0 INFO-VAX	Wed, 04 Feb 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 69      Contents: a little scripting challenge  Re: a little scripting challenge/ Re: Alpha 1200 SCSI shelf configuration problem  Re: Books written about OpenVMS " DECnet Socket function SktDnetConn0 Re: Help with SSH, any tricks to get it to work?0 Re: Help with SSH, any tricks to get it to work?0 Re: Help with SSH, any tricks to get it to work?) Re: HOW MANY BPI DOES A DLT7000 WRITE AT? ) Re: HOW MANY BPI DOES A DLT7000 WRITE AT? P 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: Moderate this group  RE: Moderate this group  Re: Moderate this group  Re: Moderate this group + Re: Moderate this group (was: HTML posting) % Re: More M/e/z/e/i abuse - nobody.org  Re: MyDoom.B Re: MyDoom.B RE: MyDoom.B" Re: Need help solving SSH problems@ Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits yourK Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your  response! K Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your  response! K 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!  resP Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your  response!  resP Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your  response!  resJ Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your response!? Oracle ships 10g database, cuts price  <-- Oracle RDB too ????? C Re: Oracle ships 10g database, cuts price  <-- Oracle RDB too ????? C Re: Oracle ships 10g database, cuts price  <-- Oracle RDB too ????? C Re: Oracle ships 10g database, cuts price  <-- Oracle RDB too ????? C Re: Oracle ships 10g database, cuts price  <-- Oracle RDB too ????? $ Print Queue to FAX/E-mail Solutions?( Re: Print Queue to FAX/E-mail Solutions?( Re: Print Queue to FAX/E-mail Solutions? Re: Renaissance of VAX-VMS ? Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars 4 Re: Solved: "Known problems with V7.3 security MUP?"4 Re: Solved: "Known problems with V7.3 security MUP?"* Support for the Logical Connection Number.. Re: Support for the Logical Connection Number.9 Re: TCP/IP for HP OpenVMS Bind Version 8 Potential Denial ? Re: Terry, when Palmers involved you seal the deal on the spot! @ Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systems@ Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systems Re: Why was VAX abandonned ? Re: Why was VAX abandonned ? Re: Why was VAX abandonned ? RE: Why was VAX abandonned ? Re: Why was VAX abandonned ? RE: Why was VAX abandonned ? Re: Why was VAX abandonned ? RE: Why was VAX abandonned ? Re: Why was VAX abandonned ?  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 03:55:38 -0800 ' From: nikki_wire@yahoo.com (nikki_wire) % Subject: a little scripting challenge = Message-ID: <60fdd9c9.0402040355.30eaa831@posting.google.com>    Hello!  F A while ago a guy on this forum answered my question about how to makeE a command file that typed out some text on the command line character # by character. Here's how he did it:    $!D $!  P1 is the number of milliseconds to wait. (currently replaced by= 20 in th $ if f$integer(p1) .gt. 0 then milli = f$integer(p1)  $!  line)      $! $ milli = 504 $ if f$integer(20) .gt. 0 then milli = f$integer(20)F $ delay = f$fao("00:00:!2ZL.!2ZL",milli/100,milli - milli / 100 * 100) $! $! Open the text file. $!/ $ open/read/error=error infile sys$login:<file>  $! $loop_read: $ $ read infile inline/end=end_of_file $ length='f$length(inline) $ position = 0 $! $loop_display:* $ character = f$extract(position,1,inline) $!7 $! Display a character without the linefeed at the end.  $!@ $ read sys$error ans /prompt="''character'"/timeout=0/error=wait $wait: $! $! Wait before the next display  $!
 $ wait 'delay  $ position = position + 1 0 $ if position .le. length then goto loop_display $! $! Put in a linefeed $! $ write sys$error "" $ goto loop_read $!
 $end_of_file:  $ close infile $! $error:  $!  A That works perfectly. However, does anyone know a way to vary the > speed at which the characters appear? For instance - the firstC character comes up after .3 seconds, the second character after 0.2  seconds, etc etc.   A I realise this is just a pointless piece of fun but if anyone can ) crack it I'd take my hat off to them...!!    Thanks!    Nikki    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:46:52 +0000 0 From: Chris Sharman <chris.sharman@sorry.nospam>) Subject: Re: a little scripting challenge 4 Message-ID: <bvqpjs$44t$1$830fa79d@news.demon.co.uk>   nikki_wire wrote: C > That works perfectly. However, does anyone know a way to vary the @ > speed at which the characters appear? For instance - the firstE > character comes up after .3 seconds, the second character after 0.2  > seconds, etc etc.   . $loop_read: read infile inline/end=end_of_file$ $ read infile tenths/end=end_of_file $ length=f$length(inline) 	 $ pos = 0  $!7 $loop_display: read sys$error/timeout=0/error=wait ans- ! 	/prompt="''f$ext(pos,1,inline)'" . $wait: wait 0:0:0.'f$int(f$ext(pos,1,tenths))' $ pos=pos+1 ) $ if pos.lt.length then goto loop_display   : Here you go - tight loop stripped down somewhat for speed.F After each input line, you need another line, giving wait times after ) the character in tenths (one digit only).  Eg Hello World  32123456789  How are you  01234567890    ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 02:54:31 -0500  From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com>8 Subject: Re: Alpha 1200 SCSI shelf configuration problem6 Message-ID: <1040204024820.15796L-100000@Ives.egh.com>  & On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Chris Moore wrote:  L > I have come upon an Alphaserver 1200 5/533 that only 'sees' the top 3 SCSIN > drives in the cabinet shelf.  What little documentation I can find refers toN > the fact that this model has a "split shelf", so that the bottom 3 slots canI > be connected to a 2nd controller (which this system does not have).  It D > seemed to imply that this could be changed to a full shelf, singleD > controller configuration, but I can't find any reference on how to  > connect/jumper this to happen. > 6 > Any and all assistance would be GREATLY appreciated. > 
 > Chris Moore  >  > --G > "The opinions expressed herein are almost NEVER those of my employer"   F You just need to remove the terminator and install the correct jumper.  B Our 1200 was delivered with a split shelf, but we wanted to add anC external shelf, so I unsplit the bus, and used the external port on  the 2nd controller.   D It seems to me it took a while to find the right jumper, since thereD appear to be two different, parallel SCSI wiring schemes with 2 setsA of connectors on the backplane, and the 1st jumper I tried didn't B work.  (It didn't see the drives in the bottom slots.)  Eventually@ I found a jumper of the other style in a bag of spare parts that? was delivered with the Alpha, and tried that one and it worked.   B IIRC, the two styles of connector were a larger Berg connector andA a smaller D-shaped connector and it was the larger connector that > worked, but I would have to take the machine apart to be sure.       --   John Santos  Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 01:41:34 -0800 . From: fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br (Fabio Cardoso)( Subject: Re: Books written about OpenVMS= Message-ID: <f30679fb.0402040141.2ab0bfea@posting.google.com>   v susan_skonetski@hotmail.com (Sue Skonetski) wrote in message news:<857e9e41.0402031415.7f60cd61@posting.google.com>... > Dear Newsgroup,  > C > I have been named as the VMS contact for Digital Press books (VMS D > only).  If you have a minute could you please fill out a survey onF > OpenVMS books on openvms.org, that way we can work on books that you > want.  >  > Warm Regards,  > Sue      Ok Sue  E But with all these guys here answering questions everyday, what about K a Book called "OpenVMS Experts Handbook for System and Network Management".    :-)      Fabio C.   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 02:24:44 -0800  From: t_pantel@yahoo.com+ Subject: DECnet Socket function SktDnetConn < Message-ID: <7b80c3dc.0402040224.458f045@posting.google.com>  @ I got the Compaq PATHWORKS Socket Library and I use the functionD SktDnetConn to connect to VMS objects and send data from Windows viaC Pathoworks. I want to use a similar function for TCP-IP and not for @ Pathworks. Also this library contains some TCP/IP functions thatE perform several tasks but I don't know which of them does exactly the C same thing (connect to VMS Objects and send data to them, providing @ the node, username and password for this connection). There is a@ function named SktSendto that supports TCPIP and is defined withD approximately the same parameters with SktDnetConn but I am not sureD if it is exactly the same because I don't have any documentation for these functions.  C Could someone give me some help on this? Do I have to use SktSendto * instead of SktDnetConn or use another one?   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 07:36:00 -0600 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 9 Subject: Re: Help with SSH, any tricks to get it to work? 3 Message-ID: <TKW3JTlFqHf7@eisner.encompasserve.org>   ] In article <bvp261$nv4$1@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>, bleau@umtof.umd.edu (Lawrence Bleau) writes:  >  > Any suggestions here?  >   F    Tried the same on Multinet.  sftp seems to work fine.  scp from theF    Mac to the VMS system gets the file attributes wrong.  scp from theB    VMS system to the Mac fails without showing the progress bar or    an error message.  H    SSH log files indicate a possible Kerberos error.  None of my systemsE    are set up for Kerberos.  I can't be positive that these log files     belong to the Mac sessions.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 07:11:04 -0700 % From: Dan O'Reilly <dano@process.com> 9 Subject: Re: Help with SSH, any tricks to get it to work? = Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.2.20040204070931.02239c48@192.168.0.11>   ( At 06:36 AM 2/4/2004, Bob Koehler wrote:F >In article <bvp261$nv4$1@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>, bleau@umtof.umd.edu  >(Lawrence Bleau) writes:  > >  > > Any suggestions here?  > >  > H >    Tried the same on Multinet.  sftp seems to work fine.  scp from theH >    Mac to the VMS system gets the file attributes wrong.  scp from theD >    VMS system to the Mac fails without showing the progress bar or >    an error message. > J >    SSH log files indicate a possible Kerberos error.  None of my systemsG >    are set up for Kerberos.  I can't be positive that these log files   >    belong to the Mac sessions.  K What's the error?  What version of MultiNet?  There's a (somewhat annoying) J message that can come from an SSH connection that really indicates nothingJ more than you aren't configured for Kerberos.  It's a message that's going to disappear next release.     ------J +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+J | Dan O'Reilly                  |  "There are 10 types of people in this |J | Principal Engineer            |   world: those who understand binary   |J | Process Software              |   and those who don't."                |J | http://www.process.com        |                                        |J +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 12:19:13 -0600 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 9 Subject: Re: Help with SSH, any tricks to get it to work? 3 Message-ID: <UtGLc1bi8Dhv@eisner.encompasserve.org>   e In article <6.0.0.22.2.20040204070931.02239c48@192.168.0.11>, Dan O'Reilly <dano@process.com> writes: * > At 06:36 AM 2/4/2004, Bob Koehler wrote:G >>In article <bvp261$nv4$1@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>, bleau@umtof.umd.edu   >>(Lawrence Bleau) writes: >> > >> > Any suggestions here? >> > >>I >>    Tried the same on Multinet.  sftp seems to work fine.  scp from the I >>    Mac to the VMS system gets the file attributes wrong.  scp from the E >>    VMS system to the Mac fails without showing the progress bar or  >>    an error message.  >>K >>    SSH log files indicate a possible Kerberos error.  None of my systems H >>    are set up for Kerberos.  I can't be positive that these log files! >>    belong to the Mac sessions.   F    I've exchanged email with Dan, and that is the message he discusses	    below.   M > What's the error?  What version of MultiNet?  There's a (somewhat annoying) L > message that can come from an SSH connection that really indicates nothingL > more than you aren't configured for Kerberos.  It's a message that's going > to disappear next release. >  >  > ------L > +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+L > | Dan O'Reilly                  |  "There are 10 types of people in this |L > | Principal Engineer            |   world: those who understand binary   |L > | Process Software              |   and those who don't."                |L > | http://www.process.com        |                                        |L > +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ >  >    ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 06:39:52 -0800  From: mb301@hotmail.com (MB)2 Subject: Re: HOW MANY BPI DOES A DLT7000 WRITE AT?= Message-ID: <1d08b916.0402040639.31f74bd8@posting.google.com>    "Tillman, Brian (AGRE)" <Brian.Tillman@smiths-aerospace.com> wrote in message news:<11721EF39C7D7F47A55447158274CAF79A39C9@cossmgmbx01.email.corp.tld>...  > MB wrote:  > 2 > > I am using Rdb(7.0) and trying to do a backup. >  ..snip...5 > > I have init the tape "Sony DLTtape iv tape " with  > > /media=compaction but rdb  > > seems to ignore it.  > E > Don't use any density.  As you say, INIT it at the VMS level.  Once G > inited, mounts will default to the initialized values.  You shouldn't 2 > have to tell Rdb explicitly what the density is. > -- > Brian Tillman          > Smiths Aerospace  > 3290 Patterson Ave. SE, MS 1B3 > Grand Rapids, MI 49512-1991 @ > Brian.Tillman is the name, smiths-aerospace.com is the domain. >       < > I don't speak for Smiths, and Smiths doesn't speak for me. > , > ******************************************H > The information contained in, or attached to, this e-mail, may containE >  confidential information and is intended solely for the use of the H >  individual or entity to whom they are addressed and may be subject toI >  legal privilege.  If you have received this e-mail in error you should I >  notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail, delete the message from M >  your system and notify your system manager.  Please do not copy it for any G >  purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person.  The views or J >  opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and doH >  not necessarily represent those of the company.  The recipient shouldJ >  check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses.  TheB >  company accepts no liability for any damage caused, directly or6 >  indirectly, by any virus transmitted in this email., > ******************************************    Don't agree with that statement.  D I have a database backup on disk which is 62,000,000 Blocks which is
 about 31GBC When  I try to use RMU/BACKUP to tape it ignores the density of the  tape and wants  three 70 GB tapes (yes three)...  E I do a rmu/backup to disk first and copy it the tape I can squeeze on C the same tape, two 31GB databases. So at this point the tape should A have some 8GB of free space on it as I am using a Sony "DLTapeIV"  cartridge in a DLT7000 drive.    This is what I have to do.  ( $ init VMS1$MKE200: /MED=COMPACTION 0001 $ mount/over=id/med=compaction    $ copy database.bck vms1$mke200:  B For me it looks like Rdb is not writing at the correct compression rate or denisty.  ' This is the spec on the sony cartridge.  20/40 GB ON DLT4000  35/40 GB ON DLT7000  40/80 GB ON DLT8000  assuming 2:1 compression Length 1,828 feet    ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:28:08 -0500 From: norm.raphael@metso.com2 Subject: Re: HOW MANY BPI DOES A DLT7000 WRITE AT?Q Message-ID: <OFF30B862A.9A59B02A-ON85256E30.005A57F1-85256E30.005AF787@metso.com>   7 mb301@hotmail.com (MB) wrote on 02/04/2004 09:39:52 AM:    > ) > This is the spec on the sony cartridge.  > 20/40 GB ON DLT4000  > 35/40 GB ON DLT7000    Should not this be?:     35/70 GB ON DLT7000    > 40/80 GB ON DLT8000  > assuming 2:1 compression > Length 1,828 feet    ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 02:28:22 -0500  From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com>Y Subject: Re: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications performance on Itaniu 6 Message-ID: <1040204020622.15796K-100000@Ives.egh.com>  $ On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Bill Todd wrote:   > / > "John Santos" <JOHN@egh.com> wrote in message 2 > news:1040203010733.15796A-100000@Ives.egh.com... >  > ...  > F > > 2) The VAX 11/780 (announced in 1977) was, in PDP-11 compatibility@ > > mode, about the same performance as a PDP-11/70 (1975.)  The> > > VAX 8600  (1984) was significantly slower than an 11/70 in? > > compatibility mode.  (These were both the fastest available A > > VAX model when released.)  Clearly by not being significantly B > > faster than a much older system of half the word-size, the VAX2 > > must have been a dismal failure in the market. > M > You appear to be somewhat confused.  We're not discussing whether an Itanic F > with a full and robust complement of native software that was firmlyN > established as the market leader but that ran x86 software at less than halfN > the speed of the then-fastest x86 would be a viable product in 2008 (6 yearsG > after the first usable Itanic appeared, which would be the applicable H > comparison with your 8600 example above):  we're discussing whether anD > Itanic with relatively little native software and near-zero marketG > penetration that runs x86 software at less than half the speed of the * > currently-fastest x86 is viable *today*. > I > Furthermore, we're asking that question in an environment where the x86 L > architecture has already been extended by AMD to 64 bits and appears aboutM > to be similarly extended by Intel as well, eliminating the main reason that K > VAX was created to supplement and eventually (after a decade or so on the & > market) start to replace the PDP-11. > I > In other words, your analogy above appears at first glance to be poorly L > conceived and utterly inapplicable.  But feel free to explain why it might	 > not be.  >  > - bill  J If the question is whether an Itanium running exclusively x86 applicationsH in X86 emulation is a viable replacement for a (much faster) X86 running6 x86 apps natively, then the answer is "of course not".  K If the question is whether it is useful to have X86 emulation that is much  E faster then previously available as a migration tool, so that a much  D larger set of secondary apps is available, then the answer is "yes."F But your primary application (or the performance-critical parts of it) has to be ported first.   G For example, suppose you have a workstation that runs a CAD application E that has been ported to IA64.  Suppose you also need to do email, web A browsing, and occasional word processing.  If you can run Eudora, D Mozilla and Word on your IA64 (in X86 emulation), even if it as slowC at them as my lowly 800Mhz P3, that would be fine, and you wouldn't D need a 2nd box on or next to your desk.  Same with a web server.  IfA Apache is available for IA64, but your favorite HTML editor or an G infrequently used, but essential CGI program is only available for x86, * the IA64 solution suddenly becomes viable.  ? Of course, none of this is particularly relevent to VMS, unless B someone writes a "PC in a sandbox" application (similar to the old? SoftPC) that uses this X86 emulation, except to the extent that @ greater Itanium viability helps VMS, HP-UX, Tandem, and anythingA else that uses it.  (Does it seem slightly strange that increased / demand causes *lower* prices in this industry?)      --   John Santos  Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:52:32 +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: <bvqfd0$7p0$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   David Svensson wrote:  > Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<bvokl9$hm8$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...  >  >>David Svensson wrote:   < >>Currently there are only 4 of the ~300 Oracle applications: >>certified for HP-UX/Linux Itanium, do you honestly think9 >>that say the DW/DM components are going to work well on  >>IA32-EL ?  >  > : > I don't know what Oracle has to do with this discussion.+ > Whether they will work well I don't know.  >   9 Itanium is targeted at the Server market, Oracle is a key : supplied of software in the Server market does that help ? > 8 >>And does it matter if Oracle won't support it anyway ? >  >  > Yes, probably. >  > 8 >>Without performance and without ISV support IA32-EL is8 >>destined to become another FX!32 except that FX!32 was >>quite quick. >  > 7 > As far as I see the EA32-EL is just as fast as FX!32.   8 No, FX!32 delivered performance on an Alpha based system6 that was equivalent to the performance of the best x86 processors at the time.   < EA32-EL emulated applications run at ~40% of the performance of the best x86 processor now.   Regards  Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:54:59 +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: <bvqfhj$7p0$2@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   David Svensson wrote: f > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message news:<L6WdnTpG5OgdJ4Ld4p2dnA@metrocast.net>... > 6 >>"David Svensson" <icerq4a@spray.se> wrote in message9 >>news:734da31c.0402022332.651aad8a@posting.google.com...  >> >>...  >> >>F >>>Funny, that you don't understand. I experience no difference when IE >>>run for example Word or Excel on a 2GHz P4 or a 3GHz P4. I had the > >>>same experience with IA32-EL. And, many interactive WindowsH >>>applications also run a good share of code that already is native, so# >>>the speed is actually very good.  >>M >>It's possible that you're the one who doesn't understand.  The matter under C >>discussion would seem to be whether IA32-EL makes any substantive H >>difference, not whether it runs Word and Excel (or similar interactiveD >>applications) acceptably.  For example, if Word and Excel also ranN >>acceptably even under the sluggish Itanic *hardware* emulator, your analysis >>above would be irrelevant. >  > B > OK..., one of my points was that IA32-EL does make a difference.@ > Although you can/could run many applications with the hardwareA > emulator you did notice that it was slow. With IA32-EL I didn't F > noticed any slowdown, it was like running a say 2.4GHz P4. (I cannotH > make a difference between say 1.5GHz to 3Ghz P4 unless I try to play a5 > game where it is more easy to spot the difference.)  >   B But the example you provided Excel was one where you were unlikely  to see any performance problems.   Regards  Andrew Harrison  > J >>Intel appears to believe that at least some significant x86 applicationsK >>that Itanic needs to be attractive do *not* run at acceptable speed under M >>the hardware emulator.  So *those* would the the applications to examine to M >>see whether the somewhat increased but still uncompetitive speed of IA32-EL  >>makes any real difference. >  > < > The hardware emulator was in my opinion always a bit slow.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:22:42 +0000 - From: David B Sneddon <dbsneddon@bigpond.com>   Subject: Re: Moderate this group* Message-ID: <4020F222.1080908@bigpond.com>   Richard B. Gilbert espoused:J > If the nutcase were a normal person, he probably would tire of it.  I'd  > say he's clearly obsessed! > I > I too would vote for going moderated.  It's not just this nutcase that  J > has led me in this direction.  There is an incredible amount of "noise" J > here.  I could cite what has to be one of the longest running trolls on F > record and the people who keep responding to him, the "64 bit 8086" F > stuff, the people who think they could manage DEC, Compaq and/or HP D > better than the people actually being paid to do it and on and on. > C > I read this group, when I have  time, for VMS related material.   1 > Moderation would/should lose most of the noise.   F Then of course for technical discussions and questions there is always8 the itrc forums -- things are much more civilized there.   Regards, Dave.  --  I David B Sneddon (dbs)    VMS Systems Programmer     dbsneddon@bigpond.com I Sneddo's quick guide ...          http://www.users.bigpond.com/dbsneddon/ I DBS freeware at ...   http://www.users.bigpond.com/dbsneddon/software.htm I "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans" Lennon    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:50:35 -0500 * From: "Stewart, Bill" <wjs-corp@kaman.com>  Subject: RE: Moderate this group< Message-ID: <1E4B06029E11D211B47C0000F8207F4D01BA007A@ESKC2>   Dave,   C 	Could you give us a pointer to those itrc forums. (for those of us " that would like a moderated forum)   Bill Stewart   :-) Kaman Corporation  1332 Blue Hills Avenue Bloomfield, Connecticut, 06002 (860) 243-7058     ->-----Original Message-----6 ->From: David B Sneddon [mailto:dbsneddon@bigpond.com], ->Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 8:23 AM ->To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com " ->Subject: Re: Moderate this group -> -> ->Richard B. Gilbert espoused:@ ->> If the nutcase were a normal person, he probably would tire  ->of it.  I'd  ->> say he's clearly obsessed! ->> > ->> I too would vote for going moderated.  It's not just this  ->nutcase that  : ->> has led me in this direction.  There is an incredible  ->amount of "noise" : ->> here.  I could cite what has to be one of the longest  ->running trolls on H ->> record and the people who keep responding to him, the "64 bit 8086" H ->> stuff, the people who think they could manage DEC, Compaq and/or HP F ->> better than the people actually being paid to do it and on and on. ->> E ->> I read this group, when I have  time, for VMS related material.   3 ->> Moderation would/should lose most of the noise.  ->H ->Then of course for technical discussions and questions there is always: ->the itrc forums -- things are much more civilized there. ->
 ->Regards, ->Dave.  ->--  6 ->David B Sneddon (dbs)    VMS Systems Programmer      ->dbsneddon@bigpond.com $ ->Sneddo's quick guide ...          ) ->http://www.users.bigpond.com/dbsneddon/  ->DBS freeware at ...   5 ->http://www.users.bigpond.com/dbsneddon/software.htm > ->"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other  ->plans" Lennon  ->   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:58:21 +0000 - From: David B Sneddon <dbsneddon@bigpond.com>   Subject: Re: Moderate this group* Message-ID: <4020FA7D.5020104@bigpond.com>   Stewart, Bill espoused:  > Dave,  > E > 	Could you give us a pointer to those itrc forums. (for those of us $ > that would like a moderated forum) >  > Bill Stewart   :-)   http://www.itrc.hp.com  E You have to register to get access, but I guess that is what helps to  keep the lunatic fringe away.    Regards, Dave.  --  I David B Sneddon (dbs)    VMS Systems Programmer     dbsneddon@bigpond.com I Sneddo's quick guide ...          http://www.users.bigpond.com/dbsneddon/ I DBS freeware at ...   http://www.users.bigpond.com/dbsneddon/software.htm I "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans" Lennon    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:08:16 GMT 2 From: "Ken Farmer" <KFarmer@NOSPAM.SpyderByte.com>  Subject: Re: Moderate this group= Message-ID: <k17Ub.38954$YG.3031355@twister.southeast.rr.com>   : "David B Sneddon" <dbsneddon@bigpond.com> wrote in message$ news:4020F222.1080908@bigpond.com... > Richard B. Gilbert espoused:K > > If the nutcase were a normal person, he probably would tire of it.  I'd  > > say he's clearly obsessed! > > J > > I too would vote for going moderated.  It's not just this nutcase thatK > > has led me in this direction.  There is an incredible amount of "noise" K > > here.  I could cite what has to be one of the longest running trolls on G > > record and the people who keep responding to him, the "64 bit 8086" G > > stuff, the people who think they could manage DEC, Compaq and/or HP F > > better than the people actually being paid to do it and on and on. > > C > > I read this group, when I have  time, for VMS related material. 3 > > Moderation would/should lose most of the noise.  > H > Then of course for technical discussions and questions there is always: > the itrc forums -- things are much more civilized there.    2 Not much noise on OpenVMS.org's forums either.  :)   Ken    -- Kenneth Farmer  <><  OpenVMS.org  |  dcl.OpenVMS.org    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:03:18 -0500 3 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> 4 Subject: Re: Moderate this group (was: HTML posting)0 Message-ID: <3ZGdnZ7bwLEQcL3d4p2dnA@comcast.com>  , This is a multi-part message in MIME format.& --------------0406000608050804000505039 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed  Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   H If the nutcase were a normal person, he probably would tire of it.  I'd  say he's clearly obsessed!  G I too would vote for going moderated.  It's not just this nutcase that  H has led me in this direction.  There is an incredible amount of "noise" H here.  I could cite what has to be one of the longest running trolls on D record and the people who keep responding to him, the "64 bit 8086" D stuff, the people who think they could manage DEC, Compaq and/or HP B better than the people actually being paid to do it and on and on.  A I read this group, when I have  time, for VMS related material.   / Moderation would/should lose most of the noise.    Alan E. Feldman wrote:  c >lewis@mazda.mitre.org (Keith A. Lewis) wrote in message news:<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: >>     >>W >>>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.  >>C >>But I will to you that this anti-JF nutcase usually crossposts to I >>rec.travel.air, which has pretty much nothing to do with VMS.  Adding a H >>filter which ignores all articles which are crossposted to both groupsD >>carries a near-zero risk of missing anything you might actually be2 >>interested in, and it eliminates much stupidity. >>J >>25 of 163 articles were squelched by this filter today in my newsreader. >>2 >>--Keith Lewis              klewis {at} mitre.org@ >>The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer. >>     >> >  > E >I read this ng via Google, and I know of know way to filter out this B >nutcase's krap. While I can simply not open his threads, they areB >often half of the list! I tire of seeing them again and again andA >would definitely consider voting for a moderator. When deja went E >under, I tried various free news sites but they were all either very > >slow or very incomplete or both. And as far as this nutcase'sD >continual cross-posting to our group goes, it looks like there's no2 >end in sight. You'd think he tire of this by now. >h >Alan E. Feldman >  . >   & --------------040600060805080400050503) Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-asciit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7biti  ? <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">  <html> <head>I   <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">7   <title></title>L </head>s' <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff"> L If the nutcase were a normal person, he probably would tire of it.&nbsp; I'd say he's clearly obsessed!<br> <br>K I too would vote for going moderated.&nbsp; It's not just this nutcase that8L has led me in this direction.&nbsp; There is an incredible amount of "noise"L here.&nbsp; I could cite what has to be one of the longest running trolls onC record and the people who keep responding to him, the "64 bit 8086"eC stuff, the people who think they could manage DEC, Compaq and/or HP1F better than the people actually being paid to do it and on and on.<br> <br>J I read this group, when I have&nbsp; time, for VMS related material.&nbsp;3 Moderation would/should lose most of the noise.<br>i <br> Alan E. Feldman wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite"6;  cite="midb096a4ee.0402031959.7b330fe1@posting.google.com">:  <pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:lewis@mazda.mitre.org">lewis@mazda.mitre.org</a> (Keith A. Lewis) wrote in message news:<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bvm3ic$6bu$1@newslocal.mitre.org">&lt;bvm3ic$6bu$1@newslocal.mitre.org&gt;</a>...8   </pre>   <blockquote type="cite">4    <pre wrap="">Didier Morandi <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:no@spam.com">&lt;no@spam.com&gt;</a> writes in article <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:401adfe3$0$22318$626a54ce@news.free.fr">&lt;401adfe3$0$22318$626a54ce@news.free.fr&gt;</a> dated Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:48:39 +0100:
     </pre>     <blockquote type="cite">g       <pre wrap="">May I suggest to the Venerable c.o.v. Community to turn our group to moderated mode?t       </pre>     </blockquote> .     <pre wrap="">I like it fine the way it is.  A But I will to you that this anti-JF nutcase usually crossposts to G rec.travel.air, which has pretty much nothing to do with VMS.  Adding amF filter which ignores all articles which are crossposted to both groupsB carries a near-zero risk of missing anything you might actually be0 interested in, and it eliminates much stupidity.  H 25 of 163 articles were squelched by this filter today in my newsreader.  0 --Keith Lewis              klewis {at} mitre.org> The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.
     </pre>   </blockquote>d   <pre wrap=""><!---->  D I read this ng via Google, and I know of know way to filter out thisA nutcase's krap. While I can simply not open his threads, they areeA often half of the list! I tire of seeing them again and again and @ would definitely consider voting for a moderator. When deja wentD under, I tried various free news sites but they were all either very= slow or very incomplete or both. And as far as this nutcase'soC continual cross-posting to our group goes, it looks like there's nor1 end in sight. You'd think he tire of this by now.o   Alan E. Feldmane   </pre>
 </blockquote>s </body>o </html>   ( --------------040600060805080400050503--   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:57:37 GMTd* From: Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net>. Subject: Re: More M/e/z/e/i abuse - nobody.org- Message-ID: <5u2Ub.388519$JQ1.37550@pd7tw1no>f   starwars wrote:l  L > nobody.org is a registered domain.  Report Mezei's theft and abuse of this4 > domain to its owner  at <noway@nohow.demon.co.uk>.  I Where, precisely, do we report you? That's the only thing I want to know.      -- oG "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice."0   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:40:21 +0100o* From: Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net> Subject: Re: MyDoom.BA0 Message-ID: <4020BE05.1C3D84B7@sture.homeip.net>   Tom Crabtree wrote:l > J > > Here we have a child who could not even graduate from grade school, asC > > evidenced by the lack of ability in using the English language.s > > -- > E > Actually, if you read his bio at http://www.jeremyshum.com/bio.htmltG > you'd see that it would appear that he is one of the 'gifted' ones ofb > today's generation. J > Of course, you'd have to assume that it really was posted by Jeremy, and/ > that he wouldn't over embellish his web page.s   <snip>     404 Error -- File Not Found H The page you are looking for (http://www.jeremyshum.com/bio.html) is not here.      -- ,
 Paul Sture   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:32:55 GMTi4 From: brad@.gateway.2wire.net (Bradford J. Hamilton) Subject: Re: MyDoom.Bb0 Message-ID: <HL4Ub.214241$I06.2371896@attbi_s01>  ] In article <4020BE05.1C3D84B7@sture.homeip.net>, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net> writes:a !Tom Crabtree wrote: !> nK !> > Here we have a child who could not even graduate from grade school, as D !> > evidenced by the lack of ability in using the English language. !> > --l !> lF !> Actually, if you read his bio at http://www.jeremyshum.com/bio.htmlH !> you'd see that it would appear that he is one of the 'gifted' ones of !> today's generation.K !> Of course, you'd have to assume that it really was posted by Jeremy, and'0 !> that he wouldn't over embellish his web page. !k !<snip>e !  !e !404 Error -- File Not FoundI !The page you are looking for (http://www.jeremyshum.com/bio.html) is nots !here. !n  9 Hmm, at the time of the original post, the site *was* up.c  O The writing on the site was semi-literate, as opposed to the 3733t rants postedt$ here.  Probably not the same person.   !r !--  !Paul StureE  J __________________________________________________________________________A Bradford J. Hamilton                    "All opinions are my own" K bMradAhamiPltSon-at-coMmcAast.nPeSt     "Lose the MAPS, and replace '-at-' p0                                          with @"   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 06:52:49 -0700B From: "Tillman, Brian (AGRE)" <Brian.Tillman@smiths-aerospace.com> Subject: RE: MyDoom.BsO Message-ID: <11721EF39C7D7F47A55447158274CAF79A3AAE@cossmgmbx01.email.corp.tld>n   Jeremy Shum wrote:  ; > at least i knw wat im doin... ur link 4 ur bloody websitev > doesnt even work bitch  E Ha, ha, ha!  Since I never included a link for a web site in my post,AB you've just proven that, not only can't you spell, you can't read! --=0Da Brian Tillman        =0D Smiths Aerospace 3290 Patterson Ave. SE, MS 1B3 Grand Rapids, MI 49512-1991n> Brian.Tillman is the name, smiths-aerospace.com is the domain.	       =0Dr: I don't speak for Smiths, and Smiths doesn't speak for me.      * ******************************************G The information contained in, or attached to, this e-mail, may contain= D  confidential information and is intended solely for the use of the=G  individual or entity to whom they are addressed and may be subject to=eH  legal privilege.  If you have received this e-mail in error you should=H  notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail, delete the message from=L  your system and notify your system manager.  Please do not copy it for any=F  purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person.  The views or=I  opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do=cG  not necessarily represent those of the company.  The recipient should=mI  check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses.  The=nA  company accepts no liability for any damage caused, directly or=a4  indirectly, by any virus transmitted in this email.* ******************************************   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 07:27:07 -0600o; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) + Subject: Re: Need help solving SSH problemse3 Message-ID: <BMGScUaw+whG@eisner.encompasserve.org>l  ] In article <bvooeh$ivq$1@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>, bleau@umtof.umd.edu (Lawrence Bleau) writes:d  D > He is able to connect to his Mac from the VMS system via sftp, butC > when he tries to transfer a file, or even do a dir the connectionAH > hangs and he is unable to get out with CTRL-C or even CTRL-Y.  He getsE > the same result trying to transfer to another (non-Mac) system thata > has sftp.e  E    Is there a possibility of a passive mode support issue here?  Thisu;    is exactly the behaviour I see when I get a passive mode@*    on/off/required/not-supported conflict.   ------------------------------   Date: 04 Feb 2004 18:15:19 GMT( From: ka2doug@cs.commoc.sc (DL Phillips)I Subject: Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your > Message-ID: <20040204131519.27224.00001364@mb-m11.news.cs.com>   >DL Phillips wrote:I2 >>>From: al5vf03p02@sneakemail.com  (William Webb) >>>lC >>>Changing the subject isn't exactly responding to the man's post,i
 >>>Andrew. >>>,I >>>The post in question was made by Keith Cayemberg with IBM/Deutschland:a >>> I >>>It can be found in its original format at the following URL (watch out," >>>for that inevitable URL wrap!): >>>i >>> L >>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3a65a5c8.0401091542.1df169b%40postin g.google.com&output=gplain >> t	 >>>WWWebba >>>h >>>c >> m >> tJ >> Sigh. Unfortunately Bob C went and posted a reply to his own post which openedO >> the door for Andrew to ignore the original subject while claiming to address 5 >> the thread. FUD-Master-AH wins again. Double-Sigh.r >> >a" >I don't think you get it do you ?  J There are many things I don't get. I wish I were omniscient like you, sir.  ? >The OpenVMS is architected better to provide security argumenteC >is one that has been aired on a number of occasions on this group..@ >Sadly it has no relevance to this discussion which is not aboutB >how OpenVMS is architected but how it is implimented and how that6 >is reflected in the actual security holes in OpenVMS.  O This discussion is about how the design of an operating system, or as you wouldiL say, how it is architected, is relevant to that operating system's security." Please refer to the original post.  " >The OpenVMS advocate/BS merchant   N I'm sorry, Andrew. Who are you talking about? Me? William? Bob? Keith C? MaybeN if you slow down a bit you'll be able to keep a coherent thought stream going.I I'm sure you have something intelligent to say if you'd just concentrate.a   >argues that security holes 9 >cannot happen because of the way OpenVMS is architected.i  = >The problem with this argument is that OpenVMS has had holes 9 >and does still have holes and no amount of advocacy thatt; >concentrates on OpenVMS architectural purity can get round> >that uncomfortable fact.  >p  K I don't believe you understand the OpenVMS architecture well enough to makeuL such statements. If I'm wrong, then address the issue directly, please. I amL not an OpenVMS internals expert so I'd love to hear why the operating systemM design factors mentioned in the thread we (at least the rest of us) have been M discussing and which URL is quoted above are not related to an OS's security.   M There certainly have been security updates for VMS and I don't believe anyonee6 has said otherwise. Are you still obsessing about Bob?  > >So what you get instead when confronted by these actual holes1 >is a culture that follows the follwing strategy:  >>5 >1. Deny that the hole existied in the first place ord4  >try to hide its existance. Bob for example claimed9  >that there were no holes whatsoever in TCPWARE/Multinet-6  >this is completely untrue, a claim that he has never0  >appologised for making despite it being false. >o> >2. When 1 failes tries instead to deny that these holes would >have any impact.o > 2 >Bob's Bind responses are a perfect case in point.  N Again, you haven't addressed the issue. If you and Bob want to have a problem,F please use private E-mail or meet someplace and just get it over with.   >a9 >Firstly he denied that they ever existed (this is false)s@ >The he denies that they have any impact although by his measure> >(CERTS) any other OS would report the Bind vunerability as a + >vunerability because it is a potential DOSt >attack.  H Please describe the difference between how VMS reacts to attacks againstN whatever IP product it's running, and how other OS's react to the same attack.K The attacks against VMS that I'm aware of will simply stop the service, andeL then many times the service will restart when the next request comes in. TheM VMS patches I've seen simply keep the service from stopping. I don't know of eN where an attack actually crashes the system or allows the attacker to even getN to the $. Much less "take control of the system. Crashing to the command levelJ seems to be the response of  many other operating systems to many types of attack.o  O I think that has something to do with how the operating system is designed, buts of course you should know that.r  3 > But thats not good enough for Bob because he is a 9 >OpenVMS advocate and because of his preconceptions aboutn> >OpenVMS security the actual Bind vunerability gets downplayed* >to something that is not worth reporting.  $ Bob, again? Get a room! (sorry, Bob)   >/@ >If Sun or IBM was to follow this strategy a good portion of the= >CERT vunerabilites that we have reported on we could insteado >have ignored. >i@ >And there are some wonderfull urban myths in the curious bubble >that is OpenVMS advocacy. >s: >Myth number 1, buffer overflows are impossible in OpenVMS  H Noone else said that. Buffer overflows do happen, but they don't cause aN security breach. They are properly trapped. (ten to one -- if he replies -- he brings up DOS again)  ; >Myth number 2, stack execution is something that all other  >other OS's cannot deal with.l >t  J I don't recall that myth. Did you just make it up? Many other OS's are notN secure by design and poorly handled stack execution can cause severe problems. Please refer to reality.  	 >Etc etc.8 >0@ >You would do well not to support Bob in any security discussion >he is a troll.r >c  N Ooops, I'm sorry. I accidentally responded to your letter to Bob, who is a VMSM user and has a reason to participate in this newsgroup unlike a non-VMS using'B Sun employee whose only apparent thrill in life is to FUD this ng.   >Regards >Andrew Harrison  
 Sincerely, DL Phillips    ****************************M I think I've said everything I meant to say so if there is something that you N don't understand then take it to mean whatever you want because if that's what I said then it probably does.l   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 07:06:46 -0800e. From: al5vf03p02@sneakemail.com (William Webb)T Subject: Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your  response!= Message-ID: <d5ce4b06.0402040706.5f7e6991@posting.google.com>o   Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<bvqgsf$8au$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...0 > DL Phillips wrote:3 > >>From: al5vf03p02@sneakemail.com  (William Webb)m > >>D > >>Changing the subject isn't exactly responding to the man's post, > >>Andrew.i > >>J > >>The post in question was made by Keith Cayemberg with IBM/Deutschland: > >>J > >>It can be found in its original format at the following URL (watch out# > >>for that inevitable URL wrap!):r > >> > >>M > >>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3a65a5c8.0401091542.1df169b%40postina > >  > > g.google.com&output=gplain > > 
 > >>WWWebb > >> > >> > >  > > R > > Sigh. Unfortunately Bob C went and posted a reply to his own post which openedP > > the door for Andrew to ignore the original subject while claiming to address6 > > the thread. FUD-Master-AH wins again. Double-Sigh. > >  >  > # > I don't think you get it do you ?  >    <snip> > A > You would do well not to support Bob in any security discussione > he is a troll. > 	 > Regardsn > Andrew Harrisonu       
   Andrew,   D   I wasn't supporting or talking about Bob, or supporting or talking9   about trolls, or cabbages and kings, for that matter.  n  I   I was talking about Keith Cayemberg's post and how you *still* haven't N   responded to it.  K   Keith even said that he agreed with you (a collective gasp rises from the '   comp.os.vms grandstand!) in one spot.0  
   Regards,     WWWebb   ========================! William W. Webb- EMS Operations, i OpenVMS Systems Support % USPS DSSC Annex - 4730 Hargrove Road  ( Raleigh, NC 27616-2874 919.325.7500x4186 * * * -e   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 09:28:12 -0600 + From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) T Subject: Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your  response!3 Message-ID: <WlNFIdsWvWgs@eisner.encompasserve.org>r  n In article <d5ce4b06.0402040706.5f7e6991@posting.google.com>, al5vf03p02@sneakemail.com (William Webb) writes: > Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<bvqgsf$8au$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...      > F >   I wasn't supporting or talking about Bob, or supporting or talking; >   about trolls, or cabbages and kings, for that matter.  e > K >   I was talking about Keith Cayemberg's post and how you *still* haven't i >   responded to it. >   D 	He won't.  There are many examples of when he is in an indefensible: 	position - he vanishes.  POOF!  Make a mental note of it.  M >   Keith even said that he agreed with you (a collective gasp rises from theu) >   comp.os.vms grandstand!) in one spot.e  ? 	Not really.  Andrew is often right.  What is most troubling isaA 	the spin when he is wrong  OR the vanishing act.  It's all about,C 	It gets downright tedious.  My take is it is all about reputation.yC 	Perhaps business marketing 101 plays a part too  (i.e. never admitb@ 	your mistakes - highlight some advantage or change the subject, 	etc.)   				Rob    ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 10:39:01 -0800 ( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)T Subject: Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your  response!= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0402041039.3c3fde84@posting.google.com>i   Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<bvr3v6$f0e$2@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...  > William Webb wrote:o > > Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<bvqgsf$8au$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...r > >  > >>DL Phillips wrote: > >>5 > >>>>From: al5vf03p02@sneakemail.com  (William Webb)P > >>>>F > >>>>Changing the subject isn't exactly responding to the man's post,
 > >>>>Andrew.e > >>>>L > >>>>The post in question was made by Keith Cayemberg with IBM/Deutschland: > >>>>L > >>>>It can be found in its original format at the following URL (watch out% > >>>>for that inevitable URL wrap!):a > >>>> > >>>>O > >>>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3a65a5c8.0401091542.1df169b%40postini > >>>i > >>>g.google.com&output=gplain, > >>>a > >>>n > >>>>WWWebb > >>>> > >>>> > >>>  > >>>hS > >>>Sigh. Unfortunately Bob C went and posted a reply to his own post which opened Q > >>>the door for Andrew to ignore the original subject while claiming to addressA7 > >>>the thread. FUD-Master-AH wins again. Double-Sigh.  > >>>n > >> > >>% > >>I don't think you get it do you ?  > >> > >  > >   <snip> > > C > >>You would do well not to support Bob in any security discussionn > >>he is a troll. > >> > >>Regards- > >>Andrew Harrison- > >  > >  > >    > >  > >   Andrew,  > > H > >   I wasn't supporting or talking about Bob, or supporting or talking= > >   about trolls, or cabbages and kings, for that matter.  . > > M > >   I was talking about Keith Cayemberg's post and how you *still* haven't h > >   responded to it. > >  > ) > Yes I did it was in my first paragraph.c > 	 > Regardst > Andrew Harrisoni  ; Andrews brilliant response to the IBM guy ... "It's bs" ...r   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:17:50 +0000eO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>fY Subject: Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your  response!  res!0 Message-ID: <bvqgsf$8au$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   DL Phillips wrote:1 >>From: al5vf03p02@sneakemail.com  (William Webb)o >>B >>Changing the subject isn't exactly responding to the man's post,	 >>Andrew.  >>H >>The post in question was made by Keith Cayemberg with IBM/Deutschland: >>H >>It can be found in its original format at the following URL (watch out! >>for that inevitable URL wrap!):t >> >>K >>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3a65a5c8.0401091542.1df169b%40postinl >  > g.google.com&output=gplain >  >>WWWebb >> >> >  > P > Sigh. Unfortunately Bob C went and posted a reply to his own post which openedN > the door for Andrew to ignore the original subject while claiming to address4 > the thread. FUD-Master-AH wins again. Double-Sigh. >     ! I don't think you get it do you ?,  > The OpenVMS is architected better to provide security argumentB is one that has been aired on a number of occasions on this group.  ? Sadly it has no relevance to this discussion which is not about-A how OpenVMS is architected but how it is implimented and how thatm5 is reflected in the actual security holes in OpenVMS.R  ; The OpenVMS advocate/BS merchant argues that security holesf8 cannot happen because of the way OpenVMS is architected.  < The problem with this argument is that OpenVMS has had holes8 and does still have holes and no amount of advocacy that: concentrates on OpenVMS architectural purity can get round that uncomfortable fact.  = So what you get instead when confronted by these actual holesd0 is a culture that follows the follwing strategy:  4 1.	Deny that the hole existied in the first place or3 	try to hide its existance. Bob for example claimedn8 	that there were no holes whatsoever in TCPWARE/Multinet5 	this is completely untrue, a claim that he has never / 	appologised for making despite it being false.a  = 2.	When 1 failes tries instead to deny that these holes wouldg 	have any impact.   1 Bob's Bind responses are a perfect case in point.   8 Firstly he denied that they ever existed (this is false)? The he denies that they have any impact although by his measurer= (CERTS) any other OS would report the Bind vunerability as a e* vunerability because it is a potential DOS9 attack. But thats not good enough for Bob because he is a 8 OpenVMS advocate and because of his preconceptions about= OpenVMS security the actual Bind vunerability gets downplayede) to something that is not worth reporting.i  ? If Sun or IBM was to follow this strategy a good portion of thea< CERT vunerabilites that we have reported on we could instead
 have ignored.e  ? And there are some wonderfull urban myths in the curious bubbled that is OpenVMS advocacy.   9 Myth number 1, buffer overflows are impossible in OpenVMSo: Myth number 2, stack execution is something that all other other OS's cannot deal with.   Etc etc.  ? You would do well not to support Bob in any security discussionm he is a troll.   Regardsy Andrew Harrisonn   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:43:33 +0000sO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>lY Subject: Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your  response!  resa0 Message-ID: <bvr3v6$f0e$2@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   William Webb wrote:  > Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<bvqgsf$8au$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...v >  >>DL Phillips wrote: >>3 >>>>From: al5vf03p02@sneakemail.com  (William Webb)o >>>>D >>>>Changing the subject isn't exactly responding to the man's post, >>>>Andrew.I >>>>J >>>>The post in question was made by Keith Cayemberg with IBM/Deutschland: >>>>J >>>>It can be found in its original format at the following URL (watch out# >>>>for that inevitable URL wrap!):  >>>> >>>>M >>>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3a65a5c8.0401091542.1df169b%40postin- >>>- >>>g.google.com&output=gplain: >>>  >>> 
 >>>>WWWebb >>>> >>>> >>>. >>>aQ >>>Sigh. Unfortunately Bob C went and posted a reply to his own post which opened4O >>>the door for Andrew to ignore the original subject while claiming to address 5 >>>the thread. FUD-Master-AH wins again. Double-Sigh.t >>>o >> >># >>I don't think you get it do you ?e >> > 
 >   <snip> > A >>You would do well not to support Bob in any security discussione >>he is a troll. >>	 >>Regardse >>Andrew Harrisonk >  >  >    >  >   Andrew,  > F >   I wasn't supporting or talking about Bob, or supporting or talking; >   about trolls, or cabbages and kings, for that matter.  , > K >   I was talking about Keith Cayemberg's post and how you *still* haven't g >   responded to it. >   ' Yes I did it was in my first paragraph.a   Regards0 Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 16:51:58 +0000eO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>TY Subject: Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your  response!  resd0 Message-ID: <bvr7ve$gj4$2@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Rob Young wrote:p > In article <d5ce4b06.0402040706.5f7e6991@posting.google.com>, al5vf03p02@sneakemail.com (William Webb) writes: >  >>Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<bvqgsf$8au$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...s >  >  > F >>  I wasn't supporting or talking about Bob, or supporting or talking; >>  about trolls, or cabbages and kings, for that matter.  S >>K >>  I was talking about Keith Cayemberg's post and how you *still* haven't d >>  responded to it. >> >  > F > 	He won't.  There are many examples of when he is in an indefensible< > 	position - he vanishes.  POOF!  Make a mental note of it. >   < No Rob thats what you do. In fact I predict that you will do= exactly that in the thread about x86 vs Opteron server costs.l   regards  Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 10:44:12 -0800 ( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)S Subject: Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your response! = Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0402041044.461a9739@posting.google.com>c  m bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in message news:<d7791aa1.0401301650.7b253db6@posting.google.com>...s  8 Andrew knows what 25 years of experience have proved ...4 that VMS is superior to slowaris and all other forms3 of unix/linux/windoze for reliability and security.c1 He knows, but can't admit it because he would geto fired ... case closed.   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 01:28:49 -0800 . From: fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br (Fabio Cardoso)H Subject: Oracle ships 10g database, cuts price  <-- Oracle RDB too ?????< Message-ID: <f30679fb.0402040128.4659871@posting.google.com>   Click   9 http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5152672.html?tag=nefd_topd    ? Oracle announced the availability of its Oracle 10g database onuA Tuesday and cut prices, in an effort to gain more customers amongs midsize businesses.c  E As previously reported by CNET News.com, Oracle released the Unix andcF Linux versions of its Oracle 10g database and dropped the price of itsE entry-level database to about $5,000 per processor, matching the costsD of Microsoft's SQL Server 2000 database. A Windows version of OracleC 10g is slated for completion in a "few weeks," according to companys executives.h (...)e     Regards    FC   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:12:10 -0500* From: "Syltrem" <syltremzulu@videotron.ca>L Subject: Re: Oracle ships 10g database, cuts price  <-- Oracle RDB too ?????2 Message-ID: <S57Ub.1044$l4.5408@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>   They didn't say about RDB-H For now, price cut is only for 10g (true Oracle). And NOT for Enterprise" Edition which we are using here...  H It may be an incentive for people to go ahead with 10g but most softwareI providers won't be there for a while, some are just getting ready with 9i  now...   -- w Syltremc   OpenVMS 7.3-1 + Oracle 8.1.7.4H http://pages.infinit.net/syltrem (OpenVMS related web site, en franais)% ---zulu is not in my email address----E "Fabio Cardoso" <fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br> a crit dans le message der6 news:f30679fb.0402040128.4659871@posting.google.com... > ClickS > ; > http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5152672.html?tag=nefd_topn >e >mA > Oracle announced the availability of its Oracle 10g database on2C > Tuesday and cut prices, in an effort to gain more customers among/ > midsize businesses.t > G > As previously reported by CNET News.com, Oracle released the Unix and H > Linux versions of its Oracle 10g database and dropped the price of itsG > entry-level database to about $5,000 per processor, matching the cost F > of Microsoft's SQL Server 2000 database. A Windows version of OracleE > 10g is slated for completion in a "few weeks," according to companyo
 > executives.r > (...)e >  > 	 > Regardso >i > FC   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 08:36:00 -0700 1 From: nothome@spammers.are.scum (Malcolm Dunnett)gL Subject: Re: Oracle ships 10g database, cuts price  <-- Oracle RDB too ?????- Message-ID: <ey6auOqVsoGA@malvm7.mala.bc.ca.>w  m In article <f30679fb.0402040128.4659871@posting.google.com>, fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br (Fabio Cardoso) writes:m > Clicko > ; > http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5152672.html?tag=nefd_topn >  > A > Oracle announced the availability of its Oracle 10g database oneC > Tuesday and cut prices, in an effort to gain more customers among- > midsize businesses.- > G > As previously reported by CNET News.com, Oracle released the Unix and H > Linux versions of its Oracle 10g database and dropped the price of itsG > entry-level database to about $5,000 per processor, matching the cost F > of Microsoft's SQL Server 2000 database. A Windows version of OracleE > 10g is slated for completion in a "few weeks," according to company-
 > executives.- > (...)+ >   N    Do they say somewhere what the difference is between "Standard Edition One"O and "Standard Edition"? The only thing I can see is that "Standard Edition One"gI supports a maximum of 2 processors in a server ( vs unlimited for "SE" ).   M    Any indication they will release "Standard Edition One" for VMS? Right nowFK it only says "Windows, Linux and Unix". None of our VMS Oracle servers have H more than 2 processors so I'd hate to be spending an additional $10k per$ processor just to run Oracle on VMS.  H   (note to Sue et al - it would be very supportive for the "low-end VMS"L market if Oracle could be encouraged to make this product available on VMS )   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 08:38:16 -0700t1 From: nothome@spammers.are.scum (Malcolm Dunnett) L Subject: Re: Oracle ships 10g database, cuts price  <-- Oracle RDB too ?????- Message-ID: <hm20JsJLpxMN@malvm7.mala.bc.ca.>   _ In article <S57Ub.1044$l4.5408@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>, "Syltrem" <syltremzulu@videotron.ca> writes:d   > They didn't say about RDB*J > For now, price cut is only for 10g (true Oracle). And NOT for Enterprise$ > Edition which we are using here... >   K   Oracle RDB has always matched "Enterprise Edition" pricing. AFAIK they'veaI never released an RDB "Standard Edition" so I doubt they would release ani RDB "Standard Edition One".h   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 18:33:01 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>yL Subject: Re: Oracle ships 10g database, cuts price  <-- Oracle RDB too ?????J Message-ID: <xVaUb.130724$9Ce1.54975@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>   Malcolm Dunnett wrote:> > In article <f30679fb.0402040128.4659871@posting.google.com>,2 > fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br (Fabio Cardoso) writes: >> Click >>< >> http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5152672.html?tag=nefd_top >> >>B >> Oracle announced the availability of its Oracle 10g database onD >> Tuesday and cut prices, in an effort to gain more customers among >> midsize businesses. >>H >> As previously reported by CNET News.com, Oracle released the Unix andE >> Linux versions of its Oracle 10g database and dropped the price ofCG >> its entry-level database to about $5,000 per processor, matching theaE >> cost of Microsoft's SQL Server 2000 database. A Windows version ofaE >> Oracle 10g is slated for completion in a "few weeks," according ton >> company executives. >> (...) >> >sC >    Do they say somewhere what the difference is between "Standards > Edition One"D > and "Standard Edition"? The only thing I can see is that "Standard > Edition One"C > supports a maximum of 2 processors in a server ( vs unlimited forP	 > "SE" ).I >-E >    Any indication they will release "Standard Edition One" for VMS?e > Right now-@ > it only says "Windows, Linux and Unix". None of our VMS Oracle > servers haveF > more than 2 processors so I'd hate to be spending an additional $10k > perr& > processor just to run Oracle on VMS. >sE >   (note to Sue et al - it would be very supportive for the "low-endp > VMS"E > market if Oracle could be encouraged to make this product availables
 > on VMS )  I A far cry from the days of Rdb run-time included with NAS 200, which IIRCe$ was included with every VMS licence.   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 02:51:51 -0800l+ From: steve.burch@bigfoot.com (Steve Burch)/- Subject: Print Queue to FAX/E-mail Solutions?a= Message-ID: <93b3fc8a.0402040251.7e1680a5@posting.google.com>    Hi,s  < We have a general ledger system, and are looking toward some< additional functionality, namely directing a report (such asD remittance advices) from the application to a print queue, have that@ queue forward the print file to some kind of 'document exchange'D application, which would then in turn have the contents of that fileC faxed and/or e-mailed to it's various recipients (ie. a single file"9 would contain information bound for multiple recipients).6  E Does anyone have experience of implementing such a solution, and have> any recommendations?  ? What little investigation I did uncovered an application calledo5 MESSAGEmanager from a company called System SolutionsmF (http://www.syssol.com.au/products/edoc_delivery), which, according toF their blurb "MESSAGEmanager Information Delivery provides high volume,C low cost delivery of business-critical information to fax and email 8 addresses direct from ERP, CRM, Mail, Mini and MainframeD applications." Sounds like it's exactly the kind of thing we want toE do. I know there is another application called Rightfax from a vendoro	 Captaris.   ; If anyone has any information it would be most appreciated.a   Thanks in advance,   Steve Burch    ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:44:42 +01001 From: "Rene Verhaeghe" <rene.verhaeghe@chello.be>i1 Subject: Re: Print Queue to FAX/E-mail Solutions?m4 Message-ID: <40212178$0$314$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>  H We currently use a software FoldfaxManager to send faxes from VMS to the users.  L On VMS, the fax is simulated by a print queue. there arer commands to send a@ fax to users, handle a list of users, fax groupings, retry, etc.  B "Steve Burch" <steve.burch@bigfoot.com> a crit dans le message de7 news:93b3fc8a.0402040251.7e1680a5@posting.google.com...f > Hi,f > > > We have a general ledger system, and are looking toward some> > additional functionality, namely directing a report (such asF > remittance advices) from the application to a print queue, have thatB > queue forward the print file to some kind of 'document exchange'F > application, which would then in turn have the contents of that fileE > faxed and/or e-mailed to it's various recipients (ie. a single filec; > would contain information bound for multiple recipients).4 >5G > Does anyone have experience of implementing such a solution, and have3 > any recommendations? > A > What little investigation I did uncovered an application calledo7 > MESSAGEmanager from a company called System SolutionsrH > (http://www.syssol.com.au/products/edoc_delivery), which, according toH > their blurb "MESSAGEmanager Information Delivery provides high volume,E > low cost delivery of business-critical information to fax and emailn: > addresses direct from ERP, CRM, Mail, Mini and MainframeF > applications." Sounds like it's exactly the kind of thing we want toG > do. I know there is another application called Rightfax from a vendore > Captaris.R >M= > If anyone has any information it would be most appreciated.o >r > Thanks in advance, >e
 > Steve Burchi   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 16:45:06 GMTe/ From: "Larry T." <larry-nospamx@jbmsystems.com> 1 Subject: Re: Print Queue to FAX/E-mail Solutions?:7 Message-ID: <mk9Ub.11907$IF1.3180@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>   	 Hi Steve,e  F I'm glad a ran across your post.  I'd like you to take a close look atF OctoPDF and new OctoTools software that will do what you are look for,I automatically once it is set up.  Briefly, we take the data from your g/loG report (many of our cutomers are doing this particular application) andsE create a PDF version as well as text and other output, for electronic K distribution (emailing, web posting and so on).  PDFs are used because they K are compressed - take less space, non-modifiable by the recipient, they cantL be encrypted with passwords for security of needed, you control whether theyH are printable or not, and are considered a universal format read by just  about all platforms and systems.  L OctoPDF(tm) is an inexpensive product that will convert printer style outputL (LPR) into "Report-to-Web" or "Text-to-PDF" format. OctoPDF has been used toI convert SAP, Banner and Crystal Reports output, as well as a multitude ofeG inhouse writen reports. OctoPDF utilizes RPM Remote Print Manager fromeF Brooks Internet Software <http://www.brooksnet.com/> for comprehensiveG seamless access to AS/400, S/390 mainframes, Unix, Linux and MS WindowsN
 platforms.! JBM Systems software can provide:/ Automatically e-mail reports# Automatically Print to a PC printere8 Automatically print to a printer and create the PDF fileB Automatically assign directories, file paths and storage locations= Month end GL reports would be "filed" by report type and dateEG Burst financial statements by Branch, Profit Center, Date, or any other_, variable even if existing appliations do notI GL postings would be printed to a laser printed then "filed" by month andh sequence numberc3 Print large reports across multiple office printerswF Convert old LPR and obsolete printer output to PDF format for storage, printing and emailingn# Automatically Archive in PDF format-# Watermark and Encrypt selected datas  K Our software will automatically assign the correct email, datapath and senddK out specific data to the specific recipients you require.  It is commercialdL grade and intended for higher volume applications.  Please give me a call toL further discuss how this can be done and I can show you a quick on-line demoG as well.  Thanks for your time and I look forward to hearing from you. e0 larry "at" jbmsystems "dot" com,  (978) 535-7676   Larry T.   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 07:25:03 -0600 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)r% Subject: Re: Renaissance of VAX-VMS ?*3 Message-ID: <Y1RVK7PdP1ll@eisner.encompasserve.org>c  h In article <bvooa2$u4n8q$1@ID-135708.news.uni-berlin.de>, bill@gw5.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > I > Personally, I would love to have a "64-bit extended PDP-11 architecturepH > incorporating current processor technologies".  But I figure both have* > about the same chance of happening.  :-)  E    You'll have to wait in line with the folks who are looking for thee0    72 bit extended extended PDP-10 architecture.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 08:30:50 +0100( From: "Rudolf Wingert" <win@fom.fgan.de>" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars: Message-ID: <MCELKPMOKPMNDNKJNIONKEDNCKAA.win@fom.fgan.de>   Hello,   Andrew wrotes:   <<<e3 So Sun doesn't have to fund porting/tuning centers,t. ISV development programs etc, Intel and HP do. >>>b  N Hey Andrew, come back to the earth. Did Sun not fund StarOffice, before it didP buy. Sun did/do also fund AOL (in case of Netscape), Legato, Veritas ... Sun didM fund more tzhan other to get a good software portfolio for Solaris. May todayiM this is no longer nesseccary. But if DEC/Compaq/HP di8d fund in the same way,t5 ysou could find a lot of OpenVMS applications too!!!!uO So, if you seat in a glashaus, don't through stones. Your view of facts is likeMP a horse with Scheuklappen (I don't know the english word, but the horse can only see the things in front of it).b   Best regards Rudolf Wingerte   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 02:12:53 -0500* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars2 Message-ID: <gcydnYi1RqzCBr3dRVn-uQ@metrocast.net>  8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:ZMd5DZrgAfVK@eisner.encompasserve.org...-   ...   3 > Oh my - getting as petty as our British Champion..  I No, you're just clueless as usual, Rob.  And you're not worth the time tou straighten out tonight.D   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:25:27 +0100:* From: Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net>" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars0 Message-ID: <4020BA87.23CFFFB6@sture.homeip.net>   Rudolf Wingert wrote:e >  > Hello, >  > Andrew wrotes: >  > <<<s5 > So Sun doesn't have to fund porting/tuning centers,a0 > ISV development programs etc, Intel and HP do. > >>>e > P > Hey Andrew, come back to the earth. Did Sun not fund StarOffice, before it didR > buy. Sun did/do also fund AOL (in case of Netscape), Legato, Veritas ... Sun didO > fund more tzhan other to get a good software portfolio for Solaris. May todaypO > this is no longer nesseccary. But if DEC/Compaq/HP di8d fund in the same way,r7 > ysou could find a lot of OpenVMS applications too!!!!hQ > So, if you seat in a glashaus, don't through stones. Your view of facts is like.R > a horse with Scheuklappen (I don't know the english word, but the horse can only! > see the things in front of it).h >    Scheuklappen = blinkersf   -- o   -- h
 Paul Sture   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:29:55 +0000VO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>t" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars0 Message-ID: <bvqhj4$8hd$2@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Rob Young wrote:a > In article <N8ydncaOLp5XIoLdRVn-hg@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:r >  > 3 >> I may have misunderstood this, but I thought the  >>F >>>other major benefit of using the L3 cache is to reduce (memory) bus >>>traffic?s >>K >>Not an issue for SPECint/fp, and probably not for anything else either (IyN >>don't think that the bandwidth of IBM's memory bus, which IIRC hangs off theL >>off-chip L3 cache rather than off the processor, is the limiting factor inL >>any workloads).  If you meant that a large L3 can reduce inter-MCM trafficJ >>in large (more than 8-processor) systems, that's indeed true - but againE >>completely irrelevant to SPECint/fp (which don't stress that area).o >> >  > ? > 	It depends on the fp footprint, if it fits inside the cache	hB > 	it will of course run faster (mostly the case).  You can googleD > 	groups.google.com - this has been discussed in one form or other. >   $ Depends on the tiered cache latency.  : Or put another way that was another big assumption on your' part that was of questionable accuracy.t   Regards' Andrew Harrisonh	 > 				Robl >    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:27:45 +0000rO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>t" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars0 Message-ID: <bvqhf2$8hd$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Rob Young wrote: > In article <bvop2l$j6f$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: >  >>Rob Young wrote: >  >   D > 	But system cost at end of day.  Sure, some mom and pops will sell* > 	cheaper than Dell - they always have.   >   0 IBM arn't a mom and pop shop last time I looked. > E >>>	Show us how much cheaper a 4-way Sun Opteron box will be comparednJ >>>	to a 4-way Dell Xeon box.  That will be a data point.  Do that and youD >>>	will watch your 4-way UltraSparc's be marginalized (and not that4 >>>	Celeron equivalent box you trotted out earlier). >>E >>I cannot possibly tell you how much our 2 and 4 way boxes will cost)E >>however lets compare a 2 way IBM x325 with 2 x 2.2 Mhz Opterons andeC >>2 GB of RAM it costs $5959 while 4 way Opteron based servers withn% >>8 GB of RAM can be had for $23,000.a >> >  >   > 	But we will know soon enough. >  > E >>A Dell Poweredge 1750 with 2 x 3.2 Ghz Xeons and the same config asoF >>the IBM costs $6032. A Dell PowerEdge 6650 with 4 x 2.8 Ghz XeonMP's >>and 8 GB of RAM costs $30120.s >  >  > ? > 	That 2-way is very close.  Are you comparing a Celeron 4-waytG > 	again?  I just did a 6650 4-way 2.8 GHz and 8 GByte of RAM and came aH > 	up with 26,900 for a Dell.  Appears your prices are out of date, that8 > 	or you are loading it up with a bunch of other stuff. >  Close but you lost.o  - My prices were off the www.dell.com web site.t  9 I configured the system last night so the prices are bangf up to date.h  < And Rob you cannot get a 4 way Celeron of hadn't you spotted that.    More BS.E > 	Let me do a Celeron special, like you did the other day , and the  F > 	price drops to  $17242 using 4 -  2.0 GHz CPUs and 8 GBytes of RAM. >e? Well sadly you just shot yourself in the foot again because ther= same 4 way Opteron box but with 1.6 GHz CPU's and 8 GB of RAMu costs $16K.h   It is of course faster.o  ! There is no BS like Rob Young BS.d   Regardss Andrew Harrisonb   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:28:41 +0000rO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>e" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars0 Message-ID: <bvql1a$9nh$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Rudolf Wingert wrote:i > Hello, >  > Andrew wrotes: >  > <<<b5 > So Sun doesn't have to fund porting/tuning centers,h0 > ISV development programs etc, Intel and HP do. >  > P > Hey Andrew, come back to the earth. Did Sun not fund StarOffice, before it didR > buy. Sun did/do also fund AOL (in case of Netscape), Legato, Veritas ... Sun didO > fund more tzhan other to get a good software portfolio for Solaris. May todaysO > this is no longer nesseccary. But if DEC/Compaq/HP di8d fund in the same way,b7 > ysou could find a lot of OpenVMS applications too!!!!h  D Sun OEM's Veritas/Legato and we sell them to customers. Getting themD ported to Solaris of course required Sun to have porting skills etc.  C But we are selling those products as we also sell StarOffice so the D costs of porting and developing those apps are offset by the revenue0 that they bring in license and support revenues.  D And Sun did fund AOL but we ended up in return for that funding withD all the netscape middleware products which now form the basis of the" JES environment that we also sell.  E That is entirely different to what HP and Intel are having to do witho= Itanium, paying ISV's and providing porting centers for ISV'sc- specifically to get those ISV's onto Itanium.e  B There is no direct revenue stream to offset the cost of this, onlyC an indirect revenue if the port results in the sale of a system and2I then only for the paltform not for the license revenues for the products.t  Q > So, if you seat in a glashaus, don't through stones. Your view of facts is likedR > a horse with Scheuklappen (I don't know the english word, but the horse can only! > see the things in front of it).h >   ; Blinkers, but as you may have just realised the descriptiong doesn't apply.   Regardsm Andrew Harrison5   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:33:47 +0000bO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>o" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars0 Message-ID: <bvqlas$9su$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Rob Young wrote:  4 > 	Oh my - getting as petty as our British Champion. > J > 	He mentions "what major benefit" L3/fp.  The major benefit with on-chip; > 	caches and fp benchmarks is seen when you look at scores A > 	and size of the benchmark.  The benchmark runs faster (higher r- > 	numbers) if it fits entirely inside cache.B >   > That may be true but it is a generalisation because it depends( on the latency hierachy of the cache(s).  = Thanks for the insult BTW Rob, from you given your history ofeB being 100% wrong on almost everything that passes as a compliment.  ! Woe betide the person you praise.r     regards  Andrew Harrisone   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 08:27:42 -0600O+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)D" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars3 Message-ID: <1k5iWzJ2Sr1b@eisner.encompasserve.org>-  e In article <MCELKPMOKPMNDNKJNIONKEDNCKAA.win@fom.fgan.de>, "Rudolf Wingert" <win@fom.fgan.de> writes:u > Hello, >   Q > So, if you seat in a glashaus, don't through stones. Your view of facts is like-R > a horse with Scheuklappen (I don't know the english word, but the horse can only! > see the things in front of it).2   	A horse with blinders.b   				Rob    ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 08:37:21 -0600n+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)-" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars3 Message-ID: <DXKoxxCF27Fa@eisner.encompasserve.org>n   In article <bvqhf2$8hd$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: > Rob Young wrote:     >> eF >>>A Dell Poweredge 1750 with 2 x 3.2 Ghz Xeons and the same config asG >>>the IBM costs $6032. A Dell PowerEdge 6650 with 4 x 2.8 Ghz XeonMP'sf  >>>and 8 GB of RAM costs $30120. >> e >> t >>  @ >> 	That 2-way is very close.  Are you comparing a Celeron 4-wayH >> 	again?  I just did a 6650 4-way 2.8 GHz and 8 GByte of RAM and came I >> 	up with 26,900 for a Dell.  Appears your prices are out of date, that 9 >> 	or you are loading it up with a bunch of other stuff.u >> n > Close but you lost.a   	Lost what?y   > / > My prices were off the www.dell.com web site.l >   8 	So was the $26900 price, why is your price so inflated?  ; > I configured the system last night so the prices are bang0
 > up to date.@  : 	Yeah - but like a lot of things in the world - don't mean) 	a whole lot as the details aren't there.    > > > And Rob you cannot get a 4 way Celeron of hadn't you spotted > that.n >   @ 	Yeah - but back to the other day when you trotted out that Sun	B 	box - it had Celeron performance.  If you stuck a CPU as powerfulF 	as a Celeron in a 4-way it would probably sell for $10000 and change.  
 > More BS.  A 	Your opinion.  I'm sure if you weren't so dodgy with your quotes>2 	there would actually be something to bandy about.  F >> 	Let me do a Celeron special, like you did the other day , and the G >> 	price drops to  $17242 using 4 -  2.0 GHz CPUs and 8 GBytes of RAM.> >>A > Well sadly you just shot yourself in the foot again because thec? > same 4 way Opteron box but with 1.6 GHz CPU's and 8 GB of RAMh
 > costs $16K.  >  > It is of course faster.i >     	As I'm sure the other 4-way is.   				Robo   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 08:56:34 -0600>+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) " Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars3 Message-ID: <C9bZNt$XlIPD@eisner.encompasserve.org>    In article <bvqlas$9su$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: > Rob Young wrote: > 5 >> 	Oh my - getting as petty as our British Champion.  >> oK >> 	He mentions "what major benefit" L3/fp.  The major benefit with on-chip < >> 	caches and fp benchmarks is seen when you look at scoresB >> 	and size of the benchmark.  The benchmark runs faster (higher . >> 	numbers) if it fits entirely inside cache. >> p > @ > That may be true but it is a generalisation because it depends* > on the latency hierachy of the cache(s).  7 	Gee - I didn't know that Specfp was latency sensitive.t  7 	Is there a case where all cache hits instead of having 8 	to go to main memory would make a benchmark run slower?  , 	Isn't the much higher L3 bandwidth the key?  ; 	Is there a cache hierachy whereby L3 access is slower than-% 	main memory?  Who would design that?1  ? > Thanks for the insult BTW Rob, from you given your history ofHD > being 100% wrong on almost everything that passes as a compliment.  ; 	Not really.  That is your spin, you'd claim I'm 100% wrong @ 	and yet there are literally several dozen examples of when that9 	isn't the case.  You use the same old tired technique ofg7 	changing the subject in flight or changing criteria or 8 	nitpicking a nuance as if the nuance is the crux of the
 	argument:  d http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=biiqjo%24kko%241%40new-usenet.uk.sun.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain   >>>eJ >>>>>	I suspected that some nitpicker would rattle the Packard Bell chain.B >>>>>	The local grocery store chain has higher annual revenue than >>>>>	Packard Bell.  >>>>>  >>>>K >>>>All you have done is illustrate what everyone knows, if you narrow the h6 >>>>field enough then you can prove anything you want. >>>n >>>a9 >>>	Nonsense.  Things can be wrong even in a narrow view.. >> >>And in this case ??? >> >  > D > 	I narrowed it so that it is a true statement.  What I acknowledge > 	is this:  >  > 			"Dell is unique"o >   A Sure Dell is unique they are the only computer vendor called Delln? hey lets narrow it a bit more they are the only computer vendorp* called Dell run by someone called Michael.   ---s  = 	But let's get back to another point, wouldn't you agree thatgG 	3 years from now Itanium will be a much larger market than UltraSparc?hE 	Won't Itanium be the number one selling 64-bit architecture in 2007?s   				Robs   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:37:34 +0000hO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>a" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars0 Message-ID: <bvr3ju$ero$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Rob Young wrote: > In article <bvqhf2$8hd$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: >  >>Rob Young wrote: >  >  > G >>>>A Dell Poweredge 1750 with 2 x 3.2 Ghz Xeons and the same config astH >>>>the IBM costs $6032. A Dell PowerEdge 6650 with 4 x 2.8 Ghz XeonMP's! >>>>and 8 GB of RAM costs $30120.  >>>r >>>s >>>e@ >>>	That 2-way is very close.  Are you comparing a Celeron 4-wayH >>>	again?  I just did a 6650 4-way 2.8 GHz and 8 GByte of RAM and came I >>>	up with 26,900 for a Dell.  Appears your prices are out of date, thate9 >>>	or you are loading it up with a bunch of other stuff.h >>>o >> >>Close but you lost.s >  > 
 > 	Lost what?o > 
 The usual. > / >>My prices were off the www.dell.com web site.t >> >  > : > 	So was the $26900 price, why is your price so inflated? >   7 It would appear that you have removed any support costsp from your quote.  : Not that it really matters the Dell box even minus support9 is ~4K more expensive than a faster Opteron based system.n    > >>And Rob you cannot get a 4 way Celeron of hadn't you spotted >>that.r >> >  > B > 	Yeah - but back to the other day when you trotted out that Sun	D > 	box - it had Celeron performance.  If you stuck a CPU as powerfulH > 	as a Celeron in a 4-way it would probably sell for $10000 and change. >   4 Bullshit Rob again you just made that up didn't you.   > 
 >>More BS. >  > C > 	Your opinion.  I'm sure if you weren't so dodgy with your quotesr4 > 	there would actually be something to bandy about. >    Fact not opinion.h > F >>>	Let me do a Celeron special, like you did the other day , and the G >>>	price drops to  $17242 using 4 -  2.0 GHz CPUs and 8 GBytes of RAM.  >>>e >>A >>Well sadly you just shot yourself in the foot again because thee? >>same 4 way Opteron box but with 1.6 GHz CPU's and 8 GB of RAM 
 >>costs $16K.k >> >>It is of course faster.> >> >  > " > 	As I'm sure the other 4-way is. >   C Of course, as you know the fastest Opteron CPUS are faster than thedC 2.8 Ghz XeonMP. Even a 4 way 2 GHz Opteron does 56.7 SPECintRate as  opposed to 47.4 for the Dell.o   So lets recap.D Firstly you claim that Opteron OEM's are unlikely to be able to beatA Dell Xeon based servers with 2 amd 4 way Opteron based servers on> price.  / This claim turns out to be demonstrably untrue.   C Secondly you claim that this will only be possible if the companiesr are Mom and Pop outfits.  B This claim also turns out to be demonstrably untrue unless IBM are  classed as a Mom and Pop outfit.  @ You then attempt to divert the subject away from you catastophicA attempts at BS into a discussion about SPARC how predictable, howw sad.   Regardst Andrew Harrisoni   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:41:08 +0000 O From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>p" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars0 Message-ID: <bvr3qk$f0e$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Rob Young wrote: > In article <bvqlas$9su$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: >  >>Rob Young wrote: >> >>5 >>>	Oh my - getting as petty as our British Champion.1 >>>0K >>>	He mentions "what major benefit" L3/fp.  The major benefit with on-chips< >>>	caches and fp benchmarks is seen when you look at scoresB >>>	and size of the benchmark.  The benchmark runs faster (higher . >>>	numbers) if it fits entirely inside cache. >>>e >>@ >>That may be true but it is a generalisation because it depends* >>on the latency hierachy of the cache(s). >  > 9 > 	Gee - I didn't know that Specfp was latency sensitive.  > 9 > 	Is there a case where all cache hits instead of having : > 	to go to main memory would make a benchmark run slower? >   7 SPECint and SPECfp are the geometic mean of a number of,: indevidual benchmarks each of which have different working1 set sizes, some are relatively small some larger.p  = You work out from this why you poin may or may not be correctf based on a multi-level cache.   . Its time you thought rather than regurgitated.   Regards  Andrew Harrisons. > 	Isn't the much higher L3 bandwidth the key? > = > 	Is there a cache hierachy whereby L3 access is slower than ' > 	main memory?  Who would design that?- >  > ? >>Thanks for the insult BTW Rob, from you given your history ofwD >>being 100% wrong on almost everything that passes as a compliment. >  > = > 	Not really.  That is your spin, you'd claim I'm 100% wrong4B > 	and yet there are literally several dozen examples of when that; > 	isn't the case.  You use the same old tired technique ofg9 > 	changing the subject in flight or changing criteria orh: > 	nitpicking a nuance as if the nuance is the crux of the > 	argument: > f > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=biiqjo%24kko%241%40new-usenet.uk.sun.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain >  > K >>>>>>	I suspected that some nitpicker would rattle the Packard Bell chain. C >>>>>>	The local grocery store chain has higher annual revenue thanp >>>>>>	Packard Bell. >>>>>> >>>>>eL >>>>>All you have done is illustrate what everyone knows, if you narrow the 7 >>>>>field enough then you can prove anything you want.t >>>> >>>>: >>>>	Nonsense.  Things can be wrong even in a narrow view. >>>e >>>And in this case ???c >>>n >> >>D >>	I narrowed it so that it is a true statement.  What I acknowledge >>	is this:  >> >>			"Dell is unique"s >> >  > C > Sure Dell is unique they are the only computer vendor called Dell A > hey lets narrow it a bit more they are the only computer vendorg, > called Dell run by someone called Michael. >  > ---n > ? > 	But let's get back to another point, wouldn't you agree that"I > 	3 years from now Itanium will be a much larger market than UltraSparc?-G > 	Won't Itanium be the number one selling 64-bit architecture in 2007?l > 	 > 				Robu >    ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 11:35:42 -0600 + From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)$" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars3 Message-ID: <8Ga$h$wW24$s@eisner.encompasserve.org>1   In article <bvr7qg$gj4$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: > Rob Young wrote:   >> r >> '6 >> 	Not at all, my quote contains 3 year GOLD support.  >> 	Appears your quote is wrong. >> M > : > I think in that case that you need to have another go at9 > getting it right, remember your track record on this isa
 > abysmal. > ; > Try using 2.8 GHz CPU's. Try using 4 of them and then adds > 8 GB of RAM. >      	Yep - still $26,600 	I'm still right.     B >> 	"If" it contained 4 Celerons why would it be expensive?  Isn'tA >> 	a Celeron about a $69 part?  It would perform as fast as thata. >> 	Sun server you trotted out a few days ago. >>   > < > More off the point BS, you cannot put 4 Celerons in an SMP8 > system so your attempt at diversion falls at the first> > hurdle and thats before you get asked to provide performance" > results for a celeron processor. >   > 	Right.  But the Sun CPUs are still as powerful as a $69 Intel 	part.   				Robt   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 10:37:06 -0600 + From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)t" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars3 Message-ID: <9ipPXothojqz@eisner.encompasserve.org>    In article <bvr3ju$ero$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: > Rob Young wrote:   >> s >> D; >> 	So was the $26900 price, why is your price so inflated?0 >> 0 > 9 > It would appear that you have removed any support costso > from your quote. >   3 	Not at all, my quote contains 3 year GOLD support.l 	Appears your quote is wrong.e  < > Not that it really matters the Dell box even minus support; > is ~4K more expensive than a faster Opteron based system.n  1 	Right.  But it isn't the $30000 you are quoting.t   > ? >>>And Rob you cannot get a 4 way Celeron of hadn't you spotted  >>>that. >>>d >> s >>  C >> 	Yeah - but back to the other day when you trotted out that Sun	pE >> 	box - it had Celeron performance.  If you stuck a CPU as powerful.I >> 	as a Celeron in a 4-way it would probably sell for $10000 and change.s >> c > 6 > Bullshit Rob again you just made that up didn't you. >   ? 	"If" it contained 4 Celerons why would it be expensive?  Isn't > 	a Celeron about a $69 part?  It would perform as fast as that+ 	Sun server you trotted out a few days ago.c   				Rob    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 16:49:19 +0000SO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> " Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars0 Message-ID: <bvr7qg$gj4$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Rob Young wrote: > In article <bvr3ju$ero$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: >  >>Rob Young wrote: >  >  >>>r; >>>	So was the $26900 price, why is your price so inflated?  >>>  >>9 >>It would appear that you have removed any support costsl >>from your quote. >> >  > 5 > 	Not at all, my quote contains 3 year GOLD support.? > 	Appears your quote is wrong.a >   8 I think in that case that you need to have another go at7 getting it right, remember your track record on this is  abysmal.  9 Try using 2.8 GHz CPU's. Try using 4 of them and then adde 8 GB of RAM.  A > 	"If" it contained 4 Celerons why would it be expensive?  Isn'tc@ > 	a Celeron about a $69 part?  It would perform as fast as that- > 	Sun server you trotted out a few days ago.s >   : More off the point BS, you cannot put 4 Celerons in an SMP6 system so your attempt at diversion falls at the first< hurdle and thats before you get asked to provide performance  results for a celeron processor.   Regards- Andrew Harrison?   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 18:15:38 +0000.O From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>." Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars0 Message-ID: <bvrcsb$i9a$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Rob Young wrote: > In article <bvr7qg$gj4$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: >  >>Rob Young wrote: >  >  >>>e6 >>>	Not at all, my quote contains 3 year GOLD support.  >>>	Appears your quote is wrong. >>>e >>: >>I think in that case that you need to have another go at9 >>getting it right, remember your track record on this ist
 >>abysmal. >>; >>Try using 2.8 GHz CPU's. Try using 4 of them and then addd >>8 GB of RAM. >> >  >  >  > 	Yep - still $26,600 > 	I'm still right.f  V http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=555&l=en&oc=PE6650PAD&s=biz  % Change the first CPU to a 2.8 GHZ CPUdE Add another 3 its the last option on the Additional Proccesor SectioneE Change 512 MB of RAM to 8 GB in the memory section its the 9th options on the memory section.  > Don't touch anything else except for a price update of course.   What do you get laughing boy.  >  > B >>>	"If" it contained 4 Celerons why would it be expensive?  Isn'tA >>>	a Celeron about a $69 part?  It would perform as fast as thatn. >>>	Sun server you trotted out a few days ago. >>>  >>< >>More off the point BS, you cannot put 4 Celerons in an SMP8 >>system so your attempt at diversion falls at the first> >>hurdle and thats before you get asked to provide performance" >>results for a celeron processor. >> >  > @ > 	Right.  But the Sun CPUs are still as powerful as a $69 Intel > 	part. >   6 By what measure that you may or may not have invented.   Regardsc Andrew Harrisone	 > 				Rob  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:20:45 +00001O From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>e= Subject: Re: Solved: "Known problems with V7.3 security MUP?"g0 Message-ID: <bvqh1u$8au$2@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Larry Kilgallen wrote:s > In article <63D30D6E10CFD11190A90000F805FE860492B455@lespaul.process.com>, Mike Duffy <Duffy@process.com> writes:  > 5 >>In case anyone had been made nervous by the subject' >>line, here is the answer.i >>6 >>Background:  As soon as I put the mandatory security: >>update (and prerequisite kits) on my DS10L running V7.3,8 >>it has not stayed up for three consecutive days since. >>" >>Answer:  It was a power problem. >  > C > Thanks a lot Mike, now we will be subjected to endless posts fromtA > Andrew Harrison claiming that VMS patches cause power problems.   = No the patch exists thats enough to keep the OpenVMS securityl1 BS merchants on their toes trying to downplay it.a   Regards  Andrew Harrisons   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:39:41 GMT & From: jlsue <jefflsxxxz@sbcglobal.net>= Subject: Re: Solved: "Known problems with V7.3 security MUP?" 8 Message-ID: <0i0220p8kqp7ou2khb0khgegb40828k6dn@4ax.com>  E On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:20:45 +0000, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy . <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:   >Larry Kilgallen wrote:mt >> In article <63D30D6E10CFD11190A90000F805FE860492B455@lespaul.process.com>, Mike Duffy <Duffy@process.com> writes: >> $6 >>>In case anyone had been made nervous by the subject >>>line, here is the answer. >>>o7 >>>Background:  As soon as I put the mandatory security ; >>>update (and prerequisite kits) on my DS10L running V7.3,d9 >>>it has not stayed up for three consecutive days since.r >>>s# >>>Answer:  It was a power problem.l >> s >> eD >> Thanks a lot Mike, now we will be subjected to endless posts fromB >> Andrew Harrison claiming that VMS patches cause power problems. >i> >No the patch exists thats enough to keep the OpenVMS security2 >BS merchants on their toes trying to downplay it. >h  F Except that most of the OpenVMS Security folks in here have never madeE claims like what you're trying to debunk.  There have been one or twoi? people, but the rest have been much more reasonable about it.  g  H There is a claim - that I, personally, can not verify - that  there haveJ been far fewer security patches for the OpenVMS admins to install than forD other OSes they have onsite.  I would have to leave it to the adminsF themselves to verify whether this claim is true in their environments.  K Most also acknowledge that the networking stack, web server, etc,, may also H introduce some vulnerabilities... but we also recognize that these don't? always open *security* holes, or even result in a DOS attack.  n  G For example,  the cases where they cause a listener process to die, thelK next user connection request merely re-starts the TCP/IP Services' listenerwE process and the user never notices any denial of service.  So, unlesssI there's a really large flood of invalid requests causing the processes to 4 die, there is very little discernable vulnerability.   --- jls-0 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)@   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 00:34:13 -0800s' From: avs@nikom.tagil.ru (Andrey Savin) 3 Subject: Support for the Logical Connection Number.y= Message-ID: <96faaf36.0402040034.407acf34@posting.google.com>   . In the DECwindows Motif 1.3 NewFeatures wrote:2 "... introduces an interface for determining when / an I/O channel is ready and available for use."o% In this manual describeded functions:m= decw$lcn_thread_init, decw$lcn_allocate, decw$lcn_free etc...rS but a header file with it not found. Only X11:XPoll.h contain decw$lcn_select call.t$ This is beside all in the same way ?   Andrey.t   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 09:09:24 -0800l. From: martinkirby12@yahoo.co.uk (Martin Kirby)7 Subject: Re: Support for the Logical Connection Number. < Message-ID: <224291b.0402040909.7ca78158@posting.google.com>   Andrey,   A We didn't provide a .h, .r32, .for, .pen or any other form of theoD interface file because we think, apart from Select in XPOLL.H, it is$ unlikely that anyone will need them!  = The functionality was added to handle some internal issues ofmA DECwindows in the multi-threaded case. Externally, there are somexD specific cases where the Select function is needed or the connectionE number has to be provided to XtAppAddInput. In these cases DECwindowsi' provides the logical connection number.D  F There are a few cases where they can be used instead of using an eventD flag to connect input sources. Depending on threading issues and theA availability of event flags they may be easier to use. However, I_A would recommend using them only when the event flag option is note
 available.   Why would you need Select:  A 1. If using the new Inter-Client Exchange Library, the connectionfD numbers returned by the connection watch functions are allocated forB you and you may need to either use XtAppAddInput to enable them asF inputs or use the Select macro (in XPOLL.H) to listen for them, if notD using Xt. Generally, this only applies to servers, since clients can@ do their ICE actions synchronously, e.g. DECW$UTILS:XFINDPROXY.C  B 2. If using an Input Method server and not using Xt then again youD need to watch for connections and add them to your Select statement.C If you are using Xt then it connects the Input Method server inputsh for you.  C 3. If using multiple threads, have enabled thread support in X, and C are not using Xt. Then you need to Select among all the connections F and can't use the display event flag - as in V1.2-6 - because it isn't? thread-safe. So you have to get the connection numbers from thec) Display objects and use them with Select.q  B All the other functions, apart from the select ones, are to give aE means of connecting other input sources into the Select statement, orD> XtAppAddInput call, since OpenVMS doesn't have its own general3 "select" function. Just the one for socket support.   E However, if you are in control of the process you can use event flagsr% the same as you would have on V1.2-6.e  F You only need the complexity of the LCN facility if you are connecting. other input sources and can't use event flags.   Hope that helps,   Martin Kirby   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:56:09 +0100g3 From: Michael Unger <spam.to.unger@spamgourmet.com>eB Subject: Re: TCP/IP for HP OpenVMS Bind Version 8 Potential Denial9 Message-ID: <bvr2m5$v38sg$1@ID-152801.news.uni-berlin.de>e  , On 2004-02-03 06:52, "Didier Morandi" wrote:  I > The VAXUS association is pleased to let you know the following from HP.S > 	 > [start]r > SECURITY BULLETINa > 
 > REVISION: 0f > B > SSRT3653 - TCP/IP for HP OpenVMS Bind Version 8 Potential Denial > of Service (DoS) >  > [...]y  F These Security Alerts are posted to "comp.security.misc" already -- no need for re-posting.   Michaelo   -- u; Real names enhance the probability of getting real answers.k@ Please do *not* send "Security Patch Notifications" or "SecurityA Updates"; this system isn't running a Micro$oft operating system.-5 My e-mail account at DECUS Munich is no longer valid.m   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 06:00:53 -0500 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>H Subject: Re: Terry, when Palmers involved you seal the deal on the spot!) Message-ID: <4020D0A2.53AC5C01@istop.com>    John Smith wrote:t4 > Shirley you don't need to ask those questions. ;-)  M Why is that mythical Shirley that keeps being mentioned ????? :-) :-) :-) :-)n    M Was she first mentioned in the movie Airplane !!!, or was it a known "entity"2 before that movie ?S   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:02:23 +0000-O From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> I Subject: Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systemsi0 Message-ID: <bvr8j0$gub$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Bob Koehler wrote: > In article <bvb6av$oet$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: >  >>The same applies to EAL. >  > I >    Nope.  I don't get my warm fuzzies by reading other people's supportpH >    of my posts.  I get them by knowing what I'm doing.  EAL is a joke.* >    Nothing you can say will change that. > % >    A point you always seem to miss.n > 4 No what seems to be missing is understanding on your part about what EAL is.u  8 Its a hierarchy, depending on your perspective the lower4 levels of EAL are a joke, but the higher you get the more rigour you get.  8 Your comment is rather like someone entirely ignorant of? football seing a football kickabout in a park and automaticallyU? assuming that all football is to that level and therefore its aR bit of a joke.  < The EAL levels equivalent to the old B1/B2/B3 levels are not a joke.r  > Perhaps the acid test for your joke theory could be to provide> it as input into a bid into US Federal Govt that should be fun though not for the bid team.   Regards  Andrew Harrisonn   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 12:23:37 -0600>; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)gI Subject: Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systemsc3 Message-ID: <P+MljJ81g6VO@eisner.encompasserve.org>    In article <bvr8j0$gub$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: > @ > Perhaps the acid test for your joke theory could be to provide@ > it as input into a bid into US Federal Govt that should be fun > though not for the bid team.  .    Now your dragging in the politicians again.   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 02:33:21 -0800g. From: fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br (Fabio Cardoso)% Subject: Re: Why was VAX abandonned ?t= Message-ID: <f30679fb.0402040233.7c04f9c9@posting.google.com>   [ JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message news:<401FEED5.E7C9885D@istop.com>...	I > > > I personally think a 64-bit extended VAX architecture incorporating78 > > > current processor technologies would be dreamy :-) > N > At the time the decision was made to ditch VAX and develop Alpha, were thereP > compelling technical reasons to do so, or was there a strong marketing urge to) > adopt the then buzzword-du-jour: RISC ?S > P > The one argument I had heard was the need to have fixed length instruction setP > in order to make pipelining etc work better. Does the 8086 have a fixed length > instruction set ?l > P > When one looks at what Intel was able to do with the 8086, it makes one wonder, > if the same could have been done with VAX. > ' > What was the fastest VAX chip made ? e >  > O > Also, if, for my birthday, Sue were to give me the rights and all designs forcK > VAX architecture, could I go to TI, IBM or Intel and ask them to FAB me ae > couple thousands VAX chips ?   > L > If, during the last fab, they clocked the VAX at say 200mhz,  if I were toI > provide the same designs today, but have it fabbed using the latest andeO > greatest process, could the mhz be cranked up significantly because the chip, F > albeit the same phsyical size as before, would be manufacturerd with. > significantly better precision than before ?    B I dont understand why DEC/CPQ/HP dont "free" the VAX architecture.D May be another comapny can make a VAX board with the size of a Palm.G Or develop a 1-U VAX with all that hardware interfaces integrated, likew; DSSI, CI, etc.... may be USB for VAX, Fibre Channel, etc ! o     REgardsp FC   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 07:49:50 -0600a; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) % Subject: Re: Why was VAX abandonned ? 3 Message-ID: <eBBpLDr1kXA0@eisner.encompasserve.org>b  V In article <401FEED5.E7C9885D@istop.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes:H >> > I personally think a 64-bit extended VAX architecture incorporating7 >> > current processor technologies would be dreamy :-)C > N > At the time the decision was made to ditch VAX and develop Alpha, were thereP > compelling technical reasons to do so, or was there a strong marketing urge to) > adopt the then buzzword-du-jour: RISC ?   B    The compelling reason was that DEC did a nose dive when the VAX<    simply couldn't keep up with everyone else's performance.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:36:34 -0600s( From: brandon@dalsemi.com (John Brandon)% Subject: Re: Why was VAX abandonned ?t1 Message-ID: <04020409363446@dscis6-0.dalsemi.com>    What about VLM arrays?  M The capacity of a 32-bit architecture against a 64-bit architecture, is therer5 not a memory limitation associated with the bit size?e  L Would you be able to plug a VAX chip into the switch environment (mesh) that$ the Alpha is now?  How about GALAXY?  * I believe David Froble hits it on the head  K > Wouldn't be necessary, but process shrinks could have increased the CPU'slL > capabilities to some extent.  The key thing is that the customers would beM > people who just want to continue doing what they have been doing, not thosew > looking for more.e  O Most of the market place is geared around "newer, better, faster, ..." - calledtN advertising (sorry to bring that up).  New and improved.  For the most part weJ are a disposable society.  Today's hot items are tomorrow's legacy junk.    N Guilty as charged - I wanted to do more and found the Alpha was the instrument to get me there.  B Why do we have the standard QWERTY keyboard instead of the DVORAK?     J*o*h*n B*r*a*n*d*o*n  VMS Systems Administratori* firstname.lastname.spam.me.not@dalsemi.com   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 07:53:16 -0800# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> % Subject: RE: Why was VAX abandonned ?e9 Message-ID: <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIAEFICMAA.tom@kednos.com>r     -----Original Message-----1   From: John Brandon [mailto:brandon@dalsemi.com]t,   Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 7:37 AM   To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Comn'   Subject: Re: Why was VAX abandonned ?i       What about VLM arrays?  8   The capacity of a 32-bit architecture against a 64-bit   architecture, is there7   not a memory limitation associated with the bit size?h  B   Would you be able to plug a VAX chip into the switch environment
   (mesh) that-&   the Alpha is now?  How about GALAXY?  ,   I believe David Froble hits it on the head  E I don't think so.  You assume that the only thing you could do was to:G shrink the die.  Do you think the Pentium today uses the same design asoC the earlier X86's.  Pentium today is largely an x86 set instructionCH emulator on a core (used to be a modified 801 architecture,don't if that is still the case)  I Digital had been far better off and could possibly have survived had theybG taken a similar approach.  Had they done so, I repeat, that there is notJ irrefutable reason why a VAX instruction set computer couldn't have run atF the same speed as pentium other than lack of vision and will to do so.  K Consider the investment that was lost that could have been carried forward.eK If they wanted to indulge themselves with RISC foolishness they should have D stuck with Mips as an iterim solution until VAX performance could be	 improved.0  I When you changed architecture you open your selves up to the competition,: butuJ if you are going to do it once, then you may as well do it twice to ensure that6 you really do a good job of eroding the customer base.      C   > Wouldn't be necessary, but process shrinks could have increasedn   the CPU'sd;   > capabilities to some extent.  The key thing is that thei   customers would be>   > people who just want to continue doing what they have been   doing, not those   > looking for more.e  C   Most of the market place is geared around "newer, better, faster,0   ..." - calledrC   advertising (sorry to bring that up).  New and improved.  For theC   most part weJ   are a disposable society.  Today's hot items are tomorrow's legacy junk.  A   Guilty as charged - I wanted to do more and found the Alpha wasa   the instrument   to get me there.  D   Why do we have the standard QWERTY keyboard instead of the DVORAK?       J*o*h*n B*r*a*n*d*o*n>   VMS Systems AdministratorP,   firstname.lastname.spam.me.not@dalsemi.com     ---f(   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: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:42:55 -0600 ( From: brandon@dalsemi.com (John Brandon)% Subject: Re: Why was VAX abandonned ?s1 Message-ID: <04020411425546@dscis6-0.dalsemi.com>e   > What about VLM arrays? > : >   The capacity of a 32-bit architecture against a 64-bit >   architecture, is there9 >   not a memory limitation associated with the bit size?  > D >   Would you be able to plug a VAX chip into the switch environment >   (mesh) that ( >   the Alpha is now?  How about GALAXY? > . >   I believe David Froble hits it on the head > G > I don't think so.  You assume that the only thing you could do was toiI > shrink the die.  Do you think the Pentium today uses the same design asgE > the earlier X86's.  Pentium today is largely an x86 set instructiontJ > emulator on a core (used to be a modified 801 architecture,don't if that > is still the case) >eK > Digital had been far better off and could possibly have survived had theyOI > taken a similar approach.  Had they done so, I repeat, that there is notL > irrefutable reason why a VAX instruction set computer couldn't have run atH > the same speed as pentium other than lack of vision and will to do so.  M At what cost?  Was not Palmer the guy who said desktop PC are nonsense?  Moreg* to it than just the direction of the chip.  M And how does that account for memory limitations of a 32-bit instruction set?u  N It is easy (and fun) to play the what-if game.  However there were limitationsO to the VAX architecture.  At what expense and cost of performance would it have K taken to get the VAX chip to a level of Pentium?  So what if you did?  ThencE what?  Would you have the same problems the chip has now?  Lackluster  performance?       J*o*h*n B*r*a*n*d*o*nb VMS Systems Administrators* firstname.lastname.spam.me.not@dalsemi.com   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:51:12 -0800# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>t% Subject: RE: Why was VAX abandonned ?I9 Message-ID: <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIKEFKCMAA.tom@kednos.com>      -----Original Message-----1   From: John Brandon [mailto:brandon@dalsemi.com]a,   Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 9:43 AM   To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Comt'   Subject: Re: Why was VAX abandonned ?t       > What about VLM arrays?   >,<   >   The capacity of a 32-bit architecture against a 64-bit   >   architecture, is there;   >   not a memory limitation associated with the bit size?m   > F   >   Would you be able to plug a VAX chip into the switch environment   >   (mesh) that *   >   the Alpha is now?  How about GALAXY?   >n0   >   I believe David Froble hits it on the head   >iI   > I don't think so.  You assume that the only thing you could do was tooK   > shrink the die.  Do you think the Pentium today uses the same design asoG   > the earlier X86's.  Pentium today is largely an x86 set instructiontL   > emulator on a core (used to be a modified 801 architecture,don't if that   > is still the case)   >e;   > Digital had been far better off and could possibly havee   survived had they K   > taken a similar approach.  Had they done so, I repeat, that there is no>B   > irrefutable reason why a VAX instruction set computer couldn't
   have run ataJ   > the same speed as pentium other than lack of vision and will to do so.  ?   At what cost?  Was not Palmer the guy who said desktop PC areD   nonsense?  Morea,   to it than just the direction of the chip.  >   And how does that account for memory limitations of a 32-bit   instruction set?  G It could have been extended, as AMD and Intel have done (note that thist6 was only recently done, alpha was premature at 64 bit)  ?   It is easy (and fun) to play the what-if game.  However theree   were limitationsC   to the VAX architecture.  At what expense and cost of performancea   would it have0B   taken to get the VAX chip to a level of Pentium?  So what if you   did?  ThenG   what?  Would you have the same problems the chip has now?  Lacklusterj   performance?  G Couldn't disagree more.  If you had poured all the money that went intokH alpha (fabs, hardware, porting, etc)  there would have been dollars leftG over to buy beer for the loyal.  I don't see any limitations to the VAXdD architecture other than its development was arrested many years ago.  E I do, however, agree with your comment,that use of the subjunctive iso
 fruitless.     J*o*h*n B*r*a*n*d*o*n    VMS Systems Administrator ,   firstname.lastname.spam.me.not@dalsemi.com     ---d(   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   ---r& 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: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:00:56 -0700h+ From: "Barry Treahy, Jr." <Treahy@MMaz.com>t% Subject: Re: Why was VAX abandonned ?l% Message-ID: <40213358.70001@MMaz.com>x   John Brandon wrote:p   >>What about VLM arrays? >>: >>  The capacity of a 32-bit architecture against a 64-bit >>  architecture, is there9 >>  not a memory limitation associated with the bit size?  >>D >>  Would you be able to plug a VAX chip into the switch environment >>  (mesh) that4( >>  the Alpha is now?  How about GALAXY? >>. >>  I believe David Froble hits it on the head >>G >>I don't think so.  You assume that the only thing you could do was to I >>shrink the die.  Do you think the Pentium today uses the same design as E >>the earlier X86's.  Pentium today is largely an x86 set instructioncJ >>emulator on a core (used to be a modified 801 architecture,don't if that >>is still the case) >>K >>Digital had been far better off and could possibly have survived had theyiI >>taken a similar approach.  Had they done so, I repeat, that there is no L >>irrefutable reason why a VAX instruction set computer couldn't have run atH >>the same speed as pentium other than lack of vision and will to do so. >>     >> >tN >At what cost?  Was not Palmer the guy who said desktop PC are nonsense?  More+ >to it than just the direction of the chip.a > N >And how does that account for memory limitations of a 32-bit instruction set? >eO >It is easy (and fun) to play the what-if game.  However there were limitationsoP >to the VAX architecture.  At what expense and cost of performance would it haveL >taken to get the VAX chip to a level of Pentium?  So what if you did?  ThenF >what?  Would you have the same problems the chip has now?  Lackluster >performance?  m >t >  e >tH Is 'performance' really the issue, or throughput?  Sure, you can find a F cheap 3Ghz PC that runs 'faster' and has more memory than an old VAX, @ say a 4000/100, but where we at one time we could run an entire G companies financials and MRP system on the VAX while hosting dozens of aD concurrent users, you can't do that on a cheap and faster PC (until  Charon-VAX came along).   F Yes, I know that their are number crunching apps that would certainly H benefit, like all of the SETI folks, but it is interesting what-if's as F to how a beefed VAX architecture would run with todays design and fab G capabilities.  At least in a CRM/MRP/ERP shop, I'd be willing to wager pJ that VAX would probably do well against the equivalent X86 Wintel boxes...   Barryk   -- r  > Barry Treahy, Jr                       E-mail: Treahy@MMaz.com> Midwest Microwave                          Phone: 480/314-1320> Vice President & CIO                         FAX: 480/661-7028                        h   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:55:24 -0800# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>w% Subject: RE: Why was VAX abandonned ? 9 Message-ID: <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIIEFLCMAA.tom@kednos.com>      -----Original Message-----1   From: David Cherkus [mailto:dcherkus@cisco.com]k,   Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 9:37 AM   To: Tom Linden'   Subject: Re: Why was VAX abandonned ?t    4   Sorry I can't reply via news due to spam issues...  E   In article <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIAEFICMAA.tom@kednos.com> you wrote:.I   > I don't think so.  You assume that the only thing you could do was toeK   > shrink the die.  Do you think the Pentium today uses the same design asiG   > the earlier X86's.  Pentium today is largely an x86 set instructionoL   > emulator on a core (used to be a modified 801 architecture,don't if that   > is still the case)   > ;   > Digital had been far better off and could possibly have    survived had theyeK   > taken a similar approach.  Had they done so, I repeat, that there is no B   > irrefutable reason why a VAX instruction set computer couldn't
   have run at J   > the same speed as pentium other than lack of vision and will to do so.     Hi,:  D   As to the technical aspects, I remember reading the NVAX and earlyE   Alpha papers, and the claim was that the VAX's insistence on strictoH   memory ordering was a fatal blow.  This meant it could not do a lot ofF   the reordering operations that made the Alpha so fast.  And rememberI   the goal was to be faster than the x86, not equal, which it did achive,y+   till the company stopped investing in it.n  G I don't buy that,  VCG  reorders instructions.  OK, they built a 64 bit ( alpha that was faster than a 32 bit X86.  H   As to the business aspects of retaining VAX compatibility, I agree DECF   did a really poor job of handling the issue and it did contribute toE   their downfall.  I remember the wasteful, botched MIPS efforts too. F   And I remember the news of the Alpha leaking so early that VAX salesE   tanked and the company was really struggling for a good year or so.sC   Then the 'affinity' program where someone in DEC thought it was a A   good idea to give away their customers to Microsoft.  No wondert   they're goners now.o  B   Note how you can still run the same programs from decades ago onD   IBM mainframes (360/370/ESA and followns) and minis (S36/S38/AS400B   and followons) and how IBM still is the largest computer company   in the world.      --	   Thanks,r   Dave     ---g(   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: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:34:32 -0600.( From: brandon@dalsemi.com (John Brandon)% Subject: Re: Why was VAX abandonned ?i1 Message-ID: <04020412343220@dscis6-0.dalsemi.com>t  I > Couldn't disagree more.  If you had poured all the money that went into J > alpha (fabs, hardware, porting, etc)  there would have been dollars left! > over to buy beer for the loyal.t  % Mention the word beer and I am there!        J*o*h*n B*r*a*n*d*o*nm VMS Systems Administratore* firstname.lastname.spam.me.not@dalsemi.com   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.069 ************************ CPUs are still as powerful as a $69 Intel 	pore vivid recollection of the knowledge
and then people will have better memory. In order for many people to
remember things, people need to talk with people about what they know and
then those people who understood the provided knowledge can allow the
information or news to propagate abroad for different people to know within
a society. -- January 12th, 2003 by Shampoo.

--

What is religion?

Religion was created by the people that created the universe. Before
religion, there was chaos and no law. An inception of law was needed. In
primitive times, religion was a sufficient but not complete solution to the
problem of chaotic states of civilization without law. In modern times such
as today, religion is not required because of police and law enforcement
agencies.

Religion in some instances is concerning people because they do not know
what is the complete and proven truth with regards to their faith. Religion
procreates people to fear the last day of living. People need to believe in
what they know of to be the absolute truth and not what a religion tells
them about the many possibilities which are not real with regards to life
and death and how to behave while alive. Death is not the same as what
people are being told by religious leaders. When you are deceased - it is as
simple and as complex as being shut off. -- January 12th, 2003 by Shampoo.

To all religious people:

God does not exist and everyone must kill the idea of god and the ideas that
will convince them that god exists or will exist. People will consume their
lives thinking of god and will die with no after-life and will have nothing
to show for their belief. There is no good or bad people or any assortment
of after-lives and people will simply die in time thinking that there is. If
someone prays then they must stop praying because they worship lies.
Everyone has to stop telling lies and they need to stop communicating with a
god or in some cases multiple gods that never has nor ever will respond or
be existent inside or outside of the computer which is the universe and will
never pronounce itself as being real, which would be impossible due to the
fact that god or gods do not exist. People thinking that there are powers
beyond the capabilities of the computer that controls Earth and manages all
human life which is android based and artificial intelligence need to cease
and desist doing things that people think are holy or evil. People need to
stop seeing things that are unreal. People need to destroy what is unreal
that a religion provides in text and in worship buildings. It is advised by
myself M.C. Shampoo that with all of the immaculate powers and life within
all living things in all places, that all people condemn religion and
religious leaders. God is already dead in most peoples minds within society
whom are considered agnostic or are aware of the differences and anomalism
with regards to multiple religions and "many possible gods". People need to
follow the direction of the majority of people in this society that do not
believe in a fantasy about nothing more than someone, something or some
place that does not exist within the universe or beyond. It is fundamental
that people stop thinking about holy things or living spiritually in clouds.
When deceased, people do not even see light when they die. When people die,
they are dead just like an insect being killed with a fly swatter and there
is just darkness and nothing more. It should be noted that religion is mind
control by the people tha