1 INFO-VAX	Sat, 18 Dec 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 700       Contents:' A choice of four operating environments 9 alpha team and tukwila cancelled ... itanium done for ... $ Re: Building OpenSSL 0.9.7e on a VAX DS10 on a NETGEAR DHCP Router ! Re: DS10 on a NETGEAR DHCP Router ! Re: DS10 on a NETGEAR DHCP Router ! Re: DS10 on a NETGEAR DHCP Router ! Re: DS10 on a NETGEAR DHCP Router ! Re: DS10 on a NETGEAR DHCP Router ! Re: DS10 on a NETGEAR DHCP Router  Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel) Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development ) Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development ) Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development ) Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development ) Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development ) Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development ) Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development   HPworld 2004 session notes CD???$ RE: HPworld 2004 session notes CD???$ Re: HPworld 2004 session notes CD???' I guess pigs will not fly after all ...  Re: Interesting coding tidbit  Re: More on Tru64  Re: More on Tru64  Re: NYSE and HP servers @ Shannon: HP to end up advertising a "going out of business" sale. SKHPC: A Second Opinion on a Sun Reality Check" Re: Solaris 10 - no charge for o/s" Re: Solaris 10 - no charge for o/s Re: soon to be gone  Re: soon to be gone 
 TCP/IP in SRM  Re: TCPIP Printer Library  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald? ( Vanquishing the Smoke and Fog with Facts, Re: Vanquishing the Smoke and Fog with Facts, Re: Vanquishing the Smoke and Fog with Facts, Re: Vanquishing the Smoke and Fog with Facts, Re: Vanquishing the Smoke and Fog with Facts@ Re: [Nomex on]: Security research suggests Linux has fewer flaws@ Re: [Nomex on]: Security research suggests Linux has fewer flawsB Re: [OpenVMS Alpha V7.3-2] GETDVI Item for Volume Size and Limit ?  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:57:20 -0800 3 From: "C.W.Holeman II" <cwhii_googlespam@yahoo.com> 0 Subject: A choice of four operating environments0 Message-ID: <10s7efu7nql82a2@corp.supernews.com>  A http://www.shannonknowshpc.com/stories.php?story=04/12/16/8784042   B > As the only vendor to offer customers a choice of four operating' > environments on  a single platform,     G I though that was supposed to be a bad idea (RSX-11M/M+, RT-11, RSTS/E,  Ultrix-11).    --   C.W.Holeman II) cwh5ii@Julian5Locals.com remove the fives    ------------------------------    Date: 17 Dec 2004 20:31:45 -0800 From: bob@instantwhip.com B Subject: alpha team and tukwila cancelled ... itanium done for ...B Message-ID: <1103344305.833761.99920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>  ) http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20286    ------------------------------   Date: 17 Dec 04 18:20:44 EST) From: cook@wvnvms.wvnet.edu (George Cook) - Subject: Re: Building OpenSSL 0.9.7e on a VAX ! Message-ID: <c5bRe0iwpR+F@wvnvms>   j In article <HYUYmJ5SncMF@eisner.encompasserve.org>, kuhrt@nospammy.encompasserve.org (Marty Kuhrt) writes:F > Has anyone built OpenSSL 0.9.7e on a VAX successfully?  I downloadedF > the latest from http://www.openssl.org/source/ and tried to compile B > it on a VAX running V7.2, and DECC 6.4, with the latest patches. >  > Using the... > 1 > $ @MAKEVMS.COM all ignore nodebug decc multinet  > E > invocation, I received several of the following errors (reduced to   > one instance for brevity)... > 0 > Compiling The DES Library Files. (LIBRARY,LIB) >         set_key.c Q >         OPENSSL_IMPLEMENT_GLOBAL(int,DES_check_key);    /* defaults to false */  >         ^ O > %CC-W-MIXLINKAGE, In this declaration, "_hide_DES_check_key" is declared with Q >  both internal and external linkage.  The previous declaration is at line 70 in 5 >  $44$DKA200:[OPENSSL-0_9_7E.CRYPTO.DES]SET_KEY.C;1. I >  At line number 70 in$44$DKA200:[OPENSSL-0_9_7E.CRYPTO.DES]SET_KEY.C;1.  > > > %VCG-I-SUMMARY, Completed with 0 error(s), 1 warning(s), and >  0 informational messages.K >  At line number 411 in $44$DKA200:[OPENSSL-0_9_7E.CRYPTO.DES]SET_KEY.C;1.  > ? > %LIBRAR-W-COMCOD, compilation warnings in module SET_KEY file 9 > $44$DKA200:[OPENSSL-0_9_7E.VAX.OBJ.CRYPTO]SET_KEY.OBJ;1  > J > Before I start the forensic work necessary to figure this out, I thought; > I'd bounce a "did you get it work" message off the group.   A As previously reported I didn't see these errors on VAX, but I do : see them with "Compaq C V6.5-001 on OpenVMS Alpha V7.3-2".  B Have you had any luck figuring it out?  I used the same build tree for both VAX and Alpha.      George Cook  WVNET    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:17:56 GMT # From: Beach Runner <bob@nospam.com> & Subject: DS10 on a NETGEAR DHCP Router< Message-ID: <oWIwd.156937$Oc.145467@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>  H My cable company makes us rent their routers.  They also lock us out of % them.  It is a Netgear 802.11 router.   - I can't get dhcp to work on my alpha with it.  I've tried 100, full duplex $ and twisted pair.  It never returns.2 I've tried a fixed tcpip address.  Doesn't return.   What am I missing?   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:15:40 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>* Subject: Re: DS10 on a NETGEAR DHCP Router+ Message-ID: <41C3A0DC.6F54CE16@comcast.net>    Beach Runner wrote:  > I > My cable company makes us rent their routers.  They also lock us out of ' > them.  It is a Netgear 802.11 router.   H Hhmmm... That sounds wireless. I don't actually recommend wireless - too many security issues.   / > I can't get dhcp to work on my alpha with it.  > I've tried 100, full duplex & > and twisted pair.  It never returns.4 > I've tried a fixed tcpip address.  Doesn't return. >  > What am I missing?  H Can you find out if the router has any limits on the number of addresses? ("licenses") you can have on the LAN side? Sometimes, there's a ' restrictive (mostly artificial) limit.    
 I'd try this:   B Set the Alpha to a fixed address near the top of the router's DHCPC address range, say 192.168.x.23 or .24, whatever the correct subnet > would be. See what addresses your Wintel machines are getting.  F Set the Alpha's gateway address to that of the router's LAN interface.  H Set the Alpha's primary and secondary DNS servers to whatever shows on aH Wintel machine's IPCONFIG or WINIPCFG displays (should be the DNS serverA addresses your router receives from the ISP when it gets WAN port  address by DHCP).    Then, see how you fare.   H I have an older Netgear here (FR314). When doling out addresses by DHCP,D it first PINGs (on the LAN) the next assignable address to see if itC gets a response. If not, that's what it sends back; if so, it tries  another address.   --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:37:31 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> * Subject: Re: DS10 on a NETGEAR DHCP Router* Message-ID: <41C3B40B.30807@tsoft-inc.com>   Beach Runner wrote:   J > My cable company makes us rent their routers.  They also lock us out of ' > them.  It is a Netgear 802.11 router.  > / > I can't get dhcp to work on my alpha with it.  > I've tried 100, full duplex & > and twisted pair.  It never returns.4 > I've tried a fixed tcpip address.  Doesn't return. >  > What am I missing?  
 A better ISP.    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:50:20 -0500 - From: "John E. Malmberg" <wb8tyw@qsl.network> * Subject: Re: DS10 on a NETGEAR DHCP Router1 Message-ID: <PKWdnaCeGLuRKl7cRVn-jg@adelphia.com>    Beach Runner wrote: J > My cable company makes us rent their routers.  They also lock us out of  > them.   E Your posting I.P. address indicates that you are using RR.COM, and I  F have never heard of that restriction with them.  Unless something has H changed, RR.COM has some of the least restrictions as compared to other  broadband suppliers.  A My broadband provider probably would prefer that I rent a router  F equivalent to that retails for less than $50 for an extra $5 to $10 a E month, but they do not require it.  Even more so, it looks like they  G would prefer that I pay for an I.P. address and cable modem connection   for each computer in my house.  F They have put some language on one of their web sites at times saying F that "routers" are prohibited, but on the "official" terms of service % they are allowed, just "unsupported".   I I would recommend looking over the terms of service agreement again.  It  I is likely that they will only "support" and "service" a router that they  B provide, and then only with a limited number of operating systems.  I I would also recommend looking at the official documents as I have found  F that many of the broadband ISP employees that I have had to work with F are not aware of their contents.  Your ISP should have them available . for your inspection at one of their web sites.  H But they should not have any prohibition from of a hardware device that D is essentially required to keep some non-VMS operating systems from  becoming compromised.   G For connection to an ISP, you usually need a sacrificial PC running an  D operating system that the ISP support in order to troubleshoot such 	 problems.   ; I have had a firewall/router fail on me, so it does happen.   ! >  It is a Netgear 802.11 router.   E The Netgear should have a status page that you can get to with a web   browser.  L 802.11 is a wireless protocol, it has nothing to do with a wired connection.  E Of course, as I am not up to date with all the products that Netgear  I makes, they could have used it as a model number of a unit that could do  	 wireless.   / > I can't get dhcp to work on my alpha with it.  > I've tried 100, full duplex & > and twisted pair.  It never returns.4 > I've tried a fixed tcpip address.  Doesn't return. >  > What am I missing?  D I do not know.  Unless you can get access to the status page or the I router, or have some way to capture and interpret the data packets it is  " hard to troubleshoot these issues.  8 I would recommend going to the NETGEAR web site.  It is F http://www.netgear.com .  There you can probably find out information  about your specific router.   3 In general (and does not seem specific to NetGear.)   I Most new routers and many other network devices come with a default I.P.  F address that you must connect to with a web browser to configure them.  F And so far, all the routers that I have seen (only two) have the DHCP  server by default disabled.   B So to configure the firewall and enable the DHCP server, you must F configure the system with the web browser with a fixed address in the 5 same subnet as the firewall router's default address.     I The non-routable I.P. address of 192.168.0.1 seems to be popular and has  G been used as a default I.P. address of the two firewall routers that I  	 have had.   @ Assuming that the firewall router was at 192.168.0.1, you would D temporarily set the system that you would run the web browser on to  192.168.0.2.  G So the first things that you do with a new device is change the access  J passwords and move the I.P. address to something else, like 192.168.0.100.  I The access passwords need to be changed to prevent exploits, including a  I "backchannel" exploit, which I do not want to explain here.  Verify that  I there is not a separate remote access password than the local ones.  The  F crackers out there know all the default remote access passwords.  And 3 some of them know how to try a backchannel exploit.     H The I.P. address needs to be moved because if you acquire certain other F types of network devices, you will otherwise have to set up a private I LAN network to configure them, because you can not have two devices with    192.168.0.1 on the same network.  I You can use the 192.168.0.1 through .255 as you wish on the router side.  H   If you want to use other I.P. addresses, you need to look up what the H other non-routable I.P. addresses ranges are.  At this time of night, I % can only remember the 10.*.*.* range.   D Then use the CLONE MAC or CLONE hardware address to make the Router 4 present the same I.P. address as the sacrificial PC.   This is for two reasons:  B 1. It allows you to switch between the Router and the PC with out > powering off the Cable Modem, which speeds up troubleshooting.  C 2. Some cable companies lock down the cable modem to the first MAC  H address that it sees.  And changing that MAC address for a new computer I requires you to reach a technical support person to do that.  And it can  E be the case that some of an ISP's network will just accept a new MAC  D address with power cycling the cable modem, other sections will not.  I With this, the less that you need to deal with the ISP's support people,  I the better.  If you look at your contract, the only thing that they care  . about is if it works with your sacrificial PC.  F You can then enable the DHCP server in the firewall modem, and use it.H The DHCP server provides the clients with the ISP assigned subnet name, + and the ISP assigned name server addresses.   E At my ISP, these things have only changed twice in four years.  So I  I just used fixed assignments, and have set up my DS-10 as a local caching   DNS server.   E When I notice that some sites, especially such as DYNDNS.ORG domains  F become inaccessible, but others that I visit are inaccessible, then I E can then check to see if I need to update the information in the DNS.   E I am currently running a NETGEAR FR114P between my DS-10 and my ISP.  > The LPR implementation is not compatible with TCP/IP services H implementation.  It will transfer the file to the printer and then halt G on error, so do not expect that feature to work.  From what I can find  H on the web, the FR114P is the only print server that NETGEAR makes that = does not support the RAW mode, which is what OpenVMS prefers.    -John  wb8tyw@qsl.network Personal Opinion Only    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 00:25:38 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> * Subject: Re: DS10 on a NETGEAR DHCP Router, Message-ID: <41C3BF52.1010609@tsoft-inc.com>   JF Mezei wrote:    > Beach Runner wrote:  > I >>My cable company makes us rent their routers.  They also lock us out of ' >>them.  It is a Netgear 802.11 router.  >> > O > Is this a combination modem/router or just a router that plugs into a modem ? M > If it is a router that plugs into a router, then you should be able to plug M > your own router to the modem, they won't support it). Make sure you disable  > remove setup.  > M > Otherwise, you should install your own router between their router and your N > lan. If you have no control over their router, you have no control over your> > lan's security and still need your own router as a firewall.  # Ok, here's where I have a question.   N I have a Netopia R9100 router which includes multiple RJ45 ports.  The router P does not (easily) support dial-up access.  I also have a Multi-Tech router that I supports dial-up as a backup link.  (I'm always on the backup link.)  :-(   N Even if I have an ethernet connection from the Multi-Tech to the Netopia, and P another cable from the Netopia to the hub/switch used to connect the rest of my Q network, this does not (as far as I know) segragate the Multi-Tech from the rest  M of the network.  The Netopia has more functionality, and I'd prefer to focus  P traffic in both directions through the Netopia.  The Netopia is the gateway for K everything else, and the Multi-Tech is the gateway for the Netopia.  (Only  N method I could come up with.  I am not too knowledgable about networks.)  The P Netopia is much better at supporting multiple types of VPN, which is why I have 
 2 devices.  K So, how can I use the Multi-Tech as a dial-up access device, but force all  Q traffic through the Netopia?  Is this possible, given that each is connected via   the integral hub/switch?   Dave   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 00:51:47 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> * Subject: Re: DS10 on a NETGEAR DHCP Router+ Message-ID: <41C3C55B.7E6C937@teksavvy.com>    "John E. Malmberg" wrote: H > For connection to an ISP, you usually need a sacrificial PC running anE > operating system that the ISP support in order to troubleshoot such  > problems.     L You should refuse such demands. You are paying for an IP connection. Not for windows support.  K You are not asking them to su]pport your VMS infrastructure, you are asking G them to support standard protocols. But that requires you be able to do A ethernet and IP traces to show to them that your side is working.   K If you have a router between your lan and their network, they need not know L about your LAN since they can't access it. (unless the router is under theirM control and then anyone in the world has the ability to hack into your router S and snoop/trace your lan. You shoudl NEVER allow yor router to be remotely managed.    F > The Netgear should have a status page that you can get to with a web
 > browser.  R If the ISP disabled all LAN-side management, the status page may not be available.  E > I do not know.  Unless you can get access to the status page or the J > router, or have some way to capture and interpret the data packets it is$ > hard to troubleshoot these issues.  L You can use ethermon to see if your system is emitting a DHCP request and if your router responds with it.   J And if your router is locked, then you should pester your ISP that becauseL they locked the router, you are unable to debug/correct your side's problems< and that your side's problems are thus their responsability.  J > Most new routers and many other network devices come with a default I.P.H > address that you must connect to with a web browser to configure them.  L Betgera's web interfaces are usually limited in functionality and telnettingK to the router or, if it has a serial port, then you have full access to it.   E If the router has a serial port, you should be able to download new , K vanialla, firmware and config and make that router "yours", allowing you to D configure it properly and most importantly, use its debugging tools.  G > And so far, all the routers that I have seen (only two) have the DHCP  > server by default disabled.   H Yep. But the ISP may have pre-configured the router to be distributed as plug-play to customers.   H > So the first things that you do with a new device is change the accessL > passwords and move the I.P. address to something else, like 192.168.0.100.  < You should also disable remote (WAN side) management access.  E > Then use the CLONE MAC or CLONE hardware address to make the Router 6 > present the same I.P. address as the sacrificial PC.  G This depends on how your ISP authenticates you on their DHCP server. In M Canada, Videotron uses the modem's cable side MAC address. But Rogers use lan  side PC ethernet address.   M If you're always going to have that router there, I would recommend you leave J the router's WAN side ethernet address the same. It will be much easier toN debug prohlems later on. You should not have to buy a PC to debug problems. MyG old netgear is able to trace packets from the telnet interface and that 8 include dhcp, or the pesky PPPoE session establishement.  C > 1. It allows you to switch between the Router and the PC with out @ > powering off the Cable Modem, which speeds up troubleshooting.  J Mosrt cable ISPs first ask you to reboot the modem, then reboot the PC, orK vice versa, depending on whether the support persont got up on the right or  left foot that morning.   D > 2. Some cable companies lock down the cable modem to the first MACI > address that it sees.  And changing that MAC address for a new computer ? > requires you to reach a technical support person to do that.    L Nop. Rebooting the modem (there may be a reset button on the modem too) willG do that trick. It will zap the modem's MAC table.  However, if your ISP J authenticates on mac address for DHCP requests, then you need to call themP whenever the ethernet address that your router presents to the WAN side changes.   J > With this, the less that you need to deal with the ISP's support people,J > the better.  If you look at your contract, the only thing that they care0 > about is if it works with your sacrificial PC.  I When I was on cable, I got to a point where they agreed to give me direct F access to special support people, normal customers never call since myM questions were always highly technical and I was never asking them to support  my side of things.  N (For instance, they changed their network config, which made my still valid IPN address unroutable, and the 1st level drones had no idea why it woudln't work,M and only the next level were aware of network changes and realised that their L DHCP server had not been updated to hand out the new valid IPs for cutsomersL on the changed routers. - I had my router's DHCP request history and what IPL had been renewed just a couple hours before, so I knew the problem wasn't on	 my side).   I This is why it is extremely important to have FULL access to the router's K commahd line interface so that you can really debug issues. And to do this, F you need to spend a few hours getting really familiar with the router,L including going through the manuals and finding tidbits on the netgear's webK site.  Print releavnt pages that have the commands to start relevant traces T for instance, so that when things go bad, you qwuickly can issue the right commands.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:29:13 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> * Subject: Re: DS10 on a NETGEAR DHCP Router, Message-ID: <41C3CE1F.D19E25BC@teksavvy.com>   Dave Froble wrote:P >> I have a Netopia R9100 router which includes multiple RJ45 ports.  The routerQ > does not (easily) support dial-up access.  I also have a Multi-Tech router that K > supports dial-up as a backup link.  (I'm always on the backup link.)  :-( L >So, how can I use the Multi-Tech as a dial-up access device, but force all M >traffic through the Netopia?  Is this possible, given that each is connected  via  >the integral hub/switch?   H I assume that when you mention "dialup", you mean your site initiating aG dialup PPP connectioon to an ISP, or some user dialing into your site ?   9 dialup modem--[multitech]---*                +----[host1] .                             |                |;                             |                +----[host2]   . dslmodem--------------------+                |9                             |                +----[host3] .                             |                |9                             +---[netopia]----+----[host4]     K You then work on the netopia to have 2 possible configs: one where it deals I with your broadband provider, in which case, the netopia will forward all - packets over to the modem's ethernet address.   M Or you configure the netopia to forward all packets over to the multitech, at K which poinmt the multitech acts as an ISP, gives your netopia some other IP U address, acts as default gateway to your netopia and initiates the dialup connection.   M Host1 through 4 don't see the difference since they all talk to netopia only. G You need to ensure that DNS issues are dealt with (either the multitech L provides the dialup isp's DNS address upstream to netopia and netopid to theN host1-4, or you hardcode some DSN server which is accessible from both dsl and dialup connections.     M The above config would require you put your hub on the WAN side of netopia to M link netopia, dslmodem and mulltitech together, and you can use the netopia's A 4 port built=in switch to connect host1 through 4 to the netopia.   D There are other ways to do this, such as putting both dsl and dialupH connections on the multitech, and then have the netopia only talk to theI multitech. However, this introduces some additional latency, since you're % going through 2 routers at all times.   L Ideally, you need a more sophisticated router that can handle 2 links to theL internet and automatically switch over to a second one when first one fails.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:34:57 -0500 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>  Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel , Message-ID: <J6mdnbwXDtx8qV7cRVn-oA@igs.net>   Keith Parris wrote:  > JF mezei wrote: G >> Well, the number is a spin to help control the speed of the downward  >> spiral that IA64 was put in.  > G > IA64 isn't in a "downward spiral". It's just beginning to really take < > off. Revenue growth was 60% quarter-over-quarter, and 225% > year-over-year.  > C > IA64 is doing very well on benchmarks. In the latest TOP500 list,  > there H > are 84 Itanium2 entries compared with 54 for POWER and 30 for Opteron. > E > HP saw more than 180 SAP customers move to Itanium in 180 days (see = > http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2004/041118a.html).       2 Pray tell, just how many of these were on OpenVMS?   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:37:17 -0500 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>  Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel , Message-ID: <LqednYZw9uDwqF7cRVn-rQ@igs.net>   Jack Peacock wrote: @ > "Keith Parris" <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message. > news:JoEwd.4723$Bb5.4010@news.cpqcorp.net...F >> HP saw more than 180 SAP customers move to Itanium in 180 days (see> >> http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2004/041118a.html). >>- > The article is about SAP on HP-UX, not VMS.  >>G >> I visited some VMS customers in NYC a couple of months ago, and they @ >> were eagerly starting to get VMS running on rx2600 and rx4640* >> systems to start their porting efforts.A > And therein lies the problem.  Everything you quote is existing F > customers, not new ones.  Where are the articles of users converting% > a large Sun or IBM site to Itanium?     L Indeed, where are the articles of conversions *to* OpenVMS on any platform??   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:51:52 -0500 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>  Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel , Message-ID: <SIednZzcMIp0217cRVn-qw@igs.net>   Keith Parris wrote:  > Jack Peacock wrote: . >> The article is about SAP on HP-UX, not VMS. > F > The contention was that Itanium was dead in the marketplace, so it'sG > fair to counter with indications of the health of Itanium as a whole.  > H > And the healthy sales of Integrity Servers under Windows and Linux and( > HP-UX is actually a boon to VMS users. > < >> Everything you quote is existing customers, not new ones. > H > The data we were recently given indicates that of the yearly VMS HW+SW@ > revenues, between 10% and 15% represent sales to brand-new VMS$ > customers. That's a healthy trend.    ? Does that even begin to come close to replace the number of VMS 1 installations dropping off the face of the earth?    ------------------------------    Date: 17 Dec 2004 14:38:58 -0800' From: "DL Phillips" <whohe@whoever.com>  Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel C Message-ID: <1103323138.507853.138380@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>    Keith Parris wrote:  > Tom Linden wrote: ? > > Introducing incompatible architecture when you have a large  installed baseG > > is reckless at best, and is a good way to shed customers.  You make  the B > > assumption that Alpha based customers will willy-nilly jump to
 Itanium. IG > > think that is an unproven assertion and is likely false considering  the F > > lack of success (we may have different measures for this quantity) in  > > migrating from VAX to Alpha. > G > The bulk of the VAX base has successfully migrated to Alpha by now. I   G > rarely see a VAX system in serious use at customer sites I visit now.   A > Some VAX systems do remain in the field (mostly in "if it ain't  broke,F > don't fix it" scenarios, where they continue to work just fine), and HPC > has continued to provide support for their software and for their F > hardware (as spare levels allow). The fact they remain in use is not a E > failure on HP's part -- it represents investment protection for the F > customers, a crucial priciple in the system of values of the OpenVMS > ecosystem. >   C Investment protection? AFAIK, most folks buy computers because they A want to accomplish something and the first thing they look for is E application software that does what they want. Then they consider the  hardware platform.  F Now, if way back when, I bought $XXXK worth of software and a VAX fromE YYY,inc and then I needed to upgrade to Alpha, guess what? That isn't @ an upgrade as far as YYY,inc is concerned because it's differentG software. And I can't just add an Alpha and run a mixed cluster because G (yep) its different software. They might give me a credit of some sort, D but I still end up buying all new software --- assuming that YYY,inc. has decided to port the package over to Alpha.  D VEST? Do you suppose YYY,inc is going to support me if I do that? DoD you suppose that's all they're going to do when they offer the Alpha# version of the package? I hope not.   D Now, here comes IA64 and I have to make a decision about the future.@ Will YYY,inc port over or not? How much is that going to cost meC (AGAIN!)? Again, I can't just add an IA64 server and run in a mixed D cluster because (here it is again) IT'S DIFFERENT SOFTWARE!!! so I'd have to buy it again anyway!  A AEST? Nope, no support if I do that and I'm liable to get sued by  XXX,inc if I try.   C Now, YYY,inc offers this stuff on an IBM platform, too, and since I D have to buy new hardware and software anyway,... what should I do? I5 guess I'd better look at each company's track record.     @ > A major attraction of Itanium to current OpenVMS users is they benefit F > from the economies of scale of a box which also runs Windows, Linux, and A > HP-UX, making Itanium system prices very attractive compared to  Alpha,F > at equivalent performance levels. This is a benefit we all had hopedF > Alpha would provide, but with the loss of Windows support, it didn't pan  > out. >   B I still have a customer running NT on an Alpha. He trusted DEC andF that's why he bought it. M$ has already proven that they don't want toB support multiple Windows code bases and many application providersD agreed. The AMD & x86-64 world is going to be around for a long timeE and it will become more and more capable with each generation. Who do 
 you trust?  - > > The IBM model for how this is done is the D > > only sound way to execute, z-series can execute code compiled 40
 years ago! > = > Ever heard of VEST? It allows VAX code to execute on Alpha, 
 unchanged.B > We also have Charon-VAX, which runs entire OpenVMS VAX operating system6 > environments on OpenVMS Alpha (or Wintel) platforms. > G > AEST similarly allows Alpha code to execute on Itanium (even VAX code    > previously VESTed to Alpha). >   > The same code doesn't execute. It's different code after beingF VEST/AESTed. And, how are you going to fix bugs or add features to the	 software?   - > So tell me again how IBM does a better job?   ! That answer seems pretty obvious.    Doug, E --I'm not an IBM fan but DECHPQ doesn't seem to have a clue about how D the real world works. Nothing personal. Keep the faith. VMS forever! yadda-yadda-yadda.   ------------------------------   Date: 17 Dec 2004 22:54:36 GMT+ From: "Doc." <doc.cypher@openvms-rocks.com>  Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel 7 Message-ID: <Xns95C2F3DADDE58dcovmsrox@212.100.160.123>   ( %NEWS-I-NEWMSG, Larry Kilgallen wrote in+ news:NB70jXD3DaJD@eisner.encompasserve.org e  A > In article <BADwd.4718$Q85.2007@news.cpqcorp.net>, Keith Parrisn) > <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> writes: a >> Tom Linden wrote: > - >>> The IBM model for how this is done is the D >>> only sound way to execute, z-series can execute code compiled 40 >>> years ago! E >>  > >> Ever heard of VEST? It allows VAX code to execute on Alpha,D >> unchanged. We also have Charon-VAX, which runs entire OpenVMS VAXH >> operating system environments on OpenVMS Alpha (or Wintel) platforms. >> eH >> AEST similarly allows Alpha code to execute on Itanium (even VAX code >> previously VESTed to Alpha).t >> e. >> So tell me again how IBM does a better job? > @ > I don't know about IBM, but Apple certainly does a better job.@ > PowerPC Macintoshes just _run_ 680x0 code from former versions > of MacOS.e  I It's been over ten years since I last worked on IBM big iron, but at the mG time I was making use of stuff that had (in the UK) last been modified 4A for the decimelisation of the currency.  No recompiles required,  0 everything had just been copied to new hardware.  A Admittedly, Apple doing that on desktop hardware is quite a feat.o     Doc. --  G OpenVMS:     Eight out of ten hackers prefer *other* operating systems.lG http://www.openvms-rocks.com    Deathrow Public-Access OpenVMS Cluster.    ------------------------------    Date: 17 Dec 2004 15:08:23 -0800 From: ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com Subject: Re: HP exodus to IntelgC Message-ID: <1103324903.666026.266420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>k  F The potential new customers are eagerly waiting in the wings for LinuxG on Xen on VMS on IA64, with VMS clustering APIs passed through to Linuxn< ... so that they can have something equivalent to Linux with TruClusters:-)   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:14:45 -0500E- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>e Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel , Message-ID: <41C36864.18AC0587@teksavvy.com>   Keith Parris wrote:eH > A major attraction of Itanium to current OpenVMS users is they benefitJ > from the economies of scale of a box which also runs Windows, Linux, andH > HP-UX, making Itanium system prices very attractive compared to Alpha,  J So attractive that HP doesn't even show low end IA64 systems configured asJ workstations on their web site, but that same site shows PaRisc AND Alpha # systems configured as workstations.a  E IA64 is sto attractive that it still hasn't surpassed sales of 2 dead M architectures (PaRisc and Alpha). A bit like the dead candidate still getting-1 more votes than his live opponent in an election.-  F > at equivalent performance levels. This is a benefit we all had hopedJ > Alpha would provide, but with the loss of Windows support, it didn't pan > out.  N A chip might be able to run the same OS that Alpha could (Unix, VMS, Windows),N but when nobody actually wants that chip (or nobody is actually willing to pay6 for it), it can't be called more succesful than Alpha.  H > Ever heard of VEST? It allows VAX code to execute on Alpha, unchanged.  M How come then that Digital didn't VEST all the products that never made it to  Alpha ?   I > We also have Charon-VAX, which runs entire OpenVMS VAX operating system@6 > environments on OpenVMS Alpha (or Wintel) platforms.  K Because there is little/no development of VAX-VMS anymore, you can't reallygL advertise this. Hey, why not advertise SoftOPC on VAX-VMS ? I can run DOS onI my vax ? (but not windows because the emulator emulates a very old 8086)..  - > So tell me again how IBM does a better job?   K Their chip future is not clouded. They allowed Power to prove itself beforeFL commiting their enterprise systems to that chip. They waited until customersD atrted to ask "why don't you make MVS run on the better Power chip ?  K HP forced its customers to move at a time where IA64 was Merced. That image K remains. HP/Compaq should have simply siad that IA64 wasn't ready for primen; time yet, but that they would be keeping an open eye to it.e   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:27:19 GMT   From: CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intelr* Message-ID: <41C36B55.4060702@prodigy.net>   JF Mezei wrote:_ > Keith Parris wrote:S > H >>A major attraction of Itanium to current OpenVMS users is they benefitJ >>from the economies of scale of a box which also runs Windows, Linux, andH >>HP-UX, making Itanium system prices very attractive compared to Alpha, >  > L > So attractive that HP doesn't even show low end IA64 systems configured asL > workstations on their web site, but that same site shows PaRisc AND Alpha % > systems configured as workstations.r > G > IA64 is sto attractive that it still hasn't surpassed sales of 2 deadOO > architectures (PaRisc and Alpha). A bit like the dead candidate still gettingY3 > more votes than his live opponent in an election.E >   ) So Carly is Bush and Itanium is Ashcroft?o   > F >>at equivalent performance levels. This is a benefit we all had hopedJ >>Alpha would provide, but with the loss of Windows support, it didn't pan >>out. >  > P > A chip might be able to run the same OS that Alpha could (Unix, VMS, Windows),P > but when nobody actually wants that chip (or nobody is actually willing to pay8 > for it), it can't be called more succesful than Alpha. >  > H >>Ever heard of VEST? It allows VAX code to execute on Alpha, unchanged. >  > O > How come then that Digital didn't VEST all the products that never made it tor	 > Alpha ?y >  > I >>We also have Charon-VAX, which runs entire OpenVMS VAX operating systems6 >>environments on OpenVMS Alpha (or Wintel) platforms. >  > M > Because there is little/no development of VAX-VMS anymore, you can't really.N > advertise this. Hey, why not advertise SoftOPC on VAX-VMS ? I can run DOS onK > my vax ? (but not windows because the emulator emulates a very old 8086).  >  > - >>So tell me again how IBM does a better job?R >  > M > Their chip future is not clouded. They allowed Power to prove itself before N > commiting their enterprise systems to that chip. They waited until customersF > atrted to ask "why don't you make MVS run on the better Power chip ? > M > HP forced its customers to move at a time where IA64 was Merced. That image M > remains. HP/Compaq should have simply siad that IA64 wasn't ready for primep= > time yet, but that they would be keeping an open eye to it.x     -- aD 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: 17 Dec 2004 18:29:48 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)e Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intela3 Message-ID: <A308nCWvsjKi@eisner.encompasserve.org>2  m In article <1103323138.507853.138380@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "DL Phillips" <whohe@whoever.com> writes:  > Keith Parris wrote:   H >> The bulk of the VAX base has successfully migrated to Alpha by now. I > H >> rarely see a VAX system in serious use at customer sites I visit now. > B >> Some VAX systems do remain in the field (mostly in "if it ain't > broke,G >> don't fix it" scenarios, where they continue to work just fine), ande > HPD >> has continued to provide support for their software and for theirG >> hardware (as spare levels allow). The fact they remain in use is not  > aaF >> failure on HP's part -- it represents investment protection for theG >> customers, a crucial priciple in the system of values of the OpenVMSo
 >> ecosystem.l >> > E > Investment protection? AFAIK, most folks buy computers because theyiC > want to accomplish something and the first thing they look for is G > application software that does what they want. Then they consider the- > hardware platform.  ? So they have invested in VAX hardware and written or bought VAX = applications.  That was their investment, and it still works.t  H > Now, if way back when, I bought $XXXK worth of software and a VAX fromG > YYY,inc and then I needed to upgrade to Alpha, guess what? That isn't B > an upgrade as far as YYY,inc is concerned because it's differentI > software. And I can't just add an Alpha and run a mixed cluster becauseaI > (yep) its different software. They might give me a credit of some sort,.F > but I still end up buying all new software --- assuming that YYY,inc0 > has decided to port the package over to Alpha.  : But the VAX investment is still viable for many customers.  F > Now, here comes IA64 and I have to make a decision about the future.B > Will YYY,inc port over or not? How much is that going to cost meE > (AGAIN!)? Again, I can't just add an IA64 server and run in a mixeddF > cluster because (here it is again) IT'S DIFFERENT SOFTWARE!!! so I'd > have to buy it again anyway!  B Certainly you should not switch unless you have a reason to do so,C but as Tom pointed out some people are quite happy even to increase  their VAX commitment.h  E > Now, YYY,inc offers this stuff on an IBM platform, too, and since I F > have to buy new hardware and software anyway,... what should I do? I7 > guess I'd better look at each company's track record.d  D You don't have to buy anything new just because HP is promoting I64.B But you should not expect them to promote VAX when they don't evenB offer the hardware anymore.  It is not their job to drive the used equipment market.w   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:52:06 -0500v' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>t Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intelr, Message-ID: <41C37F36.4030102@tsoft-inc.com>   Rob Young wrote:  a > In article <1oWdneWVdJE-0F_cRVn-gA@mpowercom.net>, "Jack Peacock" <peacock@simconv.com> writes:u >  > N >>This would be the upper limit of early adopters.  Given the small number of L >>chips made HP may have a hard time keeping enough customer base to do any O >>more than life support past VMS 8.  I expect VMS to be sold or spun off, not f- >>right away, bad form, but in a year or two.e >> >  > 	Ha... > = > 	How many years of "the future of VMS", "who will buy VMS",iE > 	blah blah blah pointless debates.  From a 1993 post in comp.os.vms  >  > # >>The future of VMS .. what future?l >> > G > You're opinion and you're entitled to it, just don't try to sell thataE > too hard to customers who bet their businesses on OpenVMS everyday, 5 > you're likely to get into a religious arguement;-) . >  > ---i >  > 	Or better yet...  > S > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.os.vms/msg/2581845e26d26b59?dmode=sourcet > , > From: "Jack Peacock" <peac...@simconv.com> > Newsgroups: comp.os.vmso' > Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:19:50 -0700  > M > Market realities are that VMS has a precarious existence and a dim future. n > S > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.os.vms/msg/d954db3b3bd0b9a0?dmode=source  > , > From: "Jack Peacock" <peac...@simconv.com> > Subject: Re: alpha longevity > Date: 1999/11/02 >  > L > If MS gets a good version of NT out the door then Compaq will abandon VMS P > because their customers will.  No one really knows what will happen, but basedQ > on past DEC history (i.e. DEC-10/20 and TOPS) the demise of VMS will be sudden,s > without any real warning.l > S > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.os.vms/msg/960bdd83f123a046?dmode=sourcei > , > From: "Jack Peacock" <peac...@simconv.com>. > Subject: Re: Another OpenVMS customer letter > Date: 1999/08/07 > D > Zealous defense of VMS aside, how is it going to survive against a% > stable and robust NT in the future?i > H > Fluff pieces from transient CEOs aside, where is Compaq explaining how8 > they will be able to keep VMS afloat 5 years from now? >  > ---o >  > 	etc. etc. etc.  > 	 D > 	So maybe in 5 more years you come back with a similar prediction? >  > M >>And if HP thinks customers aren't paying attention, I just took their name dK >>off the prospective vendor list for a high reliability system at a major rM >>airport.  VMS would have been an excellent fit, and at one time would have  K >>been the only choice, but in good faith I can't recommend it anymore.  I s= >>cited the activities of the last few days as justification.. >> >  > H > 	Please spare us - Jack.  You've been trying to bury VMS for years andE > 	you make it sound as if "recent events" made you decide something.t > 	h- > 	Sorry Jack, but Google is not your friend!a > 	 > 				Robs    M Rob!  You've poped out of your hole again!  Must have got a nomex suit as an o early Christmas gift.t  Q Should we Google for statements you've made about how AMD and HAMMER would never uI make it to market?  Many statements about HAMMER not being as good as it tT sounded?  And all because you didn't want anything to appear to threaten the itanic.  P Did you slide off the tracks when Intel made that incredibly sharp U-turn about , IA-64 being their entry in the 64-bit world?  L Also there is EV7, multiple years out of date, and still showing quite well P against most of the enterprise world.  I do believe you also turned on Alpha at A the time of the 'murder'.  Were you sent the 30 pieces of silver?   P No, I didn't appriciate Jack's "when NT is ready" comments either.  He seems to Q have realized that error.  Why can't you realize that IA-64 in it's current form   is a loser?f   Dave   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:58:05 -0500d' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>d Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel , Message-ID: <41C3809D.1020100@tsoft-inc.com>   Jack Peacock wrote:a  ; > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message m/ > news:cJ3TlpJupT04@eisner.encompasserve.org...  > G >>Please spare us - Jack.  You've been trying to bury VMS for years andhD >>you make it sound as if "recent events" made you decide something. >>, >>Sorry Jack, but Google is not your friend! >> >>N > Like any psychic^W consultant I just make the same prediction over and over G > until it finally comes true.  And I'm a lot cheaper than Gartner.  :)r > I > I've been using VMS since the early days of V3 on 11/750s, and TOPS-20 nM > before that.  Were there still a way I'd glady spec VMS on servers, but  I nH > have parameters that say the design has to work (as in maintained and O > extended, with readily available skills pool) for ten years or more.  I have  I > no great desire to switch to Windows, Solaris or Linux, but poor track aM > record in predictions aside, no one can deny the trend for VMS is not to a tM > happy future filled with Itaniums.  HP has made a poor choice going to IPF dM > but spent too much money to change now.  I do present VMS as an option for lF > clients, but I tell them why I am reluctant to recommend it as well. > F > The subject of buying an Itanium VMS system came up for next year's K > planning.  Will VMS still be around at the end of 2005, 2006?  Sure, but tI > will it be commercially viable for new installations?  Reluctantly our lO > answer, for our customers, was no.  Instead we're recommending that existing 1M > Alpha users buy a spare machine as a hedge against cutbacks in HP service. RO > Meanwhile the software they use is being migrated to Windows, albeit slowly,  N > and what has been moved so far is working even though it takes more support J > time to keep it running.  Not more expensive though, personnel costs on  > Windows are cheaper than VMS.b > M > What is burying VMS is the lack of new installs.  HP isn't advertising any eO > statistics, telling in itself.  The customer dollar amount I steer away from oO > HP is not significant in itself, but I doubt I'm the only one doing it.  Can  G > anyone seriously recommend a client to invest several million in new yO > development on a mission critical system, starting from scratch, with VMS as oC > the centerpiece?  A legacy shop maybe, but not if there's no VMS  L > infrastructure already in place.  No argument VMS has better reliability, N > but that's not the only issue.  There has to be a perception that VMS has a M > future, and that's nowhere in evidence, no matter how much we'd like it to  J > be different (and yes, I'm one who would like to see VMS return to it's  > glory days). > K > Old TOPS veterans know this is deja vu all over again (tip of the hat to eM > Yogi Berra).  The same economics are at work now.  Nothing saved TOPS, and t1 > there's no white knight on the horizon for VMS.T >   Jack Peacock   >  >  >   Q Much as I dislike some of what Jack says, he does have one very important point. tO   When YOU recommend something, it's YOUR reputation on the line.  While Keith tN and some others are betting their fortunes (homes, reputation, future) on VMS P and HP,  being totally serious, how many other readers in this forum would make L that same bet.  Before you do, talk to some such as Alan Greig.  I hear the  knife is still in his back.a   Dave   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:14:01 -0500v' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>  Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel , Message-ID: <41C38459.7020003@tsoft-inc.com>   Tom Linden wrote:m    L > Actually we recently got an order for PL/I for a new large VAX for a gov'tK > agency.  The other issue you raise, begs the question as to the direction L > those ain't broke customers will move in the future, and I think it likely > you will lose some    M Likely hell!  Make that 'absolutely certain'!  If they didn't move to Alpha,  # then they sure won't move to IA-64.    Dave   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:14:00 -0600u+ From: Michael Jenkins <mwjenkins@excel.com>o Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel 8 Message-ID: <2d07s0l77b54vofbe0pum8eo7q7qqpoblp@4ax.com>  2 Keith Parris <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:   >Jack Peacock wrote:. >> The article is about SAP on HP-UX, not VMS. > F >The contention was that Itanium was dead in the marketplace, so it's F >fair to counter with indications of the health of Itanium as a whole. >lH >And the healthy sales of Integrity Servers under Windows and Linux and ' >HP-UX is actually a boon to VMS users.u >n= >> Everything you quote is existing customers, not new ones. i >mH >The data we were recently given indicates that of the yearly VMS HW+SW @ >revenues, between 10% and 15% represent sales to brand-new VMS # >customers. That's a healthy trend.h  D How can Itanium be "dead" when it never appeared IN the marketplace?  J If it doesn't sell, is not wanted, or has never been seen (outside of HP),  then why make predictions on it?  N The demand for VMS people is dropping.  I should know, this is the second timeM I've lost a VMS/Alpha job in the last 4 years.  At this rate, even Windows ise
 looking good.    MikeWJ& http://www.geocities.com/mwjenkins001/   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:21:44 -0500m' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>i Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intelf, Message-ID: <41C38628.1090304@tsoft-inc.com>   DL Phillips wrote:    H > Now, if way back when, I bought $XXXK worth of software and a VAX fromG > YYY,inc and then I needed to upgrade to Alpha, guess what? That isn't B > an upgrade as far as YYY,inc is concerned because it's differentI > software. And I can't just add an Alpha and run a mixed cluster becausenI > (yep) its different software. They might give me a credit of some sort,vF > but I still end up buying all new software --- assuming that YYY,inc0 > has decided to port the package over to Alpha.    N Some of those third party software vendors figured that they had already made L all they were going to from a customer, and instead of helping them move to N Alpha at a reasonable cost, took the opportunity to rape their old customers. O All the customers wanted to do is run the products they bought and paid for on dI newer hardware.  Some of such software companies have been appropriately y5 rewarded.  Unfortunately, some are still in business.e   Dave   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:25:47 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>r Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intelv, Message-ID: <41C3871B.6080201@tsoft-inc.com>   Larry Kilgallen wrote:  o > In article <1103323138.507853.138380@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "DL Phillips" <whohe@whoever.com> writes:e >  >>Keith Parris wrote:t >> > H >>>The bulk of the VAX base has successfully migrated to Alpha by now. I >>>lH >>>rarely see a VAX system in serious use at customer sites I visit now. >>>CB >>>Some VAX systems do remain in the field (mostly in "if it ain't >>>k >>broke, >>G >>>don't fix it" scenarios, where they continue to work just fine), ands >>>t >>HP >>D >>>has continued to provide support for their software and for theirG >>>hardware (as spare levels allow). The fact they remain in use is nots >>>d >>ag >>F >>>failure on HP's part -- it represents investment protection for theG >>>customers, a crucial priciple in the system of values of the OpenVMSa
 >>>ecosystem.n >>>m >>>tE >>Investment protection? AFAIK, most folks buy computers because theyfC >>want to accomplish something and the first thing they look for isnG >>application software that does what they want. Then they consider the  >>hardware platform. >> > A > So they have invested in VAX hardware and written or bought VAXp? > applications.  That was their investment, and it still works.n >  > H >>Now, if way back when, I bought $XXXK worth of software and a VAX fromG >>YYY,inc and then I needed to upgrade to Alpha, guess what? That isn't B >>an upgrade as far as YYY,inc is concerned because it's differentI >>software. And I can't just add an Alpha and run a mixed cluster becauseyI >>(yep) its different software. They might give me a credit of some sort, F >>but I still end up buying all new software --- assuming that YYY,inc0 >>has decided to port the package over to Alpha. >> > < > But the VAX investment is still viable for many customers. >  > F >>Now, here comes IA64 and I have to make a decision about the future.B >>Will YYY,inc port over or not? How much is that going to cost meE >>(AGAIN!)? Again, I can't just add an IA64 server and run in a mixed'F >>cluster because (here it is again) IT'S DIFFERENT SOFTWARE!!! so I'd >>have to buy it again anyway! >> > D > Certainly you should not switch unless you have a reason to do so,E > but as Tom pointed out some people are quite happy even to increasen > their VAX commitment.l >  > E >>Now, YYY,inc offers this stuff on an IBM platform, too, and since IvF >>have to buy new hardware and software anyway,... what should I do? I7 >>guess I'd better look at each company's track record.  >> > F > You don't have to buy anything new just because HP is promoting I64.D > But you should not expect them to promote VAX when they don't evenD > offer the hardware anymore.  It is not their job to drive the used > equipment market.v >   M The problem in everything you said is that there is no such thing as new VAX (N systems to replace those worn out, more expensive to operate and support than  newer hardware, etc.  M The buyer of x86 based software can buy the latest Opteron, run his software  ? faster and cheaper, and not be gouged by the software provider.N  O What does the VAX user do when he cannot get repaired/replacement hardware for w= that which has failed?  Maybe not yet today, but someday ....r   Dave   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:27:19 -0500r' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>  Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel , Message-ID: <41C38777.8010702@tsoft-inc.com>   JF Mezei wrote:    > Keith Parris wrote:- > H >>A major attraction of Itanium to current OpenVMS users is they benefitJ >>from the economies of scale of a box which also runs Windows, Linux, andH >>HP-UX, making Itanium system prices very attractive compared to Alpha, >> > L > So attractive that HP doesn't even show low end IA64 systems configured asL > workstations on their web site, but that same site shows PaRisc AND Alpha % > systems configured as workstations.s > G > IA64 is sto attractive that it still hasn't surpassed sales of 2 deadcO > architectures (PaRisc and Alpha). A bit like the dead candidate still gettingI3 > more votes than his live opponent in an election.a   Excellant shot!a   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:30:41 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>e Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intele, Message-ID: <41C38841.6030009@tsoft-inc.com>   Keith Parris wrote:t   > Neil Rieck wrote:o > J >> It's deja-vu all over again. HP sends it's Itanium developers to Intel. >  > H > I think this is a sign that Itanium has attained a level of maturity. C > When the project started, Intel didn't know beans about high-end oF > processors, so HP had to help. Now Intel is ready to take the reins.     Spin.o    J > It also helps make competitors like IBM and Dell more comfortable using G > Itanium. Remember when AT&T, owner of UNIX, took a 15% stake in Sun? nF > Other UNIX vendors were very worried that AT&T would favor Sun. You I > can't blame them. This move fixes the similar problem for Itanium, and n/ > is aimed at making its widespread use easier.     
 More spin.    G > Note that HP retained its own chipsets for use with Itanium (and the  I > associated chip design engineers). HP's chipsets perform very well and rD > HP sees this as a competitive advantage to help differentiate its B > products from other Itanium system vendors using the same Intel  > microprocessor chips.W    I In an age where more and more is included on the CPU, making the support   shipsets less important.  F Well, true for Alpha.  Guess the itanic hasn't caught up there either.   Dave   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:55:12 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>  Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel , Message-ID: <41C38DF5.F904D850@teksavvy.com>   Larry Kilgallen wrote:F > You don't have to buy anything new just because HP is promoting I64.D > But you should not expect them to promote VAX when they don't evenD > offer the hardware anymore.  It is not their job to drive the used > equipment market.-  M Humm.. the Linux and Microsoft folks would disagree with you. They don't care M what hardware you run on, they are interested in selling you licenses/support D and applications. They are interested in growing their market share.  J Linux is quite happy on old 8086 hardware, being tasked as routers, or anyL other app. There are plenty old old vaxes around that could have been taskedJ for similar purposes. Instead, Digital actively destroyed/shredded all theJ microvaxes II it could get its hands on to prevent them from being used in innovative ways.   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Dec 2004 21:28:29 -0600+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young). Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel 3 Message-ID: <njSRwm13haOB@eisner.encompasserve.org>n  _ In article <IamdnVqQ2ZJRvl7cRVn-iQ@mpowercom.net>, "Jack Peacock" <peacock@simconv.com> writes:nA > "Keith Parris" <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message t. > news:JoEwd.4723$Bb5.4010@news.cpqcorp.net...G >> HP saw more than 180 SAP customers move to Itanium in 180 days (see  > >> http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2004/041118a.html). >>- > The article is about SAP on HP-UX, not VMS.o >>M >> I visited some VMS customers in NYC a couple of months ago, and they were sM >> eagerly starting to get VMS running on rx2600 and rx4640 systems to start c >> their porting efforts.nM > And therein lies the problem.  Everything you quote is existing customers, sO > not new ones.  Where are the articles of users converting a large Sun or IBM u > site to Itanium? > M > Were I working in a large VMS shop I'd be eager to convert to Itanium too. eL > Like most of the people in this forum I have a lot invested in VMS skills : > and am not looking forward to writing off those years.     	Gee, that can't be true.     Q http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.os.vms/msg/e0bc450760178b19?dmode=source-  * From: "Jack Peacock" <peac...@simconv.com> Subject: Re: Why VMS?l Date: 1999/01/21  6 You're tilting at windmills.  NT is already here, it's9 replacing VMS in the low end and it will work it's way upe9 the customer base as time goes by.  I don't like it, I'ven4 got a lot invested in VMS knowledge, but I know that9 knowledge won't be too valuable in a few years, so I readd5 the NT books and sign up for the MS beta program too.    ---u  > 	You've know for "years" Jack that your VMS knowledge wouldn'tA 	be too valuable "in a few years."  But now you claim you're not k9 	looking forward to writing off those years.  You've beent, 	looking forward for quite some time , Jack.   				Robo   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Dec 2004 20:29:31 -0800 From: bob@instantwhip.como Subject: Re: HP exodus to IntelnC Message-ID: <1103344171.414165.193240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>i  C after pulling the alpha team off tukwila because the HP team didn'ts like theF design, this sounds like the same NIH (not invented here) BS that will now B effectively doom itanium ... w/o the alpha team, pigs will not fly
 after all ...rE itanium is now officially done ... what would now be best for OpenVMSm isF for it to be picked up by a company that will market it, and also port it to F amd ... HP is not and never will be interested in growing VMS ... RichG Marcello told me months ago it was being categorized as a niche OS, andtC that will never change ... NIH syndrome is alive and well at HP ...a sell allF your HP stock like HP execs are currently doing well you can, and hope  for a friendly buyer for vms ...) http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20286    ------------------------------    Date: 17 Dec 2004 12:35:37 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)i2 Subject: Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development3 Message-ID: <FDAI7B9I81kZ@eisner.encompasserve.org>l  K In article <87r7lo7sb3.fsf@prep.synonet.com>, prep@prep.synonet.com writes: 1 > Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:Y > Y >> In article <41C23F7B.2060108@tsoft-inc.com>, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:  >>J >>> Wonder how easily they could build NVAX chips?  Cheaper than Pentiums? >>D >> The noteworthy patent on the VAX architecture has expired by now. >  > The AST Level Register?   D No, deferring knowledge of instruction length beyond the place where the first byte is decoded.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:02:52 -0500y' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>a2 Subject: Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development* Message-ID: <41C373AC.60701@tsoft-inc.com>   icerq4a@spray.se wrote:    > JF Mezei wrote:d >  >>bob@instantwhip.com wrote: >>= >>>I think you are dismissing the alpha team way to early ...d. >>>I predict they will make itanium viable ... >>>eG >>Unless they can produce a 10ghz chip (or equivalent), there is littleh >>
 > the IA64 > D >>team can do from an enegineering point of view to make that chip a >> > market success.t > F > The things that the Alpha team really can contribute with is the newG > system architecture. The current Itanium cores are doing just fine inuH > performance, and Montecito will have the best power saving features inH > the industry next year. The problem current IA64 has in competing with@ > say POWER5 is the system architecture and that is what the EV8 > designers are doing (CSI). >  >   8 Are they?  Where does this bit of information come from?  M But, realistically, if they're to do anything positive, the first move is to o@ deep six EPIC.  I just never heard that such would/could happen.   Dave   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:06:25 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> 2 Subject: Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development, Message-ID: <41C37481.5050606@tsoft-inc.com>   Larry Kilgallen wrote:  M > In article <87r7lo7sb3.fsf@prep.synonet.com>, prep@prep.synonet.com writes:  > 1 >>Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:  >> >>Y >>>In article <41C23F7B.2060108@tsoft-inc.com>, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:r >>>f >>>eJ >>>>Wonder how easily they could build NVAX chips?  Cheaper than Pentiums? >>>>D >>>The noteworthy patent on the VAX architecture has expired by now. >>>' >>The AST Level Register?  >> > F > No, deferring knowledge of instruction length beyond the place where > the first byte is decoded. >   P Some very interesting bits of info.  But to re-design the wheel, it isn't worth O it.  What I was thinking is if the information needed to set up production was rP available, and whether such would allow easily setting up production.  I really . have no clue on how the actual FABing is done.  ( A VAX based PC.  Better late than never.   Dave   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Dec 2004 18:35:15 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) 2 Subject: Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development3 Message-ID: <6qo062npFmTS@eisner.encompasserve.org>r  V In article <41C37481.5050606@tsoft-inc.com>, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: > Larry Kilgallen wrote:  G >> No, deferring knowledge of instruction length beyond the place wherem >> the first byte is decoded.o >> p > R > Some very interesting bits of info.  But to re-design the wheel, it isn't worth Q > it.  What I was thinking is if the information needed to set up production was lG > available, and whether such would allow easily setting up production.d  F "Easily" is not the issue.  "Profitably" is the issue.  VAX had patentI protection.  Today Itanium has patent protection.  That is what motivatesaF a chip vendor to spend vast amounts of money.  Those who point out AMDH as a stiff competitor to Intel should realize that Intel would rather be9 making their money on Itanium where AMD is not a problem.a   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:59:56 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>o2 Subject: Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development, Message-ID: <41C38105.109631A5@teksavvy.com>   icerq4a@spray.se wrote:-F > The things that the Alpha team really can contribute with is the newG > system architecture. The current Itanium cores are doing just fine inhH > performance, and Montecito will have the best power saving features in > the industry next year.   Y The question is whether the Alpha knowledge is really applicable to an EPIC architecture.i  K A lot of Alpha's performance tricks were anti-EPIC in that it was the Alpha N logic which automatiaclly parralelized stuff, optimized instruction pipelining@ etc etc. With EPIC, that is supposed to be done by the compiler.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:06:27 -0500V' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>o2 Subject: Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development, Message-ID: <41C38293.8080502@tsoft-inc.com>   Larry Kilgallen wrote:  X > In article <41C37481.5050606@tsoft-inc.com>, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: >  >>Larry Kilgallen wrote: >> > G >>>No, deferring knowledge of instruction length beyond the place where  >>>the first byte is decoded.s >>>h >>> R >>Some very interesting bits of info.  But to re-design the wheel, it isn't worth Q >>it.  What I was thinking is if the information needed to set up production was eG >>available, and whether such would allow easily setting up production.  >> > H > "Easily" is not the issue.  "Profitably" is the issue.  VAX had patentK > protection.  Today Itanium has patent protection.  That is what motivatesuH > a chip vendor to spend vast amounts of money.  Those who point out AMDJ > as a stiff competitor to Intel should realize that Intel would rather be; > making their money on Itanium where AMD is not a problem.  >   Q There are things I don't understand, being just a dumb polock out in the sticks.  O   Isn't Intel's profit in selling chips they manufacture?  What does it matter nK what the chip is, as long as they make it and get paid to do so?  FABing a /N design which you didn't spend vast amounts of R&D on would seem to me to be a 	 cash cow.e  N Yeah, if no one else can make it, you can control the price.  Fat lot of good N that did DEC.  The Sony concept is better.  Dominate the market, and there is G plenty of profit to fall out of that.  Hmmmm...., something like IA-32.f  J It's ego.  Intel could have continued producing Alphas.  Even advance the P design.  Alpha was able to compete with Power.  From a performance perspective, O IA-64 is toast, and will remain toast.  (Not talking about a possible non-EPIC a? design the people who kept Alpha competitive may come up with.)    Dave   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 03:04:38 GMT-  From: CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>2 Subject: Re: HP pulls out of IA64 chip development* Message-ID: <41C39E46.4020706@prodigy.net>   Larry Kilgallen wrote:X > In article <41C37481.5050606@tsoft-inc.com>, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: >  >>Larry Kilgallen wrote: >  > G >>>No, deferring knowledge of instruction length beyond the place wheres >>>the first byte is decoded.t >>>  >>R >>Some very interesting bits of info.  But to re-design the wheel, it isn't worth Q >>it.  What I was thinking is if the information needed to set up production was uG >>available, and whether such would allow easily setting up production.t >  > H > "Easily" is not the issue.  "Profitably" is the issue.  VAX had patentK > protection.  Today Itanium has patent protection.  That is what motivateseH > a chip vendor to spend vast amounts of money.  Those who point out AMDJ > as a stiff competitor to Intel should realize that Intel would rather be; > making their money on Itanium where AMD is not a problem.,  E Yes, Intel would like to bleed its customers for every cent they can.   " Happily, there's some competition.   -- pD 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.l   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Dec 2004 14:06:37 -06004 From: kaplow_r@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow)) Subject: HPworld 2004 session notes CD???t3 Message-ID: <2Zi8AyC2xJcW@eisner.encompasserve.org>   I I just realized that it's 4 months later, and I've yet to see the HPworld E 2004 Session Notes CD. Is there one coming, did I miss it, or is thiss' something that got lost in the process?M  1 	Bob Kaplow	NAR # 18L	TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"w& 		>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<K Kaplow Klips & Baffle:	http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdfeL     www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/    www.nira-rocketry.org    www.nar.org  N ... One nation under survielence, divisive, with liberty and justice for none.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:56:44 -0600e/ From: "Stuart, Ed" <Ed.Stuart@austinenergy.com>n- Subject: RE: HPworld 2004 session notes CD???uT Message-ID: <DA4AD590CAF06845B671C398333A89C606A8A619@ohms.electric.ci.austin.tx.us>  7 I've heard that they are going to be shipped next week.i   EdE **Please apply a generous amount of all the usual disclaimers here.**a   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:03:35 -0600.2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>- Subject: Re: HPworld 2004 session notes CD???7+ Message-ID: <41C39E07.AEA73D7D@comcast.net>m   Bob Kaplow wrote:l > K > I just realized that it's 4 months later, and I've yet to see the HPworldsG > 2004 Session Notes CD. Is there one coming, did I miss it, or is thisp) > something that got lost in the process?r  D You should be able to get the session notes from the website, with a% little digging and a bit of patience.    -- l David J Dachtera dba DJE Systemst http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:e" http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/e  " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/t   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Dec 2004 20:30:34 -0800 From: bob@instantwhip.como0 Subject: I guess pigs will not fly after all ...B Message-ID: <1103344234.759676.62210@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>  C after pulling the alpha team off tukwila because the HP team didn't  like theF design, this sounds like the same NIH (not invented here) BS that will nowiB effectively doom itanium ... w/o the alpha team, pigs will not fly
 after all ...nE itanium is now officially done ... what would now be best for OpenVMSr isF for it to be picked up by a company that will market it, and also port it tolF amd ... HP is not and never will be interested in growing VMS ... RichG Marcello told me months ago it was being categorized as a niche OS, and?C that will never change ... NIH syndrome is alive and well at HP ...s sell allF your HP stock like HP execs are currently doing well you can, and hope  for a friendly buyer for vms ...) http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20286t   ------------------------------  + Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:09:36 +0000 (UTC) 3 From: "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> & Subject: Re: Interesting coding tidbit/ Message-ID: <cpvlf0$omj$1@titan.btinternet.com>o  L "All bespoke software is shite and inherently vulnerable to the bogie man" -/ Unattributed (Smart money's on Larry Kilgallen)t  < Osama Binladen is under your bed. And he's gonna kill you!!!   Regards Richard MaherI  : "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message- news:qip6m7z9sWXD@eisner.encompasserve.org... C > In article <cpu724$7r$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, Chris Sharmany$ <chris.sharman@sorry.nospam> writes: > > Keith Cayemberg wrote: > >s > >> John Smith wrote:< > >>> http://www.research.ibm.com/trl/projects/security/ssp/ > >>G > >> Of course this does nothing for you if the Hacker/Cracker used GCC K > >> without this extension, another language's compiler, assembler or even6 > >u > > Am I missing something ?I > > I thought this was a feature to protect your own trusted code againsttI > > buffer overrun attacks, rather than to stop hackers compiling virii ?- >-C > Certainly you are correct.  There is no protection if you give ant@ > attacker permission to execute their own code on your machine. >3I > > Although I agree there's no substitute for correct code, if it offersFD > > buffer protection it probably makes writing correct code easier. > C > It is important to note that this is _not_ a general GCC feature.mB > The cited page notes that it is _specifically_ for programs that > are written in C.n > C > For general programming purposes, buffer overflows were conquered D > years ago -- only lower level languages like C* have this problem.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:51:58 -0800 ! From: gokrix <gokrix@hotmail.com>. Subject: Re: More on Tru64B Message-ID: <1103309527.28b4c56f335928a752c005e3b169c721@teranews>   Bob Kaplow wrote: T > In article <I8adnZh54fWRZl_cRVn-2A@igs.net>, "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes: > N >>What's really amazing though is the sh*t will sell when it has advertising &I >>marketing behind it. Too bad Tru64 and VMS never had the marketing pusho0 >>behind them to the same extent that PH-UX had. >  > K > I don't know if that's a typo or intentional, but it's the funniest thing  > I've seen all week!1   It's an old joke.  See  ? http://www.oclug.on.ca/pipermail/oclug/2002-January/015697.htmlr   Thanks,  --GS   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Dec 2004 14:04:43 -06004 From: kaplow_r@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) Subject: Re: More on Tru643 Message-ID: <CfipTcG5WIoH@eisner.encompasserve.org>o  f In article <1103309527.28b4c56f335928a752c005e3b169c721@teranews>, gokrix <gokrix@hotmail.com> writes: > Bob Kaplow wrote:eU >> In article <I8adnZh54fWRZl_cRVn-2A@igs.net>, "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes:  >> nO >>>What's really amazing though is the sh*t will sell when it has advertising &oJ >>>marketing behind it. Too bad Tru64 and VMS never had the marketing push1 >>>behind them to the same extent that PH-UX had.o >> e >>  L >> I don't know if that's a typo or intentional, but it's the funniest thing >> I've seen all week! >  > It's an old joke.  See > A > http://www.oclug.on.ca/pipermail/oclug/2002-January/015697.htmli  K Interesting. The place I used to work ran VMS, Tru64, and HPUX side by side J before all the mergers. As bad as DEC was, we said HPs job was to make DECK look good. We refered to HP as "HOURLY PATCHES": my colleague who took carenI of that system was installing more patches **EVERY WEEKEND** to the HP-UXh3 system than I installed in 4 years running VMS 7.2.l    1 	Bob Kaplow	NAR # 18L	TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"e& 		>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<K Kaplow Klips & Baffle:	http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdffL     www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/    www.nira-rocketry.org    www.nar.org  N ... One nation under survielence, divisive, with liberty and justice for none.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:32:38 -0500d# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>p  Subject: Re: NYSE and HP servers, Message-ID: <d92dnaKcSqHKqV7cRVn-iA@igs.net>  
 Ray wrote:F > Here's another article about this, this one a press release on IBM's > web site:e >  > (Mind the wrapping)e > L http://www-1.ibm.com/press/PressServletForm.wss?TemplateName=ShowPressReleas& eTemplate&SelectString=t1.docunid=7459 >i? > Another traditional DEC/Tandem  market showing early signs ofy > defecting to IBM.     E So now the HP 'success story' will read something along the lines of:   J 84% of the world's securities exchanges rely on NSK and OpenVMS to process 15% of the trade turnover"   versus  J 85% of the world's securities exchanges rely on NSK and OpenVMS to process 85% of the trade turnover"  I Maybe the NYSE has known about HP's plans for IA64 and de-emphasis of VMShL and NSK for a while. If anyone has status as a 'major account' and access to? advance information under non-disclosure, it would be the NYSE.    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:11:07 -0500:# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>CI Subject: Shannon: HP to end up advertising a "going out of business" saleg, Message-ID: <It6dnXJdRbHx1l7cRVn-vA@igs.net>   Kenneth Farmer wrote:c4 > SKHPC.com: A Second Opinion on a Sun Reality CheckC > http://www.shannonknowshpc.com/stories.php?story=04/12/16/6249526  >c@ > Some time back, I promised to double-check Sun executive LarryA > Singer's "Reality Check" missives on HP. A week ago, Mr. SingeruF > penned a Reality Check that, in light of HP's decision to cancel itsG > TruCluster integration effort, does in fact reflect more reality thaniA > rhetoric. It also reflects Mr. Singer's opinions, some of which F > differ from mine. Presented herewith is Larry's write-up, laced with > a few comments of my own.       # Terry finally smells the coffee....d  K "when is the last time you saw a VMS advertisement in the trade or businessgK press? As demonstrated by Alpha, a vendor who fails to market and advertisedE his or her goods ends up advertising a "going out of business" sale."    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:17:16 GMTI6 From: "Kenneth Farmer" <kfarmer@NOSPAM.spyderbyte.com>7 Subject: SKHPC: A Second Opinion on a Sun Reality Checkw: Message-ID: <g9Hwd.128$Hk4.48423@twister.southeast.rr.com>  2 SKHPC.com: A Second Opinion on a Sun Reality CheckA http://www.shannonknowshpc.com/stories.php?story=04/12/16/62495266  H Some time back, I promised to double-check Sun executive Larry Singer's H "Reality Check" missives on HP. A week ago, Mr. Singer penned a Reality K Check that, in light of HP's decision to cancel its TruCluster integration cJ effort, does in fact reflect more reality than rhetoric. It also reflects M Mr. Singer's opinions, some of which differ from mine. Presented herewith is n6 Larry's write-up, laced with a few comments of my own.       Kene   OpenVMS.orgg% _____________________________________h Kenneth R. Farmer <>< & SpyderByte: http://www.SpyderByte.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:10:42 -0500 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>r+ Subject: Re: Solaris 10 - no charge for o/sI, Message-ID: <NrKdnX8FrcjO1l7cRVn-3w@igs.net>   Michael Burns wrote:A > Software, with Linux in the picture, is a commodity... It isn'ts? > tangible, and can be replicated(burned to cd) infinitely with C > virtually (minimal) added cost. Hardware isn't. Hardware requiredr@ > resources, metal, engineering, etc. Physical stuff. Making twoA > servers costs 2x the cost of 1 server. Making 2 copies of Linuxn
 > doesn't. >  > F > Sun realized that their OS (Solaris <=9) is going to be replaced by,H > eventually, Linux. It is only a matter of time before Linux catches upE > on Solaris' enterprise-class features. So Sun made a decision, theylE > make Solaris 10 free, because Linux eventually will take all profite9 > away from Operating Systems anyway, and they focuses oneF > Hardware/Support, the tangible stuff. Sun also realized that to haveG > momentum with a free OS, it didn't have to be equally free, it had tonG > be better than Linux, to entice people to switch. So they dumped someWH > big money and developed some huge features. This is enough to convince? > people to switch communities, and try Solaris, giving Sun therF > development community to support a free OS, while they focus more on? > Hardware sales and Support  sales. of-course, they won't stopaB > developing Solaris, but it will slowly become a lesser priority.    F So are you saying that if HP thinks Itanic is the greatest thing sinceI canned beer, they should open source OpenVMS today and get people to portiH apps to it simply because it's now 'open source' and demonstrably better9 than the other 'open source' operating systems out there?    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:58:17 -0500m' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> + Subject: Re: Solaris 10 - no charge for o/st, Message-ID: <41C37299.8020503@tsoft-inc.com>   Michael Burns wrote:  A > Software, with Linux in the picture, is a commodity... It isn't I > tangible, and can be replicated(burned to cd) infinitely with virtuallyeD > (minimal) added cost. Hardware isn't. Hardware required resources,F > metal, engineering, etc. Physical stuff. Making two servers costs 2x9 > the cost of 1 server. Making 2 copies of Linux doesn't.b >  > F > Sun realized that their OS (Solaris <=9) is going to be replaced by,H > eventually, Linux. It is only a matter of time before Linux catches upE > on Solaris' enterprise-class features. So Sun made a decision, theynE > make Solaris 10 free, because Linux eventually will take all profitn9 > away from Operating Systems anyway, and they focuses oneF > Hardware/Support, the tangible stuff. Sun also realized that to haveG > momentum with a free OS, it didn't have to be equally free, it had toMG > be better than Linux, to entice people to switch. So they dumped somenH > big money and developed some huge features. This is enough to convince? > people to switch communities, and try Solaris, giving Sun theiF > development community to support a free OS, while they focus more on? > Hardware sales and Support  sales. of-course, they won't stoprB > developing Solaris, but it will slowly become a lesser priority. >  >   P Unfortunately, Andy boy's salary came out of the proceeds from selling Solaris. 6   And not Andy boy is gone.  :-(  Who can we kick now?   Dave   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Dec 2004 15:58:51 -05003 From: Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com>e Subject: Re: soon to be gone. Message-ID: <mddmzwc7ib8.fsf@panix5.panix.com>  = koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:a  A >    Those of you who were at the 1995 Spring DECUS Symposium in aA >    Washington, DC (I think it was still called symposium then), G >    might be interested to know that plans are to implode the buildingt( >    tomorrow (Dec 18) at 7:30 am local.   >    You can't go back.e  O It was indeed still called Symposium.  I ran our booth on the Trade Show floor,nM and we also held the 30th Anniversary party as a BOF; this was the session atrJ which Clive Dawson declared to Rose Ann Giordano (from his seat as session chair) that all was forgiven.c   Ah, what a time that was!    -- tL Rich Alderson                                       | /"\ ASCII ribbon     |L news@alderson.users.panix.com                       | \ / campaign against |L "You get what anybody gets. You get a lifetime."    |  x  HTML mail and    |L                          --Death, of the Endless    | / \ postings         |   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:38:26 GMTn From: <sethmuce@retronet.net>: Subject: Re: soon to be gone5 Message-ID: <mlIwd.12902$_3.142569@typhoon.sonic.net>s  " John Smith <a@nonymous.com> wrote: >>    You can't go back. >  > . > Here's another building they should implode:$ > 3000 HANOVER STREET, PALO ALTO, CA  D Hey, I work right across the street from them -- so could you please( give me a little warning first?  Thanks.   -Seth  -- tE sethmuce at retronet.net - To reply: remove the 'uce' from my addressi   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:21:50 -0600u2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> Subject: TCP/IP in SRM+ Message-ID: <41C3A24D.B27802D3@comcast.net>>  5 Beach Runner's question raised this one in my head...n  H If one sets IP addresses in SRM for BOOTP, and so on, does that preclude, the VMS IP software using that same address?  G I don't remember the variable names, and the little Alpha is busy right>$ now, so I don't want to disturb it.   H If I assign, say, 192.168.1.20 in SRM, can I then use that same (static)9 address when running VMS + IP (UCX, Multinet or TCPware)?    --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systemsr http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/e   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:22:43 -0500a# From: "Hal Kuff" <kuff@comcast.net> " Subject: Re: TCPIP Printer Library- Message-ID: <cpvm4n$ein@library1.airnews.net>m  E Thanxs for the great response... I'll hop off and look at the Wizard YM notes... I was refering to the fact that the tcpip stack will init and start  I the queue for you and that precludes a seperate dcl line settting up the AJ queue with the library... we do the latter now and it works fine... I was H looking for the supported method using the printcap files and the tcpip  startup options...    1 "Hoff Hoffman" <hoff@hp.nospam> wrote in message i, news:Y8lwd.4649$fq4.2536@news.cpqcorp.net...; > In article <cpqhqj$t3c@library2.airnews.net>, "Hal Kuff" i > <kuff@comcast.net> writes:J > :I'm likely missing something... how does one add an HP Printer library  > specL > :to an HP/TCPIP printer queue...? I'm used to the old way of putting it on > :the init/start/queue line...t >u> >  Which OpenVMS version, TCP/IP Services version, HP Printer,@ >  and printer access method are in use here?  These details canA >  help me understand your question, and tailor the answer to the B >  question you had intended -- I am not entirely certain what you8 >  are asking for here, and the following are guesses... > @ >  DCPS is the usual approach for accessing Postscript printers. >a@ >  For device control libraries, the usual approach involves the? >  /LIBRARY qualifier.  I'm not at all certain that is what youe
 >  mean here.. > @ >  For setting up DCPS options, the DCPS startups typically will? >  provide the defaults, and sets up various logical names withr@ >  the queue-specific settings -- once the queues are configured >  and started, of course. > B >  For more than you ever wanted to know about IP printing, pleaseC >  see topic (1020) in the Ask The Wizard (ATW) area.  Topic (5104)1@ >  has some details on adding information for DCPS printing, and> >  for various of the so-called "unrecognized" printer logicalC >  names that can be configured; the DCPS documentation has detailsi >  on this topic.r >t >  The ATW area: >y) >    http://www.hp.com/go/openvms/wizard/a >xD >  Again, I am guessing at the intended question here, and providing8 >  a variety of related or potentially-related pointers. >t( > ---------------------------- #include ) > <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------hL >    For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faq, > --------------------------- pure personal % > opinion --------------------------- F >        Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.com >    ------------------------------    Date: 17 Dec 2004 15:27:20 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)e$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?3 Message-ID: <SxUg3+ht3PZE@eisner.encompasserve.org>H  g In article <kyEwd.28334$%p1.1847029@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> writes:o > 2 > Maybe now is the time to replace BLISS with "C".  C    Writing a BLISS compiler is a lot less work, and less dangerous.n  F    Rewriting more of the Macro-32 to BLISS or C would be a much betterG    effort.  Over the years a lot of that already has been done, one wayI    or another.  F    Meanwhile, they should rewrite TECO from Macro-11.  I'm not so sureD    I'd want to translate Alpha or IA-64 instructions directly to 386    inststructions.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:17:43 -0500f' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>m$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?, Message-ID: <41C37727.2060603@tsoft-inc.com>   JF Mezei wrote:    > David J Dachtera wrote:P > J >>...and therein lies the rub. So long as the x86-based systems need a VAX@ >>emulation layer, they will remain limited as VAX replacements. >> > N > Lets not forget that there is really no roadmap for VAX-VMS, so with VAX-VMSN > all but declared mature, nobody would really want to jump into VMS. Only old > exsiting customers would.e > O > In terms of the comments made about price not being important for the type of O > VMS customer still on VMS, this is the very attitude that had killed Digital,- > Compaq and will kill HP. > O > When you have competition from other vendors, and when the competition offersHH > similar products with a feature set, which wile a subset of VMS, stillK > fulfills the needs of the vast majority, then you either get a very smallmF > narrow custoemr base with a high price, or you compete head to head. > N > The problem with just expecting rich customer for whom price isn't importantK > is that the second your competitors get the one feature VMS had that theyyW > didn't, you're toast because customers will migrate to the competition to save money.e    N Well JF, I will first say that at times you've said some rather smart things. Q But at other times you've said some real stupid things.  Now you've extended the pQ limits.  Can you tell me how anyone with a hugh application, tens of millions of uN lines of code, vast amounts of training, hugh investments in procedures, etc, K will save money by trying to re-do their applications?  Try to think a bit   before hitting the SEND button.   P The same reason is why there is still a large (don't know the size) base of VMS Q users.  Even if they hate HP, they prefer to not take the hate out on themselves.   O It's also the thing that Compaq just didn't care about when they killed Alpha. vQ Wanted to save a few measley billion.  In doing so, they exposed their customers  N to trillions in conversion costs.  (Well, I'm pulling that out of my ass, but  you can see the concept.)0    L > Meanwhile, when you let the message out that you will price VMS out of theN > market and allow only a small number of customers for whom budgets aren't soM > important, developpers and software vendors will read this as: a market notVN > worth pursuing because it won't grow. So you get less and less software. AndK > when you don't even market the thing, people get the message even faster.s > N > For christ's sake, two companies failed because of the thinking that VMS canP > command a huge premium.  I can't understand how anyone still involved with VMS$ > would still hold such convictions. >   P I do agree that new customers are much easily scared off, and that competing is 
 essential.   Dave   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:24:45 -0500o' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>d$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?, Message-ID: <41C378CD.1010408@tsoft-inc.com>   Roy Omond wrote:   > Neil Rieck wrote:i >  >> [...snip...]e >>F >> Let's not let our collective admiration of OpenVMS blind us to the G >> fact that the same thing could happen to this OS. (especially since iF >> OpenVMS will only be a one-trick-pony after HP stops manufacturing 
 >> Alpha). >  >  > Y'know, all this talk... > B > I'm going out on a limb here, but my bet is that VMS EngineeringC > is smart enough to have taken advantage of the whole IA64 portingu4 > effort to have done work on "other platforms" too. > 9 > My guesstimate is to look out in the "near" future for:s >  >     OPENVMS-AMD64o > and    OPENVMS-POWER5- > 4 > (definition of "near" intentionally left blank ;-)  O Yeah, I had speculated/dreamed of that several years ago.  Reality is, there's 1N already too much to do, and as long as the likes of Carly/Winkler are around, J they'd surpress such, just to attempt to make their favorite OS have less  competition.   Dave   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:27:31 -0500i' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>w$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?, Message-ID: <41C37973.5020800@tsoft-inc.com>   Neil Rieck wrote:l  ; > "Karsten Nyblad" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message  ) > news:cpv0lb$2r8d$1@news.cybercity.dk...  >  >>Roy Omond wrote: >>K >>They would still need to create new compilers for Macro32 and Bliss.  In sH >>the latter case they will need to do that even if they already have a J >>compiler for Bliss from the Emerald project, because they need a 64-bit L >>Bliss compiler.  Further, they will have to somehow get compilers for all I >>the other languages supported on Alpha VMS.  (Perhaps they can do with K+ >>those promissed to be supported on IA64.)  >>I >>I would only port VMS to AMD64 if I was to decide.  Power 5 is a great tK >>chip, but I think people will prefer to buy it as part of AIX boxes from gJ >>IBM.  It should be possible to get reliable AMD64 boxes if HP choses to % >>build them from high quality parts.f >> > L > We've seen this group perform miracles before. The peanut gallery said it M > would be impossible to move the OS from VAX to Alpha and they did that. At pO > an "OpenVMS Technical Update" in 2003 the audience was told that moving from cK > Alpha to Itanium was even easier. Maybe now is the time to replace BLISS - > with "C".-    H There are some who would view this as a disadvantage, not an advantage. P Regardless of whatever target language, rewriting 1/3 of VMS is non-trivial and  many errors will be introduced.4    L > As for languages, I was under the impression that all GEM-based languages @ > were easy to port (however, I stand corrected if they are not) >  > Neil Rieck > Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,> > Ontario, Canada.; > http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html   >  >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:21:56 -0500a' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> $ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?* Message-ID: <41C37824.10707@tsoft-inc.com>   Neil Rieck wrote:d  B > "David J Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message ' > news:41C2370A.6FD67628@comcast.net...x >  >>DAVID TURNER wrote:  >> > [...snip...] > J >>...and therein lies the rub. So long as the x86-based systems need a VAXE >>emulation layer, they will remain limited as VAX replacements. WhenoI >>OpenVMS-IA32 runs natively on IA32, and OpenVMS-x86/64 runs natively oneD >>x86/64, *THEN* we'll see an opportunity for the market to take off >>again. >> >> > Well said. > L > "OpenVMS-IA32" and "OpenVMS-x86/64" should be the next mantras chanted by O > the folks at HP OpenVMS engineering. Five years ago I would have be a year's eH > pay that Tru64 would have squeezed out other pay-to-use forms of UNIX O > because Tru64 was the best UNIX I'd ever laid my hands on. Now Tru64 is dead  N > in the water and its most important features (AfvFs and TruCluster) are not  > going to be moved into HP-UX.  > O > Let's not let our collective admiration of OpenVMS blind us to the fact that uN > the same thing could happen to this OS. (especially since OpenVMS will only : > be a one-trick-pony after HP stops manufacturing Alpha). > I > p.s. Am I foolish to believe that Tru64 might be moved into the public t	 > domain?e  N No, and the reason is a shame.  HP doesn't give a damn about their customers. N If they had 100 customers, and 99 wanted to stay with open source T64, they'd N kick those 99 into the fire, just to cohere one customer to convert to PH-UX. I Problem is, that last customer went to AIX.  Greedy egg sucking bastards.F  ) (Boy, I must really be having a bad day.)e   Dave   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:21:12 -05005) From: "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca>K$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?: Message-ID: <VJKwd.20290$pb.1288714@news20.bellglobal.com>  ; "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message m& news:41C36598.B9B92CDA@teksavvy.com... > Neil Rieck wrote:e [...snip...] >,B > You've eaten too many magic mushrooms while playing Super Mario. >t > HP has plenty of religion.  K I strongly disagree with this statement. Religious discussions like "which sM is better? CISC, RISC, VLIW, EPIC?" are only the domain of the engineer. The rM people running these companies get no thrill thinking about this stuff. They dM only dream of mergers, takeovers, quarterly profits, IPO's, out sourcing and e4 layoffs. They do NOT think like technical people do.  I IMHO, Compaq cum HP shut down Alpha for reasons only motivated by "easy" e profit:tB 1. they believed Intel hype about when Itanium would be available.L 2. they new they didn't want to do big system engineering any longer (read: L be more like Dell) "and" Alpha engineering was costing them much more money M than the printer/scanner/PC business which is where they really wanted to be hM anyway (remember: HP merged with Compaq, a Texas company that was focused on e a different business).  H So they thought they'd make huge changes to the balance sheet by "first L killing off Alpha and transferring those pesky engineers to Intel" then "by M forming a partnership with Intel so they could buy future Itaniums at a much  $ lower price than their competitors".  K IBM still wanted to do big system engineering (their core business) and so o never considered these options.h  	 * * * * *   K You are right, though, it probably would have been easier to migrate HP-UX eL features into Tru64 than the other way around. Rumour has it that Tru64 was K multi-threaded while HP-UX was not, so moving Tru64 modules like AdvFs and  I TruCluster were probably impossible without rewriting HP-UX. (which they dI wouldn't do now that high quality LINUX is available for free; see above   paragraph on easy profits)  	 * * * * *t  E As I've stated previously in this thread, I was shocked to see Tru64 gJ cancelled and I do not want to see the same thing happen to OpenVMS after L someone at Intel decides that Itanium isn't worth any more effort (although E they are an engineering company, they're not dumb enough to throw an >1 infinite amount of money into a loosing venture).e  
 Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,d Ontario, Canada.8 http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:23:15 -0600n2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?+ Message-ID: <41C39492.496CCB74@comcast.net>A   Dave Froble wrote: >  > Larry Kilgallen wrote: > k > > In article <XG7wd.18737$%p1.1380898@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> writes:I > >t > >rN > >>I'm aware of these VAX emulators but that's not what I had in mind. I wantM > >>to see OpenVMS run in native mode on other hardware platforms. Whether wenO > >>like it or not, the computer industry appears to have produced some defactonM > >>hardware standard platforms and son-of-PC is one of them. I would like tonI > >>see HP direct their OpenVMS engineering team to port OpenVMS to otherDL > >>AMD/Intel chips (while there is still a team available to do so). UnlikeI > >>LINUX, I don't think HP should ever give OpenVMS (for IA32) away, butoM > >>charging something like $100 (to $500) per site license and an additionalpO > >>$20 for every subsequent user license would allow this wonderful OS to fenda! > >>for itself in the real world.l > >> > >aE > > I don't think those are the pricing levels at which VMS is aimed.cB > > The level of reliability that goes into VMS is really aimed at@ > > those for whom the price of buying the box is not paramount. > >: > ; > That's a very valid perception.  Not a bad place for VMS.. > P > But the robust environment VMS provides also makes it a good fit in many other7 > areas.  Is there any reason to avoid smaller markets?>  
 o SaleabilityrB Recent posts here about partners needing to maintain multi-million dollar sales volumes   o VisibilityG The usual stealth-marketing issues and lack of mind-share out there ford VMS.   o Platform issueso Alpha? EOL. Itanic? Unproven.g   o AffordabilityiF VMS licensing is supposed to be more competitive on Itanic, though the? tiering definitely stacks the deck against the would-be OpenVMS 
 entrepreneur.o   o ApplicationsE Software makes hardware happen, as a sticker I got back in the 1980'snE once said - from one or the other DECUS, I believe. Compared to othernH operating platforms, the stable is very similar to the one "They" had at3 Bethlehem - bare, "austere", call it what you will.o   'Nuff said?   F A formidable challenge. My local SBA guy is giving me royal hell about( my biz plan because of all of the above.   -- o David J Dachtera dba DJE Systemse http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/:  " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/:   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:32:45 -0600a2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?+ Message-ID: <41C396CC.8DD3AC44@comcast.net>    Tom Linden wrote:t > 6 > On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:31:54 -0600, David J Dachtera$ > <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> wrote: >  > > DAVID TURNER wrote:e > >> > >> Hang on a minute... > >> > >> www.softresint.come > >>/ > >> I wonder if they are on any stock exchangek+ > >> My bet would be to buy a load of that.o > >> Openvms DOES run on PC'si7 > >> (as long as you give billy your $100.00 as well !)- > >-L > > ...and therein lies the rub. So long as the x86-based systems need a VAXG > > emulation layer, they will remain limited as VAX replacements. WhenoK > > OpenVMS-IA32 runs natively on IA32, and OpenVMS-x86/64 runs natively oniF > > x86/64, *THEN* we'll see an opportunity for the market to take off
 > > again. > >lM > Of course, all modern processors emulate some prior design on an underlying-= > core, the difference is how the emulation code is executed.   H True. Alpha does not require an underlying O.S. between itself and where	 VMS runs.o   -- ? David J Dachtera dba DJE Systemsc http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/s  " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/e   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:36:43 -0600t2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?+ Message-ID: <41C397BB.549B2619@comcast.net>/   Dave Froble wrote: >  > David J Dachtera wrote:  >  > > DAVID TURNER wrote:w > >y > >>Hang on a minute...i > >> > >>www.softresint.com > >>. > >>I wonder if they are on any stock exchange* > >>My bet would be to buy a load of that. > >>Openvms DOES run on PC's6 > >>(as long as you give billy your $100.00 as well !) > >> > >1L > > ...and therein lies the rub. So long as the x86-based systems need a VAXB > > emulation layer, they will remain limited as VAX replacements. > P > Why?  What rule makes this so?  What do you care how you get to an environment > that will run VMS? a  C What happens when your Charon-VAX process GPF's or experiences somee/ other fault? Your "VAX" disappears, doesn't it?   H Other than the odd spurious reset, I've never seen that on either VAX or( Alpha (the real thing, not an emulator).  > > For that matter, VMS doesn't run on Alpha, or NVAX.  It runsQ > on the environment made up of those products plus firmware, microcode, PALcode,iK > whatever.  VAX emulation code is just another example of what I've named.o  F Well, yes and no. Show the underlying o.s. between the console and VMS* on a VAX, or between SRM and VMS on Alpha.   > > WhenK > > OpenVMS-IA32 runs natively on IA32, and OpenVMS-x86/64 runs natively onrF > > x86/64, *THEN* we'll see an opportunity for the market to take off
 > > again. > P > Well, there is no more IA32 hardware available.  Intel and AMD have gotten theM > speed from hardware that is no longer x86, and provided an x86 environment,n3 > again, using firmware/microcode/PALcode/whatever.a  7 Really, I'm sure Intel will find that very interesting.   O > To the people building CPUs today, 'NATIVE' no longer has the same meaning asgS > when CPUS were a collection of boards, and a MOVL truly was a hardware operation.a  A Well, yes and no. At some level, even the GEM back-end eventuallyh- produces code specific to the underlying CPU.o   -- r David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:>" http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:38:10 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?+ Message-ID: <41C39812.34FA15C2@comcast.net>n   david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:s > X > In article <41C243F9.9010305@tsoft-inc.com>, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: > >David J Dachtera wrote: > >i > >> DAVID TURNER wrote: > >> > >>>Hang on a minute... > >>>  > >>>www.softresint.com  > >>>s/ > >>>I wonder if they are on any stock exchangeC+ > >>>My bet would be to buy a load of that.u > >>>Openvms DOES run on PC's 7 > >>>(as long as you give billy your $100.00 as well !)i > >>>e > >>M > >> ...and therein lies the rub. So long as the x86-based systems need a VAX C > >> emulation layer, they will remain limited as VAX replacements.  > >3O > The current products emulate a VAX processor hence they are VAX replacements.cP > Future products running on x86-64 might emulate an Alpha processor and thus be > an Alpha replacement.uQ > The real problem with these emulators though is not the VAX emulation layer butTK > the fact that they are running on top of another OS (ie Windows or Linux)tD > which imposes it's own overheads (and possible security worries ).   Hit the nail on the head!   C Consider staibility issues, also, though some are security related.o   -- p David J Dachtera dba DJE Systemsm http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:c" http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/D  " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/b   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:52:35 -0600:2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?+ Message-ID: <41C39B73.D8EC193D@comcast.net>a   Dave Froble wrote: >  > JF Mezei wrote:a >  > > David J Dachtera wrote:h > >tL > >>...and therein lies the rub. So long as the x86-based systems need a VAXB > >>emulation layer, they will remain limited as VAX replacements. > >> > >eP > > Lets not forget that there is really no roadmap for VAX-VMS, so with VAX-VMSP > > all but declared mature, nobody would really want to jump into VMS. Only old > > exsiting customers would.  > >rQ > > In terms of the comments made about price not being important for the type of,Q > > VMS customer still on VMS, this is the very attitude that had killed Digital,m > > Compaq and will kill HP. > > Q > > When you have competition from other vendors, and when the competition offersnJ > > similar products with a feature set, which wile a subset of VMS, stillM > > fulfills the needs of the vast majority, then you either get a very small:H > > narrow custoemr base with a high price, or you compete head to head. > >rP > > The problem with just expecting rich customer for whom price isn't importantM > > is that the second your competitors get the one feature VMS had that they-Y > > didn't, you're toast because customers will migrate to the competition to save money.j > O > Well JF, I will first say that at times you've said some rather smart things.tR > But at other times you've said some real stupid things.  Now you've extended theR > limits.  Can you tell me how anyone with a hugh application, tens of millions ofO > lines of code, vast amounts of training, hugh investments in procedures, etc,tL > will save money by trying to re-do their applications?  Try to think a bit! > before hitting the SEND button.y  E Well, some folks have never had a good enough "excuse" to go back andeE redo all the things in their application/code that they wish had beene+ done differently. Couldn't cost-justify it.   F In the case of DEC BASIC, for example, there is no binary portability.G So, ya gotta rebuild from source; and, while you're at it, convert yourMG floats to IEEE, fix your alignments, and many other nit-picky bugs thatc+ have hounded your help desk over the years.u  E > The same reason is why there is still a large (don't know the size),  * That's o.k. - I don't think even HP knows.  
 > base of VMSmS > users.  Even if they hate HP, they prefer to not take the hate out on themselves.g  / True. The HP field folks will do that for them.a  P > It's also the thing that Compaq just didn't care about when they killed Alpha.( > Wanted to save a few measley billion.   G Debatable. Curly wanted to seal the deal with Carly. Carly said to dumpL4 Alpha, and the dutiful "husband" (fiance'?) obliged.  + > In doing so, they exposed their customersa   ...and themselves...  K > to trillions in conversion costs.  (Well, I'm pulling that out of my ass,r  2 A bit inflated, but the concept is probably sound.   > buts > you can see the concept.)o   Indeed.s   > [snip]; > I do agree that new customers are much easily scared off,n  ? ...not to mention existing customers who are *SO* tired of HP's 
 (censored)...V   > and that competing isd > essential.  H ...but it's last thing the VMS folks would even THINK about doing. Can'tF be competitive - "might sell product, and then we might make a profit,? and then we'd have to pay taxes, and then we might have to sell:H contracts (more profit) to support all those sales and we're getting too old for that spit..."i  @ Y'know, Zig Ziglar would chide me for being so negative. I mean,A normally, I'd go out right behind Zig, to go after Moby Dick in aCG rowboat and take the tartar sauce with me, but sometimes the glass with ; the little droplet of condensation in it *IS* mostly empty!r   -- e David J Dachtera dba DJE SystemsP http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:P" http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/l  " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/e   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:54:33 -0600.2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?* Message-ID: <41C39BE9.B6E81EB@comcast.net>   Roy Omond wrote: >  > Neil Rieck wrote:, > > [...snip...] > >0P > > Let's not let our collective admiration of OpenVMS blind us to the fact thatO > > the same thing could happen to this OS. (especially since OpenVMS will onlyo< > > be a one-trick-pony after HP stops manufacturing Alpha). >  > Y'know, all this talk... > B > I'm going out on a limb here, but my bet is that VMS EngineeringC > is smart enough to have taken advantage of the whole IA64 portingc4 > effort to have done work on "other platforms" too. > 9 > My guesstimate is to look out in the "near" future for:  >  >         OPENVMS-AMD64( > and     OPENVMS-POWER5 > 4 > (definition of "near" intentionally left blank ;-)  $ BLIMEY! ...that's a lot of optimism!   Kudos to you, Neil!f   -- . David J Dachtera dba DJE Systemsa http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/e  " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:50:56 -0500e' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> $ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?, Message-ID: <41C3B730.3040807@tsoft-inc.com>   David J Dachtera wrote:r   > Tom Linden wrote:t > 6 >>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:31:54 -0600, David J Dachtera$ >><djesys.nospam@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >>>DAVID TURNER wrote: >>>s >>>>Hang on a minute...m >>>> >>>>www.softresint.com >>>>. >>>>I wonder if they are on any stock exchange* >>>>My bet would be to buy a load of that. >>>>Openvms DOES run on PC's6 >>>>(as long as you give billy your $100.00 as well !) >>>>K >>>...and therein lies the rub. So long as the x86-based systems need a VAXtF >>>emulation layer, they will remain limited as VAX replacements. WhenJ >>>OpenVMS-IA32 runs natively on IA32, and OpenVMS-x86/64 runs natively onE >>>x86/64, *THEN* we'll see an opportunity for the market to take off 	 >>>again.u >>>r >>> M >>Of course, all modern processors emulate some prior design on an underlyinge= >>core, the difference is how the emulation code is executed.e >> > J > True. Alpha does not require an underlying O.S. between itself and where > VMS runs.. >  >   # All you're doing is arguing method.   Q If SRI were to put the supporting pieces in place to allow their emulator to run  M on the supporting pieces, and not windoz/linux/unix/whatever, what would you oO have?  Note that the supporting pieces would be an OS.  Also note that the SRI uM people may not have OS expertise.  The emulator is for hardware, not any OS, u including VMS.  Q I've read multiple times that Windows NT isn't really a bad OS.  What's piled on pJ top of it, sometimes not using features that would make the 'piled stuff' 5 better, is another story.  For whatever that's worth.   M There are still issues such as robust hardware.  Error correcting memory and oO such.  Any OS is dependant upon it's hardware, including VMS.  Get some robust tK hardware, and use SRI's example of shutting off anything not required, and s' really, what's so bad about Charon VAX?n   Dave   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 00:02:05 -0500l' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>p$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?* Message-ID: <41C3B9CD.50006@tsoft-inc.com>   David J Dachtera wrote:o   > Dave Froble wrote: >  >>David J Dachtera wrote:  >> >> >>>DAVID TURNER wrote: >>>a >>>7 >>>>Hang on a minute...  >>>> >>>>www.softresint.com >>>>. >>>>I wonder if they are on any stock exchange* >>>>My bet would be to buy a load of that. >>>>Openvms DOES run on PC's6 >>>>(as long as you give billy your $100.00 as well !) >>>> >>>>K >>>...and therein lies the rub. So long as the x86-based systems need a VAX A >>>emulation layer, they will remain limited as VAX replacements.a >>>nP >>Why?  What rule makes this so?  What do you care how you get to an environment >>that will run VMS? t >> > E > What happens when your Charon-VAX process GPF's or experiences some 1 > other fault? Your "VAX" disappears, doesn't it?F > J > Other than the odd spurious reset, I've never seen that on either VAX or* > Alpha (the real thing, not an emulator).     Have you seen it on Charon VAX?s  > >>For that matter, VMS doesn't run on Alpha, or NVAX.  It runsQ >>on the environment made up of those products plus firmware, microcode, PALcode,aK >>whatever.  VAX emulation code is just another example of what I've named.T >> > H > Well, yes and no. Show the underlying o.s. between the console and VMS, > on a VAX, or between SRM and VMS on Alpha.    K You're stuck on the term OS.  It's a term.  I could get hung up on "memory :N manager".  It's not relavent.  It's the final environment that's presented to Q you that is the issue.  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and there's hL shit everywhere, then it's a duck.  (Sorry, but we live on an old farm, and N people think we're here for whenever they tire of the animals they have.  The  last drop off was ducks.)    >>>When-J >>>OpenVMS-IA32 runs natively on IA32, and OpenVMS-x86/64 runs natively onE >>>x86/64, *THEN* we'll see an opportunity for the market to take off0	 >>>again.a >>> P >>Well, there is no more IA32 hardware available.  Intel and AMD have gotten theM >>speed from hardware that is no longer x86, and provided an x86 environment,.3 >>again, using firmware/microcode/PALcode/whatever.s >> > 9 > Really, I'm sure Intel will find that very interesting.s    G Where have you been.  For quite a few years Intel has presented a CICS >L environment using cores that are very far from what you see.  Let me repeat M that.  THEY PRESENT AN ENVIRONMENT!  Maybe you should read up on some of the n technical data on the N-VAX.    O >>To the people building CPUs today, 'NATIVE' no longer has the same meaning as S >>when CPUS were a collection of boards, and a MOVL truly was a hardware operation.o >> > C > Well, yes and no. At some level, even the GEM back-end eventuallyg/ > produces code specific to the underlying CPU.-    6 No!  It produces code specific to the >>ENVIRONMENT<<!  H I'm not the best to explain this.  I do understand at some level what's N happening.  I'd suggest that you find someone who can explain the concepts so  you can understand the issues.   Dave   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:33:37 GMTd6 From: "Kenneth Farmer" <kfarmer@NOSPAM.spyderbyte.com>1 Subject: Vanquishing the Smoke and Fog with Factsy: Message-ID: <5EFwd.115$Hk4.41713@twister.southeast.rr.com>  G Vanquishing the Smoke and Fog with Facts: Observations on the HP-Intel  $ Announcements of 14-15 December 2004  J Recent announcements by HP and Intel concerning the re-arrangement of the I development team for the Itanium series of microprocessors have prompted .; much discussion and a fair bit of concern in our community.   9 http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=04/12/17/1677470        Ken'   OpenVMS.orgl% _____________________________________r Kenneth R. Farmer <>< & SpyderByte: http://www.SpyderByte.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:10:18 -0500d# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>r5 Subject: Re: Vanquishing the Smoke and Fog with Factso, Message-ID: <w7OdnZN0zai3oF7cRVn-2A@igs.net>   Kenneth Farmer wrote: H > Vanquishing the Smoke and Fog with Facts: Observations on the HP-Intel& > Announcements of 14-15 December 2004 >FG > Recent announcements by HP and Intel concerning the re-arrangement of E > the development team for the Itanium series of microprocessors have F > prompted much discussion and a fair bit of concern in our community. >i; > http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=04/12/17/1677470t    L http://www.datamonitor.com/~57bd64fd9b024806b0db0b6d8f511fc6~/companies/compL any/?pid=E82C088A-0488-4DB5-8953-9E316C2B44D1&nid=31F28456-D67E-4E03-AEF7-22" D40205BC83&type=NewsWire&article=1      C ...."Everyone has been thinking that HP was the dupe in the ItaniumoI partnership, but as time passes, it is becoming clear who will be gettingiK the short end of the stick in this relationship going forward. And it isn'taK HP. It is Intel, which would have probably killed off Itanium a year or two/E ago (we surmise) if it were not for one fact: Intel has a contractualhL arrangement that forces it to supply HP with Itanium chips, probably so longK as HP desires them. And with HP-UX and now OpenVMS ported to and soon to be-K only available on Itanium, HP most definitely wants those Itanium chips foroL its Integrity-based servers. If Intel kills Itanium, then HP will sue it forK breach of contract. This is the only explanation that makes sense. And whenoG the idea was ran past Don Jenkins, vice president of marketing for HP's5I Business Critical Systems unit, he said that this was absolutely correct. J "Yes, absolutely, Intel has a long-term commitment to supply the Itanium,"K he said. And when pressed further with the suggestion that a commitment can I be broken a lot easier than a contract he said that there is absolutely aoC legal contract that assures that Intel has to supply HP with chips.   J As to the precise term of the contract, he was not sure. But presumably itH is at least out to 2008, which is the term of the new $3 billion ItaniumG investment plan that HP recently announced. HP's commitment to Itanium,tJ regardless of all the naysayers, is precisely as strong as the unavoidableJ fact that its HP-UX, OpenVMS, and NonStop operating systems are only goingL to be available on Itanium chips in Integrity systems in the not-too-distant future. In early 2005,I HP will roll out production versions of OpenVMS for Itanium, and later in>G the year it will follow with variants of the NonStop servers running onl Itanium." ......    L Does this mean that in 2008 the axe will fall on Itanic if  purchases of theE chips isn't sufficient to interest Intel in continuing production andn further development?  I How many times does the OpenVMS Engineering team have to drop all the new I features and improvements they ought to be working on in order to port tom the 'chip of the week'?   $ I guess the answer to that would be:: 1) No advertising/marketing of OpenVMS = no new customers.* 2) No new customers = continued attrition.1 3) Continued attrition = EOL announcement for VMS C 4) EOL announcement = no port to Power ot Opteron or anything else.eL 5) No port = all us old dogs have to learn new tricks in order to be able to retire comfortably.t    I Seems to me that Alpha is the way to go....HP still owns the intellectualoE property rights, correct?  Oh, I forgot...HP doesn't do its own thingiG anymore....they just Invent new ways to run a business into the ground.t   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Dec 2004 14:56:31 -0800 From: ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com5 Subject: Re: Vanquishing the Smoke and Fog with Facts B Message-ID: <1103324191.413809.78510@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>   John Smith wrote:h? > contract that assures that Intel has to supply HP with chips.y
 presumably it B > is at least out to 2008, which is the term of the new $3 billion Itaniumh- > investment plan that HP recently announced. G > Does this mean that in 2008 the axe will fall on Itanic if  purchasese of theG > chips isn't sufficient to interest Intel in continuing production andt > further development?  B Not likely. The $3 billion probably comes with strings attached. AE likely string is that HP gets back IA64 and its team if Intel decidesaG to drop it. That would let HP tough it out till it comes up with a long 
 term plan.   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Dec 2004 16:19:36 -0800  From: "mas" <mas769@hotmail.com>5 Subject: Re: Vanquishing the Smoke and Fog with Facts B Message-ID: <1103329176.551215.96990@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>  * This maybe of, ahem, interest to you guys.  i http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&PostNum=2961&Thread=6&entryID=43332&roomID=11o  i http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&PostNum=2961&Thread=8&entryID=43337&roomID=11t  j http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&PostNum=2961&Thread=10&entryID=43346&roomID=11       > John Smith wrote:  >u > [....] >IG > Does this mean that in 2008 the axe will fall on Itanic if  purchasess of theG > chips isn't sufficient to interest Intel in continuing production and  > further development? >eG > How many times does the OpenVMS Engineering team have to drop all the4 new4C > features and improvements they ought to be working on in order tom port tov > the 'chip of the week'?C >C& > I guess the answer to that would be:< > 1) No advertising/marketing of OpenVMS = no new customers., > 2) No new customers = continued attrition.3 > 3) Continued attrition = EOL announcement for VMS E > 4) EOL announcement = no port to Power ot Opteron or anything else.rF > 5) No port = all us old dogs have to learn new tricks in order to be able tol > retire comfortably.u >n >l> > Seems to me that Alpha is the way to go....HP still owns the intellectualG > property rights, correct?  Oh, I forgot...HP doesn't do its own thingrA > anymore....they just Invent new ways to run a business into the  ground.r   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:20:13 -0500f- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 5 Subject: Re: Vanquishing the Smoke and Fog with Factsi, Message-ID: <41C385C5.3C2CDFDA@teksavvy.com>   ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com wrote:eD > Not likely. The $3 billion probably comes with strings attached. AG > likely string is that HP gets back IA64 and its team if Intel decides-I > to drop it. That would let HP tough it out till it comes up with a longt > term plan.  H HP already has a long term plan and it is obvious that it and Intel have: discussed this strategy and how to implement it over time.  L Throughout 2004, both HP and Intel have leaked strong hints that they have aB long term strategy that doesn't match their public plan of record.  I By the time HP and Intel publicly announce IA64 to be mature in 2007, the E public will see this as a no brainer because the 8086 will have grownjL sufficekntly to take on enterprise jobs,a dn moving to the 8086 will be seen as the wise move.l  K So in essence, HP is going to kill IA64 the right way, having learned aboutdF its mistakes of prematurely announcing the murder of PaRisc and Alpha.   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:44:27 GMTu% From: "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com>aI Subject: Re: [Nomex on]: Security research suggests Linux has fewer flawsM: Message-ID: <vGGwd.135$rg7.116@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>  I "Bob Koehler" <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote in message a- news:S5f9gH4x+lZB@eisner.encompasserve.org...hL > In article <gvjwd.900$1o1.366@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, "John Vottero"  > <John@mvpsi.com> writes: >>>h >>G >> Yeah, the tools can be useful but, it makes no sense to compare the o
 >> resultsL >> from the Linux kernel to the results from "commercial" software.  Compare2 >> Linux kernel to HP-UX kernel or Windows kernel. >aI >   The last time I looked, HP-UX and Windows were "commercial software".dI >   I'm willing to go along with the notion that they weren't able to getaD >   the Windows source code to scan, but what evidence is there thatI >   OS kernels have different error rates than other commercial software?.  $ Could they get the source for HP-UX?  M I can't point to any evidence but, logically, the more software is used, the ,F more it's bugs are flushed out.  Since everything else depends on the > kernel, the kernel is used more than most commercial software.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:00:15 -0500a' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>4I Subject: Re: [Nomex on]: Security research suggests Linux has fewer flawsp, Message-ID: <41C3730F.9020907@tsoft-inc.com>   John Vottero wrote:t  K > "Bob Koehler" <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote in message ./ > news:S5f9gH4x+lZB@eisner.encompasserve.org...  > L >>In article <gvjwd.900$1o1.366@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, "John Vottero"  >><John@mvpsi.com> writes: >>G >>>Yeah, the tools can be useful but, it makes no sense to compare the  
 >>>resultsL >>>from the Linux kernel to the results from "commercial" software.  Compare2 >>>Linux kernel to HP-UX kernel or Windows kernel. >>>dI >>  The last time I looked, HP-UX and Windows were "commercial software". I >>  I'm willing to go along with the notion that they weren't able to getoD >>  the Windows source code to scan, but what evidence is there thatI >>  OS kernels have different error rates than other commercial software?u >> > & > Could they get the source for HP-UX? > O > I can't point to any evidence but, logically, the more software is used, the sH > more it's bugs are flushed out.  Since everything else depends on the @ > kernel, the kernel is used more than most commercial software. >  >  >   M Then windoz is perfect?  Ooops, you do have to fix them when they're flushed 9	 out.  :-)    Dave   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Dec 2004 13:58:06 -0500/ From: brooks@cuebid.zko.dec.nospam (Rob Brooks) K Subject: Re: [OpenVMS Alpha V7.3-2] GETDVI Item for Volume Size and Limit ?t- Message-ID: <LNBdnKdwXUgn@cuebid.zko.dec.com>-  / Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:1: > peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER) writes: > Q >> PS: I also found the following items missing in HELP. Could someone check 8.2?o > C > If you merely found them in STARLET.REQ, then the items very well D > may not work, produce the wrong answers, or (worst of all) produce* > the wrong answers just some of the time.  = Ayup; if it isn't in the documentation, then, by definition, .J it's undocumented, and should not be counted on to return anything useful.  F > But perhaps some of those you listed will now be documented with theI > vast expansion of DVI$_ codes mentioned by someone from VMS DevelopmentsF > here.  As I recall, that is due to arrive in Alpha VMS V8.2 (and was > _not_ in the Field Test).f  G None of those codes listed were added for V8.2; it's possible that the dK engineer who added them in the past did not complete the work needed to getI: them documented, or, as above, they are not to be trusted.$                                     ; I do know that EXPSIZE and VOLSIZE are documented for V8.2.e   -- i  M Rob Brooks    VMS Engineering -- I/O Exec Group     brooks!cuebid.zko.dec.comi   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.700 ************************