1 INFO-VAX	Sat, 25 Sep 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 532       Contents:/ Re: C function prototypes and opaque structures / Re: C function prototypes and opaque structures 1 Re: cluster member crashes during boot (again...) # Re: From Sun:  HP-UX has no future. ( HP admits discontinued IA64 workstations, Re: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstations, Re: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstations, Re: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstations, Re: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstations, Re: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstations, Re: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstations HP axes Itanium workstations  Re: HP axes Itanium workstations  Re: HP axes Itanium workstations  Re: HP axes Itanium workstations  Re: HP axes Itanium workstations0 Re: HP terminates Itanium workstation production Re: HTTP proxy server for VMS?> Maximum file size, FAQ v. "Guide to OpenVMS File Applications"P OpenVMS Pearl Host-Based Minimerge (HBMM) for OpenVMS V7.3-2 is available via thC OT:   I'm entering the job market for the second time since 1984... G Re: OT:   I'm entering the job market for the second time since 1984... G Re: OT:   I'm entering the job market for the second time since 1984...  Re: OT: Sun's fighting chance 7 Re: Saveset File that OpenVMS ZIP V2.3 will not archive = Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations = Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations = Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations = Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations = Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations = Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations = Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations = Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations = Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations = Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations = Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations  Re: TCP/IP connection problem  Re: TCP/IP connection problem 5 Re: Windoze not rebooted monthly shuts down airports! 5 Re: Windoze not rebooted monthly shuts down airports! 5 Re: Windoze not rebooted monthly shuts down airports! 5 Re: Windoze not rebooted monthly shuts down airports! : Re: ZIP "-V" v. UNIX, et al.: Problem, possible solutions.  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 24 Sep 2004 11:20:33 -07001 From: usenet_vms@lehrerfamily.com (Joshua Lehrer) 8 Subject: Re: C function prototypes and opaque structures= Message-ID: <477e0934.0409241020.2561647b@posting.google.com>   a JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message news:<4153ECC9.8D2CCBC9@teksavvy.com>... 7 > OK, I want to  subroutines visible to applications as  >  > void *recipe; + > 	recipe = fetch_recipe("Chocolate cake"); % > 	status = bake_cake(void *recipe);  ! > 	status = cleanup_mess(recipe);  > 3 > Where recipe is a pointer to an opaque structure.  >    This begs the question, "why?".   F You lose type safety, as the caller can pass in an pointer as a void*,5 and you might *think* it is a recipe, when it is not.   @ The correct way to create a pointer to an opaque structure is toE forward declare the struct before declaring the external subroutines:    struct recipe;. struct recipe* fetch_recipe(const char *name);! int bake_cake(struct recipe * r);   E then, in the implementation file, you fully define the struct and the 
 functions:   struct recipe {   const char * m_name;   int m_flavor; };  / struct recipe* fetch_recipe(const char *name) { ,  struct recipe * p = malloc(sizeof(recipe));  p->m_name=strdup(name);
  return p; }   C consumers then use these declared functions without ever seeing the ) definition of recipe, just a declaration.   
 joshua lehrer  factset research systems NYSE:FDS   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:02:01 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 8 Subject: Re: C function prototypes and opaque structures, Message-ID: <41549956.65DD0659@teksavvy.com>   Joshua Lehrer wrote:H > You lose type safety, as the caller can pass in an pointer as a void*,7 > and you might *think* it is a recipe, when it is not.   I Fair enough. but in my structure, I have a "valid" member that contains a H magic value to indicate the structure has been properly initilaised (and( zapped after the structure is "closed").   > struct recipe;0 > struct recipe* fetch_recipe(const char *name);# > int bake_cake(struct recipe * r); G > then, in the implementation file, you fully define the struct and the  > functions:    O Thank you. I had not though of that. That seems like a very clean way to do it.    ------------------------------  + Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:10:26 +0000 (UTC) 7 From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) : Subject: Re: cluster member crashes during boot (again...)( Message-ID: <cj1rf2$461$1@pcls4.std.com>  4 Rodrigo Ventura <yoda-NOSPAM@isr.ist.utl.pt> writes:   >>>CPU bugcheck codes:3 >>>       CPU 00 -- PROCGONE, Process not in system  >>   >>  J >> This means a mandatory system process exited with an error status.  YouH >> must find this status to see why it failed (also which process, too).F >> I believe the status is left sitting in R0.  SDA> EVAL/COND R0 will
 >> help lots.   F >The error I'm getting now (after updating with ECO kits and fiddling . >with sysgen parameters) is this, during boot:   >CPU bugcheck codes:C >         CPU 00 -- SSRVEXCEPT, Unexpected system service exception    >and the eval/cond r0 gives:  * >%SYSTEM-W-CTRLERR, fatal controller error  $ >Any clue? Is this hardware problem?  J This is rather different, and I don't know offhand if R0 contains a statusF code with a SSRVEXCEPT crash (I think it does), but it does sound like hardware if it does. --   -Mike    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:09:58 -0400 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> , Subject: Re: From Sun:  HP-UX has no future., Message-ID: <Hs2dnWlzWL1r_8ncRVn-og@igs.net>   Main, Kerry wrote: >> -----Original Message----- F >> From: Andrew Harrison [mailto:andrew_remove__s._harrison@s_u_n.com]# >> Sent: September 22, 2004 5:49 AM  >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com. >> Subject: Re: From Sun: HP-UX has no future. >> >> Main, Kerry wrote:  >>>> -----Original Message----- 9 >>>> From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com] % >>>> Sent: September 16, 2004 8:25 PM  >>>> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com0 >>>> Subject: Re: From Sun: HP-UX has no future. >>>> >>>> Alex Daniels wrote: >>>>3 >>>>>> To sell it she would first need to recognise  >>>>>> that it exists. >>>> >>>>> She does.  >>>>> : >>>>> http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/images/carleton.jpg >>>>> >>>> Not necessarily.  The plates are facing away from her, it >>>> doesn't mean that@ >>>> she actually saw what was written on them :-)  And maybe on >>>> the other side, it B >>>> was written "Microsoft" on one, and "Intel" on the other. :-) >>>> >>>  >>> . >>> JF - check out the shirt Carly is wearing. >>>  >> >> Hilarious >>, >> The UNIX sign she is holding is for Tru64 >>. >> Thats the Tru64 UNIX which HP have axed and2 >> while not delivering on the promised technology' >> roadmap for Tru64 features in HP-UX.  >>0 >> Could it be that she simply favours dark blue >> over green. >>' >> http://h30097.www3.hp.com/index.html  >> vs  >> http://h71000.www7.hp.com/  >>7 >> Good one Kerry or do you think that Carly wearing an 7 >> OpenVMS shirt indicates that she is more inclined to - >> keep OpenVMS than she was to keep Tru64 ??  >>
 >> Regards >> Andrew Harrison >>> :-)  > 	 > Andrew,  > G > Wow .. That picture of Carly wearing an OpenVMS shirt must have hit a  > nerve for you.    $ I think I'm in Andrew's camp now....  G Itanic workstations discontinued by HP. Now everyone has to buy servers  only.   F Intel expects to sell only 100,000 itanic chips for all of 2004 to allF vendors vs. 1.5-2 million AMD64 chips expected to be sold in Q4 alone.  L VMS & PH-UX & NSK are tied to Itanic's sinking ship unless EV8 and beyond is revived immediately.  H Sun has a legitimate marketing tool in saying " We told you so about HP.* C'mon over to Solaris - the water's fine."   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:35:35 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 1 Subject: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstations , Message-ID: <4154A136.CE87A608@teksavvy.com>  d > http://news.com.com/HP+discontinues+its+Itanium+workstations/2100-1006_3-5381398.html?tag=nefd.top  H Hewlett-Packard, one of the most aggressive promoters of Intel's ItaniumL family of processors, is 86ing its line of workstations that use the chips.   J The decision by the Palo Alto, Calif.-based computing giant will likely beN interpreted as a large symbolic blow to Itanium's fortunes. HP co-designed theL basic Itanium architecture with Intel and has committed to adopting the chip) extensively in its high-end server line.    L HP is getting rid of its Itanium workstations, which use the Itanium 2 chip,I because of the growing popularity of chips that can run 32-bit and 64-bit M software similar to standard Windows and Linux code, such as the Opteron from N Advanced Micro Devices and some of Intel's latest Xeon chips. Itanium requires' software specially ported to the chip.    K "In working with and listening to our high-performance workstation partners I and customers, we have become aware that the focus in this arena is being I driven toward 64-bit extension technology," an HP spokeswoman wrote in an K e-mail. "The decision to discontinue HP's Itanium workstation investment is H limited to the workstation market and has no impact on HP's success with Itanium-based servers."   K Itanium 2 chips came in the zx2000 and zx6000 workstations. HP discontinued K the workstations on Sept. 1 and will stop shipping new systems on Oct. 31.    L "The workstation market has never been the main focus for Itanium," an IntelN representative said. "Itanium continues to make inroads in the high-end server	 market."    I Earlier this year, HP delivered a knock against Itanium's future, when it 7 announced that it would start selling Opteron servers.    A The Itanium saga is one of the most closely watched dramas in the N semiconductor world. HP and Intel began to collaborate on a server/workstationE chip back in 1989. Because of Intel's manufacturing expertise and the N processor know-how at the combined companies, many believed that the chip lineM would come to dominate the server market and even creep into desktops. Nearly 3 every major server maker agreed to adopt the chip.    L Several delays, however, resulted in the first version of Itanium coming outN in 2001. Performance was middling. New versions of the chip, dubbed Itanium 2,M that emerged in 2002 and 2003 cured many of the performance problems. Indeed, G Itanium 2 computers now regularly sit near the top of benchmark tests.    L Still, sales have not taken off, and some customers, such as IBM, have begunN to emphasize other chips. Intel shipped just more than 100,000 Itanium 2s lastM year, and the company recently said it will not hit its goal of doubling that  number this year.   C Analysts have regularly scaled back sales projections for the chip.    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:48:36 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 5 Subject: Re: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstations , Message-ID: <4154C05C.84F7535F@teksavvy.com>  M I think this news isn't just *a* nail in IA64's coffin, but a series a nails.   J The short term impact on HP will be good because they were probably losingJ money on those workstations. However, the public relations/image impact ofL this news will greatly erode any confidence in the future of IA64 and really9 increase the feeling that IA64 continues to be a failure.   N Considering the amount of money Hp sunk into IA64, and considering how much ofK its reputation is at stake with IA64, and considering how HP kept promising N great things "in the NEAR future"  for IA64, I find it extremely odd that they4 would give up on workstations at this point in time.  L It makes it much harder to believe that HP/INTEL doesn't have plans to phase	 out IA64.   N If HP and Intel really believed that IA64 had a bright future, they would haveJ continued these loss leader workstattsions until at least IA64 had reached= critical mass, and surpassed combined PaRisc and Alpha sales.   N Right now, HP has just sent a strong message that IA64 just isn't commerciallyG viable and that it has runned out of time to prove itself commercially.   K I also find it interesting that HP stopped production already and will stop L sales at a fixed date in October. "Fait accompli" which makes it much harderK to reverse the decision. When you consider that VMS is just about to launch K commercially on IA64, the timing of this decision is even more odd since it G will counter any tiny marketing that might be done as the result of the ! commercial launch of VMS on IA64.    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:58:25 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 5 Subject: Re: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstations , Message-ID: <4154C2A9.2895941C@teksavvy.com>  F Is it possible that HP intends to completely pull out fo "proprietary"A non-commodity enterprise systems and focus entirely on 8086 based  linux/windows servers ?   M Consider that with such offerings, it woudl make Microsoft very happy, and HP P could setill sell servers to thsoe who don't like windows with a linux offering.  J Remember that Carly touted "commodity, industry standard" a LOT during theL merger process. By having Intel kill IA64, HP would have a great opportunityK to reposition itself as a commodity enterprise company and drop all the old # "luggage" that costs a lot to make.   K Cosnider a recent comment made by either Hoff or Fred to the effect that HP N viewed software as a necessary tool (rtead: necessary evil) to sell hardware.   J If HP wants to be a hardware company, then it doesn't make sense for it toL continue with "parralel" products such as VMS or HP-UX if it could make moreM money selling large servers that run Linux which would cost HP very little in W development costs, yet would generate lots of support revenus. Same applies to Windows.   J I, for one, would not be surprised if HP were to indefinitely postpone theL commercial launch of VMS on IA64. Avoiding a 5 year support commitment for a: product that just isn't selling well woudl be a good idea.  K Right now, I think HP needs to show commitment to its enterprise product by N announcing either revival of PaRisc (and porting of VMS and NSK to PaRisc), or+ Alpha, or the porting of all 3 to the 8086.    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:20:04 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> 5 Subject: Re: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstations ( Message-ID: <opseuzbqdbzgicya@hyrrokkin>  I On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:35:35 -0400, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.c= 
 om> wrote:  I >> http://news.com.com/HP+discontinues+its+Itanium+workstations/2100-100=  6_3-5381398.html?tag=3Dnefd.top  > I > Hewlett-Packard, one of the most aggressive promoters of Intel's Itani=  umI > family of processors, is 86ing its line of workstations that use the c=  hips.  > I > The decision by the Palo Alto, Calif.-based computing giant will likel=  y beI > interpreted as a large symbolic blow to Itanium's fortunes. HP co-desi=  gned theI > basic Itanium architecture with Intel and has committed to adopting th=  e chip* > extensively in its high-end server line. > I > HP is getting rid of its Itanium workstations, which use the Itanium 2=   chip,I > because of the growing popularity of chips that can run 32-bit and 64-=  bit I > software similar to standard Windows and Linux code, such as the Opter=  on from I > Advanced Micro Devices and some of Intel's latest Xeon chips. Itanium =  requires( > software specially ported to the chip. > I > "In working with and listening to our high-performance workstation par=  tners I > and customers, we have become aware that the focus in this arena is be=  ing I > driven toward 64-bit extension technology," an HP spokeswoman wrote in=   an I > e-mail. "The decision to discontinue HP's Itanium workstation investme=  nt is I > limited to the workstation market and has no impact on HP's success wi=  th > Itanium-based servers."    Success?   > I > Itanium 2 chips came in the zx2000 and zx6000 workstations. HP discont=  inued I > the workstations on Sept. 1 and will stop shipping new systems on Oct.=   31. > I > "The workstation market has never been the main focus for Itanium," an=   IntelI > representative said. "Itanium continues to make inroads in the high-en=  d server
 > market." > I > Earlier this year, HP delivered a knock against Itanium's future, when=   it 8 > announced that it would start selling Opteron servers. > C > The Itanium saga is one of the most closely watched dramas in the I > semiconductor world. HP and Intel began to collaborate on a server/wor=  kstationG > chip back in 1989. Because of Intel's manufacturing expertise and the I > processor know-how at the combined companies, many believed that the c=  hip lineI > would come to dominate the server market and even creep into desktops.=   Nearly 4 > every major server maker agreed to adopt the chip. > I > Several delays, however, resulted in the first version of Itanium comi=  ng outI > in 2001. Performance was middling. New versions of the chip, dubbed It=  anium 2,I > that emerged in 2002 and 2003 cured many of the performance problems. =  Indeed, I > Itanium 2 computers now regularly sit near the top of benchmark tests.=    > I > Still, sales have not taken off, and some customers, such as IBM, have=   begunI > to emphasize other chips. Intel shipped just more than 100,000 Itanium=   2s lastI > year, and the company recently said it will not hit its goal of doubli=  ng that  > number this year.  > E > Analysts have regularly scaled back sales projections for the chip.  >    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:37:57 GMT 5 From: rdeininger@mindspringdot.com (Robert Deininger) 5 Subject: Re: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstations L Message-ID: <rdeininger-2409042146340001@user-105n9dr.dialup.mindspring.com>  5 In article <4154C05C.84F7535F@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei % <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:   N >I think this news isn't just *a* nail in IA64's coffin, but a series a nails. > K >The short term impact on HP will be good because they were probably losing  >money on those workstations.    They weren't losing money.  . >However, the public relations/image impact ofM >this news will greatly erode any confidence in the future of IA64 and really : >increase the feeling that IA64 continues to be a failure.  	 Says you.   O >Considering the amount of money Hp sunk into IA64, and considering how much of L >its reputation is at stake with IA64, and considering how HP kept promisingO >great things "in the NEAR future"  for IA64, I find it extremely odd that they 5 >would give up on workstations at this point in time.   H Actually, I think this is old news.  It's been quite a while since thereJ was anything new in the IA64 workstation pipeline.  The server pipeline is still full of goodies.    M >It makes it much harder to believe that HP/INTEL doesn't have plans to phase 
 >out IA64.   Nuts!   O >If HP and Intel really believed that IA64 had a bright future, they would have K >continued these loss leader workstattsions until at least IA64 had reached > >critical mass, and surpassed combined PaRisc and Alpha sales.  , What did Intel have to do with this decsion?  O >Right now, HP has just sent a strong message that IA64 just isn't commercially H >viable and that it has runned out of time to prove itself commercially.   Phooey!   H I guess you'd have a valid point if HP was dropping their IA-64 servers.  L >I also find it interesting that HP stopped production already and will stopM >sales at a fixed date in October. "Fait accompli" which makes it much harder  >to reverse the decision.   I They discontinued the workstations, and you find it interesting that they  stopped production?  Huh?   I Why would they reverse the decision?  Who wants them to?  Would you buy a , whole bunch of these systems?  Would anyone?  J If there was sudden demand for these systems, they'd just order more parts and build more systems.   F One of these workstations is just a reconfigured rx2600 server, with aF slightly different case and an alternate IO cage that has one AGP slot instead of just PCI slots.  J The only significant loss here is the AGP slot.  Apparently there wasn't aJ lot of demand for AGP in Itanium systems.  Pretty similar to the situation	 on Alpha.     3 >When you consider that VMS is just about to launch L >commercially on IA64, the timing of this decision is even more odd since itH >will counter any tiny marketing that might be done as the result of the" >commercial launch of VMS on IA64.  I VMS was never going to support these workstations in any case.  I fail to J see how the retirement of couple of non-VMS systems is going to affect the launch of VMS 8.2    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:50:50 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 5 Subject: Re: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstations , Message-ID: <4154DCFB.FA42B219@teksavvy.com>   Robert Deininger wrote:  > They weren't losing money.  N If they weren't losing money, then this widthdrawal is plain stupid. At a timeN when IA64 is fighting bad press because it is nowhere near reaching originallyN promised targets and the dead Alpha and PaRisc are still outselling IA64, then8 the cancellation of those workstations is very bad move.  N bad move unless HP and INTEL already have a strategic plan to abandon IA64 and8 this announcement is just another step towards the goal.   > Says you.   M What I say is not important. What the media says is important because that is M what influences trends and customer's purchases. This announcement will cause L customers to stay away from IA64 because media are now talking about it as a= failure and failures do not stay in the market for very long.   O > >It makes it much harder to believe that HP/INTEL doesn't have plans to phase  > >out IA64. >  > Nuts!   M IA64 was originally intended to be the commodity, industry standard, low cost C mass produced chip.  Before Merced came out, Intel started to lower N expectations, first admitting it woudln't make it to the low end desktop. ThenL relegating it to enterprise systems with lower volumes, then saying it wouldN take at least 3 years before it could have proce prity with equally performingD 8086 chips, and now having its own 64 bit 8086 which will eventuallyF outperform the IA64 simply because of market demands and pressure (and competition from AMD).  N The writing is on the wall, and keeps on writing, with the HP announcement yetN another line in IA64's eulogy. Intel and HP should instead be very busy trying. to erase that writing instead of adding to it.  . > What did Intel have to do with this decsion?  K You can bet that HP and Intel are working closely together on the future of M IA64 and a strategic announcement of further retrenchement oa IA64 would have / been made with Intel's knowledge/participation.   J > I guess you'd have a valid point if HP was dropping their IA-64 servers.  T How come so many are not convinced this is NOT the long term plan ? (or inevitable).  L It isn't just the complain.os.vms that is saying this. Now, just about everyI media article about IA64 portrays the chip as a failed project that isn't J achieving its goals. Now come the stories about HP narrowing the potential market for that chip even more.   K > They discontinued the workstations, and you find it interesting that they  > stopped production?  Huh?   J Stopped production Sept 1. News came out sept 24. Sounds like HP wanted toM keep this quiet, but it came out and then HP had to confirm. If they don't do I proper damage control, then it means that HP is intending for the news to  cause damage to IA64's image.   L > If there was sudden demand for these systems, they'd just order more parts > and build more systems.   G There can't be demand for those systems if they are no longer listed in N catalogues. And there can't be demand if the few proprietary systems targettedJ at IA64 won't be qualified for them. Did they omit qualification of VMS onF those workstations becayuse they knew the workstations woudln't last ?  L The products that run on IA64 are suffering the sanme fate as VMS and Alpha:M by artificially restricting the product to a smaller and smaller market niche K to prevent it from competing head to head against microsoft and linux, thos 0 eproducts are followiong the same path as alpha.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:21:42 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 5 Subject: Re: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstations , Message-ID: <4154F255.F37E1FC9@teksavvy.com>  ' Another aspect about that announcement:   N It isn't being read as HP discontinuing two specific models, but rathers as HP$ permanently pulling out of a market.  M Had HP said that it was streamlining its production and combining workstation D with low end servers, the news would have been much better received.  L However the message here is that HP is widthdrawing from a market and givingI the *impression* that there won't be any IA64 based workstations anymore.   N If HP can't manage news, image and perceptions, then it is incompetant. And weD know that carly knows exactly how important image and perception is.   ------------------------------    Date: 24 Sep 2004 10:53:30 -0700& From: jordan@ccs4vms.com (Rich Jordan)% Subject: HP axes Itanium workstations = Message-ID: <cc5619f2.0409240953.4dde1d84@posting.google.com>    Per Slashdot: W  http://it.slashdot.org/it/04/09/24/1419230.shtml?tid=173&tid=137&tid=118&tid=1&tid=218   4 And per their source which is currently slashdotted:  > http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20040923180613.html  F Another higher volume (higher than server anyway) Itanium market bites	 the dust.    Rich CCS    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:04:18 -0400 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> ) Subject: Re: HP axes Itanium workstations , Message-ID: <6cCdnYmohZM__MncRVn-vg@igs.net>   Rich Jordan wrote: > Per Slashdot:  > L http://it.slashdot.org/it/04/09/24/1419230.shtml?tid=173&tid=137&tid=118&tid
 =1&tid=218 > 6 > And per their source which is currently slashdotted: > @ > http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20040923180613.html > H > Another higher volume (higher than server anyway) Itanium market bites > the dust.     I Seems to me that EV8 and beyond looks better and better with each passing  minute.    ------------------------------  + Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:06:09 +0000 (UTC) 7 From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) ) Subject: Re: HP axes Itanium workstations ( Message-ID: <cj1unh$s2m$1@pcls4.std.com>  % "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes:   I >> Another higher volume (higher than server anyway) Itanium market bites  >> the dust.    J >Seems to me that EV8 and beyond looks better and better with each passing >minute.    F Unfortunately, Intel is unlikely to reveal where in the East River the. concrete-boot-wearing plans for EV8 were sunk. --   -Mike    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:25:18 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> ) Subject: Re: HP axes Itanium workstations ( Message-ID: <opseuzkggczgicya@hyrrokkin>  F On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:04:18 -0400, John Smith <a@nonymous.com> wrote:   > Rich Jordan wrote: >> Per Slashdot: >>I > http://it.slashdot.org/it/04/09/24/1419230.shtml?tid=3D173&tid=3D137&t=  id=3D118&tid > =3D1&tid=3D218 >>7 >> And per their source which is currently slashdotted:  >>A >> http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20040923180613.html  >>I >> Another higher volume (higher than server anyway) Itanium market bite=  s  >> the dust. >  > I > Seems to me that EV8 and beyond looks better and better with each pass=  ing 	 > minute.    Stay tuned.    >  >  >    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:44:30 GMT 5 From: rdeininger@mindspringdot.com (Robert Deininger) ) Subject: Re: HP axes Itanium workstations L Message-ID: <rdeininger-2409042153080001@user-105n9dr.dialup.mindspring.com>  = In article <cc5619f2.0409240953.4dde1d84@posting.google.com>, ' jordan@ccs4vms.com (Rich Jordan) wrote:    ...   G >Another higher volume (higher than server anyway) Itanium market bites 
 >the dust.  C I don't think these workstations were ever a larger market than the 4 Itanium servers.  Where did you get that impression?  I The workstations were warmed-over rx2600 boxes.  rx2600 has successors in F the pipeline.  Refreshing the workstations along with the server wouldD have been fairly painless technically; evidently there wasn't enough' perceived demand to make it worthwhile.    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:49:45 -0400 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> 9 Subject: Re: HP terminates Itanium workstation production , Message-ID: <I9CdnSuGI4Okw8ncRVn-pw@igs.net>   Simon Clubley wrote:G > According to a Slashdot report, HP has terminated Itanium workstation  > production...  >  > See: >  > L http://it.slashdot.org/it/04/09/24/1419230.shtml?tid=173&tid=137&tid=118&tid
 =1&tid=218    = HP's Media Relations department isn't taking calls right now.    ------------------------------  + Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:18:28 +0000 (UTC) , From: lewis@PROBE.MITRE.ORG (Keith A. Lewis)' Subject: Re: HTTP proxy server for VMS? . Message-ID: <cj22v3$ksj$2@newslocal.mitre.org>   koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes in article <tAg3d+ddYAGF@eisner.encompasserve.org> dated 23 Sep 2004 09:35:29 -0500:  > G >   Does anyone know of a free HTTP proxy server which will run on VMS?   I 5 years ago I downloaded a web proxy server written in Java.  I think the J name was jproxy.  It might have been a free beta version for the expensiveL product now sold at jproxy.com.  I never ran it on VMS but I assume it would work.   0 --Keith Lewis              klewis {at} mitre.org> The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.   ------------------------------  + Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:27:31 -0500 (CDT)  From: sms@antinode.orgG Subject: Maximum file size, FAQ v. "Guide to OpenVMS File Applications" ) Message-ID: <04092416273135@antinode.org>   E    And speaking of big files and sign bits, I notice that the VMS FAQ 9 ("http://h71000.www7.hp.com/wizard/faq/vmsfaq.txt") says:   8       RMS can store individual files of a size up to the;       maximum supported volume size. Under OpenVMS V6.0 and :       later, the volume size and the RMS maximum file size5       limit is 2**31 * 512 bytes-one terabyte (1 TB).   3 while a recent "Guide to OpenVMS File Applications" B ("http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/731FINAL/4506/4506PRO.HTML") says:  F       The maximum size of an RMS file has no built-in limitation otherG       than the 32-bit virtual block number (VBN). In terms of blocks, a H       single file is limited to a VBN that must be described in 32 bits.=       So the maximum size of an RMS file is about 4.2 billion H       (4,294,967,295) blocks. In terms of bytes, this is equivalent to 2       terabytes.    %    (I'd've said "about 2 terabytes".)   G    I found places in the FAQ suggesting that suggestions be sent to the * FAQ editor, but how to do that escaped me.      Also, my old FAQ bookmarkF ("ftp://ftp.digital.com/pub/Digital/dec-faq/OpenVMS.txt") still works, but the data seem stale.  H ------------------------------------------------------------------------  4    Steven M. Schweda               (+1) 651-699-98183    382 South Warwick Street        sms@antinode-org     Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547    ------------------------------    Date: 24 Sep 2004 19:08:46 -07001 From: susan_skonetski@hotmail.com (Sue Skonetski) Y Subject: OpenVMS Pearl Host-Based Minimerge (HBMM) for OpenVMS V7.3-2 is available via th = Message-ID: <857e9e41.0409241808.4f999e04@posting.google.com>    -----Original Message-----7 From: Skonetski, Susan [mailto:susan.skonetski@hp.com]  ( Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 1:58 PM To: Skonetski, Susan1 Subject: OpenVMS Pearl - Dear Distribution Lists,u  F Once again the artistry of OpenVMS engineering becomes evident and the? elegance of the operating system continues.  Many thanks to thee> engineering team for their continued hard work and dedication.  
 Warm Regards,u Sue     -----Original Message-----k From: 	Szubowicz, Lenny  c) Sent:	Friday, September 24, 2004 10:28 AMi To:	Skonetski, Susan: Subject:	Host-Based Minimerge (HBMM) for OpenVMS V7.3-2 is/ available via the HP OpenVMS patch kit web sitem   Sue,  : I'm pleased to announce that as of today, 24-Sep-2004, theE VMS732_HBMM-V0200 kit is available for download by OpenVMS customers.o  C This kit provides host-based minimerge capabilities for shadow sets E that consist of Fibre Channel or SCSI disks. Since this capability is C host-based, it can be used with any supported Fibre Channel or SCSI E disks. This feature enhances the already strong data availability ande: disaster tolerance capabilities of OpenVMS in SAN and SCSI
 environments.m  B In addition, this kit delivers a number of new shadowing features,C improvements, and fixes, that will be of benefit to shadowing userstE even if they don't plan to take advantage of the host-based minimergegF capability. The most notable of these is the ability to prioritize the= order in which shadow sets are selected for merge operations.   C This kit includes a new manual that describes how to enable and usetF the features provided by this kit. This kit also includes an update to> the online DCL help with information about the new DCL command" qualifiers introduced by this kit.  A More information, including links to the kit, can be found in the 7 "News and Features" section of the HP OpenVMS web site.a   		http://h71000.www7.hp.com/     					-Lenny.   ------------------------------    Date: 24 Sep 2004 14:38:07 -07002 From: williamwebb@openvms-rocks.com (William Webb)L Subject: OT:   I'm entering the job market for the second time since 1984...= Message-ID: <bf98c417.0409241338.3cb6e5df@posting.google.com>t  = In case any of you wondered where I'd vanished to as of late-s  7 Client instituted staffing reductions on our account;   % My last day with EDS was 21-SEP-2004.d   FYI:    R Any eds.com or usps.gov addresses you may have on file for me are no longer valid;  P 15 years of solid VMS VAX and Alpha experience ranging from desktop to clusters;$ Hardware/Software/System Management.  7 I may be reached at the openvms-rocks.com mail address.J   Thanks to you all.   William W. Webbr   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:37:22 -0400o- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>@P Subject: Re: OT:   I'm entering the job market for the second time since 1984..., Message-ID: <4154A1A1.55039F26@teksavvy.com>   William Webb wrote: 7 > Client instituted staffing reductions on our account; ' > My last day with EDS was 21-SEP-2004.   J Bad news from EDS who is also losing business due to the US Air bankrupcy.  M Good luck on your new endeavours. Perhaps the VMS engineers could hire you to  help port VMS to the 8086 ?o   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:15:11 -0500 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>P Subject: Re: OT:   I'm entering the job market for the second time since 1984...+ Message-ID: <4154C69E.2EC0B427@comcast.net>h   William Webb wrote:k > ? > In case any of you wondered where I'd vanished to as of late-  > 7 > Client instituted staffing reductions on our account;c' > My last day with EDS was 21-SEP-2004.  >  > FYI: > T > Any eds.com or usps.gov addresses you may have on file for me are no longer valid; > R > 15 years of solid VMS VAX and Alpha experience ranging from desktop to clusters;& > Hardware/Software/System Management. > 9 > I may be reached at the openvms-rocks.com mail address.s >  > Thanks to you all.  A My sympathies. I've been laid off from VMS gigs twice since 2000.mE Depending upon where, VMS jobs can be found, but you're going to keept very busy tracking them down.e   D.J.D.   ------------------------------    Date: 24 Sep 2004 12:23:18 -0700' From: icerq4a@spray.se (David Svensson)p& Subject: Re: OT: Sun's fighting chance= Message-ID: <734da31c.0409241123.3da62172@posting.google.com>s  a JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message news:<415324FC.9DE61861@teksavvy.com>...o5 > You know, this talk about "open" got me thinking...c > L > Imagine IF, unhindered by the unwanted port to IA64, the VMS engineers hadJ > managed to give VMS a linux compatibility layer, complete with FX32! andG > delivered this FASTER than Sun's equivalent which is expected "soon".t  C Sun's solution isn't emulating a CPU. Their Solaris x86 OS will run-? Linux x86 binaries, which isn't exactly rocket science. SimilarCD projects exists in several other operating systems. The question, as0 usual, is how good the support for this will be.  ? > The marketing opportunities would have been very interesting.-  B Not very, it would just validate the reason that you could run the) software on a real Linux machine instead.>   ------------------------------  + Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:53:42 -0500 (CDT)Y From: sms@antinode.org@ Subject: Re: Saveset File that OpenVMS ZIP V2.3 will not archive) Message-ID: <04092410534264@antinode.org>A  ) From: "Scott Greig" <jsgreig@geminaq.com>I  5 > $ zip -j "-V" apps.zip disk$other:[backups]apps.bck  > adding: APPS.BCK (stored 0%)   From: briggs@encompasserve.org  L > As I recall, the 2 gig problem manifests in the "stat" maybe or "VMS_stat"F > function where zip attempts to determine source file size and uses aA > signed return value so that error conditions can be reported ase > negative results.o  A    Roughly correct.  It was signed v. unsigned (byte counts), but 
 elsewhere.  3    Here are the results of last night's experiment:   0 ALP $ dir /notrail /size = all  UPDATE_V58_4.BIG [...]4H UPDATE_V58_4.BIG;1   5042400/5042415    ! Four copies of a CD-ROM image.  6 ALP $ zip "-V" UPDATE-V.zip UPDATE_V58_4.BIG    ! Old.&   adding: UPDATE_V58_4.BIG (stored 0%)  6 ALP $ zipX -V UPDATE-Vx.ZIP UPDATE_V58_4.BIG    ! New.)   adding: UPDATE_V58_4.BIG (deflated 23%)   - ALP $ dir /notrail /size = all  UPDATE-V*.zip- [...]. UPDATE-V.ZIP;1             1/35n$ UPDATE-VX.ZIP;1      3866411/3866415    E    UnZip (5.51) seems to be happy as a bivalve restoring the archive,:H and the file restored from the new archive survived BACKUP /COMPARE withB the original.  Judging by this success with a 2.5GB input file, my5 currently available changes to Zip seem to be enough.>  / > >       http://www.antinode.org/ftp/info-zip/>* > >       ftp://ftp.antinode.org/info-zip/  F    Still true.  Additional testing of this stuff would be appreciated,F especially if you actually have any of those files with useful data in> their allocated-but-not-used sections.  Any complaints will beH gratefully received.  Reports from users with VMS versions before V7.3-1 would also be useful.h  F    If no one complains fairly soon, this stuff (or stuff very like it)H could find its way into the next major Zip release, so now's the time to sort it out.  B    I still claim that the highlight is the ability to say 'zip -V'D instead of 'zip "-V"' with SET PROC /PARSE = EXT.  ("Data integrity,! shmata integrity," I always say.)v  H ------------------------------------------------------------------------  4    Steven M. Schweda               (+1) 651-699-98183    382 South Warwick Street        sms@antinode-orge    Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547s   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:38:46 -0400R# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> F Subject: Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations, Message-ID: <wtadnZCwbv07xsncRVn-sg@igs.net>   Glenn Everhart wrote:pA > Anyone able to tell if it is so? If so what of our favorite OS?s > Glenn Everhart    K The HP apologists will say that the effort over the past 3 years of porting I VMS to Itanic will not have been wasted, that the code cleanup alone willM= have been worth the loss of sales and profits and reputation.d  J The realists will be wanting to find a couple of lengths of rope, a nearby; tree, and deputize a posse looking for curly and carly(tm).a   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:10:14 GMT14 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com>F Subject: Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations3 Message-ID: <aqZ4d.11647$5B.11139@news.cpqcorp.net>o  / "Glenn Everhart" <gce@gce.com> wrote in message-  news:41545022.7050107@gce.com...A > Anyone able to tell if it is so? If so what of our favorite OS?I > Glenn Everhart  J Those paying attention would have noticed that the zx2000 and zx6000 never! showed up on the OpenVMS roadmap.   H While I am not happy about it, I have said for a long time that it isn't6 possible to compete with a high-end PC on the desktop.   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:12:06 GMTi& From: John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com>F Subject: Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations2 Message-ID: <WrZ4d.11648$ny.4894@news.cpqcorp.net>   John Smith wrote:o > Glenn Everhart wrote:d > A >>Anyone able to tell if it is so? If so what of our favorite OS?c >>Glenn Everhart >  >  > M > The HP apologists will say that the effort over the past 3 years of portingoK > VMS to Itanic will not have been wasted, that the code cleanup alone willu? > have been worth the loss of sales and profits and reputation.n > L > The realists will be wanting to find a couple of lengths of rope, a nearby= > tree, and deputize a posse looking for curly and carly(tm).e >  >   I While this is all news to me as well, OpenVMS I64 isn't targetted to the  ? workstations anyway.  The rx1600, rx2600, rx4640, etc. are all dA rackmounted server machines.  All of OpenVMS' intended supported  " configuartions are still in place.   -- 3 John Reaganw/ HP Pascal/{A|I}MACRO for OpenVMS Project Leadero Hewlett-Packard Companyr   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:17:01 -0400 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>eF Subject: Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations, Message-ID: <37ednUavhN8A-cncRVn-iA@igs.net>   John Reagan wrote: > John Smith wrote:e >> Glenn Everhart wrote: >>C >>> Anyone able to tell if it is so? If so what of our favorite OS?h >>> Glenn Everhart >> >> >>F >> The HP apologists will say that the effort over the past 3 years ofA >> porting VMS to Itanic will not have been wasted, that the codeeG >> cleanup alone will have been worth the loss of sales and profits andv >> reputation. >>F >> The realists will be wanting to find a couple of lengths of rope, aE >> nearby tree, and deputize a posse looking for curly and carly(tm).n >> >> >iF > While this is all news to me as well, OpenVMS I64 isn't targetted toD > the workstations anyway.  The rx1600, rx2600, rx4640, etc. are allB > rackmounted server machines.  All of OpenVMS' intended supported$ > configuartions are still in place.    L Economies of scale my lad. Without workstations, which are sold in multiplesJ of server sales, the process never ramps up enough to slide costs down theI production cost curve enough to make the chip anything but a niche bit ofr8 silicon. Alpha redux. Next step - outright cancellation.  K And even if that's not the case, what do you think that Sun and IBM will besG telling every single HP customer -- PH-UX, Tru64, VMS, NSK?? They'll begJ saying that HP can't be trusted and here's the proof, and many will agree.L The unix/linux  users will disappears faster and easier than the VMS and NSK customers because they can.p  K The VMS and NSK customers will be harder to convert but they will over timeeJ as HP does nothing to keep them happy or add to the roster of customers toH replace the defections. Soon there isn't enough critical mass to support further development. EOL.    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:02:03 -0600s" From: GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com>F Subject: Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations0 Message-ID: <ee6dnZRVN8Uy4cncRVn-qg@bresnan.com>   David Froble wrote:n > John Smith wrote:  >  >> Glenn Everhart wrote: >>C >>> Anyone able to tell if it is so? If so what of our favorite OS?b >>> Glenn Everhart >>>r >> >>G >> The HP apologists will say that the effort over the past 3 years of  
 >> portingL >> VMS to Itanic will not have been wasted, that the code cleanup alone will@ >> have been worth the loss of sales and profits and reputation. >>G >> The realists will be wanting to find a couple of lengths of rope, a r	 >> nearby > >> tree, and deputize a posse looking for curly and carly(tm). >> >> >> > I > Are applications being taken for leader of the posse?  If so, consider   > this my app.  (Not smiling.) >   I I'm still wondering how come people can't make the connection between HP  G and M$.  His Butt-crustness really doesn't want any competition, since  F M$ has used VMS a lot in the 80's and early 90's to do their internal = software development and are quite aware of VMS capabilities.4  E There needs to be some corporation out there that can realize that a :F significant cash cow is waiting to be milked.  HP, in my opinion, was  cashed out to ignore VMS.i   -- b! ---------------------------------l The Golden Years Sux.    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:47:18 -0600i0 From: Mark Berryman <mark.berryman@mvb.saic.com>F Subject: Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations' Message-ID: <41542566$1@cpns1.saic.com>a   Fred Kleinsorge wrote:1 > "Glenn Everhart" <gce@gce.com> wrote in message " > news:41545022.7050107@gce.com... > A >>Anyone able to tell if it is so? If so what of our favorite OS?o >>Glenn Everhart >  > L > Those paying attention would have noticed that the zx2000 and zx6000 never# > showed up on the OpenVMS roadmap.i > J > While I am not happy about it, I have said for a long time that it isn't8 > possible to compete with a high-end PC on the desktop. >   I Does this diminish the chances that there will be a supported sound card aB or reasonable graphics cards on VMS?  Such items are usually more / associated with workstations than with servers.   
 Mark Berryman    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:48:22 GMTl  From: CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>F Subject: Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations* Message-ID: <41549620.2050000@prodigy.net>   Mark Berryman wrote: > Fred Kleinsorge wrote: > 2 >> "Glenn Everhart" <gce@gce.com> wrote in message# >> news:41545022.7050107@gce.com...e >>C >>> Anyone able to tell if it is so? If so what of our favorite OS?M >>> Glenn Everhart >> >> >>H >> Those paying attention would have noticed that the zx2000 and zx6000  >> never$ >> showed up on the OpenVMS roadmap. >>K >> While I am not happy about it, I have said for a long time that it isn'ti9 >> possible to compete with a high-end PC on the desktop.4 >> > K > Does this diminish the chances that there will be a supported sound card tD > or reasonable graphics cards on VMS?  Such items are usually more 1 > associated with workstations than with servers.k >  > Mark Berrymana   I can venture a guess.  ;-)I   --  D The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt toC minimize spam.  Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.o   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:57:35 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>aF Subject: Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations+ Message-ID: <4154984C.C65BE5B@teksavvy.com>l   Glenn Everhart wrote:  > A > Anyone able to tell if it is so? If so what of our favorite OS?e > Glenn Everhart  S If this is only a slashdot thing, then I don't take it as completely authoritative.a  K Having said this, I am not surprised at all. When Intel announced years agocL that IA64 wasn't going to make it to desktop and would be relegated to nicheH high end computing, it effectively meant that it woudln't make it in the workstation market.a  L Assuming this the story is real, one must now keep our eyes opened to see ifH HP will produce something like the DS15 that can be used both as a small server and a workstation.   N The possible impact of having no longer any workstations is that VMS engineersM will be forced to drop Xwindows support/development since they won't have any  hardware to run it on.   ------------------------------    Date: 24 Sep 2004 16:07:20 -0700& From: jordan@ccs4vms.com (Rich Jordan)F Subject: Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations= Message-ID: <cc5619f2.0409241507.2d2f25eb@posting.google.com>   o "Fred Kleinsorge" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> wrote in message news:<aqZ4d.11647$5B.11139@news.cpqcorp.net>...v1 > "Glenn Everhart" <gce@gce.com> wrote in messagee" > news:41545022.7050107@gce.com...C > > Anyone able to tell if it is so? If so what of our favorite OS?. > > Glenn Everhart > L > Those paying attention would have noticed that the zx2000 and zx6000 never# > showed up on the OpenVMS roadmap.e > J > While I am not happy about it, I have said for a long time that it isn't8 > possible to compete with a high-end PC on the desktop.  F Nonetheless one of the big push points Compaq made back in 2001 (and aD fair number of other Compaq and HP employees have made online since)C was that moving to Itanium would make it possible to provide VMS on,F significantly less expensive hardware due to the high volumes possibleD with being the 'industry standard', and itanium was going to be thatD new 'industry standard'.  While I certainly would like 'desktop VMS'F to remain available, the prospective total itanium hardware sales withC any OS just took a nosedive, and the _possibility_ of developers ormE small customers getting a (cheaper than a server) desktop workstationnD capable of running VMS for whatever purpose they needed just poofed.  < Whether or not HP had qualified VMS on any currently planned" workstation is not the issue here.  B Yet another pillar used to support the alphacide has just crumbled with this decision on HPs part.-  F On the bright side selling more expensive servers might make it easierC to remain an HP enterprise reseller for those still in the running;rB doesn't take as many systems to reach that magic 7-figure per year mark when the price is so high.e   Rich CCSFA (_former_ DEC/Compaq/HP Enterprise reseller because we can't do ae million a year in system sales)s   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 23:50:34 GMTm6 From: "Kenneth Farmer" <kfarmer@NOSPAM.spyderbyte.com>F Subject: Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations> Message-ID: <ep25d.14431$n%3.1508715@twister.southeast.rr.com>  : "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message% news:4154984C.C65BE5B@teksavvy.com...  > Glenn Everhart wrote:y > > C > > Anyone able to tell if it is so? If so what of our favorite OS?  > > Glenn Everhart >tF > If this is only a slashdot thing, then I don't take it as completely authoritative.  6 The Register: Fiorina: HP's SAP disaster under control8 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/24/hp_saphell_over/  2 News.com: HP discontinues its Itanium workstationsU http://news.com.com/HP+discontinues+its+Itanium+workstations/2100-1006_3-5381398.htmlp  , ComputerWorld: HP drops Itanium workstations_ http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardware/story/0,10801,96160,00.html?from=homeheadsI   >aI > Having said this, I am not surprised at all. When Intel announced yearsc agouH > that IA64 wasn't going to make it to desktop and would be relegated to nicheaJ > high end computing, it effectively meant that it woudln't make it in the > workstation market.  >RK > Assuming this the story is real, one must now keep our eyes opened to see  ifJ > HP will produce something like the DS15 that can be used both as a small > server and a workstation.a >lF > The possible impact of having no longer any workstations is that VMS	 engineerstK > will be forced to drop Xwindows support/development since they won't havee anya > hardware to run it on.   Kenh ________________________" Kenneth R. Farmer <>< 336-736-7376% SpyderByte: http://www.SpyderByte.com    ------------------------------    Date: 24 Sep 2004 17:15:40 -0700- From: elementyl@hotmail.com (James Wilkinson) F Subject: Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations= Message-ID: <e2ac4c66.0409241615.585267f7@posting.google.com>o  5 "Fred Kleinsorge" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> wrote:fD > While I am not happy about it, I have said for a long time that it> > isn't possible to compete with a high-end PC on the desktop.  A Not sure what the point here is, what we need is to find a 64 bittD platform that will be around for a while for VMS.  It isn't a matterD of competing with a high-end PC platform, but rather working with it4 to take advantage of a decent market share position.   James    ------------------------------    Date: 24 Sep 2004 15:11:08 -0700, From: mrhimanshupatni@hotmail.com (Himanshu)& Subject: Re: TCP/IP connection problem= Message-ID: <943387e9.0409241411.23c0d319@posting.google.com>    Hi Dirk,  F I think DOC is correct in the previous reply, I would try to elaborate what DOC tried to make you understand.e  B Since your workstations have changed IP addresses, which could not	 have been F known by VMS servers, there are some changes which ought to be done on theFE VMS servers. These changes depend upon what type network connectivitys0 software you are using like UCX or multinet etc.  F Problem may lie in the routing options of VMS systems where the new IP	 addressest have to be redifined.n   Regards,                X Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl> wrote in message news:<cj0krt$6rp$1@news2.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>... > RT Carter wrote:G > > I do not know VMS but I am a Network Admin (Microsoft & Novell). WenH > > moved our workstations to a different building and they are now on aG > > different network (was 192.255.1.xxx now 192.255.2.xxx)There are noiI > > managed hubs between the server (192.255.1.203) and the workstations.e > Q > Does this mean you do not have routers between network 192.255.1.0 and network wO > 192.255.2.0 ? If both network addresses are true old style class-C networks, oP > then they should have mask 255.255.255.0 . And in that case there should be a P > router between both networks. In this situation it is likely that the gateway 6 > entry of the VMS system has not been properly setup. > I > Otherwise you are using supernetting, which is also known as Classless  R > Interdomain Routing (CIDR), and you will be using a mask like 255.255.254.0. In L > fact you will not have two networks, but only one (192.255.1.0) with mask M > 255.255.254.0. If this is the case, then the mask on the VMS system is not nR > correct. It all depends on the TCP/IP software on the VMS system if a CIDR mask G > can be set. Older versions of UCX could not be setup with CIDR masks.a > N > Furthermore I'm quite sure these IP address ranges have not been officially P > registered to your company. You should be using a free range of IP addresses, L > like 192.168.x.x, 172.16.x.x. or 10.x.x.x . In the present situation your Q > workstations will not be able to reach any systems on the internet that have a rS > address in the range of 192.255.1.0 and 192.155.2.0 (assuming they are connected l7 > to the internet by means of a NAT router & firewall).l > R > If you would change your network addresses, use the class-A 10.x.x.x or class-B S > 172.16.x.x. addresses. With those ranges you can use subnetting which is usually  @ > allowed on all older TCP/IP stacks (contrary to supernetting). > I > > The workstations can not ping the VMS server. They can ping all othercH > > 192.255.1.xxx servers and workstations so the only problem is accessH > > to the VMS server TCPIP address. Is there some security setting that5 > > would refuse requests from the different network?    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:33:13 +0200i From: Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl>& Subject: Re: TCP/IP connection problem2 Message-ID: <cj27bc$t59$1@news3.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>   Hi,o  L Thank you very much for your reply, but I was also replying to the original  poster RT Carter.h  M  From his posting I assume it is not a routing problem (since he writes that oO "there are no managed hubs between the server and the workstions", most likely dI that includes routers) but a mask problem. Older UCX versions can not be fQ configured with supernetting masks, and it that case it is not possible to solve eJ the problem. There is a dirty workaround, and that is to configure two IP $ addresses on the same ethernet port.   Regards,   Dirk     Himanshu wrote: 
 > Hi Dirk, > H > I think DOC is correct in the previous reply, I would try to elaborate
 > what DOC > tried to make you understand.l > D > Since your workstations have changed IP addresses, which could not > have been0H > known by VMS servers, there are some changes which ought to be done on > theHG > VMS servers. These changes depend upon what type network connectivityt2 > software you are using like UCX or multinet etc. > H > Problem may lie in the routing options of VMS systems where the new IP > addressesm > have to be redifined.m > 
 > Regards, >  >  >  >  >  >  >  > Z > Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl> wrote in message news:<cj0krt$6rp$1@news2.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>... >  >>RT Carter wrote: >>F >>>I do not know VMS but I am a Network Admin (Microsoft & Novell). WeG >>>moved our workstations to a different building and they are now on a F >>>different network (was 192.255.1.xxx now 192.255.2.xxx)There are noH >>>managed hubs between the server (192.255.1.203) and the workstations. >>Q >>Does this mean you do not have routers between network 192.255.1.0 and network dO >>192.255.2.0 ? If both network addresses are true old style class-C networks,  P >>then they should have mask 255.255.255.0 . And in that case there should be a P >>router between both networks. In this situation it is likely that the gateway 6 >>entry of the VMS system has not been properly setup. >>I >>Otherwise you are using supernetting, which is also known as Classless vR >>Interdomain Routing (CIDR), and you will be using a mask like 255.255.254.0. In L >>fact you will not have two networks, but only one (192.255.1.0) with mask M >>255.255.254.0. If this is the case, then the mask on the VMS system is not eR >>correct. It all depends on the TCP/IP software on the VMS system if a CIDR mask G >>can be set. Older versions of UCX could not be setup with CIDR masks.1 >>N >>Furthermore I'm quite sure these IP address ranges have not been officially P >>registered to your company. You should be using a free range of IP addresses, L >>like 192.168.x.x, 172.16.x.x. or 10.x.x.x . In the present situation your Q >>workstations will not be able to reach any systems on the internet that have a eS >>address in the range of 192.255.1.0 and 192.155.2.0 (assuming they are connected  7 >>to the internet by means of a NAT router & firewall).  >>R >>If you would change your network addresses, use the class-A 10.x.x.x or class-B S >>172.16.x.x. addresses. With those ranges you can use subnetting which is usually r@ >>allowed on all older TCP/IP stacks (contrary to supernetting). >> >>H >>>The workstations can not ping the VMS server. They can ping all otherG >>>192.255.1.xxx servers and workstations so the only problem is accessbG >>>to the VMS server TCPIP address. Is there some security setting that-4 >>>would refuse requests from the different network?   ------------------------------  + Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:27:05 +0000 (UTC) , From: lewis@PROBE.MITRE.ORG (Keith A. Lewis)> Subject: Re: Windoze not rebooted monthly shuts down airports!. Message-ID: <cj1vup$in3$1@newslocal.mitre.org>   koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes in article <+1b4ekvWGSx2@eisner.encompasserve.org> dated 22 Sep 2004 07:19:04 -0500:c^ >In article <cipr8c$p5t$1@newslocal.mitre.org>, lewis@PROBE.MITRE.ORG (Keith A. Lewis) writes:K >> I don't think VMScluster would have worked.  ATC facilities need to keep K >> running when any given part goes offline.  If the cluster communicationsdM >> link(s) went down, the VMS systems on the small partition would have hung.- >-H >   A few seconds for a cluster reconfigure is better than 30 minutes ofH >   no radio.  As far as links going donw, without those links the FAA's >   system is already hosed.  E Cluster reconfigure will bring the small side of the partition back??c  L I'm talking about this scenario -- 1 node of a multi-node cluster is locatedH at your site.  Cluster communications go down.  How do you make it work?  J The only way I know of is to reboot the node with EXPECTED_VOTES set to 1.  0 --Keith Lewis              klewis {at} mitre.org> The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.   ------------------------------  + Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:41:16 +0000 (UTC)o, From: lewis@PROBE.MITRE.ORG (Keith A. Lewis)> Subject: Re: Windoze not rebooted monthly shuts down airports!. Message-ID: <cj20pc$k7r$1@newslocal.mitre.org>  w "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes in article <3p-dndC4f5f1TM3cRVn-sA@igs.net> dated Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:12:07 -0400: M >Without doing the math, it seems to me that there are perhaps 5,000 thousand@K >flights flights under civilian ATC control at any point in time. How oftenrE >are the datum representing the transponder transmissions updated perpK >aircraft and any 'skin paint' radar updates? Are we talking multiple timest1 >per second or once every few seconds for an ATC?a  L That's getting into an area that could be viewed as sensitive info, probably better if I don't answer.r  K >With typical route and aircraft separation I'd hazard a guess that even ifVL >adjacent regional clusters backed each other up, the time to transition theI >cluster would be less than any prudent safety margin would allow. AnyonemJ >have any knowledge that would shed more light on the feasability of this?  I Controllers expect a response time of less than 1 second from their GUI. dK They don't always get it, but for most types of requests it makes sense.  ItI have watched them work during busy times, and they literally don't have ayB second to spare -- constantly issuing clearances over the radio.    J You could probably tune a cluster so that the transition time on the largeJ side of the partition would take less than a second, but as I said before,6 the small side will hang.  (Or am I misunderstanding?)  0 --Keith Lewis              klewis {at} mitre.org> The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.   ------------------------------  + Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:01:19 +0000 (UTC)", From: lewis@PROBE.MITRE.ORG (Keith A. Lewis)> Subject: Re: Windoze not rebooted monthly shuts down airports!. Message-ID: <cj21uv$ksj$1@newslocal.mitre.org>  w "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes in article <ONadnTBrB4bEQs3cRVn-ug@igs.net> dated Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:11:36 -0400:b >JF Mezei wrote: >> John Smith wrote:F >>> With typical route and aircraft separation I'd hazard a guess thatH >>> even if adjacent regional clusters backed each other up, the time toG >>> transition the cluster would be less than any prudent safety margin)H >>> would allow. Anyone have any knowledge that would shed more light on >>> the feasability of this? >>H >> Consider the in-air collision over switzerland last year. A couple ofE >> seconds of delay in sounding the alarm helped cause it, as well as.B >> contradictory information given by ATC and he plane's one board >> collision avoidance systems.o >bJ >As I recollect, it was the combination of bad ATC advice and the pilot(s)K >not invoking their training for head-on approach - pull up to starboard orl >something like that.s  H Since I got my info on this from Aviation Week, I won't be divulging any( sensitive info if I comment.  Yeah!  :^)  K The automated systems on the aircraft (TCAS) have conventions for which way L to send each aircraft.  (TCAS stands for Tactical Collision Avoidance SystemK and only kicks in when there is an imminent "loss of separation" indicatinguI that the rest of the ATC system has failed.)  A controller in a pinch maylG not have time to figure out the same convention, but since it's one guymI talking to both aircraft, as opposed to an independent computer system one9 each, he can make a call which is consistent with itself.o  H In that case, the computer and the controller made conflicting decisionsG about which way each aircraft should go.  The German pilot followed thegH German rule about that situation -- "Go with the computer".  The RussianD pilot followed the Russian rule which is "Do what the human says."    G So both planes ended up heading for the same point, with fatal results.d  I There were other problems that led to the situation in the first place --iI the ATC facility was under-staffed and a phone line was down.  But it wastF the difference in pilot rules that prevented the last-ditch avoidance.  J >So NSK then. But, I'm told by some at HP and friends who are NSK gurus atF >banks that NSK can, under certain circumstances, not maintain logicalG >consistency between nodes - completely missed transactions/updates. So ! >you're back to the same problem.n   What's NSK?r  0 --Keith Lewis              klewis {at} mitre.org> The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.   ------------------------------    Date: 24 Sep 2004 18:40:29 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)e> Subject: Re: Windoze not rebooted monthly shuts down airports!3 Message-ID: <L3YB3jzL5vhu@eisner.encompasserve.org>f  ] In article <cj21uv$ksj$1@newslocal.mitre.org>, lewis@PROBE.MITRE.ORG (Keith A. Lewis) writes:ey > "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes in article <ONadnTBrB4bEQs3cRVn-ug@igs.net> dated Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:11:36 -0400:a  K >>So NSK then. But, I'm told by some at HP and friends who are NSK gurus attG >>banks that NSK can, under certain circumstances, not maintain logicallH >>consistency between nodes - completely missed transactions/updates. So" >>you're back to the same problem. > 
 > What's NSK?   4 Presumably "Non Stop Kernel" originally from Tandem.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:50:48 -050002 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>C Subject: Re: ZIP "-V" v. UNIX, et al.: Problem, possible solutions.s+ Message-ID: <4154C0E8.EAD0246A@comcast.net>1   Soterro wrote: >  > David J Dachtera wrote:cI > > Go through the presentation again(, and again, and ...). Download theuK > > .PPT if that's a better medium for you. View/Print it in the Notes view0  > > so it reads like a textbook. > / > You obviously are unable to read my postings,l  D Um, well, since I answered your post point-for-point ... (finish the
 sentence).  G Statements like that make you look silly and inexperienced. I generallyh advise against them.   > there must be somewhere al > problem in between.   B As I said: we all make mistakes. Mine was in assuming that you are! teachable. Obviously you are not.o  6 > But I lay this perception problem aside, as long the2 > developer of ZIP understood the issue I'm happy.  H I miss a good many posts thanx to the "Mark Thread Read" option, so it'sG possible I missed it, but I don't recall seeing any recent posts by theE! current maintainer or the author.s  K > > It may be more accurate to say that the past, combined with the presenteK > > will point the way to the future; until then, however, the needs of the8# > > installed base take precedence.- > 5 > Ideally one shouldn't be forced to make this choicea  H Ideals are like the stars: we set our course by them, yet we never reach them.f   > but walk on bothJ > paths: keep up with the needs of the (ever-shrinking) installed base andJ > also evolve in order to keep the (once-existing) advantage. But yes, theG > developer base is not exactly what it used to be thus the 1999 slidesa4 > are the most actual information in so many places.  D As there is little left to develop in the PK compression world, that0 seems reasonable. ODS-5 support would be good...   D.J.D.   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.532 ************************