0 INFO-VAX	Wed, 28 Jan 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 55      Contents:$ Re: americans at the athens olympics$ Re: americans at the athens olympics$ Re: americans at the athens olympics Charon-VAX Hobbist License Re: Charon-VAX Hobbist License Re: Charon-VAX Hobbist License" Re: Devicename for COM1 on Alpha ? Do you need F$LICENSE? Re: Do you need F$LICENSE? Re: Do you need F$LICENSE? Re: Do you need F$LICENSE? Re: Do you need F$LICENSE? RE: Do you need F$LICENSE? Re: Do you need F$LICENSE? Re: Do you need F$LICENSE? Re: Do you need F$LICENSE?< Re: Flashing lights on my disk drives on an Alphaserver ES40 ftp server error ftp server error( Re: HP to adopt AMD's Opteron in servers( Re: HP to adopt AMD's Opteron in servers( Re: HP to adopt AMD's Opteron in servers( Re: HP to adopt AMD's Opteron in servers( Re: HP to adopt AMD's Opteron in servers Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!  Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!  Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!  Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!  Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!  Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!  Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!  Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!  Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!! B Re: Intel to chip away at Itanium prices <- or ... I want my cheapB Re: Intel to chip away at Itanium prices <- or ... I want my cheapB Re: Intel to chip away at Itanium prices <- or ... I want my cheapB Re: Intel to chip away at Itanium prices <- or ... I want my cheapB Re: Intel to chip away at Itanium prices <- or ... I want my cheapB Re: Intel to chip away at Itanium prices <- or ... I want my cheapB Re: Intel to chip away at Itanium prices <- or ... I want my cheap Locale question.) MMS /From_Source triggers .DEFAULT action  Re: Mozilla on Alpha question  Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers  Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers  Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers  Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers  RE: OpenVMS I64 Compilers  RE: OpenVMS I64 Compilers  Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers  Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers  Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers  Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers A Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers (was: Re: Intel to chip away at Itanium : Oracle RDB  SQL Services 7.1.5.8 and SQLNET4RDB identifier PATHWORKS question Re: PATHWORKS question! Selling: Alphaserver DS10L 617Mhz  Re: stupid backup tricks (long) ! sysman pcsi installation --URGENT % Re: sysman pcsi installation --URGENT % Re: sysman pcsi installation --URGENT % Re: sysman pcsi installation --URGENT  Re: Testing for file@ Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systems@ Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systems@ Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systems@ Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systems@ Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systems@ Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systems6 Re: The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War+ Re: VMS's Stability Prompts Move To Itanium + Re: VMS's Stability Prompts Move To Itanium + Re: VMS's Stability Prompts Move To Itanium + Re: VMS's Stability Prompts Move To Itanium + Re: VMS's Stability Prompts Move To Itanium . Re: Will Bird Flue impact airlines this year ?' Re: X11 via SSH from OpenVMS to Win2000 ' Re: X11 via SSH from OpenVMS to Win2000 ' Re: X11 via SSH from OpenVMS to Win2000   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 16:22:15 -0000. From: Very Interesting <very@interesting.very>- Subject: Re: americans at the athens olympics 7 Message-ID: <NAR7K1HO38014.4321180556@anonymous.poster>   , J F  M e z e i  <nobody@nobody.com> trolled:   >Nancy Kay wrote: B >> Why hold the athletes responsible for their goverments actions? > K >Because they are being used as propaganda by their government. This is why M >when the IOC bans a warring country from attending the games, they allow its F >athletes to compete under the UN flag. They get to compete, but theirO >government doesn't get the propaganda and needs to explain to its citizens why 0 >its athletes aren't allowed to bear their flag. > K >If you allow (for instance) the USA to compete with the USA flag, the Bush K >regime will use this as "worldwide approval for our invasion of Iraq".  If K >Americans are prevented from flying the USA flag, the Bush regime will not M >only be prevented from making claims of support, but will be forced to admit F >that his actions has tainted the USA's reputation in the whole world. >  > M >They have done so when there was a NATO meeting to decide whether to protect O >Turkey or not. Bush came out stating that all NATO countries escept France and M >Germany supported his plans to invade Iraq (when in fact, the NATO agreement M >was solely to protect Turkey from the damages the Bush regime would cause to K >Turkey when problems in the invasion of Iraq would overspill). As it turns O >out, Turkey was smart and refused to cooperate with the yanks and the Iraq war  >didn't overspill to Turkey.   Athletes are propaganda too?  : Umm ... have you ever thought about seeing a psychiatrist?   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:33:25 -0500  From: 127.0.0.1 <jd@cs.com> - Subject: Re: americans at the athens olympics 8 Message-ID: <v1pf101ph3dstaqjqgka0qkbpd2stfud2s@4ax.com>  / On 28 Jan 2004 16:22:15 -0000, Very Interesting  <very@interesting.very> wrote:  - >J F  M e z e i  <nobody@nobody.com> trolled:  >  >>Nancy Kay wrote:C >>> Why hold the athletes responsible for their goverments actions?  >>L >>Because they are being used as propaganda by their government. This is whyN >>when the IOC bans a warring country from attending the games, they allow itsG >>athletes to compete under the UN flag. They get to compete, but their P >>government doesn't get the propaganda and needs to explain to its citizens why1 >>its athletes aren't allowed to bear their flag.  >>L >>If you allow (for instance) the USA to compete with the USA flag, the BushL >>regime will use this as "worldwide approval for our invasion of Iraq".  IfL >>Americans are prevented from flying the USA flag, the Bush regime will notN >>only be prevented from making claims of support, but will be forced to admitG >>that his actions has tainted the USA's reputation in the whole world.  >> >>N >>They have done so when there was a NATO meeting to decide whether to protectP >>Turkey or not. Bush came out stating that all NATO countries escept France andN >>Germany supported his plans to invade Iraq (when in fact, the NATO agreementN >>was solely to protect Turkey from the damages the Bush regime would cause toL >>Turkey when problems in the invasion of Iraq would overspill). As it turnsP >>out, Turkey was smart and refused to cooperate with the yanks and the Iraq war >>didn't overspill to Turkey.  >  >Athletes are propaganda too?  see 1936 olympics, ignorant one       K --------------------------------------------------------------------------- K Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included, : reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:37:10 GMT 0 From: "DALing" <daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com>- Subject: Re: americans at the athens olympics ( Message-ID: <Hs7nLx.GpD@news.boeing.com>  K also refer to a certain American of non-Aryan background named Jesse Ownes?  ;-)   ( "127.0.0.1" <jd@cs.com> wrote in message2 news:v1pf101ph3dstaqjqgka0qkbpd2stfud2s@4ax.com...1 > On 28 Jan 2004 16:22:15 -0000, Very Interesting   > <very@interesting.very> wrote: > / > >J F  M e z e i  <nobody@nobody.com> trolled:  > >  > >>Nancy Kay wrote:E > >>> Why hold the athletes responsible for their goverments actions?  > >>J > >>Because they are being used as propaganda by their government. This is why L > >>when the IOC bans a warring country from attending the games, they allow its I > >>athletes to compete under the UN flag. They get to compete, but their E > >>government doesn't get the propaganda and needs to explain to its  citizens why3 > >>its athletes aren't allowed to bear their flag.  > >>I > >>If you allow (for instance) the USA to compete with the USA flag, the  BushJ > >>regime will use this as "worldwide approval for our invasion of Iraq". IfJ > >>Americans are prevented from flying the USA flag, the Bush regime will not J > >>only be prevented from making claims of support, but will be forced to admit I > >>that his actions has tainted the USA's reputation in the whole world.  > >> > >>H > >>They have done so when there was a NATO meeting to decide whether to protect G > >>Turkey or not. Bush came out stating that all NATO countries escept 
 France andF > >>Germany supported his plans to invade Iraq (when in fact, the NATO	 agreement G > >>was solely to protect Turkey from the damages the Bush regime would  cause toH > >>Turkey when problems in the invasion of Iraq would overspill). As it turns I > >>out, Turkey was smart and refused to cooperate with the yanks and the  Iraq war > >>didn't overspill to Turkey.  > >  > >Athletes are propaganda too? ! > see 1936 olympics, ignorant one  >  >  > L > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - C > Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not 	 included, < > reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:33:58 GMT & From: "Barry" <berrys2552@comcast.net># Subject: Charon-VAX Hobbist License 0 Message-ID: <GBJRb.168355$I06.1677557@attbi_s01>  D Is the Charon-VAX available to the hobbist??? IF so where do I get a
 license???  
 Barry Streets    berrys2552@comcast.net   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:37:13 GMT 7 From: "Arie de Groot" <arie@emulatorsinternational.com> ' Subject: Re: Charon-VAX Hobbist License 3 Message-ID: <dWORb.46934$Ax3.30797@typhoon.bart.nl>   0 We have a demonstration available on our websiteL (www.emulatorsinternational.com ). However this is a time limited version ofF our earliest emulator. Our current products are much more powerful andF support extra functions. We are about to release a more current "lite"L version for online download that will become availble soon. Please check the, website for news about this, hopefully soon.   Regards,   Arie1 "Barry" <berrys2552@comcast.net> wrote in message * news:GBJRb.168355$I06.1677557@attbi_s01...F > Is the Charon-VAX available to the hobbist??? IF so where do I get a > license??? >  > Barry Streets  >  > berrys2552@comcast.net >  >    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 08:02:47 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) ' Subject: Re: Charon-VAX Hobbist License 3 Message-ID: <d1nzw+ye09XP@eisner.encompasserve.org>   Y In article <GBJRb.168355$I06.1677557@attbi_s01>, "Barry" <berrys2552@comcast.net> writes: F > Is the Charon-VAX available to the hobbist??? IF so where do I get a > license???  F    The emulator itself Comes and goes.  The last hobbyist incarnation H    was known as Pico-VAX.  I haven't seen anything on the web site about4    another.  In the meantime simh is free and works.  G    The software license is easy, you can get the VMS hobbyist licenses, =    just put in Charon-VAX when it asks for the serial number.    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:36:20 GMT 2 From: m.grafinger@tuwien.ac.at (Manfred Grafinger)+ Subject: Re: Devicename for COM1 on Alpha ? 2 Message-ID: <4017ba45.195210908@news.tuwien.ac.at>  F On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:36:01 GMT, hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) wrote:  h >In article <4012a43a.446915039@news.tuwien.ac.at>, m.grafinger@tuwien.ac.at (Manfred Grafinger) writes:E >:Somebody out there knows the device name of the COM1 on Alpha-VMS ?  > E >  Please review the discussion of the COM ports and console lines in E >  the OpenVMS FAQ -- as well as the section in the FAQ that requests G >  the inclusion of details such as the particular system name and the   >  OpenVMS version, too.  :-)  > F >  In this case, the specifics can and do vary by platform and OpenVMSH >  version -- the FAQ COM discussion tries to explain the behaviours, asF >  well as the serial line pinouts and other related discussions, etc. > E >  If someone should encounter a new permutation of the platforms and D >  the versions and the serial console settings and the COM ports --G >  and I certainly believe it is easily possible I have not covered all E >  permutations of this topic in the FAQ -- please send me some email H >  with details, and I'll add the update to the next edition of the FAQ. >   F Thank you very much Hoff, this was the perfect hint. There i found the? association of the pins from DECS MMJ tp IBM DB9. And i got the  plotter working on the Alpha.    Best regards, Manfred    --  # + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + # ' Dr.-techn.  Manfred  GRAFINGER  ' # ' Technische  Universitaet  Wien  ' # ' Institut fr Maschinenelemente  ' # ' 1060 WIEN, Getreidemarkt 9/306  ' # ' manfred.grafinger@tuwien.ac.at  ' # ' Tel.: + 43 - 1 / 58801 / 30612  ' # + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:10:41 +0200 0 From: "Guy Peleg" <guy.peleg@remove_this_hp.com> Subject: Do you need F$LICENSE? * Message-ID: <4017c388@usenet01.boi.hp.com>   Hi All,   H For my own needs I have implemented a new lexical function F$LICENSE. It returns H True if a product is authorized to run on this node and false if it does not.   Here is a small example:  2 IPL31> write sys$output f$license("openvms-alpha") TRUE  C I need your feedback - will you find use for this lexical function?   8 If the response is positive, I will make sure it will be documented/supported.    Thank you for your feedback.   Guy    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:44:35 +0100 3 From: Michael Unger <spam.to.unger@spamgourmet.com> # Subject: Re: Do you need F$LICENSE? 9 Message-ID: <bv8i5d$p402d$1@ID-152801.news.uni-berlin.de>   ' On 2004-01-28 15:10, "Guy Peleg" wrote:   J > For my own needs I have implemented a new lexical function F$LICENSE. It	 > returns J > True if a product is authorized to run on this node and false if it does > not. >  > Here is a small example: > 4 > IPL31> write sys$output f$license("openvms-alpha") > TRUE  6 $ WRITE SYS$OUTPUT F$LICENSE("OPENVMS-ALPHA-USER") ...  I I would expect "16" or "128" or "UNLIMITED" as an reply, not just "TRUE".   E > I need your feedback - will you find use for this lexical function?   2 Perhaps an option to request specific data such as - termination date - units licensed ("units"): - units needed for a single user ("activity=constant=...")  0 $ WRITE SYS$OUTPUT F$LICENSE(license_name, item)   > [...]    Michael    --  ; Real names enhance the probability of getting real answers. @ Please do *not* send "Security Patch Notifications" or "SecurityA Updates"; this system isn't running a Micro$oft operating system. 5 My e-mail account at DECUS Munich is no longer valid.    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:57:16 GMT " From:   VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG# Subject: Re: Do you need F$LICENSE? 0 Message-ID: <00A2C90D.94ADE525@SendSpamHere.ORG>  ] In article <4017c388@usenet01.boi.hp.com>, "Guy Peleg" <guy.peleg@remove_this_hp.com> writes:  >Hi All, > I >For my own needs I have implemented a new lexical function F$LICENSE. It  >returnsI >True if a product is authorized to run on this node and false if it does  >not.  >  >Here is a small example:  > 3 >IPL31> write sys$output f$license("openvms-alpha")  >TRUE  > D >I need your feedback - will you find use for this lexical function? > 9 >If the response is positive, I will make sure it will be  >documented/supported. >  >Thank you for your feedback.  >  >Guy  B It would be really nice if it could be made to extract some of theB "option" license fields too like TOKEN and HW_ID.  Also, if it's a temporary PAK, the expiry date.    --B http://www.legacy-2000.com  for the *best* OpenVMS system securityC                             solutions that others only claim to be.  --  K VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM              5   "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"     ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:08:37 -0500 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com># Subject: Re: Do you need F$LICENSE? ) Message-ID: <4017D023.3714ED23@istop.com>    Guy Peleg wrote:J > For my own needs I have implemented a new lexical function F$LICENSE. It	 > returns J > True if a product is authorized to run on this node and false if it does > not.  I In cases where multiple licences grant access to the same product (due to N product name changes along the way for instance), is the above smart enough toL return TRUE if you asked for TCPIP-Services and the user has a UCS license ?  N More importantly, does it account for concurrent licences ? Being able to testM prior to image activation would be good, especially for batch jobs (you would = then loop a wait statement until F$LICENCE would return true)   D Come to think of it, you should have an argument in it ("LOADED") orK ("AVAILABLE"). The first one would test to see if the licence is installed, J and the second one would test if there are enough concurrent units for one more image activation.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:22:04 GMT ( From: "konabear" <maurert@ameritech.net># Subject: Re: Do you need F$LICENSE? A Message-ID: <wsQRb.34586$P%1.27367919@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>   ( Hum, not having had the option before...  H I can see direct application to have a script to verify a set of PAKs is' licensed on the box.  A reactive alert.   H Add a second parameter to the lexical to test the license as of a future? date and now there'd be a proactive test for expiring licenses.    Todd  ; "Guy Peleg" <guy.peleg@remove_this_hp.com> wrote in message $ news:4017c388@usenet01.boi.hp.com...	 > Hi All,  > J > For my own needs I have implemented a new lexical function F$LICENSE. It	 > returns J > True if a product is authorized to run on this node and false if it does > not. >  > Here is a small example: > 4 > IPL31> write sys$output f$license("openvms-alpha") > TRUE > E > I need your feedback - will you find use for this lexical function?  > : > If the response is positive, I will make sure it will be > documented/supported.  >  > Thank you for your feedback. >  > Guy  >  >  >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:43:41 -0800 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> # Subject: RE: Do you need F$LICENSE? 9 Message-ID: <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIMEKGCLAA.tom@kednos.com>   4 I probably would not use it, but I would like to see= sys$grant_license return the expiration date in the structure  array.     -----Original Message-----/   From: konabear [mailto:maurert@ameritech.net] +   Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 7:22 AM    To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com %   Subject: Re: Do you need F$LICENSE?     *   Hum, not having had the option before...  J   I can see direct application to have a script to verify a set of PAKs is)   licensed on the box.  A reactive alert.   J   Add a second parameter to the lexical to test the license as of a futureA   date and now there'd be a proactive test for expiring licenses.      Todd  =   "Guy Peleg" <guy.peleg@remove_this_hp.com> wrote in message &   news:4017c388@usenet01.boi.hp.com...   > Hi All,    > L   > For my own needs I have implemented a new lexical function F$LICENSE. It   > returns L   > True if a product is authorized to run on this node and false if it does   > not.   >    > Here is a small example:   > 6   > IPL31> write sys$output f$license("openvms-alpha")   > TRUE   > G   > I need your feedback - will you find use for this lexical function?    > <   > If the response is positive, I will make sure it will be   > documented/supported.    >     > Thank you for your feedback.   >    > Guy    >    >    >    >        --- (   Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.<   Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).A   Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 1/8/2004    --- & Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).? Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 1/8/2004    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:54:30 +0200 0 From: "Guy Peleg" <guy.peleg@remove_this_hp.com># Subject: Re: Do you need F$LICENSE? * Message-ID: <4017e9f6@usenet01.boi.hp.com>  % Thank you for your valuable feedback.   4 I will probably incorporate most of it in F$LICENSE.   Guy ; "Guy Peleg" <guy.peleg@remove_this_hp.com> wrote in message $ news:4017c388@usenet01.boi.hp.com...	 > Hi All,  > J > For my own needs I have implemented a new lexical function F$LICENSE. It	 > returns J > True if a product is authorized to run on this node and false if it does > not. >  > Here is a small example: > 4 > IPL31> write sys$output f$license("openvms-alpha") > TRUE > E > I need your feedback - will you find use for this lexical function?  > : > If the response is positive, I will make sure it will be > documented/supported.  >  > Thank you for your feedback. >  > Guy  >  >  >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:53:57 +0200 0 From: "Guy Peleg" <guy.peleg@remove_this_hp.com># Subject: Re: Do you need F$LICENSE? * Message-ID: <4017e9ce@usenet01.boi.hp.com>  ) Thank you all for your valuable feedback.   4 I'll probably incorporate most of it into F$LICENSE.   Guy ; "Guy Peleg" <guy.peleg@remove_this_hp.com> wrote in message $ news:4017c388@usenet01.boi.hp.com...	 > Hi All,  > J > For my own needs I have implemented a new lexical function F$LICENSE. It	 > returns J > True if a product is authorized to run on this node and false if it does > not. >  > Here is a small example: > 4 > IPL31> write sys$output f$license("openvms-alpha") > TRUE > E > I need your feedback - will you find use for this lexical function?  > : > If the response is positive, I will make sure it will be > documented/supported.  >  > Thank you for your feedback. >  > Guy  >  >  >  >    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 11:52:57 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) # Subject: Re: Do you need F$LICENSE? 3 Message-ID: <xrKLpJRgh89O@eisner.encompasserve.org>   ] In article <4017c388@usenet01.boi.hp.com>, "Guy Peleg" <guy.peleg@remove_this_hp.com> writes: 	 > Hi All,  > J > For my own needs I have implemented a new lexical function F$LICENSE. It	 > returns J > True if a product is authorized to run on this node and false if it does > not. >  > Here is a small example: > 4 > IPL31> write sys$output f$license("openvms-alpha") > TRUE > E > I need your feedback - will you find use for this lexical function?  > : > If the response is positive, I will make sure it will be > documented/supported.  >  > Thank you for your feedback.  * How do you release the license when done ?  G If it is not to be used for that purpose, but only for checking whether I to start a program to which the license will be granted, I see a problem. F There is a race condition between checking the license in DCL and whenE the Licence Grant request is made.  In the meantime someone could use 4 up the last of the available units for that license.  E In other words, having such a lexical function would assist people in E writing DCL which would fail only during times of highest contention.    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 04:54:02 -08001 From: matthew.finbow@btinternet.com (Matt Finbow) E Subject: Re: Flashing lights on my disk drives on an Alphaserver ES40 = Message-ID: <ec25d2bf.0401280454.449e1545@posting.google.com>   i rcbryan@hotmail.com (RC Bryan) wrote in message news:<fbcf38dc.0401271228.44398a76@posting.google.com>... J > > > on the front.  When it came up again, it could not read from any DKAJ > > > devices and the lights on my disk drives were all flashing together. > >  > > Try first !  > >  > > >>> SHOW DEVICE  > > A One thing to check for might be where are the disks plugged into?   F The fact that the lights are all 'flashing together' seems to indicateC a RAID controller - check to see where the disks actually go to and 9 then check that the controller is seen by the SRM console   . i.e. show config should return something like 3 'Bus nn Slot nn:CPQ SmartArray 5300   pyan.n.n.n.n' F or whatever the controller is - even if it is not a RAID controller itE should be listed in SRM e.g. a PKxn device. If the system can't see a 2 controller then it won't see disks the other side.  @ If it is a 5300, check the installation manual to see if the SRM> variables have changed - i.e. the HEAP_EXPAND and the BOOTBIOS  F If the RAID controller is seen by SRM, go into the RAID config utility? and check that (a.) your physical drives are seen and (b.) your   logical drives are still defined  D At a wild guess, if you had a RAID 0 stripe set across all the disksB and one failed I would imagine that the logical drive would not be> available - but I don't know whether it would flash the lights  ? try posting the 'show device' and 'show config' output for more D detailed help, also get a look at the drive controller (physically).  E Also note that if you have embedded SCSI adaptors on the system board E AND a RAID card, it might be normal to have no devices showing on the F internal SCSI bus(es), so if the RAID card disappears then there wouldD be 'unused' controllers - make sure you follow the disk cables back!  D Disclaimer: I don't have an ES40, the only OpenVMS RAID controller IF have is a KZPAC running unsupported 36Gb disks and the above is only aA gut feeling. (Although PC RAID controllers do tend to flash drive E lights to indicate groups / problems), on the otherhand I did do some E reading up on the SA5300A to see if I could use a secondhand Proliant  (PC) version in a DS10   Matt.  > D > The way I know it does not see any DKA devices is because I did a  >  > >>> show device  > E > I was kind of baffled by the results since it listed a SCSI bus.  I G > had to go to another system and compare the results to see that I was D > supposed to see the disks.  I expect this is one of those problemsA > that will go away as soon as I take everything apart and put it H > together again.  If it was my PC, I would have had it in pieces a longF > time ago.  Since it is a 4 processor ES40 alphaserver, I think I may  > just wait for a tech from HPQ. > D > The way all the lights are flashing together tells me something, I? > just don't know what.  I need a magic decoder ring/book/CD or  > something.   > 	 > Thanks,  > /RC Bryan    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:32:51 +0100  From: <me@home.net>  Subject: ftp server error & Message-ID: <40177f64$1@news.euriware>   Hello,  G When I try to execute tcpip$ftp_startup.com, I get the folowing message   E INTERnet ACP AUXs error during process exit Status= TCPIP-E-FTP_EXQUO   H Could not find any solution (help/mess doesn't help with this version of TCPIP)  I In the tcpip$ftp logs dir I have the same message in the log files of the  ftp connection   Any idea ???  
 OpenVMS 7.3-2  TCPIP 5.4-15 AlphaServer DS20   ------------------------------  + Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:18:43 -0600 (CST)  From: sms@antinode.org Subject: ftp server error ) Message-ID: <04012803184350@antinode.org>    From: <me@home.net>   I > When I try to execute tcpip$ftp_startup.com, I get the folowing message G > INTERnet ACP AUXs error during process exit Status= TCPIP-E-FTP_EXQUO   J > Could not find any solution (help/mess doesn't help with this version of > TCPIP) > [...]  > OpenVMS 7.3-2  > TCPIP 5.4-15 > AlphaServer DS20   alp $ help /mess FTP_EXQUO  8  FTP_EXQUOT,  exceeded session quota; connection refused  !   Facility:     TCPIP, FTP Server   M   Explanation:  The maximum number of sessions has been exceeded. You can set M                 the maximum number of FTP sessions by editing the appropriate I                 parameter in the SYS$MANAGER:UCX$FTPD_STARTUP.COM command                  procedure.  2   User Action:  Wait for a session to become free.    ?    The file name has changed since the days of UCX, and I don't ) immediately see any sessions parameter in H SYS$MANAGER:TCPIP$FTP_STARTUP.COM, but perhaps "tcpip show service /fullH ftp" would be informative (and "tcpip set service /limit=n ftp" would be useful).   alp $ tcpip show version  ?   Compaq TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS Alpha Version V5.3 - ECO 2 4   on a AlphaStation 200 4/233 running OpenVMS V7.3-1  E    And speaking of which, as I approach the great switchover to a PWS D 500a, just because it's not supported hardware, is the following the best I should expect?    alp2 $ tcpip show version   ?   Compaq TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS Alpha Version V5.3 - ECO 2 ;   on a Digital Personal WorkStation  running OpenVMS V7.3-1 %                                    ==   < I think not.  I expected to see my "500a", supported or not.  - alp2 $ write sys$output f$getsyi( "hw_model")  1556   What does a real 500au say?   H ------------------------------------------------------------------------  4    Steven M. Schweda               (+1) 651-699-98183    382 South Warwick Street        sms@antinode-org     Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 01:36:43 -0800. From: fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br (Fabio Cardoso)1 Subject: Re: HP to adopt AMD's Opteron in servers = Message-ID: <f30679fb.0401280136.68c80877@posting.google.com>   \ JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnopt@istop.com> wrote in message news:<4016F0D0.DC16B4FE@istop.com>... > "Barry Treahy, Jr." wrote:E > > distribute and market, they'll quickly see themselves in the same L > > situation HP/Compaq claimed was the problem and reason for killing Alpha7 > > - too expensive, too little volume, and no profit!   > P > There is a big difference. For Digital, Alpha was like VMS/compiler engineers:J > A cost centre necessary to generate those oh-so-profitable sales. Alpha,M > VMS/compiler engineers were part of a bigger picture (systems). And the big   > picture was highly profitable.    5 You said for DEC, for HP ! And about the customers ?    C A great problem of IT companies nowadays is: there arent companies E commited to engineering/development anymore !  Just for stock options F values ! I would like to see a bright company like DEC was and HP was.G I think these big high tech companies are faded to the end if they dont : turn to engineering/development/research/ brilian minds ! A I remember when I was a child and the first VAX came to Brazil !  D I was noticed in TV etc...as a great and powerfull computer ! It was> more than 20 years ago and that name I will never forget: VAX.  E The problem of the companies boards are these guys with MBA and stock  options in their minds !           Regards    FC       P > For Intel, neither 8086 or IA64 are part of a bigger picture.  For intel, theyK > are the big picture. So each chip Intel sells must generate some profit.   > N > And since IA64 is poised to remain a low volume chip, its price will have toN > remain very high. The goal to lower the IA64 prices in 3 years is tantamountH > to admitting that Intel will have stopped spending big bucks on IA64'sN > development and will then be able to sell the leftovers at a low price untilB > they are severely outsped by competing chips (similar to Alpha). > N > Another option is that Intel will be betting a lot of money that by loweringJ > prices at some point in time, Intel might eventually be able to generateN > sufficient sales of IA64 to them make the unit price low enough to make thatK > chip competitive. But one wonders why Intel would wait 3 years to do this M > instead of doing it right away, especially since it would be very important O > for Intel to nip the AMD 64 bit 8086 in the bud. Wait 3 years, and the 64 bit Y > 8086 may have taken sufficent root that Intel will have no hope of making IA64 popular.    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:17:51 -0500 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>1 Subject: Re: HP to adopt AMD's Opteron in servers ) Message-ID: <40178C3D.6BC3E924@istop.com>    Fabio Cardoso wrote:G > The problem of the companies boards are these guys with MBA and stock  > options in their minds !  7 You forgot expensive hair dressers and private jets :-)    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:36:43 +0000 O From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>t1 Subject: Re: HP to adopt AMD's Opteron in serversm0 Message-ID: <bv86sb$j6j$2@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   David Mathog wrote:r$ > On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:29:38 -0700. > "Barry Treahy, Jr." <Treahy@MMaz.com> wrote: >  > B >>I certainly wouldn't want to be in HP's shoes with all of their G >>non-Windows OS's and layered products migrating to IA64, to just now nH >>receive the revelation that Intel could choose to kill off Itanium at  >>their whim, at any time! >   7 Want to bet how long it will take the Choir to start onr6 Opteron is the one true way if HP has to drop Itanium.  ! 2 days was all it took for Alpha.P  ! I would give it a week this time.e   Regardsp Andrew Harrisonn > e > Never mind HP's shoes, how about HP's enterprise customers?  None of the scenarios are at all rosy:  > y > 1.  Intel decides to stop losing gobs of money on Itanium and ceases development and production. HP's entire enterprise0A > line vaporizes and their customer base migrates to IBM and Sun.0 >  > 2.  Intel sells the Itanic back to HP.  It still makes no sense for HP to develop and sell an incredibly expensive niche processor.  HP triestB > to pass the cost on to the customers who then give up in disgust > and migrate to IBM and Sun.y > > 3.  Intel continues to make the Itanic and sells <10k/year to HP, its sole customer.  In order to amortize the cost the price per processor goes up to an obscene amount, HP tries to pass the cost along to the customers, who won't pay it, and move to IBM and Sun instead. >  > 4.  HP finally realizes it is riding a dead horse and commits to an emergency port of all enterprise OS's to Opterons.  Three years later as this port finally nears completion HP's last remaining enterprise customer completes the migration to IBM or Sun. >  > 5.  HP realizes that it has made a horrific, fatal error.  Carly shuts down production of all enterprise computers, sells the service organization, and uses the "savings" to give herself a hefty bonus.  All enterprise customers migrate to IBM or Sun. > A> Unlike HP, Intel can walk away from this with nothing worse than a (very) bloody nose.  Intel can, and will, produce their own x86 64bit chip, write off Itanic, and they're still in business.  HP, on the other hand, is going to be very hard pressed to keep their HPUX and VMS customers in the aftermath of this debacle.a > > Pity that terrible management decisions will go unpunished.  Capellas will not have to forfeit any of his past pay or bonuses, even though his decision to move to Itanic may very well prove to be one of the worst business decisions of all time.  Ditto for his HP contemporaries. > 
 > Regards, >  > David Mathog > mathog@caltech.edu@ > Manager, Sequence Analysis Facility, Biology Division, Caltech   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:48:54 -0500n* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>1 Subject: Re: HP to adopt AMD's Opteron in servers ) Message-ID: <4017AF83.115720E2@istop.com>u  ( Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote:9 > Want to bet how long it will take the Choir to start oni8 > Opteron is the one true way if HP has to drop Itanium.  F It isn't a given that HP will drop IA64. Its ego and investment in theS platform may force it to rescue it from Intel and continue with it as its own chip.r  K On the other hand, it is a given that when Intel announces its 64 bit 8086,KI that HP will will be one of the "launch customers" for that chip and willmJ agressively market 64 bit 8086s for midrange servers and everything below.L (essentially the wintel market).  AMD's chips will be used by HP in the sameL way that IBM uses IA64s. (to claim "me too" as well as maintain relationshipH with vendor). And Carly will make sure she get to be on stage when intel annouces the 64 bit 8086.r  L Intel isn't crazy. It knows  64 bits is coming to the 8086. And based on itsN recent announcements, it is to happen within 3 years. I think that HP may haveN negotiated for Intel to delay the 64 bit 8086 as much as possible to give HP aL face saving way out of IA64. Intel knows that its 32 bit 8086 still has someL wind in its sails and still has brand loyalty/momentum from vendors whose TVN ads are subsidized by Intel, so it can afford to lag behind AMD for some time.    M But intel also knows that the 64 bit revolution in the 8086 market is exactlyrJ what it will take to cause another big jump in sales (just as had happenedL when win 95 came out, and then for Y2K).  First version of a game that comesK out needing 64 bit 8086, and all the kids will blackmail their parents intooK ditching the old computer and buying a new 64 bit one.  It will be good foroE Intel, it will be good for HP/Dell and it will be good for Microsoft.k   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 07:33:04 -0800' From: icerq4a@spray.se (David Svensson)s1 Subject: Re: HP to adopt AMD's Opteron in serversh= Message-ID: <734da31c.0401280733.1d986a5b@posting.google.com>-   Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<bv86sb$j6j$2@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...1 > David Mathog wrote:t& > > On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:29:38 -07000 > > "Barry Treahy, Jr." <Treahy@MMaz.com> wrote: > >  > > D > >>I certainly wouldn't want to be in HP's shoes with all of their I > >>non-Windows OS's and layered products migrating to IA64, to just now  J > >>receive the revelation that Intel could choose to kill off Itanium at  > >>their whim, at any time! > >  > 9 > Want to bet how long it will take the Choir to start onp8 > Opteron is the one true way if HP has to drop Itanium. > # > 2 days was all it took for Alpha.  > # > I would give it a week this time.t > 	 > Regards' > Andrew Harrisonh > >   A I don't know what Choir you talk about. As far as I have seen andSC know, most VMS people and those who read here like Alpha a lot moreuA than Itanium. Most of those also know the strength of Opteron. It A isn't that odd that, since Itanium is the current future for VMS, D there are a few people who like to show what Itanium is not that bad as others like it to be.   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 07:32:50 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)B( Subject: Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!3 Message-ID: <b6wSuFqmvUjs@eisner.encompasserve.org>o  n In article <b096a4ee.0401270819.599ed618@posting.google.com>, spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman) writes: > ' > The mayor vandalized an airport? Huh?n  A    The mayor of Chicago closed Meigs Field and physically blocked =    the runway in the middle of the night in violation of FAA nC    regulations and past promises, while aircraft were still parked 6    on the field.  B    Somehow it was discovered there were no penalties in place thatE    applied to the mayor.  This despite the mayor being a Democrat andlJ    the federal administration being Republican.  The FAA has subsequently     updated the regulations.-  E    The FAA issued temporary permission for the airplanes still on thea4    field to depart by using the taxiway to take off.   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 07:37:58 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)d( Subject: Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!3 Message-ID: <$wUB1cecu$Ac@eisner.encompasserve.org>p  n In article <b096a4ee.0401271951.27a2339d@posting.google.com>, spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman) writes: > A > And I wonder what the NRA would say if some wacko were to shoott > Charleton Heston.e  I    I recall Charleton Heston sounding out a line something like "if only aF    there were one officer with a gun" after Columbine, then remaining H    amazingly quiet when it was published that there was one officer withG    a gun there at the time, and he tried to use it against the shootersi    to no effect.   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 06:14:45 -0800. From: spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman)( Subject: Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!= Message-ID: <b096a4ee.0401280614.567fe97b@posting.google.com>e  ~ "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net> wrote in message news:<40171956.26D4421B@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>... > "Alan E. Feldman" wrote: > > j > > young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) wrote in message news:<4JzpMrRbjo9c@eisner.encompasserve.org>...t > > > In article <b096a4ee.0401270819.599ed618@posting.google.com>, spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman) writes: > > > (DJD wrote:)I > > > >> Murder capital of the U.S. because guns have been outlawed here;nP > > > >> therefore, only outlaws have guns, and the outlaws know this and flaunt > > > >> it. > > 7 > > Additional comment!: Well, the cops have guns, too!o >  > Like I said: > * > > > >> therefore, only outlaws have guns   Maybe in Chicago!!!u   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 06:15:35 -0800. From: spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman)( Subject: Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!= Message-ID: <b096a4ee.0401280615.2193d065@posting.google.com>-  ~ "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net> wrote in message news:<401718DA.4D171563@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>... > "Alan E. Feldman" wrote: > >  > > "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net> wrote in message news:<4015B74C.3692AF11@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>...
 > > [snip]G > > > The mayor has blatantly defied the FAA and federal prosecutors byGM > > > not only vandalizing an airport, but then purloining the media to boastt? > > > of his crime and his "teflon shield" against prosecution.s > > ) > > The mayor vandalized an airport? Huh?- > 9 > Well publicized in the media nationwide. Google for it.   + Well, I think *THAT* might be your problem!:   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 06:19:46 -0800. From: spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman)( Subject: Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!= Message-ID: <b096a4ee.0401280619.3a905404@posting.google.com>e  k jordan@ccs4vms.com (Rich Jordan) wrote in message news:<cc5619f2.0401261610.66b12d82@posting.google.com>...a [...]u  nG > (PS to Chi-town afficionados... its the only huge city I've more thanaH > briefly visited; didn't like NYC on the one trip either, so don't take > it personally).y   When did you visit NYC?    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:25:11 -0600v/ From: Clay M. Denton <denton@orison.dsserv.com> ( Subject: Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!8 Message-ID: <o0rf10hhlt40edb6t0s11o2foq26lb0qls@4ax.com>  @ Currently, this is an Interex event - not an HP/Interex event...  E Encompass should have some announcements in the next couple of weeks.e   Clay DentonD  A On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:26:14 -0500, norm.raphael@metso.com wrote:5   >1L >This appears to be the hp/Interex-sponsored convention, albeit with OpenVMS	 >content.lF >What's happening with the hp/Encompass-sponsored technical symposium? >    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 09:53:50 -0800. From: spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman)( Subject: Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!= Message-ID: <b096a4ee.0401280953.35a5f698@posting.google.com>c  v koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote in message news:<b6wSuFqmvUjs@eisner.encompasserve.org>...p > In article <b096a4ee.0401270819.599ed618@posting.google.com>, spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman) writes: > > ) > > The mayor vandalized an airport? Huh?4 > C >    The mayor of Chicago closed Meigs Field and physically blocked ? >    the runway in the middle of the night in violation of FAA 9E >    regulations and past promises, while aircraft were still parked w >    on the field. > D >    Somehow it was discovered there were no penalties in place thatG >    applied to the mayor.  This despite the mayor being a Democrat andVL >    the federal administration being Republican.  The FAA has subsequently  >    updated the regulations.r > G >    The FAA issued temporary permission for the airplanes still on thet6 >    field to depart by using the taxiway to take off.  9 So there's no room for common sense when it comes to law.i   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:59:00 GMTs" From:   VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG( Subject: Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!0 Message-ID: <00A2C926.F8003E32@SendSpamHere.ORG>  n In article <b096a4ee.0401280953.35a5f698@posting.google.com>, spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman) writes: {...snip...}: >So there's no room for common sense when it comes to law.   Exactly! --B http://www.legacy-2000.com  for the *best* OpenVMS system securityC                             solutions that others only claim to be.e --  K VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COMe            a5   "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"     ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 10:17:13 -0800+ From: spamdump@mccready.com (Gary McCready)0( Subject: Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!= Message-ID: <ffd79a6c.0401281017.505e9849@posting.google.com>   u norm.raphael@metso.com wrote in message news:<OF8D7A1CB4.BC81F993-ON85256E27.005FB06C-85256E27.006019EF@metso.com>...mM > This appears to be the hp/Interex-sponsored convention, albeit with OpenVMS 
 > content.  A Not only that, but HP might not even be an "official sponsor", at  least not with content.    So,n - No encompass "content" - No Hp "content" % -An HPWorld without HP participating?s  D Might be the "trade show with mainly vendor-sponsored talks" type of show.e   Anybody know any different?    --Gary McCready-   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:51:31 -0500v* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>K Subject: Re: Intel to chip away at Itanium prices <- or ... I want my cheap-2 Message-ID: <TNGdnWhiCLt9xordRVn-sw@metrocast.net>  3 "Rick Jones" <foo@bar.baz.invalid> wrote in messagej- news:IuARb.13206$7B3.2690@news.cpqcorp.net...b   ...4  C > I do not concede that doing well at 32-CPUs a priori means that a"G > different system with four of those same CPUs will do well, so I willFE > not concede that a four-CPU POWER4+ system does indeed do "well" onh > TPC-C.  G Then please be specific about exactly how it might not do 'well' in theiI context of this discussion.  'Well' in this case is reasonably defined byCH the top 4-way server contenders in TPC-C:  the 4-way HP zx1-based ItanicB server, and the 4-way IBM Xeon server that's the next-best-scoring configuration.  H Assuming perfect scale-down from 32 processors, the POWER4+ 4-way serverI would displace the IBM Xeon server for second-place configuration honors.nG I'd suggest that qualifies as doing 'well', especially given the rathereK intense competition in the 4-way server space in TPC-C (though the doublingiD of per-processor L3 cache in such a scaled-down p690-style box wouldL presumably guarantee better-than-linear scale-down even if nothing else did,L decreasing the margin between the scaled-down p690 and HP's zx1-based ItanicL box if scaling were otherwise linear).  The only remaining question would beJ whether the p690's scaling is sufficiently non-linear that the scaled-downH version would actually *beat* HP's box, but that's a separate issue:  itL wouldn't have to beat it to do 'well', just beat the box currently in second place.  G If you believe that for some reason the p690 can scale *up* better than K linearly from 4 to 32 processors, please enlighten us as to how you believenL that could happen.  Otherwise, stop being silly:  the scaled-down p690 wouldL clearly perform well enough that it would give IBM nothing to be ashamed of,H and their only reason for not bothering to test it would be because theyJ gave their customers credit for being able to work this out for themselves7 (it really isn't a particularly subtle chain of logic).t  K It might, however, tend to suggest that the scaled-down p690 probably wouldtE not *beat* HP's 4-way Itanic box in TPC-C, since that result might bem# considered to be worth publicizing.i   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 02:47:59 -0500n* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>K Subject: Re: Intel to chip away at Itanium prices <- or ... I want my cheaps2 Message-ID: <UdSdnZQyJ5N99Ird4p2dnA@metrocast.net>  3 "Rick Jones" <foo@bar.baz.invalid> wrote in messagez- news:sUdRb.13088$rg2.7575@news.cpqcorp.net... + > Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote:7 >D7 > > "Rick Jones" <foo@bar.baz.invalid> wrote in messageh1 > > news:1IeQb.12933$Zm6.5178@news.cpqcorp.net...tE > >> So, then the issue isn't that the figures were obtained from the D > >> same compiler and chipset, but the volumes of that compiler and
 > >> chipset.  >d@ > > The actual issue is that the only Itanic configurations thatG > > generate really good SPECint performance numbers (HP-UX on HP's zx1nH > > chipset, SGI's platform using the new V8 compiler) aren't typical of2 > > the broader (such as it may be) Itanic market, >aG > Back-up a few steps there - I thought that one of your past arguments F > against Itanium was that HP systems were de fact the broader ItaniumH > market.  Certainly HP+SGI would seem to be the broader Itanium market.  L You seem a bit confused.  My reference above was to the fact that HP and SGIK constitute only a portion of the market (or one might say potential market, L given that no market yet actually exists that's really worth much of Intel'sL attention at all) for Itanic.  Unless Intel wishes to be a vassal of HP (andH possibly SGI), it must expect Itanic to be sold in significant volume byH other vendors (and by Intel itself, I suspect) - but since those vendorsH (and Intel) do not apparently have access to platforms whose performanceJ exceeds (or even matches) that of Xeon servers, that makes any phasing out of Xeon a problem.   >dE > > whereas the Xeon configurations that generate really good SPECintyF > > performance numbers pretty much span the Xeon market.  Hence IntelG > > (perhaps unlike HP, though HP still has the HP-UX-specific compilereH > > hurdle to clear) has a better Xeon performance story to tell to OEMs4 > > and customers than its Itanic performance story, > C > I don't particular care to bash Xeon here, I'm more interested ineH > exploring the validity of the agrument being used against Itanium, butF > how many of those good Xeon results have used anything other than an > Intel chipset and compiler?p  I It doesn't matter.  The point is that there is solid breadth of *vendors*-I selling these high-performing Xeon servers, while there's only one vendormH (HP) selling a similarly high-performance Itanic server (SGI has not yetG proved that its Itanic platforms satisfy the needs of commercial serveruG users - though they well might:  a few commercial benchmarks would helprE settle that question, and I'd expect SGI to submit them if it has any C interest in this space unless for some reason their results are notn
 competitive).:   ...   J > >> Given that there aren't any under 32-way POWER4+'s there.  However, IF > >> don't see where that means that HP is only looking at low-end forJ > >> Itanium - one, I'm not sure that 16-way consitutes "low-end" and two,- > >> the various Integrity Superdome figures.  >iH > > You mis-parsed my statement, which was that Itanic vendors have moreF > > interest in pushing Itanics in the low end than IBM has in pushingH > > POWER4+ in the low end - at least as indicated by TPC-C submissions.H > > It said nothing about Itanic vendors having more interest in pushingH > > Itanics in the low end than in pushing Itanics in the high end: thatF > > would be especially silly in the case of those Itanic vendors who,: > > unlike HP, have no platform optimized for the low end. >(H > So I can avoid confusion later, what do you consider a low-end system?" > Is it one with 4 CPUs? < 4 CPUs?  H I'd certainly consider anything with 4 CPUs or less to be low end in the context of this discussion.h  &   And are you sure you worded the last# > sentence there the way you meant?    Yes.  "   Up to now, you seem to have been? > more critical of the sx1000 chipsets (high-end) than the zx1.o  J And I remain so.  Not only does a 4-way sx1000 chipset significantly lag aH zx1 in performance (at least as best I remember), but the mechanisms forD gluing 4-way sx1000 modules together into larger systems do not seemL performance-competitive (especially in areas of scaling linearity) with moreG modern large-system architectures like Marvel's and IBM's (and possiblyDI newer SPARC's, though I've never looked at remote latency figures there).    >oF > > As Andrew just pointed out (and as I implied just above), they canE > > hardly have anything to hide unless by some magic the p690 scales D > > *super*-linearly up to 32 processors.  Pure linear scaling wouldH > > yield a TPC-C score of nearly 100K for a 4-processor POWER4+ system,G > > and that ignores the fact that it would have twice as much L3 cachefC > > per processor as the full-boat p690 (that cache may not be verysD > > fast, but it still counts for something) and zero off-MCM memory > > references >uB > Presumeably, IBM has no particular interest in seeing Itanium be= > successful yes?  Certainly, they have no interest in seeingnH > Hewlett-Packard be successful. Why then, if they were in a position toA > stick it to HP, by publishing a 4-CPU POWER4+ TPC-C result thatPB > exceeded HP's 4-CPU Itanium2 TPC-C result, would they not do it?  I I've just suggested elsewhere that they quite likely would.  And why theyvI pretty clearly have nothing to hide even if they wouldn't quite match the K zx1's score.  I implied this once, Andrew explained it explicitly, and then1J I did so again in the material just above (and yet again a few minutes ago@ in another post):  that's the extent of my patience, I'm afraid.   >rE > > (though unlike HP's Itanic systems, the POWER4+ systems take much H > > less of a hit going off-module, for some of the same on-chip support > > reasons that EV7 does).  >dF > Which HP Itanium systems? Those based on zx1 (since we are I thought: > talking about four-CPUs here), or those based on sx1000?  D If you have any zx1 systems that perform off-module accesses, I'd beG interested in having you describe them.  Try reading the discussion, in: context, again.i  
   What is thee' > main memory latency in a p655 anyway?   L Around 290 ns.local, around 315 worst-case remote, as best I can interpolateL from Gordon Haff's "Latency Matters!" 9/19/02 Illuminata Research Note.  TheK local figure agrees pretty well with a graph in your marvel_performance.pdfaK white paper from a year ago.  I think all those figures are for POWER4 (notnL the more recent POWER4+) p690s:  I went looking for more recent figures onceJ and came up with a possible 252 ns. local figure (or maybe 245 ns., unlessL I'm remembering the local figure for the sx1000), but I wasn't entirely sureL it was solid and I'm not going to try to dredge up the reference again right now.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 04:48:35 -0500n* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>K Subject: Re: Intel to chip away at Itanium prices <- or ... I want my cheapI) Message-ID: <40178569.6A96BAD0@istop.com>    Bill Todd wrote:J > other vendors (and by Intel itself, I suspect) - but since those vendorsJ > (and Intel) do not apparently have access to platforms whose performanceL > exceeds (or even matches) that of Xeon servers, that makes any phasing out > of Xeon a problem.  K But IA64 does have a niche that the 8086 cannot touch yet. That of the high L end systems (Superdome/Galaxy/Marvel). As well, until the 8086 has lockstep,H IA64 and Alpha EV7 and MIPS will remain the only viable ones for Tandem.  K There are many questions that remain unasnwered: why did Intel abandon IA64aI for the desktop a couple years ago ? And why is it waiting 3 years before6) lowering price of IA64 to be competitive.t  K Will it take Intel another 3 years to produce a version of IA64 that can be J considered competitive enough to dethrone the 8086 ? Heck, that would meanL that IA64 would be 10 years late in its true introduction to the real world.  N Or is this just buying some time by promising beatiful things about IA64 whichM will give time for intel to unleash its 64 bit 8086, after which IA64 will bet# moot even with competitive prices ?r  N Had Intel not said that IA64 wasn't going to be for desktop, it might have hadL a chance at making IA64 industry standard, especially if AMD and others wereI allowed to copy it. (multiple source is an important factor when defininga "industry standard").s  M But since that, all indications have shown that IA64 has failed and will faila to become industry standard.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:28:57 +0000 O From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>iK Subject: Re: Intel to chip away at Itanium prices <- or ... I want my cheapa0 Message-ID: <bv86dq$j6j$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Rick Jones wrote:pR > Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote: >  > A >>Ohh come on Rick its not as if TPC is remotely like a real OLTP D >>application. Read the justification for doing TPC-E if your really
 >>doubt this.s >  > F > I don't recall being the one to introduce TPC-C into the discussion. >   : I am not quite sure what your point is. You are responding2 to a discussion which is specifically about TPC-C.; While you may not have introduced TPC-C but you have been ae  party in the ensuing discussion. > B >>Its just a marketing tool, who do you think pays for the runs inB >>most companies want to bet if its engineering or somewhere a bit >>closer to sales/marketing. >  > D >>And since its just a marketing tool getting precious about how youE >>interpret the results and their applicability to real world apps as  >>also just too precious.  >  > E > Is TPC-C being just a marketing tool the reason you were willing to ) > make public estimates of TPC-C results?e >   < I am not sure that taking a number of X and dividing it by 8; to get throughput for 4 CPU's would be classified as makingu an estimate of a result.    B > I don't happen to believe the applicability of a benchmark has aF > bearing on the validity of methodology.  If for no other reason thanF > being fast and loose with one benchmark someone dismisses may end-up3 > encouraging one to be fast and loose with others.  >   = So you are arguing that no matter how bogus the benchmark you < would always attempt to preserve the reporting rules etc for that test. Interesting.l   > A >>Just give IBM their due they have got it to scale well on theirb@ >>platform and because of that they don't need to do the low end >>tests. >  > D > I will concede that many people will believe that because a 32-CPUG > p690 does well on TPC-C that they will also _believe_ that a four-CPUe/ > POWER4+ system would also do well on TPC-C.  o >   C > I do not concede that doing well at 32-CPUs a priori means that aiG > different system with four of those same CPUs will do well, so I willeE > not concede that a four-CPU POWER4+ system does indeed do "well" ona > TPC-C. >   > As I said earlier TPC-C has been degraded to something that is> basically a marketing tool. When TPC-C TPM numbers were in the= 50K mark the authors of the TPC-E spec had serious misgivings B about TPC-C's applicability as a test to determine the performance of large OLTP systems.  @ The cluster in a box shenanigans and shared nothing configs have= done nothing to enhance the reputation of what people alreadyo) thought was a seriously flawed benchmark.X   Regardso Andrew Harrisons   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 07:20:41 -0600+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)SK Subject: Re: Intel to chip away at Itanium prices <- or ... I want my cheapo3 Message-ID: <Mt8+C103MNbx@eisner.encompasserve.org>S  V In article <40178569.6A96BAD0@istop.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes: > Bill Todd wrote:K >> other vendors (and by Intel itself, I suspect) - but since those vendorsaK >> (and Intel) do not apparently have access to platforms whose performancecM >> exceeds (or even matches) that of Xeon servers, that makes any phasing outa >> of Xeon a problem.e > M > But IA64 does have a niche that the 8086 cannot touch yet. That of the high:N > end systems (Superdome/Galaxy/Marvel). As well, until the 8086 has lockstep,J > IA64 and Alpha EV7 and MIPS will remain the only viable ones for Tandem. >    	Re: HT versus EV7  j http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&PostNum=1991&Thread=82&entryID=26280&roomID=11  + Swede (hendriks@spray.se) on 1/20/04 wrote:h --------------------------- N >What is the difference between the EV6, EV7 and HT really? Bus protocols ie.. > 8 A LOT. I believe that is about all I can say about that. Aaron SpinkO speaking for myself inc.    > 	There are other issues too.  HyperTransport is an EV7 networkA 	knock-off.  Simply won't scale like EV7 and you can be sure thatt( 	those patents will be jealousy guarded.  ; 	Itanium will be priced at Xeon prices, that is a fact thate@ 	Fister promises.  For years predictions that mainframes will beB 	killed off and yet they linger.  I believe that Itanium will passA 	mainframes on the performance curve and be far cheaper.  If that-6 	doesn't drive a stake in the mainframe, nothing will.  M > There are many questions that remain unasnwered: why did Intel abandon IA64rK > for the desktop a couple years ago ? And why is it waiting 3 years before-+ > lowering price of IA64 to be competitive.g  ? 	Much discussion around this.  I recall reading IA64 wasn't forn
 	the desktop.C   > M > Will it take Intel another 3 years to produce a version of IA64 that can belL > considered competitive enough to dethrone the 8086 ? Heck, that would meanN > that IA64 would be 10 years late in its true introduction to the real world. >   B 	It won't take that long.  The follow-on to Madison with dual-coreA 	will be high performing.  It does appear that it will be 3 yearshF 	until IA64 changes the industry (i.e. high performance at Xeon cost - 	from 1 CPU to 128 CPUs).)  P > Or is this just buying some time by promising beatiful things about IA64 whichO > will give time for intel to unleash its 64 bit 8086, after which IA64 will bee% > moot even with competitive prices ?/  A 	Stretching.  See Fister's statements on where Itanium prices are ! 	headed - down to the Xeon level.s   > P > Had Intel not said that IA64 wasn't going to be for desktop, it might have hadN > a chance at making IA64 industry standard, especially if AMD and others wereK > allowed to copy it. (multiple source is an important factor when defininga > "industry standard").u > O > But since that, all indications have shown that IA64 has failed and will failr > to become industry standard.  G 	If Dell does an about face on Itanium, I'd be concerned.  If MicrosoftdE 	stops Win64 development for IA64, I'd be concerned.  You're going torF 	see more Itanium servers shipping.  IBM is announcing a 4-way Itanium 	in February for example.i   				Rob    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:24:20 +0000oO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> K Subject: Re: Intel to chip away at Itanium prices <- or ... I want my cheape0 Message-ID: <bv8d64$ljk$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   JF Mezei wrote:u > Bill Todd wrote: > J >>other vendors (and by Intel itself, I suspect) - but since those vendorsJ >>(and Intel) do not apparently have access to platforms whose performanceL >>exceeds (or even matches) that of Xeon servers, that makes any phasing out >>of Xeon a problem. >  > M > But IA64 does have a niche that the 8086 cannot touch yet. That of the highlN > end systems (Superdome/Galaxy/Marvel). As well, until the 8086 has lockstep,J > IA64 and Alpha EV7 and MIPS will remain the only viable ones for Tandem. >   ? IBM don't seem to agree with this analysis, they have chosen tot? use x86 processors for their next generation 64 way Intel based- SMP server.-  M > There are many questions that remain unasnwered: why did Intel abandon IA64@K > for the desktop a couple years ago ? And why is it waiting 3 years before4+ > lowering price of IA64 to be competitive.  >   B The reasons for abandoning IA64 on the desktop are pretty obvious.  8 1.	Its too hot, some of the professional Computer gaming9 	people may be happy to lug an external cooler arround to-6 	cope with the overclocked CPu they are using but most 	desktop users arn't.   : 2.	Its too expensive, you need to be able to produce a ~1K5 	or less desktop and you cannot do that with Itanium.   < 3.	Its not integrated enough. It has onchip cache but cannot4 	hope to compete price wise with Opteron/SPARC which4 	have that plus memory controlers and interconnects.  > 4.	It has a vanishingly tiny software portfolio and a terrible7 	x86 emulation story (even when HP introduce the fastern6 	x86 support). While it may be possible to control the: 	software stack on a server it becomes much more difficult< 	on the desktop and any Itanium based system is always going< 	to be suffering from the it doesn't run on Itanium problem.  ; 5.	The mid term solution to the heat/cost issue (dearfield)e6 	sacrifices performance to reduce heat and cost making: 	Itanium even less competitive compared with x86 or x86-64 	based systems.   A 6.	Corporate desktops are a huge support hole, having to maintaine< 	an entirely separate application tree for Itanium is likely; 	to disuade many corporates from moving, x86-64 for example0 	does not have this issue.  ? Given the facts of life with respect to Itanium Intels strategye is not suprising.p  A This is of course not what people were led to expect when Itaniumo@ was announced but then Itanium itself isn't what people were led? to expect when it was first announced and that gap between hypet0 and reality is a major reason for Intels stance.   Regardsr Andrew Harrison M > Will it take Intel another 3 years to produce a version of IA64 that can be L > considered competitive enough to dethrone the 8086 ? Heck, that would meanN > that IA64 would be 10 years late in its true introduction to the real world. > P > Or is this just buying some time by promising beatiful things about IA64 whichO > will give time for intel to unleash its 64 bit 8086, after which IA64 will beP% > moot even with competitive prices ?f > P > Had Intel not said that IA64 wasn't going to be for desktop, it might have hadN > a chance at making IA64 industry standard, especially if AMD and others wereK > allowed to copy it. (multiple source is an important factor when definingf > "industry standard").s > O > But since that, all indications have shown that IA64 has failed and will failw > to become industry standard.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:45:54 GMTt" From: Robert Klute <news@klute.us>K Subject: Re: Intel to chip away at Itanium prices <- or ... I want my cheapi8 Message-ID: <20pf10hevsh1abai7pbrm0gumkpo392v97@4ax.com>  E On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:24:20 +0000, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancyi. <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:    C >The reasons for abandoning IA64 on the desktop are pretty obvious.a >,9 >1.	Its too hot, some of the professional Computer gaminge: >	people may be happy to lug an external cooler arround to7 >	cope with the overclocked CPu they are using but most  >	desktop users arn't.  E My zx2000 didn't come with an external cooler.  Do I need to complainv that I didn't get one?  ; >2.	Its too expensive, you need to be able to produce a ~1Kr6 >	or less desktop and you cannot do that with Itanium.  E Why?  Every IA-32 workstation I have priced out costs a lot more thaniE $1k, once you configure more than the barebones teaser configuration.t  = >3.	Its not integrated enough. It has onchip cache but cannot 5 >	hope to compete price wise with Opteron/SPARC which 5 >	have that plus memory controlers and interconnects.l >e? >4.	It has a vanishingly tiny software portfolio and a terriblel8 >	x86 emulation story (even when HP introduce the faster7 >	x86 support). While it may be possible to control thel; >	software stack on a server it becomes much more difficultm= >	on the desktop and any Itanium based system is always goinga= >	to be suffering from the it doesn't run on Itanium problem.t  G I guess that is Intel's curse with Itanium - it is continually compared0< to IA-32 when it was designed to compete with non IA-32 RISC@ architectures.  SPARC doesn't run x86 code and no seems to care.  < >5.	The mid term solution to the heat/cost issue (dearfield)7 >	sacrifices performance to reduce heat and cost making ; >	Itanium even less competitive compared with x86 or x86-64t >	based systems. > B >6.	Corporate desktops are a huge support hole, having to maintain= >	an entirely separate application tree for Itanium is likelyt< >	to disuade many corporates from moving, x86-64 for example >	does not have this issue.u >a >>  Q >> Had Intel not said that IA64 wasn't going to be for desktop, it might have hadmO >> a chance at making IA64 industry standard, especially if AMD and others were L >> allowed to copy it. (multiple source is an important factor when defining >> "industry standard").  H Intel has a history of saying that their new chip is for servers and notG the desktop.  I remember they did that when the 80286 came out and thenn again when the 80386 came out.   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 05:04:37 -0800' From: avs@nikom.tagil.ru (Andrey Savin)U Subject: Locale question.H= Message-ID: <96faaf36.0401280504.541cd8df@posting.google.com>@  , How to set locale supported by Xlib on VMS ? I have:n $locale show public2 ....= [SYS$I18N.LOCALES.SYSTEM]RU_RU_ISO8859-5 (Permanently Loaded)  .... $locale show LANG=RU_RU_ISO8859-5 LC_CTYPE="RU_RU_ISO8859-5" LC_COLLATE="RU_RU_ISO8859-5" LC_TIME="RU_RU_ISO8859-5"o LC_NUMERIC="RU_RU_ISO8859-5" LC_MONETARY="RU_RU_ISO8859-5"o LC_MESSAGES="RU_RU_ISO8859-5"a LC_ALL=RU_RU_ISO8859-5  Q But XSupportsLocale() returned FALSE and decw$notepad not perceiving key symbols.e What I must do ?   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 06:40:41 -0800* From: Anders.Wallin@om.com (Anders Wallin)2 Subject: MMS /From_Source triggers .DEFAULT action= Message-ID: <79de16e3.0401280640.68571d85@posting.google.com>    Hello,  C I am using MMS to compile and link a large number of C/CXX programsmF and files. Somtimes one or more H-files are missing. In order to avoidF MMS to abort I use the .DEFAULT action to report missing sources. This works fine.o  @ However when I force a rebuild with MMS/From_Sources the defaultD action is invoked for every single file in my MMS descriptions. This can produce huge listings.  @ Is there a way to avoid MMS/From_Sources to trigger the .DEFAULT action?-   VMS version V7.2, 7.2-1, 7.3% MMS version V3.4-3 and older versions0    B I use the current work-around but am looking for something better:  ) -----------------------------------------  .DEFAULT : n     @ IF ("/From_Sources" .NES. -<      "$(FINDSTRING /From_Sources, $(MMSQUALIFIERS))") THEN -D      write sys$output "Missing file or action, target=$(MMS$TARGET)"* ------------------------------------------   Regards.
 Anders Wallini   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 07:56:14 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)t& Subject: Re: Mozilla on Alpha question3 Message-ID: <06TlI0I8vr30@eisner.encompasserve.org>t  S In article <4016c0a0_4@news1.prserv.net>, "Russ Dittmer" <russ@dittmer.com> writes:eL > I have tried everything recommended, with no discernable positive results.I > Anyone know if there is a 'debug' function to see where , possibly, thes( > process is failing to properly invoke? > RD  @    Did you try turning on image level accounting?  The exit code&    may tell you what you need to know.  B    Then be sure to turn it off before it eats all your disk space.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:44:20 +0000hO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>m" Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers0 Message-ID: <bv87ak$jhp$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Tom Linden wrote:y >  >   -----Original Message-----I >   From: Rick Jones [mailto:raj@tardy.cup.hp.com]On Behalf Of Rick Jonest+ >   Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 1:02 PM- >   To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com & >   Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers >    >   & >   Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy 2 >   <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:J >   > The HP compilers are running big endian, I don't know what the IntelG >   > Compiler does but I think the SGI historically are little-endian.a >   ? >   The Intel compiler on IPF operates on Linux, which boots innI >   little-endian mode. My recollection of SGI history is that MIPS was am >   big-endian processor.a >   C MIPS was Bi-endian. However I was mistaken IRIX/MIPS was big endiano ULTRIX/MIPS was little endian.  H > I may be wrong here, but I think ALL processors other than Digital and! > Microsoft have been big Endian.o >   ; I am not sure that Microsoft would count as a CPU supplier.   6 MIPS is bi-endian with both little and big endian OS's5 SPARC is bi-endian with big endian OS's (this may note apply to Linux on SPARC)3 Power is bi-endian with big endian OS's (except the- defunct NT port).J0 IPF is bi-endian with big and little endian OS's, x86 is little endian with little endian OS's* I assume that AMD64 is also little endian.   Regardsd Andrew Harrisone >   rick jones >   -- eK >   oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag1J >   these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)E >   feel free to post, OR email to raj in cup.hp.com  but NOT BOTH...  >    >   ---3* >   Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.> >   Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).C >   Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 1/8/2004i >    > ---t( > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.< > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).A > Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 1/8/2004. >    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:22:24 +0000-- From: John Laird <nospam@laird-towers.org.uk>6" Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers8 Message-ID: <tkdf10d2ba7pa8btmetqomu67e95ckfnp6@4ax.com>  E On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:44:20 +0000, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancyd. <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:   >SPARC is bi-endian.  D It is now.  Have you thought of asking Alastair Campbell for a job ?  # Alpha was bi-endian from the start.e   --  4 If you can't laugh at yourself, I'll do it for you!    Mail john rather than nospam...)   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 07:49:01 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)e" Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers3 Message-ID: <DE7IBQqVftGf@eisner.encompasserve.org>l  \ In article <alARb.13204$7B3.5647@news.cpqcorp.net>, Rick Jones <foo@bar.baz.invalid> writes: > = > The Intel compiler on IPF operates on Linux, which boots inlG > little-endian mode. My recollection of SGI history is that MIPS was ar > big-endian processor.   E    MIPS is bi-endian.  DEC used it little-endian for ULTRIX, made thehC    part from VAX easier.  SGI uses it big-endian.  IIRC there was ae3    short lived WNT port that used it little-endian.-   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 07:53:16 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)!" Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers3 Message-ID: <0DJDfbsYfIFZ@eisner.encompasserve.org>.   In article <bv87ak$jhp$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes:  5 > Power is bi-endian with big endian OS's (except theE > defunct NT port).   6    I thought IBM had OS/2 on PowerPC in little-endian.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:49:24 -0800n# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>l" Subject: RE: OpenVMS I64 Compilers9 Message-ID: <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIOEKACLAA.tom@kednos.com>      -----Original Message-----D   From: Bob Koehler [mailto:koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org]+   Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 5:49 AMm   To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Coma$   Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers      A   In article <alARb.13204$7B3.5647@news.cpqcorp.net>, Rick Jones e   <foo@bar.baz.invalid> writes:r   > ?   > The Intel compiler on IPF operates on Linux, which boots in I   > little-endian mode. My recollection of SGI history is that MIPS was a-   > big-endian processor.    G      MIPS is bi-endian.  DEC used it little-endian for ULTRIX, made thejE      part from VAX easier.  SGI uses it big-endian.  IIRC there was an5      short lived WNT port that used it little-endian.6  A Yes, that is where HAL was invented as part of the ACE consortiume0 http://www.mackido.com/History/HistoryOfAce.html      ---t(   Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.<   Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).A   Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 1/8/2004-    ---n& Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).? Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 1/8/2004-   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 07:52:10 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)!" Subject: RE: OpenVMS I64 Compilers3 Message-ID: <h$fXNoPsRmRu@eisner.encompasserve.org>m  _ In article <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIOEJCCLAA.tom@kednos.com>, "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> writes:  > H > I may be wrong here, but I think ALL processors other than Digital and! > Microsoft have been big Endian.   ?    Microsoft doesn't make processors.  I assume you mean Intel.t  @    In any case, almost all RISC processors are bi-endian (Alpha,A    PA-RISC, PowerPC, MIPS, others less well known).  The only oneyH    I can think of that I'm not sure of is SPARC.  And AMD's Intel clones/    are little-endian, just like the real thing.-   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:10:46 +0000eO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>m" Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers0 Message-ID: <bv8ft6$mlt$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   John Laird wrote: G > On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:44:20 +0000, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancyo0 > <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote: >  >  >>SPARC is bi-endian >  > F > It is now.  Have you thought of asking Alastair Campbell for a job ? >   = That is what I said SPARC IS bi-endian. Bi-Endian support wase= introduced with the Utra I. I don't want to appear to be rudei: but what on earth has Alastair Campbell got to do with the	 subject ?d  % > Alpha was bi-endian from the start.T >   6 Does it matter ? I didn't realise that this had become0 an Alpha pissing competition. How sad if it has.  4 The Tru64/NT and OpenVMS are little endian on Alpha.   Solaris is big-endian on SPARC.   4 So both Sun and Digital have introduced a capability2 to their processors that doesn't appear to be used! but Digital did it first. Happy ?      Regardst Andrew Harrisony   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:09:26 +0000sO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>c" Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers0 Message-ID: <bv8jb6$nse$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Bob Koehler wrote: > In article <bv87ak$jhp$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: >  > 5 >>Power is bi-endian with big endian OS's (except thex >>defunct NT port).t >  > 8 >    I thought IBM had OS/2 on PowerPC in little-endian. > 7 OS/2 Warp Connect for Power PC it was available brieflyo4 and could now like NT for PPC be said to be defunct.   regardso Andrew Harrisonl   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:33:51 +0000o- From: John Laird <nospam@laird-towers.org.uk>a" Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers8 Message-ID: <7jof10d3fllrji8fuhta9rmbet5fa9755r@4ax.com>  E On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:10:46 +0000, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancys. <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:   >John Laird wrote:H >> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:44:20 +0000, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy1 >> <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:o >>   >>>SPARC is bi-endianx >> PG >> It is now.  Have you thought of asking Alastair Campbell for a job ?    I see spin everywhere ;-)-  > >That is what I said SPARC IS bi-endian. Bi-Endian support was> >introduced with the Utra I. I don't want to appear to be rude; >but what on earth has Alastair Campbell got to do with theS
 >subject ? >2& >> Alpha was bi-endian from the start. >.7 >Does it matter ? I didn't realise that this had become@1 >an Alpha pissing competition. How sad if it has.s  < Curious omission from a list in a VMS newsgroup, that's all.  5 >The Tru64/NT and OpenVMS are little endian on Alpha.n >.  >Solaris is big-endian on SPARC. >t5 >So both Sun and Digital have introduced a capabilityr3 >to their processors that doesn't appear to be used " >but Digital did it first. Happy ?  - Lighten up.  And Cray used big-endian Alphas.    -- a& The buck doesn't even slow down here!    Mail john rather than nospam...,   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:26:00 +0000eO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> " Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers0 Message-ID: <bv8urp$skv$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   John Laird wrote: G > On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:10:46 +0000, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy 0 > <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote: >  >  >>John Laird wrote:o >>H >>>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:44:20 +0000, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy1 >>><Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:y >>>  >>>  >>>>SPARC is bi-endian >>> G >>>It is now.  Have you thought of asking Alastair Campbell for a job ?, >  >  > I see spin everywhere ;-)s  / > Lighten up.  And Cray used big-endian Alphas.t >   . Had you included a smiley first time around at- the end of the Alistair Campbell piece then Io" might have reacted differently :-)   Regardso Andrew Harrisonh   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 07:47:47 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)fJ Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers (was: Re: Intel to chip away at Itanium3 Message-ID: <OeHPfjz9ob$P@eisner.encompasserve.org>m   In article <bv67kp$skp$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes:  7 > The HP compilers are running big endian, I don't know ? > what the Intel Compiler does but I think the SGI historicallye > are little-endian.  B    SGI for the past decade or so has been using MIPS in big-endian    mode.   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 02:16:01 -0800. From: fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br (Fabio Cardoso)C Subject: Oracle RDB  SQL Services 7.1.5.8 and SQLNET4RDB identifierl= Message-ID: <f30679fb.0401280216.1df4e033@posting.google.com>t  > Recently I upgraded my Oracle RDB SQL Services from 7.1.5.7 to: 7.1.5.8 because of a error described in the Release Notes   1 "4.10.3 Connections to SQL*Net for Rdb Would Hang N Connections to SQL*Net for Rdb from Oracle version 8.1.7 would sometimes hang.! This problem has been corrected."p  > and what surprise : it changed the SQLNET4RDB identifier valueB from %X80010040 to %X8001000D. So I gained some privilege problems accessing RDB through OCI.  @ Of course after 4 hours of research, I recreated the RDB_NATCONN) accounts and I checked the Documentation:S     SQL> att 'f database_db;) SQL> show prote on database rdb$dbhandle;t  Protection on Alias RDB$DBHANDLEP     (IDENTIFIER=SQLNET4RDB,ACCESS=SELECT+INSERT+UPDATE+DELETE+SHOW+CREATE+ALTER+6       DROP+DBCTRL+OPERATOR+DBADM+SECURITY+DISTRIBTRAN) (...)i    ( Instead of SQLNET4RDB it was %X80010040.  4 So I modified the value and returned to work fine !   . mc authorize mod/ide sqlnet4rdb/val=id=%x10040   What mess !     ? Oracle Rdb OCI Server Release 7.1.5.8.1 - Production, Level 1.7f- Oracle Rdb SQL Release 7.0.6.4.0 - Productiona   Regardsi   FC   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 06:30:00 -0500U1 From: Dieter Montanez <dieter@plantcomputers.com>r Subject: PATHWORKS questiono8 Message-ID: <KYMRb.8225$nI4.6588@bignews2.bellsouth.net>   Hello,  < I need to connect a PC Running Windows XP to a VAX  4000/300= running VMS 5.xx. There is no PATHWORKS installed on the VAX.i= I would likte the PC to be able to run the DECNET protocol toa? connect to the VAX and be able to start a DOS based applicationt, on the PC that will comunicate with the VAX.  8 I've seen "client only" versions of PATHWORKS 32 7.x for5 +/- $ 200.00. Will those version help me doing that ?o   regardsi   Dieter   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 06:53:00 -0800& From: twnews@kittles.com (Thomas Wirt) Subject: Re: PATHWORKS questioni< Message-ID: <b3531425.0401280653.12796ac@posting.google.com>  A You have the right idea.  Pathworks 32, which is the client piecesC includes DECNET for your Windows PC.  You can use this DECNET to dosC process to process communications from one computer to another just0D like you are describing.  I have never used this feature, but I have heard that it works well.u  
 Good Luck,   Thomas Wirto Systems Managert Kittle's Home Furnishingse Indianapolis, IN  q Dieter Montanez <dieter@plantcomputers.com> wrote in message news:<KYMRb.8225$nI4.6588@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...i > Hello, > > > I need to connect a PC Running Windows XP to a VAX  4000/300? > running VMS 5.xx. There is no PATHWORKS installed on the VAX.y? > I would likte the PC to be able to run the DECNET protocol toOA > connect to the VAX and be able to start a DOS based applicationl. > on the PC that will comunicate with the VAX. > : > I've seen "client only" versions of PATHWORKS 32 7.x for7 > +/- $ 200.00. Will those version help me doing that ?a > 	 > regards  >  > Dieter   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:51:53 -0500 ; From: "Island Computers USA" <dbturner@islandco.com.nospam>a* Subject: Selling: Alphaserver DS10L 617Mhz0 Message-ID: <101fme21ivlr2bb@news.supernews.com>   Alphaserver DS10L 617Mhz 256MB Memory SCSI Controller (UW SCSI) C Desktop Enclosure with  SCSI (VMS OK)CDROM and 9GB 10KRPM SCSI Disk7 Dual 10/100 Ethernet Dual Serial Port
 Parallel Portn USB Port   $1199I   Shipping: $50 in USA- Call for outside of Continental Shipping cost    Island Computers US Corporationr 2700 Gregory St., Suite 180  Savannah GA 31404a Tel: 912 447 6622h Fax: 912 201 0402e Email: dbturner@hpaq.net.nospami http://www.hpaq.net    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:54:45 -0600o( From: Wayne Sewell <wayne@tachysoft.com>( Subject: Re: stupid backup tricks (long)/ Message-ID: <00A2C926.5E380C39.7@tachysoft.com>e  : >From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> >X-Newsgroups: comp.os.vms) >Subject: Re: stupid backup tricks (long)E >Lines: 840     E >I would submit a bug report.  It would seem to me that detecting thenF >situation and giving at least a warning message would be appropriate. >'  M Apparently the rest of vms engineering doesn't think so.  I submitted the bugsM report as suggested, to find out that this is a known issue.  The date of the O initial bug report was 1992, and it applies to all versions of vms greater thannF 5.2.  So if they haven't fixed it 12 years, I guess they aren't gonna.     DIGITAL RESPONSE:   A It is unlikely this problem will be addressed in a future release ? due to its low priority.  In addition, there have been very fewp@ reported occurrences.  However, if this is a high impact problem1 for your system,  please contact Digital support.   E =====================================================================X   So much for that.   N I agree that it's a low priority thing, since it is a "doctor, it hurts when IL do this" scenario.  The only reason I posted about it was to warn people who3 may be doing this by accident, as our customer was.f    M Note to Dachera: the writeup on this refers to "rooted-device logical names".nM I would consider the term "rooted-device" to be equivalent to "pseudo-device"rG in that it contains the key word "device".  So whether the concept of ahM pseudo-device is good or bad, it is not something fabricated totally from theo= minds of customers.  Digital engineering uses a similar term.l   WayneeO ===============================================================================mN Wayne Sewell, Tachyon Software Consulting  (281)812-0738   wayne@tachysoft.com; http://www.tachysoft.com/www/tachyon.html and wayne.html   eO ===============================================================================oB Jed Clampett, checking into hotel: "This place got a cement pond?", 	Ellie May: "And do yuh let critters in it?"   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 02:45:20 -0800- From: deepak.kumar@digital.com (Deepak Kumar)n* Subject: sysman pcsi installation --URGENT= Message-ID: <63b7a447.0401280245.28cf41f9@posting.google.com>-  B I am trying to install the product(.pcsi) on other node of cluster0 using  sysman utility, but it is not installing.  
 $mc sysman% sysman> set environment/node=nodenameI@ sysman> do product install productname/source=[pcsi destination]@ it is going upto some point and after that it is coming out withF sysman prompt only.infact while installing it has to ask some question2 to the user but before that only it is coming out.  F what i am trying is it posiable or not. If yes where am I going wrong. Waiting for reply.   Regards  Deepak   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 06:07:29 -0500 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>. Subject: Re: sysman pcsi installation --URGENT) Message-ID: <401797D0.1D147060@istop.com>i   Deepak Kumar wrote:  > H > what i am trying is it posiable or not. If yes where am I going wrong. > Waiting for reply.  M I don't know if it is supoorted or not, but I would strongly suggest that youaC execute any product install from the node it is supposed to run on.r  R you can SET HOST/LOG=filename nodename  , login, and then use the product install.  K PRODUCT is very strange with regards to prompting as well as how subprocessiM behaves to begin with, and I am not sure that SYSMAN supports DO  of commandse that have prompting.   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 08:03:38 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)n. Subject: Re: sysman pcsi installation --URGENT3 Message-ID: <iLZRYMd9z83S@eisner.encompasserve.org>r  m In article <63b7a447.0401280245.28cf41f9@posting.google.com>, deepak.kumar@digital.com (Deepak Kumar) writes:n > H > what i am trying is it posiable or not. If yes where am I going wrong. > Waiting for reply.  C    SYSMAN does not support two way communication.  You cannot run a     proc that asks questions.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:08:50 GMTv3 From: hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com (Charlie Hammond)u. Subject: Re: sysman pcsi installation --URGENT4 Message-ID: <SnPRb.13251$N14.13165@news.cpqcorp.net>  m In article <63b7a447.0401280245.28cf41f9@posting.google.com>, deepak.kumar@digital.com (Deepak Kumar) writes:4C >I am trying to install the product(.pcsi) on other node of clustera1 >using  sysman utility, but it is not installing.i .. > 1 >[Is] what i am trying is it posiable or not. ...o   What are you trying to do?? Seriously, your motivation for using SYSMAN in this context is   not clear to me.  A The POLYCENTER Software Installation (PCSI) utility operates on a D system disk.  When you PRODUCT INSTALL a product, it is installed onD all nodes that boot from that system disk.  Depending on the productE there may be additional tasks (cofiguration, startup, etc.) that need F to be done on each node.  SYSMAN may or may not be an appropriate tool> for some of those tasks, but it is not an appropriate tool for executing PRODUCT INSTALL.  A If you have multiple system disks in an OpenVMS Cluster, you will F need to execute the PRODUCT INSTALL command once for each system disk.F Do this by logging in as SYSTEM on one node that boots from each disk.H You _might_ be able to use SYSMAN here if you used SET ENVIRONMENT /NODEF with a node-list containing one node for each system disk.  However, IF think that the interactive nature of a PRODUCT INSTALL operation couldG make this unnecessarily confusing.  There might also be other problems;e/ this is not a tested way to do PRODUCT INSTALL.r  C Note that because of differences in the different system disks, the I output from the PCSI utility, and/or the appropriate and valid responses cG to questions that are asked, may differ for the different system disks.l    I You might also want to look more closely at the installation instructionsnC for the product.  If there is a specific product you have in mind, aA let us know what it is and you may get some more specific advice.2     -- 2J       Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale  FL  USAF           (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying)J       All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 07:57:24 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)  Subject: Re: Testing for filed3 Message-ID: <zBOz26m17FrC@eisner.encompasserve.org>s  w In article <cxBRb.27858$i4.8524@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, "William Hymen" <t18_pilot@hotmail.spam.com> writes:a, > I would like to test for a particlar file," > and skip a routine if it exists. >  > For example, if file(s) -e >  > MY_DISK:[BASE.SUB1]*.ACX;* >  > exist, then goto past. > Whay would my dcl code be?      help lexicalq   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:35:22 +0100k( From: "Rudolf Wingert" <win@fom.fgan.de>I Subject: Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systems : Message-ID: <MCELKPMOKPMNDNKJNIONIEMNCJAA.win@fom.fgan.de>   Hello,   Andrew did write:    <<<tD The analysis is supported by independent testing of the TOE security@ functions, evidence of developer testing based on the functionalG specification and high-level design, selective independent confirmationaF of the developer test results, strength of function analysis, evidence= of a developer search for vulnerabilities, and an independentiH vulnerability analysis demonstrating resistance to penetration attackers with a low attack potential."8 >>>)  E OpenVMS did show in some contests, that it is resistance also againstuN penetration attackers with a high (!!!) attack potential. Within a contenst in@ USA, only OpenVMS was resistant over 48hours against any attack.M Within all the test regardless of using old one (B,C level of DOD) or the newhO one EAL, they do not have hacker, which will hack the system. As Andrew wrotes,oJ the did use test with low attack potential. OpenVMS do have the old one B2M certifacation. The managment did not get money for a new one certification. It: hope, because everybody knows, that OpenVMS is unhackable.   Best regards Rudolf Wingerte   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 07:40:32 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)nI Subject: Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systemso3 Message-ID: <+uL$UPE6XMLA@eisner.encompasserve.org>I   In article <bv67pu$skp$2@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: >  > Erroro > ; >      The requested item could not be loaded by the proxy.n > J >      Netscape Proxy is unable to locate the server: eros.cs.jhd.edu The J > server does not have a DNS entry. Check the server name in the Location  > (URL) and try again. >   <    The correct URL was posted the first time.  jhu, not jhd.   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 07:44:18 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)eI Subject: Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systems 3 Message-ID: <srynCOUR8iGL@eisner.encompasserve.org>.  J In article <bv673f$1r6$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: > + > http://eros.cs.jhu.edu/~shap/NT-EAL4.htmlP >   H    Like I said, EAL is a joke.  Then you get folks like Andrew and Billy<    running around saying "Look, my system is EAL certified".  E    That's one of the prices of working in an industry driven by hype.a   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 07:46:35 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)aI Subject: Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systems 3 Message-ID: <gTWvk7MRmpvf@eisner.encompasserve.org>.   In article <bv5j9c$lhs$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: > ; > Amusing, you claim to be someone who knows about computer > > security but you had never heard of the only internationally? > agreed standard for certifying systems and network componentsn8 > from a security standpoint its also a standard that is0 > required for most UK/US/EU government systems.  D    Knowing about computer security includes knowing what meaningless    standards to ignore.t  D    And no, _I_ did not claim to have "never heard of" EAL.  That wasF    someone else.  I just had ignored it until I found it had some use     in exposing your hype.m    c   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:15:35 +0000iO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>rI Subject: Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systemsr0 Message-ID: <bv8g67$mp1$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Bob Koehler wrote: > In article <bv5j9c$lhs$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: > ; >>Amusing, you claim to be someone who knows about computerm> >>security but you had never heard of the only internationally? >>agreed standard for certifying systems and network componentst8 >>from a security standpoint its also a standard that is0 >>required for most UK/US/EU government systems. >  > F >    Knowing about computer security includes knowing what meaningless >    standards to ignore.  >   6 But you didn't actually know what EAL is and have only: formed your opinion of it based on what appears to be very cursory anlysis on your part.n  5 So how could you have ignored it, ignorance of it yes6 ignored no.   F >    And no, _I_ did not claim to have "never heard of" EAL.  That wasH >    someone else.  I just had ignored it until I found it had some use  >    in exposing your hype.  >    g  5 Well you did a remarkably good job of showing in yourh7 first post that if you had heard of EAL that you didn't  know what it was.a   Regards4 Andrew Harrisonb   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 10:52:27 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) I Subject: Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systemsn3 Message-ID: <mC6Jtgluxf+n@eisner.encompasserve.org>s   In article <bv8g67$mp1$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: > 7 > Well you did a remarkably good job of showing in your:9 > first post that if you had heard of EAL that you didn'th > know what it was.p  H    I said it was a joke.  Others have confirmed it.  I still say it is a    joke.   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 16:08:44 -0000. From: Very Interesting <very@interesting.very>? Subject: Re: The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest Ware7 Message-ID: <LBAVPYMA38014.4227314815@anonymous.poster>l  , J F  M e z e i  <nobody@nobody.com> trolled:   >None wrote:M >> And my point was simple enough for even YOU to understand.  The rules needh >> to be changed!. >oN >The USA claims to be the most democratic nation in the world.  It has far tooO >much ego to admit that its electoral system is flawed and needs to be changed.u5 >Heck, they even want to impose its system on Iraq.  o > O >They can't even agree on fixing campaign finance. Doubtful they could agree onaA >something as radical as changing the way a president is elected.n > N >What I absolutely cannot understand is why any voter would be registered as aL >democrat or republican.  A voter's intensions should never be "registered". >fN >In democracies, a person's voluntary membership to a specific political partyJ >is absolutely separate from the voting system, and the political party isO >absolutely not involved in running the elections.  The voters's list and wholedN >election process is managed by an apolitical entity which must remain totallyB >neutral, and that entity has uniform standards across the nation. >lJ >And the whole election process is also monitored by an apolitical head ofI >state which has the power to rule in case of problems with the election.   0 So you're now a Political Science professor too?  I Amazing how many professions you have while managing to remain terminallys unemployed. . . . .d   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 01:46:36 -0800. From: fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br (Fabio Cardoso)4 Subject: Re: VMS's Stability Prompts Move To Itanium= Message-ID: <f30679fb.0401280146.3ea7506e@posting.google.com>e  Z JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message news:<400F1B0B.E09F4D0@istop.com>... > John Smith wrote:hO > > No matter which number you believe, whether 400,000 or 411,000 VMS licenseseO > > or system, if I were carly(tm) and HP I'd be embarrased that the number wasi > > so low.u >  > M > Does anyone really believe that there are still over 400,000 sites that aredN > actively using VMS ? Are there 400k sites (or licenses) where development isO > continuing ? (versus an old app still chugging along without any changes done2 > in the last decade)m  F If HP had interested to know .... just make a Census with customers ! ? Here we consolidated some machines and  turned of a lot of VAX s without migration to Alpha ! V  @ By the way.. I wanted an official document for HP saying it will suporte HP until 2020 ! % Official Document !!!! <---- Where ? R     Regards5   FC Y  P > Personally, I think that the 400k number represents the number of PAKs issued. > P > No matter what the real number is, I think it is good that the VMS group bragsL > about 400k licenses/sites/whatever. It shows that VMS is more than a small! > niche player (which Tandem is). K > And inflating the real number of active customers is good when you try to:K > diminish the damage done to VMS in the last decade. It makes it easier toc2 > convince software vendors to consider VMS again.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:37:21 +0000l* From: Nic Clews <sendspamhere@[127.0.0.1]>4 Subject: Re: VMS's Stability Prompts Move To Itanium' Message-ID: <bv83de$lls$1@lore.csc.com>e   Fabio Cardoso wrote: >   B > By the way.. I wanted an official document for HP saying it will > suporte HP until 2020 !f& > Official Document !!!! <---- Where ?  5 Follow the Alpha retain trust links, you'll get here:i  F http://www.hp.com/products1/evolution/alpha_retaintrust/practices.html  G As it says, you need to contact your customer representatives, and theyi can issue this.h  F Our "local group of the global entity" is a service provider, so it is@ our clients that have got the assurance, we acted as catalyst or; facilitator. It is between HP and (in our case) the client.R  ? There is no general document, they are addressed to the persons=" (company) requiring the statement.  * If you get stuck, I'm sure Sue can assist. --  ? Regards, Nic Clews a.k.a. Mr. CP Charges, CSC Computer Sciences6 nclews at csc dot comr   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:52:30 -0500s* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>4 Subject: Re: VMS's Stability Prompts Move To Itanium( Message-ID: <4017B05B.1F99486@istop.com>   Nic Clews wrote:I > As it says, you need to contact your customer representatives, and theyk > can issue this.d  K Sounds to me like that military qualification thing of recent years (forgotiN the 2 acronyms). Made it look like it applied to everyone with many garantees,M but when you started to want to get real info on it, you found out you had torK sign some contract for those garantees to apply specifically to you (as had, done the military).   L So now, this has bene renamed "retain trust" and you still need to deal on aM one to one basis. HP probably needs to have an exact count of the liabilitiesn# it is amassing with those promises.    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:11:42 GMTy# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> 4 Subject: Re: VMS's Stability Prompts Move To ItaniumI Message-ID: <yqPRb.34649$9Ce1.19485@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>    JF Mezei wrote:  > Nic Clews wrote:E >> As it says, you need to contact your customer representatives, ande >> they can issue this., >dE > Sounds to me like that military qualification thing of recent yearsrC > (forgot the 2 acronyms). Made it look like it applied to everyonetG > with many garantees, but when you started to want to get real info onSE > it, you found out you had to sign some contract for those garanteesw: > to apply specifically to you (as had done the military). > D > So now, this has bene renamed "retain trust" and you still need toF > deal on a one to one basis. HP probably needs to have an exact count8 > of the liabilities it is amassing with those promises.    K That's the way I read it too.....no advertising, stealth marketing at best,-H guarantees which aren't publicly examinable and may have loopholes largeG enough to float an aircraft carrier through, porting to a cpu that will I probably wind up costing HP more, in aggregate, annually than if they hadtA continued spending $150MM annually on FAB-less Alpha and compilerdG development, and a cpu whose future looks even riskier than Alpha's didi prior to June 25, 2001.U   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:23:00 +0000o* From: Nic Clews <sendspamhere@[127.0.0.1]>4 Subject: Re: VMS's Stability Prompts Move To Itanium' Message-ID: <bv8k51$rhv$1@lore.csc.com>i   JF Mezei wrote:  >  > Nic Clews wrote:K > > As it says, you need to contact your customer representatives, and they3 > > can issue this.8 > M > Sounds to me like that military qualification thing of recent years (forgottP > the 2 acronyms). Made it look like it applied to everyone with many garantees,O > but when you started to want to get real info on it, you found out you had to M > sign some contract for those garantees to apply specifically to you (as hadc > done the military).i > N > So now, this has bene renamed "retain trust" and you still need to deal on aO > one to one basis. HP probably needs to have an exact count of the liabilitiesa% > it is amassing with those promises.a  F I'm not sure I'm understanding what you say, or I didn't make my point clear.  ? HP are the vendors. The customer or client is the end user withr
 expectations.t  F Effectively, we're the "middle men" with different responsibilities toH the customer or client. So it doesn't make much sense for us to hold theC agreement on our client's behalf, but we would be executors. Put aneD Alpha here, put an Itanium there. If the end box fails to deliver inF terms of the written statement from HP, the end user potentially has aB case to be responded on by HP. Apart from some basics, the overallH delivered performance is outside our hands because the way an Alpha chipH compares to an Itanium is not something we can directly influence; we're not the chip designers.   F Top and bottom of this is, as we install Alphas today for clients, theH clients can obtain assurance from HP as to the "worth" of the Alpha when taking it forwards to Itanium.  G Similarly, for a long term commitment to the operating system, we don'tlH write the operating system for the client, so again it has to be betweenH HP and the client. I didn't find a direct link to a statement, but there# is an Ask The Wizard topic on this.r  9 So the advice holds, ask your HP customer representative.n -- w? Regards, Nic Clews a.k.a. Mr. CP Charges, CSC Computer Scienceso nclews at csc dot comw   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:22:00 -0600a0 From: "Mike Dobony" <tkdchap@hotmailspamnot.com>7 Subject: Re: Will Bird Flue impact airlines this year ?D* Message-ID: <bv8k2n$kug$1@news.netins.net>  ) "None" <none@nospam.org> wrote in message = news:rVwRb.28740$1e.18273@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... D > Just flue of any kind would be nice.  I'd like to see the airlinesI > cancelling as much as 75% of their flights just in time for the general$D > election next November.  ANYTHING to lay the blame squarely on the Shrub&Co > and their horrible policies. >rK > One way or another, karma is determined that Dubya is to be a ONE TERMER.I .s > . .just like his daddy!  >i@ > Problem is, he has made such a huge mess, both politically and financially,K > of this country that any democrat that beats his sawed off Texas ass will I > have to spend their entire term cleaning up what the lying little prick,+ > leaves behind, and nothing will get done!e >E  - Did someone forget to change your diaper too?o   >c# > "OIC" <oh@i.see> wrote in messages3 > news:O76HPFJ438013.4094560185@anonymous.poster...y/ > > J F  M e z e i <nobody@nobody.com> trolled:0 > >rG > > >Last year, airlines had to cancel many flights to/from asia due tor Sars.V > Ande7 > > >many airlines blames piss poor financials on Sars.c > > >eI > > >Right now, the Bird Flue problem seems to be getting worse. How long- > beforeK > > >airlines start to feel the effect ?  How long before airports put backn > theeJ > > >checks for people who have colds/fevers coming in our out of planes ? > > >RK > > >Or will the public consider this a "chicken" disease and not feel theyk	 > need to # > > >cancel their flights to asia ?  > > G > > LOL!!!  Bird "Flue" . . . finally we learn the name of your strange 
 > illness. > >b > >i > >i > >  > >M >o >t   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 01:49:13 -0800- From: denis.fayaud@netspace.mc (Denis Fayaud)h0 Subject: Re: X11 via SSH from OpenVMS to Win2000< Message-ID: <93820504.0401280149.b263735@posting.google.com>  3 I do something like that and it works like a charm:   F  At home I got an old PC running Cygwin. I start an Xserver on this PC and I "ssh" OpenVMS machines.r  2 On the local PC xterm, I send a command like this:  - ssh -l toto -R 6003:localhost:6000 vmsmachine4  B After being logged on the vms side,I define the display as follow:  d6 set display/create/node=localhost/trans=tcpip/server=3  F and then I can run "mc decw$clock" or any other decwindows application
 on my home PCP   Hope it can help.      f "Goetz Ulrich" <ulrichg---n-o-t@gmx.net> wrote in message news:<vvadnbphPtnNjYrdRVn-jQ@comcast.com>...N > Does anybody has a working example of setting up X11 via SSH from an OpenVMS > node to a Win2000 client ?L > I checked the HP documentation on SSH on TCPIP V5.4 but the given examples > were not working for me. >  > My configuration:d > OpenVMS Alpha V7.3-2
 > TCP/IP V5.4p > Windows 2000 > SecureCRT 4.0f >  > Here is what I did:d) > I disabled all security on the X servera# > I started the X server (Exceed 7)tF > I logged in successful to OpenVMS with the SecureCRT. I get an FTAx: > terminal.aI > Of course I checked the X11 port forwarding box in the SecureCRT optioni > settings.- > N > Goal: To run an X-Client from the OpenVMS through the existing SSH tunnel to > show up at the Win2000 PC. >  > I tried several combinations:uH > - set or not set >>> SET DISP/CREA/NODE=localhost/TRANS=TCPIP/SERVER=3L > - running $ MC DECW$CLOCK or $ CREA/TERM with or without the above settingL > - running $ SSH -"L"6003:localhost:6000 NONOVMSHOST  (<<< BTW: What to set > here correct ?!?!) >  > Finally all I get is either:2 > %DECW-E-CANT_OPEN_DISPL, Can't open display   or1 > %DWT-F-NOMSG, Message number 03AB8204   or both  >  > What do I do wrong here ?C >  > Goetza   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 02:05:44 -0800- From: denis.fayaud@netspace.mc (Denis Fayaud)-0 Subject: Re: X11 via SSH from OpenVMS to Win2000< Message-ID: <93820504.0401280205.5e5fdfa@posting.google.com>   Oooops my OpenVMS config is: OpenVMS Alpha V7.35 Compaq TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS Alpha Version V5.3   $ PC Cygwin release version is 1.5.6-1      f "Goetz Ulrich" <ulrichg---n-o-t@gmx.net> wrote in message news:<vvadnbphPtnNjYrdRVn-jQ@comcast.com>...N > Does anybody has a working example of setting up X11 via SSH from an OpenVMS > node to a Win2000 client ?L > I checked the HP documentation on SSH on TCPIP V5.4 but the given examples > were not working for me. >  > My configuration:T > OpenVMS Alpha V7.3-2
 > TCP/IP V5.4B > Windows 2000 > SecureCRT 4.0  >  > Here is what I did:n) > I disabled all security on the X serverh# > I started the X server (Exceed 7)hF > I logged in successful to OpenVMS with the SecureCRT. I get an FTAx: > terminal.iI > Of course I checked the X11 port forwarding box in the SecureCRT optioni > settings.  > N > Goal: To run an X-Client from the OpenVMS through the existing SSH tunnel to > show up at the Win2000 PC. >  > I tried several combinations:PH > - set or not set >>> SET DISP/CREA/NODE=localhost/TRANS=TCPIP/SERVER=3L > - running $ MC DECW$CLOCK or $ CREA/TERM with or without the above settingL > - running $ SSH -"L"6003:localhost:6000 NONOVMSHOST  (<<< BTW: What to set > here correct ?!?!) >  > Finally all I get is either:2 > %DECW-E-CANT_OPEN_DISPL, Can't open display   or1 > %DWT-F-NOMSG, Message number 03AB8204   or bothU >  > What do I do wrong here ?_ >  > Goetzn   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jan 2004 07:59:59 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)n0 Subject: Re: X11 via SSH from OpenVMS to Win20003 Message-ID: <9vHMJaCjhkdf@eisner.encompasserve.org>t  a In article <vvadnbphPtnNjYrdRVn-jQ@comcast.com>, "Goetz Ulrich" <ulrichg---n-o-t@gmx.net> writes:nN > Does anybody has a working example of setting up X11 via SSH from an OpenVMS > node to a Win2000 client ?L > I checked the HP documentation on SSH on TCPIP V5.4 but the given examples > were not working for me.  =    I think the overall understanding is that it doesn't work.   ;    Those of us who use Multinet aren't having this problem.   =    IIRC Process will sell you a SSH that works on top of UCX.a   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.055 ************************