1 INFO-VAX	Wed, 21 Jul 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 400       Contents:+ Anyone have any HSZ to HSG upgrade stories? / Re: Anyone have any HSZ to HSG upgrade stories?  Re: Galaxy shared memory size - HP and Intel Developer's Forum in Santa Clara 7 Re: Is it possible to route or tunnel the SCS protocol? 7 Re: Is it possible to route or tunnel the SCS protocol? 7 Re: Is it possible to route or tunnel the SCS protocol?  Looking for a Video Card5 Re: looking for used DEC equipment in northern Europe * Re: Math Problems on latest survey results* Re: Math Problems on latest survey results6 Re: OpenVMS Management Station -  cluster storage ????6 Re: OpenVMS Management Station -  cluster storage ????. Re: OpenVMS Marketing: Variations on "stealth". Re: OpenVMS Marketing: Variations on "stealth". Re: OpenVMS Marketing: Variations on "stealth". Re: OpenVMS Marketing: Variations on "stealth". Re: OpenVMS Marketing: Variations on "stealth" Re: OpenVMS security?  Re: OpenVMS security?  Re: OpenVMS security?  Re: OpenVMS security?  Re: Telnet without timestamp1 Re: Turn-key OpenVMS E-mail, web server solution? 1 Re: Turn-key OpenVMS E-mail, web server solution? 1 Re: Turn-key OpenVMS E-mail, web server solution? 1 Re: Turn-key OpenVMS E-mail, web server solution? 1 Re: Turn-key OpenVMS E-mail, web server solution? % Re: Useful 'phpbb' installation guide   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 20 Jul 2004 13:19:30 -0700& From: twnews@kittles.com (Thomas Wirt)4 Subject: Anyone have any HSZ to HSG upgrade stories?= Message-ID: <b3531425.0407201219.6c01ba36@posting.google.com>   D I have 2 AlphaServer 4100 with 5GB mem. and 2 300 MHz CPUs.  My mainD disk space is on a pair of HSZ70 controllers.  We have plenty of CPUB and memory available all of the time, but we clearly seem IO boundE bound at many busy points during each day.  I may need to increase my E total computing capacity by about 40%.  I am entertaining the idea of A adding an HSG80 cabinet (everything redundant) to increase our IO C throughput.  My question is, has anyone upgraded similar (remotely) C hardware from HSZ SCSI based to HSZ SAN based?  I do not want to do F this only to find out that my AS4100 can not keep up with my HSG80.  IB understand that the AS 4100 may become the bottleneck (CPU wise orA even IO wise), but I need to know that in some IO bound scenarios > adding an HSG80 could give me a significant performance boost.  * Any advice or experiences are appreciated.   TIA  --     Thomas Wirt  Systems Manager  Kittle's Home Furnishings  Indianapolis, IN   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:18:08 -0700 + From: Alan <Usenet01REMOVE@Flying-Disk.com> 8 Subject: Re: Anyone have any HSZ to HSG upgrade stories?. Message-ID: <40FDB640.4040602@Flying-Disk.com>   Thomas Wirt wrote:F > I have 2 AlphaServer 4100 with 5GB mem. and 2 300 MHz CPUs.  My mainF > disk space is on a pair of HSZ70 controllers.  We have plenty of CPUD > and memory available all of the time, but we clearly seem IO bound, > bound at many busy points during each day.  A Are you already running VMS v7.3-2 with the XFC?   If not, do so. > At one of my sites, it cut a ten minute I/O bound job to a ten second job.   YMMV   Alan   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 01:13:24 GMT % From: "Mike Naime" <mnaime@kc.rr.com> & Subject: Re: Galaxy shared memory size9 Message-ID: <UqjLc.33776$vN3.12781@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>    Scott:  6 We stopped using Galaxy because we need a CD drive forJ installation/upgrade/maintenance reasons.  If you do not need the physicalC devices that belong to the primary galaxy instance, then go for it.   I I have not setup shared memory on my 1280's.  All of my systems are (hard J implicit) soft partitions.  What I found when partitioning a 1280 was thatD the memory allocation was linked to the CPU's that are active in theJ partitions.  This is because the CPU "Owns" the memory installed into it'sJ CPU drawer.  So, when you install the hardware, you have to really look atK how you might want to partition it, and move your memory dimms accordingly.   
 Mike Naime  2 Scott Greig <jsgreig@geminaq.com> wrote in message4 news:XD9Lc.16493$Vw3.943614@news20.bellglobal.com... > Hello all  > 8 > I'm about to configure my first Galaxy (ES47 Model 4).6 > My thought was to have a single hard partition, with8 > two soft partitions, using SMCI (Shared Memory Cluster, > Interconnect) as the cluster interconnect. > 4 > There will only be 4 GB of memory.  Both instances4 > will boot from a common system disk - applications" > will also share disks (MSA1000). > 8 > I'm considering a 64MB shared memory area, but this is; > only a guess - I have no guidelines (nor are there any in + > the Alpha Partitioning and Galaxy Guide).  > 9 > My question - is this enough?  Should I consider 128MB? 9 > The application is NOT Galaxy aware - at least not yet!  > 	 > Cheers,  > Scott  >  >    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:55:30 GMT & From: John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com>6 Subject: HP and Intel Developer's Forum in Santa Clara2 Message-ID: <6FfLc.6161$HI1.3769@news.cpqcorp.net>  # I just want to do a shameless plug.   C There are still some openings left for the OpenVMS section for the  ? upcoming HP & Intel Developer's Forum in Santa Clara (Aug 3-5).   B You get upclose and personal porting assistance from myself, Greg H Jordan, Carson Hovey, and John Egolf.  You'll be sitting right in front I of your very own rx2600 running the latest baselevel of OpenVMS.  You'll  E get to play and learn.  On top of that, you get your very own rx2600  G just for showing up.  We'll sit with you and code 'til we drop.  We'll  H order pizza or we (at least me) can hang in the bar 'til closing if you C want swapping funny MASSBUS stories.  We're real party amimals. :-)   H So if you are interested, go to http://www.hp.com/dspp and click on the D "HP and Intel Developer's Forum" in the right hand side of the page.   Hope to see you in Santa Clara!    --   John Reagan / HP Pascal/{A|I}MACRO for OpenVMS Project Leader  Hewlett-Packard Company    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 05:06:33 +0800 , From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>@ Subject: Re: Is it possible to route or tunnel the SCS protocol?0 Message-ID: <87oemawfqe.fsf@k9.prep.synonet.com>  3 keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris) writes:   C > As long as the packets get there in one piece and with reasonable > > latency, I see no problems in terms of official support. TheF > requirements in the OpenVMS Cluster Software SPD are pretty lenient:B > it has to conform to IEEE 802.2/802.3/802.1d LAN standards, haveG > nominal bandwidth of 10 megabits minimum, packet loss rate of no more E > than 1 in 1,000, and there's only a 2-second maximum packet transit A > time requirement and a warning about "low delay to optimize the < > operation of the OpenVMS Cluster" with respect to latency.  K 2 SECONDS??? Not 0.2 sec, or 2 millisec? Seems hell of a long time for SCS!    --  < Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda. @                                              West Australia 6076* comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:04:25 -0500 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>@ Subject: Re: Is it possible to route or tunnel the SCS protocol?+ Message-ID: <40FDCF29.9B9A11D1@comcast.net>    Bob Koehler wrote: > ^ > In article <40F7F77D.5B8FD079@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: > > K > > If an all mighty Microvax II is capable of participating in an ethernet K > > cluster, wouldn't modern routers be able to get SCS packets to a remote E > > destination faster than it takes the MVII to process the packet ?  > C >    It's not the hardware, it's the protocol.  You asking IP to do 7 >    something reliably that it was not designed to do.   - TCP is (supposed to be) more reliable, but...    D.J.D.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:07:07 -0500 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>@ Subject: Re: Is it possible to route or tunnel the SCS protocol?+ Message-ID: <40FDCFCA.98113468@comcast.net>    Nic Clews wrote: >  > David J Dachtera wrote:  >  > > JF Mezei wrote:  > >  > >>Colin Butcher wrote: > >>P > >>>If you want a reliable cluster - then no, you can't. SCS over ethernet typeO > >>>networks is a layer 2 protocol that requires a high bandwidth, low latency M > >>>(that's really important) datalink. Tunnelling etc. simply introduce too & > >>>much latency, so it doesn't work. > >>N > >>Is there much difference in latency between  early 1990s  ethernet bridgesL > >>(with fibre between 2 bridges), and a 2004 era high performance router ? > >  > >  > > My take: > > 9 > > Early 1990's processor speeds <100MHz, Ethernet = 3Mb  > > 1 > > 2004 processor speeds >500MHz, Ethernet = 1Gb  > > > > > Yes, I'd expect to see significant differences in latency. > G > First supported interconnects were CI, remember that these have LOCAL J > (i.e. non CPU dependent) processing capability, so comparing chip speeds > is pointless.   = Huh? "Star couplers" are passive devices - totally unpowered.   F > Ethernet got supported, and remember it's 10 meg half duplex but theH > processing of this messaging happens not at process priority, but at a! > more basic and faster priority.   / Early Ethernet - at the dawn of LAVc - was 3Mb.    > [snip]: > Verel Boaen is the main man for this sort of discussion.   How does one reach him/her?    D.J.D.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:24:22 -0400 * From: "Bobby Coleman" <colemanrl@ornl.gov>! Subject: Looking for a Video Card ( Message-ID: <cdk2i6$fdj$1@sws1.ornl.gov>   Hi,   J We have two DS20E Alpha workstations that came with DEPVZ-AA multifunctionJ video/ehternet/SCSI cards.  These have a max resolution of 1024 x 768.  WeJ would like to upgrade these to 1280x1024 or 1600x1200.  We are running VMSH Ver 7.3.  Would someone be so kind as to recommend a card that we shouldH consider?  We really only care about 2D graphics and text.  I've not had: much luck with "phone sales" with HP when it comes to VMS.  J The issue at hand is really just a matter of gaining more screen space forG the multiple inputs and display windows that are being used.  The other L option would be to configure for two lower-resolution monitors but I have no* experience with this type of setup on VMS.  % Any suggestions are most appreciated.    Bobby    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:09:04 -0400 ! From: vax3900 <vax3900@yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: looking for used DEC equipment in northern Europe: Message-ID: <cdjqbc$phk$1@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>  ! try the classicComp mailing list:  http://www.classiccmp.org/  / Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:   I > I'll be travelling in the next few weeks and am looking to collect some J > used DEC stuff for my hobbyist cluster.  I'll be in Sweden the last weekJ > in July, in northern Germany and the Netherlands on Sunday 08 August and- > in England Tuesday--Thursday 10--12 August.  > J > I'll be checking email (please reply by email) and the newsgroups in theC > first week of August, so more details then.  However, if you have I > something in Sweden (or Denmark, or eastern Norway) you want to give to I > a good home, let me know as soon as possible by email and I'll reply on  > Sunday 25 July at the latest.  > G > I am looking especially for narrow RZ26 and RZ28 SBB disks as well as J > small ALPHA machines and small and fast VAX machines.  Also interesting:C > colour monitors which will work with a VAXstation 4000 and CD-ROM H > drives.  A BA353 or BA356 would also be nice (I have enough BA350s for > now).    --  ! http://www.geocities.com/mscpscsi    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:08:01 -0400 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> 3 Subject: Re: Math Problems on latest survey results , Message-ID: <2qadnTCR8IoL8GDd4p2dnA@igs.net>   Barry Treahy, Jr. wrote:F > Besides that VMS is extremely low, doesn't anyone else see a problemA > with this math?  The VMS counter must be over flowing, or being  > truncated,  somewhere!:  > - > The results from the last instapoll follow:  > > > For your future server consolidation needs, how important isF > supporting multiple operating systems on a single server: Check one. >  > Very important - 41  > Somewhat important - 74  > Not important at all - 26  > Does not apply - 5 > E > If very or somewhat important, what collection of operating systems D > would you like to see supported on a single server (check all that	 > apply):  >  > Windows - 88
 > Linux - 100  > HP-UX - 46 > OpenVMS - 014  > Other - 25 >  > 
 > Total - 146      There are three kinds of lies:  Lies, damn lies, and statistics.  -- Mark Twain   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:45:58 -0400  From: norm.raphael@metso.com3 Subject: Re: Math Problems on latest survey results Q Message-ID: <OF1E47FB56.D080A180-ON85256ED7.006C8900-85256ED7.006CBDD8@metso.com>   > "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote on 07/20/2004 03:08:01 PM:   > Barry Treahy, Jr. wrote:H > > Besides that VMS is extremely low, doesn't anyone else see a problemC > > with this math?  The VMS counter must be over flowing, or being  > > truncated,  somewhere!:  > > / > > The results from the last instapoll follow:  > > @ > > For your future server consolidation needs, how important isH > > supporting multiple operating systems on a single server: Check one. > >  > > Very important - 41  > > Somewhat important - 74  > > Not important at all - 26  > > Does not apply - 5 > > G > > If very or somewhat important, what collection of operating systems F > > would you like to see supported on a single server (check all that > > apply):  > >  > > Windows - 88 > > Linux - 100  > > HP-UX - 46 > > OpenVMS - 014  > > Other - 25 > >  > >  > > Total - 146  >  >   > There are three kinds of lies:   Make that four kinds of lies: ! > Lies, damn lies, and statistics  and campaign promises.   >  -- Mark Twain >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:45:20 -0500 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>? Subject: Re: OpenVMS Management Station -  cluster storage ???? + Message-ID: <40FDCAB0.9F6BD4BF@comcast.net>    Dave Baxter wrote: >  > David,M >       When I tried (out of curiosity) to execute Set Host /SCSI $1$GGA9000:  > I got , > .... error activating image HSZTERM$SCSPADC >         image file not found DSA1:[SYS$COMMON][SYSEXE] etc., etc.  > P > a directory of sys$system for anything related to HSZ (i.e. *HSZ*.*) returns a! > ....  no files found, response.  > ! > Is HSZTERM a 3rd party product?   G No, However, it is no longer supported. It never did ship with OpenVMS.    You can find a kit for it here:   # http://www.djesys.com/freeware/vms/ . http://www.djesys.com/freeware/vms/hszterm.zip  @ However, I do not assume *ANY* responsibility for the product orG anyone's use of it. I just have the kit available for folks who want to E try to use it. It is not supported by OpenVMS Engineering, hp Storage $ Engineering or anyone else. Y.O.Y.O.   D.J.D.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:47:19 -0500 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>? Subject: Re: OpenVMS Management Station -  cluster storage ???? + Message-ID: <40FDCB26.82DB3ABE@comcast.net>     Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote: > q > In article <a3c44af1.0407191100.92ce5f7@posting.google.com>, dave.baxter@bannerhealth.com (Dave Baxter) writes:  > >I got. > >..... error activating image HSZTERM$SCSPADD > >        image file not found DSA1:[SYS$COMMON][SYSEXE] etc., etc. > > Q > >a directory of sys$system for anything related to HSZ (i.e. *HSZ*.*) returns a # > >.....  no files found, response.  > > " > >Is HSZTERM a 3rd party product? > < > No. It is part of the StorageWorks Command Console (SWCC).3 > http://www.compaq.com/products/storageworks/swcc/    Oohhh... Better check that...   7 > Eg. OVMS 8.7B Platform Kit for HSG80 (31-Mar-2004) on \ > ftp://ftp.hp.com/pub/softlib/software3/COL6232/co-19283-1/SOL_HSG80_v87_VMS_279807-B21.zipV > contains in directory AGENT the file SWCC25.EXE which is a zip archive with the file" > DEC-AXPVMS-SWCC-V0205-106-1.PCSI  D I dissected that kit using PRODUCT COPY/FORMAT=REFERENCE and did not4 find the HSZTERM$SCSPAD executable in the .PCSI kit.   D.J.D.   ------------------------------    Date: 20 Jul 2004 11:45:32 -07001 From: keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris) 7 Subject: Re: OpenVMS Marketing: Variations on "stealth" = Message-ID: <cf15391e.0407201045.70b6c6a2@posting.google.com>   a JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message news:<40F77635.1CD60C52@teksavvy.com>...  > Keith Parris wrote: D > > Actually, many of the people from the VMS organization have beenH > > promoted upward significantly within HP, and are now looking out for- > > VMS in their current positions and roles,  > G > Stallard hasn't been fired and he got promoted, so it cuts both ways.   A Scott Stallard came from pre-merger HP. He made one mis-statement E about VMS (based on bad information, and which was quickly corrected) B and yet some in this newsgroup can't seem to forgive him, ever. InE actuality, he's learned the value of VMS and has been an advocate for * VMS as he's moved up the management chain.  E Even the pre-merger HP user group Interex mistakenly had on their web @ pages a statement that VMS had been cancelled as a result of theA merger, so that mistaken notion was certainly not confined to one E person. (They quickly corrected the mistake as soon as it was pointed 7 out, and have been quite supportive of VMS ever since.)   P > Also, it is my *impression* that Marcello was smart enough to stay quiet aboutM > VMS once he got promoted above the VMS group since he knew that rocking the O > boat would jeoperdize his job/position, especially during the HP merger where > > musical chair games made every manager's position dangerous. > P > Has Marcello actually succeeded in slowly changing attitudes without appearing5 > to rock the boat, or is this the result of others ?   F From what I've heard within HP, Rich Marcello has continued to quietlyF look out for VMS as he has moved up the management chain, doing things> like making sure it's not omitted from presentations and sales	 training.   L > And finally, how would you respond to a statement that any advertising oneF > sees now of VMS on IA64 is some legal requirement as a result of theK > Compaq-Intel deal to port VMS to IA64 in exchange for whatever Intel gave   8 I've seen no evidence within HP for any such connection.  M > I am curious whether the mild mentions of VMS are just temporary "necessary O > evils" HP must accomplish, or whether there are true changes that will result > > in long term increases in visibility and advertising of VMS.  < I see them as proof that loyal and involved users can make aB significant difference in the perception of and the future of VMS.  D The big difference within HP seems to be as a result of the decisionD to continue VMS into the future (starting by porting it to Itanium),F and right now the biggest positive consequence is that it is supported= on Integrity servers, so now every time Integrity servers are  mentioned, VMS is included.    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:16:17 +0100 & From: Elliott Roper <nospam@yrl.co.uk>7 Subject: Re: OpenVMS Marketing: Variations on "stealth" 1 Message-ID: <200720042116172097%nospam@yrl.co.uk>   & What about this for stealth marketing?) http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17300 3 It is headlined "Apple intros iPod IIII, HP pounces  Click wheel touch and feel"   , Ends up with, apropos of just about nothing,E  "Carly Fiorina, the CEO of Cupertino company Hewlett Packard, hailed C the iPod IIII and said she and her firm had decided to wait for the B gizmo just launched as it would give her customers "an even better1 experience". The HPiPod will be out in September.   F  Her company now makes one of the most robust operating systems in the world, OpenVMS."  1 Somebody is having a stir, but rather a nice one.    --  C I thought I would be the last on earth to mangle my e-mail address.  fsnospam$elliott$$   ------------------------------    Date: 20 Jul 2004 15:22:12 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) 7 Subject: Re: OpenVMS Marketing: Variations on "stealth" 3 Message-ID: <FD$8G22hKEYQ@eisner.encompasserve.org>   Z In article <200720042116172097%nospam@yrl.co.uk>, Elliott Roper <nospam@yrl.co.uk> writes:  E > I thought I would be the last on earth to mangle my e-mail address.  > fsnospam$elliott$$  H Is it really munging if an executable decryption algorithm is provided ?   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:03:30 +0100 & From: Elliott Roper <nospam@yrl.co.uk>7 Subject: Re: OpenVMS Marketing: Variations on "stealth" 1 Message-ID: <200720042203302081%nospam@yrl.co.uk>   C In article <FD$8G22hKEYQ@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Larry Kilgallen  <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote:  A > In article <200720042116172097%nospam@yrl.co.uk>, Elliott Roper  > <nospam@yrl.co.uk> writes: > G > > I thought I would be the last on earth to mangle my e-mail address.  > > fsnospam$elliott$$ > J > Is it really munging if an executable decryption algorithm is provided ?F Careful Larry. That is two teco jokes from you in two days. You may do yourself an injury.    --   ei$$   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 01:09:46 GMT , From: "Dave Gudewicz" <k9jdk@NOSPAMarrl.net>7 Subject: Re: OpenVMS Marketing: Variations on "stealth" . Message-ID: <unjLc.131503$JR4.26005@attbi_s54>  J I agree with Keith.  There were mistakes made.  They were corrected.  Some2 remember the second sentence and forget the third.  J I believe Stallard is "on board" and have had several email dialogues withL him on the subject.  I believe Marcello is "on board" and have had more than a few email dialogues with him.   F I've seen no objective evidence to believe otherwise.  More than ample supplies of subjective though.    > "Keith Parris" <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message7 news:cf15391e.0407201045.70b6c6a2@posting.google.com... : > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message( news:<40F77635.1CD60C52@teksavvy.com>... > > Keith Parris wrote: F > > > Actually, many of the people from the VMS organization have beenJ > > > promoted upward significantly within HP, and are now looking out for/ > > > VMS in their current positions and roles,  > > I > > Stallard hasn't been fired and he got promoted, so it cuts both ways.  > C > Scott Stallard came from pre-merger HP. He made one mis-statement G > about VMS (based on bad information, and which was quickly corrected) D > and yet some in this newsgroup can't seem to forgive him, ever. InG > actuality, he's learned the value of VMS and has been an advocate for , > VMS as he's moved up the management chain. > G > Even the pre-merger HP user group Interex mistakenly had on their web B > pages a statement that VMS had been cancelled as a result of theC > merger, so that mistaken notion was certainly not confined to one G > person. (They quickly corrected the mistake as soon as it was pointed 9 > out, and have been quite supportive of VMS ever since.)  > L > > Also, it is my *impression* that Marcello was smart enough to stay quiet about K > > VMS once he got promoted above the VMS group since he knew that rocking  the K > > boat would jeoperdize his job/position, especially during the HP merger  where @ > > musical chair games made every manager's position dangerous. > > H > > Has Marcello actually succeeded in slowly changing attitudes without	 appearing 7 > > to rock the boat, or is this the result of others ?  > H > From what I've heard within HP, Rich Marcello has continued to quietlyH > look out for VMS as he has moved up the management chain, doing things@ > like making sure it's not omitted from presentations and sales > training.  > J > > And finally, how would you respond to a statement that any advertising one H > > sees now of VMS on IA64 is some legal requirement as a result of theH > > Compaq-Intel deal to port VMS to IA64 in exchange for whatever Intel gave > : > I've seen no evidence within HP for any such connection. > D > > I am curious whether the mild mentions of VMS are just temporary
 "necessaryJ > > evils" HP must accomplish, or whether there are true changes that will result@ > > in long term increases in visibility and advertising of VMS. > > > I see them as proof that loyal and involved users can make aD > significant difference in the perception of and the future of VMS. > F > The big difference within HP seems to be as a result of the decisionF > to continue VMS into the future (starting by porting it to Itanium),H > and right now the biggest positive consequence is that it is supported? > on Integrity servers, so now every time Integrity servers are  > mentioned, VMS is included.    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:15:00 -0400 3 From: Undisclosed <nomail@dontbeaweaselspammer.com>  Subject: Re: OpenVMS security?0 Message-ID: <Y4ednf5iy_AwTGDdRVn-hg@comcast.com>  H first off, just want to thank everyone for their very informative posts.   now,   Bob Ceculski wrote: m > Undisclosed <nomail@dontbeaweaselspammer.com> wrote in message news:<AMWdnWKtYYEgnWTdRVn-ig@comcast.com>...  > H >>couple of questions from a OpenVMS newbie with a little (real little)  >>security knowledge.  >>H >>3. OpenVMS's native access control would be considered discressionary @ >>(sp..) like Unix's is, correct? Except that it has much finer ' >>granularity (more priviledge levels).  >  > E > Yes, but first redesign and rewrite your unix to cleanly catagorize  > and separateH > Kernel Mode from Supervisor Mode and from User Mode. Three modes are a	 > minimum F > for a correct ring protection system. The use of three or more rings > happens toE > be a fully patented methodology by OpenVMS Engineering. OpenVMS has  > four. G > OpenVMS also has 40 groups of higher mode functionality classified as  > requiring  > special named privileges.   % This is tangential to my questions...   H but how can the VMS team have the use of 3 or more rings patented, when K the ring concept originated with Multics, which had 6 hardware-based rings?   G that certainly sounds like a challengable patent considering Multics's  $ prior art based on your description.  C also, VMS was created in 1978, and patents last for 20 years IIRC?  + Wouldn't it be null and void at this point?    > And, then... > 8 >  - allow access to higher mode services only through a > DESCRIPTOR-basedF >    calling standard which rules out "by design" the primary cause of
 > securityG >    holes - buffer-overflows. The secure Calling Standard is a central  > design >    theme in OpenVMS.  G does the descriptor calling standard guarantee integer-based overflows  3 (really, integer wraparounds) cannot occur somehow?   G that's a definite vuln in C and I know there's no way to really fix it  = in that language, I don't know if Bliss has similar problems.   B all the fixes I've seen for integer overflows in C involve either  complicated ? mostly theoretical hacks that constantly check the processor's  G equivalent of EFLAGS to see if a overflow flag has been tripped (which  G would gut speed), or involve compiler modifications to create programs  C that detect the often huge memory shifts required to get a integer   overflow working.   H since that class of vulnerability was only made public in 2000, I would 6 be really impressed if OpenVMS already had it blocked.  H >  - rewrite and install your TCP/IP stack so that it doesn't live in orD >    directly access kernel mode services except through the calling > standard. B >    If the previous condition was met, your tcp/ip stack probablyF >    won't work in Supervisor mode or User Mode without these changes.D >    This is the reason why most security holes for which OpenVMS isC >    affected does not in fact lead to a security vulnerability. In H >    this sense I agree with Andrew. Security vulnerability listings are; >    innaccurate for OpenVMS. Because they do not correctly  > differentiate G >    whether only a user-mode process can be affected or a higher mode, F >    and whether a higher privilege can be attained. A correct listing@ >    must rate the severity of the security hole. In OpenVMS the
 > severityG >    is usually lower (or meaningless) in comparison to other operating 
 >    systems.   I this is also the case when you are using a nonstandard system using some  E of the compiler and kernel security mods that are out there for Unix  	 variants.   G using SSP/Propolice and other compiler mods makes a lot of stack-based  C attacks merely annoying crashes as opposed to critical emergencies.   H >  - design privilege assignments to be attached to a mode. If a programE >    installed in a higher mode breaks out to a user-mode prompt. All E >    privileges assigned during the program run must be automatically  > lost. E >    This prevents program privilege tailgating. OpenVMS Hackers (yes  > they@ >    do exist, an admirably persistent if unsuccessful lot) have
 > recently; >    discovered this functionality in OpenVMS, inwhich they  > intentionally H >    installed an application with privileges and with a buffer overflow	 > leading G >    to a DCL prompt. Their experiment failed. This OpenVMS "knockdown" C >    functionality can also be extended to disable the privilege of A >    receiving a DCL Prompt when breaking out of a program or DCL  > procedure,G >    just by assigning the CAPTIVE and RESTRICT flags to user accounts.    that's awesome!   : shells aren't the be all end all though, unfortunately....  B >  - design your Unix to provide only strictly separated (and from
 > overflowA >    controlled) user and system stacks to prevent stack crashing 	 > leading ( >    to access to higher mode functions. >   G what about the heap? that's the usual next target 1337 haX0rs go after  & once you plug the stack smashing hole.  I does OVMS impliment anything like FreeBSD's heap "canaries", or seperate   heaps a la OpenBSD?   B > These are only a few of the unique, patented design decisions in	 > OpenVMS E > resulting in a world-beating matrix of Functionality, Reliability,  F > Availability, Security, Stability, and Scalability(RT, APMP, SMP andH > Cluster). It's an OS that was "Designed" first by 4 competing teams of
 > experts,G > and then the best results of these competing design teams merged into  > a A > final design team. They knew of the older Unix, MVS and Multics  > designs, andF > naturally they innovated and improved on them for the Enterprise OS  > problem space. > C > When you are done making these elementary design changes to Unix  C > (many of which were intentionally excluded or ignored by the Unix  > designers H > in 1969 - Multics already had early forms many of them) you will find C > most of the commercial products on the Unix Market will no longer 
 > functionH > correctly on your New-Unix, and will also require a redesign, and then > a rewrite. > A > But at least you will finally have an OS and TCP/IP stack which B > "begins" to technically compare with OpenVMS within the frame of > security. H > And you'll have a product which pays royalties to OpenVMS Engineering. > H > Each OS has it's strengths and weaknesses in design and implementationG > which will have a different evaluation depending on the problem space A > it will be applied to, and depending on the design goals of the  > designers.@ > For the general Enterprise OS problem space, I believe OpenVMS
 > Engineering = > has most consistently made the best decisions in design and 
 > implemented A > them with an admirably consistent high quality and methodology.  > G > OpenVMS enthusiasts can righteously bemoan that the Computer Science  C > Profession (Informatics) have failed to recognize and teach their 
 > studentsE > the sophisticated mechanisms and high principals found in OpenVMS,  F > preferring instead to favoritize the minimalistic asthetics of Unix,G > or the marketing level sophistication in OS selection. This is a reala@ > loss for enterpise efficiency (money), mission-critical system > stabilityeH > (lives), and the computer science profession (maturity as a science). B > A more balanced and impartial framework of scientific thought is	 > needed.tH > Computer Science needs some independence from commercial and marketing@ > interests to even discover the value of many existing designs, > technologiesF > and ideas. The last major papers over OS design were written over 101 > years ago, but their work is far from complete.a > C > Critics of OpenVMS should first study and compare it's internals tG > (Professional OS comparisons and choices should not be reduced to an aC > application layer beauty contest) with an open mind concering OS n@ > design paradigms, system operations principals and reliability > methodologies.C > After recovering from the shock, they will likely no longer be as  > critical.    I'm certainly not a critic.y  G VMS interests me because it seems to be well designed as an OS, and is oI also not based on Unix (at least in the conventional sense), so exposure OI to it gives me a different view on things from my usual Unix and Windows e based view of the world.  G > Excuse me. I just noticed I didn't finish writing the last condition.d > It should read...- > H >  - lets also not forget a redesign of the internal logon  mechanism toH >    be carried out by one program/process first created at user request > andZ? >    has complete responsibility for the entire login sequence.3  H thanks for finishing that thought, I was wondering what you were saying.  B > By the way, that was not by any means a complete list of OpenVMS. > design advantages.  It was only a beginning.  F lol, I'd love to see a comprehenisive listing if you ever get time! :)  G > Excuse me one last time, I have checked my sources and find I need to.F > change one sentence of my earlier Email. The sentence should read... > ? >    It's an OS that was "Designed" by experts first producing  @ >    four design iterations, and then the best results of these A >    designs were carried over into a  final design by "The Blue 1 >    Ribbon Committee".y > E > I had thought to have read that the original 4 designs were by four B > competing teams, but I can no longer find a source for this. TheG > essential message remains unchanged. OpenVMS was carefully "Designed" * > by experienced operating system experts. > G > I'm not interested in changing history for any purpose. I do stand byn5 > my other statements and opinions made in the email.u >  > 	 > Cheers!8 >  > Keith Cayemberg<+ > IBM Business Services - Hannover, Germany:   cool.a  & thanks again, Keith and everyone else.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:35:00 -0500A2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> Subject: Re: OpenVMS security?+ Message-ID: <40FDD654.B8D1823E@comcast.net>U   Undisclosed wrote: > J > first off, just want to thank everyone for their very informative posts. >  > now, >  > Bob Ceculski wrote:no > > Undisclosed <nomail@dontbeaweaselspammer.com> wrote in message news:<AMWdnWKtYYEgnWTdRVn-ig@comcast.com>...o > >bI > >>couple of questions from a OpenVMS newbie with a little (real little)4 > >>security knowledge.k > >>I > >>3. OpenVMS's native access control would be considered discressionary A > >>(sp..) like Unix's is, correct? Except that it has much finerp) > >>granularity (more priviledge levels).f > >n > >aG > > Yes, but first redesign and rewrite your unix to cleanly catagorizee > > and separateJ > > Kernel Mode from Supervisor Mode and from User Mode. Three modes are a > > minimum'H > > for a correct ring protection system. The use of three or more rings > > happens toG > > be a fully patented methodology by OpenVMS Engineering. OpenVMS hase	 > > four.tI > > OpenVMS also has 40 groups of higher mode functionality classified ast
 > > requiring  > > special named privileges.a > ' > This is tangential to my questions...  > I > but how can the VMS team have the use of 3 or more rings patented, when M > the ring concept originated with Multics, which had 6 hardware-based rings?@  A Um, Bob C. tends to be a bit, well, overly enthusiastic at times.m Careful how you take him.4  H > that certainly sounds like a challengable patent considering Multics's& > prior art based on your description. > D > also, VMS was created in 1978, and patents last for 20 years IIRC?- > Wouldn't it be null and void at this point?m  $ Patents can be renewed can they not?   > > And, then... > >A: > >  - allow access to higher mode services only through a > > DESCRIPTOR-basedH > >    calling standard which rules out "by design" the primary cause of > > securityI > >    holes - buffer-overflows. The secure Calling Standard is a centralh
 > > design > >    theme in OpenVMS. > H > does the descriptor calling standard guarantee integer-based overflows5 > (really, integer wraparounds) cannot occur somehow?o  E Not sure what you're looking for there. In VMS's case, even if a datanH overflow - of any kind - occurs, the result is usually an image exit, atE which rundown all temporary priviuleges are revoked. In the case of arB daemon process, either the process terminates severing all outsideF connections or it restarts, effectively "orphaning" errant connections in some cases.  H > that's a definite vuln in C and I know there's no way to really fix it? > in that language, I don't know if Bliss has similar problems.   ? With the exception of C, VMS "native" languages use native data  constructs.   C > all the fixes I've seen for integer overflows in C involve eitherp
 > complicatede@ > mostly theoretical hacks that constantly check the processor'sH > equivalent of EFLAGS to see if a overflow flag has been tripped (whichH > would gut speed), or involve compiler modifications to create programsD > that detect the often huge memory shifts required to get a integer > overflow working.n > I > since that class of vulnerability was only made public in 2000, I wouldL8 > be really impressed if OpenVMS already had it blocked.  H The root vulnerabitity doe snot exist in VMS, TTBOMK. So, there would be no reason to "block" it.   > [snip] > I'm certainly not a critic.t > H > VMS interests me because it seems to be well designed as an OS, and isJ > also not based on Unix (at least in the conventional sense), so exposureJ > to it gives me a different view on things from my usual Unix and Windows > based view of the world.  H Yes. Quite. VMS was designed as a commercial product and so has a lot ofD resources behind it. It is not a student project that snow-balled or anything like that.    > [snip]D > > By the way, that was not by any means a complete list of OpenVMS0 > > design advantages.  It was only a beginning. > H > lol, I'd love to see a comprehenisive listing if you ever get time! :)   Please - don't encourage him!e   > [snip]( > thanks again, Keith and everyone else.   The documentation is on-line: " http://www.openvms.compaq.com/doc/  H Cruise around it and see if there's anything there answers questions you' may have or think of as you go along...    D.J.D.   ------------------------------    Date: 20 Jul 2004 21:55:27 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)e Subject: Re: OpenVMS security?3 Message-ID: <zCD$f7y4mmvn@eisner.encompasserve.org>-  f In article <Y4ednf5iy_AwTGDdRVn-hg@comcast.com>, Undisclosed <nomail@dontbeaweaselspammer.com> writes:  J > first off, just want to thank everyone for their very informative posts. >  > now, >  > Bob Ceculski wrote:n  H >>    holes - buffer-overflows. The secure Calling Standard is a central	 >> design  >>    theme in OpenVMS.. > I > does the descriptor calling standard guarantee integer-based overflows g5 > (really, integer wraparounds) cannot occur somehow?b > I > that's a definite vuln in C and I know there's no way to really fix it e? > in that language, I don't know if Bliss has similar problems.t > D > all the fixes I've seen for integer overflows in C involve either 
 > complicatedtA > mostly theoretical hacks that constantly check the processor's  I > equivalent of EFLAGS to see if a overflow flag has been tripped (which  I > would gut speed), or involve compiler modifications to create programs iE > that detect the often huge memory shifts required to get a integer 8 > overflow working.  > J > since that class of vulnerability was only made public in 2000, I would 8 > be really impressed if OpenVMS already had it blocked. >    	snipn   >> u > I > what about the heap? that's the usual next target 1337 haX0rs go after e( > once you plug the stack smashing hole. > K > does OVMS impliment anything like FreeBSD's heap "canaries", or seperate   > heaps a la OpenBSD?w     	snip     = 	Keith penned a definitive explantion of why VMS mostly isn'tn= 	vulnerable to smash the stack and buffer overflows.  Insteadh' 	of lifting portions, here is the link:    http://tinyurl.com/6uooc   				Robs   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:55:21 -0400,3 From: Undisclosed <nomail@dontbeaweaselspammer.com>g Subject: Re: OpenVMS security?0 Message-ID: <q_-dnfAkc5WsdGDdRVn-jg@comcast.com>   David J Dachtera wrote:     & > Patents can be renewed can they not?  G I'm not aware that they can be extended over 20 years. then again, I'm a
 no expert.  @ copyrights can be renewed, up to 90 or 99 years now... which is % ridiculous, but also really offtopic.r   >>>And, then...s >>>g9 >>> - allow access to higher mode services only through ad >>>DESCRIPTOR-based G >>>   calling standard which rules out "by design" the primary cause ofe >>>security H >>>   holes - buffer-overflows. The secure Calling Standard is a central	 >>>design- >>>   theme in OpenVMS.  >>H >>does the descriptor calling standard guarantee integer-based overflows5 >>(really, integer wraparounds) cannot occur somehow?c >  > G > Not sure what you're looking for there. In VMS's case, even if a dataaJ > overflow - of any kind - occurs, the result is usually an image exit, atG > which rundown all temporary priviuleges are revoked. In the case of aoD > daemon process, either the process terminates severing all outsideH > connections or it restarts, effectively "orphaning" errant connections > in some cases.  2 cool, I guess I just need to do some more reading.   > A > With the exception of C, VMS "native" languages use native datag
 > constructs.e   cool.f  J > The root vulnerabitity doe snot exist in VMS, TTBOMK. So, there would be > no reason to "block" it.   cool.l  J > Yes. Quite. VMS was designed as a commercial product and so has a lot ofF > resources behind it. It is not a student project that snow-balled or > anything like that.a  3 lol, sometimes little projects take over the world.x   > The documentation is on-line:i$ > http://www.openvms.compaq.com/doc/ > J > Cruise around it and see if there's anything there answers questions you) > may have or think of as you go along...c >  > D.J.D.  5 thanks again. looks like I've got some reading to do.b   ------------------------------   Date: 20 Jul 2004 18:37:08 GMT& From: Frank da Cruz <fdc@columbia.edu>% Subject: Re: Telnet without timestampn7 Message-ID: <slrncfqpik.292.fdc@sesame.cc.columbia.edu>0  9 On 2004-07-20, John Mac <its_john_mac@hotmail.com> wrote: H : Issue: Microsoft Telnet NT4.0 version did not send a Timestamp packageD : when telnetting.  The Win2k version does.  The old Xyplex TerminalF : Servers (not upgradeable) do not recognise the Timestamp package and= : interpret it as a instruction to reboot. I have tried usingiC : Hummingbird Exceed 9 but this has no option of 'dumbing down' theo7 : telnet and leaving out the enhanced telnet functions.lD : I know this is not a Microsoft fault - it is doing exactly what itC : should do. But does anyone know of a way to disable the timestampaE : package, or recommend a 3rd party Telnet app that would do the job?g : Many thanks, :)C This question doesn't seem to have anything to do with VMS, and I'm-E not sure what a Telnet timestamp package is, but if you want a Telnet"E client for Windows that lets you control each and every Telnet option $ and policy individually, here it is:  )   http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/k95.htmle  ? and here is the documentation about its Telnet client controls:i  ,   http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/telnet.html   - Frankn   ------------------------------    Date: 20 Jul 2004 15:36:05 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski): Subject: Re: Turn-key OpenVMS E-mail, web server solution?= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0407201436.37d814fe@posting.google.com>i  X Jeremy Begg <notme@vsm.com.au> wrote in message news:<BD22CCCC.62CF%notme@vsm.com.au>... > K > WASD Web server - the best. I've used OSU and Apache and hated them both. 7 > (I haven't used Purveyor and don't intend to try it.)    why? :)    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 01:29:52 GMT1L From: winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr"): Subject: Re: Turn-key OpenVMS E-mail, web server solution?6 Message-ID: <00A35210.02FC02AA@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>  R In article <1dKdnUOgd8yQrGjd4p2dnA@igs.net>, "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes: >David J Dachtera wrote:I >> Is anyone aware of a company prodiving a turn-key OpenVMS solution formC >> e-mail, web services and/or both? I thought I followed a link onaG >> Google Groups to one once, but I didn't print anything out from thate& >> site and don't a URL to go back to. >>G >> The time for such seems to be ripening, and if Itanic can repair its G >> hull, pump out and put itself to rights, OVMS-I64 may be a practicalfH >> alternative to the trendier UN*X options (which will, undoubtedly, beG >> available on the soon-to-be ubiquitous x86-64, unlike a certain o.s.a+ >> we all know of - VMS snoozes, it loses).o >>	 >> D.J.D.a >- > I >Time to DJD to pull together an open-source CD and a self-published bookl! >that contains all the foregoing.o >  >;-) (half kidding)r  H It wouldn't be a bad idea, except that there isn't really an open sourceK mail product.  PMDF costs money.  (It's _worth_ money, but it costs money.)   I (I was arguing as soon as I first heard of allegedly-really-cheap Itanium J servers for HP to sell prepackaged PathWorks server solutions, prepackagedJ webserver solutions, prepackaged mailhub solutions; haven't seen much sign of it happening.):   -- Alan    --  O ===============================================================================t0  Alan Winston --- WINSTON@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDUM  Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL   Phone:  650/926-3056iM  Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA   94025eO ===============================================================================M   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:52:35 -0500t2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>: Subject: Re: Turn-key OpenVMS E-mail, web server solution?+ Message-ID: <40FDCC63.C362F721@comcast.net>n  * Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr wrote: > T > In article <1dKdnUOgd8yQrGjd4p2dnA@igs.net>, "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes: > >David J Dachtera wrote:K > >> Is anyone aware of a company prodiving a turn-key OpenVMS solution for E > >> e-mail, web services and/or both? I thought I followed a link on I > >> Google Groups to one once, but I didn't print anything out from that ( > >> site and don't a URL to go back to. > >>I > >> The time for such seems to be ripening, and if Itanic can repair itsaI > >> hull, pump out and put itself to rights, OVMS-I64 may be a practicaluJ > >> alternative to the trendier UN*X options (which will, undoubtedly, beI > >> available on the soon-to-be ubiquitous x86-64, unlike a certain o.s.t- > >> we all know of - VMS snoozes, it loses).D > >> > >> D.J.D.  > >I > > K > >Time to DJD to pull together an open-source CD and a self-published bookn# > >that contains all the foregoing.. > >  > >;-) (half kidding)$ > J > It wouldn't be a bad idea, except that there isn't really an open sourceM > mail product.  PMDF costs money.  (It's _worth_ money, but it costs money.)a > K > (I was arguing as soon as I first heard of allegedly-really-cheap ItaniumsL > servers for HP to sell prepackaged PathWorks server solutions, prepackagedL > webserver solutions, prepackaged mailhub solutions; haven't seen much sign > of it happening.)_  @ Commercial products are not at all incongruous with the proposed business plan.   D.J.D.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:53:31 -0500h2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>: Subject: Re: Turn-key OpenVMS E-mail, web server solution?+ Message-ID: <40FDCC9B.E732E11C@comcast.net>a   Kenneth Farmer wrote:- > K > Check with Stalker.com on the status of CommuniGate Pro.  They are in ther  > process of porting it to OVMS. >  > http://www.stalker.com/cpro/ > ? > I've been running it for six years without the first problem.   B I'll have to remember to look for their VMS product down the road.   Thanx for the lead...y   D.J.D.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 02:59:15 GMTfL From: winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr"): Subject: Re: Turn-key OpenVMS E-mail, web server solution?6 Message-ID: <00A3521C.7FA28FC8@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>  ` In article <40FDCC63.C362F721@comcast.net>, David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> writes:+ >Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr wrote:w >> pU >> In article <1dKdnUOgd8yQrGjd4p2dnA@igs.net>, "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes:b >> >David J Dachtera wrote:hL >> >> Is anyone aware of a company prodiving a turn-key OpenVMS solution forF >> >> e-mail, web services and/or both? I thought I followed a link onJ >> >> Google Groups to one once, but I didn't print anything out from that) >> >> site and don't a URL to go back to.r >> >>hJ >> >> The time for such seems to be ripening, and if Itanic can repair itsJ >> >> hull, pump out and put itself to rights, OVMS-I64 may be a practicalK >> >> alternative to the trendier UN*X options (which will, undoubtedly, benJ >> >> available on the soon-to-be ubiquitous x86-64, unlike a certain o.s.. >> >> we all know of - VMS snoozes, it loses). >> >>e >> >> D.J.D. >> > >> >L >> >Time to DJD to pull together an open-source CD and a self-published book$ >> >that contains all the foregoing. >> > >> >;-) (half kidding) >> hK >> It wouldn't be a bad idea, except that there isn't really an open sourcetN >> mail product.  PMDF costs money.  (It's _worth_ money, but it costs money.) >> nL >> (I was arguing as soon as I first heard of allegedly-really-cheap ItaniumM >> servers for HP to sell prepackaged PathWorks server solutions, prepackagedoM >> webserver solutions, prepackaged mailhub solutions; haven't seen much sign  >> of it happening.) >cA >Commercial products are not at all incongruous with the proposedo >business plan.t  G I don't think it's a bad idea at all, especially if you can get Process"M to cut you some kind of deal on license costs.  I was responding specifically M to "John Smith's" remark about "open-source CD"; you're not going to get PMDF  on one of those.  J (I hope it's clear that this is clarification, not argumentation; when I'm& arguing with you, we'll both know it.)   -- Alann   -- iO ===============================================================================a0  Alan Winston --- WINSTON@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDUM  Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL   Phone:  650/926-3056oM  Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA   94025-O ===============================================================================o   ------------------------------   Date: 20 Jul 2004 19:16:38 GMT From: healyzh@aracnet.com2. Subject: Re: Useful 'phpbb' installation guide, Message-ID: <cdjr2m01465@enews1.newsguy.com>  / dieter rossbach <dieter.rossbach@gmx.de> wrote:e< > The database is more or less empty, I just added one user.  J OK, that means I'm having much better luck with it than you are, hopefully my setup is stable then.   	Zanei   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.400 ************************