsi.com>   Carl Karcher wrote:   D > In a previous article, Chuck Chopp <ChuckChopp@rtfmcsi.com> wrote: > M > ->What is the significance of commenting out this line?  Will it result in  4 > ->disabling some portion of the PHP functionality? > N > Yep - all of it. Looks like the file will support either V2 or V1.x of CSWS.4 > You need to comment it out just to do the shutdown  > then uncomment before startup.  L OK, that is very annoying but if it is the only work around for the problem " then that is what I'll need to do.  . Has anybody from HP acknowledged this problem?     --   Chuck Chopp   8 ChuckChopp (at) rtfmcsi (dot) com http://www.rtfmcsi.com  @ RTFM Consulting Services Inc.     864 801 2795 voice & voicemail2 103 Autumn Hill Road              864 801 2774 fax Greer, SC  29651  , Do not send me unsolicited commercial email.   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:13:31 GMT " From:   VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG' Subject: Re: Divide instruction in IA64 0 Message-ID: <00A36EC4.ACB96A8A@SendSpamHere.ORG>  \ In article <412CF28F.9089FCC7@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: >John Reagan wrote: I >> Easy.  The Itanium architecture doesn't have a divide instruction. :-)  > C >What sort of arguments were used to justify leaving this out of an N >architecture ? Can the compilers generate aseembler instructions that will be  >just as fast as a real divide ? > H >I know how a division by a power of 2 is done (shift right the registerN >contents). But how will the IA64 compilers generate divide operations for nonC >base-2 divisors ? (or how do current chips perform the division ?)     H You've forgotten the Pentium division debacle?  Intel can't get division right so why bother trying?  --  < http://www.ProvN.com  for the *best* OpenVMS system security=                       solutions that others only claim to be.  --  , Cyber-Terrorism (si'-ber tayr'-or-iz-em) n.:M   The release of, the sale of, or the use of any Micro$oft software product!   --  K VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM    ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:44:01 GMT & From: John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com>' Subject: Re: Divide instruction in IA64 2 Message-ID: <BOlXc.8789$Er4.3266@news.cpqcorp.net>   JF Mezei wrote:  > John Reagan wrote: > H >>Easy.  The Itanium architecture doesn't have a divide instruction. :-) >  > D > What sort of arguments were used to justify leaving this out of anO > architecture ? Can the compilers generate aseembler instructions that will be ! > just as fast as a real divide ?  >   A Actually, the architecture provides an instruction that gives an  H approximation of a reciprocal most of the time.  When the approximation D is provided, the compiler generates additional code that performs 3 C iterations of a Newton method.  In the cases where the instruction  F cannot provide an approximiation that converges with 3 iterations, it H traps to a handler in the OS that does the divide another way (not sure E if it uses a different algorithm or just does more iterations).  The  G handler is provided by Intel is appears to be highly optimized Itanium  
 assembler.  G The point is that the hardware can give up on the "hard" cases and let   it be handled in software.   --   John Reagan / HP Pascal/{A|I}MACRO for OpenVMS Project Leader  Hewlett-Packard Company    ------------------------------  + Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:11:51 +0000 (UTC) ( From: m.kraemer@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer)' Subject: Re: Divide instruction in IA64 5 Message-ID: <cgkr37$ulv$1@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>   [ In article <BOlXc.8789$Er4.3266@news.cpqcorp.net>, John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com> writes:  > C > Actually, the architecture provides an instruction that gives an  J > approximation of a reciprocal most of the time.  When the approximation F > is provided, the compiler generates additional code that performs 3 E > iterations of a Newton method.  In the cases where the instruction  H > cannot provide an approximiation that converges with 3 iterations, it J > traps to a handler in the OS that does the divide another way (not sure G > if it uses a different algorithm or just does more iterations).  The  I > handler is provided by Intel is appears to be highly optimized Itanium   > assembler.  = I seem to remember that in the early 80s there was a company, = Floating Point Systems, manufacturing midrange computers with ? a proprietary CPU which implemented an "early version" of VLIW. > FP add and multiply took 2 or 3 cycles, but each cycle new FP ; as well as other ops could be started and "pushed" manually > (in assembly language) through the pipeline. A bit tricky, but0 one could complete several operations per cycle.E This beast had approximate FRECIP and FRSQRT, and one had to complete 9 the full precision exactly by the method described above, < namely 3 iterations of Newton/Raphson. These could, however,C be "pushed" through the FP pipelines along with other calculations, 8 so the penalty of not having a full FDIV was not severe.+ Seems that intel have "borrowed" this idea.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 07:19:21 -0700C# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com><' Subject: RE: Divide instruction in IA64C9 Message-ID: <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIIEGFDLAA.tom@kednos.com>N   < -----Original Message-----C < From: Michael Kraemer [mailto:kraemer@biors6a.gsi.de]On Behalf Of> < Michael Kraemer-) < Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 7:12 AM> < To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.ComC) < Subject: Re: Divide instruction in IA64  <C <-@ < In article <BOlXc.8789$Er4.3266@news.cpqcorp.net>, John Reagan < <john.reagan@hp.com> writes: < >.D < > Actually, the architecture provides an instruction that gives anK < > approximation of a reciprocal most of the time.  When the approximation G < > is provided, the compiler generates additional code that performs 3eF < > iterations of a Newton method.  In the cases where the instructionI < > cannot provide an approximiation that converges with 3 iterations, itnK < > traps to a handler in the OS that does the divide another way (not sureeH < > if it uses a different algorithm or just does more iterations).  TheJ < > handler is provided by Intel is appears to be highly optimized Itanium < > assembler. <i? < I seem to remember that in the early 80s there was a company,/? < Floating Point Systems, manufacturing midrange computers with A < a proprietary CPU which implemented an "early version" of VLIW.f? < FP add and multiply took 2 or 3 cycles, but each cycle new FP = < as well as other ops could be started and "pushed" manuallyk@ < (in assembly language) through the pipeline. A bit tricky, but2 < one could complete several operations per cycle.G < This beast had approximate FRECIP and FRSQRT, and one had to complete ; < the full precision exactly by the method described above,-> < namely 3 iterations of Newton/Raphson. These could, however,E < be "pushed" through the FP pipelines along with other calculations,j: < so the penalty of not having a full FDIV was not severe.- < Seems that intel have "borrowed" this idea..  B I think they borrowed their ideas from Seymour Cray from the 60's. <a < ---k( < Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.< < Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).A < Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004a <> --->& Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).? Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004f   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:12:06 -0400d( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>' Subject: Re: Divide instruction in IA64 , Message-ID: <412DEFB6.5090205@tsoft-inc.com>   VAXman- wrote:  ^ > In article <412CF28F.9089FCC7@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: >  >>John Reagan wrote: >>I >>>Easy.  The Itanium architecture doesn't have a divide instruction. :-)e >>>dD >>What sort of arguments were used to justify leaving this out of anO >>architecture ? Can the compilers generate aseembler instructions that will bel! >>just as fast as a real divide ?  >>I >>I know how a division by a power of 2 is done (shift right the registerIO >>contents). But how will the IA64 compilers generate divide operations for noneD >>base-2 divisors ? (or how do current chips perform the division ?) >> >  > J > You've forgotten the Pentium division debacle?  Intel can't get division > right so why bother trying?  >   8 Ha!  After all the smokescreen, the real reason appears.  O Hey, anybody can make a mistake.  But when the attitude is "so what, it's good L? enough", that's when you must re-think the worth of the vendor.T   Dave   -- o4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Roadt Vanderbilt, PA  15486s   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:21:48 GMTe  From: CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>' Subject: Re: Divide instruction in IA64a* Message-ID: <412E0E1C.9020607@prodigy.net>   Michael Kraemer wrote:  ] > In article <BOlXc.8789$Er4.3266@news.cpqcorp.net>, John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com> writes:  > C >>Actually, the architecture provides an instruction that gives an  J >>approximation of a reciprocal most of the time.  When the approximation F >>is provided, the compiler generates additional code that performs 3 E >>iterations of a Newton method.  In the cases where the instruction  H >>cannot provide an approximiation that converges with 3 iterations, it J >>traps to a handler in the OS that does the divide another way (not sure G >>if it uses a different algorithm or just does more iterations).  The mI >>handler is provided by Intel is appears to be highly optimized Itanium l >>assembler. >  > ? > I seem to remember that in the early 80s there was a company,  > Floating Point Systems,   ) ...eventually bought by Sun, as I recall.(  % manufacturing midrange computers with-A > a proprietary CPU which implemented an "early version" of VLIW.h@ > FP add and multiply took 2 or 3 cycles, but each cycle new FP = > as well as other ops could be started and "pushed" manuallym@ > (in assembly language) through the pipeline. A bit tricky, but2 > one could complete several operations per cycle.G > This beast had approximate FRECIP and FRSQRT, and one had to complete ; > the full precision exactly by the method described above,0> > namely 3 iterations of Newton/Raphson. These could, however,E > be "pushed" through the FP pipelines along with other calculations, : > so the penalty of not having a full FDIV was not severe.- > Seems that intel have "borrowed" this idea.  >      --  D The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt toC minimize spam.  Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.    ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:22:54 GMTt  From: CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>' Subject: Re: Divide instruction in IA64h* Message-ID: <412E0E5E.2040008@prodigy.net>   Tom Linden wrote:    >  > < -----Original Message-----E > < From: Michael Kraemer [mailto:kraemer@biors6a.gsi.de]On Behalf Ofa > < Michael Kraemerr+ > < Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 7:12 AMm > < To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com + > < Subject: Re: Divide instruction in IA64s > <a > <aB > < In article <BOlXc.8789$Er4.3266@news.cpqcorp.net>, John Reagan  > < <john.reagan@hp.com> writes: > < >iF > < > Actually, the architecture provides an instruction that gives anM > < > approximation of a reciprocal most of the time.  When the approximationiI > < > is provided, the compiler generates additional code that performs 3tH > < > iterations of a Newton method.  In the cases where the instructionK > < > cannot provide an approximiation that converges with 3 iterations, iteM > < > traps to a handler in the OS that does the divide another way (not suredJ > < > if it uses a different algorithm or just does more iterations).  TheL > < > handler is provided by Intel is appears to be highly optimized Itanium > < > assembler. > <tA > < I seem to remember that in the early 80s there was a company, A > < Floating Point Systems, manufacturing midrange computers withuC > < a proprietary CPU which implemented an "early version" of VLIW.uA > < FP add and multiply took 2 or 3 cycles, but each cycle new FPe? > < as well as other ops could be started and "pushed" manuallyRB > < (in assembly language) through the pipeline. A bit tricky, but4 > < one could complete several operations per cycle.I > < This beast had approximate FRECIP and FRSQRT, and one had to complete:= > < the full precision exactly by the method described above, @ > < namely 3 iterations of Newton/Raphson. These could, however,G > < be "pushed" through the FP pipelines along with other calculations,h< > < so the penalty of not having a full FDIV was not severe./ > < Seems that intel have "borrowed" this idea.c > D > I think they borrowed their ideas from Seymour Cray from the 60's.  : I thought that particular technique was an IBM innovation.   > <s > < ---n* > < Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.> > < Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).C > < Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004e > <o > ---a( > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.< > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).A > Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004m >      -- iD The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt toC minimize spam.  Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.i   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:32:33 -0700 + From: "Barry Treahy, Jr." <Treahy@MMaz.com>n1 Subject: eWeek 2004/08/23 - HP: Adaptation Neededs' Message-ID: <412E1EB1.7080204@MMaz.com>u  E Here is a rather good opinion article in the recent copy of eWeek,=20e
 regarding HP:i  3 http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1638381,00.aspi  F The company should take a cue from its own "adaptive enterprise" push.  E Hewlett-Packard, the company that has made "adaptive enterprise" a=20 I company slogan, needs to be more, well, adaptive. That's my conclusion=20mK after spending a day last week at the company's HP World user conference=20n in Chicago.9  K The conference took place a few days after HP issued one of those fiscal=20hH surprises that Wall Street dislikes. The surprise was HP's disclosure=20G that it would miss its third- and fourth-quarter financial estimates=20tF because of lackluster and money-losing performance in the company's=20J enterprise server and storage division. Following that news, HP reacted=20C with an uncharacteristic dismissal of its top server and storage=20tI executives. A secondary reaction came shortly thereafter from Dell and=20IH IBM, which issued releases saying business was going along swimmingly=20	 for them.   F HP executives, led by CEO Carly Fiorina, face a series of difficult=20D challenges within the company, within the customer base and among=20J powerful competitors looking to gain share in an increasingly uncertain=20I economy. The bet that Fiorina made following the acquisition of Compaq=20dF is that the combined companies can be greater than the sum of their=20K parts. It's a bet that contends a company with operations extending from=20eE consumer electronics through enterprise systems can leverage those=20rD myriad operations in a way that is unavailable to competitors not=20F playing in such a broad market spectrum. At last week's conference,=20? there were examples of the downside and the upside of that bet.i  F The management departures and reshuffling in the server and storage=20@ division that received so much media attention were not major=20I conversation topics among the attendees I spoke with. "I don't see any=20 I effect. [HP management has] been reorganizing every six months for the=20,I last 28 years," said Denys Beauchemin, chairman of the Interex HP user=20 % group and one of the show's sponsors.   K In addition, HP's push to promote the concept of the adaptive enterprise=20d< and utility computing was not top of mind for the attendees.  K Users at HP World were more concerned with the company's continuing push=20tJ to Intel Itanium-based servers, supplanting the old Digital Alpha-based=20G and Tandem NonStop systems. With even Intel's enthusiasm for Itanium=20mK apparently on the wane, there was a lot of interest in preserving legacy=20 H systems and improving the performance, capacity and administration of=20 those systems.  J Casual discussions with a few users does not a survey make, but I think=20G there are several issues related to user discontent and expectations=20 A that HP's management should adapt into their adaptive enterprise:s  G (1) Stop dissing Dell; there is less interest in hearing why Dell is=20nI simply a manufacturing and distribution machine than in hearing how HP=20w/ will compete with Dell on pricing and delivery.a  F (2) Remember the enterprise customer base; the flash and excitement=20I around consumer products can overshadow the more mundane=97but, to the=20FJ enterprise customer, more important=97developments in the enterprise base.  E (3) Explain why HP's products can lead to new corporate technology=20d6 architectures that competitive products can't achieve.  K (4) Don't make it easier to outsource my job; instead, explain how I can=20T< develop the skills to build a career in an outsourced world.  G Ann Livermore, executive vice president of HP's Technology Solutions=20rB Group, used her keynote to chronicle the case histories of such=20J organizations as UNICEF, DreamWorks and Starbucks. Those case histories=20D were strong examples of how technology can be used to develop new=20 business models and markets.  E Missing from Livermore's keynote was a discussion of why those new=20 A business models and markets could be developed using only HP's=20 H competitive products and services. HP needs to answer that charge and=20F give its users a set of tools to build a bridge from the technology=20F infrastructure of the past to the technology requirements of tomorrow.       --=20n  > Barry Treahy, Jr                       E-mail: Treahy@MMaz.com> Midwest Microwave                          Phone: 480/314-1320> Vice President & CIO                         FAX: 480/661-7028                       =20r   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:51:50 +0200t0 From: Keith Cayemberg <keith.cayemberg@arcor.de>M Subject: Re: Figures on Itanic migration plans by HP-UX, VMS, and Tru64 usershA Message-ID: <412dced6$0$6620$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net>r   Jack Peacock wrote:s7 > "Bill Gunshannon" <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in messagea& > news:2p47hmFgjg50U1@uni-berlin.de... > I >>Ummmmm......  PDP-11 isn't EOL yet.  Mentec still sells them.  Not sureoG >>how much development is still going on, but it did continue after DECr >>left the picture.  >> > N > That's actually a good comparison.  Like the PDP-11 there will be no new VAXG > or Alpha processors but there will be a few diehards hanging in there-L > decades after the last new chip came out of the foundry.  Maybe Mentec canN > take over the VAX and Alpha lines too.  They do have a good track record for3 > keeping the PDP-11 alive, albeit on life support.m >   Jack Peacock >   ? It appears that Nemonix has already entered into this market...]  F "NEMONIX Engineering continues to design and manufacture a variety of 4 hardware enhancements for the VAX & Alpha platforms"  ' http://nemonixengineering.com/index.htmA   Cheers!3   Keith Cayemberga   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:13:12 -0400a( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>M Subject: Re: Figures on Itanic migration plans by HP-UX, VMS, and Tru64 users * Message-ID: <412DEFF8.50205@tsoft-inc.com>   Keith Cayemberg wrote:   > Jack Peacock wrote:  > 8 >> "Bill Gunshannon" <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message' >> news:2p47hmFgjg50U1@uni-berlin.de...t >>K >>> Ummmmm......  PDP-11 isn't EOL yet.  Mentec still sells them.  Not surerI >>> how much development is still going on, but it did continue after DEC  >>> left the picture.a >>>i >>H >> That's actually a good comparison.  Like the PDP-11 there will be no 
 >> new VAXH >> or Alpha processors but there will be a few diehards hanging in thereJ >> decades after the last new chip came out of the foundry.  Maybe Mentec  >> canE >> take over the VAX and Alpha lines too.  They do have a good track i
 >> record foro4 >> keeping the PDP-11 alive, albeit on life support. >>   Jack Peacocke >> > A > It appears that Nemonix has already entered into this market...i > H > "NEMONIX Engineering continues to design and manufacture a variety of 6 > hardware enhancements for the VAX & Alpha platforms" > ) > http://nemonixengineering.com/index.htm? > 	 > Cheers!r >  > Keith Cayembergi >   & But, as far as I'm aware, not the CPU.   Dave   -- o4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Roads Vanderbilt, PA  15486j   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:50:12 +0100F9 From: Andrew Harrison <andrew_._remove_harrison@su_n.com>tM Subject: Re: Figures on Itanic migration plans by HP-UX, VMS, and Tru64 users 0 Message-ID: <cgktbb$8c9$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Bob Koehler wrote:^ > In article <q0bbi0dab5jt1imu895kk7g8hage1807m7@4ax.com>, Nigel Barker <nigel@hp.com> writes: >  > Q >>Turn the clock back ten years. What the percentage of VAX customers then had noeR >>plans to move to Alpha? They weren't looking for a new home they were happy withQ >>VAX or at least there was no compelling reason to migrate. The same is true forR >>many PA-RISC customers today.i >  > H >    Once upon a time HP-UX customers were happily running on 68K.  ThenD >    HP not only introduced HP-UX on HPARC, they dropped support forH >    68K.  I'll note with distict interest whether they live up to their+ >    promises re: support of VAX and Alpha.D > C You will all remember that HP bought Apollo in an attempt to becomeC the largest Workstation vendor.s  ? The purchase was followed by extravagent promises for continued:< Apollo development, merging of OS features etc etc and for a= whole 6 months the combined HP/Apollo market share was larger  than Sun's.S  C It quickly however became apparent that HP were unlikely to deliverOB on their roadmap and the Apollo installed base quickly jumped ship@ to Sun, Digital and IBM in that order and Sun retook the lead in the Workstation market.   B Ironically many Apollo customers were very like OpenVMS advocates,> entirely convinced that their OS was the one true way and that< SunOS, Ultrix etc were complete crap, very few of them ended up on HP-UX.   Regards> Andrew Harrisonh   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:07:24 +0200u0 From: Keith Cayemberg <keith.cayemberg@arcor.de>! Subject: Re: GCC for OpenVMS/VAX?aB Message-ID: <412dfcac$0$19546$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net>   bcwright wrote:i  I > Forgive me for asking such a simple question, but I'm trying to find a >H > more recent version of GCC for OpenVMS/VAX than what I have, and I've I > been having quite a bit of trouble finding anything about where to get  K > the latest version.  There are various pointers in the FAQ and elsewhere  H > but these all seem to have become the victim of bit rot - all of them 6 > that I've found point to sites that no longer exist. > M > What's the latest version of GCC for OpenVMS/VAX?  Does anyone have a copy?t > 	 > Thanks,E >  > Bruce Wright  E I have the following potentially useful links with regard to the gss n compiler for OpenVMS...   3 gcc for OpenVMS Alpha and I64 is a component of GNV :   http://h71000.www7.hp.com/opensource/opensource.html#gnv< GCC Home Page - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)   http://gcc.gnu.org/e
 GNV Home Page    http://gnv.sourceforge.net/f GNU/FSFo+   http://www.levitte.org/~ava/vms_gnu.htmlx  Help GCC - SUNY NCSB5   http://nucwww.chem.sunysb.edu/helplib/@hvmsapps/GCC  Redhat's gcc ArchiveB   ftp://ftp.mirror.ac.uk/sites/sources.redhat.com/ftp/gcc/releases! Malmberg's Ftp Service - gcc281_ue(   ftp://ftp.qsl.net/pub/wb8tyw/gcc281_u/$ proGIS Software & Beratung - GNU-C++    http://www.progis.de/index.php; proGIS Software & Beratung - OpenVMS Business Partner Briefd5   http://h71000.www7.hp.com/partners/progis/index.htm " updated header-files for GNU C 2.8(   ftp://ftp.qsl.net/pub/wb8tyw/gcc281_u/   Cheers!    Keith Cayemberg.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:02:47 -0400>& From: David M Smith <dsmit115@csc.com>! Subject: Re: GCC for OpenVMS/VAX?p8 Message-ID: <u92si0t78proaj8d7hcrjqllv7f4cdqmtq@4ax.com>  N On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:07:24 +0200, Keith Cayemberg <keith.cayemberg@arcor.de> wrote:   >bcwright wrote: >     <...> >> yN >> What's the latest version of GCC for OpenVMS/VAX?  Does anyone have a copy? >> h    <...> > F >I have the following potentially useful links with regard to the gss  >compiler for OpenVMS... >h+     <several helpful and interesting links>  >E >Keith Cayemberg  M Keith, I continue to be amazed and appreciative of the sets of links you pulleO out of your pocket in response to this and other requests. I don't know how your do it!I -------------------------------------------------------------------------oI David M. Smith 302.391.8533                       dsmit115 at csc dot comsI Computer Sciences Corporation     (Opinions are those of the writer only)rI -------------------------------------------------------------------------o   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:18:52 -0500,6 From: "Craig A. Berry" <craigberry@mac.com.spamfooler>! Subject: Re: GCC for OpenVMS/VAX?aD Message-ID: <craigberry-DB3D5E.12185126082004@news.isp.giganews.com>  B In article <412dfcac$0$19546$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net>,2  Keith Cayemberg <keith.cayemberg@arcor.de> wrote:   > bcwright wrote:o  O > > What's the latest version of GCC for OpenVMS/VAX?  Does anyone have a copy?   E I have not heard of anyone maintaining a freely available version in p* years.  Any reason to prefer it over HP C?  5 > gcc for OpenVMS Alpha and I64 is a component of GNVk< >   http://h71000.www7.hp.com/opensource/opensource.html#gnv  A Um, no it's not.  GNV has features that translate gcc syntax and sD switches into commands intelligible to the native HP C compiler for F OpenVMS, but it assumes the presence of the latter.  The GNU compiler G is not involved.  And as you point out, GNV is currently only provided i> for Alpha and I64 (though I believe earlier VAX versions were 
 produced).  & > proGIS Software & Beratung - GNU-C++" >   http://www.progis.de/index.php= > proGIS Software & Beratung - OpenVMS Business Partner Brief 7 >   http://h71000.www7.hp.com/partners/progis/index.htmm  E I can find nothing on proGIS's pages that corresponds to what the HP  G page says about them.  Specifically there is no mention of gcc (though eC they may be the ones who produced a port at some time in the past).a  A I believe Ada Core Technologies (http://www.adacore.com/) has to  H maintain a version of GNU C in order to produce their GNU Ada product.  D I have never heard of the C compiler being released separately, and 1 their Ada product does not appear to support VAX.m   ------------------------------    Date: 26 Aug 2004 00:42:17 -0700# From: dooleys@snowy.net.au (dooley)E5 Subject: Re: How can I monitor VMS from Windows/Linux-= Message-ID: <1ca82fc6.0408252342.78cf8c50@posting.google.com>   n sebbylind@yahoo.com.au (Sebby Lind) wrote in message news:<8b171295.0408241903.759c7742@posting.google.com>...h > Roland Barmettler <itsme@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:<20040824142854.0abaf2e2.itsme@127.0.0.1>...0 > > Phil wrote on Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:11:03 GMT: > > > I > > > If you have nagios running on linux, vms monitoring can be "made too > > > work"t > > E > > I entirely agree. I'm using Nagios on Linux and self-written perlnJ > > scripts (which in turn use SNMP tools) to monitor all our VMS systems.F > > It's quite easy to setup, only SNMP needs to be running on the VMS
 > > machines.t > >  > > Cheers, Roland >  > G > I've been using Nagios on other systems and will as adviced use it toDH > monitor VMS too. I just wasn't sure how common it was to use Nagios on > VMS. >  > Thank you all for your input.P > C > Phil: If you don't mind maybe you can mail me copies of your perli
 > scripts?% I don't do perl, it was the other guy . (maybe I should get that printed on a t-shirt)+ I use nrpe as ported to vms by someone elsea( http://sourceforge.net/projects/nrpe-vms4 http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/sf/n/nr/nrpe-vms/2 there is a "how to" document and some dcl examples Phil   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:28:35 -0400-# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> A Subject: How many key pieces of VMS infrastructure depend on BEA?e, Message-ID: <MdOdnUGyhaBXgLPcRVn-ow@igs.net>  B Say Sun buys them and phases out the VMS flavors of applications &( tools......where does that leave VMS...?    L http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1498&ncid=1208&e=9&u=/thedea/ l/20040825/bs_deal_thedeal/istroubledbeaatargett     Is troubled BEA a target?r   Wed Aug 25, 6:00 AM ET Cheryl Meyer TheDeal.comt  H The departure of another senior executive at BEA Systems Inc. is fuelingK speculation that turmoil at the ailing enterprise software maker could make. it vulnerable to a takeover.  F BEA said Monday, Aug. 23, in a filing with the Securities and ExchangeJ Commission that chief marketing officer Tod Nielsen has resigned to pursueK other interests. Chief technology officer Scott Dietzen quit earlier month,dH and chief technology architect Adam Bosworth left in July to join GoogleH Inc. Other executives who have left BEA recently include vice presidentsG Scott Edgington and Rick Jackson, and Erik Frieberg, senior director ofe product marketing.  L The exodus comes amid a 54% decline in BEA's stock price since September andI what analysts describe as BEA's failure to gear up to compete with biggere= enterprise software developers offering a wide product range.n  K "These are really talented people, and they want to work for a company with K buzz - and BEA has lost its buzz," said Richard Williams, research directoriD at Garban Institutional Equities in New York. "They're strategicallyH isolated because the world wants integrated suites, and BEA is providing pure-play components."  6 A BEA representative could not be reached for comment.  I BEA's problems run deep, sources said. The company, which makes so-calledwK infrastructure software used to develop business applications, has suffered K a slump in growth. Although the San Jose, Calif., company posted net income9J of $30.6 million in the quarter ending July 31 on sales of $262.3 million,J up 18% from the year-ago period, BEA's software license revenue dropped toE $116.3 million from $127.4 million in the previous year. BEA's stock,9I meanwhile, has fallen from a high of $15.09 per share last fall to $6.80.   L Kaitan Agrawal, a principal at Jefferies & Co. unit Broadview International,L said BEA has experienced "some frustration with management and the directionI of the company, which is not being aggressive enough in terms of thinkings beyond its four walls."n  F The strength of the euro has also masked BEA's financial problems. TheH company draws 30% to 40% of its revenues from overseas markets, WilliamsC said. With the European currency falling in recent months, however, C third-quarter results for business software companies could plunge.m  J "Companies got a lot more bearish on their outlook and realized they can'tK count on currency as they have in the past," he said. "If you took currencylG out, I would argue 90% of the software companies missed their quarter."f  K BEA also has been less acquisitive than rivals. That means it has failed too@ build a broad, integrated line of products and services, a majorG disadvantage when corporate customers increasingly are turning to a few-) major vendors for their technology needs.r  L "These days, the balance of power keeps shifting toward the larger companiesG with the full stack," Agrawal said. Giants such as IBM Corp., Microsoft:> Corp., Oracle Corp., and SAP AG are encroaching on BEA's turf.  E Instead of making major purchases, BEA has sought to generate organicuJ growth, although it has occasionally bought intellectual property or smallG teams of software developers. In February the company bought CrossLogixlH Inc., a small provider of enterprise authorization infrastructure. BEA'sK last significant deal was in 2001, when it acquired Crossgain Corp. for $30tL million. BEA entered the Web services sector in 1998 when it bought WebLogic Inc. for $193 million.  J All these troubles have fueled speculation for months that software giantsG looking for a good deal could acquire BEA. Sources say potential buyers @ could include Hewlett-Packard Co., Microsoft, Oracle, SAP or Sun Microsystems Inc.s  I BEA's declining stock "could prove to be highly attractive to a potential6F suitor that may have been sitting in the wings positioning to make itsC move," said David Legacki, an analyst at Software Equity Group LLC.1  K And while BEA's revenue are relatively flat, the company has healthy profitoI margins, a strong installed customer base providing recurring revenue and< good technology, Agarwal said.  B Another lure could be the company's $1.5 billion in cash reserves.  5 "They're definitely a takeover target," Agarwal said.e  K Sources peg a deal for BEA, which has an enterprise value of $2 billion, atiJ roughly $10 to $12 per share, or $4 billion to $5 billion. BEA has roughly $748 million in long-term debt.s  I In court testimony during the antitrust trial over Oracle's proposed dealiD for PeopleSoft Inc., Oracle chief Larry Ellison said his company has5 considered buying BEA, as well as Siebel Systems Inc.d  K In late July Ellison told financial analysts that Oracle was poised to makesF other significant acquisitions once its $7.7 billion hostile tender is settled.  L Another possible suitor could be Sun Microsystems, Agrawal said. BEA and theH Santa Clara, Calif., seller of network computing products, share similarG technology architecture, and Sun is increasingly focused on growing itso software business, he added.  K Legacki said the size and clout of BEA's main rivals mean any buyer must be , able to compete with other industry leaders.  G "This makes the list of potential buyers awfully short, and with OracleRE preoccupied with PeopleSoft, the list becomes even shorter," he said.p   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:19:53 -0500i' From: "Earl Lakia" <elakia@hotmail.com>t! Subject: Nematron Device Emulatorf1 Message-ID: <PPCdnYzxiMw0kLPcRVn-gQ@netnitco.net>   H IPACT has created a replacment product for some Nematron display devices that are nolonger   I available from the vendor.  Although the customer intends to migrate to ac newer HMI, this is  K sometime out and a temporary solution was needed.  To meet this need, IPACTp developed ac  G PC product that emulates the Nematron devices.  This was done for threem facilties all of which  K had OpenVMS Alpha hosts controlling factory automation.  If there are othere users out therep  J that have a similar need, please contact IPACT (info<nospam>@<nospam>ipact .com removet  L <nospam>).  This user deployed the emulator on Xycom Touch screen industrial	 computer,o  % but a normal mouse will work as well..      
 Earl Lakia   Lakia<nospam>@ipact.comp  
 www.ipact.coms   ------------------------------    Date: 26 Aug 2004 08:56:25 -0700/ From: pierredesboeuf@voila.fr (Pierre DESBOEUF)t Subject: priority on scacp= Message-ID: <ab785dc5.0408260756.1193b21d@posting.google.com>0   Hi,     E With : >mc scacp, i changed channels priority of the cluster, but all A is volatile. I would like to know if priority could be permanent.    Thanks.<   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:26:26 GMTr* From: Paul Anderson <paul.anderson@hp.com>) Subject: Re: Problem with DCPS and HP4300r5 Message-ID: <260820041025293890%paul.anderson@hp.com>p  B In article <9e0106bb.0408112126.4eac6123@posting.google.com>, Erik) Ahlefeldt <erik_g@abri.une.edu.au> wrote:t  G > Paper size for tray 1 was set to ANY. Changed it to A4, and the printiF > statement worked. Thanks, Paul. But I am intrigued as to this shouldG > be thought a desirable way for DCPS to deal with the manual feed traygE > ... it kind of negates the point of the ANY setting on the printer.I  C I've had a discussion with printer engineers and understand what ismG happening.  We hope to fix this problem in DCPS V2.4 so that the tray 1S1 size can be set to "any" and still be selectable.r   Paul   -- h  Paul Anderson   OpenVMS EngineeringL   Hewlett-Packard Companyo   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:33:01 +0100r9 From: Andrew Harrison <andrew_._remove_harrison@su_n.com>tY Subject: Re: SKHPC's Latest Take on IPF and Post-Superdome Technology From HP  World HP  t0 Message-ID: <cgkvre$97p$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Jack Peacock wrote:e  - > "Dr. Dweeb" <dr@dweeb.com> wrote in messagea) > news:cgi923$1sl4$1@news.cybercity.dk...c > I >>Well, that is a good question Bill.  It seems that the argument bandiedoE >>arround for the Itanic is that it *is* in some way more capable forh > 	 > top-endb > F >>machines than the X86 chips which must be by definition lacking some  >>important chip-level features. >> > K > It's partly a matter of semantics but from a strictly Intel point of viewLK > there is some truth that an Itanium has something extra.  The EMT64 XeonsrN > only have a 36 bit physical address, 64GB max memory, and Xeons use a sharedI > bus which tends to limit scaling.  The Itanium (as I understand it) hasoM > additional hardware to take care of those limitations.  Rumors are that the9N > EMT64 chips have 64-bit performance problems too, but there don't seem to be. > enough of them around to confirm or deny it. >   C Itanium uses exactly the same shared bus as Xeon (Frontside) and itW, limits scaling equally for Xeon and Itanium.  B Since EMT64 is a AMD64 clone it would be better to compare ItaniumA with the real thing rather than the clone and AMD64 does not haveo< the issues associated with EMT64 or for that matter Itanium.  D It does not have a shared bus, and while it currently cannot addressG as much physical memory as Itanium, at 1 TB its current implimentations @ address enough memory to cover 99.9% of all system requirements.  C Unlike both the rumours for EMT64 and the reality for Itanium AMD64r) executes 32bit and 64 bit code very well.i  K > Of course if you include AMD (Intel would rather you paid no attention tomH > that CPU behind the curtain) the "lacking" argument is reduced to highN > performance floating point clustered arrays rendering 3D movie effects whereJ > the entire app fits in the 9MB CPU cache.  I haven't seen a single claimB > that AMD would outrun an Itanium in that particular environment.  B High end FP is the Itanium niche or rather was, Power5 comfortably? trashes Itanium on FP for a single CPU with 2700 SPECfp vs 21613B for Itanium II. This is sadly the only point where Itanium manages a second place.p  E When you get to 4 way systems Opteron at 70 SPECfprate is snapping onfB Itanium II's heels (71.4), Alpha has also overtaken it as probablyB would SPARC if there was a 4 way result and when you get to 16 way- Itanium is 4th behind Power, Alpha and SPARC.d   Small niche indeed.    Regards- Andrew Harrisonp >   Jack Peacock >  >    ------------------------------    Date: 26 Aug 2004 02:35:53 -0700! From: nyce3000@hotmail.com (Dave)s$ Subject: Re: VAX Instruction Timings= Message-ID: <f3598ae1.0408260135.5f648563@posting.google.com>:   lederman@star.enet.dec.DISABLE-JUNK-EMAIL.com (Bart Z. Lederman) wrote in message news:<rpHWc.8630$v22.6911@news.cpqcorp.net>...C > Many years ago I wrote a suite of programs that could be run thatDB > would print out the execution speed of various VAX instructions.E > A number of people ran them on various machines.  The data is stilloC > available on the ENCOMPASserve system (encompasserve.org, no realtG > connection to Encompass anymore, you can telnet to it and create yourmE > own account or read some of the notes conferences via the web), andtE > the program suite is on some of the older VAX SIG tape collections.a > B > The programs even run on the Charon VAX emulator.  (Or at least,E > most of them do.  I understand they helped track down some problemsiA > with an early version of the emulator.  I think that's all beeno > fixed by now.) >  > -- e* >  B. Z. Lederman   Personal Opinions Only > : >  Posting to a News group does NOT give anyone permission: >  to send me advertising by E-mail or put me on a mailing >  list of any kind. > 7 >  Please remove the "DISABLE-JUNK-EMAIL" if you have at7 >  legitimate reason to E-mail a response to this post.s  
 Dear Bart,  > I would like to thank you for your very useful reaction. I did@ register by the above site but was unable to locate the requiredC information, ended up in a notes interface, only a VMS hobbyist. DotE you have more information regarding the location of this information.-   Have a nice daya   David2   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:32:20 GMTD% From: Rob Brown <mylastname@gmcl.com> $ Subject: Re: VAX Instruction TimingsL Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0408260831170.27662-100000@localhost.localdomain>   On 26 Aug 2004, Dave wrote:r  B > register by the above site but was unable to locate the requiredE > information, ended up in a notes interface, only a VMS hobbyist. Do G > you have more information regarding the location of this information.t  G I'm not Bart, but I found it in the Hardware conference in topic 193.  r7 The topic title is "So: how fast IS your VAX, anyway?".e     -- i  B Rob Brown                        b r o w n a t g m c l d o t c o mA G. Michaels Consulting Ltd.      (866)438-2101 (voice) toll free!e6 Edmonton                         (780)438-9343 (voice)4                                  (780)437-3367 (FAX)1                                  http://gmcl.com/r   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:57:17 +0200o0 From: Keith Cayemberg <keith.cayemberg@arcor.de>$ Subject: Re: VAX Instruction TimingsB Message-ID: <412e085d$0$19542$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net>   Rob Brown wrote:   > On 26 Aug 2004, Dave wrote:w >  > B >>register by the above site but was unable to locate the requiredE >>information, ended up in a notes interface, only a VMS hobbyist. DovG >>you have more information regarding the location of this information.T >  > I > I'm not Bart, but I found it in the Hardware conference in topic 193.  o9 > The topic title is "So: how fast IS your VAX, anyway?".  >  >  Oh! you mean here...N http://eisner.decus.org/DECUServe/DECnotes/HARDWARE_HELP/193.0/NEXT_REPLY.HTML   Cheers!D   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:48:02 -0400 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>-* Subject: [OT]: Customer Satisfaction Index, Message-ID: <m56dnWrpmrXUibPcRVn-iQ@igs.net>  6 Study: Apple, Dell lead PC customer satisfaction index   Tue Aug 24, 1:48 PM ET   By Tom Krazit, IDG News Service MacCentralc  K The PC industry is doing a better job of satisfying its U.S. customers than L in recent years, and improvements to technical support seem to have done theB trick, according to the results of a study released Tuesday by the$ University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.  I The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) measures the attitudes ofuG consumers in several different categories, including PCs and online WeboJ sites, on a scale from zero to 100. For the second quarter of 2004, the PCE industry posted a score of 74, which represents an improvement of 2.8xI percent compared to last year and a level the industry hasn't achieved ins four years.e  K Overall customer satisfaction with the PC industry has rebounded as vendorstK have renewed their focus on support and made PC technology easier to set upxG and use, said Claes Fornell, professor of business at the University ofi2 Michigan Business School and director of the ACSI.  I Apple Computer Inc. and Gateway Inc. recorded the largest improvements in I customer satisfaction. With a score of 81, Apple's customers are the mostm8 satisfied of any other PC vendor measured in this index.  L Apple's success comes from a focus on innovation and improving tech support,I Fornell said. Just about every other PC vendor received technical supporteL scores that were less than the scores they received for the quality of theirJ products, but Apple was the only company that received high marks for both quality and support, he said.h  F Gateway's standing has improved based on its acquisition of eMachines,I Fornell said. The company's products are now seen as having greater value I because of the addition of eMachines' low-cost desktops and notebooks, he H said. Gateway received a score of 74, in line with the industry average.  E Dell Inc.'s customers were only slightly less satisfied than Apple's,oJ according to the index. The PC market share leader received a score of 79.  K Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP) managed to eke out slight improvements in customeroL satisfaction, but it remains below the industry average. The ACSI breaks outI HP's scores for both HP-branded PCs and Compaq-branded PCs, and both wereh6 below the industry average at 71 and 69, respectively.  K Fornell blamed the integration efforts following HP's acquisition of Compaq K for its troubles in maintaining customer satisfaction. For some years prioryI to the merger, the separate brands led the ACSI, but both brands have notR= regained the scores they achieved in the late 1990s, he said.   J The ASCI identifies about 250 customers of each PC vendor and surveys themI about their attitudes toward that company. The index also develops scoreseB for other industries such as automobiles, household appliances and telecommunication services.2   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:53:10 -0400u# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>i Subject: [OT]: Server salese, Message-ID: <UbudnSXJu5nhiLPcRVn-gA@igs.net>  L http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1738&ncid=1208&e=7&u=/zd/200 40825/tc_zd/133995     Server Sales Continue to Soara   Wed Aug 25, 8:11 AM ET Jeffrey Burt - eWEEK  G Server sales and shipments jumped again in the second quarter, with IBMfJ topping the revenue chart and Hewlett-Packard Co. shipping the most units,C according to a report issued Wednesday by analyst firm Gartner Inc.o  J Worldwide server revenue grew to more than $11.5 billion in the quarter, aC 7.7 percent increase over the same period in 2003, said Gartner, infJ Stamford, Conn. More than 1.6 million servers were shipped, a 24.5 percent) jump over the same period, the firm said.t  G "Overall, each region showed positive year-over-year growth in terms ofcK revenue," Gartner analyst Mike McLaughlin said in a prepared statement. "WenF also saw increased activity in the x86-64 market, as well as continued+ strong sales in the low-end server market."   J The x86-64 space includes systems powered by Advanced Micro Devices Inc.'sG 64-bit Opteron processor, which also can run 32-bit applications. Intel=H Corp. in June began shipping Nocona, the first of its Xeon processors to offer 64-bit extensions.  K eWEEK Labs pits an x86 64-bit AMD server against an Intel one. Find out howm they fared.   J All the top-tier vendors saw revenues grow in the quarter. IBM, of Armonk,H N.Y., again led the pack, with more than $3.5 billion in revenue, a 10.8J percent jump in revenue. IBM was followed by HP and Sun Microsystems Inc.,B which saw revenues grow 4.3 percent and 2.9 percent, respectively.  J Dell Inc., of Round Rock, Texas, saw the strongest revenue growth, at 20.1" percent, to grow to $1.13 billion.  J Regarding shipments, HP, of Palo Alto, Calif., moved 463,489 units, a 22.7H percent increase. Dell, which in recent quarters has shown the strongestI unit shipment growth, shipped 337,994 units, an increase of 29.2 percent.e  K However, it was Sun, of Santa Clara, Calif., that showed the most growth ineJ shipments, moving 90,487 units for a 38.4 percent increase. Sun was helpedE by increasing demand for its Netra systems for the telecommunicationsnE industry and a jump in the sales of high-end SPARC/Solaris servers toe financial institutions.e  F In February, Sun began an aggressive push into the x86 market with theI release of the two-way Sun Fire V20z, powered by Opteron. Since then, thetD company has released a four-way system as well, and is working on anG eight-way system and blade server. During its latest quarterly earnings D call, Sun officials said shipments of Opteron-based servers grew 115H percent, but were still a small part of Sun's overall financial picture.  I The x86-64 space, while still small, saw revenues grow 2,183 percent. ThetD x86-32 space, dominated by Intel Architecture, grew 10 percent, with= revenues increasing to more than $5.1 billion in the quarter.a  L Linux proved to be the fastest growing server operating system, with revenueI growing 54.6 percent and shipments jumping 61.6 percent. Linux is now 9.5e= percent of the overall server OS space, according to Gartner.0  H Microsoft Corp.'s Windows OS was 34.4 percent of the market in revenues,K while Unix continued to decline, with revenues dropping 4.3 percent and its ? market share decreasing by more than four points, Gartner said.o   ----------------    J Most of Sun's sales were Sparc, most of HP's were P4 or Xeon. HP sells theF most units but makes the least money...what's wrong with this picture?   I like Sun's prospects.o   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:10:39 GMTo1 From: Michael Austin <maustin@firstdbasource.com>s  Subject: Re: [OT]: Whither RAID?= Message-ID: <zbmXc.13416$oG5.4528@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>0   John Smith wrote:s  M > Any half-assed RAID solution would have probably obviated this problem. Any $ > half-baked cluster would have too. >  > 7 > http://www.gov.on.ca/LAB/english/news/2004/04-94.htmll > 	 <snipped>u  I Maybe, Maybe not.   a company I am familiar with had their data on a SAN tP solution and be storage vendor equipment decided to trash everything on the "NT N cluster" exchange system. (multiple servers depending on last name... on same 3 storage - not same filesystems).  RAID0+1 and RAID5E  6 They did have a backup solutions that "mostly" worked.  ; Only a better OS and mail server could have prevented it...  --   Michael Austin.-P Consultant - NOT Available.  Good news!!! I got a job - in Wichita - not in the T aircraft industry.  Oracle DBA on HP/UX, AIX, Linux (RH9AS) and some Rdb on OpenVMS.F Donations STILL welcomed. Http://www.firstdbasource.com/donations.html :)   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.473 ************************"Bill Gunshannon" <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in messagea& > news:2p47h,    ,    ,    Æ,    Ć,    ņ,    Ɔ,    ǆ,    Ȇ,    Ɇ,    ʆ,    ˆ,    ̆,    ͆,    Ά,    φ,    І,    ц,    ҆,    ӆ,    Ԇ,    Ն,    ֆ,    ׆,    ؆,    ن,    چ,    ۆ,    ܆,    ݆,    ކ,    ߆,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,     ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    	,    
,    ,    ,    
,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,     ,    !,    ",    #,    $,    %,    &,    ',    (,    ),    *,    +,    ,,    -,    .,    /,    0,    1,    2,    3,    4,    5,    6,    7,    8,    9,    :,    ;,    <,    =,    >,    ?,    @,    A,    B,    C,    D,    E,    F,    G,    H,    I,    J,    K,    L,    M,    N,    O,    P,    Q,    R,    S,    T,    U,    V,    W,    X,    Y,    Z,    [,    \,    ],    ^,    _,    `,    a,    b,    c,    d,    e,    f,    g,    h,    i,    j,    k,    l,    m,    n,    o,    p,    q,    r,    s,    t,    u,    v,    w,    x,    y,    z,    {,    |,    },    ~,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    Ç,    ć,    Ň,    Ƈ,    Ǉ,    ȇ,    ɇ,    ʇ,    ˇ,    ̇,    ͇,    ·,    χ,    Ї,    ч,    ҇,    Ӈ,    ԇ,    Շ,    և,    ׇ,    ؇,    ه,    ڇ,    ۇ,    ܇,    ݇,    އ,    ߇,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    