1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 26 Sep 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 534       Contents:# RE: "Oracle RDB" licensing question # Re: "Oracle RDB" licensing question # Re: "Oracle RDB" licensing question # Re: "Oracle RDB" licensing question ? Certs last 2 years - VMS "4", slowaris "65" and still counting! C Re: Certs last 2 years - VMS "4", slowaris "65" and still counting! , 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, 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 workstationsB Re: Maximum file size, FAQ v. "Guide to OpenVMS File Applications"B Re: Maximum file size, FAQ v. "Guide to OpenVMS File Applications"G Re: OT:   I'm entering the job market for the second time since 1984... = 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  ssh vulnerabilities  Re: ssh vulnerabilities   Re: TCP/IP cluster interconnect?  Re: TCP/IP cluster interconnect? test: Re: ZIP "-V" v. UNIX, et al.: Problem, possible solutions.: Re: ZIP "-V" v. UNIX, et al.: Problem, possible solutions.< Re: [DCL REQUEST] New ignore keyword for DIFFERENCES command  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 15:23:34 -0400 ' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> , Subject: RE: "Oracle RDB" licensing questionR Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB45D2FA@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----3 > From: Neil Rieck [mailto:n.rieck@sympatico.ca]=20 # > Sent: September 25, 2004 11:16 AM  > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com * > Subject: "Oracle RDB" licensing question >=20@ > I'm having difficulty getting this answered by Oracle sales=20 > so I thought I'd=20  > try the user community.  >=20< > I'm running OpenVMS on a single Alpha-Server-DS20e with=20 > 2-CPUs (SMP) and I=20 A > need to get a quote on Oracle Rdb licensing for this machine=20  > for a business=20 = > case. I've learned that Oracle Rdb is licensed on a "per=20  > processor" basis=20 + > and this is where the confusion comes in.  >=20= > Some companies consider "processor count" to be the "CPU=20  > count" while others=20< > consider "processor count" to be the "cluster node count". >=20" > So do I need one license or two? >=20 > Neil Rieck > Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,  > Ontario, Canada.: > http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html >=20B > p.s. On my first day working with "Oracle Marketing" I always=20
 > used the=20 ? > phrase "Oracle Rdb" but later discovered that everything I=20  > had been quoted=202 > was only related to "Oracle 10i". What a mess... >=20   Neil,   C Both Oracle Rdb abd Server are licensed by the number of CPU's in a F server (2 in your case). The platform does not matter as the licensing= is the same on all of them. Enterprise versions =3D $40K/Cpu.   
 Reference:5 http://www.oracle.com/corporate/pricing/index.html=20   H One biggie for Oracle Rdb is that the clustering costs are imbedded i.e.C no additional costs to cluster Rdb systems.  With Oracle Server, in D order to cluster the database servers between different servers, youH need to add 50% additional costs *per* cpu. Hence, if you go by the listG pricing, the Oracle Server costs rise from $40K per CPU to $60K per cpu 0 if the Oracle RAC (clustering) software is used.  D As an example, a small DL380 two node Linux cluster with 2 cpu's perG node clustered  together with Oracle Enterprise cost $240,000 (60Kx2x2) F to license these servers with RAC.  Course, then you would need to add? Oracle costs for development and QA server configs etc as well.    Regards    / Kerry    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:42:39 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> , Subject: Re: "Oracle RDB" licensing question+ Message-ID: <4155E64E.54CD0F9@teksavvy.com>    "Main, Kerry" wrote:J > One biggie for Oracle Rdb is that the clustering costs are imbedded i.e.- > no additional costs to cluster Rdb systems.     H Does this mean that RDB costs the same if you have 16 microvax II's in aN cluster each running RDB compared to one galaxy/wildfire class machine with 16 CPUs ?   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:07:46 GMT L From: winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing), Subject: Re: "Oracle RDB" licensing question6 Message-ID: <00A38699.E0E012B1@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>  [ In article <4155E64E.54CD0F9@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:  >"Main, Kerry" wrote: K >> One biggie for Oracle Rdb is that the clustering costs are imbedded i.e. . >> no additional costs to cluster Rdb systems. >  > I >Does this mean that RDB costs the same if you have 16 microvax II's in a O >cluster each running RDB compared to one galaxy/wildfire class machine with 16  >CPUs ?    Yes.   Which is insane.    F They used to be willing to do concurrent-user licensing and named-userI licensing, but no more.  (There are questions also about what "concurrent M users" of a database are when you have unknown quantitites of web-based users   connecting to your application.)   -- Alan    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 18:14:25 -0400 ) From: "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> , Subject: Re: "Oracle RDB" licensing question: Message-ID: <n5m5d.34421$pA.2391686@news20.bellglobal.com>  2 "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> wrote in messageL news:FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB45D2FA@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net... [...snip...] >Neil, > D >Both Oracle Rdb abd Server are licensed by the number of CPU's in aG >server (2 in your case). The platform does not matter as the licensing < >is the same on all of them. Enterprise versions = $40K/Cpu. >  >Reference: 3 >http://www.oracle.com/corporate/pricing/index.html  > I >One biggie for Oracle Rdb is that the clustering costs are imbedded i.e. D >no additional costs to cluster Rdb systems.  With Oracle Server, inE >order to cluster the database servers between different servers, you I >need to add 50% additional costs *per* cpu. Hence, if you go by the list H >pricing, the Oracle Server costs rise from $40K per CPU to $60K per cpu1 >if the Oracle RAC (clustering) software is used.  > E >As an example, a small DL380 two node Linux cluster with 2 cpu's per H >node clustered  together with Oracle Enterprise cost $240,000 (60Kx2x2)G >to license these servers with RAC.  Course, then you would need to add @ >Oracle costs for development and QA server configs etc as well. >  >Regards >  > Kerry   G Yikes! An additional $80k in software licenses for a 2-CPU departmental C system. I think the existing licenses on this system (which include 	 unlimited C OpenVMS, SMP, and HP-BASIC) didn't cost that much. Makes you wonder J how many people go a different route after experiencing the sticker shock?  0 Now I know why there's such an interest in MySQL  
 Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,  Ontario, Canada.8 http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html   ------------------------------    Date: 25 Sep 2004 15:29:51 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)H Subject: Certs last 2 years - VMS "4", slowaris "65" and still counting!= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0409251429.2a0b4f60@posting.google.com>   + the results speak for themselves Andrew ...      http://secunia.com/product/95/   http://secunia.com/product/344/    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:20:02 -0500 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>L Subject: Re: Certs last 2 years - VMS "4", slowaris "65" and still counting!+ Message-ID: <41563562.6FA19C2C@comcast.net>    Bob Ceculski wrote:  > - > the results speak for themselves Andrew ...  >   > http://secunia.com/product/95/ > ! > http://secunia.com/product/344/    *HEARTFELT SIGH*   MUST you???!!!   --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 15:13:38 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 5 Subject: Re: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstations , Message-ID: <4155C35F.D1B9845C@teksavvy.com>   Robert Deininger wrote: J > Ok.  HP stopped the last models of IA64 workstations, which were getting > somewhat long in the tooth.   M The message is that HP was pulling out of the workstation market because IA64 M couldn't compete against the 8086 in that market. "pulling out of workstation G market" is far more than just discontinuing 2 products, it also sends a K message that there won't be any workstation products based on IA64 anymore, 
 only servers.   K If that message does not reflect HP's true intentions, then why did HP send L that message out ? How many times must we, the customers, live with mesasgesM such as Stallard's original golden nugget "we expect VMS customers to migrate F to HP-UX" which are then denied/removed/changed after HP realises that/ customers weren't ready yet for such messages ?   L It isn't up to customers to try to fidn a silver lining in a couldy message.N It is up to HP to send clear messages that don't convey the wrong meaning. AndK a corporation the size of HP shoudl have competent PR people to ensure this F happens. Therefore, the only conclusion customers can have is that theE messages sent out by HP reflect precisely what HP really wants/means.   I > There's nothing more in the pipeline, but there hasn't been anything in I > the pipeline for quite a while.   The systems were due for a refresh if * > they were going to continue to be sold.   K Look: HP/Intel got Compaq to kill Alpha on the premise that IA64 would take H over the world. HP puts all its eggs into the IA64 basket, forces VMS toL migrate to this unwanted platform. We, the customers, are told to be patient> because IA64 will take off eventually and take over the world.  L Little by little, Intel and HP take parts off the IA64 plane. And every timeB they do, they make it harder and harder for IA64 to ever take off.  M If IA64 workstations weren't selling well, shouldn't that be a big indication K to everyone that IA64 is NOT taking off as predicted and that customers are ! not interested in that platform ?   M If sales of PaRisc and Alpha systems still surpass by a wide marging sales of M IA64, shouldn't that be an indiaction the customers do not want to go to IA64 K ? People are choosing to buy dead systems instead of IA64. That says a LOT.   I If customers are extremely reluctant to buy IA64 based systems to a point M where even HP runs out of patience and starts to widthdraw IA64 from the very M markets we had been promised IA64 would be better than Alpha and PARisc, what A are we, the customers, to make of Ia64's future, or lack thereof.   H Lets face it, IA64 was flawed right from the start. Both technically andK commercially. It is pointless for customers to start to migrate from a dead H platform to a dying platform, especially since the dead platfor is still better than the dying one.  K HP should accelerate the retirement of IA64 and be done with it and rebuild N either on 8086, or PaRisc or Alpha. Right now, my bet would be that the 64 bitC 8086 would be the more popular choice even if technically inferior.   I Byt moving Solaris to the 8086, Sun will have quite an edge over HP whose J HP-UX will be running on a bloated and expensive platform which won't even support workstations.    > Nobody has seemed to care in6 > recent months that there were no follow-on systems.   M And you're not worried about a customer base who has no interest in migrating < to the plattform that you are imposing on them ? You should.   > The folks who claim I > the EOL announcement is a big deal, should have already been up in arms 2 > because the IA64 workstation pipeline was EMPTY.  G We didn't think that the workstation pipeline was empty because we kept K hearing about how VMS engineers were working on workstatiosn with graphical N displays. But now, we have official confirmation from HP that they are pullingG out of that marklet, with no indication that some servers will still be J available in a compact config that supports keyboard, graphics, mouse, and? that Xwindows for VMs and HP=UX will continue to be developped.   K > I tend to agree that HP is pretty weak in this area.  But in this case, I K > think they have been completely clear about their IA64 workstation plans.   N Well, if they had decided to widthdraw from workstation market a long time agoK and only now admitting to this decisions, then it isn't very honest either, I especially when people are worried about IA64's future (or lack thereof).    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 15:24:34 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 5 Subject: Re: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstations , Message-ID: <4155C5EE.AC1B6BF5@teksavvy.com>   > Nigel Barker wrote: O > > Rubbish. HP-UX is shipping on Integrity servers today & that's a far larger  > > market than OpenVMS.  F But HP still gets less than 20% of enterprise server revenus from IA64J systems. This means that HP-UX on Pa Risc is still generating more revenusK than on IA64. That says a lot about custoemr acceptance of a platform which 1 has been available for quite some time for HP-UX.   M And if the only customers who do accept IA64 are the VMS customers, since the M VMS markletplace is, as you say, so much smaller than HP-UX, then it won't be  big enough to make IA64 viable.   F > > funded by HP-UX. OpenVMS will not be paying the Alpha tax anymore.  N No, it will be paying an even bigger Intel tax to keep on developing this veryK hevy low volume proprietary chip that requires fancy specialized compilers. E Worse yet, because IA64 has such a terrible image in the marketplace, L customers will not be attracted to it. At least Alpha had a a lot fo respect/ from the marketplace for its technical prowess.    David Froble wrote:   Q > It's real simple.  If a port to IA-64 had been announced, without the 'gleeful' O > announcement of the end of Alpha, customers would have taken it as good news, N > and the VMS base quite likely would have grown, not shrunk, drastically with > respect to new sales.   M Remember that Palmer had annoucnd that Tru64 would be ported to IA64, but not L VMS, while still claiming that Alpha was pushing right along. (this was at aM time when Intel wasn't years late and word that IA64 was not working out that  well hadn't gotten out yet).  M Had he included VMS in that announcement, I suspect that customers would have L read that Digital intended to ditch alpha and go with Intel. And there would have been a lot of bitching.  I The main difference is that by keeping Alpha going, even if you knew that L eventually it would be killed, you knew that Alpha would keep on going until IA64 was ready.    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:26:49 GMT 5 From: rdeininger@mindspringdot.com (Robert Deininger) 5 Subject: Re: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstations L Message-ID: <rdeininger-2509041635280001@user-uinj4h5.dialup.mindspring.com>  9 In article <41559794.1080201@tsoft-inc.com>, David Froble  <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:      > O >The problem with that seemingly good news is that in 2001 VMS could afford to  P >pay the 'Alpha tax'.  The changes since then, all directly a result of killing ) >Alpha, may have changed that capability.   G The "Alpha tax" was a millstone around VMS's neck for several years.  I H don't understand where the myth got started that the Alpha chip/server +I VMS + Tru64 business was financially healthy before the decision to phase / out Alpha.  It was bad news, and getting worse.   F >It's real simple.  If a port to IA-64 had been announced, without the
 'gleeful' O >announcement of the end of Alpha, customers would have taken it as good news,  N >and the VMS base quite likely would have grown, not shrunk, drastically with  >respect to new sales.  D Who says the VMS base has shrunk since 2001?  The Alpha business hasE declined, as expected, but the attrition has been mostly on the Tru64  side.   E In 2001, Compaq planned to have enough overlap between Alpha and IA64 G systems to keep VMS customers comfortable with the transition.  3 years A later, that plan is still pretty much on track.  2 generations of J AlphaServers are still available and VMS customers are still buying them. I VMS on IA64 is on track, and close enough to the 3-year-old schedule that D the difference is uninteresting.  (I maintain that only fools expectH multi-year schedule predictions to be accurate down to a month or even aG quarter.)  The intermediate milestones for VMS on IA64 have happened as   planned, and V8.2 is on the way.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:44:25 GMT 5 From: rdeininger@mindspringdot.com (Robert Deininger) 5 Subject: Re: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstations L Message-ID: <rdeininger-2509041653030001@user-uinj4h5.dialup.mindspring.com>  5 In article <4155C35F.D1B9845C@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei % <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:    >Robert Deininger wrote:K >> Ok.  HP stopped the last models of IA64 workstations, which were getting  >> somewhat long in the tooth.   > N >The message is that HP was pulling out of the workstation market because IA64N >couldn't compete against the 8086 in that market. "pulling out of workstationH >market" is far more than just discontinuing 2 products, it also sends aL >message that there won't be any workstation products based on IA64 anymore, >only servers. > L >If that message does not reflect HP's true intentions, then why did HP send >that message out ?     < Duh!  It is crystal clear!  HP doesn't plan to make any moreB high-performance 3D workstations running on IA64.  That's obvious.  G Why are you pretending this is subtle, and trying to build a conspiracy 
 around it?  F In a year or 3, the relative strengths of the various CPUs may lead to another change in direction.  F And there ARE still IA64 workstations from HP.  They just happen to be9 called servers.  Just like the recent situation on Alpha.    ...   L >Look: HP/Intel got Compaq to kill Alpha on the premise that IA64 would takeI >over the world. HP puts all its eggs into the IA64 basket, forces VMS to $ >migrate to this unwanted platform.     F Bah!  I've seen absolutely no evidence that HP had anything to do withE that decision.  And the decision wasn't based on IA64 taking over the J world.  Compaq decided that the Alpha business model was a failure for itsE servers, and IA64 would be more successful financially.  So far, that  prediction has been accurate.     N >If IA64 workstations weren't selling well, shouldn't that be a big indicationL >to everyone that IA64 is NOT taking off as predicted and that customers are" >not interested in that platform ?  B It would be an indication that 3D workstation customers aren't tooE interested in IA64.  I don't know that it says much of anything about  server customers.   N >If sales of PaRisc and Alpha systems still surpass by a wide marging sales ofN >IA64, shouldn't that be an indiaction the customers do not want to go to IA64L >? People are choosing to buy dead systems instead of IA64. That says a LOT.  H I dunno the relative sales of the 3 families.  But IA64 system sales areJ growing, AlphaServers are shinking, and if PA-Risc isn't shrinking yet, it
 will be soon.    ...    >> Nobody has seemed to care in 7 >> recent months that there were no follow-on systems.   > N >And you're not worried about a customer base who has no interest in migrating= >to the plattform that you are imposing on them ? You should.  >  >> The folks who claimJ >> the EOL announcement is a big deal, should have already been up in arms3 >> because the IA64 workstation pipeline was EMPTY.  > H >We didn't think that the workstation pipeline was empty because we keptL >hearing about how VMS engineers were working on workstatiosn with graphical >displays.    B There have never been any VMS roadmaps showing high-performance 3D' graphics workstations with AGP on IA64.   G The 3D workstation roadmap never included VMS.  And that roadmap hasn't ! shown follow-on systems recently.   C VMS will still have traditional, "graphics-in-servers", workstation I support on IA64, as it has had on Alpha recently.  That includes the same I PCI-based add-in graphics adapter that's available for AlphaServers.  And ' VMS engineers are continuing that work.     E >But now, we have official confirmation from HP that they are pulling H >out of that marklet, with no indication that some servers will still beK >available in a compact config that supports keyboard, graphics, mouse, and @ >that Xwindows for VMs and HP=UX will continue to be developped.  G I don't pay attention to HP-UX product announcements, but they still do ) keyboard, mouse, x-windows, etc. on IA64.   J VMS plans haven't changed in this area.  If you didn't see any affirmationH of VMS plans in conjuction with the recent workstation EOL announcement,8 it's because the two have NOTHING to do with each other.   ...    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:30:38 GMT " From: Lee <lytmah@telusplanet.net>5 Subject: Re: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstations , Message-ID: <2sl5d.97922$KU5.81060@edtnps89>  C Perhaps I've go blinders on, but I don't see any conspiracy theory. C Evidently, nor does my management.  We just ordered two GS1280/16's A and will be configuring six hard partitions and two clusters from @ of them.  We'll be running mostly inhouse-developed programs and also third party applications.     Robert Deininger wrote: 7 > In article <4155C35F.D1B9845C@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei ' > <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:  >  >  >>Robert Deininger wrote:  >>K >>>Ok.  HP stopped the last models of IA64 workstations, which were getting  >>>somewhat long in the tooth.   >>O >>The message is that HP was pulling out of the workstation market because IA64 O >>couldn't compete against the 8086 in that market. "pulling out of workstation I >>market" is far more than just discontinuing 2 products, it also sends a M >>message that there won't be any workstation products based on IA64 anymore,  >>only servers.  >>M >>If that message does not reflect HP's true intentions, then why did HP send  >>that message out ? >  >  > > > Duh!  It is crystal clear!  HP doesn't plan to make any moreD > high-performance 3D workstations running on IA64.  That's obvious. > I > Why are you pretending this is subtle, and trying to build a conspiracy  > around it? > H > In a year or 3, the relative strengths of the various CPUs may lead to > another change in direction. > H > And there ARE still IA64 workstations from HP.  They just happen to be; > called servers.  Just like the recent situation on Alpha.  >  > ...  >  > M >>Look: HP/Intel got Compaq to kill Alpha on the premise that IA64 would take J >>over the world. HP puts all its eggs into the IA64 basket, forces VMS to% >>migrate to this unwanted platform.   >  >  > H > Bah!  I've seen absolutely no evidence that HP had anything to do withG > that decision.  And the decision wasn't based on IA64 taking over the L > world.  Compaq decided that the Alpha business model was a failure for itsG > servers, and IA64 would be more successful financially.  So far, that  > prediction has been accurate.  >  >  > O >>If IA64 workstations weren't selling well, shouldn't that be a big indication M >>to everyone that IA64 is NOT taking off as predicted and that customers are # >>not interested in that platform ?  >  > D > It would be an indication that 3D workstation customers aren't tooG > interested in IA64.  I don't know that it says much of anything about  > server customers.  >  > O >>If sales of PaRisc and Alpha systems still surpass by a wide marging sales of O >>IA64, shouldn't that be an indiaction the customers do not want to go to IA64 M >>? People are choosing to buy dead systems instead of IA64. That says a LOT.  >  > J > I dunno the relative sales of the 3 families.  But IA64 system sales areL > growing, AlphaServers are shinking, and if PA-Risc isn't shrinking yet, it > will be soon.  >  > ...  >  >  >>>Nobody has seemed to care in 7 >>>recent months that there were no follow-on systems.   >>O >>And you're not worried about a customer base who has no interest in migrating > >>to the plattform that you are imposing on them ? You should. >> >> >>>The folks who claimJ >>>the EOL announcement is a big deal, should have already been up in arms3 >>>because the IA64 workstation pipeline was EMPTY.  >>I >>We didn't think that the workstation pipeline was empty because we kept M >>hearing about how VMS engineers were working on workstatiosn with graphical  >>displays.  >  > D > There have never been any VMS roadmaps showing high-performance 3D) > graphics workstations with AGP on IA64.  > I > The 3D workstation roadmap never included VMS.  And that roadmap hasn't # > shown follow-on systems recently.  > E > VMS will still have traditional, "graphics-in-servers", workstation K > support on IA64, as it has had on Alpha recently.  That includes the same K > PCI-based add-in graphics adapter that's available for AlphaServers.  And ) > VMS engineers are continuing that work.  >  >  > F >>But now, we have official confirmation from HP that they are pullingI >>out of that marklet, with no indication that some servers will still be L >>available in a compact config that supports keyboard, graphics, mouse, andA >>that Xwindows for VMs and HP=UX will continue to be developped.  >  > I > I don't pay attention to HP-UX product announcements, but they still do + > keyboard, mouse, x-windows, etc. on IA64.  > L > VMS plans haven't changed in this area.  If you didn't see any affirmationJ > of VMS plans in conjuction with the recent workstation EOL announcement,: > it's because the two have NOTHING to do with each other. >  > ...    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 18:08:03 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 5 Subject: Re: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstations , Message-ID: <4155EC40.668D8962@teksavvy.com>   Robert Deininger wrote: > > Duh!  It is crystal clear!  HP doesn't plan to make any moreD > high-performance 3D workstations running on IA64.  That's obvious.  N Please, pretty please, show me where HP specificed that they were only pullingL out of the 3D workstations ? All I saw was the term "workstation market". NoB 3D, no "graphics intensive", "games oriented". Just "workstation".  H > In a year or 3, the relative strengths of the various CPUs may lead to > another change in direction.  : So at least you admit that IA64's future is not so secure.  H > And there ARE still IA64 workstations from HP.  They just happen to be; > called servers.  Just like the recent situation on Alpha.   M Keyword is "still". And the recent situation with Alpha does not augr well if M it is applied to IA64: Compaq killed alpha because it had retrenched from the 0 low end and had an ever decreasing niche market.  " HP is now following the same path.  E Note that HP didn't use the term "low end desktop", they use the term K "workstation" in the announcement. We've know since before Merced that IA64 K wouldn't make it to the desktop. That, by itself is a big failure, when you > consider that Power is on desktop commodity computers (Apple).  L > world.  Compaq decided that the Alpha business model was a failure for itsG > servers, and IA64 would be more successful financially.  So far, that  > prediction has been accurate.   L You should get hired by political parties as a spin master.  We all know theN above is just spin.  When you have a great product, proper management can turnK it into a success. Compe never tried to push Alpha seriously after Pfeiffer G was ousted. Compaq's relationship with Intel and Microsoft was far more A important than the valuable assets it had purchased from Digital.   M Pfeiffer was ousted for many reasons. One of which was that the others didn't N want Compaq to be distracted by enterprise business and wanted Compaq to focusM solely on wintel and cultivate good relationships with microsoft and intel in 5 order to remain competitive against Dell, HP and IBM.   K In other words, Compaq changed its mind about the purchase of Digital after  Digital had been purchased.    L If IBM which was nearly bankrupt, is able to make Power a succesful force inN the industry, then there is no reason that Digital couldn't have done the sameF if that had had a positive leader instead of some inconpetent twit whoN prevered to sabotage the company instead of admitting he wasn't up for the job  and giving someone else the job.  D > It would be an indication that 3D workstation customers aren't tooG > interested in IA64.  I don't know that it says much of anything about  > server customers.   F Again, where did the "3D" word appear in HP's statements ?  3D are forK desktops (as you said for games). And they are on high end workstations for L graphic intensive work (rendering of 3d for movies, architectural work etc).K Those high end workstations should have been a target for IA64, but I guess D these guys will stay with IBM and Sparc and go with the 64 bit 8086.    E > VMS will still have traditional, "graphics-in-servers", workstation 3 > support on IA64, as it has had on Alpha recently.   L Out of curiosity, how much work in going on for Xwindows on VMS, in terms ofK both bringing 2.x to VMS and updating the applications thatc ome with VMS ? J Have they fixed the DHCPGUI bug that crashes the gui when you try to enter6 multiple values in fields that allow multiple values ?  M Lack of work in decwindows is also an indication that the VMS management does J not see much of a future for graphics on VMS and see it, like tandem, as a& headless transaction crunching system.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 01:14:25 +0200 0 From: Keith Cayemberg <keith.cayemberg@arcor.de>5 Subject: Re: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstations B Message-ID: <4155fbd2$0$26110$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net>   Robert Deininger wrote:  <SNIP> > L > VMS plans haven't changed in this area.  If you didn't see any affirmationJ > of VMS plans in conjuction with the recent workstation EOL announcement,: > it's because the two have NOTHING to do with each other. >  > ...   H Also, considering that OpenVMS was never planned to be validated on the G Itanium Workstation Models, I suppose the OpenVMS Alpha to OpenVMS I64  = Layered Product Porting Schedule last updated June 10th at...   Q http://www.hp.com/products1/evolution/alpha_retaintrust/download/openvms_move.pdf   G is still valid. It lists Secure Web Browser, DECwindows and DECwindows  C Client for release on OpenVMS on Itanium for Q4'04 and Multi Media  I Services H1'05. I also assume this means sound card support will also be  .   available on OpenVMS Itanium Server Systems?   Cheers!    Keith Cayemberg    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 00:17:55 -0400 ( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>5 Subject: Re: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstations * Message-ID: <415642F3.40001@tsoft-inc.com>   JF Mezei wrote:    >  > David Froble wrote:  >  > Q >>It's real simple.  If a port to IA-64 had been announced, without the 'gleeful' O >>announcement of the end of Alpha, customers would have taken it as good news, N >>and the VMS base quite likely would have grown, not shrunk, drastically with >>respect to new sales.  >> > O > Remember that Palmer had annoucnd that Tru64 would be ported to IA64, but not N > VMS, while still claiming that Alpha was pushing right along. (this was at aO > time when Intel wasn't years late and word that IA64 was not working out that  > well hadn't gotten out yet). > O > Had he included VMS in that announcement, I suspect that customers would have N > read that Digital intended to ditch alpha and go with Intel. And there would > have been a lot of bitching.    K You can't have it both ways JF.  If it's good for Sun to spread it's OS to eN multiple platforms, and let the customers decide, then it can't have been bad = for DEC/Compaq to do the same.  Can we have some consistance?V    K > The main difference is that by keeping Alpha going, even if you knew thatwN > eventually it would be killed, you knew that Alpha would keep on going until > IA64 was ready.i    O Or better yet, when the customers decided they didn't want to purchase Alphas. iO If the customers continued to purchase Alphas, forcing them off Alpha would be P( just as stupid in the future as in 2001.  J Here's one you can take to the bank.  Should Sun customers in significant J quantity continue to purchase Sparc, you can be sure Sun will continue to  manufacturer and sell Sparc.     Dave   -- n4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Roadb Vanderbilt, PA  15486t   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 23:58:08 -0400a( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>5 Subject: Re: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstations , Message-ID: <41563E50.1000005@tsoft-inc.com>   JF Mezei wrote:P   > Robert Deininger wrote:i > J >>Ok.  HP stopped the last models of IA64 workstations, which were getting >>somewhat long in the tooth.  >> > O > The message is that HP was pulling out of the workstation market because IA64vO > couldn't compete against the 8086 in that market. "pulling out of workstationdI > market" is far more than just discontinuing 2 products, it also sends a-M > message that there won't be any workstation products based on IA64 anymore,K > only servers.@ > M > If that message does not reflect HP's true intentions, then why did HP send4N > that message out ? How many times must we, the customers, live with mesasgesO > such as Stallard's original golden nugget "we expect VMS customers to migrate5H > to HP-UX" which are then denied/removed/changed after HP realises that1 > customers weren't ready yet for such messages ?t > N > It isn't up to customers to try to fidn a silver lining in a couldy message.P > It is up to HP to send clear messages that don't convey the wrong meaning. AndM > a corporation the size of HP shoudl have competent PR people to ensure thiseH > happens. Therefore, the only conclusion customers can have is that theG > messages sent out by HP reflect precisely what HP really wants/means.o >  > I >>There's nothing more in the pipeline, but there hasn't been anything in I >>the pipeline for quite a while.   The systems were due for a refresh ifo* >>they were going to continue to be sold.  >> > M > Look: HP/Intel got Compaq to kill Alpha on the premise that IA64 would taket< > over the world. HP puts all its eggs into the IA64 basket,    / Don't forget, burning bridges behind them!  :-)"   > forces VMS todN > migrate to this unwanted platform. We, the customers, are told to be patient@ > because IA64 will take off eventually and take over the world. > N > Little by little, Intel and HP take parts off the IA64 plane. And every timeD > they do, they make it harder and harder for IA64 to ever take off. > O > If IA64 workstations weren't selling well, shouldn't that be a big indication:M > to everyone that IA64 is NOT taking off as predicted and that customers arel# > not interested in that platform ?e > O > If sales of PaRisc and Alpha systems still surpass by a wide marging sales of O > IA64, shouldn't that be an indiaction the customers do not want to go to IA64 M > ? People are choosing to buy dead systems instead of IA64. That says a LOT.l > K > If customers are extremely reluctant to buy IA64 based systems to a pointrO > where even HP runs out of patience and starts to widthdraw IA64 from the veryhO > markets we had been promised IA64 would be better than Alpha and PARisc, what2C > are we, the customers, to make of Ia64's future, or lack thereof.  > J > Lets face it, IA64 was flawed right from the start. Both technically andM > commercially. It is pointless for customers to start to migrate from a dead: > platform to a dying platform,e    % I'd suggest 'stillborn' over 'dying'.r  , > especially since the dead platfor is still > better than the dying one. > M > HP should accelerate the retirement of IA64 and be done with it and rebuildiP > either on 8086, or PaRisc or Alpha. Right now, my bet would be that the 64 bitE > 8086 would be the more popular choice even if technically inferior.r > K > Byt moving Solaris to the 8086, Sun will have quite an edge over HP whose-L > HP-UX will be running on a bloated and expensive platform which won't even > support workstations.( >  >  >>Nobody has seemed to care in6 >>recent months that there were no follow-on systems.  >> > O > And you're not worried about a customer base who has no interest in migrating>> > to the plattform that you are imposing on them ? You should. >  >  >>The folks who claimrI >>the EOL announcement is a big deal, should have already been up in armsc2 >>because the IA64 workstation pipeline was EMPTY. >> > I > We didn't think that the workstation pipeline was empty because we kept M > hearing about how VMS engineers were working on workstatiosn with graphical P > displays. But now, we have official confirmation from HP that they are pullingI > out of that marklet, with no indication that some servers will still becL > available in a compact config that supports keyboard, graphics, mouse, andA > that Xwindows for VMs and HP=UX will continue to be developped.- >  > K >>I tend to agree that HP is pretty weak in this area.  But in this case, I"K >>think they have been completely clear about their IA64 workstation plans.g >> > P > Well, if they had decided to widthdraw from workstation market a long time agoM > and only now admitting to this decisions, then it isn't very honest either,.K > especially when people are worried about IA64's future (or lack thereof).e >        -- b4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Roadc Vanderbilt, PA  15486d   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 00:07:59 -0400m( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>5 Subject: Re: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstationss, Message-ID: <4156409F.1050107@tsoft-inc.com>   Robert Deininger wrote:%  7 > In article <4155C35F.D1B9845C@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei ' > <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:o >  >  >>Robert Deininger wrote:      <snip>    M >>Look: HP/Intel got Compaq to kill Alpha on the premise that IA64 would takexJ >>over the world. HP puts all its eggs into the IA64 basket, forces VMS to% >>migrate to this unwanted platform. h >> >  > H > Bah!  I've seen absolutely no evidence that HP had anything to do withG > that decision.  And the decision wasn't based on IA64 taking over theeL > world.  Compaq decided that the Alpha business model was a failure for itsG > servers, and IA64 would be more successful financially.  So far, that  > prediction has been accurate.t     Successful?  SUCCESSFUL???????  J Let's see, in 2000 VMS revenues were reported to be about $4 billion, and O profits about $800 million.  After killing Alpha new sales tanked and existing oM customers had had enough and were planning to move on.  Just recently it was n2 reported that VMS revenues moved above $2 billion.  J So jack up the fire, produce plenty of hot air, and explain how a drop in K revenue of over $2 billion is 'successful financially'?  No, don't bother.  E Anything you say will dig your credibility deeper than it already is.   O >>If IA64 workstations weren't selling well, shouldn't that be a big indicationmM >>to everyone that IA64 is NOT taking off as predicted and that customers are0# >>not interested in that platform ?j >> > D > It would be an indication that 3D workstation customers aren't tooG > interested in IA64.  I don't know that it says much of anything about  > server customers.  >  > O >>If sales of PaRisc and Alpha systems still surpass by a wide marging sales of O >>IA64, shouldn't that be an indiaction the customers do not want to go to IA64-M >>? People are choosing to buy dead systems instead of IA64. That says a LOT.e >> > J > I dunno the relative sales of the 3 families.  But IA64 system sales areL > growing, AlphaServers are shinking, and if PA-Risc isn't shrinking yet, it > will be soon.   O Sure, quit building them, and sales are bound to shrink.  Just how dumb do you m1 want us to pretend to be to accept such rational?a   Dave   -- -4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Roadt Vanderbilt, PA  15486o   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 01:31:19 -0400n- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>k5 Subject: Re: HP admits discontinued IA64 workstationsa, Message-ID: <4156540B.944371D7@teksavvy.com>   David Froble wrote:sL > You can't have it both ways JF.  If it's good for Sun to spread it's OS toO > multiple platforms, and let the customers decide, then it can't have been bad,? > for DEC/Compaq to do the same.  Can we have some consistance?o  I Well, there is FUD aout Sun moving to 8086 so it can abandon Sparc. So ifnM Palmer had announced both VMS and Tru64 were going to IA64, it is only normalhN that people would have questioned the future of Alpha. However, they would notH have felt so threathened since there would no no real hard evidence that4 Digital was going to shelve Alpha, only speculation.  K But what Compaq did was remove the speculation and make it a hard fact thatsB they were killing Alpha even before IA64 was ready for prime time.    K > Here's one you can take to the bank.  Should Sun customers in significant K > quantity continue to purchase Sparc, you can be sure Sun will continue toy > manufacturer and sell Sparc.  E Yep. And Sun doesn't have conflicting relationships which force it to 8 cannabalise its own products to favour others' products.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:52:45 +0200 * From: Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net>K Subject: Re: Maximum file size, FAQ v. "Guide to OpenVMS File Applications" + Message-ID: <2rlt41F1c3l56U1@uni-berlin.de>t   sms@antinode.org wrote:e   >    Also, my old FAQ bookmarkH > ("ftp://ftp.digital.com/pub/Digital/dec-faq/OpenVMS.txt") still works, > but the data seem stale.  
 Try this one:g  5 http://www.openvms.compaq.com/wizard/openvms_faq.htmlp  K (phew - that was a struggle due to the way the hp web site redirects stuff)s   ------------------------------  + Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:48:54 -0500 (CDT)u From: sms@antinode.orgK Subject: Re: Maximum file size, FAQ v. "Guide to OpenVMS File Applications"a) Message-ID: <04092517485425@antinode.org>   * From: Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net>    > >    Also, my old FAQ bookmarkJ > > ("ftp://ftp.digital.com/pub/Digital/dec-faq/OpenVMS.txt") still works, > > but the data seem stale. >  > Try this one:  > 7 > http://www.openvms.compaq.com/wizard/openvms_faq.htmlo > M > (phew - that was a struggle due to the way the hp web site redirects stuff)s  G    Thanks, but I found the new one (starting at the main HP VMS page). sF I was just complaining about the old one still being there, instead of* being a new one or a pointer to a new one.  H ------------------------------------------------------------------------  4    Steven M. Schweda               (+1) 651-699-98183    382 South Warwick Street        sms@antinode-orgd    Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547n   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:56:58 +0200 * From: Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net>P Subject: Re: OT:   I'm entering the job market for the second time since 1984...+ Message-ID: <2rltbqF1c3l56U2@uni-berlin.de>t   William Webb wrote: ? > In case any of you wondered where I'd vanished to as of late-  > 9 > Client instituted staffing reductions on our account;  o' > 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.p >  > Thanks to you all. >  All the best to you William.   ------------------------------    Date: 25 Sep 2004 13:11:46 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)F Subject: Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0409251211.4f7a83e8@posting.google.com>   O david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote in message news:<cj3rrk$olb$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>...  > >hO > >Economies of scale my lad. Without workstations, which are sold in multiplesaM > >of server sales, the process never ramps up enough to slide costs down themL > >production cost curve enough to make the chip anything but a niche bit of; > >silicon. Alpha redux. Next step - outright cancellation.  > >-N > >And even if that's not the case, what do you think that Sun and IBM will beJ > >telling every single HP customer -- PH-UX, Tru64, VMS, NSK?? They'll beM > >saying that HP can't be trusted and here's the proof, and many will agree.wO > >The unix/linux  users will disappears faster and easier than the VMS and NSKl > >customers because they can. > >uN > >The VMS and NSK customers will be harder to convert but they will over timeM > >as HP does nothing to keep them happy or add to the roster of customers to K > >replace the defections. Soon there isn't enough critical mass to supportl > >further development. EOL. > > M > Besides which many system managers and developers want a VMS workstation onhN > their desk NOT another rack-mounted server when they are testing things out.I > Also how many hobbyists are going to by a rackmounted server for home -o  ? seems like DS10L's are selling pretty good to hobbyists now ...    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:10:15 GMTt5 From: rdeininger@mindspringdot.com (Robert Deininger)oF Subject: Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstationsL Message-ID: <rdeininger-2509041618540001@user-uinj4h5.dialup.mindspring.com>  I In article <cj3rrk$olb$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:t    L >Besides which many system managers and developers want a VMS workstation onM >their desk NOT another rack-mounted server when they are testing things out. H >Also how many hobbyists are going to by a rackmounted server for home -K >quite a few of those hobbyists will be working with VMS at work and others49 >will be in the industry and might argue for VMS at work.n    = Please slow down and pay attention to what's still available.e  J What's missing is high-performance, hardware-accelerated 3D graphics in an	 AGP slot.y  J The servers all support 2D graphics hardware, which is fine for DECwindowsG and most other "graphics" applications.  The rx2600 and the rx4640 bothdE have "deskside" mounting options; they don't have to be rack-mounted.a  J Like AlphaServers, the Itanium servers do support graphics.  Unlike Alpha,H rx2600 and rx4640 both have a single graphics port built in.  And rx16007 has graphics on the optional management processor card.6  D All the VMS IA64 systems will support graphics when V8.2 ships.  Ok?  F So system managers and developers can have their VMS workstations with IA64 CPUs if they need them.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:50:50 -0400d- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> F Subject: Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations, Message-ID: <4155E839.2D59D2EC@teksavvy.com>   Robert Deininger wrote: L > The servers all support 2D graphics hardware, which is fine for DECwindowsI > and most other "graphics" applications.  The rx2600 and the rx4640 bothaG > have "deskside" mounting options; they don't have to be rack-mounted.u  N Yes, but if HP have decided to no longer make workstations based on IA64, thenC how do you know that the above statement will continue to be true ?4  J Will these servers be available on low cost configurations stuitable for a single user workstation ?e  K Consider EV7: it was designed such that it was, for all practical purposes,nN unusable in a workstation due to minimum memory requirements. So the remainingI DS line still has to run on older EV6x chips in order to make Alpha basedi boxes that are affordable.  F > All the VMS IA64 systems will support graphics when V8.2 ships.  Ok?  D Yes, because all those boxes predate HP's decision to widthdraw fromJ workstation market. But as you said so often, what about all those servers that are in the pipeline ? l  J With competition at the load and now midrange server level from the 64 bitM 8086, will HP continue to configure servers to compete at that range, or willtM they, like they just did with the workstation, decide that they can't compete @ and widthdraw IA64 to a smaller niche of high end systems only ?  N Remember that just days ago, some VMS engineers were claiming that VMS on IA64M will result in lower entry costs due to the cheaper entry level systems. Willi2 that argument go away, just as it did with Alpha ?   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 23:52:02 -04005( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>F Subject: Re: Slashdot is reporting HP is dropping Itanium workstations, Message-ID: <41563CE2.6050802@tsoft-inc.com>   JF Mezei wrote:>   > Robert Deininger wrote:e > L >>The servers all support 2D graphics hardware, which is fine for DECwindowsI >>and most other "graphics" applications.  The rx2600 and the rx4640 both G >>have "deskside" mounting options; they don't have to be rack-mounted.w >> > P > Yes, but if HP have decided to no longer make workstations based on IA64, thenE > how do you know that the above statement will continue to be true ?,    N Ok JF, think a bit about that.  These systems are supposidly meant for all OS P environments.  Have you run a windoz system lately without mouse, keyboard, and N monitor?  I think things will have to get a bit worse before we have to worry : about graphics.  I do worry that things 'could' get worse.    L > Will these servers be available on low cost configurations stuitable for a > single user workstation ?      Ha! Ha!e    M > Consider EV7: it was designed such that it was, for all practical purposes,tP > unusable in a workstation due to minimum memory requirements. So the remainingK > DS line still has to run on older EV6x chips in order to make Alpha based  > boxes that are affordable.    M That's fine.  With some possible differences, it's reported the EV7 is a EV6 aL core with the goodies added.  Myself, I think the on-chip memory controller B would be good in all instances, not just enterprise class systems.    F >>All the VMS IA64 systems will support graphics when V8.2 ships.  Ok? >> > F > Yes, because all those boxes predate HP's decision to widthdraw fromL > workstation market. But as you said so often, what about all those servers > that are in the pipeline ? v > L > With competition at the load and now midrange server level from the 64 bitO > 8086, will HP continue to configure servers to compete at that range, or willrO > they, like they just did with the workstation, decide that they can't competeuB > and widthdraw IA64 to a smaller niche of high end systems only ?    I Time will tell.  It's not impossible.  But, reduce the number of itanics eM produced, and Intel will reach a point of not wanting to continue.  Oh, Gee, s- that's been the problem all along, hasn't it?h    P > Remember that just days ago, some VMS engineers were claiming that VMS on IA64O > will result in lower entry costs due to the cheaper entry level systems. Will>4 > that argument go away, just as it did with Alpha ?    = Remember when some were claiming that HAMMER wouldn't happen?u     Dave   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Roadp Vanderbilt, PA  15486e   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 23:03:26 GMTk6 From: Jeffrey Coffield <jeffrey@digitalsynergyinc.com> Subject: ssh vulnerabilities; Message-ID: <2Pm5d.2690$nj.1081@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>e  C When I upgraded to VMS 7.3-2 with TCPIP V5.4 I see that SSH is now sE available. It appears to work fine but I was wondering, what are the  ? risks of enabling SSH logins to a VMS system from the Internet?    TIA 
 Jeff Coffield    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 00:36:32 GMTh5 From: brad@rabbit.dnsalias.org (Bradford J. Hamilton)-  Subject: Re: ssh vulnerabilities/ Message-ID: <kao5d.157858$3l3.102874@attbi_s03>r  t In article <2Pm5d.2690$nj.1081@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, Jeffrey Coffield <jeffrey@digitalsynergyinc.com> writes:D !When I upgraded to VMS 7.3-2 with TCPIP V5.4 I see that SSH is now F !available. It appears to work fine but I was wondering, what are the @ !risks of enabling SSH logins to a VMS system from the Internet? !' !TIA !Jeff Coffield !p  = I haven't had any issues with my hobbyist Alpha in two years.o  L You might want to ask the folks at EISNER:: (nee DECUServe), or the Deathrow7 cluster (deathrow.vistech.net) about their experiences.e  J __________________________________________________________________________A Bradford J. Hamilton                    "All opinions are my own",K bMradAhamiPltSon-at-coMmcAast.nPeSt     "Lose the MAPS, and replace '-at-' H0                                          with @"   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:01:38 -0500d2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>) Subject: Re: TCP/IP cluster interconnect?0+ Message-ID: <4155DCB2.58A176BE@comcast.net>i   Alex Daniels wrote:f > A > "David J Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message ' > news:414F7DF7.C54A6E94@comcast.net...t > <SNIP>2 > > Being more "tightly-woven into the 'fabric' ofK > > OpenVMS", there is no SCSACP as there is NETACP (DECnet), LATACP (LAT),i > & > It is called SCACP, drop the last S. > < > > UCX$INETD (was early UCX, not sure what its called now),L > > MULTINET_SERVER, etc. You can't turn it on and off - only enable/disable+ > > it at boot time via a system parameter.e > <SNIP> > N > You can turn it on and off (and more), in the aforementioned SCACP, and also > with code in SYS$EXAMPLES.  G Would not "turning SCS off" result in an immediate CLUEXIT crash? ...ors worse?   D.J.D.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:26:42 +0100n< From: "Alex Daniels" <AlexNOSPAMTHANKSDaniels@themail.co.uk>) Subject: Re: TCP/IP cluster interconnect?p6 Message-ID: <4155e2ae$0$22763$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>  @ "David J Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message % news:4155DCB2.58A176BE@comcast.net...p > Alex Daniels wrote:  >>B >> "David J Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message( >> news:414F7DF7.C54A6E94@comcast.net...	 >> <SNIP>R3 >> > Being more "tightly-woven into the 'fabric' oftL >> > OpenVMS", there is no SCSACP as there is NETACP (DECnet), LATACP (LAT), >>' >> It is called SCACP, drop the last S.  >>= >> > UCX$INETD (was early UCX, not sure what its called now),t? >> > MULTINET_SERVER, etc. You can't turn it on and off - only t >> > enable/disable., >> > it at boot time via a system parameter.	 >> <SNIP>t >>K >> You can turn it on and off (and more), in the aforementioned SCACP, and n >> alsoi >> with code in SYS$EXAMPLES.d >dI > Would not "turning SCS off" result in an immediate CLUEXIT crash? ...or  > worse? >  > D.J.D.  E If you turn it off on all possible paths, then sure not a great idea.   F However if you had say multiple local CI paths as well as cross-site, L multiple FDDI paths, multiple Fast Ethernet paths and Multiple Gig Ethernet ! paths, then things are different.t  M One could for example stop SCS on the local CI paths and set priorities over rJ the other paths to balance traffic onto say the Gig Ethernet while having I lower priorities on the FDDI and Fast Ethernet, that configuration would s) give you both performance and redundancy.    Alex h   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:27:25 GMT>" From: Lee <lytmah@telusplanet.net>
 Subject: testf, Message-ID: <1pl5d.97909$KU5.78088@edtnps89>   test   ------------------------------  + Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:14:31 -0500 (CDT)r From: sms@antinode.orgC Subject: Re: ZIP "-V" v. UNIX, et al.: Problem, possible solutions.N) Message-ID: <04092517143187@antinode.org>t  - From: John Laird <nospam@laird-towers.org.uk>>! [Some of this may look familiar.]o   >   ItD > should be easy enough to grab a copy of a sample indexed file (sayM > SYSUAF.DAT) and use SET FILE/ATTR=(EBK:) to artificially truncate the file.m  H    Thanks for that valuable suggestion.  I used a plain sequential file,E 32/35 truncated to 1/35, and my revised Zip code appeared to give theaA desired result in at least this one test case.  (So what could gon wrong?)e  1    As always, I'm open to a nice counter-example.s  H > Zip and unzip it, then reset the end-of-file block on the copy and theL > unzipped version and use DUMP to make sure the blocks beyond the incorrect> > EOF have been saved in the zip file and restored with unzip.  H    DUMP /ALLOCATED allows one to look at the allocated-but-unused (or isC that "unused"?) blocks, so there's no need to diddle the attributese! again, just to do the comparison.   C    Interestingly, as I thought I had seen before, BACKUP appears tonB honor the EOF marker.  (This is on the UnZipped file, by the way.)  A ALP $ dump /alloc /block = (start = 2, end = 2) TEST_16K_TRUN.SLF   P Dump of file SYS$SYSDEVICE:[UTILITY.SOURCE.ZIP.ZIP-2_ on 25-SEP-2004 17:30:31.89%              3X.X]TEST_16K_TRUN.SLF;1d: File ID (148099,10,0)   End of file block 1 / Allocated 35  3 Virtual block number 2 (00000002), 512 (0200) bytest  <  31313131 31313131 31313131 31313131 1111111111111111 000000<  31313131 31313131 31313131 31313131 1111111111111111 000010<  31313131 31313131 31313131 31313131 1111111111111111 000020<  0A313131 31313131 31313131 31313131 111111111111111. 000030 [...]m  4 ALP $ backup TEST_16K_TRUN.SLF TEST_16K_TRUN.SLF_bac  E ALP $ dump /alloc /block = (start = 2, end = 2) TEST_16K_TRUN.SLF_bace  P Dump of file SYS$SYSDEVICE:[UTILITY.SOURCE.ZIP.ZIP-2_ on 25-SEP-2004 17:32:11.33)              3X.X]TEST_16K_TRUN.SLF_BAC;1 : File ID (138850,23,0)   End of file block 1 / Allocated 35  3 Virtual block number 2 (00000002), 512 (0200) bytesp  <  00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 ................ 000000<  00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 ................ 000010<  00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 ................ 000020<  00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 ................ 000030 [...]o  H ------------------------------------------------------------------------  4    Steven M. Schweda               (+1) 651-699-98183    382 South Warwick Street        sms@antinode-orgo    Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547o   ------------------------------  + Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 18:08:34 -0500 (CDT)n From: sms@antinode.orgC Subject: Re: ZIP "-V" v. UNIX, et al.: Problem, possible solutions.n) Message-ID: <04092518083446@antinode.org>a  6 From: "Craig A. Berry" <craigberry@mac.com.spamfooler>  J > >    By the way, I found a fix for yet another odd-ball Zip problem.  IfI > > you have SET PROC /PARSE = EXT engaged, and your default directory is J > > not all-upper-case, Zip can become confused when it tries to strip theB > > current directory off the in-archive file names.  For example:	 > > [...]T  D > It would be better to preserve case and make the comparisons case I > blind, as in the patch to the GNV version of ZIP to which I posted the hJ > URL earlier in this thread.  The basic procedure is to remove the calls I > to strlower() and strupper() and change all the strncmp() calls to use o > strncasecmp() instead.  F    Of course, strncasecmp() apparently needs "__CRTL_VER >= 70000000",0 so a substitute must be added for older systems.  E > You can find the GNV version by installing GNV and then looking in P > GNU:[SRC.GNV.ZIP.VMS].  3    I may be to lazy to go through all that for Zip.   2 >   You can find my change on the patches page of  > the GNV SourceForge project: sJ > <http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=2506&atid=302506>.  The patch F > also turns foo^.bar.baz into foo.bar.baz in the archive so that the E > caret escape doesn't show up when the archive is unpacked on other i > systems.    E    I was assuming that serious ODS5 support was unlikely in Zip 2.x. a, I'm not sure what's true in the future V3.x.  I > If you are in communication with the Info-Zip maintainers, it would be aJ > a great service to see the GNV changes reconciled and incorporated into  > the authoritative sources.  F    I'll pass it along.  Making that less enjoyable is the fact that in9 Netscape 3, "http://sourceforge.net/tracker/download.php?iH group_id=2506&atid=302506&file_id=80795&aid=920330" appears to be devoid of line breaks.t  H ------------------------------------------------------------------------  4    Steven M. Schweda               (+1) 651-699-98183    382 South Warwick Street        sms@antinode.orgH    Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547e   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:10:53 +0200 * From: Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net>E Subject: Re: [DCL REQUEST] New ignore keyword for DIFFERENCES commandv+ Message-ID: <2rlu61F1c0sgtU1@uni-berlin.de>    Charlie Hammond wrote:C >  Why would you NOT want to examine the differences in comments???t  F What immediately springs to mind here is when adding comments to some G poorly commented code, in order to catch typos in the executable lines.   G (Yes, you guessed correctly, at one time I worked over a terminal line l7 which would occasionally generate spurious characters.)U   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.534 ************************tiple values ?  M Lack of work in decwindows is also an indication that the VMS management does J not see much of a future for graphics on VMS and see it, like tandem, as a& headless transaction crunching system.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 01:14:25 +0200 0 From< PORT 83,31,156,101,140,1406 >>> 200 Port 140.140 at Host 83.31.156.101 accepted.
 <<< LIST >>> 150 List started.< >>> 226 Transfer completed.  <<< PORT 83,31,156,101,140,1426 >>> 200 Port 140.142 at Host 83.31.156.101 accepted. <<< RETR aaareadme.txte >>> 150 IMAGE retrieve of /disk$misc/decus/vax82b/westat/weslib/aaareadme.txt (1790 bytes) started.b: >>> 226 Transfer completed.  1245 (8) bytes transferred.  <<< PORT 83,31,156,101,140,1446 >>> 200 Port 140.144 at Host 83.31.156.101 accepted. <<< RETR alphabeti.plid >>> 150 IMAGE retrieve of /disk$misc/decus/vax82b/westat/weslib/alphabeti.pli (672 bytes) started.9 >>> 226 Transfer completed.  335 (8) bytes transferred.   <<< PORT 83,31,156,101,140,1456 >>> 200 Port 140.145 at Host 83.31.156.101 accepted. <<< RETR alphameri.plid >>> 150 IMAGE retrieve of /disk$misc/decus/vax82b/westat/weslib/alphameri.pli (662 bytes) started.9 >>> 226 Transfer completed.  345 (8) bytes transferred.0  <<< PORT 83,31,156,101,140,1476 >>> 200 Port 140.147 at Host 83.31.156.101 accepted. <<< RETR batch.plia >>> 150 IMAGE retrieve of /disk$misc/decus/vax82b/westat/weslib/batch.pli (1282 bytes) started.(9 >>> 226 Transfer completed.  730 (8) bytes transferred.  <<< PORT 83,31,156,101,140,1486 >>> 200 Port 140.148 at Host 83.31.156.101 accepted. <<< RETR center.pli$b >>> 150 IMAGE retrieve of /disk$misc/decus/vax82b/westat/weslib/center.pli (1442 bytes) started.9 >>> 226 Transfer completed.  575 (8) bytes transferred.7  <<< PORT 83,31,156,101,140,1496 >>> 200 Port 140.149 at Host 83.31.156.101 accepted. <<< RETR chain.plia >>> 150 IMAGE retrieve of /disk$misc/decus/vax82b/westat/weslib/chain.pli (1418 bytes) started.79 >>> 226 Transfer completed.  587 (8) bytes transferred.8  <<< PORT 83,31,156,101,140,1516 >>> 200 Port 140.151 at Host 83.31.156.101 accepted. <<< RETR charc.plia >>> 150 IMAGE retrieve of /disk$misc/decus/vax82b/westat/weslib/charc.pli (1450 bytes) started. 9 >>> 226 Transfer complet