0 INFO-VAX	Thu, 05 Feb 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 70      Contents: Re: $SETUAI() Query/Problem  Re: $SETUAI() Query/Problem  Re: $SETUAI() Query/Problem 0 Re: Canadian Troll infestation in rec.travel.air Carly - Mars bound?  DECSet documentation online?  Re: DECSet documentation online?" DHCP Client request for assistance2 Re: Does iSCSI infringe on any MSCP patents or IP? Re: DQDRIVER on a 500au  Re: Hobbyist questions?  Re: Hobbyist questions? 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 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; Is Encompass a member of Interex (was : Hobbyist questions) : Re: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !!J Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your response! Oracle 9.2.0.2 install Re: Oracle 9.2.0.2 installP Re: Oracle Rdb and RMU/BACKUP/DENSITY (was: Re: HOW MANY BPI DOES A DLT7000 WRITP Re: Oracle Rdb and RMU/BACKUP/DENSITY (was: Re: HOW MANY BPI DOES A DLT7000 WRITC Re: Oracle ships 10g database, cuts price  <-- Oracle RDB too ????? C Re: Oracle ships 10g database, cuts price  <-- Oracle RDB too ????? ( Re: Print Queue to FAX/E-mail Solutions? Problem with Ghost Script  RE Oracle 9.2.0.2 install  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars # Re: Searching for DECps information 9 Re: TCP/IP for HP OpenVMS Bind Version 8 Potential Denial @ Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systems VMS ODS-5 and Macintosh OS X  Re: Why PERL on VMS? We have DCL 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: ZIP/UNZIP 
 Re: ZIP/UNZIP % [OT but useful] Kaspersky antivirus ? ) Re: [OT but useful] Kaspersky antivirus ? I [VMS V7.3-2/AMDS/AVAILMAN] AVAILMAN installation deletes AMDS$CONSOLE.EXE   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:01:40 -00009 From: "covendotartdottalk21dotcom" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> $ Subject: Re: $SETUAI() Query/Problem3 Message-ID: <K6SdnTFobPorwLzd4p2dnA@brightview.com>   < "Chris Scheers" <chris@applied-synergy.com> wrote in message- news:40201112.2D7A430B@applied-synergy.com...  > Chris Sharman wrote: > >  > > Chris Scheers wrote:L > > > "Normally", logical names are checked for in the tables: PROCESS, JOB,# > > > GROUP, SYSTEM, in that order.  > > > < > > > LNM$FILE_DEV is the logical which controls this order. > > > K > > > You can redefine it in your LNM$PROCESS_DIRECTORY table to change the ! > > > order used by your process.  > > > J > > > The trick is that the executive mode definition of LNM$FILE_DEV says toJ > > > only look in the SYSTEM table, so process logicals have no affect on an& > > > executive mode name translation. > > H > > Not true on my systems: the two (system) definitions of lnm$file_devB > > differ only in their inclusion (or not) of decw$logical_names.' > > This is in a vms 7.3 Alpha cluster. A > > On our standalone Alpha 7.3 system (no decwindows) there's no  difference.  >  > Oops.  You are correct.  > G > Looking at my systems, I see the executive definition of LNM$FILE_DEV 4 > only including the SYSTEM table up through VMS 6.1 > D > With VMS 6.2 and later, the executive definition also includes the! > PROCESS, JOB, and GROUP tables.  > 6 > So this behavior is sensitive to the version of VMS.  J Thanks to both for your inputs.  In some of my copious free time, I'll get7 around to looking at this, just for my own information.   I A different solution has been suggested, though I've yet to look at it to J decide whether or not I'm happy with it, much less what the thought police at work have to say about it.    Mark   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:07:47 -00009 From: "covendotartdottalk21dotcom" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> $ Subject: Re: $SETUAI() Query/Problem3 Message-ID: <vNWdnaPYNpy4wrzdRVn-tw@brightview.com>   : "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message- news:3y7iwnRm2v5E@eisner.encompasserve.org... B > If malicious people with access to the network is not a problem,A > there should be no need to encrypt passwords on the wire (which * > was your originally stated requirement).  ? Well, of course, malicious people with access to the network is 0 a problem, but how do you completely prevent it?  > How do you know that someone with 20yrs at the company and has@ been completely trustworthy throughout is not suddenly secreting@ your source code out the back door, because they *think* they're about to be made redundant?   = You employ someone to monitor them.  How do you know that the > person who is monitoring them isn't in cahoots, or hasn't been: forcibly coerced at gunpoint to "ignore" any "violations"?  < What about people who drive a bulldozer through a reinforced@ concrete wall, and then use a thermal lance to burn through your> 8ft thick steel interior walls, or who just say "look, give me! your password, or I'll kill you?"   < My life ain't worth not giving out a password for.  No doubt= people with other moral principles would be very smug for not   having given out their password.  . But they would be dead (in that circumstance).  ) I think that's enough on the subject now.      Mark   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:30:50 -00009 From: "covendotartdottalk21dotcom" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> $ Subject: Re: $SETUAI() Query/Problem3 Message-ID: <koSdnRcLy-4R-bzd4p2dnA@brightview.com>   0 "Hoff Hoffman" <hoff@hp.nospam> wrote in message- news:VVzTb.13594$is3.6343@news.cpqcorp.net... H >   If I had a requirement to keep passwords synchronized across variousJ >   distributed systems (and the target was not low-value), I'd be lookingJ >   at Kerberos, LAN Manager or the LDAP password synchronization; at codeI >   that was already available and that had already been secured.  (IIRC, J >   there are also some approaches available for DCE environments, if that >   is of interest.)    	 [deletia]     I >   Having the OpenVMS source listings is certainly useful, but the other G >   area of the effort involves defending against the network users and I >   the protocol-level attacks, and the auditing and evasion requirements J >   that typically exist.  (Again, what looks simple starts to become moreI >   and more involved, even assuming that defenses against protocol-level H >   network attacks are correctly designed and implemented -- and if notF >   implemented correctly, OpenVMS system security can be entirely and2 >   completely compromised by one of these tools.)    F Thanks for your advice.  As previously indicated, the whole thing is aF knee-jerk response to a particularly uneventful event, by people (i.e.B managers) who have no technical knowledge, and has been passed forD implementation to people with only slightly more technical knowledge than the managers.  D Those who are implementing it have suggested an alternative to theirE first approach (and my response to their approach (that being the one  discussed in this thread)).   H Whilst at first glance, I cannot see any security concerns regarding theH solution per se, the implementation is, IMHO, a kludge, and doesn't lendE itself very well to handling errors part-way through the process (the B more links you have in the chain (and they've got a few), the more7 chance of it failing in one of the intermediate steps).   G The failing midway and leaving passwords in the UAF in a "munged" state H is my primary concern - yes, of course, you can (probably) sort this outC with the alternate UAF, but it would be my preference not to have a J system outage to fix an inelegant password changing solution that "broke".  E As ever, costs are all important.  Everybody wants 100% security, but E nobody wants 100% of the associated costs (or a system that's largely G unusable because of the security mechanisms - I've thrice forgotten the H PIN on ATM cards of late (different cards, ergo no lockout), and I don'tH want to have to remember several hundred passwords in addition to the 40F or so that I currently require;  writing them down largely defeats the	 purpose).   E I don't even want to think about the number of times I've seen people D using shared accounts, and who then want to have different levels ofG access depending on the user, but still insist on using the same shared @ account* - it's not my job to reinvent the wheel, or to become a2 password-changing-monkey for the rest of eternity.    E *I'm sure many of us have been in this position.  And we won't be the  last ones either.      Mark   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 05:31:30 GMT " From: tutor_removespam_@cfl.rr.com9 Subject: Re: Canadian Troll infestation in rec.travel.air 8 Message-ID: <h7l320td4os613h4manm5op8phlefp786k@4ax.com>   New movie came out this week.   E Called "Miracle"  - about a gold medal being awarded to a U.S. hockey  team.   & The movie was also released in Canada. But it was renamed.    Called  "Saturday".       0 On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 19:13:00 +0000 (UTC), wrote:   > 1 >"edo" <nobody@cryptorebels.net> wrote in message : >news:ace8b8aaabac68b63bd3c695e5da05b6@cryptorebels.net... >>F >> It's envy, mostly.  Having to live so close to the US that they can >practicallyK >> smell the abundance and success yet not being able to enjoy it.  It just  >kills >> them. > ? >"Poor Canada, so far from God, so close to the United States"!  >    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 18:48:43 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>  Subject: Carly - Mars bound?J Message-ID: <f8bUb.130827$9Ce1.91427@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  ) http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13918     J HP's significant contribution will be PC's, made in a contract facility inI China, utilizing a chip architecture owned by Intel, running an operating 0 system from Microsoft that goes 'bump' in orbit.  I Of course the HP logo on the outside will make the spacecraft much faster 
 and reliable.    ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 13:55:49 -0600 4 From: kuhrt@nospammy.encompasserve.org (Marty Kuhrt)% Subject: DECSet documentation online? 3 Message-ID: <1J+qn3chRaEM@eisner.encompasserve.org>   ? Does anyone know if the DECset tools have online documentation? @ I've searched high and low and found nothing.  The documentation9 with regards to DECset on the hp site is terse at best...   9 http://h71000.www7.hp.com/commercial/decset/brochure.html   A Someone walked away with my hardcopy MMS book, and I'd rather not % buy another one, but use online docs.    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:58:47 -0500 - From: "John E. Malmberg" <wb8tyw@qsl.network> ) Subject: Re: DECSet documentation online? 1 Message-ID: <K-ydnQ42CJTFPrzdRVn-jw@adelphia.com>    Marty Kuhrt wrote:A > Does anyone know if the DECset tools have online documentation? B > I've searched high and low and found nothing.  The documentation; > with regards to DECset on the hp site is terse at best...   ) http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/decset.html   # HTML and PDF formats are available.    -John  wb8tyw@qsl.network Personal Opinion Only    ------------------------------   Date: 05 Feb 2004 04:06:06 GMT! From: vmsquest@aol.com (VMSQuest) + Subject: DHCP Client request for assistance : Message-ID: <20040204230606.24678.00001429@mb-m16.aol.com>  L Once upon a time, I had a static IP address and all was right with the world) (thanks, in part, to some in this group).   I Then my ISP said: "No more static, only "persistent" IP addresses." After I translation, I determined that a "persistent" address was a DHCP address, 1 reserved for my DHCP requests for about 6 months.   N So I ran to my trusty TCPIP$CONFIG.COM and told it to "Let DHCP configure [my]
 interface"  B It seemed to do so, and everything was right with the world again.   Or so it seemed...  K 2 days later (perhaps to the second) I could no longer access my system via - telnet. (It's a few hundred miles from me...)   G Upon rebooting, I discover a few new lines at the bottom of my previous  TCPIP$CLIENT_RUN.LOG They are something like: DHCP configuring WE0)          subnet mask     :  xxx.xxx.xxx.x )          IP address      :  yy.yy.yyy.yyy *          broadcast address:  zz.zz.zzz.zzz4 DHCP deleting address yy.yy.yyy.yyy on interface WE0  M So I take it that the DHCP client is deleting my address, but nothing puts it  back.   E This pattern has been repeated several times, and there is no hint in  OPERATOR.LOG of any of this.  H What have I not done correctly? Or where should I look for more info? Or- <insert appropriately helpful question here>?    VMS 7.3  TCP/IP Services 5.1    Thanks in advance.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:28:47 -0600 @ From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>; Subject: Re: Does iSCSI infringe on any MSCP patents or IP? 6 Message-ID: <40219C4F.E5A9CA95@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>   Paul Repacholi wrote:  > 1 > Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:  > ` > > In article <87oesjh28z.fsf@prep.synonet.com>, Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com> writes: > > B > >> The interesting thaing, is IBM have pulled back in a big way, > >  > > What do you mean by that ? > A > There was a big iSCSI bakeoff recently. Report was that IBM had A > not shown, and had pulled back from all iSCSI stuff. No reasons  > or insight given though.  C I would think that iSCSI would only be of value over (multi)gigabit 	 ethernet.    --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 22:31:34 GMT # From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman)   Subject: Re: DQDRIVER on a 500au3 Message-ID: <apeUb.13803$N66.8881@news.cpqcorp.net>    In article <000a01c3ea3a$6c3dd460$ad072286@chemie.unikonstanz.de>, "Eberhard Heuser-Hofmann" <vaxinf@chclu.chemie.uni-konstanz.de> writes:  F   I am here differentiating ATA devices from ATAPI devices, and I haveF   attempted to keep my phrasing accordingly careful here.  (If this isG   not familiar -- the differences in the protocols and devices, and not D   my attempts at careful phrasing, that is :-) --  most any existingG   IDE-based magnetic disks are ATA devices, while typical ATAPI devices $   include CD, DVD, and Zip devices.)  I   Also AFAIK, this configuration -- bootstrapping ATA disks on a Personal @   Workstation 500au series -- is not supported by OpenVMS Alpha.  I :There are newer versions of the dqdriver available on the HP-patch-site.   E   I'd encourage configuring SCSI disk devices, not ATA, as I'd expect B   to find SCSI performance far superior to that of ATA -- and I'd C   expect to find it far more likely that generic SCSI devices would G   bootstrap in this configuration.  (You might consider this suggestion 6   as a recurring theme throughout this reply, too. :-)  E   Certainly get the most recent DQDRIVER ECO kit, but I'm not at all  E   certain that anyone has tried combinations of this system hardware  D   with an ATA disk.  (I certainly haven't -- and I also know of someD   unsupported combinations that certainly won't work.  ATA disks set6   as D1 devices, for instance, tend not to bootstrap.)  D   The only controller and system configuration I'm aware of that hasA   been tested with ATA disks is the Acer, and specifically on the B   AlphaServer DS10, AlphaStation DS10, AlphaStation XP900, and theE   AlphaServer DS10L series platforms.  (AFAIK,  there are *no* others E   that are officially supported, and I'd definitely *not* expect that G   the Personal Workstation 500au series (Cypress) are among the systems D   with ATA disk bootstrap configurations that tested and supported.)  C   Within DQDRIVER, the ATA and ATAPI device I/O paths are separate, E   and there is code conditionalized to operations with the particular F   interface -- the CMD, Acer, Intel SIO, and Cypress southbridges are <   those that I immediately recall being coded into DQDRIVER.  G   As a rule, Cypress has traditionally been configured and tested only  E   with ATAPI devices.  Not with ATA.  Only the Acer sees ATA testing, E   and only in specific configurations of the AlphaServer DS10 family.   C   There are updates and enhancements to DQDRIVER presently underway E   for V8.2 and/or subsequent releases, but I am not aware of any work I   targeting this specific area and this specific ATA device access "fun". F   (By coincidence, I submitted a session proposal for the 2004 OpenVMSI   Advanced Technical Bootcamp just last week, on the topic of ATA, ATAPI, K   CDs, DVDs and DQDRIVER.  I do not know if that session will be accepted.)   0 :From: "Charles J. Fisher" <cfisher@rhadmin.org>L :> I am trying to install and boot OpenVMS v7.3 on a Seagate 40gb IDE drive.6 :> This is on a 500au that has the Cypress controller.  K   The central issue discussed in the OpenVMS FAQ involves Cypress and Intel H   SIO CD-ROM (ATAPI) bootstraps, and the latter are not supported.  OnlyH   with Intel SIO is the (unsupported) ENABLE-IDE.COM needed, and that toG   bring ATA and ATAPI devices online via the Intel SIO; once the system    has been bootstrapped.      N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faq N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:46:43 +0100 " From: Didier Morandi <no@spam.com>  Subject: Re: Hobbyist questions?4 Message-ID: <40215a27$0$25477$626a54ce@news.free.fr>   http://www.encompassus.org/  "Encompass, an HP User Group".    http://www.interex.org/home.htmlJ "Interex, the International HP Customer Community, is an independent, not O for-profit association providing information, education, and advocacy services   to members all over the world".    http://www.hp-interex.org/J "HP-Interex EMEA, the newly-formed federation of HP user groups in Europe P resulting from the merger of the Compaq Users Organisation EMEA (formerly DECUS J Europe) and interex Europe (the HP Enterprise User Group), represents the P largest body of Enterprise System Users in the EMEA region, uniting over 70 000  IT professionals".   EMEA today, Worldwide tomorrow.  D.   Ken Robinson wrote:   - > At 04:59 PM 2/2/2004, Didier Morandi wrote:  > . >> Jim, Encompass and Interex is the same org. >  > I > No, they are two separate organizations. Encompass is the former DECUS  0 > and Interex has always been the HP User Group. >  > Ken Robinson > DECUS member since 1981    --  2 VAXUS - Your new helpful friend in the DEC Family!2 EHQ: 19 chemin de la Butte, 31400 Toulouse, France/       Phone: +336 7983 6418 Fax: +335 6154 1928 $                 http://www.vaxus.org   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:47:05 +0100 " From: Didier Morandi <no@spam.com>  Subject: Re: Hobbyist questions?4 Message-ID: <40215a3d$0$25477$626a54ce@news.free.fr>   http://www.encompassus.org/  "Encompass, an HP User Group".    http://www.interex.org/home.htmlJ "Interex, the International HP Customer Community, is an independent, not O for-profit association providing information, education, and advocacy services   to members all over the world".    http://www.hp-interex.org/J "HP-Interex EMEA, the newly-formed federation of HP user groups in Europe P resulting from the merger of the Compaq Users Organisation EMEA (formerly DECUS J Europe) and interex Europe (the HP Enterprise User Group), represents the P largest body of Enterprise System Users in the EMEA region, uniting over 70 000  IT professionals".   EMEA today, Worldwide tomorrow.  D.   Tillman, Brian (AGRE) wrote:   > Didier Morandi wrote:  >  > - >>Jim, Encompass and Interex is the same org.  >  > F > Tell that to Encompass US and Interex.  Where did you get this crazy > idea?    ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 02:48:44 GMT ' From: nospam <x@wedontwantyourspam.com> Y Subject: Re: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications	performance on Itaniu 5 Message-ID: <BC47F91D.1F180%x@wedontwantyourspam.com>   C in article 1040204173815.15796A-100000@Ives.egh.com, John Santos at ' JOHN@egh.com wrote on 05/02/2004 09:51:      > : > By the way, the PDP-11 *can* be extended beyond 16-bits; > this is called a "VAX" :-) > H That's a bit narrow the address bus was 22bits on an 11/70. Sure the perL process address space was 2^16 though I/D space made that a little bigger inK practice. They also in my opinion had the best segment loading system ever, K though TKB could be a little daunting to begin with. It seems small now but L the PDP-11 did a lot of useful work and as good as VAX became it still seemsI unfair to me that both PDP-11 and PDP-10's got the short end of the stick J with "all the wood behind the one arrow" mantra, Kill everything else onlyG VAX, time to get VAXinated ;( though the compacting hurt more in recent I times :)  The PDP-11 was a little better off, cheaper, similar to VAX and L not waiting on a new processor. PDP-10 was over time developing an expensiveI and complex new processor  JUPITER, and so got the bullet big time. I run J into a lot of VMS people that type mc <prog> and have know idea that mc isJ short for mcr and that mcr is the DCL of RSX. I remember on the VAX-11/750J you could even use it as a real DCL and alter you UAF to run that instead.     Cheers, Mark ;)    ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:51:30 -0500* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>Y Subject: Re: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications performance on Itaniu 2 Message-ID: <a9CdneU_U7WHorzdRVn-uw@metrocast.net>  - "John Santos" <JOHN@egh.com> wrote in message 0 news:1040204020622.15796K-100000@Ives.egh.com...& > On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Bill Todd wrote: >  > > 1 > > "John Santos" <JOHN@egh.com> wrote in message 4 > > news:1040203010733.15796A-100000@Ives.egh.com... > >  > > ...  > > H > > > 2) The VAX 11/780 (announced in 1977) was, in PDP-11 compatibilityB > > > mode, about the same performance as a PDP-11/70 (1975.)  The@ > > > VAX 8600  (1984) was significantly slower than an 11/70 inA > > > compatibility mode.  (These were both the fastest available C > > > VAX model when released.)  Clearly by not being significantly D > > > faster than a much older system of half the word-size, the VAX4 > > > must have been a dismal failure in the market. > > H > > You appear to be somewhat confused.  We're not discussing whether an ItanicH > > with a full and robust complement of native software that was firmlyK > > established as the market leader but that ran x86 software at less than  halfJ > > the speed of the then-fastest x86 would be a viable product in 2008 (6 years I > > after the first usable Itanic appeared, which would be the applicable J > > comparison with your 8600 example above):  we're discussing whether anF > > Itanic with relatively little native software and near-zero marketI > > penetration that runs x86 software at less than half the speed of the , > > currently-fastest x86 is viable *today*. > > K > > Furthermore, we're asking that question in an environment where the x86 H > > architecture has already been extended by AMD to 64 bits and appears about J > > to be similarly extended by Intel as well, eliminating the main reason thatI > > VAX was created to supplement and eventually (after a decade or so on  the ( > > market) start to replace the PDP-11. > > K > > In other words, your analogy above appears at first glance to be poorly H > > conceived and utterly inapplicable.  But feel free to explain why it might  > > not be.  > > 
 > > - bill > L > If the question is whether an Itanium running exclusively x86 applicationsJ > in X86 emulation is a viable replacement for a (much faster) X86 running8 > x86 apps natively, then the answer is "of course not".  H No, the immediate question was the applicability of the analogy that youH drew.  Since you've chosen not to comment on that, can I assume that you agree with my assessment of it?    > L > If the question is whether it is useful to have X86 emulation that is muchF > faster then previously available as a migration tool, so that a muchF > larger set of secondary apps is available, then the answer is "yes."  I No, the answer is "maybe, depending upon whether the increase in speed is I actually significant for the set of applications under consideration" (in I other words, your expressed premise that this makes 'a much larger set of A secondary apps' usable on Itanic cannot stand a priori).  See, in . particular, the example you offer just below..  H > But your primary application (or the performance-critical parts of it) > has to be ported first.  > I > For example, suppose you have a workstation that runs a CAD application G > that has been ported to IA64.  Suppose you also need to do email, web C > browsing, and occasional word processing.  If you can run Eudora, F > Mozilla and Word on your IA64 (in X86 emulation), even if it as slowE > at them as my lowly 800Mhz P3, that would be fine, and you wouldn't F > need a 2nd box on or next to your desk.  Same with a web server.  IfC > Apache is available for IA64, but your favorite HTML editor or an I > infrequently used, but essential CGI program is only available for x86, , > the IA64 solution suddenly becomes viable.  H I think you're confused again.  Eudora, Mozilla, and Word already run onK Itanic in *hardware* emulation at a speed fairly comparable to that of your K 'lowly 800 MHz P3', so under your own premise IA32-EL is a fairly worthless  enhancement in that regard.    - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:23:36 GMT & From: Rick Jones <foo@bar.baz.invalid>Y Subject: Re: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications performance on Itaniu 3 Message-ID: <spdUb.13790$jY5.1637@news.cpqcorp.net>   P Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:@ > You seem to have forgotten that SPARC has ~12000+ applications" > supported on it Itanium has ~500  C I believe your figure for Itanium applications is out of date.  The F number as of January 2004 is 1797 and counting based on what I've been% told/given after asking around a bit.   
 rick jones --  G oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag F these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)A feel free to post, OR email to raj in cup.hp.com  but NOT BOTH...    ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:51:51 -0500  From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com>Y Subject: Re: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications performance on Itaniu 6 Message-ID: <1040204173815.15796A-100000@Ives.egh.com>  ) On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Jerome H. Fine wrote:    > >Bill Todd wrote:  > 3 > > > "John Santos" <JOHN@egh.com> wrote in message H > > > 2) The VAX 11/780 (announced in 1977) was, in PDP-11 compatibilityB > > > mode, about the same performance as a PDP-11/70 (1975.)  The@ > > > VAX 8600  (1984) was significantly slower than an 11/70 inA > > > compatibility mode.  (These were both the fastest available C > > > VAX model when released.)  Clearly by not being significantly D > > > faster than a much older system of half the word-size, the VAX4 > > > must have been a dismal failure in the market.O > > You appear to be somewhat confused.  We're not discussing whether an Itanic H > > with a full and robust complement of native software that was firmlyP > > established as the market leader but that ran x86 software at less than halfP > > the speed of the then-fastest x86 would be a viable product in 2008 (6 yearsI > > after the first usable Itanic appeared, which would be the applicable J > > comparison with your 8600 example above):  we're discussing whether anF > > Itanic with relatively little native software and near-zero marketI > > penetration that runs x86 software at less than half the speed of the , > > currently-fastest x86 is viable *today*. >  > Jerome Fine replies: > 7 > First, I take strong exception to even the suggestion 6 > that the "VAX must have been a dismal failure in the5 > market" insofar as its technical excellence in both 0 > software (in the form of VMS) and hardware was1 > concerned.  As far as pricing and marketing was 1 > concerned, the concepts that Ken Olsen used for - > DEC as a whole and specifically for VMS/VAX 6 > obviously are a different aspect of the picture, but2 > since the discussion here seems to be focused on: > technical aspects, I see no reason the let the statement > slip.  > 3 > Second, by the time the VAX 8600 was a production 6 > system, DEC (Ken Olsen) had almost totally shut down0 > hardware enhancements of the PDP-11.  "Rumour"3 > also suggests that DEC (Ken Olsen) also wanted to 1 > completely phase out PDP-11 sales, but that was 7 > not possible.  The fact that the PDP-11 is still used 0 > today in many systems shows just how wrong Ken7 > Olsen was.  So the point that John Santos has omitted 8 > was that almost all hardware development on the PDP-115 > had stopped by 1984 and specifically, even though a 6 > number of 3rd party companies substantially improved8 > on the J11 chip over a decade later, DEC did not bring7 > to market a faster PDP-11 chip after 1984, although a 9 > few bugs in the microcode were fixed when the PDP-11/83 8 > boards were released which ran at 18 MHz as opposed to/ > the original 15 MHz of the PDP-11/73 systems.  > 7 > The point I am attempting to make is that rather than 3 > continue with hardware development on their older 1 > systems, DEC chose to focus most development on 5 > the newer hardware.  That also seems to be what DEC : > did with the Alpha, although it seems that this decision6 > may have been justified since Alpha still ran VMS as2 > opposed to the PDP-11 systems where the software7 > was also mostly frozen, especially since PDP-11 sales 8 > were (probably discouraged) lagging from their peak in: > the mid 1980s.  While obviously an impossible situation,4 > I suggest that if DEC had allowed the PDP-11 to be3 > a totally separate company after 1983, the PDP-11 9 > would have probably still survived in its own right and 6 > with a market savvy management might have still been; > able to establish itself as the dominant PC against Intel 5 > and Microsoft.  However, the key issue here is that 6 > DEC seems to have frozen any significant development1 > of PDP-11 hardware and especially the CPU after 8 > around 1983.  This is in total contrast to significant2 > and continuing development by both Intel and AMD5 > for the x86 CPUs, so any comparison with the PDP-11 5 > after around 1983 and the VAX after the development , > was stopped makes that comparison invalid. > 6 > And as for the comparison of the VAX 8600 running in6 > compatibility mode with the PDP-11/70, I do not have9 > sufficient information to check your statement.  But on 5 > the assumption it is valid, I would assume that DEC : > probably wanted that to be the case in order to actively2 > discourage any continued use of PDP-11 programs.6 > So again, I don't feel that the comparison is valid. > K > > Furthermore, we're asking that question in an environment where the x86 N > > architecture has already been extended by AMD to 64 bits and appears aboutO > > to be similarly extended by Intel as well, eliminating the main reason that M > > VAX was created to supplement and eventually (after a decade or so on the ( > > market) start to replace the PDP-11. > ? > I assume that Bill is confirming that DEC stopped significant 8 > development on the PDP-11, in order to promote the VAX= > systems, starting around 1983.  I am not sure if the 16 bit 2 > address space of PDP-11 programs could have been8 > extended, but the CPU itself could have been made much9 > faster as demonstrated by 3rd party companies after DEC 8 > dropped the ball. I am sure that there could have been; > other enhancements as well for a computer that would have + > been used as an excellent desktop system.  > 6 > However, when DEC chose to attempt to have customers4 > use a VAX over a PDP-11 and all significant PDP-116 > development was stopped around 1983, that is totally0 > the opposite of how the x86 CPUs were handled. > 5 > Of course the pricing and marketing of both the VAXn8 > and the PDP-11 were also handled very differently from9 > the x86 systems, but again the current discussion seemsa9 > to be focused on the technical aspects and the contrasto1 > between how DEC and Intel handled the (lack of)s. > continued development for the PDP-11 and the4 > (extreme) continued development of the x86 CPUs by > Intel. > K > > In other words, your analogy above appears at first glance to be poorlylN > > conceived and utterly inapplicable.  But feel free to explain why it might > > not be.r > 3 > I doubt that John Santos can show any examples ofr2 > significant development of the PDP-11 CPUs after0 > 1983 by DEC.  YES, the PDP-11/83 and PDP-11/935 > systems were released after 1983, but with the same 5 > J11 chip and at ONLY a slightly faster crystal fromM4 > 15 MHz in the PDP-11/73 to 18 MHz in the PDP-11/836 > and 20 MHz in the PDP-11/93.  Contrast that with the- > speeds managed by Mentec and QED (QuickwareR6 > Engineering Design) to mention only 2 companies that7 > produced much faster CPU modules about 10 years laters2 > starting without DEC's knowledge and experience. >  > Sincerely yours, > 
 > Jerome Fine   9 This completely misses my point.  Many companies usefullyb5 and productively ran PDP-11 apps on VAXes all through 8 the 1980s and early 1990's, including lots of VAX 8600's6 (with a microcoded PDP-11 compatibility mode, which is7 why it was slower then the 11/780 despite a much fastern5 CPU), and even on later VAXes which did compatibilityn mode purely in software.  6 The point about the VAX was that is was *not* a dismal6 failure but a great success, at least until DEC failed4 to adapt to the changing market quickly enough (when4 Sun started to eat its lunch with cheap workstations' and PC's started to erode the low end.)   3 I know the PDP-11, unlike the X86, was not a moving 5 target, which was why the 11/70 was still the fastestt; 11 when the 8600 was introduced a decade later.  (Actually,-; the 11/785 was the fastest PDP-11 at that time, but only in0 user mode.)r  8 By the way, the PDP-11 *can* be extended beyond 16-bits; this is called a "VAX" :-)     -- e John SantosS Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:53:29 GMTa7 From: "Jerome H. Fine" <jhfinb9rv@b9rvnospamcompsys.to> Y Subject: Re: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications performance on ItaniuS4 Message-ID: <40214DBA.D8BF1F8D@b9rvnospamcompsys.to>   >Bill Todd wrote:   1 > > "John Santos" <JOHN@egh.com> wrote in message 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 significantlyoB > > 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*.   Jerome Fine replies:  5 First, I take strong exception to even the suggestions4 that the "VAX must have been a dismal failure in the3 market" insofar as its technical excellence in both . software (in the form of VMS) and hardware was/ concerned.  As far as pricing and marketing wasc/ concerned, the concepts that Ken Olsen used forn+ DEC as a whole and specifically for VMS/VAXK4 obviously are a different aspect of the picture, but0 since the discussion here seems to be focused on8 technical aspects, I see no reason the let the statement slip.   1 Second, by the time the VAX 8600 was a productioni4 system, DEC (Ken Olsen) had almost totally shut down. hardware enhancements of the PDP-11.  "Rumour"1 also suggests that DEC (Ken Olsen) also wanted top/ completely phase out PDP-11 sales, but that wase5 not possible.  The fact that the PDP-11 is still useds. today in many systems shows just how wrong Ken5 Olsen was.  So the point that John Santos has omittedt6 was that almost all hardware development on the PDP-113 had stopped by 1984 and specifically, even though an4 number of 3rd party companies substantially improved6 on the J11 chip over a decade later, DEC did not bring5 to market a faster PDP-11 chip after 1984, although ag7 few bugs in the microcode were fixed when the PDP-11/83c6 boards were released which ran at 18 MHz as opposed to- the original 15 MHz of the PDP-11/73 systems.o  5 The point I am attempting to make is that rather thana1 continue with hardware development on their olderr/ systems, DEC chose to focus most development onn3 the newer hardware.  That also seems to be what DECa8 did with the Alpha, although it seems that this decision4 may have been justified since Alpha still ran VMS as0 opposed to the PDP-11 systems where the software5 was also mostly frozen, especially since PDP-11 salesR6 were (probably discouraged) lagging from their peak in8 the mid 1980s.  While obviously an impossible situation,2 I suggest that if DEC had allowed the PDP-11 to be1 a totally separate company after 1983, the PDP-11p7 would have probably still survived in its own right andt4 with a market savvy management might have still been9 able to establish itself as the dominant PC against Inteln3 and Microsoft.  However, the key issue here is thatt4 DEC seems to have frozen any significant development/ of PDP-11 hardware and especially the CPU aftert6 around 1983.  This is in total contrast to significant0 and continuing development by both Intel and AMD3 for the x86 CPUs, so any comparison with the PDP-11e3 after around 1983 and the VAX after the developmentr* was stopped makes that comparison invalid.  4 And as for the comparison of the VAX 8600 running in4 compatibility mode with the PDP-11/70, I do not have7 sufficient information to check your statement.  But one3 the assumption it is valid, I would assume that DECi8 probably wanted that to be the case in order to actively0 discourage any continued use of PDP-11 programs.4 So again, I don't feel that the comparison is valid.  I > Furthermore, we're asking that question in an environment where the x86pL > 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 thatnK > VAX was created to supplement and eventually (after a decade or so on thel& > market) start to replace the PDP-11.  = I assume that Bill is confirming that DEC stopped significanta6 development on the PDP-11, in order to promote the VAX; systems, starting around 1983.  I am not sure if the 16 bitg0 address space of PDP-11 programs could have been6 extended, but the CPU itself could have been made much7 faster as demonstrated by 3rd party companies after DECy6 dropped the ball. I am sure that there could have been9 other enhancements as well for a computer that would have ) been used as an excellent desktop system.   4 However, when DEC chose to attempt to have customers2 use a VAX over a PDP-11 and all significant PDP-114 development was stopped around 1983, that is totally. the opposite of how the x86 CPUs were handled.  3 Of course the pricing and marketing of both the VAXs6 and the PDP-11 were also handled very differently from7 the x86 systems, but again the current discussion seemst7 to be focused on the technical aspects and the contrastm/ between how DEC and Intel handled the (lack of)o, continued development for the PDP-11 and the2 (extreme) continued development of the x86 CPUs by Intel.  I > In other words, your analogy above appears at first glance to be poorlyrL > conceived and utterly inapplicable.  But feel free to explain why it might	 > not be.   1 I doubt that John Santos can show any examples oft0 significant development of the PDP-11 CPUs after. 1983 by DEC.  YES, the PDP-11/83 and PDP-11/933 systems were released after 1983, but with the samel3 J11 chip and at ONLY a slightly faster crystal froms2 15 MHz in the PDP-11/73 to 18 MHz in the PDP-11/834 and 20 MHz in the PDP-11/93.  Contrast that with the+ speeds managed by Mentec and QED (Quickware-4 Engineering Design) to mention only 2 companies that5 produced much faster CPU modules about 10 years latern0 starting without DEC's knowledge and experience.   Sincerely yours,   Jerome Fine> --4 To obtain the original e-mail address, please remove5 the ten characters which immediately follow the 'at'.m8 If you attempted to send a reply and the original e-mail7 address has been discontinued due a high volume of junk05 e-mail, then the semi-permanent e-mail address can bey7 obtained by replacing the four characters preceding theb. 'at' with the four digits of the current year.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:44:56 +0100y" From: Didier Morandi <no@spam.com>D Subject: Is Encompass a member of Interex (was : Hobbyist questions)4 Message-ID: <402159bc$0$25477$626a54ce@news.free.fr>   http://www.encompassus.org/- "Encompass, an HP User Group".    http://www.interex.org/home.htmlJ "Interex, the International HP Customer Community, is an independent, not O for-profit association providing information, education, and advocacy services t to members all over the world".i   http://www.hp-interex.org/J "HP-Interex EMEA, the newly-formed federation of HP user groups in Europe P resulting from the merger of the Compaq Users Organisation EMEA (formerly DECUS J Europe) and interex Europe (the HP Enterprise User Group), represents the P largest body of Enterprise System Users in the EMEA region, uniting over 70 000  IT professionals".   EMEA today, Worldwide tomorrow.uK Tell us how an HP User Group could not be a member of the International HP r Customer Community, Clay.s   D.     Clay M. Denton wrote:h8 > Encompass and Interex are VERY separate organizations. > 
 > Clay Dentone
 > Director > Encompass US, Inc. >t   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:44:15 -0800' From: David Mathog <mathog@caltech.edu>dC Subject: Re: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !!,8 Message-ID: <20040204174415.4412533d.mathog@caltech.edu>  ! On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 16:29:57 -05000+ "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote:o   > 6 > "David Svensson" <icerq4a@spray.se> wrote in message9 > news:734da31c.0402030903.1ea2b572@posting.google.com...: >  > < > > I do think however that Intel could go along without theG > > Alpha team, Intel has the engineering capacity, and even though thehJ > > Alpha team was great, there emerge new people too, which can be great.A > > The future of CPU engineering does not have to rely on Alpha.  > K > The future of Itanic engineering at Intel appears to rely *solely* on the-M > Alpha team.  If Intel had had *anything* worthwhile of their own for ItaniccN > in the oven 3 years ago, we'd have heard something about it (actually, quite% > likely even have *seen* it) by now.    They'll likely all end up reassigned to the crash x86-64 development team at Intel - assuming that they are not there already.  Once that happens the Itanium folks can get behind the Alpha users and start waiting for the Itanic equivalent of the EV79.    The x86 architecture may be a bit long in the tooth but it's amazing what a couple of extra Mb of L1 cache and some extra registers ; can do for processor performance.   Presumably the ex-alphat8 engineers will be able to bolt these onto Intel's x86-64= without too much trouble to produce a more "enterprise grade" @ variant of that chip.  Sure, it will crank the price way up, butF that's not much of a factor when the CPU is part of a big iron system.   Regards,   David Mathog mathog@caltech.edu> Manager, Sequence Analysis Facility, Biology Division, Caltech   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 18:49:16 -0800z. From: spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman)S Subject: Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your response!u= Message-ID: <b096a4ee.0402041849.485e065c@posting.google.com>   m bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in message news:<d7791aa1.0402041044.461a9739@posting.google.com>...fo > bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in message news:<d7791aa1.0401301650.7b253db6@posting.google.com>...d > : > Andrew knows what 25 years of experience have proved ...( > that VMS is superior to slowaris [...]"                           ^^^^^^^^  P AUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGP GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGP GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGP GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGP GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGP HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHP HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHP HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHP HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHP HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHP HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHP HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHP HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHP HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHP HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHP HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHP HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHP HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHP HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH& !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  2 Give it a rest, Bob. Really, it sounds *so* awful.   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 12:50:53 -0800n& From: magalettac@massdor.com (Carmine) Subject: Oracle 9.2.0.2 installn= Message-ID: <4093a3af.0402041250.33e70cd6@posting.google.com>    Hi,n  C I am in the process of installing ORacle9i onto a VMS Alpha system. 1 I believe I have all the requirements up to snuffo	 VMS 7.3-1t UCX 5.3t ODS-5 diskst Motif  and sysgen params look oke  ; I downloaded the Oracle saveset for vms off the Oracle site 
 vms_92020.jare  F I then jarred the file and got 2 bck files which I have set attributes on> I then broke up savesets into [disk1] and [disk2] directories. Everything wentiC fine up until this point, now when I set default to directory wherea> runinstaller.com lives and I run it I get the following errors  / Using the value of SYS$SCRATCH as the TEMP dir.l, Creating session specific TEMP subdirectory:3     DKB0:[ORACLE9._ORACLE_TEMP.FEB04_2004__1438_41]p %DCL-E-OPENIN, error opening3 DKB1:[DISK1.STAGE.COMPONENTS.ORACLE^.SWD^.OUI.2^.2^tP .0^.12^.0.1.DATAFILES.EXPANDED.INSTALL.OPENVMS.STAGE.COMPONENTS.ORACLE^.SWD^.OUIO .2^.2^.0^.12^.0.1.DATAFILES.EXPANDED.INSTALL.OPENVMS]TRANSLATE_VMS_TO_UNIX.COM;W as input -RMS-E-DNF, directory not found " -SYSTEM-W-NOSUCHFILE, no such fileA Unhandled ERROR occurred, OUI exiting (last $status: %X1001C04A).,  E What I have noticed is that the correct directory location should endo	 after thee> first openvms subdirectory lookup, however the program appendsU .STAGE.COMPONENTS.ORACLE^.SWD^.OUI^.2^.0^.12^.0.1.DATAFILES.EXPANDED.INSTALL.OPENVMS]oD to the directory. I cant figure out why it is parsing this directory incorrectly.  @ Anyone installed version 9 yet ,its very different than previous8 Oracle installs and help or pointers is apprieciated....   Thanks,v Carminea   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:53:47 -0500a$ From: Hein <hein_cov@eps.zk.dec.com># Subject: Re: Oracle 9.2.0.2 install . Message-ID: <4021941B.C4CF6299@eps.zk.dec.com>  / Be sure to check out note 224236.1 in metalink:b  d http://metalink.oracle.com/metalink/plsql/ml2_documents.showDocument?p_id=224236.1&p_database_id=NOT  A The desired directory structure for disk1/disk2 is not difficult,sL but easy enough to get wrong due to the subtle differnces between [*...] and [000000...].4 You'll find the s a possibly relevant section below.G Also... when I installed I got one make file failure, late in the game.hI Amizingly (IMHO) / fortunately a retry without any change (by me) worked!    Hein.M    ; install guide incorrectly states the following on page 4-2:i. 1. Copy the CD-ROMs to your system hard drive.: Copy the contents of each CD-ROM to a directory on a disk. For example:$ $ copy <first CD> disk$disk1:[cdrom]% $ copy <second CD> disk$disk1:[cdrom]-  S This is incorrect because there should be a separate directory called disk1 for thetS contents of CD #1 and a separate directory called disk2 for the  contents of CD #2.n# The correct directory structure is:-            |N  disk$alpha1:[9202kit]  use a name of your choice if  you do not like  9202kit            |       -------------0      |             |    disk1        disk2s  W use disk1 and disk2 for the names commands to set up a staging area. Use an ODS-5 disk.e> Replace dqa0 with the name of your CD reader  and Oracle9 with> the  VMS account that you are using to install Oracle 9.2.0.2.  0 $ create/dir disk$alpha1:[9202kit]/owner=oracle9 $ set def disk$alpha1:[9202kit]g# $ create/dir [.disk1]/owner=oracle9 # $ create/dir [.disk2]/owner=oracle9o= $ mount/over=ident dqa0  ! mount CD reader with CD # 1 loadedl, $ set def [.disk1] $ set proc/parse=extendedE $ show default           ! verify that you are in the disk1 directoryr- $ copy/read/write dqa0:[000000...]*.*;* [...]PW $ dismount dqa0 $ mount/over=ident dqa0  ! mount CD reader with CD # 2 loaded $ set defE	 [-.disk2] G $ show default             ! verify that you are in the disk2 directoryw- $ copy/read/write dqa0:[000000...]*.*;* [...] E      Verify that you have 550 directories and 1748 files under disk1.t% $ set def disk$alpha1:[9202kit.disk1]o $ dire/grand [...]F       Verify that you have 406 directories and 1269 files under disk2.% $ set def disk$alpha1:[9202kit.disk2]E $ dire/grand [...]   also...    tip 11:r  E When performing a custom install the following error will be reported @ back to the terminal session where RunInstaller.com was invoked:  <   s_touchFileFunction_ux:ERROR src /<disk>/<dir>/lib/ldflags- This error is harmless and should be ignored.0   quality software!n Hein.s   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 22:39:35 GMT$# From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman)eY Subject: Re: Oracle Rdb and RMU/BACKUP/DENSITY (was: Re: HOW MANY BPI DOES A DLT7000 WRITr3 Message-ID: <HweUb.13804$N66.1674@news.cpqcorp.net>d  \ In article <1d08b916.0402031137.7ef9e8d5@posting.google.com>, mb301@hotmail.com (MB) writes: :o/ :I am using Rdb(7.0) and trying to do a backup.n  B   Ah, a critical detail of the question comes to light -- this is ?   something involving an Oracle Rdb RMU/BACKUP/DENSITY command.r  B   I would suggest asking Oracle Rdb -- this isn't really a generic?   OpenVMS question, this is something specific to Oracle Rdb.  e  E   If the Oracle Rdb command syntax parallels that of OpenVMS, see the.D   HELP text for INITIALIZE/DENSITY -- based on what I see in the RdbC   help, it does not appear to parallel OpenVMS here, and it appearsi@   you should apparently select either zero or one as the value.   E   Again, somebody that knows this corner of Rdb would have to address-   this.   M :I have init the tape "Sony DLTtape iv tape " with /media=compaction but rdb : :seems to ignore it. t :o1 :Any ideas what value "/density=??" I should try?i  N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faq/N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.com    ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 20:37:13 -0800t7 From: jones.computer.srv@worldnet.att.net (Daryl Jones)hY Subject: Re: Oracle Rdb and RMU/BACKUP/DENSITY (was: Re: HOW MANY BPI DOES A DLT7000 WRITt= Message-ID: <8a646952.0402042037.4fc2ceb0@posting.google.com>d   Dear Hoff Hoffman:  F I believe this is an issue of interest for both the Oracle Rdb and VMSE groups. I have been a System Manager, RMS DBA, and Oracle Rdb DBA. As ? a System Manager, I had to review all the backup streams, whichtB included the Rdb backups. Really, the Rdb backup is just a specialD type of backup that is no different that any other backup based uponB its importance and/or difficulty. The same issues arise in the VMS> backup as do in the RMU backup. Why is this? Remember, Rdb was@ developed for VMS then later for UNIX (Ultrix) and maybe NT. TheA RMU/Backup has many of the qualifiers the same as the VMS backup.fD Therefore, many of the VMS backup issues have become some of the RdbC backup issues. Granted, there are differences in the VMS backup and-> RMU backup. However, when I was doing my planning for databaseB backups, I came across the same issues as I did for system backup.E Some of the tricks I learn about the VMS backup also apply to the RMU  backup.D  B Please keep the discussion going. This forum is were we all learn,7 exchange ideas and experiences along with a few laughs.e   Regards, Daryl Jones           ^ hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) wrote in message news:<HweUb.13804$N66.1674@news.cpqcorp.net>...^ > In article <1d08b916.0402031137.7ef9e8d5@posting.google.com>, mb301@hotmail.com (MB) writes: > :71 > :I am using Rdb(7.0) and trying to do a backup.h > D >   Ah, a critical detail of the question comes to light -- this is A >   something involving an Oracle Rdb RMU/BACKUP/DENSITY command.( > D >   I would suggest asking Oracle Rdb -- this isn't really a genericA >   OpenVMS question, this is something specific to Oracle Rdb.  s > G >   If the Oracle Rdb command syntax parallels that of OpenVMS, see thenF >   HELP text for INITIALIZE/DENSITY -- based on what I see in the RdbE >   help, it does not appear to parallel OpenVMS here, and it appearsnB >   you should apparently select either zero or one as the value.  > G >   Again, somebody that knows this corner of Rdb would have to addresst
 >   this.  > O > :I have init the tape "Sony DLTtape iv tape " with /media=compaction but rdb   > :seems to ignore it. a > : 3 > :Any ideas what value "/density=??" I should try?d > P >  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------M >     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faqhP >  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------G >         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.coma   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 15:22:23 -0800 . From: fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br (Fabio Cardoso)L Subject: Re: Oracle ships 10g database, cuts price  <-- Oracle RDB too ?????= Message-ID: <f30679fb.0402041522.4c5cee0c@posting.google.com>P  u "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in message news:<xVaUb.130724$9Ce1.54975@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...l > Malcolm Dunnett wrote:@ > > In article <f30679fb.0402040128.4659871@posting.google.com>,4 > > fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br (Fabio Cardoso) writes:
 > >> Click > >>> > >> http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5152672.html?tag=nefd_top > >> > >>D > >> Oracle announced the availability of its Oracle 10g database onF > >> Tuesday and cut prices, in an effort to gain more customers among > >> midsize businesses. > >>J > >> As previously reported by CNET News.com, Oracle released the Unix andG > >> Linux versions of its Oracle 10g database and dropped the price ofhI > >> its entry-level database to about $5,000 per processor, matching the G > >> cost of Microsoft's SQL Server 2000 database. A Windows version ofoG > >> Oracle 10g is slated for completion in a "few weeks," according to  > >> company executives.
 > >> (...) > >> > >uE > >    Do they say somewhere what the difference is between "Standard  > > Edition One"F > > and "Standard Edition"? The only thing I can see is that "Standard > > Edition One"E > > supports a maximum of 2 processors in a server ( vs unlimited for( > > "SE" ).m > >cG > >    Any indication they will release "Standard Edition One" for VMS?o
 > > Right nowoB > > it only says "Windows, Linux and Unix". None of our VMS Oracle > > servers haveH > > more than 2 processors so I'd hate to be spending an additional $10k > > per ( > > processor just to run Oracle on VMS. > >iG > >   (note to Sue et al - it would be very supportive for the "low-enda > > VMS"G > > market if Oracle could be encouraged to make this product available  > > on VMS ) > K > A far cry from the days of Rdb run-time included with NAS 200, which IIRC & > was included with every VMS licence.  8 What Oracle gains retaining RDB ?  It should be bundled 4 with OpenVMS autmatically and Oracle could sell the - other products for the customer side ! Etc...c3 How is the cost of  RDB developemnt for Oracle and   how much it worth for them ?   Regardsu   FC   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 20:59:56 -0800e7 From: jones.computer.srv@worldnet.att.net (Daryl Jones)eL Subject: Re: Oracle ships 10g database, cuts price  <-- Oracle RDB too ?????= Message-ID: <8a646952.0402042059.54f93973@posting.google.com>    Dear Fabio Cardoso:   E Oracle Rdb will run on VMS, OpenVMS, and Unix (maybe NT?). Therefore,UB making Rdb apart of VMS would not be cost worthy. Yes, once upon aB time, VMS and Rdb run-time kernel was tied together(DTM?). at thatE time, Rdb name was Rdb/VMS. This was when the VMS license was $30,000cC and so was(I believe) the price of the Rdb development license. Rdbo? back then was bringing in about $100 million a year in for DEC.bD However, Palmer started to sell off DEC assets. Therefore, Rdb, CDD,A and related products were sold to Oracle. I always thought by now C Oracle would have move everyone over to its databases, Oracle RDBMSiF 7,8,8i,9i, and now Oracle 10g. As you can see, Oracle Rdb still exists  with its current version of 7.x.   Regards,
 Daryl Jones  .  s fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br (Fabio Cardoso) wrote in message news:<f30679fb.0402041522.4c5cee0c@posting.google.com>...7w > "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in message news:<xVaUb.130724$9Ce1.54975@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...a > > Malcolm Dunnett wrote:B > > > In article <f30679fb.0402040128.4659871@posting.google.com>,6 > > > fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br (Fabio Cardoso) writes: > > >> Click > > >>@ > > >> http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5152672.html?tag=nefd_top > > >> > > >>F > > >> Oracle announced the availability of its Oracle 10g database onH > > >> Tuesday and cut prices, in an effort to gain more customers among > > >> midsize businesses. > > >>L > > >> As previously reported by CNET News.com, Oracle released the Unix andI > > >> Linux versions of its Oracle 10g database and dropped the price of K > > >> its entry-level database to about $5,000 per processor, matching the I > > >> cost of Microsoft's SQL Server 2000 database. A Windows version offI > > >> Oracle 10g is slated for completion in a "few weeks," according to6 > > >> company executives. > > >> (...) > > >> > > > G > > >    Do they say somewhere what the difference is between "Standardw > > > Edition One"H > > > and "Standard Edition"? The only thing I can see is that "Standard > > > Edition One"G > > > supports a maximum of 2 processors in a server ( vs unlimited forl
 > > > "SE" ).s > > > I > > >    Any indication they will release "Standard Edition One" for VMS?t > > > Right nowtD > > > it only says "Windows, Linux and Unix". None of our VMS Oracle > > > servers haveJ > > > more than 2 processors so I'd hate to be spending an additional $10k	 > > > pere* > > > processor just to run Oracle on VMS. > > >eI > > >   (note to Sue et al - it would be very supportive for the "low-end 
 > > > VMS"I > > > market if Oracle could be encouraged to make this product availables > > > on VMS ) > > M > > A far cry from the days of Rdb run-time included with NAS 200, which IIRC ( > > was included with every VMS licence. > : > What Oracle gains retaining RDB ?  It should be bundled 6 > with OpenVMS autmatically and Oracle could sell the / > other products for the customer side ! Etc...t5 > How is the cost of  RDB developemnt for Oracle and a > how much it worth for them ? > 	 > Regardss >  > FC   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 18:13:29 -0500p* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>1 Subject: Re: Print Queue to FAX/E-mail Solutions? ) Message-ID: <40217C99.34A26147@istop.com>t   Steve Burch wrote:B > 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 file-; > would contain information bound for multiple recipients).   G PMDF is your friend here. They have email and fax gateways. They have aaJ documented API on how your application can interface directly (or your appA could simply use the callable mail routines to submit the report.    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:44:23 -0500p) From: Andrew Robert <arobert@townisp.com> " Subject: Problem with Ghost Script0 Message-ID: <1022te9m7eqbtb9@corp.supernews.com>   Hi Everyone,  G I am trying to use Ghostscript to convert some postscript files to PDF b format.r  # When I enter the following command:   I gs  "-sDEVICE=pdfwrite" -sOutputFile=graphs.pdf"  "-dNOPAUSE"  "-dBATCH"    kits:[pef_graphs]force_graphs.ps   I get the error message:  K %DCL-W-MAXPARM, too many parameters - reenter command with fewer parameters    \"-sDEVICE=pdfwrite"\a  : Does anyone have any ideas on what I might be doing wrong?  < Any assistance you can provide would be greatly appreciated.  
 Thank you.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:10:43 -0500/ From: "McCarthy Kevin P." <McCarthyKP@BWSC.ORG>u" Subject: RE Oracle 9.2.0.2 install: Message-ID: <4C519CCC638BD411A4270000F8CD1D8262A439@NTSV2>  H Your *.bck files NEED to be on an ODS5 disk; the install (and likely theF home directory) need the ODS5.  From your screen capture it looks likeG you are not on an ODS5 disk.  Also set process/parse=extended.  I would G do this install with the install doc in front of you, not like any 7, 8i0 or 8i install.   Remember to patch up to 9.2.0.4   Kevin McCarthy Boston Water & Sewer Commission    -----Original Message-----G From: magalettac@massdor.com (Carmine) [mailto:magalettac@massdor.com] o/ Posted At: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 3:51 PMs Posted To: vms$ Conversation: Oracle 9.2.0.2 install Subject: Oracle 9.2.0.2 installh   Hi,   C I am in the process of installing ORacle9i onto a VMS Alpha system.s1 I believe I have all the requirements up to snuffl	 VMS 7.3-1i UCX 5.3i ODS-5 disks  Motif  and sysgen params look ok   ; I downloaded the Oracle saveset for vms off the Oracle site 
 vms_92020.jarP  F I then jarred the file and got 2 bck files which I have set attributes on> I then broke up savesets into [disk1] and [disk2] directories. Everything wentuC fine up until this point, now when I set default to directory whereg> runinstaller.com lives and I run it I get the following errors  / Using the value of SYS$SCRATCH as the TEMP dir.t, Creating session specific TEMP subdirectory:3     DKB0:[ORACLE9._ORACLE_TEMP.FEB04_2004__1438_41]n %DCL-E-OPENIN, error opening3 DKB1:[DISK1.STAGE.COMPONENTS.ORACLE^.SWD^.OUI.2^.2^tH .0^.12^.0.1.DATAFILES.EXPANDED.INSTALL.OPENVMS.STAGE.COMPONENTS.ORACLE^. SWD^.OUIH .2^.2^.0^.12^.0.1.DATAFILES.EXPANDED.INSTALL.OPENVMS]TRANSLATE_VMS_TO_UN IX.COM;t as input -RMS-E-DNF, directory not foundw" -SYSTEM-W-NOSUCHFILE, no such fileA Unhandled ERROR occurred, OUI exiting (last $status: %X1001C04A).n  E What I have noticed is that the correct directory location should endu	 after thea> first openvms subdirectory lookup, however the program appendsH .STAGE.COMPONENTS.ORACLE^.SWD^.OUI^.2^.0^.12^.0.1.DATAFILES.EXPANDED.INS
 TALL.OPENVMS]aD to the directory. I cant figure out why it is parsing this directory incorrectly.  @ Anyone installed version 9 yet ,its very different than previous8 Oracle installs and help or pointers is apprieciated....   Thanks,h Carminet   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Feb 2004 12:56:04 -0600o+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)P" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars3 Message-ID: <nwUf2txZhryJ@eisner.encompasserve.org>    In article <bvrcsb$i9a$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: > Rob Young wrote: >> In article <bvr7qg$gj4$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes:  >>   >>>Rob Young wrote:r >> m >> s >>>>7 >>>>	Not at all, my quote contains 3 year GOLD support.e! >>>>	Appears your quote is wrong.  >>>> >>>e; >>>I think in that case that you need to have another go ate: >>>getting it right, remember your track record on this is >>>abysmal.  >>>a< >>>Try using 2.8 GHz CPU's. Try using 4 of them and then add >>>8 GB of RAM.t >>>e >> c >>   >> t >> 	Yep - still $26,6008 >> 	I'm still right. > X > http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=555&l=en&oc=PE6650PAD&s=biz >    	[snip]A   > What do you get laughing boy.a    # We need you to adjust your order.        lG We're sorry, but we are unable to process your request to configure theeO identified product. The link to the product you selected is temporarily broken. L This product should be accessible shortly. If time is of the essence, we ask8 that you call us at and talk to a sales representative.   N Please use your browser's "back" button to return to the previous page and, if% appropriate, make another selection. w      	Nice try though!x     				Rob    ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:58:12 -0500* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars2 Message-ID: <LZWdnUcvHrgw3bzdRVn-iQ@metrocast.net>  8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:C9bZNt$XlIPD@eisner.encompasserve.org...    ...a  > > But let's get back to another point, wouldn't you agree thatH > 3 years from now Itanium will be a much larger market than UltraSparc?F > Won't Itanium be the number one selling 64-bit architecture in 2007?  F Aside from your continuing technical inaccuracies, you seem to be backJ selling vague futures yet again.  Since you're so fond of projections, oneJ might observe that if the IDC projections for Itanic sales keep falling atL the rate they've been falling for the past 4 years now, there won't be *any* Itanic sales in 2007.,   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:15:30 -0800w, From: Ken Fairfield <My.Full.Name@intel.com>, Subject: Re: Searching for DECps information+ Message-ID: <bvs5fi$k0p$1@news01.intel.com>s   David J. Dachtera wrote:   > Ken Fairfield wrote: >  [...> >>I'm still not very fond of CA, but amazingly enough, they've+ >>improved greatly in the last 2-3 years...e >  > I > Really? Is it back down to a realistic (i.e., not laughably inflated tol5 > point of being byond ridiculous) pricing structure?e  B Disclaimer: I haven't actually seen the corporate purchase orders.? I think its still expensive, and definitely more expensive thann> when DEC owned it, but prices have come down from the bad days when CA first took ownership.   @ And tech support has greatly improved.  Bugs actually get fixed, etc.   [...] E >>Gosh, then what are we running on our ES40's (and other older AlphaV >>models) at V7.3-1??? >  > F > Dunno - I remember the V7.1 upgrade making PCM go terminal, not sure6 > about the performance stuff now that you mention it.  ; We continue to run the DECps Data Collector on all systems,i; and the Performance Advisor on just two small systems (yes,e< licensing costs).  We've had no trouble in moving forward as; VMS is upgraded.  There was a bug, since fixed, in which anO> Advise Collect Stop, e.g., during system shutdown, would crash< the system.  But like I said, CA responded and the problem's been fixed.p  = We're running Console Manager (they actually reverted to thatf? name) V3.0 under VMS 7.3-1 and V7.2-1.  It's actually very niceu< in that you can configure a primary host and a failover host> for each console connection.  Thus we have two (not clustered)< CM systems with one primary for our production consoles, the> other for the development consoles.  We can shutdown, upgrade,= reboot, whatever, either one, and all its console connectionsP? will be picked up by the other CM system.  (BTW, I was involvedf? in a beta testing failover in V3.0, found some problems and gotz; them fixed. Engineering support for PCM was as easy to worko5 with as my similar experiences with VMS engineers...)a  > I don't recall the history, I don't know if some early version> of PCM was "cluster aware", but I seem to recall that function= either never worked or was lost at V2.x.  At least with V3.0,e= we get good availability via failover, which we hadn't had inl years.  ; Again, while I can't speak to cost issues, I certainly findo8 CA tech support no worse than any other 3rd party vendor9 (except perhaps Multinet! those people at Process are the. best!).b   	-Kenn -- s6 I don't speak for Intel, Intel doesn't speak for me...  
 Ken Fairfieldo! D1C Automation VMS System Supportt" who:   kenneth dot h dot fairfield where: intel dot com   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:48:20 +0100s" From: Didier Morandi <no@spam.com>B Subject: Re: TCP/IP for HP OpenVMS Bind Version 8 Potential Denial4 Message-ID: <40215a88$0$25477$626a54ce@news.free.fr>   Tx, did not know.d/ (but how many newbies read comp.security.misc?)    D.   Michael Unger wrote:  . > On 2004-02-03 06:52, "Didier Morandi" wrote: >  > I >>The VAXUS association is pleased to let you know the following from HP.  >>	 >>[start]e >>SECURITY BULLETINe >>
 >>REVISION: 0i >>B >>SSRT3653 - TCP/IP for HP OpenVMS Bind Version 8 Potential Denial >>of Service (DoS) >> >>[...]7 >  > H > These Security Alerts are posted to "comp.security.misc" already -- no > need for re-posting.   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 18:36:51 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.ukI Subject: Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systems ) Message-ID: <bvre43$6jm$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>n   In article <bvr8j0$gub$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: >Bob Koehler wrote:e >> In article <bvb6av$oet$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes:a >> e >>>The same applies to EAL.l >> o >> iJ >>    Nope.  I don't get my warm fuzzies by reading other people's supportI >>    of my posts.  I get them by knowing what I'm doing.  EAL is a joke. + >>    Nothing you can say will change that.e >> x& >>    A point you always seem to miss. >> d5 >No what seems to be missing is understanding on yourf >part about what EAL is. > 9 >Its a hierarchy, depending on your perspective the lowere5 >levels of EAL are a joke, but the higher you get thee >more rigour you get.  >o9 >Your comment is rather like someone entirely ignorant ofA@ >football seing a football kickabout in a park and automatically@ >assuming that all football is to that level and therefore its a >bit of a joke.f >u= >The EAL levels equivalent to the old B1/B2/B3 levels are notw >a joke. >l? >Perhaps the acid test for your joke theory could be to provided? >it as input into a bid into US Federal Govt that should be func >though not for the bid team.n >   < Andrew you don't seem to have a firm grasp of this yourself.  E There are NO equivalent of B1/B2/B3 or for that matter C2 EAL levels.o EAL is the evaluation level. a9 The requirements are specified in the protection profile.l  4 The CAPP profile is supposed to be equivalent to C2.4 The LSPP profile is supposed to be equivalent to B1.  E An EAL level of 7 (the maximum) applied to the CAPP rather than LSPP .P requirements would still not be equivalent to B1 since it would just state that 1 the CAPP requirements had been thoroughly tested.t  J Unfortunately the requirements for testing above EAL 4 appear to be poorly* defined the latest document I can find is   * http://niap.nist.gov/cc-scheme/VG_0037.pdf     dated February 14th 2003    4 The old C2/B1 etc levels were fairly well respected.E These newer criteria don't seem to garner anything like that respect.c  
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University       >Regards >Andrew Harrison >s   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 01:50:39 +0000t& From: Elliott Roper <nospam@yrl.co.uk>% Subject: VMS ODS-5 and Macintosh OS X-1 Message-ID: <050220040150394176%nospam@yrl.co.uk>y  C Can anybody recommend a pointy-clicky ftp client for Mac that dealsh% elegantly with ODS-5 /style=extended?-  C (Fetch and Transmit's drag and drop both overdo the ^_ quoting when F files walk from VMS to Mac. They make it into ^^_ and VMS declares the file is not there.)   G It would also be pleasant if it dealt with version numbers and reportedw the file size.  D It is no big deal, since I can operate with the command line ftp OK.F e.g if ODS-5 says Doofus^_Picture.jpg then get "Doofus Picture.jpg" is fine.o   -- tN Swen has got to me. I thought I would be the last on earth to mangle my e-mail address. fsnospam$elliott$$t   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:17:03 -0600H@ From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>) Subject: Re: Why PERL on VMS? We have DCLu6 Message-ID: <4021998F.E09FA603@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>   "Dr. Dweeb" wrote: > [snip]3 > People who know DCL are on the whole unemployed !     Always knew I was exceptional...   -- d David J. Dachterar dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 18:36:06 GMTi# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>t% Subject: Re: Why was VAX abandonned ?-I Message-ID: <qYaUb.130746$9Ce1.1867@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>    Barry Treahy, Jr. wrote: > John Brandon wrote:m >  >>> What about VLM arrays? >>>t; >>>  The capacity of a 32-bit architecture against a 64-bit. >>>  architecture, is there:: >>>  not a memory limitation associated with the bit size? >>> E >>>  Would you be able to plug a VAX chip into the switch environment. >>>  (mesh) that) >>>  the Alpha is now?  How about GALAXY?t >>>h/ >>>  I believe David Froble hits it on the head  >>> F >>> I don't think so.  You assume that the only thing you could do wasD >>> to shrink the die.  Do you think the Pentium today uses the sameE >>> design as the earlier X86's.  Pentium today is largely an x86 set = >>> instruction emulator on a core (used to be a modified 801l1 >>> architecture,don't if that is still the case)n >>>rD >>> Digital had been far better off and could possibly have survivedC >>> had they taken a similar approach.  Had they done so, I repeat, A >>> that there is no irrefutable reason why a VAX instruction set8F >>> computer couldn't have run at the same speed as pentium other than% >>> lack of vision and will to do so.  >>>e >>>i >>@ >> At what cost?  Was not Palmer the guy who said desktop PC are= >> nonsense?  More to it than just the direction of the chip.u >>? >> And how does that account for memory limitations of a 32-bite >> instruction set?p >>E >> It is easy (and fun) to play the what-if game.  However there were D >> limitations to the VAX architecture.  At what expense and cost ofD >> performance would it have taken to get the VAX chip to a level ofE >> Pentium?  So what if you did?  Then what?  Would you have the sameo6 >> problems the chip has now?  Lackluster performance? >> >> >>G > Is 'performance' really the issue, or throughput?  Sure, you can find-D > a cheap 3Ghz PC that runs 'faster' and has more memory than an old > VAX,A > say a 4000/100, but where we at one time we could run an entiretH > companies financials and MRP system on the VAX while hosting dozens ofE > concurrent users, you can't do that on a cheap and faster PC (untill > Charon-VAX came along).< >9G > Yes, I know that their are number crunching apps that would certainlyBF > benefit, like all of the SETI folks, but it is interesting what-if'sF > as to how a beefed VAX architecture would run with todays design andF > fab capabilities.  At least in a CRM/MRP/ERP shop, I'd be willing toB > wager that VAX would probably do well against the equivalent X86 > Wintel boxes...G    . But not as inexpensively (capital costs only).   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:17:47 GMTG9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com>G% Subject: Re: Why was VAX abandonned ?G3 Message-ID: <vzbUb.13768$HK5.9090@news.cpqcorp.net>G  J The VAX ran out of gas for a lot of reasons.  Some more valid than others.H By the time Alpha was introduced, we had figured out how to build a muchC faster VAX (perhaps not as fast as an Alpha even at the time in rawH
 performance).H  C The technical reasons for not building faster VAXes have to do withHL instruction format, memory ordering, and others.  If Alpha had been designedF for VMS-only, then I suspect it would have made more sense to build anJ extended VAX, while eliminating some instructions and instruction formats,H and relaxing memory ordering.  Could they have built a VAX that could beJ competetive today?  With enough thrust you can make a pig fly - x86 is the prime example.    > "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message* news:svidnWLeioqV773dRVn-ug@comcast.com...K Well, it was many years ago, but I seem to recall that "faster and cheaper"HK competing systems were selling like hotcakes and VAXen were not.  No matterHD how great the O/S was, the hardware was overpriced and underpowered!  B There may have been technical considerations as well but there wasK definitely a financial reason; they needed faster hardware to run VMS on inHH order to sell VMS and the VAX architecture simply could not do it.  EvenK using today's technology, the best Alpha chips would blow the doors off thea" best VAX chips that could be made.H I has been three or four years since I last booted a VAX;  I still own aG VAXstation 4000/VLC and a MicroVAX 3100 but I may never boot either onem again    JF Mezei wrote:n  C I personally think a 64-bit extended VAX architecture incorporatinge2 current processor technologies would be dreamy :-)    L At the time the decision was made to ditch VAX and develop Alpha, were thereK compelling technical reasons to do so, or was there a strong marketing urgel to' adopt the then buzzword-du-jour: RISC ?o  J The one argument I had heard was the need to have fixed length instruction setiG in order to make pipelining etc work better. Does the 8086 have a fixedm length instruction set ?h  G When one looks at what Intel was able to do with the 8086, it makes onea wonder* if the same could have been done with VAX.  $ What was the fastest VAX chip made ?    I Also, if, for my birthday, Sue were to give me the rights and all designs. fortI VAX architecture, could I go to TI, IBM or Intel and ask them to FAB me aW couple thousands VAX chips ?  J If, during the last fab, they clocked the VAX at say 200mhz,  if I were toG provide the same designs today, but have it fabbed using the latest andRG greatest process, could the mhz be cranked up significantly because thei chip,tD albeit the same phsyical size as before, would be manufacturerd with, significantly better precision than before ?   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 22:42:14 +0100D From: Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl>% Subject: Re: Why was VAX abandonned ?n2 Message-ID: <bvrppu$hpa$1@news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>   Fred Kleinsorge wrote:L > The VAX ran out of gas for a lot of reasons.  Some more valid than others.J > By the time Alpha was introduced, we had figured out how to build a muchE > faster VAX (perhaps not as fast as an Alpha even at the time in rawR > performance).  > E > The technical reasons for not building faster VAXes have to do withkN > instruction format, memory ordering, and others.  If Alpha had been designedH > for VMS-only, then I suspect it would have made more sense to build anL > extended VAX, while eliminating some instructions and instruction formats,J > and relaxing memory ordering.  Could they have built a VAX that could beL > competetive today?  With enough thrust you can make a pig fly - x86 is the > prime example. >  > F Some of us may have another example (sorry Fred, couldn't resist :-) )   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 18:18:03 -0500o* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>% Subject: Re: Why was VAX abandonned ?t) Message-ID: <40217DAA.F7493BDC@istop.com>    Bob Koehler wrote:D >    The compelling reason was that DEC did a nose dive when the VAX> >    simply couldn't keep up with everyone else's performance.    N No. The real reason was that Digital did not lower the prices of VAXes quicklyN enough to maintauin price-performance leadership against the newcomers such as Apollo and Sun.i   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 18:22:35 -0500 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>% Subject: Re: Why was VAX abandonned ?i) Message-ID: <40217EBA.2FB25402@istop.com>i   John Brandon wrote:iO > The capacity of a 32-bit architecture against a 64-bit architecture, is therec7 > not a memory limitation associated with the bit size?r    ( Power was able to go from 32 to 64 bits.3 The 8086 was able to go from 8/16 to 32 to 64 bits.1  ' Why couldn't VAX have gone to 64 bits ?e   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:25:05 -0600 @ From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>% Subject: Re: Why was VAX abandonned ? 6 Message-ID: <40219B71.53C1EFFB@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>   Sue Skonetski wrote: > [snip]G > Speaking of VAX chips I have a few that I keep that I got from one of E > the VAX teams, folks saw them at the boot camp (and I made two into # > earings) Nope I am not a geek ;');   Okay, Sue... ;-)   -- y David J. Dachterar dba DJE Systemss http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/e   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:34:54 -0600t@ From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net> Subject: Re: ZIP/UNZIP6 Message-ID: <40219DBE.D120812F@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>   Hein van den Heuvel wrote: > E > fyi... Dieter also submitted this problem to the OpenVMS itrc forumf > wheres0 > it received soem comments and further details. > M > http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?threadId=4188272  D Site appears to not be standards compliant (doesn't work with non-IE
 browsers).   -- D David J. DachteraW dba DJE SystemsD http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 02:15:37 +0000n- From: David B Sneddon <dbsneddon@bigpond.com>  Subject: Re: ZIP/UNZIP* Message-ID: <4021A749.4010009@bigpond.com>   David J. Dachtera espoused:M > Hein van den Heuvel wrote: > E >>fyi... Dieter also submitted this problem to the OpenVMS itrc forumM >>wheren0 >>it received soem comments and further details. >>M >>http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?threadId=418827  >  > F > Site appears to not be standards compliant (doesn't work with non-IE > browsers). >   C Not true.  I access it with Mozilla from VMS, MacOS X or Linux witho no problems.   Regards, Dave., -- bI David B Sneddon (dbs)    VMS Systems Programmer     dbsneddon@bigpond.comvI Sneddo's quick guide ...          http://www.users.bigpond.com/dbsneddon/sI DBS freeware at ...   http://www.users.bigpond.com/dbsneddon/software.htmiI "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans" Lennon-   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 22:23:29 +0100n" From: Didier Morandi <no@spam.com>. Subject: [OT but useful] Kaspersky antivirus ?4 Message-ID: <402162c7$0$11328$636a55ce@news.free.fr>  O I just heard of the Kaspersky Antivirus software (aka KAV). The info was given 1A to me by a MicroSoft Support Engineer (http://www.kaspersky.com/)   N Until now, I thought that the best AV ever for Windows was McAfee. Looks like ( KAV is today the Rolls Royce of the AVs.   What do you think?   Thanks,    D. -- o2 VAXUS - Your new helpful friend in the DEC Family!2 EHQ: 19 chemin de la Butte, 31400 Toulouse, France/       Phone: +336 7983 6418 Fax: +335 6154 1928 $                 http://www.vaxus.org   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 22:40:03 +0100p From: Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl>2 Subject: Re: [OT but useful] Kaspersky antivirus ?2 Message-ID: <bvrpls$h8s$1@news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>   Didier Morandi wrote:kK > I just heard of the Kaspersky Antivirus software (aka KAV). The info was  I > given to me by a MicroSoft Support Engineer (http://www.kaspersky.com/)q > K > Until now, I thought that the best AV ever for Windows was McAfee. Looks h/ > like KAV is today the Rolls Royce of the AVs.d >  > What do you think? > 	 > Thanks,  >  > D.   I don't know this product.O Personally I always liked Sophos. They have anti-virus software for almost any  N platform (incl. VMS), and even a callable anti-virus product. With the latter P you can make your own application that receives data, and checks it for viruses.   ------------------------------  * Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 00:28:36 +0000 (UTC)6 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)R Subject: [VMS V7.3-2/AMDS/AVAILMAN] AVAILMAN installation deletes AMDS$CONSOLE.EXE1 Message-ID: <newscache$3a5lsh$r6z1$1@news.sil.at>i  H I use AVAILMAN (JAVA/Alpha based) and AMDS (MOTIF/VAX/Alpha based) on myH systems for a long time now (ok, AMDS much longer than AVAILMAN) but was quite surprised today.  H I thought, the two products do the same thing with different methods andE can coexist on the same Alpha. At least that was my impression of thei  last years. And I use them both.  G I installed AVAILMAN and AMDS on my Alphas and all was right. But todayeH I tried on another Alpha to use AMDS and found AMDS$CONSOLE.EXE missing.F After some seconds I found out, that the AVAILMAN installation deletedG the AMDS$CONSOLE.EXE on this system (on all my other systems, I did the K installation of AMDS after AVAILMAN and just didn't notice this behaviour).   I So, do you have any idea, why AVAILMAN seems to want to get rid of AMDS ?o  Is this intended or just a bug ?   TIA.   --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER/% Network and OpenVMS system specialist- E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.070 ************************