0 INFO-VAX	Mon, 02 Feb 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 65      Contents:7 "Virtualization solutions for the adaptive enterprise."  Re: $SETUAI() Query/Problem  Re: $SETUAI() Query/Problem  Re: AlphaServer 2100 Re: AlphaServer 2100 Re: AlphaServer 2100 Re: AlphaServer 21002 Re: Does iSCSI infringe on any MSCP patents or IP?2 Re: Does iSCSI infringe on any MSCP patents or IP?2 Re: Does iSCSI infringe on any MSCP patents or IP?% HOW MANY BPI DOES A DLT7000 WRITE AT? P RE: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications performance         oP Re: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications performance on ItaniuP Re: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications performance on ItaniuP Re: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications performance on ItaniuP Re: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications performance on Itaniu: Re: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !!+ Re: Moderate this group (was: HTML posting)  Re: MyDoom = Microsoft + SCO Re: MyDoom = Microsoft + SCO Re: MyDoom = Microsoft + SCO Re: MyDoom = Microsoft + SCO0 Re: New Variant MyDoom.B targeting Microsoft.com0 Re: New Variant MyDoom.B targeting Microsoft.com0 Re: New Variant MyDoom.B targeting Microsoft.com0 Re: New Variant MyDoom.B targeting Microsoft.com0 Re: New Variant MyDoom.B targeting Microsoft.com0 RE: New Variant MyDoom.B targeting Microsoft.com0 RE: New Variant MyDoom.B targeting Microsoft.comJ Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your response!J Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your response!P Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your response! respoP Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your response! respo Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars # Re: Searching for DECps information @ Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systems6 Tinkered with AlphaServer 2100 (was: AlphaServer 2100)  Re: Why PERL on VMS? We have DCL! RE: [OT] MyDoom = Microsoft + SCO   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------   Date: 2 Feb 2004 07:27:55 -0800 . From: fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br (Fabio Cardoso)@ Subject: "Virtualization solutions for the adaptive enterprise."= Message-ID: <f30679fb.0402020727.454a5066@posting.google.com>   : There is an interesting White Paper from HP in their site 9 about Utility Computing and GRIDs but there is no mention + of OpenVMS. Just Solaris (????) support :-/ ( Is there any plan for OpenVMS support ?   S http://h30046.www3.hp.com/casestudies/media/Virtualization_Solutions_whitepaper.pdf      (....)  <  Reduced costs. With the ability to pool resources from allE departments, IT no longer needs to overprovision in order to handle a C specific application's peak loads. Operational costs drop, as well, ? because IT eliminates the need to physically move equipment and C reconfigure software. In the course of providing the Business Value 6 Analysis service for customers, HP has documented cost: savings from 25 to 50% compared to traditional data center configurations. B  Support for multiple operating environments. The HP UDC solutionA supports HP-UX, Linux,Windows, and Solaris, enabling companies to ; re-utilize and extend the life of their existing IT assets.      (...)    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 12:45:43 -0500 & From: David M Smith <dsmit115@csc.com>$ Subject: Re: $SETUAI() Query/Problem8 Message-ID: <uv2t10d5e01lio12j3utonv6qjdd5qtfv8@4ax.com>  K On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 12:40:08 -0500, David M Smith <dsmit115@csc.com> wrote:   O >At the risk of answering the technical question without considering whether or P >not the solution is a good one, simply defining the logical names in /EXEC modeQ >is not enough. My experience is that there is an additional step that is needed: N >to define the logical name LNM$FILE_DEV in the LNM$PROCESS_DIRECTORY with theQ >same value as found in the table LNM$SYSTEM_DIRECTORY. Also, be certain that all N >logicals used in your definition of SYSUAF (and RIGHTSLIST if you use it) are >define in /EXEC mode.  M I failed to state that the definition for LNM$FILE_DEV must be in /EXEC mode. D You can retrieve the current system value of this logical name with:  = $ SHOW LOGICAL /FULL LNM$FILE_DEV /TABLE=LNM$SYSTEM_DIRECTORY   O and then define an exec-mode value in the LNM$PROCESS_DIRECTORY table to match. M It has been so long ago that I learned this that I don't remember from where. I ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I David M. Smith 302.391.8533                       dsmit115 at csc dot com I Computer Sciences Corporation     (Opinions are those of the writer only) I -------------------------------------------------------------------------    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 12:40:08 -0500 & From: David M Smith <dsmit115@csc.com>$ Subject: Re: $SETUAI() Query/Problem8 Message-ID: <n92t10huqjr5tusfj8okec5csitv6qtiam@4ax.com>  8 On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:13:50 -0500, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:   F >I seem to recall that the logicals used by SYSUAF must be defined in D >EXECUTIVE_MODE.   They need not be in the system table but must be E >/EXEC.  This applies to  SYSUAF, RIGHTSLIST, NETPROXY and NET$PROXY.   N At the risk of answering the technical question without considering whether orO not the solution is a good one, simply defining the logical names in /EXEC mode P is not enough. My experience is that there is an additional step that is needed:M to define the logical name LNM$FILE_DEV in the LNM$PROCESS_DIRECTORY with the P same value as found in the table LNM$SYSTEM_DIRECTORY. Also, be certain that allM logicals used in your definition of SYSUAF (and RIGHTSLIST if you use it) are  define in /EXEC mode.   P I have used this technique to access local copies of SYSUAF.DAT files using codeN based on $GETUAI, and I assume it will also work for $SETUAI although you willP have to try that. I have never attempted to do "transparent network access" to a remote SYSUAF.DAT like that.I ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I David M. Smith 302.391.8533                       dsmit115 at csc dot com I Computer Sciences Corporation     (Opinions are those of the writer only) I -------------------------------------------------------------------------    ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 23:40:33 +1100 From: BAH <bah@bit.bucket> Subject: Re: AlphaServer 2100 , Message-ID: <13t1f1-slq.ln1@deep.bit.bucket>  P On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 23:26:59 -0500, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> Wrote :   <snip> > M > I think it would make for a very popular picture if a 2100 were attached to $ > the belly of mr Henderson's plane.  I It'd make a better one if there was a formation of C-182's ( a GREAT jump D plane, BTW ) each with a 2100 strapped on somewhere all connected by7 some breed of wireless network. Airborne clusters...:-) @ How wide would you like the "wide" in Wide Area Cluster ??...:-)     Oh well - back to lurking.   --    
 BAH Humbug   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 14:34:06 GMT F From: lederman@star.enet.dec.DISABLE-JUNK-EMAIL.com (Bart Z. Lederman) Subject: Re: AlphaServer 2100 3 Message-ID: <ydtTb.13545$7T2.6063@news.cpqcorp.net>   : Based on what I've seen inside the AS2100's I've worked on; in my group, I don't think there is much that can safely be 9 done to reduce the size.  You can slip off the front door < easily, and you could probably remove the wheels, but that's= about it.  And if you do remove the front door, use some sort > of padding to protect the LED display, which sticks out a bit.   --  (  B. Z. Lederman   Personal Opinions Only  8  Posting to a News group does NOT give anyone permission8  to send me advertising by E-mail or put me on a mailing  list of any kind.  5  Please remove the "DISABLE-JUNK-EMAIL" if you have a 5  legitimate reason to E-mail a response to this post.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 23:09:33 +0800 , From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com> Subject: Re: AlphaServer 2100 - Message-ID: <87wu75cyc2.fsf@prep.synonet.com>   * Javier Henderson <javier@KJSL.COM> writes:  C > I once transported a VAX 4300 in my airplane, by disassembling it ? > into major components. The total weight wasn't a problem, the F > dimensions made it too bulky to easily load it (I've a Cessna 182, a > four seater).   E > Does anyone know if an AlphaServer 2100 can be put apart like that?    Not easily.   C > The max weight, according to specs I found online, is 250 pounds, F > which makes it Not A Problem. The dimensions are 47in by 40 in by 24E > in, and that would make it A Problem. I need to transport one a few  > hundred miles...  D Pull the back seat and load it with the front seats right foward. IfF should fit lengthways behind the pax seat. Pax can sit on the floor or think small :)   --  < Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda. @                                              West Australia 6076* comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 07:50:45 -0800* From: "Jack Peacock" <peacock@simconv.com> Subject: Re: AlphaServer 2100 2 Message-ID: <aP-dnahpYtdL7IPdRVn-jg@mpowercom.net>  5 "Javier Henderson" <javier@KJSL.COM> wrote in message ' news:86n082p5qg.fsf@skylane.kjsl.com... H > I once transported a VAX 4300 in my airplane, by disassembling it intoJ > major components. The total weight wasn't a problem, the dimensions madeD > it too bulky to easily load it (I've a Cessna 182, a four seater). > E > Does anyone know if an AlphaServer 2100 can be put apart like that?  > K I've taken a few 2100's apart, not the most pleasant of tasks.  There's not L much you can do about the chassis size, but if you need to distribute weightJ you can pull out the power supply (both if you have a dual supply) and youI can pull out the disk drives and storageworks rack(s) in the front.  At a = guess that would move about 50lbs. on your center of gravity.    Jack Peacock   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 12:06:52 +0800 , From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>; Subject: Re: Does iSCSI infringe on any MSCP patents or IP? - Message-ID: <87oesjh28z.fsf@prep.synonet.com>   , "Jack Peacock" <peacock@simconv.com> writes:  C > While reading a newsletter about how well iSCSI is now working as E > far as vendor interoperability, it struck me that DEC has done this D > before with the MSCP protocol, sending command packets for storageE > access to remote machines across a network interconnect.  While the D > command specifics may not match, is that enough for there to be noD > hidden big hammer waiting at HP to come down on storage vendors ifD > iSCSI takes off in a big way?  Did HP inherit any patents or tradeB > secrets for MSCP, and what is their status now?  Has HP made anyE > announcements regarding MSCP?  It's been my understanding that MSCP C > was regarded as a proprietary protocol and trade secret, one that & > DEC did not release for general use.  D Well, a few of us got the UDA-50 manual before it was pulled :) I'll bet Alan has a copy or 3.   C Some of the things in MSCP and SCA where patented, but I think they C will have run out now, it is 20 years or so. HP now owns all of it, @ but has not used the results from 20 years ago in the MSCP work.  B The interesting thaing, is IBM have pulled back in a big way, so IF wonder if they have re-discovered a few of the small details that went into MSCP et al?   --  < Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda. @                                              West Australia 6076* comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 07:07:01 -07008 From: "Michael D. Ober" <obermd-.@.-alum-mit-edu-nospam>; Subject: Re: Does iSCSI infringe on any MSCP patents or IP? / Message-ID: <aQsTb.7$Bi2.28133@news.uswest.net>   I In the US, Patents are for 17 years with the option of one renewal (which D isn't guaranteed).  I don't know how long they are good for in other
 countries.   Mike.   / "vax,3900" <vax3900@yahoo.com> wrote in message 4 news:bvj9a3$rb8$1@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > Jack Peacock wrote:  > L > > While reading a newsletter about how well iSCSI is now working as far asL > > vendor interoperability, it struck me that DEC has done this before withK > > the MSCP protocol, sending command packets for storage access to remote  > > machinesG > > across a network interconnect.  While the command specifics may not  match,H > > is that enough for there to be no hidden big hammer waiting at HP to comeL > > down on storage vendors if iSCSI takes off in a big way?  Did HP inherit > > any L > > patents or trade secrets for MSCP, and what is their status now?  Has HPK > > made any announcements regarding MSCP?  It's been my understanding that J > > MSCP was regarded as a proprietary protocol and trade secret, one that DEC $ > > did not release for general use. > >    Jack Peacock  > L > MSCP patent will expire in 2004 anyway (If all patent expire in 20 years). I  > have a copy of that patent.    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Feb 2004 09:51:01 -0600 - From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) ; Subject: Re: Does iSCSI infringe on any MSCP patents or IP? 3 Message-ID: <eMHZ9hz1xr$Z@eisner.encompasserve.org>   \ In article <87oesjh28z.fsf@prep.synonet.com>, Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com> writes:  ? > The interesting thaing, is IBM have pulled back in a big way,    What do you mean by that ?   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Feb 2004 06:19:21 -0800  From: mb301@hotmail.com (MB). Subject: HOW MANY BPI DOES A DLT7000 WRITE AT?= Message-ID: <1d08b916.0402020619.678a1984@posting.google.com>   B Could anyone tell me how many BPI does a quantum DLT7000 WRITE AT?  H Magtape VMS1$MKA100:, device type QUANTUM DLT7000, is online, allocated,M     record-oriented device, file-oriented device, served to cluster via TMSCP P     Server, error logging is enabled, controller supports compaction (compaction'     enabled), device supports fastskip.   C Using a sony DLTtape IV in compaction mode and non-compaction mode?   
 Many thanks,.  Mark   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 07:58:15 -0800# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> Y Subject: RE: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications performance         o 9 Message-ID: <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIGEBFCMAA.tom@kednos.com>      -----Original Message-----0   From: David Svensson [mailto:icerq4a@spray.se])   Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 7:35 AM    To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com E   Subject: Re: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications    performance on Itanium    7   Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew No.Harrison &   No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message.   news:<bvl8sf$aqi$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...   > Keith Parris wrote: I   > > Intel and Microsoft release new technology for HP Integrity servers    > > by Jeff Kyle   > >    > K   > "IA-32 EL is intended for use with supporting applications that are not J   > performance-sensitive (for example for administration tools and systemC   > monitoring). Primary applications, such as database software or 
   business   > C   > applications, should be native 64-bit applications designed for 
   use with   > 8   > Windows Server 2003 for 64-Bit Itanium-based System"   > C   > This is what Microsoft say about the product looks like a niche 
   > solution.    >    >    > Regards    > Andrew Harrison    >   /   It does not look like a niche solution to me. H   But you must ofcourse have something to say about it in a dull manner.  <   BTW. used it last week, and it looks good. For normal userB   applications I don't experience any difference in performance toG   running those on a normal Pentium 4 computer. It would be interesting    to see how games work though.   G Speaking of which a new pentium 4 was announced today, with 125 Million  transistors # with speeds upto 4GHz by years end.    --- (   Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.<   Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).B   Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 1/22/2004   --- & Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).@ Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 1/22/2004   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Feb 2004 07:35:10 -0800 ' From: icerq4a@spray.se (David Svensson) Y Subject: Re: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications performance on Itaniu = Message-ID: <734da31c.0402020735.25d135c7@posting.google.com>    Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew No.Harrison No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<bvl8sf$aqi$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...  > Keith Parris wrote: G > > Intel and Microsoft release new technology for HP Integrity servers  > > by Jeff Kyle > >  > J > "IA-32 EL is intended for use with supporting applications that are not I > performance-sensitive (for example for administration tools and system  K > monitoring). Primary applications, such as database software or business   > K > applications, should be native 64-bit applications designed for use with   > 6 > Windows Server 2003 for 64-Bit Itanium-based System" > A > This is what Microsoft say about the product looks like a niche  > solution.  >  > 	 > Regards  > Andrew Harrison  >   - It does not look like a niche solution to me. F But you must ofcourse have something to say about it in a dull manner.  : BTW. used it last week, and it looks good. For normal user@ applications I don't experience any difference in performance toE running those on a normal Pentium 4 computer. It would be interesting  to see how games work though.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 10:30:39 +0000 O From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> Y Subject: Re: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications performance on Itaniu 0 Message-ID: <bvl8sf$aqi$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Keith Parris wrote: E > Intel and Microsoft release new technology for HP Integrity servers  > by Jeff Kyle >=20  J "IA-32 EL is intended for use with supporting applications that are not=20I performance-sensitive (for example for administration tools and system=20 J monitoring). Primary applications, such as database software or business =  J applications, should be native 64-bit applications designed for use with =  4 Windows Server 2003 for 64-Bit Itanium-based System"  ? This is what Microsoft say about the product looks like a niche 	 solution.      Regards  Andrew Harrison     F > Intel and Microsoft have released the IA-32 Execution Layer (EL) 4.3J > software driver for systems powered by the Intel=AE Itanium=AE 2 proces= sor F > running Microsoft=AE Windows=AE Server 2003. The IA-32 EL technologyF > provides greater flexibility for customers migrating applications toC > the 64-bit Windows operating system on Itanium 2-based servers by H > increasing the performance of many 32-bit software applications. IA-32H > EL is a software package integrated with the operating system. ItaniumG > processors have always provided support for 32-bit applications using < > on-die hardware; however, with IA-32 EL, support for IA-32F > applications will be carried out in software. At run time, the IA-32E > Execution Layer software translates the IA-32 application code into G > native Itanium architecture code and allows it to run as native code.  >=20@ > HP Integrity system customers are taking full advantage of theH > performance and scalability offered by Itanium 2 based systems runningE > Windows Server 2003 with fully functional 64-bit database, decision H > support, and line-of-business application environments. Now, customersH > can take advantage of IA-32 EL software to run their 32-bit supportingG > software on the Itanium 2-based server. This new approach facilitates F > customer migration to Integrity servers and provides the flexibilityH > needed for future performance and scalability enhancements, as well asE > giving customers the ability to seamlessly deploy Integrity servers G > throughout their data centers. The full line of HP Integrity servers, A > from the 2-way Integrity rx2600 to the 64-way capable Integrity D > Superdome running Windows Server 2003, supports IA-32 EL software.G > IA-32 EL is supported today in Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition B > for 64-Bit Itanium-based systems, Windows Server 2003 DatacenterA > Edition for 64-Bit Itanium-based Systems, and Windows XP 64-Bit 
 > Edition. >=200 > IA-32 EL software is available for download atG > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/ipf/ia32el.mspx. The B > software will be included with the Service Pack 1 release of all> > editions of Windows Server 2003 for Itanium 2 based systems.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:53:34 +0000 O From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> Y Subject: Re: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications performance on Itaniu 0 Message-ID: <bvlvae$iqd$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   David Svensson wrote:  > Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew No.Harrison No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<bvl8sf$aqi$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...  >  >>Keith Parris wrote:  >>F >>>Intel and Microsoft release new technology for HP Integrity servers >>>by Jeff Kyle  >>>  >>J >>"IA-32 EL is intended for use with supporting applications that are not I >>performance-sensitive (for example for administration tools and system  K >>monitoring). Primary applications, such as database software or business   >>K >>applications, should be native 64-bit applications designed for use with   >>6 >>Windows Server 2003 for 64-Bit Itanium-based System" >>A >>This is what Microsoft say about the product looks like a niche  >>solution.  >> >>	 >>Regards  >>Andrew Harrison  >> >  > / > It does not look like a niche solution to me. H > But you must ofcourse have something to say about it in a dull manner. > < > BTW. used it last week, and it looks good. For normal userB > applications I don't experience any difference in performance toG > running those on a normal Pentium 4 computer. It would be interesting  > to see how games work though.     D Funny, the white paper which shows the performance of the translatedA code vs native shows that the performance of a 1.5 GHZ Itanium is ? 105% of a 1.6 GHz Xeon for SPECint and 98% of that of a 1.6 GHz  Xeon for SPECfp.  C That would put the emulation at ~599 SPECint on the fastest Itanium  CPU and ~360 on the slowest.  @ For FP this would be ~624 SPECfp on the fastest Itanium and ~390 on the slowest.   A I don't need to point out that this isn't very good compared with ; AMD64, or Xeon/Pentium for x86 applications. The best AMD64 ? numbers are 1477 INT 1514 FP, the best Xeon/Pentium numbers are > P4/EE 1509 INT and 1516 FP. Few people will be prepared to pay; 4x or more for a CPU to get 40% or less of the performance.   E This is exactly what people were expecting and explains why Microsoft   only recommend it for utilities.  ) You won't see any gamers using it either.    regards  Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:25:40 +0000 O From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> Y Subject: Re: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications performance on Itaniu 0 Message-ID: <bvltm4$i7b$2@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   David Svensson wrote:  > Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew No.Harrison No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<bvl8sf$aqi$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...  >  >>Keith Parris wrote:  >>F >>>Intel and Microsoft release new technology for HP Integrity servers >>>by Jeff Kyle  >>>  >>J >>"IA-32 EL is intended for use with supporting applications that are not I >>performance-sensitive (for example for administration tools and system  K >>monitoring). Primary applications, such as database software or business   >>K >>applications, should be native 64-bit applications designed for use with   >>6 >>Windows Server 2003 for 64-Bit Itanium-based System" >>A >>This is what Microsoft say about the product looks like a niche  >>solution.  >> >>	 >>Regards  >>Andrew Harrison  >> >  > / > It does not look like a niche solution to me. H > But you must ofcourse have something to say about it in a dull manner. >   4 Hang on you were the person who claimed that Itanium, was the fastest DBMS platform you have used.  3 MS tell you not to use the IA32 emulator for DBMS's ) so even in your book its a niche utility.    Regards  Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:00:27 +0000 O From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> C Subject: Re: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !! 0 Message-ID: <bvlakb$ble$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Paul Repacholi wrote: S > Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes:  >  > C >>If you honestly think that HP's Enterprise Systems business could > >>survive that and emerge unscathed you are deluding yourself. >  > F > Well, perhaps. But I'll bet that a certain angelic choir of one will? > be singing how wonderfull the x-64 is before the week is out.  >   9 Strangely he would then get some support all be it with a  further decline in credibility.    Regards  Andrew   ------------------------------  * Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:06:04 +0000 (UTC), From: lewis@mazda.mitre.org (Keith A. Lewis)4 Subject: Re: Moderate this group (was: HTML posting). Message-ID: <bvm3ic$6bu$1@newslocal.mitre.org>  ~ Didier Morandi <no@spam.com> writes in article <401adfe3$0$22318$626a54ce@news.free.fr> dated Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:48:39 +0100:U >May I suggest to the Venerable c.o.v. Community to turn our group to moderated mode?    I like it fine the way it is.   A But I will to you that this anti-JF nutcase usually crossposts to G rec.travel.air, which has pretty much nothing to do with VMS.  Adding a F filter which ignores all articles which are crossposted to both groupsB carries a near-zero risk of missing anything you might actually be0 interested in, and it eliminates much stupidity.  H 25 of 163 articles were squelched by this filter today in my newsreader.  0 --Keith Lewis              klewis {at} mitre.org> The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 07:22:20 GMT + From: LESLIE@JRLVAX.HOUSTON.RR.COM (leslie) % Subject: Re: MyDoom = Microsoft + SCO 2 Message-ID: <MUmTb.5034$QU1.1065@fe2.texas.rr.com>  ) Wayne Sewell (wayne@tachysoft.com) wrote: . : >From: LESLIE@JRLVAX.HOUSTON.RR.COM (leslie)( : >Subject: Re: MyDoom = Microsoft + SCO : >X-Newsgroups: comp.os.vms : >Lines: 21- : >X-Newsreader: TIN [VMS 1.3 950824BETA PL0] 6 : >Message-ID: <_YiTb.27974$eY2.6146@fe2.texas.rr.com>& : >Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 02:53:46 GMT  : >X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com :  : > ; : >How about Microsoft, realizing that they cannot deliver:  : > " : > o a secure version of Windows  : > o multi-site clustering = : > o uptimes measured with a calendar instead of a stopwatch  : > ! : >buys VMS and OpenMail from HP.  : F : Having software that actually works would be such a mind-shattering A : experience for billy that he would go insane and would have to  + : administer his empire from a padded cell.  :   B Billy might decide it's worth his sanity since Communist China and< India are gravitating towards Linux and away from Microsoft.   --Jerry Leslie9   Note: leslie@jrlvax.houston.rr.com is invalid for email    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 03:17:51 -0500 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>% Subject: Re: MyDoom = Microsoft + SCO ) Message-ID: <401E0793.4CBA39D3@istop.com>    Wayne Sewell wrote: P > Having software that actually works would be such a mind-shattering experienceP > for billy that he would go insane and would have to administer his empire from > a padded cell.  L Gates is a marketing guy. He needs fancy widgets, flashing icons, long listsN of features in the "preferences" dialogues, and fancy technologies such as theN infamous registry in order to impress the masses and make them want to buy the latest version of his software.   L Gates set out to beat Apple  by adding way more flashing lights, while AppleJ remained more conservative. And now that Linux is catching up to the MAC ,/ Gates has to counter that new kid on the block.   L From a marketing point of view, it is pretty hard to market a new version ofM Outlook which has less features, or market a new version of IIS that has been P re-engineered so that it no longer requires to run in a very privileged account.  M If you remove the open wounds that attract the viri to Windows, you are still N left with the unstable Windows, bloated software and new MS business practicesL that aren't so welcoming. So, you drop fancy features, and you end up with aJ product that is more like the more conservative MAC or Linux, yet has less@ stability and ends up costing more (at least compared to Linux).  L For years, MS has silently been shouting to the world that the Content-type:K tag is a mistake and that all OSs should base document handling on the file H extension. So now MS would have to admit it was a mistake and change itsN software to honour the Content-Type ?  Imagine all those IIS sites which neverH configured the content types and serve everything as eithet text/html orK application-octet-stream. Suddently, they'd be at a loss as to why now they ) get complaints even from Microsoft users.   N Imagine if MS were to remove the ability to send HTML emails/news postings. ItK would finally adhere to nettiquette, but all those windows weenies would no C longer be able to send their cute messages in blue and a tiny font.     D BTW, has anyone actually received any of those MyDoom emails ???????   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 12:52:39 GMT " From:   VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG% Subject: Re: MyDoom = Microsoft + SCO 0 Message-ID: <00A2CCEA.0055FEDF@SendSpamHere.ORG>  a In article <_YiTb.27974$eY2.6146@fe2.texas.rr.com>, LESLIE@JRLVAX.HOUSTON.RR.COM (leslie) writes: 0 >Fabio Cardoso (fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br) wrote:> >: Today the SCO site suffered a massive attack of the MyDoom. >:  / >: I am just imaginig if Microsoft buys SCO...  = >: Imagine a Microsoft Linux :-)  or Microsoft UnixWare ! :-) 4 >: What kind of impact it can cause in the market ? B >: IF MS decides to merge products of Windows Server and UnixWare.8 >: May be a version of Linux called Windows UniXP  ! :-) >:   >:   > 9 >How about Microsoft, realizing that they cannot deliver:  >   > o a secure version of Windows  > o multi-site clustering ; > o uptimes measured with a calendar instead of a stopwatch  >  >buys VMS and OpenMail from HP.   I ...and then it's the dark ages for all in cybersapce.  I hope this never!  --B http://www.legacy-2000.com  for the *best* OpenVMS system securityC                             solutions that others only claim to be.  --  K VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM              5   "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"     ------------------------------   Date: 2 Feb 2004 08:49:55 -0600 , From: seibel_r@rich.ociweb.com (Rich Seibel)% Subject: Re: MyDoom = Microsoft + SCO 5 Message-ID: <slrnc1smvt.q4f.seibel_r@rich.ociweb.com>   E On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 08:17:40 -0800, Tom Linden <tom@kednos.com> wrote: + >IIRC Microsft at one time owned 20% of SCO  > I Thinking back to the same time frame.  Was it not MicroSoft that provided H Xenix, SCO's first UNIX-like product.  I hesitate to say develop, since F Microsoft didn't develop as much as appropriate software at that time.  7 I believe the SCO ownership was part of the Xenix deal.   D Try to imagine what might have happened if Billy had gone with Xenix instead of DOS at that time.   Rich   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:48:58 +01001* From: Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net>9 Subject: Re: New Variant MyDoom.B targeting Microsoft.comI0 Message-ID: <401E1D0A.1DC9D746@sture.homeip.net>   Alan Greig wrote:E > l > a.greig@virgin.net (Alan Greig) wrote in message news:<af3b9b31.0401311741.473a4223@posting.google.com>... > J > > The SCO website appears to have been taken offline by this DDOS attack4 > > already. Stats at www.netcraft.com confirm this: > E > And SCO have now confirmed this. It has been pointed out (jokingly)tG > that SCO could just point DNS records for wwww.sco.com at anyone else " > in the world they don't like :-) > B > http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/01/technology/mydoom.reut/index.htm >  [Extract]H > LONDON (Reuters) - The MyDoom Internet worm claimed its first scalp onC > Sunday, paralyzing the Web site of software firm SCO Group with a  > massive data blitz.r > A > In a statement issued on Sunday morning, the Utah-based company ? > confirmed MyDoom knocked its site, http://www.sco.com, out of 
 > commission.i > F > "Internet traffic began building momentum on Saturday evening and byB > midnight Eastern Time the SCO Web site was flooded with requestsH > beyond its capacity," the statement read. "While we expect this attack@ > to continue throughout the next few weeks, we have a series of? > contingency plans to deal with this problem and we will begin.F > communicating those plans on Monday morning," Jeff Carlon, worldwideH > director of Information Technology infrastructure, The SCO Group, said > in the statement.u > D > The speed and severity of the attack surprised security officials. > B > "It was spectacularly successful," said Mikko Hypponen, research. > manager at Finnish anti-virus firm F-Secure. > A > As intended, Sco.com was the only discernible victim on Sunday.e >  [End Extract]    G Thanks for the update. Interestingly (and to bring it more on topic forpH c.o.v. :) ), in contrast with the other viruses we've seen over the last@ 18 months or so, I didn't get any of these on my VMS system. OneE rejection message from a mail server indicating that a random addressmG using my domain name had been forged in an email containing MyDoom, bute that was it.   How are you doing nowadays?.   -- 7
 Paul Sture   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 04:43:40 -0500r* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>9 Subject: Re: New Variant MyDoom.B targeting Microsoft.comp) Message-ID: <401E1BA9.3539CB2E@istop.com>p   someone wrote:G > > And SCO have now confirmed this. It has been pointed out (jokingly)dI > > that SCO could just point DNS records for wwww.sco.com at anyone elsea$ > > in the world they don't like :-)  : As of now, www.sco.com does not resolve, but sco.com does.  H What is interesting is that a simple fetch_http for sco.com yields a 403K Forbidden, but accessing it with lynx or netscape brings up the right page.o  L Seems that sco have patched Apache to refuse any request that doesn't have a proper USER_AGENT http header.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 04:45:51 -0500e* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>9 Subject: Re: New Variant MyDoom.B targeting Microsoft.coms) Message-ID: <401E1C2B.CE1DEA12@istop.com>i  H They have also setup an alternate web site at http://www.thescogroup.com   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Feb 2004 07:35:34 -0800.( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)9 Subject: Re: New Variant MyDoom.B targeting Microsoft.com = Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0402020735.301e5d88@posting.google.com>s  x "Ken Farmer" <KFarmer@NOSPAM.SpyderByte.com> wrote in message news:<6f8Sb.21725$F86.1916164@twister.southeast.rr.com>...  2 if they would run OpenVMS, then they wouldn't have to worry ... :)h   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Feb 2004 10:51:31 -0800 ' From: nimishdalal@catholic.org (Nimish)i9 Subject: Re: New Variant MyDoom.B targeting Microsoft.comi< Message-ID: <a2dd6e31.0402021051.98be314@posting.google.com>  C Can any one suggest me why I am receiving the security update filesiE from microsoft & other maliscious myDoom infected mails on my ID made C on catholic.org which is nimishdalal@catholic.org the one that I amtE using to log in google group. whereas I never receive any such myDoomL@ infected mails on other email IDs like yahoo.com . . msn.com . . mail.com . . & coolgoose.com.T   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:50:09 -0800# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>-9 Subject: RE: New Variant MyDoom.B targeting Microsoft.com-9 Message-ID: <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIMEBICMAA.tom@kednos.com>i  ? Don't know, but a couple of Hail Mary's should take care of it.r     -----Original Message-----0   From: Nimish [mailto:nimishdalal@catholic.org]*   Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 10:52 AM   To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com ;   Subject: Re: New Variant MyDoom.B targeting Microsoft.como      E   Can any one suggest me why I am receiving the security update filessG   from microsoft & other maliscious myDoom infected mails on my ID madebE   on catholic.org which is nimishdalal@catholic.org the one that I amgG   using to log in google group. whereas I never receive any such myDoomtB   infected mails on other email IDs like yahoo.com . . msn.com . .   mail.com . . & coolgoose.com.P      ---t(   Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.<   Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).B   Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 1/22/2004    ---e& Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).@ Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 1/22/2004   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:53:14 -0700B From: "Tillman, Brian (AGRE)" <Brian.Tillman@smiths-aerospace.com>9 Subject: RE: New Variant MyDoom.B targeting Microsoft.comcO Message-ID: <11721EF39C7D7F47A55447158274CAF790055A@cossmgmbx01.email.corp.tld>a  
 Nimish wrote:U  ? > Can any one suggest me why I am receiving the security updateo? > files from microsoft & other maliscious myDoom infected mails ( > on my ID made on catholic.org which is< > nimishdalal@catholic.org the one that I am using to log in7 > google group. whereas I never receive any such myDoomS> > infected mails on other email IDs like yahoo.com . . msn.com# > . . mail.com . . & coolgoose.com.-  A If the aforementioned email address is the one you use to post to-F comp.os.vms (Info-VAX), then that may be your answer.  Also, for wormsC like MyDoom, someone else has to have your address in their addressbE book.  If those other addresses you cited are not in anyone's address@= book, you won't get those worms targeted for those addresses.  --=0Dp Brian Tillman        =0D Smiths Aerospace 3290 Patterson Ave. SE, MS 1B3 Grand Rapids, MI 49512-1991i> Brian.Tillman is the name, smiths-aerospace.com is the domain.	       =0Da: I don't speak for Smiths, and Smiths doesn't speak for me.      * ******************************************G The information contained in, or attached to, this e-mail, may contain= D  confidential information and is intended solely for the use of the=G  individual or entity to whom they are addressed and may be subject to=DH  legal privilege.  If you have received this e-mail in error you should=H  notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail, delete the message from=L  your system and notify your system manager.  Please do not copy it for any=F  purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person.  The views or=I  opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do= G  not necessarily represent those of the company.  The recipient should=gI  check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses.  The=aA  company accepts no liability for any damage caused, directly or=e4  indirectly, by any virus transmitted in this email.* ******************************************   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Feb 2004 07:38:06 -0800 ( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)S Subject: Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your response!a= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0402020738.7e883ae8@posting.google.com>2  m bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in message news:<d7791aa1.0401311914.6a25d9b5@posting.google.com>...ao > bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in message news:<d7791aa1.0401301650.7b253db6@posting.google.com>...l > ; > CERT Advisory CA-2001-02 Multiple Vulnerabilities in BINDa& > The BIND vulnerabilities reported inH > www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-02.html had the potential to cause theH > nameserver to access violate in MultiNet and TCPware. This problem has) > been corrected with the following ECOs:  >  > G > CERT Advisory CA-2002-03 - Multiple Vulnerabilities in Simple Networkd2 > Management Protocol (SNMP) (posted Feb. 5, 2002)E > SNMP vulnerabilities reported in the CERT advisory CA-2002-03do notdF > pose a security risk for MultiNet and TCPware. For more information,; > please review the MultiNet and TCPware CERT advisory FAQ.  >  > C > Here are the only two cert advisories reported with TCPware right C > now Andrew ... and notice neither pose a security risk because asoB > the first bind advisory states, VMS just stops those "c" garbage= > unix code cert bugs right in their tracks with that "accessh= > violation error" ... can you read and comprehend the above?a  9 Andrew, response please ... no bs can refute this now ...c   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:25:18 -050074 From: David R. Beatty <QWDavidER.TYBeattyUI@sas.com>S Subject: Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your response!s8 Message-ID: <meus105nrk0cpdd2c93e30gvthv33j6tq4@4ax.com>  > See the posting from DL Philips on 1/30/2004.  David R. Beatty  C On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 09:16:25 +0100, Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl> wrote:    >Hi Bob, > R >I suppose this is a reaction on some earlier message by Andrew ? Which one is it O >? (there are some many). If you can gibe me date and time, that would be nice.d >b >  >Bob Ceculski wrote:F >> Yes, but first redesign and rewrite your unix to cleanly catagorize >> and separateuI >> Kernel Mode from Supervisor Mode and from User Mode. Three modes are an
 >> minimumG >> for a correct ring protection system. The use of three or more rings 
 >> happens to F >> be a fully patented methodology by OpenVMS Engineering. OpenVMS has >> four.H >> OpenVMS also has 40 groups of higher mode functionality classified as >> requiring >> special named privileges. h   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:59:00 +0000 O From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>vY Subject: Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your response! respoo. Message-ID: <401E81D4.9010105@nospamn.sun.com>   Bob Ceculski wrote:oo > bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in message news:<d7791aa1.0401311914.6a25d9b5@posting.google.com>...i > o >>bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in message news:<d7791aa1.0401301650.7b253db6@posting.google.com>...  >>; >>CERT Advisory CA-2001-02 Multiple Vulnerabilities in BINDw& >>The BIND vulnerabilities reported inH >>www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-02.html had the potential to cause theH >>nameserver to access violate in MultiNet and TCPware. This problem has) >>been corrected with the following ECOs:D >> >>G >>CERT Advisory CA-2002-03 - Multiple Vulnerabilities in Simple Networkh2 >>Management Protocol (SNMP) (posted Feb. 5, 2002)E >>SNMP vulnerabilities reported in the CERT advisory CA-2002-03do not F >>pose a security risk for MultiNet and TCPware. For more information,; >>please review the MultiNet and TCPware CERT advisory FAQ.y >> >>C >>Here are the only two cert advisories reported with TCPware righttC >>now Andrew ... and notice neither pose a security risk because as B >>the first bind advisory states, VMS just stops those "c" garbage= >>unix code cert bugs right in their tracks with that "accesst= >>violation error" ... can you read and comprehend the above?o >  > ; > Andrew, response please ... no bs can refute this now ...   * I just did Bob but hey I like the cheek of* teflon shoulders Bob asking for a response  * If you had to give me a dollar for all the. BS that you have published that I have quashed- without a response from you I would be a richP  man an you would be much poorer.   Regardst Andrew HarrisonU   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:57:15 +0000uO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> Y Subject: Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your response! respoi0 Message-ID: <bvlvhc$irt$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Bob Ceculski wrote:ro > bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in message news:<d7791aa1.0401301650.7b253db6@posting.google.com>...b > ; > CERT Advisory CA-2001-02 Multiple Vulnerabilities in BINDo& > The BIND vulnerabilities reported inH > www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-02.html had the potential to cause theH > nameserver to access violate in MultiNet and TCPware. This problem has) > been corrected with the following ECOs:i >   * So losing your nameserver isn't a problem.  . Ever heard of a denial of service attack Bob ?   > G > CERT Advisory CA-2002-03 - Multiple Vulnerabilities in Simple Networkt2 > Management Protocol (SNMP) (posted Feb. 5, 2002)E > SNMP vulnerabilities reported in the CERT advisory CA-2002-03do notoF > pose a security risk for MultiNet and TCPware. For more information,; > please review the MultiNet and TCPware CERT advisory FAQ.  >   > Since I didn't refer to this advisory why did you bring it up.   > C > Here are the only two cert advisories reported with TCPware rightlC > now Andrew ... and notice neither pose a security risk because aseB > the first bind advisory states, VMS just stops those "c" garbage= > unix code cert bugs right in their tracks with that "accesse= > violation error" ... can you read and comprehend the above?b  1 Are you really sure that this is the sum total of-0 all the CERT issues for TCPWARE Bob, you claimed* there were none at all initially remember.   And How about Multinet Bob.D   regardsE Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 10:47:41 +0000hO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> " Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars0 Message-ID: <bvl9sd$ba2$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Rob Young wrote: > In article <bvdod6$nm6$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: >  >>Rob Young wrote: >  > D >>>	Won't happen?  Actually, surely will.  All that engineering willF >>>	be moved to the CPU with switches for memory and network.  The OEMD >>>	(Dell) will literally just have to combble them together.  IntelC >>>	isn't doing/going to do that?  Why not?  Makes all the sense inDG >>>	the world.  How else to get Itanium moving in the marketplace OTHERg5 >>>	than cheaper costs up and down all product lines?] >>>e >>$ >>You seem to have missed the point. >> >  > @ > 	Actually, no.  If Fister is to be believed, he talks in terms; > 	of breadth - i.e. moving in several directions.  He alsoH > 	talks in terms of systems.e >  > @ >>Itanium will get cheaper in theory because moving to a smaller> >>process will result in lower cost CPU's because you get more >>CPU's per wafer. >>> >>This is a nice theory but it ignores that fact that each new> >>Itanium CPU isn't just a die shrink its also a new CPU which= >>uses more transistors, these have a tendancy to increase inp: >>number to match the available space. Because of this the' >>CPU's don't in fact get much cheaper.a >> >  > 7 > 	[snip for brevity - nice discussion about CPU costs]p >  >  > ; >>Of course Intel could take a decision to drop the Itanium4; >>prices to below cost to make it competitive with Xeon buts< >>why would they want to do this. All they would be doing is7 >>substituting margin positive Xeon revenues for margind >>negative Itanium revenues. >>; >>As always your arguments lack the financial and technical  >>background to make them fly. >> >  > = > 	That is why it is important to focus on system costs.  ThetA > 	tired old days of SPEC/MHz battles in comp.arch are behind us.nB > 	What matters is how much money you have to spend and the amountA > 	of system you can get with that money.  Cheaper/Faster systems D > 	will mean the difference.  That is why the battles out at tpc.orgG > 	are won at the high-end by HP.  Sure, IBM is more powerful (and Sun GH > 	*mostly* absent) but you actually get higher performance and cheaper E > 	systems with HP Itanium versus Power at the high-end.  So all the iH > 	tongue wagging about TPC/CPU is a nice marketing angle but at end of G > 	day - with money to spend on high-end system - one makes more sense -@ > 	than the other (unless of course you are chained to IBM/Sun). >   0 So how does Itanium win in systems costs terms ?  / Its hotter than any other major micro processor 2 this measn that it needs more airflow, potentially1 larger cabinets etc. Deerfield which is cooler iso0 slower so even if you OEM Deerfield you start at/ a disadvantage vs a Xeon or Opteron OEM because-+ they have a faster CPU with similar thermal 
 requirements.   1 How does it win in terms of systems design, againv/ it scores badly. It has onchip caches but so doi4 most CPU's, it doesn't have onchip memory controlers4 SMP interconnect etc. So an Itanium OEM again starts3 at a disadvantage when compared with Opteron, SPARCp etc.  8 How does it win in terms of software, its more difficult9 to port to Itanium and you have to port to Itanium to get 7 decent performance. The dependance on feedback directedd@ optimisation places the onus on the ISV or requires considerable5 support from the OEM. Someone has to pay for this andr: some of this cost inevitably ends up being included in the	 platform.   H > 	Intel intends to accelerate that (again, if Fister is to be believed)> > 	all the nice fat margins to disappear from 64-bit high-end > > 	CPUs.  Not today, not tomorrow - but in a few years.  ThinkB > 	IBM micro is losing money now?  They haven't even BEGUN to lose > 	money ;-)  ? IBM lost ~100 million last year in their semiconductor business = put in perspective this is less than 1/10th the annual lossesA
 for HP's EBU.o  = Like HP IBM has one hugely profitable business GS which fundsh> the rest of the organisation unlike HP most of the rest of the6 organisation is there or there abouts margin positive.  ? Reducing margins even futher in the EBU which is already hugelye' negative is hardly a recipe for sucess.    Regards  Andrew Harrisono   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:02:56 +0000aO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>t" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars0 Message-ID: <bvlap0$ble$2@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Rob Young wrote:a > In article <B6ednb1lN_H6OYfdRVn-ug@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:o > : >>"Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message >  > ' >>  Sure, IBM is more powerful (and Sun  >>G >>>*mostly* absent) but you actually get higher performance and cheaperI8 >>>systems with HP Itanium versus Power at the high-end. >>J >>No, Rob:  HP gives you *either* higher performance at higher system cost. >>*or* lower performance at lower system cost  >  >  > F > 	No.  Higher performance at lower cost.  I think you need to revisitF > 	tpc.org.  HP has a 786K number that outperforms IBM and is cheaper. > E > HP    HP Integrity Superdome                   824,164  8.28 US $  lE > HP    HP Integrity Superdome                   786,646  6.49 US $  ;E > IBM   IBM eServer pSeries 690 Turbo 7040-681   768,839  8.55 US $  i >    Does it really matter ?,  < TPC-C is hardly a very scientific test of price performance.  3 The $/TPM result for HP is based on a 50% discount.a4 The $/TPM result for IBM is based on a 40% discount.  1 Do you think that IBM woould go to 50% if pushed.e  6 Interesting though isn't it because it imples that the7 SuperDome is under more pricing pressure than the P690.o   Regardsd Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 06:31:14 -0500 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars( Message-ID: <401E34D6.A4F9E14@istop.com>  	 Question:a  M considering that with equal technology, the IA64 is significantly hotter thanyJ other architectures, one could state that even with time, IA64 will remainD hotter since the other architectures will also benefit from the same technological improvements.t  K is the difference significant enough that HP couldn't use the same cabinets 5 for low end IA64 system as it does for 8086 systems ?i  I Or will HP begin to design its boxes with room for additional fans, which L would enable the same box designs to be used for IA64 ? (whilst on 8086, the punch outs would be covered )r  J When you consider that IA64 consumes more power and generates more heat, IL wonder if it will ever be able to compete against the 8086 or PowerPC in theW low/mid market since it will require bigger power supplies as well as more ventilation.t   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 06:39:20 -0500n* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars( Message-ID: <401E36BB.87AE457@istop.com>  ( Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote:8 > Interesting though isn't it because it imples that the9 > SuperDome is under more pricing pressure than the P690.   K Compaq apparently made lots of promises to large Alpha customers. One wouldoL assume that HP did the same to PaRisc customers. So, for the next 5 years, IH would expect that a lot of system upgades will be the result of customerK cashing in on those promises and getting their IA64 boxes at a ridiculously>
 low price.  L IBM has also announced transition for MVS to go from the 360 architecture toM Power architectures. This certaintly makes a lot of sense for IBM since theretL is not much of a point to develop 2 architectures on your own. But I suspectN that when the transition will begin, margins will fall since IBM will probablyL have to provide serious incentives for customers to migrate their MVS assets from the 360 to Power.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 14:20:13 +0000nO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>u" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars0 Message-ID: <bvlmb0$foc$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   David Svensson wrote:s > Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<bve1l0$r29$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...  > F >>>I still don't think it make much sense for IBM to make many ItaniumF >>>boxes. Itanium is not compatible with IBM's successfull Xeon boxes,G >>>and I believe IBM currently want to push Power instead of Itanium aseE >>>much as possible. Besides, they might make a larger Itanium serverwG >>>anyway after all, I haven't seen that they have rejected anything, I35 >>>have seen that they will make a large Xeon server.o >> >>A >>The xSeries division is a separate BU to the zSeries or pSeriesu? >>IBM tend to give their BU's plenty of leway in terms of salesm> >>technology etc as anyone who has dealt with IBM software for >>example will confirm.u >>< >>If the xSeries BU had thought that the only way they could< >>be competitive in the 2005+ timeframe would be through the: >>adoption of Itanium then I have no doubt that they would! >>have gone ahead and adopted it.c >  > D > Yes, that is what I have been saying. I still don't think it wouldG > make sense for IBM to make a large Itanium server in 2005. They would H > sell a lot more Xeon servers than Itanium servers and the xSeries want	 > volume._" You seem to have missed the point.  ; The 64 CPU server market is not a high volume market so itsc< unlikely that IBM would expect to sell very large volumes of the new 64 way system.  A Because of this the fact that the xSeries unit sell large numbersn> of Xeon based servers now is unlikely to have influenced their; decision not to use Itanium. After all they do already sello: smaller Itanium based servers so this isn't about having a pure play Xeon strategy.  ? You need to look elsewhere for the reasons, the explanation you   have provided is not convincing.   Regardsm Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Feb 2004 08:58:13 -0600o+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)u" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars3 Message-ID: <3ldvKO4ZCDVc@eisner.encompasserve.org>4   In article <bvl9sd$ba2$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: > Rob Young wrote:   >>   >>  > >> 	That is why it is important to focus on system costs.  TheB >> 	tired old days of SPEC/MHz battles in comp.arch are behind us.C >> 	What matters is how much money you have to spend and the amountSB >> 	of system you can get with that money.  Cheaper/Faster systemsE >> 	will mean the difference.  That is why the battles out at tpc.orgnH >> 	are won at the high-end by HP.  Sure, IBM is more powerful (and Sun I >> 	*mostly* absent) but you actually get higher performance and cheaper oF >> 	systems with HP Itanium versus Power at the high-end.  So all the I >> 	tongue wagging about TPC/CPU is a nice marketing angle but at end of aH >> 	day - with money to spend on high-end system - one makes more sense A >> 	than the other (unless of course you are chained to IBM/Sun).h >> ' > 2 > So how does Itanium win in systems costs terms ? >    	[snip]e  3 	"Cheaper/Faster systems will mean the difference."B   	"will" implies "not here yet."c   > I >> 	Intel intends to accelerate that (again, if Fister is to be believed) ? >> 	all the nice fat margins to disappear from 64-bit high-end  ? >> 	CPUs.  Not today, not tomorrow - but in a few years.  Think-C >> 	IBM micro is losing money now?  They haven't even BEGUN to lose 
 >> 	money ;-)d > A > IBM lost ~100 million last year in their semiconductor businessM? > put in perspective this is less than 1/10th the annual lossesi > for HP's EBU.a    A 	I'm seeing 2003 - $252 million in losses in the group that micro 8 	falls under.  To say they lost only 100 million is hard@ 	to substantiate as I don't believe that is broken out anywhere.@ 	As I mentioned earlier, IBM micro lost $110 millino in Q2 2003.   > ? > Like HP IBM has one hugely profitable business GS which fundsc@ > the rest of the organisation unlike HP most of the rest of the8 > organisation is there or there abouts margin positive. > A > Reducing margins even futher in the EBU which is already hugelyd) > negative is hardly a recipe for sucess.  >   4 	But you aren't acknowledging what Fister is saying:  I "The Santa Clara, Calif.-based chipmaker is working on chipsets and othertH products and technologies that will make an Itanium-based server no moreL expensive than a similar machine powered by its Xeon chip by 2007, said MikeF Fister, senior vice president of the server products group at Intel. "    G 	I think Xeon systems will get cheaper too, they both following a curve 2 	down.  That is what they are doing with Prescott:  9 http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-5151363.html?tag=nefd_topv  , Last modified: February 2, 2004, 5:38 AM PST By John G. Spooner M Staff Writer, CNET News.com1  I To help make room for its new crop of Prescott Pentium 4 chips, Intel cut-H prices Sunday by as much as 33 percent on some of its existing NorthwoodO Pentium 4s. The chipmaker lowered its 3.2GHz Pentium 4 by 33 percent, from $417rM to $278. It dropped the 3GHz chip 22 percent to $218 and cut the 3.06GHz chipb! by 17 percent to the same price.     [snip]  N With the price changes, Intel's newer Prescott chips match the Northwood chipsO in price. The 3.4EGHz chip lists for $417, while the 3.2EGHz lists for $278 anddH the 3EGHz, $218. The 2.8EGHz is $218. Intel also quietly added a 2.8AGHzG Prescott chip, which comes with a 533MHz bus, for $163; it's likely for L low-priced desktops. All the other Prescott Pentium 4s offer an 800MHz bus.    ----  @ 	AMD making a profit this past quarter was an anomoly.  AMD will= 	be dropping prices in response - no doubt.  You can bet that G 	Intel will work their business model magic to ensure Itanium adoption.eB 	It will be very attractive price/performance wise - system cost ,A 	total system cost.  IBM and Sun can't be too excited about where ! 	Itanium system costs are headed.    				Roba   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Feb 2004 09:09:13 -0600i+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)f" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars3 Message-ID: <FUzSit$hkUVZ@eisner.encompasserve.org>r  U In article <401E34D6.A4F9E14@istop.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes:e > Question:  > O > considering that with equal technology, the IA64 is significantly hotter thannL > other architectures, one could state that even with time, IA64 will remainF > hotter since the other architectures will also benefit from the same > technological improvements.o >   > 	No.  With hardware IA32 removed from Itanium, Itanium's logicB 	transistor count will be somewhere around 17 million transistors.@ 	Pentium 4 is nearly 70 million transistors.  Cache sections can> 	be put to sleep.  Finally, high-k to the rescue (as seen here( 	before) much decreased current leakage.  K > Or will HP begin to design its boxes with room for additional fans, whichiN > would enable the same box designs to be used for IA64 ? (whilst on 8086, the > punch outs would be covered )o  ? 	Tukwila is supposedly running slower but performing higher of	 > 	course.  I'd bet that they don't exceed Montecito.  But it is? 	a moot point.  Montecito/Tukwila certainly aren't blade servers
 	material.   				Robv   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:23:27 +0000TO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>s" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars0 Message-ID: <bvlti0$i7b$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Rob Young wrote: > In article <bvl9sd$ba2$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: >  >>Rob Young wrote: >  >  >>>t >b6 > 	But you aren't acknowledging what Fister is saying: >eK > "The Santa Clara, Calif.-based chipmaker is working on chipsets and otheryJ > products and technologies that will make an Itanium-based server no moreN > expensive than a similar machine powered by its Xeon chip by 2007, said MikeH > Fister, senior vice president of the server products group at Intel. " >  >   = Why would a reduction in the cost of doing Itanium to make itL? competitive with Xeon (even ignoring the simple physics issues)p in 2007 be interesting.:  < You don't get it do you. Itanium doesn't have until 2007, at? best it has another 12-18 months after which Intel will have toi< think of someting else to do with it. Give it to HP etc etc.  = The promise of parity with Xeon in 2007 will not convince onet: single additional customer to buy into Itanium nor will it& help Intel aquire more OEM's or ISV's.  : Think about it IBM are doing a 64way Xeon based server for= release in 2005. Do you think that they would be so convinced 8 that Xeon was the right price/performance choice if they: thought that Itanium might get to price/performance parity< with Xeon in the 64ways product lifespan ? The argument that; Fister made publically I am sure was also made by the Intel 7 Itanium sales team to IBM they didn't appear to buy it.   8 The last time IDC estimated the potential Itanium market5 they put it at 8 billion by 2007, this was before theI; Intel CT announcements which will only serve to reduce thiss number even further.  ? 12-18 months tops is what HP have and its very much HP on their 7 own. It will be interesting to see how long people like:9 NEC and Unisys stay on Itanium once they can get CT basedb procs.  I > 	I think Xeon systems will get cheaper too, they both following a curveo4 > 	down.  That is what they are doing with Prescott: > ; > http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-5151363.html?tag=nefd_topf > . > Last modified: February 2, 2004, 5:38 AM PST > By John G. Spooner d > Staff Writer, CNET News.comt > K > To help make room for its new crop of Prescott Pentium 4 chips, Intel cutsJ > prices Sunday by as much as 33 percent on some of its existing NorthwoodQ > Pentium 4s. The chipmaker lowered its 3.2GHz Pentium 4 by 33 percent, from $417-O > to $278. It dropped the 3GHz chip 22 percent to $218 and cut the 3.06GHz chipp# > by 17 percent to the same price. w >  > [snip] > P > With the price changes, Intel's newer Prescott chips match the Northwood chipsQ > in price. The 3.4EGHz chip lists for $417, while the 3.2EGHz lists for $278 and3J > the 3EGHz, $218. The 2.8EGHz is $218. Intel also quietly added a 2.8AGHzI > Prescott chip, which comes with a 533MHz bus, for $163; it's likely for.N > low-priced desktops. All the other Prescott Pentium 4s offer an 800MHz bus.  >   ? This is identical to AMD's pricing  the ATHLON-64 3400+ is $417wA The 3200+ is $278 etc or put another way Intel now provide slower : Pentium4's for about the same price as a faster Athlon-64.  Y http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_609,00.html?redir=CPT301   F And Prescott has an uphill struggle against ATHLON-64, which has a DDR* controller and a Hypertransport interface.  C This means that Intel have to undecut Athlon pricing because an AMDk< OEM has a lower external chip requirement than an Intel OEM.   > ---e > B > 	AMD making a profit this past quarter was an anomoly.  AMD will? > 	be dropping prices in response - no doubt.  You can bet thatdI > 	Intel will work their business model magic to ensure Itanium adoption.iD > 	It will be very attractive price/performance wise - system cost ,C > 	total system cost.  IBM and Sun can't be too excited about whereh# > 	Itanium system costs are headed.r >   D Rob you old spinmeister it is always a pleasure to watch you wriggleH and spin as your argument collapses around you and this is no exception.  C You have been prediciting the demise of AMD for the last year underfA a price onslaught from Intel, it hasn't happened and now that the 6 reverse is the case you call it an anomoly. Nice spin.   regards  Andrew Harrisone   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Feb 2004 12:41:41 -0600b+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)o" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars3 Message-ID: <5TbvoDHvlvMM@eisner.encompasserve.org>    In article <bvlti0$i7b$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: > Rob Young wrote: >> In article <bvl9sd$ba2$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes:, >> e >>>Rob Young wrote:r >> m >> M >>>> >>7 >> 	But you aren't acknowledging what Fister is saying:  >>L >> "The Santa Clara, Calif.-based chipmaker is working on chipsets and otherK >> products and technologies that will make an Itanium-based server no moredO >> expensive than a similar machine powered by its Xeon chip by 2007, said Mike I >> Fister, senior vice president of the server products group at Intel. ", >> s >> m > ? > Why would a reduction in the cost of doing Itanium to make it A > competitive with Xeon (even ignoring the simple physics issues)n > in 2007 be interesting.e > > > You don't get it do you. Itanium doesn't have until 2007, atA > best it has another 12-18 months after which Intel will have to-> > think of someting else to do with it. Give it to HP etc etc. >   @ 	But you are contradicting yourself.  Of course they have longer@ 	than that.  As UltraSparc sure isn't going away.  Where is the  	contradiction?  See below.    > : > The last time IDC estimated the potential Itanium market7 > they put it at 8 billion by 2007, this was before thet= > Intel CT announcements which will only serve to reduce thisa > number even further. >   = 	But even at that , given Sun's declining revenue and numbersn9 	won't Itanium be a much larger market than UltraSparc ine 	2007?  M "But Sun's [Q2 2003] 19.1 percentage drop in sales to $1.43 billion meant it eI lost 5.7 percentage points compared with the same quarter of 2002, while  B No. 3 IBM's 20.4 percent revenue growth to $1.06 billion meant it C gained 5.2 percentage points to reach 24.6 percent of the market. "e  ? 	So what would your point be?  That Itanium outsells UltraSparcn 	in 3 years? 	wA > 12-18 months tops is what HP have and its very much HP on theirr9 > own. It will be interesting to see how long people likei; > NEC and Unisys stay on Itanium once they can get CT baseds > procs.  9 	Ha.  Right.  How about bloat?  Won't an Itanium core be n5 	much smaller than CT, therefore more fit on a die?  c   > J >> 	I think Xeon systems will get cheaper too, they both following a curve5 >> 	down.  That is what they are doing with Prescott:@ >> s< >> http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-5151363.html?tag=nefd_top >>  / >> Last modified: February 2, 2004, 5:38 AM PSTn >> By John G. Spooner  >> Staff Writer, CNET News.com >> kL >> To help make room for its new crop of Prescott Pentium 4 chips, Intel cutK >> prices Sunday by as much as 33 percent on some of its existing NorthwoodXR >> Pentium 4s. The chipmaker lowered its 3.2GHz Pentium 4 by 33 percent, from $417P >> to $278. It dropped the 3GHz chip 22 percent to $218 and cut the 3.06GHz chip$ >> by 17 percent to the same price.  >>  	 >> [snip]  >> dQ >> With the price changes, Intel's newer Prescott chips match the Northwood chips R >> in price. The 3.4EGHz chip lists for $417, while the 3.2EGHz lists for $278 andK >> the 3EGHz, $218. The 2.8EGHz is $218. Intel also quietly added a 2.8AGHzcJ >> Prescott chip, which comes with a 533MHz bus, for $163; it's likely forO >> low-priced desktops. All the other Prescott Pentium 4s offer an 800MHz bus. : >> - > A > This is identical to AMD's pricing  the ATHLON-64 3400+ is $417eC > The 3200+ is $278 etc or put another way Intel now provide slowero< > Pentium4's for about the same price as a faster Athlon-64. > [ > http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_609,00.html?redir=CPT301R > H > And Prescott has an uphill struggle against ATHLON-64, which has a DDR, > controller and a Hypertransport interface. > E > This means that Intel have to undecut Athlon pricing because an AMDU> > OEM has a lower external chip requirement than an Intel OEM. >   ? 	Correct.  And Intel will undercut AMD like they did a year and ' 	a half ago, a repeat of this strategy:   o http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=XJxgSrVADrVG%40eisner.encompasserve.orgo  + From: Rob Young (young_r@encompasserve.org)h Subject: Intel to smash AMD  Newsgroups: comp.os.vms- Date: 2002-07-23 11:11:53 PST   r  <  Intel's strategy apears to be "gain market share in lieu of=  profits."  With a surprising move up to 2.8 GHz and 3 GHz byeE  September, AMD has nothing in response left.  AMD currently tops out A  at 1.8 GHz (their 2200+ XP part) which goes for $202.  With the eD  upcoming 63% slice in Pentium 4 2.53 GHz prices (currently $597, a C  63% price cut brings the 2.53 GHz part down to about $220), Intel iF  puts a hurt on AMD.  The 2.53 GHz P4 significantly outperforms AMD's   top speed part.    < 	AMD has until Q3 until they get 90 nm.  Prior to that Intel; 	will cut prices left and right leaving AMD punished in thet9 	process.  AMD gets to 90 nm and the whole process begins  	again.e   >> nC >> 	AMD making a profit this past quarter was an anomoly.  AMD wille@ >> 	be dropping prices in response - no doubt.  You can bet thatJ >> 	Intel will work their business model magic to ensure Itanium adoption.E >> 	It will be very attractive price/performance wise - system cost ,yD >> 	total system cost.  IBM and Sun can't be too excited about where$ >> 	Itanium system costs are headed. >> t > F > Rob you old spinmeister it is always a pleasure to watch you wriggleJ > and spin as your argument collapses around you and this is no exception.  ; 	Not really.  See the thread above and the following.  One s 	interesting reply was this:  A That's the biggest single step price cut I've ever seen on a CPU. > I can believe Intel won't be making any money on it.  I'm also? wondering if it isn't actually below the true production price.-A Dumping is the traditional method for wiping out competitors witho* fewer resources.  That's why it's illegal.    = Pretty obvious that Intel's strategy is to literally kill AMD-? in a brutal price war before AMD can ship Hammer and kill InteltD in fair competition.  Ie, Intel has more money in the bank than AMD,A so they'll sell their product at no profit (or even a loss) untilk> AMD dies.  Look for AMD to either accelerate Hammer or partnerH up with somebody big (Via?) to ride out the assualt.  Don't be surprisedA when the FTC jumps all over Intel.  Do be surprised if they do its$ quick enough to make any difference.    G 	Maybe someone would still view Intel's price cuts as anti-competitive.p< 	But as I point out then, it isn't Intel's fault that AMD is 	pricing their CPUs too high.M  5 http://news.com.com/2100-1001-246894.html?legacy=cnetP  P "The larger size means the Pentium 4 will cost around $80 to $90 to manufacture,N more than double the $40 manufacturing cost of the Pentium III, he estimated."  @  That analysis referred to .18 micron, we can assume .13 Pentium>  4s (current crop) would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of-  $40-$60 to manufacture depending on yield.  n     	As the intervening 18 monthsb? 	proved, Intel was highly profitable and AMD lost money in thate> 	timeframe.  Looks like it is time again for AMD to lose money: 	as these price cuts are only the beginning as Intel ramps$ 	90 nm and slashes and burns prices.   > E > You have been prediciting the demise of AMD for the last year under C > a price onslaught from Intel, it hasn't happened and now that thed8 > reverse is the case you call it an anomoly. Nice spin. >   4 	Not predicting their demise, predicting their pain.C 	Read what I wrote instead of doing your pitiful job of projecting r 	and spinning:  G  I'm not suggesting [AMD] they evaporate.  What I am suggesting is thatn?  in the next 4-6 months there isn't a very compelling reason ataC  all to buy an AMD part.  It won't matter who is trying to sell it. @  Concluding that AMD will be in a very precarious position come   2003.  
 	They were.  k  ? 	I'm saying they are in a similar spot until September as Intell= 	will squeeze them very hard on price - once again.  AMD hitsM> 	90 nm and the story changes as Intel races to 65 nm and beats 	them there and on and on.  > 	Maybe AMD can show OEMs their part is higher performance, andC 	that will speed widespread adoption?  I don't think so.  Consumers ? 	don't care anymore.  We demand fast and cheap and the most youfC 	should be paying these days for a home PC is about $800 and mostly-D 	a Dell, right?  Who is to say Intel doesn't turn it up even a notchC 	higher and we see CPU prices $50 cheaper across the board comparedv 	to July 2002?   				Robn   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:56:54 +01001 From: "Rene Verhaeghe" <rene.verhaeghe@chello.be>s, Subject: Re: Searching for DECps information4 Message-ID: <401e8157$0$309$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>  G We are still using DECPS on our new system (ES47/VMS 7.3-1) without ant  problem.  H Of course, we only use the Data Collector and visualisation tool, as the, advisor has not been updated by CA since 95.  H There is now a free VMS product, ECP that will do the same (also without	 advisor).   J "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net> a crit dans le; message de news:401B2EA3.6EDE88FC@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net...C > Ken Fairfield wrote: > >  > > David J. Dachtera wrote: > > > Davies wrote:w > > >>K > > >>I have looked through these groups looking for current information onrL > > >>DECps - and I have yet to find anything.  It was highly recommended toI > > >>us for performance management, we have two VMS systems, one runninga  > > >>7.2-1 and the other 7.3-2. > > >>L > > >>So far, my searching has lead me to believe the DECps was purchased byJ > > >>CA:  http://www3.ca.com/Solutions/Product.asp?ID=1174  but I haven't8 > > >>been able to get any more information beyond that. > > >  > > >nI > > > Quite correct. The slimeball-bastard-money-grubbing (censored)s gotoG > > > their filthy paws on it and destroyed it, like they did countlessu other  > > > products.t > >B@ > > I'm still not very fond of CA, but amazingly enough, they've- > > improved greatly in the last 2-3 years...a >tI > Really? Is it back down to a realistic (i.e., not laughably inflated to 5 > point of being byond ridiculous) pricing structure?. > L > > >>Where can I get a copy of or information on DECps?  Is it (or anything# > > >>similar) covered in our CSLG?w > >i@ > > Since it's now owned by CA, no, it is not on CSLG.  It costsE > > money.  If you were running an old version of VMS, and could find C > > a corresponding version of DECps as sold by DEC, you might also C > > find a license for it in CSLG...but you said V7.3-2 & V7.3-2...e > > G > > > Recent OpenVMS and ALpha architecture changes have rendered DECpsvH > > > inoperable on current versions. I think V7.x broke most of it, but don'tp > > > recall exactly.g > >sG > > Gosh, then what are we running on our ES40's (and other older Alphae > > models) at V7.3-1??? >PF > Dunno - I remember the V7.1 upgrade making PCM go terminal, not sure6 > about the performance stuff now that you mention it. >o > -- i > David J. DachteraB > dba DJE SystemsA > http://www.djesys.com/ > * > Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:! > http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/,   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 18:07:21 GMT & From: jlsue <jefflsxxxz@sbcglobal.net>I Subject: Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systemsa8 Message-ID: <kg3t101md5qrlc6ljmav3drib9h52ik3eu@4ax.com>  E On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:19:58 +0000, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancyv. <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:  
 >jlsue wrote:    >e< >Since SunOS 4.x is out of support the answer is no. Similar; >story with out of support versions of VMS/OpenVMS as well.g >i9 >Take LAND there is no CERT advisory for LAND refering to.8 >OpenVMS or any other Compaq/HP layered product. We know7 >however that there was a vunerability not from a patche* >report but from an ask the wizard answer. > 8 >We also know that this vunerability is fixed in a later6 >release of the IP stack we also know that the version6 >of the IP stack that you need to upgrade from was the3 >one that was current when LAND was first reported.o  I But the question is, then, how can you say that it wasn't patched when itsK was - albeit as a new version.? (I'm assuming that this was a point release12 update, if not, then this question doesn't apply).  F >> You can check google yourself (get it?  That's one of YOUR argumentN >> techniques).  Check responses from icerq4a, hoff, Killgallen, etc.  They'veL >> tried (to no avail) to explain reality to you, but it's obviously a waste >> of time.  >> a > = >Really perhaps you should check again rather more carefully.n7 >Remember that you and google have never really got on.   J I don't actually need to check google on this as the posts are still on myH hard drive (I'm using Agent).  They have responded to most of the actualD CERT advisories that you've continued on about.  I have not seen any: substantive reply on your part that addresses their posts.   >d >cD >>>Nor am I, outlandish claims would be ones that have no supportingC >>>data to back them up. You forget that I have provided supportingr >>>data. >> c >> PG >> That makes no sense.  You've made no claims, but yet you've provided N >> supporting data?  The only claim made was by one (or two) individuals tyingN >> CERT to some kind of nonsense conclusion.  Almost everyone else in here hasH >> agreed that CERT is not, in itself, worthy of being called "proof" ofM >> secuity.  However, others' who actually KNOW the source code, and also whocJ >> have reviewed the advisories that you've presented as "supporting data"? >> have shown the errors or weaknesses  in your arguments.  Yout? >> counter-argument technique consists of this engaging tactic:u >>   >n2 >Do you have a comprehension problem ?????????????  J No, I understand perfectly.  You have claimed that CERT advisory counts isK not a good measure of the relative security of a system.  And I have agreedT4 with your point in this matter.  What's the problem?   >>  M >> Well, you haven't proven whether it is providing an unsecure one yet.  YourJ >> have shown that, at one time, some software stacks were vulnerable, andM >> this has been subsequently dropped as a product.  And in more recent ones,tF >> not all of the "fixes" patch actual vulnerabilities that affect the >> security of the platform. >> G > A >What utter BS, POP, LAND, TearDrop they were all holes and theree" >are loads more BIND, SSH etc etc. >o> >Pay attention you seem to think that simply saying they don't= >exist can conterweight your documentation, 3rd party reportse) >and the responses of your own engineers.o  J I'm paying attention fine.  You've shown that there are advisories out forB these problems, but you haven't shown whether there is actually anF exploitable vulnerability.  That's all I'm saying.  The existence of a= patch does not prove that there was a security vulnerability.l   >o9 >I have seen you post some unmitigated BS in the past butv >this takes the biscuit.  H I find it telling that it is apparently impossible for you to respond toF questions about your logic and reasoning without resorting to immature5 tactics, such as name calling, personal attacks, etc.t  ; >No I havn't its the responsibility of the corporation thatn? >you work for. Who does it is irrelevant providing its actuallynB >done. However what is most revealing is that no-one seems to want? >to coordinate the different engineering teams into providing a & >response for the platform as a whole. >d >What an idiotic point.iH >> It's completely separate argument as to whether HP is responsible forN >> releasing fixes for problems.  But once again, we're back to whether you're@ >> talking about a real problem in a currently-existing product.  J Well, your reading comprehension of this part of the discussion has veeredG it off into the weeds so far it's impossible to get you back ontrack.  w  K You have no point here that anyone can actually address because you're justo# thrashing about in an anit-hp rant.l   >> t7 >>>Someone has to have the responsibility for reportinge< >>>vunerabiliites to CERT (assuming you are going to bother)< >>>if you don't want to report layered product vunerabilites: >>>as part of the OS well fine but you have to report them1 >>>somewhere, currently they are entirely absent.n >> t >>  G >> Ah, is there an RFC converning this?  I just want to make sure we'rei >> covering all our bases. >>   > 4 >Does that imply that you only fix security holes in' >OpenVMS if they are covered by an RFC.   J And you're the one making comments about reading comprehension problems of others?t  G The point is that you, personally, do not dictate how all companies areuJ supposed to use or not use CERT.  So, whatever you believe (quoted in yourJ ">>>" paragraph above) is immaterial.  You may have some valid points, but+ there's no industry-wide agreement on this.   ( So your spouting on-and-on is pointless.  L >> But talk about yer spin.. now you're changing your original argument fromF >> one that states it MUST appear as an OS vulnerability.  This ENTIREI >> discussion came about converning relative vulnerabilities in OSes, andlN >> OpenVMS in particular.  So if you are changing your stance, please at leastK >> admit that somewhere first, and then we can discuss the new stance.  I'm G >> not saying I even disagree with it, but I don't know what it is yet.  >>   >  >Ditto  H Yeah.  It's much easier to NOT commit to making a point.  Then you don't have to defend it.   >> BM >> Just to be sure.  Are POD and LAND vulnerabilities in the CURRENT IP stacklK >> (e.g., TCP/IP services)?  Or is this only applicable to the one that was K >> dropped some 4 or 5 years - and several software release versions - ago?I >>   >e >Ditto  K How do you determine that this question is not a valid one?  Merely becausenC it paints you into a corner?  The fact is that the current owner of K OpenVMS, TCP/IP services, et. al. can only be concerned with those versions-I that are currently supported.  To belabor any kind of "security" argumentiH about an older, unsupported version will only declare open season on allH older versions of your own OS that have very big, and unpatched security holes.  K >> If the latter, just let me know what the official ruling on how long allsK >> vendors are supposed to provide this kind of patch support for outdated,rL >> and even *unsupported* software.  Is Sun following the same guidelines in >> all of it's products? >>   >c >Ditto  I Of course you want to claim it invalid.  All hail Emperor Andrew!  He hadiI declared that everyone, except his favorite employer, must conform to hiscI own ever-changing opinion on what's valid in the realm of CERT advisories, and responses.   >d >> o >>  D >>>And I always laugh at OpenVMS security BS merchants who are happyF >>>to tout the number of CERTS for OpenVMS around while being unhapppy0 >>>to allow the layered products to be included. >> b >>  N >> Again, this is a position that is based on completely false premises.  OnlyL >> one (or two) troll(s) are making any statements wrt to CERTS and relativeF >> OS comparisons.  Nobody else in here has backed up their silliness. >> o >> > > C >Wrong, Keith started this particular thread so I assume this meansi& >that you think he is a troll as well.  K He started this thread with an article.  If you want to debunk something in K the article, have at it.  But right now you're so far off the original mark E that it's just a bunch of your own personal diatribes scribbling bitso around the world.    >bH >Fantastic set of points BTW you really scraped the bottom of the barrel) >and thats saying something in your case.  >   C Whatever.  When you get me all the security patches for my Sun v1.0o systems, then we'll talk.    --- jlsm0 The preceding message was personal opinion only.6 I do not speak in any authorized capacity for anyone,  and certainly not my employer.- (get rid of the xxxz in my address to e-mail)w   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:54:27 -0600h( From: brandon@dalsemi.com (John Brandon)? Subject: Tinkered with AlphaServer 2100 (was: AlphaServer 2100) 1 Message-ID: <04020209542749@dscis6-0.dalsemi.com>d  8 I have tinkered with a 2100 - pulled the skins off, etc.  L > Seriously though, I think Mr Henderson might be able to reduce the 46 inchP > depth. But I doubt that the height and width could be reduced. (and one should > also add the wheels to this).$   Wheels come off.  < Where is the 46 inch depth coming from?  Shipping container?   The 2100 I have (pedestal) is :   * depth  30" (just under - more like 29.75")
 width  17" height 26.5" (no wheels)  7 This leaves the skins on and the front panel cover off.   O > Unless you are a certified DEC technician, you are unlikely to have thinkered,N > with a 2100 at the office to a point where you are intimate with he cabinet.M > That leaves bobbyists who would have a 2100 and would have looked under theoO > cabinet's clothes to see what's under the hood and could therefore comment ono! > if the cab can be made smaller.e   Can you say acetylene torch?  M Seriously though, the case is pop-riveted together however I do not think you @ want to go there.  Besides there seems to be no need to do this.  P > Sorry, but I think that Mr Henderson has a valid question. He could have askedI > about making the cab smaller to fit some industrial application and thet$ > answers should have been the same.  N Careful on this - the skins were designed for protection from electrical noiseN and are also there to shape the desired airflow to keep the CPU's and internal$ components to a desired temperature.         J*o*h*n B*r*a*n*d*o*n  VMS Systems Administratora* firstname.lastname.spam.me.not@dalsemi.com   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:32:50 GMT 0 From: "David Barnes" <david@nospam-bitsolve.com>) Subject: Re: Why PERL on VMS? We have DCLi= Message-ID: <6ksTb.4297$SC5.39478514@news-text.cableinet.net>e  7 > --- cluster_size.pl;-0       Wed Nov 26 14:26:48 2003p2 > +++ cluster_size.pl     Wed Nov 26 14:41:30 2003 > @@ -1,11 +1,15 @@l< > -# This perl script will process an DFU search output fileD > -# to analyze the effect of cluster size on wasted allocaed space.H > -# use a PIPE or: defi/user sys$output dfu.tmp, and DFU SEARCH disk00:; > +# This perl script will execute a DFU search and analyzem: > +# the effect of cluster size on wasted allocated space. >  #8 >  # system$disk00:[directory]filename,ext;vers      1/9 >  #Primary headers : 6168. >  #Files found : 6168, Size : 2918870/3293460 > -while (<>) {o > +sK > +die "Usage: perl cluster_size.pl <device_name>" unless defined $ARGV[0];r > +i. > +open(DFUPIPE, "MCR DFU SEARCH $ARGV[0] |"); > +o > +while (<DFUPIPE>) { >    if (/(\d+)\/(\d+)$/) {h >      $end=$1;a >      $all=$2;s > @@ -20,6 +24,8 @@i* >    $headers = $1 if (/headers : (\d+)/); >    } >	 > +close DFUPIPE;- > +y0 >  #foreach $end (sort {$a <=> $b} keys %file) {- >  #  printf ("%6d %d\n", $file{$end}, $end);o >  #  }d > [END of patch] >m  I Now this makes a case in point.. Programmers write code.. Operations guysiJ manage the systems on a day-to-day basis.. When the programmer has writtenB the code above leaves. How on earth is the systems guy supposed toI understand it? There is too much to do installing, running and maintiningw; systems for systems managers to even start to learn pearl..   F Yes I agree that nifty little pearl scripts can be used to perform keyE components within program suites and modules, but for controlling andiA running the system on a day-to-day basis DCL needs to be used for  maintainability..dI As an MD running my company I don't want to have to pay the extra $ for aBC pearl programmer just to run the system.. All scripts (except whereoH necessary [and then extensively documented]) are in DCL so my operations guys can maintain them.i   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Feb 2004 12:14:33 -0600 B From: clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley)* Subject: RE: [OT] MyDoom = Microsoft + SCO3 Message-ID: <WwuuoxCEky5H@eisner.encompasserve.org>t  _ In article <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIKEACCMAA.tom@kednos.com>, "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> writes: 6 >From: Fabio Cardoso [mailto:fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br] >>    @ >>   Today the SCO site suffered a massive attack of the MyDoom. >>   i1 >>   I am just imaginig if Microsoft buys SCO...    I Even in the US, I find it hard to believe that Microsoft would be allowediH to buy SCO until SCO's claims had been proven worthless; to do otherwiseE would put Microsoft in a massive monopoly position if by some amazingk/ situation the US courts ruled in favour of SCO.g   >   , > IIRC Microsft at one time owned 20% of SCO >   % Would that be Tarantella or Caldera ?   I Just a gentle reminder to people that there have been 2 distinct entitiesd called SCO. :-)e  J People wanting further information on the SCO lawsuit can visit Groklaw at http://www.groklaw.net .   Simon.   -- iB Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP       P SCO: Proudly pushing Microsoft down to #2 on the list of most disliked companies   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.065 ************************