0 INFO-VAX	Thu, 29 Jan 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 57      Contents:< CW Shark Tank: Call It A Bonus For Putting Up With Stupidity Re: Do you need F$LICENSE? RE: Do you need F$LICENSE? Re: Do you need F$LICENSE? Re: ftp attack- HowTo Change Pathworks Workstation Addresses? 1 Re: HowTo Change Pathworks Workstation Addresses?  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 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 cheap6 It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !!: RE: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !!2 Looking for M9404-PA M9405-PA QBUS Expension Cards- Re: MMS /From_Source triggers .DEFAULT action - Re: MMS /From_Source triggers .DEFAULT action , New Variant MyDoom.B targeting Microsoft.com
 RE: New Virus  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 H OT: OpenVMS advocates and the Daily Mail (was:Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers)  OT: OpenVMS I64 Compilers (spin). OT: UK politics (was Re: OpenVMS I64 CompilersA Re: Other Little Endian computers (was Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers) A Re: Other Little Endian computers (was Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers)  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars  Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars 1 SHOW MEMORY /CACHE /FULL = 164% Read Hit Rate ???  Slow volume under Fibre Channel # Re: Slow volume under Fibre Channel  Re: stupid backup tricks (long)  Re: stupid backup tricks (long) @ 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( VAXUS Symposium program v1.0-0 (English)+ Weapons of Mass Disruption (Windows-MyDoom) / Re: Weapons of Mass Disruption (Windows-MyDoom) , [TCPIP V5.4] DHCP client problem/observation0 Re: [TCPIP V5.4] DHCP client problem/observation, [TCPIP V5.4] IFCONFIG vs. SET/SHOW INTERFACE0 Re: [TCPIP V5.4] IFCONFIG vs. SET/SHOW INTERFACE0 RE: [TCPIP V5.4] IFCONFIG vs. SET/SHOW INTERFACE  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:19:07 -0500  From: norm.raphael@metso.comE Subject: CW Shark Tank: Call It A Bonus For Putting Up With Stupidity Q Message-ID: <OFE0B98787.84F199FC-ON85256E2A.0059224D-85256E2A.0059E853@metso.com>   +                   Computerworld Daily Shark &                       January 29, 2004  9 Shark Tank: Call it a bonus for putting up with stupidity   @ It's a decade ago, and at this electronics manufacturer, all the< factory IT systems run on a cluster of VAX minicomputers....  A "Each software engineer's log-in ID was his last name," one says. C "Thus, the jobs they ran on the computers would show in the process  list with their names on them."   G That list is displayed when a particular system command is run. But the G monitor command is very resource-intensive, and there's only one person D who uses it except when absolutely necessary. That's the director of) manufacturing IT, who runs it constantly.   G Why? the systems administrator asks the director in a meeting. And this F SE overhears the director whispering to his right-hand manager that he1 uses it to keep an eye on who's being productive.   F The SE is outraged. "This was not a fair measurement of productivity,"? he says. "An analyst running a data-crunching job would show up @ prominently on the director's screen, but an engineer developingE real-time code on a piece of manufacturing equipment would never show G up. Also, somebody who wrote shoddy code that took forever to run would G be viewed in a more favorable light than somebody who wrote fast, tight  code.   D "As soon as the meeting was over, I went back to my desk and wrote aG simple program that was nothing but an infinite loop. I then set myself F up to be able to launch the command at lowest priority on any computer$ to run for a random amount of time."  B As a result, the SE's program only uses up idle CPU time -- but it3 always shows up at the top of the CPU-monitor list.   C "Then I randomly launched the program on different computers in the > cluster at different times," he says. "Especially evenings andG weekends when I was working overtime and the director happened to be in B as well. I made sure my idle loop was prominently appearing on his' screen from several directions at once.   C "For the entire time I worked for that division, I received stellar E annual performance reviews. I also received higher-than-average merit  pay increases each year.  F "I always wonder how much of that was due to the busy little program."  ! Copyright 2004 Computerworld Inc.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 01:10:42 -0600 / From: Chris Scheers <chris@applied-synergy.com> # Subject: Re: Do you need F$LICENSE? 3 Message-ID: <4018B1F2.F4607B57@applied-synergy.com>    Larry Kilgallen wrote: > _ > In article <4017c388@usenet01.boi.hp.com>, "Guy Peleg" <guy.peleg@remove_this_hp.com> writes:  > > Hi All,  > > L > > For my own needs I have implemented a new lexical function F$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. > , > How do you release the license when done ? > I > If it is not to be used for that purpose, but only for checking whether K > to start a program to which the license will be granted, I see a problem. H > There is a race condition between checking the license in DCL and whenG > the Licence Grant request is made.  In the meantime someone could use 6 > up the last of the available units for that license. > G > In other words, having such a lexical function would assist people in G > writing DCL which would fail only during times of highest contention.   $ It may not use the licensing APIs.    ? It could access the information the same way SHOW LICENSE does.   G ----------------------------------------------------------------------- $ Chris Scheers, Applied Synergy, Inc.  C Voice: 817-237-3360            Internet: chris@applied-synergy.com     Fax: 817-237-3074    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:15:55 -0800 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> # Subject: RE: Do you need F$LICENSE? 9 Message-ID: <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIGELOCLAA.tom@kednos.com>      -----Original Message-----8   From: Chris Scheers [mailto:chris@applied-synergy.com],   Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 11:11 PM   To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com %   Subject: Re: Do you need F$LICENSE?          Larry Kilgallen wrote:   > ;   > In article <4017c388@usenet01.boi.hp.com>, "Guy Peleg"  (   <guy.peleg@remove_this_hp.com> writes:
   > > Hi All,    > > A   > > For my own needs I have implemented a new lexical function     F$LICENSE. It 
   > > returns D   > > True if a product is authorized to run on this node and false    if it does
   > > not.   > >    > > Here is a small example:   > > 8   > > IPL31> write sys$output f$license("openvms-alpha")
   > > TRUE   > > I   > > I need your feedback - will you find use for this lexical function?    > > >   > > If the response is positive, I will make sure it will be   > > documented/supported.    > > "   > > Thank you for your feedback.   > .   > How do you release the license when done ?   > K   > If it is not to be used for that purpose, but only for checking whether C   > to start a program to which the license will be granted, I see     a problem.J   > There is a race condition between checking the license in DCL and whenI   > the Licence Grant request is made.  In the meantime someone could use 8   > up the last of the available units for that license.   > I   > In other words, having such a lexical function would assist people in I   > writing DCL which would fail only during times of highest contention.    &   It may not use the licensing APIs.     A   It could access the information the same way SHOW LICENSE does.    And how is that?   I   ----------------------------------------------------------------------- &   Chris Scheers, Applied Synergy, Inc.   E   Voice: 817-237-3360            Internet: chris@applied-synergy.com       Fax: 817-237-3074       --- (   Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.<   Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).B   Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 1/22/2004    --- & Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).@ Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 1/22/2004   ------------------------------    Date: 29 Jan 2004 07:47:18 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) # Subject: Re: Do you need F$LICENSE? 3 Message-ID: <K2fZ5SXiYypR@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$license("openvms-alpha") > TRUE > E > I need your feedback - will you find use for this lexical function?   G    Not often.  Gernally I know what's licensed on my systems and if I'm B    using someone else's, I;ll just try the command for the layered#    product and see what it returns.   H    Typical failure mode is %DCL-W-IVVERB, not licence failure.  Very few<    people use disk space to install software they can't run.   ------------------------------    Date: 29 Jan 2004 01:42:04 -0800C From: gconstantinides@myrealbox.com (gconstantinides@myrealbox.com)  Subject: Re: ftp attack = Message-ID: <d28edccd.0401290142.52617dab@posting.google.com>   ^ hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) wrote in message news:<_QURb.13303$mK4.4437@news.cpqcorp.net>... > In article <d28edccd.0401262114.2494ef53@posting.google.com>, gconstantinides@myrealbox.com (gconstantinides@myrealbox.com) writes:  > C > :I want to disable unwanted incoming ftp access. But I want to be 4 > :able to request outgoing ftp requests to anywere. > H >   I would generally use a firewall, if I wished to protect an IP host. > F >   I do not believe that general-purpose computing systems make good I >   firewalls, simply because of the comparatively management effort and  I >   tracking requirements involved -- and the relative costs of mistakes.  > I >   While it is certainly potentially possible to secure such a host (and J >   obviously also advisable), the effort involved in maintaining a systemI >   and network security lock-down and the effort of tracking and vetting G >   updates, attacks and vulernabilities on a general-purpose operating I >   system -- no matter which one -- is far more than the effort involved I >   in maintaining a dedicated firewall.  Particularly given that typical E >   general-purpose systems tend to see product upgrades, interactive I >   users, and far more "churn" than a dedicated firewall would ever see.  > P >  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------M >     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faq P >  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------G >         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.com    Thanks Guys,H I will propably go for the firewall option, but then again I may not ;-)   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:43:26 -0500 = From: "Robert A. Matern" <ramatern@SEND.MEuninetsNO.SPAM.net> 6 Subject: HowTo Change Pathworks Workstation Addresses?3 Message-ID: <bvb9nb$h03$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>   B We're swapping out workstations on a VAX 6430's Pathworks network.  D How do we set/change the network addresses for the new workstations?  C The contractor who is supposed to do this is being uncooperative...    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:37:18 -0500 0 From: "Brad McCusker" <brad.you-know-who@hp.com>: Subject: Re: HowTo Change Pathworks Workstation Addresses?, Message-ID: <4019383d$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>   You have to give us more...   6 What kind of workstations (Alpha/VMS? Wintel?  other?)  0 What transport are they using (TCP/IP?  DECnet?)  < What do you mean by PAthworks network?  Can you describe it?  H "Robert A. Matern" <ramatern@SEND.MEuninetsNO.SPAM.net> wrote in message- news:bvb9nb$h03$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com... D > We're swapping out workstations on a VAX 6430's Pathworks network. > F > How do we set/change the network addresses for the new workstations? > E > The contractor who is supposed to do this is being uncooperative...  >  >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:41:01 -0500 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>( Subject: Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!) Message-ID: <4018E30D.32171342@istop.com>    Thomas Wirt wrote: > A > If Encompass does not hurry up and announce details on its Fall ? > conference there won't be one, IMHO.  I would rather go to an E > Encompass Symposium than to HP World, but I will not give up my one A > annual conference trip by putting all of my eggs in a yet to be - > announced Encompass Fall Conference basket.   J Isn't the technical symposium organised by the beloved Sue of much greaterD value to VMS fans than any even organised by what used to be DECUS ?   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 06:23:14 -0500 + From: Ken Robinson <kenrbnsn1@patmedia.net> ( Subject: Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!A Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20040129061845.030f1ec0@mail.patmedia.net>   & At 05:41 AM 1/29/2004, JF Mezei wrote:  K >Isn't the technical symposium organised by the beloved Sue of much greater E >value to VMS fans than any even organised by what used to be DECUS ?   K That is probably true, but that symposium also has a limit as to number of  J participants (I believe last Fall's was limited to 200) and the old DECUS I Symposia had no such limits. The technical content of the older symposia  I was much better than the recent content, but I think the trend is toward  3 better content lately (I didn't make the last one).    Ken    ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:21:31 GMT " From:   VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG( Subject: Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!0 Message-ID: <00A2C9B8.9BE09704@SendSpamHere.ORG>  V In article <4018E30D.32171342@istop.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes: >Thomas Wirt wrote:  >>  B >> If Encompass does not hurry up and announce details on its Fall@ >> conference there won't be one, IMHO.  I would rather go to anF >> Encompass Symposium than to HP World, but I will not give up my oneB >> annual conference trip by putting all of my eggs in a yet to be. >> announced Encompass Fall Conference basket. > K >Isn't the technical symposium organised by the beloved Sue of much greater E >value to VMS fans than any even organised by what used to be DECUS ?    10-4   --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: 29 Jan 2004 08:00:05 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) ( Subject: Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!3 Message-ID: <lpcsVoNkHm$Q@eisner.encompasserve.org>   y In article <40186A4F.A865FB3F@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>, "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net> writes:    A > Sorry to be so down on the town where I make a living, but this I > administration is a hair's breadth away from being another Capone-style B > crime syndicate. Capone died believing he was providing a wanted< > product, jobs, even public service by way of philanthropy.  0   He is a Daley.  What goes around comes around.   ------------------------------    Date: 29 Jan 2004 06:53:04 -0800& From: twnews@kittles.com (Thomas Wirt)( Subject: Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!= Message-ID: <b3531425.0401290653.248005e4@posting.google.com>   [ JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message news:<4018E30D.32171342@istop.com>...  > Thomas Wirt wrote: > > C > > If Encompass does not hurry up and announce details on its Fall A > > conference there won't be one, IMHO.  I would rather go to an G > > Encompass Symposium than to HP World, but I will not give up my one C > > annual conference trip by putting all of my eggs in a yet to be / > > announced Encompass Fall Conference basket.  > L > Isn't the technical symposium organised by the beloved Sue of much greaterF > value to VMS fans than any even organised by what used to be DECUS ?  D I am sure that the VMS Symposium is valuable.  I make my living as a< VMS professional.   The thing is, that I get one out of town= conference per year.  I need more than just VMS info.  I want E networking and storage hardware and software updates.  I need info on D emerging standards like 802.11 and other wireless.  I even want infoF on Windows.  After all, my VMS cluster runs not just because I keep itF running, but because VMS is so stable.  Windows, even Win2k and newer,F need constant attention to anything more than file serving.  I like toE exchange points of view and debate with tech professionals of lots of 1 back grounds.  I even like to keep on Linux/Unix.   C I doubt that you can get that at the VMS symposium.  I think that a F well planned Encompass Symposium will be the more important conferenceC for most IT professionals that specialize in VMS, IMHO.  If you are D not confident that Encompass can put together a good symposium, thenC do what I did.  Volunteer to be on the content committee and submit % sessions that you think are relevant.   7 Not trying to stir up trouble, just trying to persuade.    Thomas Wirt  Systems Manager  Kittle's Home Furnishings  Indianapolis, IN   ------------------------------    Date: 29 Jan 2004 08:27:01 -0800' From: jbecker@ui.urban.org (Jim Becker) ( Subject: Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!= Message-ID: <c113b52c.0401290827.514fae92@posting.google.com>   k twnews@kittles.com (Thomas Wirt) wrote in message news:<b3531425.0401271113.2b8537b3@posting.google.com>... A > If Encompass does not hurry up and announce details on its Fall ( > conference there won't be one, IMHO.    E Precisely the worry within Encompass. We've been in a holding pattern C with the HP leadership on this, because they hadn't finally decided C what they were going to do regarding conference support in 2004. As C Clay Denton pointed out, we're hoping to have something to announce   within the next couple of weeks.   [snip]; > Please Encompass, set OUR event and start publicizing it.   D The Encompass leadership is *VERY* keen to do just that. HP has beenC solidifying its conference strategy, so we're hoping we can finally  announce something soon.  D Basically, we (Encompass) want to deliver the technical content, andF we see HP as an important source for it. Once we've worked out with HPD where/how they're going to commit technical resources, we'll be in a- position to announce something more concrete.    --
 Jim Becker+ The Urban Institute (http://www.urban.org/) ' Encompass (http://www.encompassus.org/) . ESILUG (http://encompasserve.org/lugs/esilug/)   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:53:10 -0700 B From: "Tillman, Brian (AGRE)" <Brian.Tillman@smiths-aerospace.com>( Subject: RE: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!O Message-ID: <11721EF39C7D7F47A55447158274CAF790008B@cossmgmbx01.email.corp.tld>    Jim Becker wrote:   ? > Precisely the worry within Encompass. We've been in a holding = > pattern with the HP leadership on this, because they hadn't 6 > finally decided what they were going to do regarding? > conference support in 2004. As Clay Denton pointed out, we're G > hoping to have something to announce within the next couple of weeks.   H Personally, I see HP marginalizing Encompass in favor of Interex.  I seeG ads from HP that tout Interex.  I rarely see them mentioning Encompass.  --=0D  Brian Tillman        =0D Smiths Aerospace 3290 Patterson Ave. SE, MS 1B3 Grand Rapids, MI 49512-1991 > Brian.Tillman is the name, smiths-aerospace.com is the domain.	       =0D : I don't speak for Smiths, and Smiths doesn't speak for me.      * ******************************************G The information contained in, or attached to, this e-mail, may contain= D  confidential information and is intended solely for the use of the=G  individual or entity to whom they are addressed and may be subject to= H  legal privilege.  If you have received this e-mail in error you should=H  notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail, delete the message from=L  your system and notify your system manager.  Please do not copy it for any=F  purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person.  The views or=I  opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do= G  not necessarily represent those of the company.  The recipient should= I  check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses.  The= A  company accepts no liability for any damage caused, directly or= 4  indirectly, by any virus transmitted in this email.* ******************************************   ------------------------------    Date: 29 Jan 2004 09:20:42 -0800& From: jordan@ccs4vms.com (Rich Jordan)( Subject: Re: hpWorld-2004 - in Chicago!!= Message-ID: <cc5619f2.0401290920.4be49f18@posting.google.com>   } "Peter Weaver" <WeaverConsultingServices@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<bv670m$olei9$1@ID-141708.news.uni-berlin.de>...  >   > $ SET MODE/ENABLE=EXTREME_RANT > 8 > "Vandalizing an airport?" Don't you mean "Destroyed an= > airport?" He tore up the runways in the middle of the night @ > with aircraft still on the ground! All in the name of fighting? > terrorism, but anybody with half a brain knows that my wife's @ > mini-van can carry more explosives than the four seat aircraft > I fly.  ; Hizzoner Daley, the Royal Potentate of chi-town and current A Owner/Operator of the Illinois governor had wanted to close Meigs C since he (or his Mom???) moved some time in the mid '90s; I vaguely B remember the radio stories about the new location sometimes havingF near overflights from Meigs, so he undertook a vendetta to destroy it.&  Terrorism was just his latest excuse.  D Come to think of it that really is another good reason for not goingF into chicago; avoiding even indirectly further empowering or enriching> hizzoner.  Don't trade with the enemy.  A matter of principle.   Rich CCS    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 03:11:54 -0500 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>K Subject: Re: Intel to chip away at Itanium prices <- or ... I want my cheap ) Message-ID: <4018C026.B1766466@istop.com>    Robert Klute wrote: E > is about.  In a nutshell, Intel revealed its long term strategy for H > eventually bringing Itanium to the desktop and being able to phase out > IA-32.    M Nop. All I read about was Intel planning to lower price of IA64 to match that K of Xeon, which is the server version of the 8086. I have not heard anything M about bringing IA64 to desktop (which would be reversing an INtel decision of 0 a couple years ago to abandon IA64 for desktop).   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:46:58 -0500 * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>K Subject: Re: Intel to chip away at Itanium prices <- or ... I want my cheap 2 Message-ID: <kpGdnfjMdLoTeYXdRVn-gQ@metrocast.net>  / "Robert Klute" <news@klute.us> wrote in message 2 news:dq6h109n59ga5kjps2ca0p04mchrkhre01@4ax.com...J > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:29:24 -0500, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> > wrote: > F > >The post of Andrew's to which you first responded clearly discussedH > >commodity desktops, not 'workstations'.  You continually attempted to dragG > >it off into the workstation weeds:  don't be surprised to get yanked  back.  > J > OK, but even Intel does not envision Itanium as a commodity desktop CPU.G > They want to replace the Xeon chips, the chips that power servers and E > workstations (sorry, used that word again).  They don't say it will 1 > replace the desktop and laptop Pentium systems.   J Not any more, they don't.  But that was the plan in the mid-'90s (in fact,K by now - 2003, in fact - Itanic was supposed to have become the new desktop H standard, one which, coincidentally, didn't have to be shared with other8 pesky licensees like AMD) - and that was Andrew's point.  J Now, the points he made don't apply directly to replacing Xeon with ItanicH (though x86 software compatibility - assuming that there's still a majorI performance deficit running it directly on Itanic - remains a significant K issue there).  But that wasn't what Andrew's post that you responded to was  discussing.    - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:52:17 +0000 O 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 cheap 0 Message-ID: <bvavm1$m44$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Robert Klute wrote: G > On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:53:45 +0000, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy 0 > <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote: >   9 >>The z2000 with a CPU that can compete ish with the IA32 7 >>costs ~5K with 1 GB of RAM and a 1.4 GHZ 1.5 MB cache 9 >>Itanium II. I say Ish because it isn't a fast processor - >>compared with IA32 or Opteron except on FP.  >  > / > Let's see the 1.2GHz SunBlade 2000 is ~$7K.    >   0 Why introduce the SunBlade 2000 ? We are talking* about the commodity desktop market not the engineering workstation market.   / But just to humour you, why select the SunBlade . 2000 ? its a dual CPU workstation, neither the. z2000 or the D530 support dual CPU's hence its1 powere requirements and the SunBlade 2000 is also ) rather more expensive than other SunBlade . workstations becasue its based on the UltraIII rather than the UltraIIIi CPU   - The single CPU SunBlade 1500 costs ~2,995 and ( has a maximum power consumption of 350w.   > 7 >>The D530 with a 3.2 GHZ processor, 1 GB of RAM etc is 9 >>$1300 and thats just shopping from HP, Dell are cheaper 9 >>and its faster than your z2000 on Int by a wide margin.  >> >>Integer SPECint  >>1261 for the x86 vs 824  >  > F > I don't know where you got the 824 and 1444 numbers, I couldn't find > them on the spec site. >   - Dell and Intel from the SPEC site. I used the - Dell Itanium number because they are the only 0 vendor to publish a 1.4 Ghz 1.5 MB cache number.  , > SPECint Peak for the 1.5GHz zx6000 is 1315, > SPECint Base for the 1.0GHz zx6000 is  8072 > SPECint Peak for the 1.2GHz SunBlade 2000 is 722  1 Not relevant we are not talking about engineering 2 workstations and we are also not talking about the. zx6000 which is rather more expensive than the zx2000 which you refered to.  ! The zx6000 with a 1.5 Ghz Itanium - 1 GB RAM and a decent sized disk costs $10.5K ) so you are not going to see lots of these . being used as corporate desktops anytime soon./ I include the zx6000 because from a performance / standpoint its equivalent in to the 3.2 GHz x86  desktops for Integer.   7 However you seem to have veered off and a Rob Young esq 0 type tangent, I can only hope that this a simple oversight on your part.     B > But, I run Linux on my workstation.  I have lots of applicationsI > available to me.  Of course, if I wanted to I could run Windows 2003 or  > HP-UX 11.23.    2 Fine for you, but not fine for corporate desktops.0 Even assuming that you use something like JDS on5 the desktop, hosting it on Itanium and thats assuming 4 Sun ever would still seriously restricts the ammount/ of compiled OpenSource apps and Commercial apps  available to you.   0 Linux's big problem in competing with Windows is* its smaller ISV list, why make it worse by using the wrong platform.    Regards  Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:56:31 +0000 O From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> K Subject: Re: Intel to chip away at Itanium prices <- or ... I want my cheap 0 Message-ID: <bvavu0$m5l$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Paul Repacholi wrote: / > young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) writes:  >  > = >>	Itanium will be priced at Xeon prices, that is a fact that ? >>	Fister promises.  For years predictions that mainframes will = >>	be killed off and yet they linger.  I believe that Itanium ; >>	will pass mainframes on the performance curve and be far < >>	cheaper.  If that doesn't drive a stake in the mainframe, >>	nothing will. >  > G > Almost everything passed mainframes for CPU performance years ago. IO = > performance is another matter, and only some get up there.   >   1 Actually thats a bit of an urban myth fostered by  IBM.  1 Comparable large microprocessor based SMP servers 0 overtook mainframes sometime ago in terms of I/O performance.  / The E10K could sustain ~3.5 GB/s through a DBMS / somewhat more than the best available mainframe  at the time.  - The F15K has done ~12 GB/s into a single DBMS 1 table again rather more than the best a mainframe  can do.    regards  Andrew Harrison ? > The idea that the Itanic will kill off mainframes in general, 4 > and IBM's zSeries is just too ludicrous for words. >    ------------------------------    Date: 29 Jan 2004 06:25:56 -0800# From: gaf1234567890@hotmail.com (G) K Subject: Re: Intel to chip away at Itanium prices <- or ... I want my cheap = Message-ID: <b7eb1fbe.0401290625.517bcfdf@posting.google.com>   d "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message news:<OOidnSHAeM9Rx4XdRVn_iw@metrocast.net>... > K > That remains to be seen.  I believe you were touting the wonderfulness of K > Prescott for quite a while before it became clear that the 90 nm Prescott E > offers only approximately equal performance to the existing 130 nm. N > Northwood P4 - while requiring a bit more power to achieve even that result. > M > If the same is true for the 90 nm. Montecito (compared with today's 130 nm. N > Madison), Montecito won't offer any performance boost at all, and won't evenL > equal Madison's performance unless one of the Montecito cores is disabled.   One comment...  E Prescott chips are hitting the market next week selling for LESS than B the Northwood chips at the same speed. In fact the pattern is thatC each Prescott chip is selling at almost the exact same price as the D next higher clocked Northwood (ie 3.4 Prescott and 3.2 Northwood are both $244).   ) http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13832   C I can't remember this ever being the case before with any new Intel D chip. However, it seems the immediate effect of Intel's move to 90nmE will have more to do with increasing yields and lowering costs/prices  than increasing performance.  C I don't see how this wouldn't apply *equally* to both the 90nm Xeon @ and the 90nm Itanium. So, if they BOTH fall in price by the sameE percent, and given very strong competition from Opteron, how the heckV does this benefit Itanium?  : If anything, it seems to me that it continues the trend ofA commodotising servers (departmental, blades, utility, etc). Intely@ might be able to take market share away from Sun this way at theC higher end (I'm assuming IBM has no problem keeping pace with IntelrC process-wise). But why would you be more inclined to buy an Itaniumo0 over a Xeon or Opteron if they all cost X% less?   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:30:07 GMT!" From: Robert Klute <news@klute.us>K Subject: Re: Intel to chip away at Itanium prices <- or ... I want my cheape8 Message-ID: <9p5i10hv8vjieffmk54cpttqskgg42h9k4@4ax.com>  H On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 03:11:54 -0500, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote:   >Robert Klute wrote:F >> is about.  In a nutshell, Intel revealed its long term strategy forI >> eventually bringing Itanium to the desktop and being able to phase out.	 >> IA-32.c >p >eN >Nop. All I read about was Intel planning to lower price of IA64 to match thatL >of Xeon, which is the server version of the 8086. I have not heard anythingN >about bringing IA64 to desktop (which would be reversing an INtel decision of1 >a couple years ago to abandon IA64 for desktop).n  6 In my follow up post I corrected myself on that point:D "OK, but even Intel does not envision Itanium as a commodity desktopF CPU. They want to replace the Xeon chips, the chips that power serversG and workstations (sorry, used that word again).  They don't say it willg0 replace the desktop and laptop Pentium systems."  C However that still goes to the validity of comparing the Itanium topG commodity desktop machines.  Desktop machines are not built to the samer' design goals that server systems are.  M   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:39:20 GMT " From: Robert Klute <news@klute.us>K Subject: Re: Intel to chip away at Itanium prices <- or ... I want my cheapK8 Message-ID: <i66i10p36ma5qqgs0kt7ii6amqt5i46qi0@4ax.com>  E On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:52:17 +0000, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancya. <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:   >Robert Klute wrote:H >> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:53:45 +0000, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy1 >> <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:  >> P >W: >>>The z2000 with a CPU that can compete ish with the IA328 >>>costs ~5K with 1 GB of RAM and a 1.4 GHZ 1.5 MB cache: >>>Itanium II. I say Ish because it isn't a fast processor. >>>compared with IA32 or Opteron except on FP. >> o >> c0 >> Let's see the 1.2GHz SunBlade 2000 is ~$7K.   >> n >o1 >Why introduce the SunBlade 2000 ? We are talkingp+ >about the commodity desktop market not the   >engineering workstation market.  G You were comparing the Itanium to commodity desktop systems.  It was mysF rather clumsy attempt to point out the both Intel and HP have directedG their efforts at the server market and the low end of the server CPU ism the workstation. > 0 >But just to humour you, why select the SunBlade/ >2000 ? its a dual CPU workstation, neither the / >z2000 or the D530 support dual CPU's hence its 2 >powere requirements and the SunBlade 2000 is also* >rather more expensive than other SunBlade/ >workstations becasue its based on the UltraIII- >rather than the UltraIIIi CPU  E The closest the SunBlade, in terms of performance, was the single CPU 8 2000.  In dual CPU mode, it is comparable to the zx6000.  . >Dell and Intel from the SPEC site. I used the. >Dell Itanium number because they are the only1 >vendor to publish a 1.4 Ghz 1.5 MB cache number.0  D As I pointed out in a later post, it is not a valid comparison.  ForF whatever reason, where I could compare a Dell and an HP system running+ the same CPU, the Dell ran 11 - 16% slower.s  - >> SPECint Peak for the 1.5GHz zx6000 is 1315i- >> SPECint Base for the 1.0GHz zx6000 is  807r3 >> SPECint Peak for the 1.2GHz SunBlade 2000 is 722w > 2 >Not relevant we are not talking about engineering3 >workstations and we are also not talking about theo/ >zx6000 which is rather more expensive than the  >zx2000 which you refered to.x  E At least the zx2000 and and zx6000 are based on the same chipsets and F basic architecture, which allows for a reasonable basis of comparison.   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:43:04 GMT " From: Robert Klute <news@klute.us>K Subject: Re: Intel to chip away at Itanium prices <- or ... I want my cheapo8 Message-ID: <3p6i10l52gvo9sgud5rtv25t0kfi77900p@4ax.com>  E On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:56:31 +0000, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancyo. <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:    2 >Actually thats a bit of an urban myth fostered by >IBM.  > 2 >Comparable large microprocessor based SMP servers1 >overtook mainframes sometime ago in terms of I/Oh
 >performance.  > 0 >The E10K could sustain ~3.5 GB/s through a DBMS0 >somewhat more than the best available mainframe
 >at the time.t > . >The F15K has done ~12 GB/s into a single DBMS2 >table again rather more than the best a mainframe >can do.  B I would argue that the 10K, 15K, and SuperDome are mainframe classG machine.  They may not run a legacy OS, but that does not preclude themt from being mainframes.     ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:03:14 +0000hO 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 cheapu0 Message-ID: <bvb7bi$oqj$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Robert Klute wrote:eG > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:52:17 +0000, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancyc0 > <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote: >  >  >>Robert Klute wrote:e > I > You were comparing the Itanium to commodity desktop systems.  It was mytH > rather clumsy attempt to point out the both Intel and HP have directedI > their efforts at the server market and the low end of the server CPU isi > the workstation. >   8 This may be true now, but it wasn't what was origionally7 hyped for Itanium, desktop to high end server. Industryi( standard computing and all the other BS.  7 Intel and HP are only doing this because the technologyp% doesn't allow them any other options.   1 >>But just to humour you, why select the SunBladec0 >>2000 ? its a dual CPU workstation, neither the0 >>z2000 or the D530 support dual CPU's hence its3 >>powere requirements and the SunBlade 2000 is alsol+ >>rather more expensive than other SunBlades0 >>workstations becasue its based on the UltraIII >>rather than the UltraIIIi CPUr >  > G > The closest the SunBlade, in terms of performance, was the single CPU : > 2000.  In dual CPU mode, it is comparable to the zx6000. >   0 Why keep introducing the zx6000 its about as far- away from being a commodity desktop system as / you can get. You started with the zx2000, sticko1 with it and stop trying to tilt the playing fielde in a Rob Young esq way.h   > / >>Dell and Intel from the SPEC site. I used the / >>Dell Itanium number because they are the only.2 >>vendor to publish a 1.4 Ghz 1.5 MB cache number. >  > F > As I pointed out in a later post, it is not a valid comparison.  ForH > whatever reason, where I could compare a Dell and an HP system running- > the same CPU, the Dell ran 11 - 16% slower.y >   9 Does it matter boosting the Itanium number by 16% doesn't   make it performance competitive.  1 On Integer performance the difference between the-3 Dell and HP scores are largely due to the compiler. & HP use theirs for Int Dell use Intels.  / HP's compiler is faster at int than Intels. You7/ run Linux on your zx2000, the HP compiler isn't 5 available for Linux so in fact the 10-16% performanceo7 differential you mention is illusory unless you want tos1 change to HP-UX.  But if you do that you will getm	 worse FP.-   > - >>>SPECint Peak for the 1.5GHz zx6000 is 1315:- >>>SPECint Base for the 1.0GHz zx6000 is  807J3 >>>SPECint Peak for the 1.2GHz SunBlade 2000 is 722  >>3 >>Not relevant we are not talking about engineering 4 >>workstations and we are also not talking about the0 >>zx6000 which is rather more expensive than the >>zx2000 which you refered to. >  > G > At least the zx2000 and and zx6000 are based on the same chipsets and H > basic architecture, which allows for a reasonable basis of comparison. >   / What has that got to do with the discussion ???.  1 Another Rob Young esq red herring which I am sure  you don't mean.s     regardse Andrew Harrisona   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:40:04 +0100t From: Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl>? Subject: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !! 2 Message-ID: <bvbham$ald$1@news1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>  O What many of us have been predicting for the last couple of years now is going  L to be a reality. Intel will have 64bit x86 cpu's. Please read the following % article from the news agency Reuters:   P ( http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=4233918 )    / Intel Signals 64-Bit Offering May Be on Horizon   Wed January 28, 2004 08:15 PM ET   By Daniel Sorid   I SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Intel Corp. (INTC.O: Quote, Profile, Research) wJ President and Chief Operating Officer Paul Otellini on Wednesday said the K world's largest chip maker would likely give its 32-bit microprocessors an t> upgrade to 64 bits once supporting software becomes available.  Q "You can be fairly confident that when there is software from an application and -Q operating system standpoint that we'll be there," Otellini said, responding to a  M question about 64-bit technology, in an interview with a Wall Street analyst    that was broadcast over the Web.  G Otellini's comments represented Intel's strongest endorsement yet of a yL technological advance first introduced by rival Advanced Micro Devices Inc. P (AMD.N: Quote, Profile, Research) , said Nathan Brookwood, a technology analyst  with Insight 64.  Q "That's a very important statement in the sense that it more or less anticipates :P that there will be a single compatible technique that Intel will use and AMD is  using now," Brookwood said.n  O Other than to say they were watching the area carefully, Intel executives have KO stayed quiet on the subject of 64-bit chips for personal computers and low-end m computer servers..  L Analysts, however, have long speculated that Intel engineers have been busy O working on such a technology, but have remained quiet on the subject so as not sM to take attention away from Itanium, Intel's line of 64-bit chips for server m/ computers that can cost upward of $50,000 each.e  M While most personal computers in the market today rely on 32-bit microchips, tK 64-bit chips provide special advantages for running video games, producing y1 video, or churning through large amounts of data.   J Also, 64-bit computers can accommodate vast amounts of computer memory -- J opening up far more powerful applications -- whereas 32-bit computers are ! limited to 4 gigabytes of memory.o  O Otellini said regular computer users were unlikely today to spend thousands of :N dollars for computer memory for PCs that can cost as low as $699. Eventually, K however, as memory prices drop and software becomes more complex, he said, o5 breaking the 4-gigabyte memory limit will make sense.s  Q "Just like we went from 16 to 32-bits, the memory requirements grow over time on 1N applications, just as memory costs come down over time," he said. "So at some " point it becomes very economical."  M Otellini's comments now suggest that Intel intends to release a desktop chip oE similar to and compatible with AMD's 64-bit offering, Brookwood said.a  M "That should make for a more orderly market and transition to 64-bit, and in p@ some ways is a tacit endorsement of what AMD is doing," he said.  K Last year AMD pushed ahead with its AMD64 line of chips, which run today's -M 32-bit software but can support 64-bit software being developed by Microsoft l4 Corp. (MSFT.O: Quote, Profile, Research) and others.$  Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:15:01 -0800f# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>aC Subject: RE: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !!m9 Message-ID: <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIGEMHCLAA.tom@kednos.com>l  I Well having ported twice before,  VMS engineering should be able to knocka than out in no time.     -----Original Message-----'   From: Dirk Munk [mailto:munk@home.nl]m*   Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 9:40 AM   To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com-A   Subject: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !!     C   What many of us have been predicting for the last couple of years/   now is goingC   to be a reality. Intel will have 64bit x86 cpu's. Please read the-   followingo'   article from the news agency Reuters:g     ([D   http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&story   ID=4233918 )    1   Intel Signals 64-Bit Offering May Be on Horizone"   Wed January 28, 2004 08:15 PM ET     By Daniel Soridr  J   SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Intel Corp. (INTC.O: Quote, Profile, Research)K   President and Chief Operating Officer Paul Otellini on Wednesday said thee9   world's largest chip maker would likely give its 32-bitw   microprocessors an@   upgrade to 64 bits once supporting software becomes available.  B   "You can be fairly confident that when there is software from an   application and-B   operating system standpoint that we'll be there," Otellini said,   responding to ao?   question about 64-bit technology, in an interview with a Walle   Street analyst"   that was broadcast over the Web.  H   Otellini's comments represented Intel's strongest endorsement yet of a@   technological advance first introduced by rival Advanced Micro   Devices Inc.>   (AMD.N: Quote, Profile, Research) , said Nathan Brookwood, a   technology analyst   with Insight 64.  A   "That's a very important statement in the sense that it more or    less anticipatesB   that there will be a single compatible technique that Intel will   use and AMD is   using now," Brookwood said.   @   Other than to say they were watching the area carefully, Intel   executives have :   stayed quiet on the subject of 64-bit chips for personal   computers and low-endM   computer servers.@  C   Analysts, however, have long speculated that Intel engineers haveE   been busyi>   working on such a technology, but have remained quiet on the   subject so as noteC   to take attention away from Itanium, Intel's line of 64-bit chipsa   for server1   computers that can cost upward of $50,000 each.l  B   While most personal computers in the market today rely on 32-bit
   microchips,bB   64-bit chips provide special advantages for running video games,   producingu3   video, or churning through large amounts of data.   K   Also, 64-bit computers can accommodate vast amounts of computer memory ---K   opening up far more powerful applications -- whereas 32-bit computers aren#   limited to 4 gigabytes of memory.R  C   Otellini said regular computer users were unlikely today to spend3   thousands ofC   dollars for computer memory for PCs that can cost as low as $699.c
   Eventually,mC   however, as memory prices drop and software becomes more complex,a
   he said,7   breaking the 4-gigabyte memory limit will make sense.t  @   "Just like we went from 16 to 32-bits, the memory requirements   grow over time onFC   applications, just as memory costs come down over time," he said.m
   "So at somec$   point it becomes very economical."  A   Otellini's comments now suggest that Intel intends to release ad   desktop chipG   similar to and compatible with AMD's 64-bit offering, Brookwood said.-  ?   "That should make for a more orderly market and transition to@   64-bit, and inB   some ways is a tacit endorsement of what AMD is doing," he said.  @   Last year AMD pushed ahead with its AMD64 line of chips, which
   run today'seA   32-bit software but can support 64-bit software being developedo   by Microsoft6   Corp. (MSFT.O: Quote, Profile, Research) and others.&    Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.     ---n(   Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.<   Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).B   Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 1/22/2004   ---e& Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).@ Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 1/22/2004   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:19:53 -0500i$ From: "vax,3900" <vax3900@yahoo.com>; Subject: Looking for M9404-PA M9405-PA QBUS Expension Cardst: Message-ID: <bvb8aq$kd7$1@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>  H I plan to exchange with a pair of KDA50 cards (one M7165 and one M7164)., Each side pays shipping by himself. Details:  7 I ship you a pair of KDA50 cards, with two card covers.rA You ship me a pair of M9404, M9505 with the attached card covers.-  H People on the list, please let me know whether it is a fair exchange. IfJ not, I am willing to exchange for the M9404 only. Yes, there is a M9405 on9 ebay now, but what I really need is the M9404. Thank you.h   ------------------------------    Date: 29 Jan 2004 02:08:15 -0800. From: martinkirby12@yahoo.co.uk (Martin Kirby)6 Subject: Re: MMS /From_Source triggers .DEFAULT action< Message-ID: <224291b.0401290208.771fb205@posting.google.com>   Anders,   E I talked with the MMS maintainer. We can't think of any alternative. -? It is not obvious whether what MMS is doing is correct or not. h  > What seems to happen is that MMS finds a file, say TEST.C, it = then looks for a rule to generate that. It can't find a rule <# so it executes the .DEFAULT action.e   Martin Kirby  o Anders.Wallin@om.com (Anders Wallin) wrote in message news:<79de16e3.0401280640.68571d85@posting.google.com>...n > Hello, > E > I am using MMS to compile and link a large number of C/CXX programsnH > and files. Somtimes one or more H-files are missing. In order to avoidH > MMS to abort I use the .DEFAULT action to report missing sources. This
 > works fine.a > B > However when I force a rebuild with MMS/From_Sources the defaultF > action is invoked for every single file in my MMS descriptions. This > can produce huge listings. > B > Is there a way to avoid MMS/From_Sources to trigger the .DEFAULT	 > action?f >  > VMS version V7.2, 7.2-1, 7.3' > MMS version V3.4-3 and older versions  >  > D > I use the current work-around but am looking for something better: > + > -----------------------------------------r
 > .DEFAULT : a" >    @ IF ("/From_Sources" .NES. -> >      "$(FINDSTRING /From_Sources, $(MMSQUALIFIERS))") THEN -F >      write sys$output "Missing file or action, target=$(MMS$TARGET)", > ------------------------------------------ > 	 > Regardss > Anders Wallino   ------------------------------    Date: 29 Jan 2004 10:53:03 -08007 From: jones.computer.srv@worldnet.att.net (Daryl Jones) 6 Subject: Re: MMS /From_Source triggers .DEFAULT action= Message-ID: <8a646952.0401291053.5b2d2406@posting.google.com>    Dear Anders Wallin:o  E You can create user define rules that will be executed before Defaulto0 is executed. For example when using cms library:   Suffixes - o        .suffixes;t+      .suffixes     :     .obj .c .h .c~ .h~    .c.~c     :; -A       $(cms) fetch $(mms$cms_element)/output=$(mms$target_name).cg $(cmsflags)'9       copy/log $(mms$target_name).c $(mms$target_name).c;g  F Anytime I fetch a module from the CMS library, I always copy it to theC next higher version which gave the module a new modify date causingR the mms action to execute.  C I am sure you can create a user defined rule that will work. I hopew this helps.c   Regards, Daryl Jones   o Anders.Wallin@om.com (Anders Wallin) wrote in message news:<79de16e3.0401280640.68571d85@posting.google.com>...e > Hello, > E > I am using MMS to compile and link a large number of C/CXX programsiH > and files. Somtimes one or more H-files are missing. In order to avoidH > MMS to abort I use the .DEFAULT action to report missing sources. This
 > works fine.e > B > However when I force a rebuild with MMS/From_Sources the defaultF > action is invoked for every single file in my MMS descriptions. This > can produce huge listings. > B > Is there a way to avoid MMS/From_Sources to trigger the .DEFAULT	 > action?a >  > VMS version V7.2, 7.2-1, 7.3' > MMS version V3.4-3 and older versionsi >  > D > I use the current work-around but am looking for something better: > + > -----------------------------------------t
 > .DEFAULT : i" >    @ IF ("/From_Sources" .NES. -> >      "$(FINDSTRING /From_Sources, $(MMSQUALIFIERS))") THEN -F >      write sys$output "Missing file or action, target=$(MMS$TARGET)", > ------------------------------------------ > 	 > Regards/ > Anders Wallinr   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:53:06 GMT-2 From: "Ken Farmer" <KFarmer@NOSPAM.SpyderByte.com>5 Subject: New Variant MyDoom.B targeting Microsoft.com-> Message-ID: <6f8Sb.21725$F86.1916164@twister.southeast.rr.com>  7 "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in messagem# news:4018E090.B0DB581A@istop.com... L > The latest windows virus is a most interesting one. It is aimed at SCO. OnJ > February 1, windows machines infected with MyDoom will constantly try toL > connect to the SCO web site, as a retaliation for SCO wanting to get money > from Linux users.  >oK > So, just like US commercial aircraft were used as tools to inflict damagen toL > the USA on Sept 11, it seems that Windows is now used as a tool to inflict; > damage to corporations who are not seen as good citizens.- > F > If these attacks focused at a precise target continue, there will be seriousnK > pressure to prevent windows from being used as weapons of mass disruptiont in > the corporate world. > K > First step might be to update major SMTP servers to block any emails sent* fromJ > a microsoft user agent (eg: outlook). This would force the world to stop usingnL > Outlook and thus solve the largest proportion of the viri on the internet.  " -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 Hash: SHA1     MyDoom.B Rapidly Spreading  C    Mydoom.B is a new variant of the Mydoom worm and is about 29,184fB    bytes. This variant attempts to perform a Distributed Denial ofF    Service (DDoS) attack against Microsoft.com. Details regarding thisI    new worm are still emerging, but it has been validated as spreading in=G    the wild. Facts about the worm will be further qualified with followo.    up reports following this initial analysis.  G    For the latest information about this worm from US-CERT, readers areeL    encouraged to visit http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/techalerts/TA04-028A.html.  G    E-mails sent out by Mydoom.B are highly randomized. The From address*C    may be spoofed to include one of the following domains: aol.com,-I    msn.com, yahoo.com and hotmail.com. A randomized string value may thenrE    be combined with these to generate new e-mails. This may result in4E    overload e-mail servers with many false addresses and auto-repliesi     associated with such traffic.  <    The subject is randomized to include one of the following
    following:E        * Delivery Error       * hello      * Error      * Mail Delivery System       * Mail Transaction Failed      * Returned mail      * Server Report
      * Statuse$      * Unable to deliver the message  H    The subject may also contain randomized data as seen in a recent live(    sample: "RE: I still love you fLctv".  <    The message body is also randomized to include one of the
    following:u        * RANDOMIZED CHARACTERS      * testoH      * The message cannot be represented in 7-bit ASCII encoding and has(        been sent as a binary attachment.H      * sendmail daemon reported: Error #804 occured during SMTP session.)        Partial message has been received.yE      * The message contains Unicode characters and has been sent as at        binary attachment.sH      * The message contains MIME-encoded graphics and has been sent as a        binary attachment.D=      * Mail transaction failed. Partial message is available.   F    The attachments have a randomized filename selected from one of the    following string values:p        * body>
      * doc      * texth      * documentm      * data       * file 
      * readme-      * message  A    The randomized string value is then combined with a randomizedlI    extension: .exe, .bat, .scr, .cmd or .pif. If the malicious attachment C    is executed, it then opens notepad.exe and displays garbled datar    (binary).  H    Once executed, the worm attempts to create the following files in theE    Windows System directory: explorer.exe and dtfmon.dll. The WindowsIC    registry is then modified to run the worm in memory upon Windowsp    startup:t  7      HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run-5      Explorer=C:WINDOWS SYSTEM DIRECTORY\explorer.exel  H    The DLL component is associated with a backdoor feature of this worm.I    It is likely that this Trojan worms like the one in Mydoom.A. It scansrD    through a range of TCP addresses looking for inbound TCP traffic.H    Inbound TCP traffic can be used to configure the infected computer as@    a proxy computer or to install code of choice on the infectedH    computer. More importantly, attackers are already working on tools to>    hijack Mydoom infected computers to install code of choice.  E    The DDoS attack of Mydoom.B is against www.microsoft.com. There istI    information claiming that it may also be directed at sco.com, but thisoE    is unsubstantiated at this time. It appears that the more credibletI    data is that it only performs a DDoS attack against www.microsoft.com, E    though a previosu version of the virus is confirmed to attack SCO.   C    To spread over the KaZaA P2P network, Mydoom.B creates copies offB    itself in the KaZaA shared directory with randomized filenames.    Filenames include:d        * attackXP-1.263      * BlackIce_Firewall_Enterpriseactivation_cracks      * MS04-01_hotfixt      * NessusScan_pro       * icq2004-final      * winamp5      * xsharez_scanner      * zapSetup_40_148  G    A randomized extension is then added to the filename selected above, "    being .exe, .scr, .pif or .bat.  H    Mydoom.B attempts to harvest e-mails from Temporary Internet files asI    well as via randomized e-mails aforementioned. It does not include any-E    e-mails containing the following strings: abuse, accoun, certific,iF    listserv, ntivi, icrosoft, admin, page, the.bat, gold-certs, feste,I    submit, help, service, privacy, somebody, soft, contact, site, rating,gB    bugs, your, someone, anyone, nothing, nobody, noone, webmaster,F    postmaster, support, samples, info, root, ruslis, nodomai, mydomai,G    example, inpris, borlan, nai., sopho, foo., .mil, gov., .gov, panda,hH    icrosof, syma, kasper, mozilla, utgers.ed, tanford.e, acketst, secur,D    isc.o, isi.e, ripe., arin., sendmail, rfc-ed, ietf, iana, usenet,A    fido, linux, kernel, google, ibm.com, fsf., mit.e, math, unix,     berkeley and spam..  F    Mydoom.B also opens TCP port 10080. The worm contains the followingE    string: "sync-1.01; andy; I'm just doing my job, nothing personal,o
    sorry".  "    Alias: Mydoom, Novarg, Mydoom.B      Sources:l  E      F-Secure Corp. (http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/mydoom_b.shtml),u      Jan. 28, 2004        Bit DefendereK      (http://www.bitdefender.com/bd/site/virusinfo.php?menu_id=1&v_id=186),d      Jan. 28, 2004  F      iDEFENSE Intelligence Operations, Jan. 28, 2004 Sensible Security7      Solutions Inc. (http://www.sss.ca/), Jan. 28, 2004e  D    According to iDEFENSE, this new variant of Mydoom appears to haveI    different MIMI data for malicious e-mails. The content type appears to E    be plain text and includes a ZIP extension. Mydoom.A had a contenteC    type of application/octet-stream and multipart/mixed data. It isyH    likely that this newest variant of Mydoom will become very widespreadH    in the wild. The first variant had well over 3M interceptions by just5    two sources in the first 18 hours of the outbreak.h  G    Look for questionable files about 29,184 bytes. Look for notepad.exePI    to be opened, displaying binary data (garbled text). Also look for theB(    Windows registry created by the worm.  H    Recovery: Remove all files and the Windows registry key modificationsC    associated with this malicious code threat. Restore corrupted oru*    damaged files with clean backup copies.  F    Workaround: Configure e-mail servers and workstations to block fileF    types commonly used by malicious code to spread to other computers.C    Block ZIP and executable extensions on the gateway and groupwareuH    level. Also monitor traffic on the network and block ports associatedD    with Mydoom, especially inbound TCP ports for the backdoor TrojanE    component and the outbound TCP 10080 port data. Administrators mayoA    also find value in monitoring traffic associated with the DDoS H    component. Carefully manage all new files, scanning them with updated5    anti-virus software using heuristics prior to use.v  G    Vendor Fix: Anti-virus vendors will likely release updated signatureIH    files to protect against this malicious code in the near future. SomeH    anti-virus applications may detect this malicious code heuristically.  %      Name of Malicious Code: Mydoom.Bt
      Aliases:t
      Mydoom.Bi      Mydoomi      Novargs      Size in Bytes: 29184 )      Subjects: RE: I still love you fLctv-G      Body: Error 551: We are sorry your UTF-8 encoding is not supportedHH      by the server, so the text was automatically zipped and attached to      this message.      Attachments: message.zip.  I    This document was developed based on material contributed by iDEFENSE.R%    Our thanks for their contribution.v  4                        Last updated January 28, 2004 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- ! Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)r  @ iD8DBQFAGEufXlvNRxAkFWARAjEOAJ92cfCtcUVX+/6CGoRwGj7mIbxhzQCg0mdJ /ip1ThurA7opfYb0JUET2UI= =j+iBu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----n     -- Kenneth Farmer <><  J '"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not J by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. ForhG that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom ofn worship here." -- Patrick Henry   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 06:05:56 -0800e# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>. Subject: RE: New Virus9 Message-ID: <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIEEMBCLAA.tom@kednos.com>v   (Cross-posted)  $ Is anybody porting spambayes to VMS?     -----Original Message-----I   From: Tillman, Brian (AGRE) [mailto:Brian.Tillman@smiths-aerospace.com]H*   Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 5:54 AM   To: MX-Support@MadGoat.com   Subject: RE: New Virus            Geoff Roberts wrote:   =   > We desperately need to be able to filter based on message +   > body content alone and/or combined with:>   > header info.   We are also getting an increasing number of5   > spams with random subject lines, or subject lines.<   > that mimic legit messages and bear no resemblance to the=   > content.  Even the content is getting scrambled, with nonhF   > standard characters ie @ instead of a and numeral1 or ! instead ofI   > lower case L etc. AFAICT, MX can't operate on any of this part of thet-   > message as it's in the body, not headers.c   H   MX, then, is not the tool for you.  My personal opinion is that addingG   additional anti-spam capability to MX is way beyond the scope of whatnI   the software is intended to do.  There are other tools alrady availablen?   (InterScan from Trend Micro, MAILsweeper from ClearSwift, andfD   PreciseMail from Process Software, to name three) that do what youD   require.  There are even a couple of freeware ones (SpamBayes fromF   http://spambayes.sourceforge.net/ to name one).  Don't burden a toolG   which does its job well (deliver SMTP mail) with functions way beyond H   its design scope.  Don't get me wrong.  I think the anti-spam featuresG   of MX are very worth-while additions.  Scanning the body, however, isrH   more complex.  It requires a full-fledged HTML interpreter sp that, inJ   addition to scanning the text prior to interpretation, it can be scanned7   afterward as well, since so much junk mail h</null>ass?   an</null>ti-s</null>pam tricks in it that render scanning the "   uninterpreted code insufficient.+   -- Brian Tillman         Smiths Aerospaceh    3290 Patterson Ave. SE, MS 1B3   Grand Rapids, MI 49512-1991h@   Brian.Tillman is the name, smiths-aerospace.com is the domain.C          I don't speak for Smiths, and Smiths doesn't speak for me.n      </table> </Pre>t   <HTML>   <br>   <br>6   ************************************************<br>A   The information contained in, or attached to, this e-mail, may rB   contain confidential information and is intended solely for the A   use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed and -@   may be subject to legal privilege.  If you have received this D   e-mail in error you should notify the sender immediately by reply >   e-mail, delete the message from your system and notify your =   system manager.  Please do not copy it for any purpose, or 0D   disclose its contents to any other person.  The views or opinions    presented.<    in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not D   necessarily represent those of the company.  The recipient should <   check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of D   viruses.  The company accepts no liability for any damage caused, E   directly or indirectly, by any virus transmitted in this email.<br>t6   ************************************************<br>	   </HTML>       ---o(   Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.<   Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).B   Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 1/22/2004    ---c& Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).@ Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 1/22/2004   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:48:01 +0000pO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>n" Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers0 Message-ID: <bvaod1$jhl$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   JF Mezei wrote:M > John Laird wrote:e > H >>>>It is now.  Have you thought of asking Alastair Campbell for a job ? >> >>I see spin everywhere ;-)6 >  > O > Spin which just has caused a few heads to roll at the BBC already even thoughrL > everyone knows that what the BBC published was right. Governments are veryK > good as sheltering their heads from the accusations of lying and focusingN! > blame onto innocent bystanders.s >   = I don't know if you got details of the Hutton Report prior tot; posting this last night but the report appears to clear the  UK government of blame.e  ( It also says that the BBC were to blame.  = Hutton was chosen because of his independance (he is a Judge) @ and in the UK there is a clear separation between the government( and the judiciary as there is in Canada.  L > This is stuff right out of "Yes Minister". Except in this case, it was forK > real, an a top british expert died as a result of aides trying to prevent. > blame from going to Bliar. >   B That is not what Hutton found. The government was blamed for their> clumsy handling of the case that was all. The BBC according to8 Hutton have to shoulder the blame for the whole episode.  2 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3439845.stm  ? Late last night this lead to the resignation of the Chairman ofm; the Corporation Gavyn Davies and there are suggestions thata other resignations will follow.e   Regardsa Andrew HarrisonIN > Bliar didn't technically lie when he said he had received intelligence aboutI > that 45 minute readiness. But he omitted (and asked for that text to betH > omitted from the "dossier") to mention that he had been told that thatH > intelligence was questionable. (came from a single disgruntled Iraqi). > P > That is similar to a former president of the USA who stated that he hadn't hadP > sexual relations with Miss Lewisnky. Technically, he wasn't lying based on his% > own definition of sexual relations.> > P > And HP isn't technically breaking their "plan of record" with Alpha since theyM > will relabel EV7 into EV7z, delivering on a promise to provide a speed bump G > after EV7. But everyone sees right through this and knows that HP hasaN > cancelled the real EV79 and is just allowing EV7 to get up to its originally > designed speed.  > P > It is all about trust. When you don't trust someone or a vendor, you will readI > between the lines and make damned sure that you won't be screwed by the-K > vendor. And the non-delivery of EV79 is just another break in trust, even<L > though legally, HP is still delivering a new chip (happens to be the exact6 > same one inside with just a different label on top).   ------------------------------  + Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:48:20 +0000 (UTC)s From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk" Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers) Message-ID: <bvavek$jgs$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>y   In article <bvaod1$jhl$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: >JF Mezei wrote: >> John Laird wrote: >>  I >>>>>It is now.  Have you thought of asking Alastair Campbell for a job ?  >>>e >>>I see spin everywhere ;-) >> l >> SP >> Spin which just has caused a few heads to roll at the BBC already even thoughM >> everyone knows that what the BBC published was right. Governments are veryaL >> good as sheltering their heads from the accusations of lying and focusing" >> blame onto innocent bystanders. >> 2 >a> >I don't know if you got details of the Hutton Report prior to< >posting this last night but the report appears to clear the >UK government of blame. > ) >It also says that the BBC were to blame.b >$> >Hutton was chosen because of his independance (he is a Judge)A >and in the UK there is a clear separation between the governmentA) >and the judiciary as there is in Canada.: > M >> This is stuff right out of "Yes Minister". Except in this case, it was for L >> real, an a top british expert died as a result of aides trying to prevent >> blame from going to Bliar.i >> o  I A lot of the public and this morning's press are regarding the report as tL pretty biased and, when considered against the evidence presented during the inquiry, a whitewash.i  ) From the front page of today's Daily Maila  O "Hutton does us a great disservice. He fails to set his story in the context ofo/ the BBC's huge virtues and Labour's sore vices.tI We have the wretched spectacle of a BBC chairman resigning while Alistairo/ Cambell crows from the summit of his dunghill."C   Followed by the Banner linee  	 JUSTICE ?       F As mentioned this is straight out of "Yes Minister" where Sir HumphreyN instructs Hacker on how to get an inquiry report to say exactly what he wants.     
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University   > C >That is not what Hutton found. The government was blamed for their ? >clumsy handling of the case that was all. The BBC according too9 >Hutton have to shoulder the blame for the whole episode.h >x3 >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3439845.stmy > @ >Late last night this lead to the resignation of the Chairman of< >the Corporation Gavyn Davies and there are suggestions that  >other resignations will follow. >  >Regards >Andrew HarrisonO >> Bliar didn't technically lie when he said he had received intelligence abouthJ >> that 45 minute readiness. But he omitted (and asked for that text to beI >> omitted from the "dossier") to mention that he had been told that that I >> intelligence was questionable. (came from a single disgruntled Iraqi).g >> rQ >> That is similar to a former president of the USA who stated that he hadn't hadpQ >> sexual relations with Miss Lewisnky. Technically, he wasn't lying based on hisa& >> own definition of sexual relations. >>  Q >> And HP isn't technically breaking their "plan of record" with Alpha since theynN >> will relabel EV7 into EV7z, delivering on a promise to provide a speed bumpH >> after EV7. But everyone sees right through this and knows that HP hasO >> cancelled the real EV79 and is just allowing EV7 to get up to its originally  >> designed speed. >> iQ >> It is all about trust. When you don't trust someone or a vendor, you will readdJ >> between the lines and make damned sure that you won't be screwed by theL >> vendor. And the non-delivery of EV79 is just another break in trust, evenM >> though legally, HP is still delivering a new chip (happens to be the exacts7 >> same one inside with just a different label on top).a >o   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:05:51 +0000 - From: John Laird <nospam@laird-towers.org.uk>r" Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers8 Message-ID: <ip0i10d8nbogq1a16lgcpj7vfnr9ibadmj@4ax.com>  I On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:48:20 +0000 (UTC), david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:e  J >A lot of the public and this morning's press are regarding the report as M >pretty biased and, when considered against the evidence presented during the  >inquiry, a whitewash.  I With the obvious proviso that everything we hear has been filtered by oneRJ media source or another (unless you can come by a personal copy of all 700L pages), we are getting a fairly clear impression that every statement duringE the inquiry from government sources has been taken at face value, andsK everything from the BBC subject to query and criticism.  Two members of therH public who attended every day, and who appeared on TV this morning, saidK that the unequivocal published acceptance of some matters seemed distinctlyc6 at odds with the chairman's own behaviour at the time.  * >From the front page of today's Daily Mail  I Oh dear, you can't use that to back up any argument :-(   The IndependenttD had a nice front page - top half almost entirely blank with the word "Whitewash" in the middle.   -- y7 For people who like peace and quiet: a phoneless cord. e   Mail john rather than nospam...n   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:28:56 +0000cO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>," Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers0 Message-ID: <bvb1qp$mql$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:t > In article <bvaod1$jhl$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: >   + > From the front page of today's Daily Maile > Q > "Hutton does us a great disservice. He fails to set his story in the context ofl1 > the BBC's huge virtues and Labour's sore vices.hK > We have the wretched spectacle of a BBC chairman resigning while Alistaire1 > Cambell crows from the summit of his dunghill."  >   4 Um since when has the Daily Mail been a serious well+ respected paper without a political agenda.c  3 The Daily Mail is so anti labour that it makes some  Tory supporters uncomfortable.  7 To be honest I cannot take much of the published mediasv response very seriously.  3 The BBC started the whole fight but the broadsheetso6 and red tops went straight into feeding frenzy without1 much review on their part of the BBC story. Theirr7 reaction now that Hutton has exhonerated the governmentr4 and fingered the BBC is entirely predictable because9 the report doesn't say much for their editorial abilitiesa either.   2 I say this a someone who isn't a Labour supporter.   Regards  Andrew Harrisone   ------------------------------  + Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:53:25 +0000 (UTC)g From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk" Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers) Message-ID: <bvb6p5$ltv$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>s  h In article <ip0i10d8nbogq1a16lgcpj7vfnr9ibadmj@4ax.com>, John Laird <nospam@laird-towers.org.uk> writes:J >On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:48:20 +0000 (UTC), david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: >nK >>A lot of the public and this morning's press are regarding the report as fN >>pretty biased and, when considered against the evidence presented during the >>inquiry, a whitewash.p >oJ >With the obvious proviso that everything we hear has been filtered by oneK >media source or another (unless you can come by a personal copy of all 700fM >pages), we are getting a fairly clear impression that every statement duringFF >the inquiry from government sources has been taken at face value, andL >everything from the BBC subject to query and criticism.  Two members of theI >public who attended every day, and who appeared on TV this morning, saidtL >that the unequivocal published acceptance of some matters seemed distinctly7 >at odds with the chairman's own behaviour at the time.  > + >>From the front page of today's Daily Mailt > J >Oh dear, you can't use that to back up any argument :-(   The IndependentE >had a nice front page - top half almost entirely blank with the wordS >"Whitewash" in the middle.m >   J I'm not using it to back any argument. Just providing it as one data pointM as to what some of the Morning Papers are saying. Your Independent front pagel! provides another such data point.r  
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University     >-- 8 >For people who like peace and quiet: a phoneless cord.  >o  >Mail john rather than nospam...   ------------------------------  + Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:06:41 +0000 (UTC)  From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk" Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers) Message-ID: <bvb7i1$m41$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>    In article <bvb1qp$mql$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes:  >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: >> In article <bvaod1$jhl$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes:p >> n >y, >> From the front page of today's Daily Mail >> ,R >> "Hutton does us a great disservice. He fails to set his story in the context of2 >> the BBC's huge virtues and Labour's sore vices.L >> We have the wretched spectacle of a BBC chairman resigning while Alistair2 >> Cambell crows from the summit of his dunghill." >> a >d5 >Um since when has the Daily Mail been a serious wellr, >respected paper without a political agenda. >y4 >The Daily Mail is so anti labour that it makes some >Tory supporters uncomfortable.e > 8 >To be honest I cannot take much of the published medias >response very seriously.i > 4 >The BBC started the whole fight but the broadsheets7 >and red tops went straight into feeding frenzy withoutI2 >much review on their part of the BBC story. Their8 >reaction now that Hutton has exhonerated the government5 >and fingered the BBC is entirely predictable becauseg: >the report doesn't say much for their editorial abilities >either. >   3 >I say this a someone who isn't a Labour supporter.o > K I tend to pick up different papers at different times - today I happened to  pick up the Mail.t  J In the past I've been a pretty strong Labour supporter - I've never voted E Tory in my life. However after tuition fees (even though I work for aiH University) and Iraq I can no longer trust the Prime Minister and hence E will not be voting Labour again until Tony Blair is no longer leader.n    
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University       >Regards >Andrew Harrison >-   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:17:00 +0000 O From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>o" Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers0 Message-ID: <bvb85c$p2o$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:e > In article <bvb1qp$mql$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: > ! >>david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:i >> >>>In article <bvaod1$jhl$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes:l >>>s >>, >>>From the front page of today's Daily Mail >>> R >>>"Hutton does us a great disservice. He fails to set his story in the context of2 >>>the BBC's huge virtues and Labour's sore vices.L >>>We have the wretched spectacle of a BBC chairman resigning while Alistair2 >>>Cambell crows from the summit of his dunghill." >>>e >>6 >>Um since when has the Daily Mail been a serious well- >>respected paper without a political agenda.e >>5 >>The Daily Mail is so anti labour that it makes somef  >>Tory supporters uncomfortable. >>9 >>To be honest I cannot take much of the published mediasc >>response very seriously. >>5 >>The BBC started the whole fight but the broadsheetse8 >>and red tops went straight into feeding frenzy without3 >>much review on their part of the BBC story. Their 9 >>reaction now that Hutton has exhonerated the government 6 >>and fingered the BBC is entirely predictable because; >>the report doesn't say much for their editorial abilitiesa	 >>either.9 >> >  > 4 >>I say this a someone who isn't a Labour supporter. >> > M > I tend to pick up different papers at different times - today I happened tos > pick up the Mail.  >   6 Well next time pick up something else. The Mail is the4 McDonalds of the paper world you pick it up and read! it and then regret it latter. :-)s  0 At least the Sun has its tongue sometimes in its0 cheek, the scary thing about the Mail is you get2 the distinct impression that they actually beleive what they write.  1 It also raises the scary vision of a Mail readingt1 OpenVMS advocate, an irrational version of Bob ifd you like ;-)   Regardsh Andrew Harrison-   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:45:09 GMT@' From: nospam <x@wedontwantyourspam.com>M" Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers5 Message-ID: <BC3F75AA.1EDD0%x@wedontwantyourspam.com>g  L DEC did once have a Big Endian processor the 36-bit PDP-10. No little endianI mode in sight. They cancelled its follow-up processor in 1983 the company I lost a lot of trust then over it. They choose this silly ;) little endianhA processor called VAX and VMS. Neither of which measured up to the I performance or functionality initially. It seems to me that the alpha hadeH the same fate. VAX had a much kinder death than alpha, VMS well its on a very bumpy unsure road.       	     Mark.S   ------------------------------  + Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:42:23 +0000 (UTC)  From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk" Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers) Message-ID: <bvb9kv$mi6$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>c   In article <bvb85c$p2o$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes:  >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: >> In article <bvb1qp$mql$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes:7 >> ." >>>david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: >>>v >>>>In article <bvaod1$jhl$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: >>>> >>>T- >>>>From the front page of today's Daily Mail  >>>>S >>>>"Hutton does us a great disservice. He fails to set his story in the context off3 >>>>the BBC's huge virtues and Labour's sore vices.-M >>>>We have the wretched spectacle of a BBC chairman resigning while Alistair-3 >>>>Cambell crows from the summit of his dunghill."  >>>> >>>.7 >>>Um since when has the Daily Mail been a serious well:. >>>respected paper without a political agenda. >>>D6 >>>The Daily Mail is so anti labour that it makes some! >>>Tory supporters uncomfortable.a >>>e: >>>To be honest I cannot take much of the published medias >>>response very seriously.  >>>i6 >>>The BBC started the whole fight but the broadsheets9 >>>and red tops went straight into feeding frenzy without(4 >>>much review on their part of the BBC story. Their: >>>reaction now that Hutton has exhonerated the government7 >>>and fingered the BBC is entirely predictable becauseM< >>>the report doesn't say much for their editorial abilities
 >>>either. >>>  >> o >> d5 >>>I say this a someone who isn't a Labour supporter.o >>>  >> eN >> I tend to pick up different papers at different times - today I happened to >> pick up the Mail. >> m >n7 >Well next time pick up something else. The Mail is the85 >McDonalds of the paper world you pick it up and readi" >it and then regret it latter. :-) >e1 >At least the Sun has its tongue sometimes in itsm1 >cheek, the scary thing about the Mail is you geto3 >the distinct impression that they actually beleiveu >what they write.  >e  > I tend to find the Sun with it's Xenophobic attitudes scarier.? Maybe your letting the fact that it shares it's name with your c- favourite IT  company cloud your judgement :)   3 Anyway this is extremely off-topic for comp.os.vms.   
 David Webb VMS and Unix team leader CCSS Middlesex University  2 >It also raises the scary vision of a Mail reading2 >OpenVMS advocate, an irrational version of Bob if
 >you like ;-)- >- >Regards >Andrew Harrison >-   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:57:48 +0000I- From: John Laird <nospam@laird-towers.org.uk> " Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers8 Message-ID: <f9bi1014i0ekdgt7q9u0b7h8fqb23clmkn@4ax.com>  I On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:53:25 +0000 (UTC), david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:-  i >In article <ip0i10d8nbogq1a16lgcpj7vfnr9ibadmj@4ax.com>, John Laird <nospam@laird-towers.org.uk> writes:cK >>On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:48:20 +0000 (UTC), david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:6 >>>1, >>>From the front page of today's Daily Mail >>K >>Oh dear, you can't use that to back up any argument :-(   The Independent F >>had a nice front page - top half almost entirely blank with the word >>"Whitewash" in the middle. >>K >I'm not using it to back any argument. Just providing it as one data point,N >as to what some of the Morning Papers are saying. Your Independent front page" >provides another such data point.  G Sorry for my misinterpretation.  However, I find the DM so rabid that I ( wouldn't even use it as a data point ;-)   -- e: I have a vitally important role serving as a bad example.    Mail john rather than nospam...s   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:53:56 GMT 4 From: brad@.gateway.2wire.net (Bradford J. Hamilton)Q Subject: OT: OpenVMS advocates and the Daily Mail (was:Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers)c/ Message-ID: <EUaSb.138056$5V2.709026@attbi_s53>t   In article <bvb85c$p2o$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: !snip! !B7 !Well next time pick up something else. The Mail is thep5 !McDonalds of the paper world you pick it up and ready" !it and then regret it latter. :-) !s1 !At least the Sun has its tongue sometimes in itsn1 !cheek, the scary thing about the Mail is you getc3 !the distinct impression that they actually beleiver !what they write.e !a2 !It also raises the scary vision of a Mail reading2 !OpenVMS advocate, an irrational version of Bob if
 !you like ;-)w !   H Please! - not all advocates are like Bob (or read the Daily Mail).  ManyN advocates are sober, sensible people who enjoy their work, and are grateful to be working on a great platform.s   :-)u   !Regards !Andrew Harrison !e  J __________________________________________________________________________A Bradford J. Hamilton                    "All opinions are my own"tK bMradAhamiPltSon-at-coMmcAast.nPeSt     "Lose the MAPS, and replace '-at-'  0                                          with @"   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:27:36 -0500 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>) Subject: OT: OpenVMS I64 Compilers (spin)l) Message-ID: <4018FBFF.A05D2ED8@istop.com>   ( Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote:? > I don't know if you got details of the Hutton Report prior to*= > posting this last night but the report appears to clear thet > UK government of blame.d  I But the blame was very focused. The accusation was that Bliar knew he was G lying when he talked about that 45 minute thing.  Hutton found that theuG accusation was unfounded. He didn't find that the accusation was wrong.   M It is true that Bliar didn't know that the 45 minute story was false. He justcK knew it came from an unreliable source, and his Spin master asked that thisoK last bit of information be omitted fron the sexed up report, making it looknL like the 45 minute story was substantiated and reliable enough to be used asM an excuse that an immediate attack was necessary and that the world could not I wait a few more weeks to let the UN inspectors continue their significant M progress. (had they allowed the inspectors to progress, the justification forfI war would have gone down since the world would have seen that Hussein wasd fully cooperating).     I The BBC chose to question Bliar's so called evidence with reports such aseN Andrew Gilligan's. However, I also watched French (France) television and theyL chose to question the evidence by having  french intelligence experts on TV,E taking apart each piece of so called evidence and providing technicaltK analysis. It was interesting because it provided an insight on what type ofo3 information they looked for in pictures, audio etc.t  M For instance, the photos presented by Powell to the UN had no trustable date,oG and no angle of view and time of day (to measure shadows) which made itTN impossible to verify the legitimacy of the evidence). Of course, that evidenceL only showed that some trucks had been there, so to begin with, it wasn't any evidence of WMDs).  F While this may not be important to civilians, if the USA was trying toJ convince nations such as France, Russia, Germany and all the others of theI urgency of the invasion, they would have provided all this information toMN allow their own intelligence groups to verify the legitimacy of such evidence.  M Similarly, when Mr Baradei presented as fact that the so called evidence thatgL Iraq had sought to buy uranium from Nigeria had been fabricated, you'd thinkD that Bliar would have immediatly  demanded an inquiry on why his ownN intelligence people would have either fabricated the evidence , or been stupidM enough not to detect that they had received fabricated evidence.  The lack ofnB a reaction meant that Bliar knowingly accepted falsified evidence.    N Remember that all of the allies of the USA and UK had told the USA and UK thatI the evidence was not good. So, while it may be a surprise to the american_N public, and while the US and UK governments might act surprised now, they haveL no excuse because they knew.  If the president of Russia calls you and tellsL you that his analysts have concluded that your evidence is no good, woudln'tL you go back to your intelligence people and ask them to explain why all your2 allies are finding your evidence to be worthless ?    L What Hutton showed is that Bliar's office made sure there was deniability toN protect the prime minister from the lies. Had Gilligan instead said that BlairL knowingly used information he knew to be unreliable, I suspect that Hutton'sL report would have been extremely critical of the Bliar government instead of* calling for the BBC to shed lots of blood.    H Note that Gilligan's report did mention that the information came from aM single unidentified source. Bliar's report actively omitted the fact that theaT 45 minute informtion came from a single unreliable source and had not been verified.  F So Hutton's mandate, established by Bliar's office, was very carefullyO circumscribed to allow Bliar to come out clean and have the BBC take the blame.e  N Remember that Alistair Campbell had to resign over this. Had he been innocent,N don't you think he would have stayed to defend both himself and the PM ? Don'tM you find it odd that Campbell woudl come out of the closet yesterday and firesB up a very angry speech calling for many heads to roll at the BBC ?  ? > Hutton was chosen because of his independance (he is a Judge)8  L But his mandate was extremely limited, and no matter how independant he was,L he had to clear Bliar of that specific charge, even though he could have hadI the opinion that overall Bliar knowingly lied about some of the evidence.d  F Also, consider that a politican who plans such a war, knowing that theM evidence is being questioned and will be questioned, will make damned sure hefN has deniability. Bush will blame the CIA and avoid mentioning that he had been3 warned by his allies that the evidence was no good.   D > That is not what Hutton found. The government was blamed for their+ > clumsy handling of the case that was all.   N Which resulted in a death. The whole goal of revealing Mr Kelly's identity was4 to discredit the BBC journalist and shift the story.   > The BBC according to: > Hutton have to shoulder the blame for the whole episode.  M No. The BBC are guilty of using wrong wording to present an accusation which,iF in the big picture, was true. It is the government which are guilty ofJ misusing intelligence, and knowingly releasing the identity of a person toR discredit both himself and the reporter, resulting in Mr Kelly committing suicide.  L Bliar was mad that the BBC was reporting reality and found a way to get back at the BBC.n  J In the end Hussein will get the last laugh because he will have managed toL discredit and ridicule both CIA and MI6, causing both countries to lose muchL credibility in the world and the next time either of those countries come toG the UN with so called "evidence", they will be laughed at. (even if thelJ agencies themselves are not at fault, their respective heads of state will$ blame them to save their own skins).  J What this also shows is that after Clinton pulled the UN inspectors out inK 1998, there was a void of credible intelligence. This leads credence to thedR accusations that americans UN inspectors were also feeding information to the CIA.  G Coming back to spin, the issue now is that to save their own skins, thetE politicians (Bliar and Bush) will shift the blame to their respectiverJ intelligence agencies and this will discredit the country for a long time.  N If Blush and Bliar admitted they knowingly exagerated/lied about the evidence,D their respective intelligence agencies would remain credible and theJ subsequent governments would be able to use intelligence to convince other countries of a threath.s  L The USA and UK have cried wolfe one too many times. No amount of spinning toI their own citizens will fix the damage to their international reputation.Q   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:36:34 -0600 ( From: Wayne Sewell <wayne@tachysoft.com>7 Subject: OT: UK politics (was Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilersn/ Message-ID: <00A2C9D3.D9138F9D.1@tachysoft.com>t  . >From: John Laird <nospam@laird-towers.org.uk> >X-Newsgroups: comp.os.vms# >Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilerse& >Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:05:51 +0000   [political stuff deleted]-  N Could people rename the topic as above?  This subthread has nothing to do with
 compilers.O ===============================================================================nN Wayne Sewell, Tachyon Software Consulting  (281)812-0738   wayne@tachysoft.com; http://www.tachysoft.com/www/tachyon.html and wayne.html   aO ===============================================================================oB Jed Clampett, checking into hotel: "This place got a cement pond?", 	Ellie May: "And do yuh let critters in it?"   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:29:18 +0000bO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>pJ Subject: Re: Other Little Endian computers (was Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers)0 Message-ID: <bvan9u$j2q$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>  ( Christine Ricketts/Andrew Stewart wrote:< > "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message/ > news:vArzBt3MHhBk@eisner.encompasserve.org...c > H >>In article <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIOEJCCLAA.tom@kednos.com>, "Tom Linden" >  > <tom@kednos.com> writes: > I >>>I may be wrong here, but I think ALL processors other than Digital andm" >>>Microsoft have been big Endian. >>/ >>I don't think Microsoft ever made processors.e >  > 1 > True, but the Motorola 68xxx was little endian.n >   2 The Sun2 and Sun3 series which were Motorola 68XXX/ based were big-endian, its one reason why SPARCt started off big-endian.r  2 I don't believe that the 68XXX supported bi-endian4 so I have to conclude that you are mistaken and that the 68000 was big-endian only.   Regardsl Andrew Harrisoni > -- > Regards, Andy. > 1 > 03-9808-9584 AH, 0407-300-818 Reasonable Hours.  > , > "The Early Christians get the Best Lions.", > Jack Gilmore, quoted in "Digital At Work." >  >  >  >    ------------------------------    Date: 29 Jan 2004 08:02:26 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) J Subject: Re: Other Little Endian computers (was Re: OpenVMS I64 Compilers)3 Message-ID: <gbBGUr8CX88m@eisner.encompasserve.org>n  r In article <40182808_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, "Christine Ricketts/Andrew Stewart" <u1276a@uxnxixtxe.com.au> writes: > 1 > True, but the Motorola 68xxx was little endian.i  :    Then how is it Mac OS always ran on them in big-endian?   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 03:08:14 -0500 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars) Message-ID: <4018BF4A.A52D8F41@istop.com>s   "David J. Dachtera" wrote:I > A quick read seems to indicate that hp have taken a swim in "that rivera > in Egypt".    J No. The way I see it, HP is doing to Opteron what IBM is to IA64: Get someH servers out so it can claim "me too". And it also leaves the door openedO should Opteron start to gain signififcant market share, HP won't miss the boat.y   ##L but there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that HP will forsake ItaniumM for Opteron in its range of 64-bit enterprise systems. HP has OpenVMS, Linux,rK Windows, UNIX, and NSK running on Itanium today, and porting these OSes  toe; yet another architecture would be a time-consuming--if even F feasible--task--that would place  HP at a competitive disadvantage and- completely  disrupt the Integrity game plan. n ##  I Neither VMS nor NSK are commercially available on IA64 today. How much of*J Windows is commercially available on IA64 ? And how much Linux software isK available for iA64 ? The fact is that years after its initial introduction,mL IA64 is still not a major player in the market, although it is fair to stateC that this will improve in the next year or two when some commercial E availability of software will materialise. But the breath of software72 available on IA64 will put IA64 at a disadvantage.  M Also, I very much dislike Shannon's dismissal of Sparc.  he doesn't produce aoN "Shannon knows Sun" newsletter, so he shouldn't make such "certain" statementsJ that Sun will dump Sparc. Her should have left to to "some people question= whether Sun will continue to develop the Sparc architecture".   L Just because HP/Compaq decided to get out of the CPU design business doesn'tJ mean that all other companies will do the same.  HP/Compaq want to emulateL Dell by dumping everything but final assembly and packaging processes. So HPM is essentially transforming itself into a marketing company, not the R&D firmn8 that it used to be. IBM and Sun still do plenty of R&D.   G Look at Compaq: almost all of the innovation that came during its reign K actually was begun under Digital. Alpha rode on momentum. Wildfires and EV7sH were begun under Digital with Digital engineers who mapped the goals andL innovated with the concepts. Compaq merely allowed those projects to come to) completion, albeit at a very slowed rate.C  M With IA64 now totally separate from OS and system designers, it will not helpsM innovate in new technologies that better integrate CPUs into systems. IBM andnM Sparc still have that integration capability and may be able to innovate withr= new techniques that better integrate CPUs into large systems.s  J Now that the Alpha has been murdered, who is going to generate all the newE concepts which Alpha used to innovate ?  Intel is like the Borg. TheysK assimilate other people's ideas and then are very good at mass production. yM With both PA-Risc and Alpha dead, where will Intel find the ideas that it cane
 assimilate ? H  I Intel may have the Digital engineers, but if the corporate culture limitsgN innovation to the chips (and not system/OS integrations), then those engineersJ may no longer generate new ideas/concepts for system/OS level integration.  G It isn't hard to speculate on when Microsoft will pull the plug on IA64iH support for Windows. Only customers paid by Intel/HP will adopt IA64 forJ Windows, especially when Opteron will offer a far more "wintel" compatible6 solution  with far more software available from day 1.    N Yes, IA64 is improving.  The question is whether this is "too little too late" or not.   L Carly/Curly committed HP/Digital/Tandem to IA64.  No matter how bad IA64 is,H it is fair to expect them to give IA64 the best possible chance. HP onlyK recently released its integrity line, the first "branded" products based on N IA64 (with previous products mostly just betas sold to developpers). They willJ give IA64 a chance. And they don't really have a choice. PA-Risc and AlphaG were prematurely murdered. 64 bit 8086 isn't ready for large enterprisea systems yet.  K And as long as the 64 bit 8086 lacks enterprise system features, Intel will C continue to have a captive niche market with HP for its superdomes.   L What this means is that Intel cannot cancel IA64 today. It needs to continue' to develop it for a couple more years. :  M But using the same logic used to justify the murder of Alpha, once it becomescK obvious that the 64 bit 8086 will outspeed and be lower cost than IA64 overnH the longer term, HP should make the decision to abandon IA64 and finallyI obtain what it wanted: industry standard, high volume, low cost, multipleb supplier chip.    N It is pretty clear that IA64 won't get those attributes. It is only a questionD of when HP/Intel will announce migration to industry standard chips.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:32:12 +0100r3 From: Michael Unger <spam.to.unger@spamgourmet.com>u" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars9 Message-ID: <bvatcp$oktk0$1@ID-152801.news.uni-berlin.de>t  ) On 2004-01-29 03:50, "Brian Chase" wrote:b   > [...]r > K > The Opteron /is/ a full 64-bit architecture, although it may not be quitew( > as pretty as some of the alternatives. > @ > By Shannon's logic, the IA-32 architecture isn't a full 32-bitH > architecture since it's only an extension of the existing 16-bit 8086,B > which itself could be considered an extension of the 8-bit 8080.  G ... which itself could be considered an extension of the 4-bit 4040 ;-)    Michaely   -- p; Real names enhance the probability of getting real answers.p@ Please do *not* send "Security Patch Notifications" or "SecurityA Updates"; this system isn't running a Micro$oft operating system.g5 My e-mail account at DECUS Munich is no longer valid.t   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:20:30 +0000iO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>h" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars0 Message-ID: <bvb1b6$mnq$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Ken Farmer wrote:s > SKHPC: Rumours of (CPU) Wars >=20J > Two days ago, CNET.COM published an article citing unnamed sources who = arehJ > alleging that HP plans to come out with servers that contain AMD's Opte= ron J > processor. While SKHPC is not in a position to confirm or deny the vera= cityF > of this story, we do have some Opteron and Itanium data that's worth > considering. >=20E > http://www.shannonknowshpc.com/stories.php?story=3D04/01/28/7503155h >=20 >=20  9 The article contained a number of major innacuracies that/ tend to reduce its credibility.t  E "It is arguable that the alleged adoption of Opteron technology in=20aH select ProLiant systems will represent a setback for Intel and HP. In=20D fact, certain posters in HP-related Usenet newsgroups are already=20J claiming that such an alleged adoption is a =93deja vu all over again=94 =  H reprise of the decline and fall of the Alpha architecture. Apparently=20I the newsgroup denizens believe that HP will ultimately scuttle Itanium=20uH in favor of Opteron, and that Intel will drop Itanium in favor of the=20I so-called =93Yamhill=94 processor. Like the AMD Opteron CPU, Intel=92s=20xH so-called =93Yamhill=94 processor would purportedly be based on IA-32=20G technology with 64-bit extensions. Neither Opteron nor the so-called=20aJ =93Yamhill=94 processor represent full 64-bit architectures, hence both C= PUs=20J lack the full range of capabilities offered by Intel=92s Itanium processo= rs."  ; Sadly this is Tosh. x86-64 is a full 64bit architecture, ite8 currently has a physical address space of 40 bits enough: to address 1 TB or RAM. Itanium has a 50 bit address space: which if you are using the "only" 40 bits argument against7 Opteron as a way of claiming that it isn't a 64 bit CPU 6 also means that Itanium isn't either. And what Yamhill% is or isn't is currently speculation.>  E "Future Itanium implementations will incorporate Alpha technology,=20cJ multithreading, and multiple-core processors. Intel=92s acquisition of a =  J significant portion of Compaq=92s Alpha development team and the erstwhil= e=20G firm=92s world-class compiler development group bode well for future=20-E Itanium products. All of the above support the long-term future of=20 G Itanium, which SKHPC believes will be one of the two high-end 64-bit=20uF processors to survive the phaseout of Alpha, MIPs, and PA-RISC CPUs=20J early in the second half of the decade. (Assuming that Sun=92s 15-year-ol= d=20A UltraSparc architecture is phased out after the release of the=20eJ UltraSparc IV process shrink, IBM=92s POWER architecture is likely to be =  B the primary competitor for Itanium. IBM has an Itanium fallback=20B strategy, and while POWER is an impressive and very competitive=20F architecture, IBM Microelectronics may at some point emulate HP and=20I standardize on Itanium to save billions of dollars in R&D expenses and=20oJ new fabrication facilities, which today cost well upwards of $5B USD to=20 construct.)"  F Total tosh, UltraSPARC isn't 15 years old and SPARC isn't being phasedC out after USIV why would the producer of the most sucessfull 64 bitn3 RISC processor in the market suddenly phase it out.d  A Nor does IBM seem very interested in Itanium as a back-stop their @ recent announcments that they will be using IA-32 for their nextF generation large Intel based SMP server puts paid to that supposition.  C If they wanted a backstop they would be continuing with Power whilec9 doing a Itanium based SMP system for their xSeries range.o    G "Since it is based on x86 technology with 64-bit extensions, Opteron=20qJ represents an easier port for IA-32 ISVs than does Itanium, which relies =  G on Explicitly Parallel Instruction Computing (EPIC) technology. EPIC=20yI relies on extremely sophisticated compiler technology (a la the second=20gJ =93RISC=94 acronym--=94Relegate InStructions to the Compiler), and with H= P=92s=20J assistance, Intel has made great strides in boosting the performance of=20J Itanium, and we believe that even greater performance increases are yet=20D to come. As for Opteron=92s ability to run native 32-bit software=20J efficiently, Intel=92s new IA-32 Execution Layer for Itanium processors=20J should mitigate AMD=92s advantage in this regard. Additionally, Intel has= =20pJ stated that it will slash the cost of Itanium processors to enable them=20J to compete more effectively with Opteron offerings while delivering full =  > native 64-bit computing capabilities at reduced price points."  
 More Tosh.; The whole point about Opteron is that existing x86 ISV's dou; not need to port unless their application will benefit from 9 having 64bit support. For example Oracle will do a 64 bito8 DBMS port but there is no need for an Oracle forms port.  B In addition Intels IA-32 execution layer has been delayed and even< the most optimistic estimates from Intel put its performance8 for IA-32 apps at 50% of the native performance on a x86; processor. This means that if AMD were selling Itanium intoa> the x86 space with the emulator, using their clock equivalence3 scheme Itanium at best would be marketed as a 1600.O  : And even when they do release it they need to get ISV's to; support it otherwise it will fail as FX!32 failed on Alpha.s  ; In addition Intels attempts to drive cost out of Itanium tod> make it competitive with x86 and AMD64 from a price standpoint< are at the expense of performance. Deerfield is at least 40%< slower than the fastest Itanium which in turn is slower than7 the fastest IA-32 and AMD64 CPU's. Saddle it with a 50%r9 performance hit on top of that for IA32 execution and your8 have something with the performance characteristics of a slug.    Finally   J "HP=92s unique ability to offer a full family of one-way to 64-way Itaniu= m=20F Integrity servers should significantly boost Itanium shipments this=20H year. In fact, senior HP executives and strategists believe that 2004=20J will be the year that Itanium begins to make significant inroads in the=20 IT marketplace."  = Wonderfull lets try to make a virtue out of what in fact is ar8 major problem. If Itanium is to take off in the way that7 Terry predicts then HP has to become one of a number ofi6 vendors that do end to end Itanium systems rather than6 only vendor. Hoping that IBM will do big Itanium based4 systems as Terry does earlier in the article because7 that will help Itanium considerably is at odds with thee4 apparent advantage that HP has of being the only end to end Itanium OEM.o    ; marks out of 10  ..... 2 (spelling and grammar not content)r worth publishing no  waste of bandwidth and bits yes   7 All in all the best description of the article would be2 poorly researched codswallop.:   Regards4 Andrew Harrisong   ------------------------------    Date: 29 Jan 2004 08:42:12 -0600, From: seibel_r@rich.ociweb.com (Rich Seibel)" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars5 Message-ID: <slrnc1i52o.sm0.seibel_r@rich.ociweb.com>>  O On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 03:08:14 -0500, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote:  >dM >Just because HP/Compaq decided to get out of the CPU design business doesn'toK >mean that all other companies will do the same.  HP/Compaq want to emulateoM >Dell by dumping everything but final assembly and packaging processes. So HPiN >is essentially transforming itself into a marketing company, not the R&D firm9 >that it used to be. IBM and Sun still do plenty of R&D. a >dC From the humor page of the local newspaper, bit named "No kidding":p  !     "Cherry Garcia Bagel, anyone?         Their original plans*  0      1. Ben&Jerry - planned to run a bagel store0      2. Staples founder - to start a supermarket/      3. Gillette safety razor - to be used once <      4. "Kitty Litter" - to be nesting material for chickensB      5. Goodyear - to make musical instruments and rubber clothing  D      *Hewlett-Packard was started without knowing what it would make  C                                   Source: World Features Syndicate"s  4 Seems to me HP is still true to their original plan.   Rich   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:28:10 -0500 * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars2 Message-ID: <5Oudnae9nLQI34Td4p2dnA@metrocast.net>  K "Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy" <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>n; wrote in message news:bvb1b6$mnq$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com...n Ken Farmer wrote:P > SKHPC: Rumours of (CPU) Wars >bL > Two days ago, CNET.COM published an article citing unnamed sources who areL > alleging that HP plans to come out with servers that contain AMD's OpteronD > processor. While SKHPC is not in a position to confirm or deny the veracityF > of this story, we do have some Opteron and Itanium data that's worth > considering. > C > http://www.shannonknowshpc.com/stories.php?story=04/01/28/7503155n >u >u  9 The article contained a number of major innacuracies that1 tend to reduce its credibility.A ----  B Terry has no credibility left to reduce:  he's consistently been aE dyed-in-the-wool HP whore since 6/25/01.  I usually don't even bother$J refuting his spew any more (since he gave up posting it here after gettingL thoroughly chewed up and spit out for it), but I guess I'm glad someone tookL the time to.  Perhaps it will discourage Ken Farmer from passing it on:  KenC features Terry rather prominently on his sites, and some of Terry'sr. character thereby contaminates them (and him).   - bill   ------------------------------    Date: 29 Jan 2004 10:39:09 -08001 From: susan_skonetski@hotmail.com (Sue Skonetski) " Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars= Message-ID: <857e9e41.0401291039.1a92b05e@posting.google.com>o  F This is a great example of why folks stop posting all together in thisF newgroup.  Andrew do you have a list of approved people you would likeC to hear from or is anyone that happens to think highly of VMS or HPt open to your wrath?n  F At least in the United States Consultants get paid as do the workers. B I am not sure the process used in the UK or by SUN but I am fairlyC sure they also pay for consultants and employees that does not make>6 the consultants or the employees people of ill repute.  D There is obviously some other motive in this message, maybe Terry is= not your favorite person, which is a shame since he has neverr@ mentioned you to me in our conversations.  Or maybe the truth is- hitting a little hard, but what is your goal?t   Sueo     Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew No.Harrison No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<bvb1b6$mnq$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...e > Ken Farmer wrote:o  > > SKHPC: Rumours of (CPU) Wars > > K > > Two days ago, CNET.COM published an article citing unnamed sources who a >  areK > > alleging that HP plans to come out with servers that contain AMD's Opte  >  ronK > > processor. While SKHPC is not in a position to confirm or deny the vera, >  city0H > > of this story, we do have some Opteron and Itanium data that's worth > > considering. > > E > > http://www.shannonknowshpc.com/stories.php?story=04/01/28/7503155v > >  > >  > ; > The article contained a number of major innacuracies thatT! > tend to reduce its credibility.o > E > "It is arguable that the alleged adoption of Opteron technology in sH > select ProLiant systems will represent a setback for Intel and HP. In D > fact, certain posters in HP-related Usenet newsgroups are already G > claiming that such an alleged adoption is a  deja vu all over again  l > H > reprise of the decline and fall of the Alpha architecture. Apparently I > the newsgroup denizens believe that HP will ultimately scuttle Itanium mH > in favor of Opteron, and that Intel will drop Itanium in favor of the C > so-called  Yamhill  processor. Like the AMD Opteron CPU, Intel s eD > so-called  Yamhill  processor would purportedly be based on IA-32 G > technology with 64-bit extensions. Neither Opteron nor the so-called lG >  Yamhill  processor represent full 64-bit architectures, hence both C  > PUs I > lack the full range of capabilities offered by Intel s Itanium processo  > rs." > = > Sadly this is Tosh. x86-64 is a full 64bit architecture, ita: > currently has a physical address space of 40 bits enough< > to address 1 TB or RAM. Itanium has a 50 bit address space< > which if you are using the "only" 40 bits argument against9 > Opteron as a way of claiming that it isn't a 64 bit CPUe8 > also means that Itanium isn't either. And what Yamhill' > is or isn't is currently speculation.w > E > "Future Itanium implementations will incorporate Alpha technology,  I > multithreading, and multiple-core processors. Intel s acquisition of a d > I > significant portion of Compaq s Alpha development team and the erstwhilh > e E > firm s world-class compiler development group bode well for future  E > Itanium products. All of the above support the long-term future of  G > Itanium, which SKHPC believes will be one of the two high-end 64-bit tF > processors to survive the phaseout of Alpha, MIPs, and PA-RISC CPUs I > early in the second half of the decade. (Assuming that Sun s 15-year-olh > d A > UltraSparc architecture is phased out after the release of the >I > UltraSparc IV process shrink, IBM s POWER architecture is likely to be   > B > the primary competitor for Itanium. IBM has an Itanium fallback B > strategy, and while POWER is an impressive and very competitive F > architecture, IBM Microelectronics may at some point emulate HP and I > standardize on Itanium to save billions of dollars in R&D expenses and iJ > new fabrication facilities, which today cost well upwards of $5B USD to  > construct.)" > H > Total tosh, UltraSPARC isn't 15 years old and SPARC isn't being phasedE > out after USIV why would the producer of the most sucessfull 64 bit 5 > RISC processor in the market suddenly phase it out.  > C > Nor does IBM seem very interested in Itanium as a back-stop theircB > recent announcments that they will be using IA-32 for their nextH > generation large Intel based SMP server puts paid to that supposition. > E > If they wanted a backstop they would be continuing with Power whilel; > doing a Itanium based SMP system for their xSeries range.  >  > G > "Since it is based on x86 technology with 64-bit extensions, Opteron -K > represents an easier port for IA-32 ISVs than does Itanium, which relies t > G > on Explicitly Parallel Instruction Computing (EPIC) technology. EPIC dI > relies on extremely sophisticated compiler technology (a la the second  E >  RISC  acronym-- Relegate InStructions to the Compiler), and with H7 > P s J > assistance, Intel has made great strides in boosting the performance of J > Itanium, and we believe that even greater performance increases are yet B > to come. As for Opteron s ability to run native 32-bit software H > efficiently, Intel s new IA-32 Execution Layer for Itanium processors I > should mitigate AMD s advantage in this regard. Additionally, Intel hasm >  .J > stated that it will slash the cost of Itanium processors to enable them K > to compete more effectively with Opteron offerings while delivering full r > @ > native 64-bit computing capabilities at reduced price points." >  > More Tosh.= > The whole point about Opteron is that existing x86 ISV's doa= > not need to port unless their application will benefit froma; > having 64bit support. For example Oracle will do a 64 bit-: > DBMS port but there is no need for an Oracle forms port. > D > In addition Intels IA-32 execution layer has been delayed and even> > the most optimistic estimates from Intel put its performance: > for IA-32 apps at 50% of the native performance on a x86= > processor. This means that if AMD were selling Itanium intoN@ > the x86 space with the emulator, using their clock equivalence5 > scheme Itanium at best would be marketed as a 1600.a > < > And even when they do release it they need to get ISV's to= > support it otherwise it will fail as FX!32 failed on Alpha.  > = > In addition Intels attempts to drive cost out of Itanium tol@ > make it competitive with x86 and AMD64 from a price standpoint> > are at the expense of performance. Deerfield is at least 40%> > slower than the fastest Itanium which in turn is slower than9 > the fastest IA-32 and AMD64 CPU's. Saddle it with a 50%e; > performance hit on top of that for IA32 execution and youn: > have something with the performance characteristics of a > slug.  > 	 > Finallym > I > "HP s unique ability to offer a full family of one-way to 64-way Itaniu_ > m F > Integrity servers should significantly boost Itanium shipments this H > year. In fact, senior HP executives and strategists believe that 2004 J > will be the year that Itanium begins to make significant inroads in the  > IT marketplace." > ? > Wonderfull lets try to make a virtue out of what in fact is ar: > major problem. If Itanium is to take off in the way that9 > Terry predicts then HP has to become one of a number oft8 > vendors that do end to end Itanium systems rather than8 > only vendor. Hoping that IBM will do big Itanium based6 > systems as Terry does earlier in the article because9 > that will help Itanium considerably is at odds with the 6 > apparent advantage that HP has of being the only end > to end Itanium OEM.a >  > = > marks out of 10  ..... 2 (spelling and grammar not content)u > worth publishing noa! > waste of bandwidth and bits yesi > 9 > All in all the best description of the article would bee > poorly researched codswallop.u > 	 > Regardse > Andrew Harrisone   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:57:19 -0600p( From: brandon@dalsemi.com (John Brandon): Subject: SHOW MEMORY /CACHE /FULL = 164% Read Hit Rate ???1 Message-ID: <04012910571904@dscis6-0.dalsemi.com>t   ES-40 (4x 667-MHz) 3-GB memoryw VMS V-7.2-1o    0 I increased the VCC_MAXSIZE to 1024000 (512-MB).   I do the following:e     $ SHOW MEMORY /CACHE /FULL@               System Memory Resources on 29-JAN-2004 08:54:06.67   Virtual I/O CachesN     Total Size (Kbytes)         512000    Read IO Count             3005057741N     Free Kbytes                 241344    Read Hit Count            2176764309N     Kbytes in Use               270656    Read Hit Rate                   164%N     Write IO Bypassing Cache  76365078    Write IO Count             677812582N     Files Retained                  98    Read IO Bypassing Cache     83917442    & And I noted "Read Hit Rate" at 164%.  1 Since I am not a VCC expert I am a bit curious...h   Is this possible?e   Or is it a buffer overflow?a     J*o*h*n B*r*a*n*d*o*na VMS Systems Administrators* firstname.lastname.spam.me.not@dalsemi.com   ------------------------------    Date: 29 Jan 2004 02:57:38 -0800. From: fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br (Fabio Cardoso)( Subject: Slow volume under Fibre Channel= Message-ID: <f30679fb.0401290257.5a9195d8@posting.google.com>y  B For more than week one specific disk containing Oracle RDB StorageC Areas was intermitently slow. EMC didnt discover any problem in theh< EMC DMX and the FC Switch (no error in Fibre, disks, etc...)B I was trying a SHOW DEVICE/FILE and the output paused a few times.@ The command DIR/SIZE=ALL VOLUME:[000000...]  paused/freezed too.  G Yesterday the developemt team rebooted the server and today, looks likew OK.   I Today I noticed that one specific value of the SHOW DEVICE /FULL changed. C Yesterday the " Blocks in extent cache  " was with the value almoste in the Maximum.   K Is this Extent cache the XFC cache activated in my server ? Or any specificn" memory cache in the FC controller:   Points:t  * Alphaserver 4100 5/600 + 3 CPUs + 3 GB RAM OpenVMS 7.3 with XFC activated VMS FIBRE_SCSI 3.0L Emulex LP-9000 (with firmware upgrade) - not KGPSA official - I will change.    # The volume output today: 29/01/2004e    O Disk $1$DGA1772: (S62001), device type EMC SYMMETRIX, is online, mounted, file- O     oriented device, shareable, available to cluster, error logging is enabled.   O     Error count                    0    Operations completed            2174164eO     Owner process                 ""    Owner UIC                      [SYSTEM]oO     Owner process ID        00000000    Dev Prot            S:RWPL,O:RWPL,G:R,WsO     Reference count              115    Default buffer size                 512uO     Current preferred CPU Id       2    Fastpath                              1t;     WWID   01000010:6006-0480-0002-8740-0126-5359-4D36-4539oO     Total blocks           141419520    Sectors per track                    96mO     Total cylinders            15345    Tracks per cylinder                  96a$     Allocation class               1  O     Volume label           "DISCO12"    Relative volume number                0bO     Cluster size                 136    Transaction count                   115eO     Free blocks             61083584    Maximum files allowed            516129aO     Extend quantity                5    Mount count                           1dO     Mount status              System    Cache name      "_S62001$DRA0:XQPCACHE"oO     Extent cache size             64    Maximum blocks in extent cache  6108358 O     File ID cache size            64    Blocks in extent cache           299608 O     Quota cache size               0    Maximum buffers in FCP cache       3994aO     Volume owner UIC           [1,1]    Vol Prot    S:RWCD,O:RWCD,G:RWCD,W:RWCDa  J   Volume Status:  ODS-2, subject to mount verification, write-back caching       enabled.   ------------------------------    Date: 29 Jan 2004 10:21:19 -08007 From: jones.computer.srv@worldnet.att.net (Daryl Jones)d, Subject: Re: Slow volume under Fibre Channel= Message-ID: <8a646952.0401291021.64c8bc5e@posting.google.com>    Dear Fabio Cardoso:e  F Use monitor/file_system_cache or other performance monitoring tools toB indicate the cache performance. Cache performance should be 90% orA more on average. These statistics should be look at the followingyB times: during normal hours, during nite hours, and during backups.B Increase in some of the cache values will cause an increase to theA pagedyn value. Small cache values can cause the system to performt poorly and even crash.  D If you have high I/O for that disk or volume, the Oracle Rdb storageE areas can be fragmented causing high I/O with disk queues. Defrag the  Rdb storage area.h  
 Best of luck!p   Regards, Daryl Jones     s fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br (Fabio Cardoso) wrote in message news:<f30679fb.0401290257.5a9195d8@posting.google.com>...nD > For more than week one specific disk containing Oracle RDB StorageE > Areas was intermitently slow. EMC didnt discover any problem in thel> > EMC DMX and the FC Switch (no error in Fibre, disks, etc...)D > I was trying a SHOW DEVICE/FILE and the output paused a few times.B > The command DIR/SIZE=ALL VOLUME:[000000...]  paused/freezed too. > I > Yesterday the developemt team rebooted the server and today, looks liket > OK.  > K > Today I noticed that one specific value of the SHOW DEVICE /FULL changed. E > Yesterday the " Blocks in extent cache  " was with the value almost  > in the Maximum.  > M > Is this Extent cache the XFC cache activated in my server ? Or any specifice$ > memory cache in the FC controller: > 	 > Points:n > , > Alphaserver 4100 5/600 + 3 CPUs + 3 GB RAM  > OpenVMS 7.3 with XFC activated > VMS FIBRE_SCSI 3.0N > Emulex LP-9000 (with firmware upgrade) - not KGPSA official - I will change. >  > % > The volume output today: 29/01/2004i >  > Q > Disk $1$DGA1772: (S62001), device type EMC SYMMETRIX, is online, mounted, file-eQ >     oriented device, shareable, available to cluster, error logging is enabled.h > Q >     Error count                    0    Operations completed            2174164iQ >     Owner process                 ""    Owner UIC                      [SYSTEM] Q >     Owner process ID        00000000    Dev Prot            S:RWPL,O:RWPL,G:R,W Q >     Reference count              115    Default buffer size                 5123Q >     Current preferred CPU Id       2    Fastpath                              1o= >     WWID   01000010:6006-0480-0002-8740-0126-5359-4D36-4539TQ >     Total blocks           141419520    Sectors per track                    96 Q >     Total cylinders            15345    Tracks per cylinder                  96=& >     Allocation class               1 > Q >     Volume label           "DISCO12"    Relative volume number                0 Q >     Cluster size                 136    Transaction count                   115 Q >     Free blocks             61083584    Maximum files allowed            516129eQ >     Extend quantity                5    Mount count                           1dQ >     Mount status              System    Cache name      "_S62001$DRA0:XQPCACHE"0Q >     Extent cache size             64    Maximum blocks in extent cache  6108358nQ >     File ID cache size            64    Blocks in extent cache           299608oQ >     Quota cache size               0    Maximum buffers in FCP cache       3994dQ >     Volume owner UIC           [1,1]    Vol Prot    S:RWCD,O:RWCD,G:RWCD,W:RWCD  > L >   Volume Status:  ODS-2, subject to mount verification, write-back caching >       enabled.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:17:24 -0500r& From: David M Smith <dsmit115@csc.com>( Subject: Re: stupid backup tricks (long)8 Message-ID: <qofi10lmr63pb6jpjkhft8750qbs1a72ud@4ax.com>  7 On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:46:09 -0600, "David J. Dachtera"l- <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net> wrote:h  E >Also, "rooted-device logical name" is a distinctly different concepttI >from "pseudo-device" which implies something that is simply not true andnE >does not, in fact, exist. If it did, I would expect to see PSA0: andiA >similar devices and/or a (SYS$)PSDRIVER somewhere on the system.. > = >Actually, though, having chewed on the thought a bit, a truee0 >pseudo-device wouldn't be such a bad idea, IMO.  N Well, I happen to agree that rooted-device logical name is a better term sinceM VMS has consistently used it over the years since it was invented, I think atv V4.0 in support of clustering.  P Since pseudo-device isn't an "official" VMS term (as far as I know) I suppose itP can mean whatever you want it to mean. Would you consider the devices created by4 the LDDRIVER (freeware) to be pseudo-devices or not?I ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I David M. Smith 302.391.8533                       dsmit115 at csc dot com-I Computer Sciences Corporation     (Opinions are those of the writer only)<I -------------------------------------------------------------------------    ------------------------------    Date: 29 Jan 2004 12:43:26 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)w( Subject: Re: stupid backup tricks (long)3 Message-ID: <hHT7Um9SGOre@eisner.encompasserve.org>t  a In article <qofi10lmr63pb6jpjkhft8750qbs1a72ud@4ax.com>, David M Smith <dsmit115@csc.com> writes:t  R > Since pseudo-device isn't an "official" VMS term (as far as I know) I suppose it( > can mean whatever you want it to mean.  F I was pretty certain I read it in the driver writing documentation forB any device that did not correspond exactly to a piece of hardware.  + > Would you consider the devices created by 6 > the LDDRIVER (freeware) to be pseudo-devices or not?   Yes.   ------------------------------    Date: 29 Jan 2004 07:54:06 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) I Subject: Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systemsc3 Message-ID: <OuxaW46pqUJW@eisner.encompasserve.org>f   In article <bv8uhd$sf6$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: > Bob Koehler wrote: >> aK >>    I said it was a joke.  Others have confirmed it.  I still say it is ai >>    joke.o >> e: > The fact that others may support your point doesn't mean4 > that you made it from a position of understanding. > 3 > You of all people should know this only too well.r  G    If I didn't already understand it was a joke at the time I wrote it,n    I wouldn't have written it.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:45:51 +0000cO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> I Subject: Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systemsi0 Message-ID: <bvb6av$oet$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   Bob Koehler wrote: > In article <bv8uhd$sf6$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: >  >>Bob Koehler wrote: >>K >>>   I said it was a joke.  Others have confirmed it.  I still say it is aa >>>   joke.  >>>  >>: >>The fact that others may support your point doesn't mean4 >>that you made it from a position of understanding. >>3 >>You of all people should know this only too well.n >  > I >    If I didn't already understand it was a joke at the time I wrote it,y  >    I wouldn't have written it. >   6 You seem to have missed the point ............. again.  8 EAL isn't a joke, the fact that various people supported6 your claim (not the same as confirmation) doesn't make9 your claim any more valid not does it imply any knowledges of the subject on your part.  4 Various people well Bob and Mark have supported your9 security claims, the fact that the claims are demonstablyp5 untrue tends to undermine the warm and fuzzy feal yous* may get from having Mark and Bobs support.   The same applies to EAL.   Regardst Andrew Harrisonh   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:30:34 GMTn& From: jlsue <jefflsxxxz@sbcglobal.net>I Subject: Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systemsS8 Message-ID: <v7ci105eepea61v04l14i8h6l40aojdvq9@4ax.com>  E On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:22:58 +0000, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancyo. <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:  
 >jlsue wrote: H >> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:40:19 +0000, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy1 >> <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:t > ? >>>Sorry but this is demonstrably untrue, POP, LAND etc dispove.= >>>your point, there isn't to my knowlege a patch that refers": >>>to LAND but OpenVMS IP services were vunerable to LAND. >> l >> eK >> So, that must mean that OpenVMS IP services is still vulnerable to LAND?4 >> bE >> Or are you talking about a very old, unsupported version of TCP/IP  >> services? >> d >sB >Does it matter or help your argument ? there arn't any current IP2 >stacks that I know of that are vunerable to LAND. >nC >When the IP stack was current it was vunerable, are you now trying.> >to suggest that the vunerability is irrelevent because it was= >in the past. Thats not even good BS certainly not up to your, >normal standards.  I I guess the importance of "age" depends.  Are you still releasing patchese$ for vulnerabilities in Solaris v1.0?   >  >> eM >>>>Also, your attempt to draw some full-blown conclusion about the OS merelylH >>>>based on a single - very arguable - data point is invalid.  For yourN >>>>opinion about how unsecure VMS is to be true, you'd have to come up with aM >>>>lot more data points, and you wouldn't be allowed to ignore opposing data: >>>>either.n >>>> >>>v; >>>Sorry but again this is untrue, I have provided multiplec >>>datapoints. >> g >> oB >> And I believe almost all of those were discussed and addressed. >> a >n6 >You may beleive that but since yo have no evidence to7 >support that belief I would recommend that you revisiti >your assumption.o  E Yeah, sure.  Just ignore information running counter to your opinion. 5 That's a nice way to partake in thoughtful discourse.0  C You can check google yourself (get it?  That's one of YOUR argument/K techniques).  Check responses from icerq4a, hoff, Killgallen, etc.  They'vemI tried (to no avail) to explain reality to you, but it's obviously a wasten of time.   >>  K >>>>Anyone can prove a point with carefully selected data.  But that tactichL >>>>does more to call the originator's motives into question than it does to >>>>advance the arguments. >>>> >>>f >>>So what is your excuse ?e >>   >>  I >> None needed, I'm not making outlandish claims, so have nothing needingt	 >> proof.u >> P >hB >Nor am I, outlandish claims would be ones that have no supportingA >data to back them up. You forget that I have provided supportingn >data.  D That makes no sense.  You've made no claims, but yet you've providedK supporting data?  The only claim made was by one (or two) individuals tyingnK CERT to some kind of nonsense conclusion.  Almost everyone else in here has$E agreed that CERT is not, in itself, worthy of being called "proof" ofUJ secuity.  However, others' who actually KNOW the source code, and also whoG have reviewed the advisories that you've presented as "supporting data"t< have shown the errors or weaknesses  in your arguments.  You< counter-argument technique consists of this engaging tactic:    	"No you didn't"  (paraphrasing)  C While this kind of argument is entertaining, it gets old very fast.c   >s >> sM >> So what?  That statement demonstrates a severe lack of knowledge how large K >> corporations work.  OpenVMS engineering doesn't even always KNOW about a K >> particular product that some other group writes (ABS' pre-cursor productm >> was one of those).a >> r >tA >What has any of this BS got to do with HP/Compaqs responsibilityo% >to provide a secure software stack ?a  J Well, you haven't proven whether it is providing an unsecure one yet.  YouG have shown that, at one time, some software stacks were vulnerable, andeJ this has been subsequently dropped as a product.  And in more recent ones,C not all of the "fixes" patch actual vulnerabilities that affect them security of the platform.    >p >o= >> How do you figure that OpenVMS engineering is responsible?u >> e > E >I don't I assume that HP/Compaq is responsible or are you suggestingnC >that this also isn't the case. And if that is your suggestion then 6 >perhaps you should explain who is responsible ? CA !!  C Why are you now spinning this into a new argument.  You've made the H statement that CERT advisories and fixes in layered products on  OpenVMSG are the responsibility of OpenVMS Engineering and should appear in CERTaI reports under that OS.  I (and some others) am merely saying that I don'tt agree with this.  E It's completely separate argument as to whether HP is responsible for K releasing fixes for problems.  But once again, we're back to whether you'ret= talking about a real problem in a currently-existing product.2   >u5 >Someone has to have the responsibility for reportingc: >vunerabiliites to CERT (assuming you are going to bother): >if you don't want to report layered product vunerabilites8 >as part of the OS well fine but you have to report them/ >somewhere, currently they are entirely absent.-  D Ah, is there an RFC converning this?  I just want to make sure we're covering all our bases.c  I But talk about yer spin.. now you're changing your original argument fromtC one that states it MUST appear as an OS vulnerability.  This ENTIRE0F discussion came about converning relative vulnerabilities in OSes, andK OpenVMS in particular.  So if you are changing your stance, please at leasthH admit that somewhere first, and then we can discuss the new stance.  I'mD not saying I even disagree with it, but I don't know what it is yet.   >>  H >> Not necessarily.  It's already been explained to you that most of theK >> vulnerabilities reported elsewhere do not result in any kind of securityiJ >> problem on OpenVMS.  Patches may still be issued since they may produceN >> undesirable results (e.g., process deletion).  But often they don't produce6 >> the same results or concerns as on other platforms. >> pA >No it has been explained a couple of very specific vunerabilites < >on OpenVMS cause a denial of service rather than a security9 >breach, this however would still fall into the Vunerablea5 >category. This however does not apply to the others.p >t9 >POD, LAND etc OpenVMS with a Compaq IP stack was just aswA >vunerable are all the other platforms that posted vunerabilites.s  J Just to be sure.  Are POD and LAND vulnerabilities in the CURRENT IP stackH (e.g., TCP/IP services)?  Or is this only applicable to the one that wasH dropped some 4 or 5 years - and several software release versions - ago?  H If the latter, just let me know what the official ruling on how long allH vendors are supposed to provide this kind of patch support for outdated,I and even *unsupported* software.  Is Sun following the same guidelines ini all of it's products?0    B >And I always laugh at OpenVMS security BS merchants who are happyD >to tout the number of CERTS for OpenVMS around while being unhapppy. >to allow the layered products to be included.  K Again, this is a position that is based on completely false premises.  OnlyaI one (or two) troll(s) are making any statements wrt to CERTS and relativetC OS comparisons.  Nobody else in here has backed up their silliness.O     --- jlsn0 The preceding message was personal opinion only.6 I do not speak in any authorized capacity for anyone,  and certainly not my employer.- (get rid of the xxxz in my address to e-mail)t   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:19:58 +0000mO From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com>pI Subject: Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systems 0 Message-ID: <bvbfbv$rlu$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>   jlsue wrote:G > On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:22:58 +0000, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancyn0 > <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote:  D >>When the IP stack was current it was vunerable, are you now trying? >>to suggest that the vunerability is irrelevent because it wase> >>in the past. Thats not even good BS certainly not up to your >>normal standards.n >  > K > I guess the importance of "age" depends.  Are you still releasing patchesp& > for vulnerabilities in Solaris v1.0? >   ; Since SunOS 4.x is out of support the answer is no. Similart: story with out of support versions of VMS/OpenVMS as well.  & But how would this help your argument.  8 Take LAND there is no CERT advisory for LAND refering to7 OpenVMS or any other Compaq/HP layered product. We knowc6 however that there was a vunerability not from a patch) report but from an ask the wizard answer.w  7 We also know that this vunerability is fixed in a lateri5 release of the IP stack we also know that the versions5 of the IP stack that you need to upgrade from was the02 one that was current when LAND was first reported.  6 So this wasn't a retrospective patch to an old version6 of the IP stack it was an upgrade to the current stack/ at the time which included a patch to fix LAND.h  G > Yeah, sure.  Just ignore information running counter to your opinion.d7 > That's a nice way to partake in thoughtful discourse.p >   < Actually no, you will find that the choir simply ignored the: advisories/certs/patches etc that they couldn't BS around.  E > You can check google yourself (get it?  That's one of YOUR argumenteM > techniques).  Check responses from icerq4a, hoff, Killgallen, etc.  They'vetK > tried (to no avail) to explain reality to you, but it's obviously a wastea
 > of time. >   < Really perhaps you should check again rather more carefully.6 Remember that you and google have never really got on.    C >>Nor am I, outlandish claims would be ones that have no supportingcB >>data to back them up. You forget that I have provided supporting >>data.. >  > F > That makes no sense.  You've made no claims, but yet you've providedM > supporting data?  The only claim made was by one (or two) individuals tyingoM > CERT to some kind of nonsense conclusion.  Almost everyone else in here hastG > agreed that CERT is not, in itself, worthy of being called "proof" ofaL > secuity.  However, others' who actually KNOW the source code, and also whoI > have reviewed the advisories that you've presented as "supporting data"S> > have shown the errors or weaknesses  in your arguments.  You> > counter-argument technique consists of this engaging tactic: >   1 Do you have a comprehension problem ?????????????&  9 I have made claims which I have supported with hard facts : If I hadn't supported the claims with facts then you could< have suggested as you tried to do that they were outlandish.  ? You really need to try reading the posts a bit more dilligentlyr+ it would save time and effort on your part.t     >  > L > Well, you haven't proven whether it is providing an unsecure one yet.  YouI > have shown that, at one time, some software stacks were vulnerable, andaL > this has been subsequently dropped as a product.  And in more recent ones,E > not all of the "fixes" patch actual vulnerabilities that affect theu > security of the platform.  >   @ What utter BS, POP, LAND, TearDrop they were all holes and there! are loads more BIND, SSH etc etc.n  = Pay attention you seem to think that simply saying they don'tc< exist can conterweight your documentation, 3rd party reports( and the responses of your own engineers.  8 I have seen you post some unmitigated BS in the past but this takes the biscuit.r >  >>= >>>How do you figure that OpenVMS engineering is responsible?t >>>o >>F >>I don't I assume that HP/Compaq is responsible or are you suggestingD >>that this also isn't the case. And if that is your suggestion then7 >>perhaps you should explain who is responsible ? CA !!  >  > E > Why are you now spinning this into a new argument.  You've made thecJ > statement that CERT advisories and fixes in layered products on  OpenVMSI > are the responsibility of OpenVMS Engineering and should appear in CERTnK > reports under that OS.  I (and some others) am merely saying that I don'tg > agree with this. >   : No I havn't its the responsibility of the corporation that> you work for. Who does it is irrelevant providing its actuallyA done. However what is most revealing is that no-one seems to wanto> to coordinate the different engineering teams into providing a% response for the platform as a whole.-   What an idiotic point.G > It's completely separate argument as to whether HP is responsible for:M > releasing fixes for problems.  But once again, we're back to whether you'reo? > talking about a real problem in a currently-existing product.l >    Rubbish its the same argument.   > 6 >>Someone has to have the responsibility for reporting; >>vunerabiliites to CERT (assuming you are going to bother) ; >>if you don't want to report layered product vunerabilitesa9 >>as part of the OS well fine but you have to report them 0 >>somewhere, currently they are entirely absent. >  > F > Ah, is there an RFC converning this?  I just want to make sure we're > covering all our bases.l >   3 Does that imply that you only fix security holes ins& OpenVMS if they are covered by an RFC.   Idiotic point BTW.    K > But talk about yer spin.. now you're changing your original argument fromrE > one that states it MUST appear as an OS vulnerability.  This ENTIRErH > discussion came about converning relative vulnerabilities in OSes, andM > OpenVMS in particular.  So if you are changing your stance, please at leastoJ > admit that somewhere first, and then we can discuss the new stance.  I'mF > not saying I even disagree with it, but I don't know what it is yet. >    Dittoe   > H >>>Not necessarily.  It's already been explained to you that most of theK >>>vulnerabilities reported elsewhere do not result in any kind of security,J >>>problem on OpenVMS.  Patches may still be issued since they may produceN >>>undesirable results (e.g., process deletion).  But often they don't produce6 >>>the same results or concerns as on other platforms. >>>a >>B >>No it has been explained a couple of very specific vunerabilites= >>on OpenVMS cause a denial of service rather than a securityo: >>breach, this however would still fall into the Vunerable6 >>category. This however does not apply to the others. >>: >>POD, LAND etc OpenVMS with a Compaq IP stack was just asB >>vunerable are all the other platforms that posted vunerabilites. >  > L > Just to be sure.  Are POD and LAND vulnerabilities in the CURRENT IP stackJ > (e.g., TCP/IP services)?  Or is this only applicable to the one that wasJ > dropped some 4 or 5 years - and several software release versions - ago? >    Dittos  < The stack at the time as is true for most CERT vunerabilites for most platforms.y  J > If the latter, just let me know what the official ruling on how long allJ > vendors are supposed to provide this kind of patch support for outdated,K > and even *unsupported* software.  Is Sun following the same guidelines in  > all of it's products?- >    Ditto6   >  > C >>And I always laugh at OpenVMS security BS merchants who are happyuE >>to tout the number of CERTS for OpenVMS around while being unhapppyc/ >>to allow the layered products to be included.a >  > M > Again, this is a position that is based on completely false premises.  OnlynK > one (or two) troll(s) are making any statements wrt to CERTS and relative E > OS comparisons.  Nobody else in here has backed up their silliness., >  >   B Wrong, Keith started this particular thread so I assume this means% that you think he is a troll as well.   G Fantastic set of points BTW you really scraped the bottom of the barrele( and thats saying something in your case.         Regardsc Andrew Harrisono   ------------------------------  + Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:52:14 +0100 (CET) , From: Imya Rek <mixmaster@eleitl.dyndns.org>? Subject: Re: The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest Warn@ Message-ID: <0a3cd5b03c7447dca54f2b92dfcf14ce@eleitl.dyndns.org>  % JF Mezei <nobody@nobody.com> trolled:    >Jenn wrote:F >> the part about cooking the vote in Florida and not counting all theB >> ballots there was not 'the rules' -- it was the consequences of
 >> corruptionl >cL >No. It was the result of the state lacking a unbiased, totally neutral bodyL >that operates/runs the election process, as well as absolutely strict rules* >with a neutral body enforcing such rules. > D >It seems that parts of the election process is actually operated byN >politically-affiliated bodies which leads to each charges of biased decisions >influencing outcome.  > N >Even at the supreme court level, the fact that the media published the numberJ >of "republican" versus "democratic" judges says a hell of a lot about howG >biased the supreme court is. A supreme court should have absolutely notL >political affiliations and be totally neutral. Once appointed, a judge must! >renounce political affiliations.s >oN >Similarly, anyone involved with the operation of the electoral process should< >also renounce any political affiliation and remain neutral. > N >This had nothing to do about chads. It had everything to do about the lack ofK >an official and totally neutral body who had ultimate authority, and total 7 >control over process, design of voting procedures etc.e >oH >This was made worse because in the USA, if a state is 50-50 between twoN >candidates, it cannot offer half its votes for one and the other half for theK >other, it must decide which side must renounce its votes so that the otherrO >side can steal the other half's vote and provide a single block of votes for ar >single candadate. >oO >If each state provided representative count of votes at the electoral college,-O >then the problems of one voting district would not have had such a huge impacttE >since only one vote would have been affected, not the whole state's.  > O >Each both democrats and republicans took advantage of the flaws in the processtK >and got lawyers involved which, as expected whenever lawyers get involved,i >made a big mess of everything.   / Pregnant chads?  Hanging chads?  Dimpled chads?t   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:36:16 +0100l" From: Didier Morandi <no@spam.com>1 Subject: VAXUS Symposium program v1.0-0 (English)r4 Message-ID: <4018b889$0$29093$636a55ce@news.free.fr>  1 http://www.didiermorandi.com/vaxus/congres_en.htme   Save 40%, register NOW!o     D. -- i2 VAXUS - Your new helpful friend in the DEC Family!2 EHQ: 19 chemin de la Butte, 31400 Toulouse, France/       Phone: +336 7983 6418 Fax: +335 6154 1928m$                 http://www.vaxus.org   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:30:24 -0500t* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>4 Subject: Weapons of Mass Disruption (Windows-MyDoom)) Message-ID: <4018E090.B0DB581A@istop.com>a  J The latest windows virus is a most interesting one. It is aimed at SCO. OnH February 1, windows machines infected with MyDoom will constantly try toJ connect to the SCO web site, as a retaliation for SCO wanting to get money from Linux users.r  L So, just like US commercial aircraft were used as tools to inflict damage toJ the USA on Sept 11, it seems that Windows is now used as a tool to inflict9 damage to corporations who are not seen as good citizens.   L If these attacks focused at a precise target continue, there will be seriousL pressure to prevent windows from being used as weapons of mass disruption in the corporate world.  N First step might be to update major SMTP servers to block any emails sent fromN a microsoft user agent (eg: outlook). This would force the world to stop usingJ Outlook and thus solve the largest proportion of the viri on the internet.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:32:40 -0600h( From: Wayne Sewell <wayne@tachysoft.com>8 Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Disruption (Windows-MyDoom)/ Message-ID: <00A2C9D3.4DBEF185.5@tachysoft.com>   * >Message-ID: <4018E090.B0DB581A@istop.com>+ >From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>l >Organization: nla0:+ >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 (Macintosh; U; PPC)h >X-Accept-Language: en >mK >The latest windows virus is a most interesting one. It is aimed at SCO. OnuI >February 1, windows machines infected with MyDoom will constantly try toaK >connect to the SCO web site, as a retaliation for SCO wanting to get moneyl >from Linux users. > M >So, just like US commercial aircraft were used as tools to inflict damage to:K >the USA on Sept 11, it seems that Windows is now used as a tool to inflict/: >damage to corporations who are not seen as good citizens. >0M >If these attacks focused at a precise target continue, there will be serious M >pressure to prevent windows from being used as weapons of mass disruption in  >the corporate world.L > O >First step might be to update major SMTP servers to block any emails sent fromhO >a microsoft user agent (eg: outlook). This would force the world to stop using1K >Outlook and thus solve the largest proportion of the viri on the internet.3    M Works for me.  I've often thought of blocking "X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook*", K (or for that matter "*Microsoft*") but unfortunately I can't at the present2N time.  Please implement the above at the earliest convenience and I won't have to.    WayneeO =============================================================================== N Wayne Sewell, Tachyon Software Consulting  (281)812-0738   wayne@tachysoft.com; http://www.tachysoft.com/www/tachyon.html and wayne.html   dO =============================================================================== B Jed Clampett, checking into hotel: "This place got a cement pond?", 	Ellie May: "And do yuh let critters in it?"   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:28:09 GMT 6 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)5 Subject: [TCPIP V5.4] DHCP client problem/observationM3 Message-ID: <dC2Sb.358959$Tz1.11946@news.chello.at>)  O 1) In SYS$STARTUP:TCPIP$DEFINE_COMMANDS.COM there used to be a command sequenceI like   $! DHCP Utilities. $!K $ if f$search("sys$common:[sysmgr]tcpip$dhcp_setupcommands.com") .nes. "" -o9     then @sys$common:[sysmgr]tcpip$dhcp_setupcommands.com   5 which got replaced (probably with ODS-5 in mind) with    $ ! dhcp utilities $ !aT $     dhcp_proc = f$edit("sys$common:[sysmgr]tcpip$dhcp_setupcommands.com","upcase") $     if f$search(dhcp_proc)
 $     then $         @'dhcp_proc' $     endifn    and this obviously doesn't work.> At least there should be a ' .NES. ""' and the end of the 'IF'  K This has happened at or near V5.3 (ECO2) already. So better check yourself..M (it seems to depend with which version you first configured your DHCP client)c      M 2) If I have a DHCP server (and I currently have) which unfortunately doesn'tiM send client hostnames (type 12 "ho and "SYS$SYSDEVICE:[TCPIP$DHCP]CLIENT.PCY" L contains "request hostname" of course) the DHCP client writes something like  > 	The DHCP server did not pass a host name for this host to use0 	Using the requested hostname <hostname> instead  I and there it goes and all works. It seems that this happens only if therez@ is a file "SYS$SYSDEVICE:[TCPIP$DHCP]HOSTNAME." but not the fileI "SYS$SYSDEVICE:[TCPIP$DHCP]interface.DHC" - as it is with the first boot.8  J With the second boot, the "SYS$SYSDEVICE:[TCPIP$DHCP]interface.DHC" existsJ and doesn't contain a hostname (because the DHCP server didn't send it andM nobody else did it add), and then, the msg "Using the requested..." no longer O appears and the client names itself "unknown" (till I delete *.DHC and reboot).   N Can anyone confirm this behaviour (I see it as a bug in DHCP client, triggeredJ by a bug in the DHCP server) in TCPIP V5.4 (and in V5.3, at least in ECO2)+ and maybe even make a formal support call ?n   Many TIA   --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER % Network and OpenVMS system specialiste E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 03:42:41 -0500 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>9 Subject: Re: [TCPIP V5.4] DHCP client problem/observation ) Message-ID: <4018C75A.EC332941@istop.com>t    Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote:V > $     dhcp_proc = f$edit("sys$common:[sysmgr]tcpip$dhcp_setupcommands.com","upcase") > $     if f$search(dhcp_proc) > $     then > $         @'dhcp_proc'
 > $     endifo  F Probably because the TCPIP engineers invited Guy Peleg for a beer on aI weekend, and Mr Peleg hacked their system to add the logic to consider anm? empty string to be "false" and a non empty string to be "true".h  N Note that this does not generate an error, even on VAX VMS 7.2. But the "then" never gets executed.  E Note that the commands are also defined in tcpip$define_commands.com :  O > 2) If I have a DHCP server (and I currently have) which unfortunately doesn'thO > send client hostnames (type 12 "ho and "SYS$SYSDEVICE:[TCPIP$DHCP]CLIENT.PCY"aN > contains "request hostname" of course) the DHCP client writes something like > G >         The DHCP server did not pass a host name for this host to usen9 >         Using the requested hostname <hostname> insteadh  L Note that I have succesfully used the dhcp$gui configuration to get the dhcpN server on VAX to generate a host name and dynamically add it to the DNS server for the duration of the lease.  T (eg: it generates a dynamic dns entry for an IP that has been assigned to a client).  K Are you trying to assign a fixed domain name for each machine ?  If so, youiM probably have to define a group with all the common features, and then defineeP individual hosts with host specific infomation (ethernet address and host name).  K > and there it goes and all works. It seems that this happens only if there B > is a file "SYS$SYSDEVICE:[TCPIP$DHCP]HOSTNAME." but not the fileK > "SYS$SYSDEVICE:[TCPIP$DHCP]interface.DHC" - as it is with the first boot.m  J for me, there is a namepool.; file. It contains the root (my domain name),S address of the server, as well as the mask used to generate the dynamic host names.   * I am not sure what you are trying to do ?   M Are you wishing to have the DHCP server provide a client with a host name, orhL do you wish the DHCP server to accept whatever host name a client requests ?  M Do you need specific host names assigned to specific machines, or do you wantS  to generate "random" DNS names ?   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:16:38 GMT 6 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)5 Subject: [TCPIP V5.4] IFCONFIG vs. SET/SHOW INTERFACEe3 Message-ID: <Gj3Sb.359451$Tz1.48415@news.chello.at>   K Is this common knowledge - or at least documented somewhere - that an alias G address entered via TCPIP IFCONFIG is not visible with SHOW INTERFACE ? + I was quite surprised to see this happen...n   TIAr   --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER % Network and OpenVMS system specialist  E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:39:18 -0500 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>9 Subject: Re: [TCPIP V5.4] IFCONFIG vs. SET/SHOW INTERFACEl) Message-ID: <4018E2A5.AEDAC071@istop.com>b    Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote: > M > Is this common knowledge - or at least documented somewhere - that an aliasoI > address entered via TCPIP IFCONFIG is not visible with SHOW INTERFACE ? - > I was quite surprised to see this happen...   K ifconfig  (which works better from the $ sign than from TCPIP) works on theaK running IP stack. TCPIP works on the config files and only accesses selcteda stuff from the running stack.1  K And there are a lot of things on can do with ipconfig and sysconfig that ou # cannot do inside the TCPIP utility.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 06:58:09 -0500r' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com>D9 Subject: RE: [TCPIP V5.4] IFCONFIG vs. SET/SHOW INTERFACEeR Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB238454@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----6 > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com]=20  > Sent: January 29, 2004 5:39 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Comq; > Subject: Re: [TCPIP V5.4] IFCONFIG vs. SET/SHOW INTERFACE2 >=20" > Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote: > >=20B > > Is this common knowledge - or at least documented somewhere=20 > - that an=20> > > alias address entered via TCPIP IFCONFIG is not visible=20 > with SHOW INTERFACE ?y/ > > I was quite surprised to see this happen...d >=20< > ifconfig  (which works better from the $ sign than from=20= > TCPIP) works on the running IP stack. TCPIP works on the=20vF > config files and only accesses selcted stuff from the running stack. >=20> > And there are a lot of things on can do with ipconfig and=207 > sysconfig that ou cannot do inside the TCPIP utility.  >=20   JF -  H As a fyi, the TCPIP V5.4 tuning and troubleshooting guide gets into moreC detail on ifconfig and other commands that can be used for tuning /u troubleshooting.  
 Reference:H http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/732final/documentation/pdf/aa-rn1vb-te.pdf   Regardso  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant- HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660- Fax: 613-591-4477- Email: kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom8. (remove the DOT's and AT for email address)=20   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.057 ************************