1 INFO-VAX	Thu, 16 Dec 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 697       Contents:, Re: help with RX2600/VMS 8.2FT setup please? Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel) Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development ) Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development ) Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development ) Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development ) Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development ) Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development  Re: Interesting article  Re: Interesting article  Re: Interesting article  Interesting coding tidbit  Re: Interesting coding tidbit  Re: More on Tru64  Re: More on Tru64  NYSE and HP servers  Re: NYSE and HP servers   Re: OpenVMS V7.3-2 License issue Re: Simple EDT or TPU init file  Re: TCPIP Printer Library  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald? @ Re: [Nomex on]: Security research suggests Linux has fewer flaws  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 16 Dec 2004 04:11:14 -0800& From: "Galen" <gspamtackett@yahoo.com>5 Subject: Re: help with RX2600/VMS 8.2FT setup please? C Message-ID: <1103199074.156259.223270@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>   F Telnet was also the way I would have done it if I could have persuadedE the network engineer at that site that I needed another LAN drop just E to manage my computer. (Actually, they were short of hardware to hook B another one up at that time. Now I don't work there so it's moot.)   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:12:45 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>  Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel B Message-ID: <1103209427.2dc2d476ddc42961e84cd8b35b7b5c95@teranews>  E > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/15/hp_sends_itanium_to_intel/ H > >Intel's CEO-to-be Paul Otellini recently said Itanium has no place inM > >workstations or low-end servers. This comment, according to an HP insider, I > >came as quite the shock at HP where low-end Itanium shipments are key.   F Considering that HP has sent ever possible signal around that it wouldL restrict IA64 to high end only, this shoudl have come as no surprise at all.L The article does state that currently, the large majority of IA64 boxes soldK are small ones. That is because nobody is betting their enterprise on IA64, O they are just buying small boxes as pilot projects to port/test their software.     I Now, here is an article which I found interesting, not so much because of N content, but becase it represents what the serious press is thinking about it:"  (my comments in a separate post).   By Don Clark and Pui-Wing Tam * Staff Reporters of The Wall Street Journal  L SAN FRANCISCO -- Intel Corp. (INTC) and Hewlett-Packard Co. (HPQ) have endedL their chip-development alliance, a costly, decade-long effort that failed to! meet all of its ambitious  goals.   N      Under a new agreement, Intel will hire a H-P design team in Fort Collins,K Colo., that played a major role in developing several models of the Itanium J chip, which uses a different design than the x86 technology found in IntelK chips for personal computers and high-volume server systems. The deal means > Intel will handle all future development for the Itanium line.  L  Financial terms weren't disclosed, nor the number of H-P employees who willL join Intel. But both companies said the deal doesn't weaken their commitmentL to Itanium, which is important to Intel's strategy in high-end computing andM the future technical foundation for three different H-P server lines. Indeed, B H-P said it committing $3 billion over the next three years to its Itanium-based servers.  L  Don Jenkins, Hewlett-Packard's vice president of marketing in its business-K critical server unit, declined to say how much of that money had previously L been allocated to Itanium-based systems. But he characterized the investmentK as " incremental," and said it does reflect an increase over the amount H-P ( had previously allotted to the platform.  N  "We're very bullish on the market, and we're enhancing our investment," added Mr. Jenkins.  J  He said the move of H-P's Itanium chip-design team to Intel was a naturalJ evolution that would help foster growth of the Itanium market. Mr. JenkinsK noted it had become increasingly  clear of late that chip design was really H Intel's forte. H-P instead wanted to focus its efforts on innovating its7 server hardware and on software applications, he added.   N  Intel has also continued to talk up Itanium's successes, including the chip'sB growing  popularity in some of the world's largest supercomputers.  J  Abhi Talwalkar, vice president and general manager of Intel's enterprise-N platforms group, said Intel plans to continue to push the product for high-endJ computers in competition with chips such as Sun Microsystems Inc.'s (SUNW)I Sparc and International Business Machines Corp.'s (IBM) PowerPC products. P Meanwhile, Intel will push its x86-based Xeon chip line for high-volume servers.  F      "We are trying to really drive two balanced platforms," he added.  H  But Intel and H-P had much broader ambitions for Itanium when the jointM effort was  announced in June 1994. The chip was expected to first be applied G in high- end computing applications, but later be used in workstations, H high-volume servers and even PCs, possibly succeeding the ubiquitous x86 design altogether.  L  But the first model of Itanium didn't become available until 2001, at leastG two years late, and didn't run popular software applications as well as B expected. IDC, a market research firm,  estimates only about 8,000C Itanium-based systems were sold in each of the last three quarters.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 07:12:48 -0800 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>  Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel ( Message-ID: <opsi3wjmg8zgicya@hyrrokkin>  K There seems to be a spin on the $3B figure.  The article you cite gives the H impression that is for the further development of Itanium-based servers.   The following is from J http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=7106565   "...I HP will continue to use Itanium chips in its servers and will pledge $3   L billion over the next three years in developing Itanium as a competitor in  ' the $20 billion high-end server market. . On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:12:45 -0500, JF Mezei  % <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:  ... "   B Which pretty clearly looks like that is the cost to HP for Intel's participation.  J Now if you think about the numbers involved, size of market, share that HPJ can reasonably be expected to attain, and compute the ROI, it doesn't seem like it stands the test.  F >> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/15/hp_sends_itanium_to_intel/I >> >Intel's CEO-to-be Paul Otellini recently said Itanium has no place in G >> >workstations or low-end servers. This comment, according to an HP    >> insider, J >> >came as quite the shock at HP where low-end Itanium shipments are key. > H > Considering that HP has sent ever possible signal around that it wouldK > restrict IA64 to high end only, this shoudl have come as no surprise at    > all.K > The article does state that currently, the large majority of IA64 boxes    > soldI > are small ones. That is because nobody is betting their enterprise on    > IA64, I > they are just buying small boxes as pilot projects to port/test their    > software.  >  > K > Now, here is an article which I found interesting, not so much because of H > content, but becase it represents what the serious press is thinking   > about it: $ >  (my comments in a separate post). >  > By Don Clark and Pui-Wing Tam , > Staff Reporters of The Wall Street Journal > J > SAN FRANCISCO -- Intel Corp. (INTC) and Hewlett-Packard Co. (HPQ) have   > ended F > their chip-development alliance, a costly, decade-long effort that   > failed to # > meet all of its ambitious  goals.  > I >      Under a new agreement, Intel will hire a H-P design team in Fort   
 > Collins,G > Colo., that played a major role in developing several models of the   	 > Itanium H > chip, which uses a different design than the x86 technology found in   > Intel I > chips for personal computers and high-volume server systems. The deal    > means @ > Intel will handle all future development for the Itanium line. > K >  Financial terms weren't disclosed, nor the number of H-P employees who    > willE > join Intel. But both companies said the deal doesn't weaken their    > commitmentL > to Itanium, which is important to Intel's strategy in high-end computing   > and I > the future technical foundation for three different H-P server lines.   	 > Indeed, D > H-P said it committing $3 billion over the next three years to its > Itanium-based servers. > F >  Don Jenkins, Hewlett-Packard's vice president of marketing in its   > business- D > critical server unit, declined to say how much of that money had   > previouslyE > been allocated to Itanium-based systems. But he characterized the    > investmentK > as " incremental," and said it does reflect an increase over the amount    > H-P * > had previously allotted to the platform. > L >  "We're very bullish on the market, and we're enhancing our investment,"   > added  > Mr. Jenkins. > F >  He said the move of H-P's Itanium chip-design team to Intel was a  	 > natural F > evolution that would help foster growth of the Itanium market. Mr.  	 > Jenkins H > noted it had become increasingly  clear of late that chip design was   > reallyJ > Intel's forte. H-P instead wanted to focus its efforts on innovating its9 > server hardware and on software applications, he added.  > K >  Intel has also continued to talk up Itanium's successes, including the    > chip'sD > growing  popularity in some of the world's largest supercomputers. > B >  Abhi Talwalkar, vice president and general manager of Intel's  
 > enterprise- I > platforms group, said Intel plans to continue to push the product for   
 > high-endG > computers in competition with chips such as Sun Microsystems Inc.'s    > (SUNW)K > Sparc and International Business Machines Corp.'s (IBM) PowerPC products. K > Meanwhile, Intel will push its x86-based Xeon chip line for high-volume   
 > servers. > H >      "We are trying to really drive two balanced platforms," he added. > J >  But Intel and H-P had much broader ambitions for Itanium when the jointI > effort was  announced in June 1994. The chip was expected to first be   	 > applied I > in high- end computing applications, but later be used in workstations, J > high-volume servers and even PCs, possibly succeeding the ubiquitous x86 > design altogether. > J >  But the first model of Itanium didn't become available until 2001, at   > least I > two years late, and didn't run popular software applications as well as D > expected. IDC, a market research firm,  estimates only about 8,000E > Itanium-based systems were sold in each of the last three quarters.        --  C Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:18:58 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>  Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel B Message-ID: <1103209793.9d0ea42d9fd6580bb5768aedf6d4696b@teranews>  B I found it intersting that WSJ worded it as "ending an alliance".   H As far as HP spending 3 billion on IA64 over next 3 years, a few points:  M -it isn't an extra 3 billion. But amount has increased since before the deal.   K -Of course when you get out of a joint venture, you will end up paying more  for the product   H -HP will need to write off its investment in IA64 and pay for porting ofS NSK/Tandem and possibly VMS and possibly HP-UX to a new platform (likely the 8086).   N Seems to me that in recent months, Intel/HP have been accelerating the "leaks"@ about IA64's failure to become what it had been meant to become.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:48:41 -0500 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>  Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel , Message-ID: <ccSdnaojSZHFM1zcRVn-sA@igs.net>  > "Abhi Talwalkar, vice president and general manager of Intel'sL enterprise-platforms group, said Intel plans to continue to push the product for high-endJ computers in competition with chips such as Sun Microsystems Inc.'s (SUNW)I Sparc and International Business Machines Corp.'s (IBM) PowerPC products. G Meanwhile, Intel will push its x86-based Xeon chip line for high-volume  servers.  F      "We are trying to really drive two balanced platforms," he added.  H  But Intel and H-P had much broader ambitions for Itanium when the jointE effort was  announced in June 1994. The chip was expected to first be  applied G in high- end computing applications, but later be used in workstations, H high-volume servers and even PCs, possibly succeeding the ubiquitous x86 design altogether."     F The writing has been on the wall for IA64 since at least 1999 and more, spectacularly over the past couple of years.  L Chip-for-chip it is more expensive than Alpha ever was, development cost perK unit of performance it has been more costly than Alpha ever was. It will be I years before it outsells Alpha at its peak. That it sucks power and pumps 0 out more heat than Alpha is a huge disadvantage.  I The volume market - low-mid end servers - will be owned by x86 like chips L for all system vendors. IBM will be pushing Power up and down the line - SunL will eventuall standardize on one chip but won't f*ck their customers in theK process, and HP and other leftout vendors (SGI, etc..) will be left wearing ( the Itanic albatross around their necks.  K Remember the i860 and i960? How long will Intel be enthused about IA64 when L HP and the leftouts cannot annually consume more than a couple of days worthH of FAB production from the IA64 production line. I think Intel will findL other things to do with their capital. Remember that Intel is a chip companyK and even when a chip fails they still learn something. When IA64 fails HP's G enterprise OS products will fail with it, not because they are not good 9 products, but because customers will have no faith in HP.   D To many non-PC users of HP computing products, HP's current focus onH consumer entertainment devices and printingf is a sideshow as far as theH needs of these customers are concerned. They don't care one itoa that HPL will sell LCD tv's and digital cameras. In this regard, Sun and IBM begin toC look better and better - Sun because they know where their bread is " buttered, and IBM because its IBM.  J As much as we malign Solaris and Sun, it is ok for many users and they areH prepared to deal with the patches and extra manpower. It certainly has aJ list of ISV applications what puts VMS's list to shame by comparison. WhenK we slag Sun for their financial perfomance over the past few years, a large L part of their misfortune was that the .coms that .bombed has new Sun gear onF lease which flooded the market at low prices when they closed up shop,; thereby eroding new sales at decent profit margins for Sun.     E With this announcement the decks are now clear for HP to spin off the K enterprise computing division and become what Walter Hewlett wanted them to  be - a printer company.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:02:10 -0500 - From: JF mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>  Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel B Message-ID: <1103215983.48c3a46b9661809abfd9b69daefdfd2f@teranews>   Tom Linden wrote: L > Now if you think about the numbers involved, size of market, share that HPL > can reasonably be expected to attain, and compute the ROI, it doesn't seem > like it stands the test.  K Well, the number is a spin to help control the speed of the downward spiral L that IA64 was put in. Remember that both HP and Intel have been leaking muchL information in recent times to fuel speculation that IA64 won't make it pastM 2007. This began in earnest when Intel admitted it would have to release a 64 	 bit 8086.   K Consider how much HP's own internal budgets for chip development would have N been for those 3 years. (wages, equipment, software licences facilities etc).   K Now, had IA64 been a success, it would have been Intel buying HP's share of N IA64. But because it is a failure, HP must pay Intel to continue this chip. InL essence, HP is outsourcing its part of the work on IA64. This may have to doF with the type of contract for this joint project whereas perhaps HP is# obligated to perform certain tasks.    N Consider that a co-owner, HP must have gotten some form royalty whenever IntelK seold an IA64 to SGI, or the few that IBM and Dell have bought. That revenu T won't happen anymore. HP will now pay the full cost of every IA64 chip it purchases.   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:55:39 GMT % From: "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com>  Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel : Message-ID: <v_jwd.907$1o1.791@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>  / "Lee Witten" <lw99@yahoo.com> wrote in message  ( news:Xns95C280F78DE7nn48@199.125.85.9...E > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/15/hp_sends_itanium_to_intel/ G >>Intel's CEO-to-be Paul Otellini recently said Itanium has no place in L >>workstations or low-end servers. This comment, according to an HP insider,H >>came as quite the shock at HP where low-end Itanium shipments are key. > - > There goes any chance at a VMS revival, no?  >    Why?   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:46:02 -0800 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> 2 Subject: Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development( Message-ID: <opsi28200bzgicya@hyrrokkin>  . On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:57:00 -0500, JF Mezei  % <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:    > David J Dachtera wrote: 8 >> That leaves VMS without a CPU. Ergo, sayonara, VMS... >>F >> ...unless the unthinkable is happening and the IA32 port is finally >> underway - again. >  > It may not be so unthinkable.  > H > Consider that when Intel lets IA64 expire, it will then be competing  	 > head on J > with AMD for the 8086 and the race will be on who can scale it up to the > biggest enterprise machines. > L > VMS has unique features that can make use of fancy system architectures.   > ItI > would be a showcase of Intel's ability to scale the 8086 to to galactic E > proportions. I think VMS would be ported to the 8086 for the same    > reasons it > was ported to the IA64 thing.  > D > Carly will have moved to Washington before IA64's demise becomes   > official. G > Some new guy will be at the head (with our luck, it would be either   
 > Stallard > or Winkler :-(.    SO, why is HP giving Intel $3B?    --  C Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/    ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:54:11 GMT   From: CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>2 Subject: Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development* Message-ID: <41C13115.6090408@prodigy.net>   Tom Linden wrote: 0 > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:57:00 -0500, JF Mezei  ' > <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:  >  >> David J Dachtera wrote: >>9 >>> That leaves VMS without a CPU. Ergo, sayonara, VMS...  >>> G >>> ...unless the unthinkable is happening and the IA32 port is finally  >>> underway - again.  >> >>  >> It may not be so unthinkable. >>I >> Consider that when Intel lets IA64 expire, it will then be competing   
 >> head onK >> with AMD for the 8086 and the race will be on who can scale it up to the  >> biggest enterprise machines.  >>= >> VMS has unique features that can make use of fancy system   >> architectures.  It J >> would be a showcase of Intel's ability to scale the 8086 to to galacticF >> proportions. I think VMS would be ported to the 8086 for the same  
 >> reasons it   >> was ported to the IA64 thing. >>E >> Carly will have moved to Washington before IA64's demise becomes    >> official.H >> Some new guy will be at the head (with our luck, it would be either   >> Stallard  >> or Winkler :-(. >  > ! > SO, why is HP giving Intel $3B?  > G I don't think they are.  As I understand it, they're going to spend $3B B on things like developing and marketing their own Itanium servers.   --  D The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt toC minimize spam.  Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.    ------------------------------  + Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:58:36 +0000 (UTC)  From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk2 Subject: Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development) Message-ID: <cps0ps$oat$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>   \ In article <41C11546.B4C0EAED@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: >David J Dachtera wrote:8 >> That leaves VMS without a CPU. Ergo, sayonara, VMS... >>  F >> ...unless the unthinkable is happening and the IA32 port is finally >> underway - again. >  >It may not be so unthinkable. > M >Consider that when Intel lets IA64 expire, it will then be competing head on I >with AMD for the 8086 and the race will be on who can scale it up to the  >biggest enterprise machines.  > L >VMS has unique features that can make use of fancy system architectures. ItH >would be a showcase of Intel's ability to scale the 8086 to to galacticM >proportions. I think VMS would be ported to the 8086 for the same reasons it  >was ported to the IA64 thing. > K >Carly will have moved to Washington before IA64's demise becomes official. M >Some new guy will be at the head (with our luck, it would be either Stallard  >or Winkler :-(.  I Intel might even save VMS. As far as I am aware Intel still uses VMS for   their chip production.  
 David Webb security team leader CCSS Middlesex University   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 05:30:10 -0800 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> 2 Subject: Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development( Message-ID: <opsi3rskxazgicya@hyrrokkin>  C On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:54:11 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:   # >   SO, why is HP giving Intel $3B? J >  I don't think they are.  As I understand it, they're going to spend $3BD > on things like developing and marketing their own Itanium servers. >   L December 16, 2004. (FinancialWire) Intel Corp. (NASDAQ: INTC) will acquire  = Hewlett-Packard?s (NYSE: HPQ) titanium chip engineering team.   G December 16, 2004.  (FinancialWire)   Intel Corp. (NASDAQ: INTC) will   E acquire Hewlett-Packard?s (NYSE: HPQ) titanium chip engineering team. 4 The deal ends a decade-long partnership for the two.H The titanium development group in Colorado will transfer to Intel, but  > Hewlett-Packard will continue to use the chips in its servers.D It will also put about $3 billion into development of titanium for  " high-end servers, according to HP.   --- end story  ---  G Aside from the foray into metallurgy, I read this as money from HP to   
 Intel to keep I the program alive.  It seems fairly obvious (to me anyway) that without   
 such payment, B Intel would drop the program, as financially inattractive for them   ------------------------------    Date: 16 Dec 2004 05:36:12 -0800 From: bob@instantwhip.com 2 Subject: Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip developmentC Message-ID: <1103204172.427973.249130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>   : I think you are dismissing the alpha team way to early ...9 I predict they will make itanium viable ... HP supposedly 7 backed out because they didn't like tukwila ... that is : the first alpha team rendition ... I think intel likes the5 alpha team rendition which means the HP team lost ...    ------------------------------    Date: 16 Dec 2004 08:10:16 -06004 From: kaplow_r@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow)2 Subject: Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development3 Message-ID: <XBYYCKPhD1$S@eisner.encompasserve.org>   ` In article <41C0E7CF.C7DF427A@comcast.net>, David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> writes:G > Maybe I missed something: does Carly's job description read, "Destroy  > HP"?  , Perhaps she's using Bob Palmer's old book...  1 	Bob Kaplow	NAR # 18L	TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" & 		>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<K Kaplow Klips & Baffle:	http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf L     www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/    www.nira-rocketry.org    www.nar.org  H         We have awakened a sleeping giant and instilled in it a terrible3         resolve. -- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, WWII.    ------------------------------  + Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:02:38 +0000 (UTC) 7 From: hamilton@Encompasserve.org (Bradford J. Hamilton)   Subject: Re: Interesting article/ Message-ID: <cprtgu$9sn$1@grandcanyon.binc.net>   M In article <32cmfqF3j5lckU1@individual.net>, Phaeton  <spam@spam.org> writes:  !snip!C !	For those who are interested in the second part of this article :  ! + !	http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20242  ! $ !	"The three ways HP has screwed up"" !	( Opinion Two : Count Debacula ) ! ; !	The first paragraph mentions Alphacide, and other events. 6 !	Again, a very good article by one Charlie Demerjian. !  !						Cheers,  Csaba  !   M From the POV of this NG, there are two things "wrong" with the above article:   8 - no mention of VMS (in this context, a good thing - :-)  H - the author's perception of HP support does not match my experience, asK far as VMS is concerned.  I'm always able to raise a knowledgeable, helpful M VMS software support person when I call.  This is a vast improvement over the  end of the COMPAQ era.   !snip!   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:58:57 GMT 1 From: Keith Parris <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com>   Subject: Re: Interesting article2 Message-ID: <5hiwd.4600$W64.2344@news.cpqcorp.net>   Phaeton wrote:D > 	For those who are interested in the second part of this article :  F He's certainly flat wrong on the EVA. Despite attempts from HP to set H the record straight, Charlie stubbornly continues in his errors. I work E in the building up the hill from the EVA engineers, and have friends  I working in the group, and if there had been any project cancellations or  F layoffs, I certainly would have heard about them. Plus, we just heard A the latest futures and directions from Dave Thiel at the OpenVMS  G Ambassadors Meeting, and there are a lot of exciting things planned by   the StorageWorks folks.   @ So I must have serious doubts about the accuracy of the rest of  Charlie's material.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:08:34 -0500 - From: JF mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>   Subject: Re: Interesting articleB Message-ID: <1103216364.b69ef32ab8823a7ac2fe1f248cab91c8@teranews>   Keith Parris wrote: ' > He's certainly flat wrong on the EVA.   K Maybe not "flat" wrong. I believe that another article which had begun this J "HP is killing EVA" storyline was based on the fact that HP had eroded itsL storage sales/support organisation to a point where customers were no longerM sold on those products because those doing the selling weren't specialised in ( that area. (or something akin to this).   K Large corporations are expected to be smart. Thus, when a large corporation L restructures this way, once can speculate that perhaps the true intent is toM make that product line fail so that they can get rid of it or downsize it out 
 of existance.   L Whether this is really the case or not, I have no idea. But the fact that HPM leaves the door opened for so much specualtion about its true intents outside M of consumer products does indficate some level of real incompetance up there, % unless that is their true intentions.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:23:09 -0500 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> " Subject: Interesting coding tidbit, Message-ID: <5PednUz2GODhWVzcRVn-hw@igs.net>  6 http://www.research.ibm.com/trl/projects/security/ssp/   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:21:33 +0100 0 From: Keith Cayemberg <keith.cayemberg@arcor.de>& Subject: Re: Interesting coding tidbitB Message-ID: <41c1d22e$0$16048$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net>   John Smith wrote: 8 > http://www.research.ibm.com/trl/projects/security/ssp/ >  >  >    Interesting.   /Taking the Pulpit/ C Of course this does nothing for you if the Hacker/Cracker used GCC  G without this extension, another language's compiler, assembler or even  F machine code. Which illustrates why the operating system architecture = logically plays the ultimate central role in determining the  I "technically attainable level" of security in an information system. The  F many other influences in the chain of security level dependencies are G well known by all and sundry, including less technical influences such  C system management practices, security policies and physical server  E accessibility. ITAS (It's the Architecture S.....) (Nothing personal   meant here)  /Stepping down from Pulpit/   A Even in a world of less than successful copycats, OpenVMS' great  F advantage for Enterprise Systems is it's "integrated" architecture of D functions and features that need to be ubiquitous, high quality and H standardized at the native, protected and coordinated OS level; and not 7 poorly reinvented or elective at the application level.    Cheers!    Keith Cayemberg ) IBM Business Services - Hannover, Germany    Semi-Nonstandard Disclaimer:3 Any non-official claims concerning my semi-official * opinions are hereby officially disclaimed.  i.e. I said it, not my employer.0 (and no I didn't steal this one from Yogi Berra)   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:05:24 -0500 ) From: "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca>  Subject: Re: More on Tru64; Message-ID: <ifjwd.24219$%p1.1513797@news20.bellglobal.com>   L HP said existing Tru64 customers should move over to HP-UX and just licence A third party software from Veritas to make up for the differences.   J Well, it looks like Symatec just bought Veritas and you know what usually G happens during mergers. (hint: stuff that's not a real big money maker   usually gets the chop)  / http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5493289.html   
 Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,  Ontario, Canada.9 http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html     ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:03:11 -0500 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>  Subject: Re: More on Tru64, Message-ID: <46idncQgbuNDUFzcRVn-vA@igs.net>   Neil Rieck wrote: E > HP said existing Tru64 customers should move over to HP-UX and just > > licence third party software from Veritas to make up for the > differences. > C > Well, it looks like Symatec just bought Veritas and you know what D > usually happens during mergers. (hint: stuff that's not a real big$ > money maker usually gets the chop) > 1 > http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5493289.html      Or what may come to pass, I "HP, you'd better license everything Norton from us and pre-install it on J every PC you ever ship from now until eternity at whatever price we decideH to rape you at, or we decide to EOL the advanced file system software on HP-UX."    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:16:37 +0100 ! From: Soterro <soterroatyahoocom>  Subject: NYSE and HP servers: Message-ID: <41c1b44b$0$3525$4d4ef98e@read.news.ch.uu.net>   Hello,  E What 'HP servers' is this article speaking about? Its thema is about  & congratulating Linux, however it goes:G "The handhelds talk to Linux-based workstations, which in turn talk to  F _HP servers_, and they speak to IBM Z-series mainframes running a DB2 	 backend."   A http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/12/14/1833224&from=rss    S    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:09:48 -0500 - From: JF mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>   Subject: Re: NYSE and HP serversB Message-ID: <1103216436.dd33bd56ec938dced65cb00aca2a63a1@teranews>   Soterro wrote:F > What 'HP servers' is this article speaking about? Its thema is about( > congratulating Linux, however it goes:H > "The handhelds talk to Linux-based workstations, which in turn talk toG > _HP servers_, and they speak to IBM Z-series mainframes running a DB2  > backend."   % Tandem NSK machines. Same for NASDAQ.   O I believe that the NYSE does use VMS in its back end processing/reconciliation.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 05:15:53 -0500 5 From: "Mark Buda" <buda@SP_AMTripleBreakProducts.com> ) Subject: Re: OpenVMS V7.3-2 License issue 1 Message-ID: <muudnfLyTOkt_FzcRVn-uA@adelphia.com>   G For each user who logs in, it requires 100 units of OPENVMS-ALPHA-ADL.  D Subprocesses are par of parent process and do not require any units.  L If you wan to get more users on the system, you will have to buy more units.  # What type of system is it?  Galaxy?e   mark    4 "John Hayes" <hayes1966@yahoo.com> wrote in message 7 news:qP1td.29192$Rf1.5488@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...o > Hi Peter,P >l< > I hope that this sheds a little more light on the problem. >e > $ show use >P8 >      OpenVMS User Processes at  6-DEC-2004 13:42:31.63: >    Total number of users = 22,  number of processes = 67 >n6 > Username    Node     Interactive  Subprocess   Batch* > CATHY      ALPHA1            1         1* > CHERI      ALPHA2            2         2* > DAN        ALPHA1            2         2* > DYAN       ALPHA1            1         1* > ERIK       ALPHA1            1         1* > GARY       ALPHA2            1         1* > GEOFF      ALPHA2            1         1* > GRAZIA     ALPHA2            1         1* > JENNIFER   ALPHA2            2         2  > JOHN       ALPHA1            2* > KAREN      ALPHA2            1         1* > KARYN      ALPHA2            1         1* > LORI       ALPHA1            3         3* > NAIOMI     ALPHA1            2         2* > PAULA      ALPHA1            2         2* > PHIL       ALPHA1            1         1* > PHIL       ALPHA2            1         1* > RICK       ALPHA2            2         2* > ROY        ALPHA2            2         24 > SYSTEM     ALPHA1            1         -         1  > SYSTEM     ALPHA2            1* > TARA       ALPHA1            1         1* > TARA       ALPHA2            1         1* > WAREHOUSE  ALPHA1            1         1* > WOODIE     ALPHA2            1         1 >o >e  > $show license/usage/full *vms* >t( > [ALPHA1] show license/usage/full *vms* >4F > View of loaded licenses from node ALPHA1                 6-DEC-2004 
 > 13:43:26.52t >u7 > ACTIVITY license DEC OPENVMS-ALPHA usage information:  >        Availability: 0 >        Activity: A >        Version:  0.0 >        Release Date: (none)d! >        Termination Date: (none)  >        NO_SHAREa? >    Pid        Process Name      Units   Username         NodesA >    20202576   WAREHOUSE            75   WAREHOUSE        ALPHA1hB >    Units loaded: 75    Units allocated: 75    Units available: 0 > ; > ACTIVITY license DEC OPENVMS-ALPHA-ADL usage information:n >        Availability: 0 >        Activity: 100 >        Version:  0.0 >        Release Date: (none)o! >        Termination Date: (none)a? >    Pid        Process Name      Units   Username         NodesA >    2020095C   _OPA0:              100   SYSTEM           ALPHA1oA >    204002AD   _OPA0:              100   SYSTEM           ALPHA2 A >    2020256A   JOHN                100   JOHN             ALPHA1tA >    20400F63   KAREN               100   KAREN            ALPHA2 A >    20400F65   GRAZIA              100   GRAZIA           ALPHA2cA >    20202879   PAULA               100   PAULA            ALPHA1 A >    20202E7B   _TNA371:            100   PAULA            ALPHA1FA >    20400F67   RICK                100   RICK             ALPHA2 A >    20401069   _TNA455:            100   RICK             ALPHA2eA >    20400E6B   JENNIFER            100   JENNIFER         ALPHA2gA >    2040106C   _TNA457:            100   JENNIFER         ALPHA2uA >    2020267E   NAIOMI              100   NAIOMI           ALPHA1sA >    2040106F   ROY                 100   ROY              ALPHA2oA >    20401071   _TNA459:            100   ROY              ALPHA2iA >    20202A80   CATHY               100   CATHY            ALPHA1dA >    20202B81   DYAN                100   DYAN             ALPHA1nA >    20202603   LORI                100   LORI             ALPHA1 A >    20202805   _TNA376:            100   LORI             ALPHA1rA >    2020241D   _TNA377:            100   NAIOMI           ALPHA1nA >    20202426   _TNA378:            100   LORI             ALPHA1lA >    20400D73   CHERI               100   CHERI            ALPHA2tA >    20400E75   _TNA461:            100   CHERI            ALPHA2aA >    20202233   _TNA381:            100   JOHN             ALPHA1yA >    20400F7B   KARYN               100   KARYN            ALPHA2 A >    20401080   GEOFF               100   GEOFF            ALPHA2 A >    20401082   WOODIE              100   WOODIE           ALPHA2tA >    20202861   PHIL                100   PHIL             ALPHA1lA >    20401088   GARY                100   GARY             ALPHA2dA >    20400E8F   TARA                100   TARA             ALPHA2 A >    20202765   TARA                100   TARA             ALPHA1oA >    20202D84   DAN                 100   DAN              ALPHA1rA >    20202102   _LTA5059:           100   DAN              ALPHA1aA >    20202456   ERIK                100   ERIK             ALPHA1oH >    Units loaded: 4000    Units allocated: 3300    Units available: 700 >p8 > AVAILABILITY license DEC VMSCLUSTER usage information: >        Availability: H >        Activity: 0 >        Version:  0.0 >        Release Date: (none)t! >        Termination Date: (none)p >    Units   Nodem >     1050   ALPHA1e >     1050   ALPHA2 F >    Units loaded: 2100    Units allocated: 2100    Units available: 0 >a > 4 > [ALPHA1] show proces/rights/subprocess/id=20202585 >eH > 6-DEC-2004 13:44:58.72   User: DAN              Process ID:   20202585I >                          Node: ALPHA1           Process name: "DAN_158"v >  > Process rights:b, > DAN                               resource
 > INTERACTIVEt > LOCALm >l > System rights: > SYS$NODE_ALPHA1n >  > Soft CPU Affinity: off >e$ > There are 2 processes in this job: >t >  DAN >    DAN_158 (*) >D >a > My program does a,! > xcall lib$spawn("$RUN "+prgram)u >a > John > J > "Peter Weaver" <WeaverConsultingServices@sympatico.ca> wrote in message ( > news:31jn8rF3abs0pU1@individual.net... >> John Hayes wrote: >>> Hi,e >>>cE >>> Recently (not sure when it started happening) our system has beenyE >>> grabbing an openvms license for each process the user creates. Weu@ >>> have an application that spawns a new process as part of theH >>> application and each of these seperate processes grab a license. Any >>>... >>H >> Haven't seen it myself, I do not have a 7.3-2 system that I can reachC >> right now to test, but I'm sure I would have noticed if this wasn
 >> happening.  >>@ >> Just to be sure that these are subprocesses try doing a "show >> license/usage/full *vms*" >>/ >> Then for every process ID you see do a "showk& >> process/rights/subprocesses/id=pid" >>K >> If you do have sub-processes requesting licenses then post an example offJ >> how the spawn is happening, is it a DCL spawn or a system service call? >> >> --  >> Peter Weavern" >> Weaver Consulting Services Inc. >> Canadian VAR for CHARON-VAX >> www.weaverconsulting.ca >> >> >2 >    ------------------------------    Date: 16 Dec 2004 02:35:05 -08003 From: "Big John" <john.powers@airwidesolutions.com> ( Subject: Re: Simple EDT or TPU init fileB Message-ID: <1103193305.265517.24300@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>   Hi,t   > Big John,   = - John will do! When Google groups asked me for a nickname, I : didn't think how it would stick that on all my entries.  I now regret it!  > I have to admit that I cannot replicate either of the problems> problems you experience. The keys work whether I type set term; /numeric, or set term/application. I tried hitting a lot of < undefined keys - I even rested my phone on the space bar and> went off to make a cup of coffee - but when I returned and hit a correct key, it worked fine!  > What terminal emulator are you using? It sounds like it is not> fully doing the job. I use Reflections here, but we also still= have some people using Hummingbird Exceed. I tried it on that ? and it still worked fine.  I have heard that the basic terminal > emulator supplied by Micros**t is a pile of 'soft', but I have never used it.  > Let me know which terminal emulator you use, and if I can find> a copy here I will try it out to see if I get the same problem as you.r  > Filling the screen instead of using the first 21 lines is very= easy. The command get_info(screen,"length") gets the info youo, need, so you can amend simple .tpu as below.   Cheers, John   SIMPLE.TPU follows..  3 input_file := GET_INFO (COMMAND_LINE, "file_name");h1 main_buffer:= CREATE_BUFFER ("main", input_file); ) window_size := GET_INFO(screen,"length");r  & position (BEGINNING_OF (main_buffer));0 main_window := create_window(1,window_size,off);  , the_key_map := create_key_map ("user_keys");E the_key_map_list := create_key_map_list ("the_keylist", the_key_map);h  0 set (UNDEFINED_KEY, the_key_map_list, "return");4 set (KEY_MAP_LIST,  the_key_map_list,  main_buffer);, set (SELF_INSERT,   the_key_map_list,  OFF);   MAP (main_window,main_buffer); message (ascii(27)+"[?25l");   !o6 define_key ("message(ascii(27)+'[?25h');QUIT (OFF,1)", kp1,the_key_map);p? define_key ("scroll (current_window, 1)",  kp2,   the_key_map);n? define_key ("scroll (current_window, -1)", kp8,   the_key_map); : define_key ("scroll (current_window, window_size-1)", kp6,
 the_key_map);e: define_key ("scroll (current_window, -window_size+1)",kp4,
 the_key_map);a? define_key ("scroll (current_window, 1)",  down,  the_key_map); ? define_key ("scroll (current_window, -1)", up,    the_key_map);e !e Fred Bach wrote: > Big John,. > : >    Thank you for your TPU insight.  I don't do much TPU. >l< >    I copied your code directly into SIMPLE.TPU in my login/ >    directory.  Right now my SIMPLE symbol is:e >t
 >   SIMPLE ==rG "edit/tpu/read/command=SYS$LOGIN:SIMPLE.TPU/noinit/nosection/nojournal". >P$ >    There are a couple of problems. >nA >    First, using SHOW TERMINAL/FULL I find the keypad is usuallydA >    in numeric mode by default to start with.  It needs to be ins? >    application mode before you call SIMPLE or else the keypade@ >    doesn't work and you can't get out except with a CONTROL-Y. >nA >    Second, if you type enough of the undefined keys, there is au? >    buffer that gets full somewhere and the terminal beeps andh@ >    nothing happens each time you hit another key, even a legit= >    key.  This requires me to clear the communications on myi@ >    VT300 X-window on my PC via the Commands pulldown menu, and: >    that causes the cursor to show up again.  Perhaps the@ >    type-ahead buffer needs to be zero??  Something needs to beA >    done to throw those keys away properly and to make sure theyo >    do not pile up. > B >    Unlike the original request, it would be nice if SIMPLE could@ >    fill the existing screen whatever length / width it is.  WeD >    should pick the screen lengths and widths from the existing DCLB >    window size before SIMPLE is called.  It would still work forD >    the size of screen originally specified by the original poster. >eA >    Clearly we need to put the necessary DCL setup commands intos@ >    a tidy foolproof little .COM file, SIMPLE.COM .  What setup@ >    commands do you advise?  And if one has to change somethingB >    at the DCL level, perhaps one should put it back after SIMPLE >    has finished. >p >    Thanks in advance.- >-$ >   .. fred bach ..  music@triumf.ca >4 >: > Big John wrote:  >M > > Peter Weaver wrote > >y > >  > >>Mike Buchanan wrote: > >> > >>>...( > >>>1) Can I make the cursor invisible? > >>>... > >>C > >>The only way I can think of doing this depends on how good your" > >  > > terminal > >n > >>emulator is; > >> > >>$ esc[0,8]=27w$ > >>$ write sys$output "''esc'[?25l", > >>$ assign sys$command sys$input/user_mode2 > >>$ edit/tpu/nosec/comm=sys$login:simple.tpu 'P1$ > >>$ write sys$output "''esc'[?25h" > >> > >>-- > >H > >lD > > This is fine, but you can do it very simply, entirely within the TPUmF > > command. This would make it much easier to set up if you do decideE > > to use the callable TPU directly, instead of spawning out.  TheregG > > are two ways to do it.  The 'proper' way would be to set the windowcF > > not to translate escape sequences, but put them straight out, with a0 > > command like:m) > > set (TEXT, main_window, NO_TRANSLATE)d@ > > - then copy_text the escape sequence, and update the window. > >w? > > However here, there is a simpler solution. Since we are notp trappingE > > messages, but splashing them unaltered straight on to the screen,o weF > > can output the escape sequences with a couple of MESSAGE commands. > >nE > > (There, I believe I said before that it was a much better idea tonC > > start from scratch and build, instead of stripping down the EVE  > > section :-). > >eB > > So all you need to do, after you have mapped the window to the > > buffer is to add the line..i  > > message (ascii(27)+"[?25l");A > > .. and change the kp1 key to execute the 2-command sequence..b+ > > message(ascii(27)+'[?25h');QUIT (OFF,1)i1 > > .. to switch the cursor back on when exiting.m > >v > >n& > > One other point worth mentioning.. > >sF > > If you don't care about the cursor position, then you can move theC > > screen about more simply with the SCROLL command instead of the F > > MOVE_VERTICAL command. SCROLL changes the editing point by leavingF > > the cursor position unchanged on the screen and adjusting the fileF > > window display. This is exactly what you want here, and you do notE > > need to adjust the cursor to the top/bottom before moving up/downg+ > > a line, making the whole thing simpler.  > >l@ > > Also, SCROLL does not report an error if you scroll too far.G > > (Instead it returns a value of the amount actually scrolled, if younF > > need it. It's a shame, I think, that MOVE_VERTICAL does not do theG > > same).  Thus, you will not need any on_error processing, so you cana> > > simplify it further by removing the SIMPLE_MOVE procedure. > >  > >tE > > So here is a really cool stripped down version of SIMPLE.TPU thate@ > > displays the file, moves the display, and hides the cursor.. > >n > >.7 > > input_file := GET_INFO (COMMAND_LINE, "file_name");a5 > > main_buffer:= CREATE_BUFFER ("main", input_file);w > > * > > position (BEGINNING_OF (main_buffer));+ > > main_window := create_window(1,21,off);  > >w0 > > the_key_map := create_key_map ("user_keys");; > > the_key_map_list := create_key_map_list ("the_keylist",o
 the_key_map);P > >u4 > > set (UNDEFINED_KEY, the_key_map_list, "return");8 > > set (KEY_MAP_LIST,  the_key_map_list,  main_buffer);0 > > set (SELF_INSERT,   the_key_map_list,  OFF); > > " > > MAP (main_window,main_buffer);  > > message (ascii(27)+"[?25l"); > >u > > !B? > > define_key ("message(ascii(27)+'[?25h');QUIT (OFF,1)", kp1,t > > the_key_map);tC > > define_key ("scroll (current_window, 1)",  kp2,   the_key_map);nC > > define_key ("scroll (current_window, -1)", kp8,   the_key_map);cC > > define_key ("scroll (current_window, 20)", kp6,   the_key_map);wC > > define_key ("scroll (current_window, -20)",kp4,   the_key_map);iC > > define_key ("scroll (current_window, 1)",  down,  the_key_map);iC > > define_key ("scroll (current_window, -1)", up,    the_key_map);s > > !  > >  > > Cheers, John --r > >w   ------------------------------    Date: 16 Dec 2004 09:49:52 -0800 From: JimStrehlow@data911.com " Subject: Re: TCPIP Printer LibraryC Message-ID: <1103219392.663815.323400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>a   Hal Kuff wrote:n@ > I'm likely missing something... how does one add an HP Printer library specE > to an HP/TCPIP printer queue...? I'm used to the old way of puttings it onm > the init/start/queue line...  > We use a rock solid third party product known as PRINTKIT from Northlake Software.wM http://www.nls.com/products/products.html?con=/products/products_content.htmla   Unendorsed recommendation.: Jim Strehlow, Data911 Law Enforcement Systems, Alameda, CA  A "The boss reminded us that we only have a week left to finish oure* project, so we ought to be half done now." "You have not even started.") "Yeah, but I work better under pressure."t( "Actually you work only under pressure."D "That way the work time is more miserable; but there is less of it."@ variation of a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon by Bill Watterson, 1995   ------------------------------   Date: 16 Dec 2004 06:54:35 GMT From: Phaeton  <spam@spam.org>$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?, Message-ID: <32cppbF3jqgjpU1@individual.net>  ( Neil Rieck <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> wrote: [...snip...]J > AMD/Intel chips (while there is still a team available to do so). UnlikeG > LINUX, I don't think HP should ever give OpenVMS (for IA32) away, butt  B 	Personally, I still think that the best chance for VMS to surviveD 	is to be incorporated as a separate company, instead of being ownedC 	by some frigging PC company. It would be profitable, it could eventA 	advertise itself. As for a hardware platform, it could negotiateyF 	freely with anyone, even with Samsung, IBM, etc. Provided, of course,D 	that there are no shady, behind-the-curtain interventions by the USE 	government/military, or other companies with monopolistic interests.e  , 	But again, I don't have a clue, as usual... 							 Cheers,  csaba  J  -------------------------------------------------------------------------I    CSABA I. HARANGOZO   |d|i|g|i|t|a|l|   phaeton at iinet dot net dot aulJ  -------------------------------------------------------------------------;    EARTH::AUSTRALIA:[SYDNEY]HARANGOZO.CSABA;1, delete? [N]:t  3  This is as bad as it can get, but don't bet on it.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:40:10 +0100v+ From: "Michel Herrscher" <mhc@herrscher.fr>-$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?7 Message-ID: <41c13bc6$0$10189$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>j   Hello,  ' There is a FreeVMS project in the wild.g It goes up and up.  ? May be more interest from the community will pull it up to ....j Michel Herrscher    Dans un message Phaeton disait :  * > Neil Rieck <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> wrote: > [...snip...]D >> AMD/Intel chips (while there is still a team available to do so).E >> Unlike LINUX, I don't think HP should ever give OpenVMS (for IA32)e >> away, but >rC > Personally, I still think that the best chance for VMS to survivedE > is to be incorporated as a separate company, instead of being owneduD > by some frigging PC company. It would be profitable, it could evenB > advertise itself. As for a hardware platform, it could negotiateG > freely with anyone, even with Samsung, IBM, etc. Provided, of course,pE > that there are no shady, behind-the-curtain interventions by the USsF > government/military, or other companies with monopolistic interests. >s- > But again, I don't have a clue, as usual...i > Cheers,  csaba >wL >  -------------------------------------------------------------------------D >    CSABA I. HARANGOZO   |d|i|g|i|t|a|l|   phaeton at iinet dot net	 >  dot aur >-K > -------------------------------------------------------------------------a: > EARTH::AUSTRALIA:[SYDNEY]HARANGOZO.CSABA;1, delete? [N]: >.5 >  This is as bad as it can get, but don't bet on it.t   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:07:03 +1100d4 From: Paddy O'Brien <paddy.o'brien@transgrid.com.au>$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?/ Message-ID: <41C15037.6070807@transgrid.com.au>i   Michel Herrscher wrote:, > Hello, > ) > There is a FreeVMS project in the wild.g > It goes up and up. > A > May be more interest from the community will pull it up to ....l > Michel Herrscher > " > Dans un message Phaeton disait : >  > H I'm afraid I disagree.  I WANT VMS to survive.  I also want our experts G to be around.  Without naming names, but we all know our fantastic VMS VG engineers.  I really do not believe that VMS can become an open source r product.  F If, as John Smith suggested, that Carly has on her Job description to F destroy HP, then it needs to be bought by a company which will employ C these same engineers.  Not thrown onto the open market where every  < hacker (not used as per cracker) will destroy its integrity.   Regards, Paddy    * >>Neil Rieck <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> wrote: >>[...snip...] >>D >>>AMD/Intel chips (while there is still a team available to do so).E >>>Unlike LINUX, I don't think HP should ever give OpenVMS (for IA32)  >>>away, but >>C >>Personally, I still think that the best chance for VMS to survive E >>is to be incorporated as a separate company, instead of being ownediD >>by some frigging PC company. It would be profitable, it could evenB >>advertise itself. As for a hardware platform, it could negotiateG >>freely with anyone, even with Samsung, IBM, etc. Provided, of course,IE >>that there are no shady, behind-the-curtain interventions by the USaF >>government/military, or other companies with monopolistic interests. >>- >>But again, I don't have a clue, as usual...  >>Cheers,  csaba >>L >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------D >>   CSABA I. HARANGOZO   |d|i|g|i|t|a|l|   phaeton at iinet dot net	 >> dot aul >>K >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------d: >>EARTH::AUSTRALIA:[SYDNEY]HARANGOZO.CSABA;1, delete? [N]: >>5 >> This is as bad as it can get, but don't bet on it.V >  >       G ***********************************************************************   C "This electronic message and any attachments may contain privilegedo> and confidential information intended only for the use of the B addressees named above.  If you are not the intended recipient of C this email, please delete the message and any attachment and adviselB the sender.  You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, 7 distribution, reproduction of this email is prohibited.w  A If you have received the email in error, please notify TransGrid  A immediately.  Any views expressed in this email are those of the -= individual sender except where the sender expressly and with  C authority states them to be the views of TransGrid.  TransGrid usesp> virus-scanning software but excludes any liability for viruses contained in any attachment.  < Please note the email address for TransGrid personnel is now$ firstname.lastname@transgrid.com.au"  G ***********************************************************************    ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:22:20 GMTc% From: "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com>lI Subject: Re: [Nomex on]: Security research suggests Linux has fewer flaws : Message-ID: <gvjwd.900$1o1.366@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>  I "Bob Koehler" <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote in message n- news:df$iWfpu4prT@eisner.encompasserve.org...i= > In article <jJ%vd.4506$Ze3.2237@news.cpqcorp.net>, "FredK"  & > <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> writes: >>K >> Hmmm.  Lets see.  From the article it appears that they have a tool thatoL >> puports to find certain classes of bugs in C/C++ code.  They can't run itI >> against proprietary OS kernels, but they can run it against the Linux n	 >> kerneltJ >> (which is only a tiny part of what people think of as Linux).  So they  >> take H >> an analysis of some particular types of bugs that *can be inferred byK >> automatic inspection* by their tool on Linux, against some random set of5K >> "commercial SW" - and conclude that the Linux kernel has fewer bugs thanh >> other OS's? >> >-D >   I don't know which tool they used, but we've used those kinds of& >   tools, some of them are damn good. >e  L Yeah, the tools can be useful but, it makes no sense to compare the results J from the Linux kernel to the results from "commercial" software.  Compare 0 Linux kernel to HP-UX kernel or Windows kernel.    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.697 ************************