1 INFO-VAX	Thu, 28 Apr 2005	Volume 2005 : Issue 235       Contents:= Re: 64 bit addressing in FORTRAN with (character) descriptors = Re: 64 bit addressing in FORTRAN with (character) descriptors  Appletalk on Alphas A Re: create new operator.log file from batch (I should know this.) 6 Re: How do I block an ip address in tcpip for OpenVMS?0 How to get queue name from inside it's symbiont?9 Re: HP Athlon 64 laptop for $1000 - oh if only it ran VMS 9 Re: HP Athlon 64 laptop for $1000 - oh if only it ran VMS 9 Re: HP Athlon 64 laptop for $1000 - oh if only it ran VMS  Re: Image Backup Question  Re: Image Backup Question & INSTALL utility callable from FORTRAN?* Re: INSTALL utility callable from FORTRAN?* Re: INSTALL utility callable from FORTRAN?" Re: IP Failover: strange behaviour( Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!( RE: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!( Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!( Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!( RE: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!( RE: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!( RE: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!( Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!( Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!( Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!( Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!( Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!( Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!( RE: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!( Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!( Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!- Re: Lexical function for getting display name - Re: Lexical function for getting display name - Re: Lexical function for getting display name - Re: Lexical function for getting display name - Re: Lexical function for getting display name  Re: Login mystery  Re: Login mystery 8 Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 RE: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 RE: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 RE: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 More ISE's OpenVMS/RTR cluster - talk about scalability!< Re: More ISE's OpenVMS/RTR cluster - talk about scalability!< Re: More ISE's OpenVMS/RTR cluster - talk about scalability!< Re: More ISE's OpenVMS/RTR cluster - talk about scalability!< Re: More ISE's OpenVMS/RTR cluster - talk about scalability!< Re: More ISE's OpenVMS/RTR cluster - talk about scalability! Re: Multia needs new OS 3 Re: mysql #1030 - Got error 127 from storage engine  OpenVMS and Novell Netware OpenVMS License plates Re: OpenVMS License plates Re: OpenVMS License plates Re: OpenVMS License plates& OpenVMS Pearl from today ComputerWorld* Re: OpenVMS Pearl from today ComputerWorld+ Re: OpenVMS Pearl from today from IT Weekly $ Re: Operating System Security Survey Re: Problem with file delete! Re: System disk migration problem  Re: TK50 Re: TK505 Re: VMS equivalent of % xset fp+ directory_with_fonts 5 Re: VMS equivalent of % xset fp+ directory_with_fonts 5 Re: VMS equivalent of % xset fp+ directory_with_fonts + Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? + Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? + RE: What is Different or Special About VMS? + Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? + RE: What is Different or Special About VMS? + Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? + Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? + RE: What is Different or Special About VMS? + Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? + Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? + Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? + Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? + Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? + Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? + Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? + Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? + Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? + Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? + Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? + RE: What is Different or Special About VMS? + Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? + Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? + Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? + Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:24:16 GMT & From: John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com>F Subject: Re: 64 bit addressing in FORTRAN with (character) descriptors2 Message-ID: <AFRbe.4614$Er1.1509@news.cpqcorp.net>   Albrecht Schlosser wrote:  > Hi, VMS gurus ;-)  > C > I'm looking for a way to have a FORTRAN subroutine use character  I > descriptors in the 64-bit format without touching the source code, but  / > there seems to be no such commandline switch:   I I'll check.  There was some recent work to add limited 64-bit descriptor  F support to GEM on behalf of Fortran.  I've forwarded your question to ) the right folks and will get back to you.    --   John Reagan / HP Pascal/{A|I}MACRO for OpenVMS Project Leader  Hewlett-Packard Company    ------------------------------  + Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:33:22 +0000 (UTC) P From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)F Subject: Re: 64 bit addressing in FORTRAN with (character) descriptors$ Message-ID: <d4p0f2$m6k$5@online.de>  ? In article <u0ao4d.1ek.ln@news.hus-soft.de>, Albrecht Schlosser  <ajs856@tiscali.de> writes:   3 > This is on an HP rx1620 ... running OpenVMS V8.2, " > with HP Fortran V8.0-48071-50EAE  B How much of Fortran 2003 does HP Fortran V8.0-48071-50EAE support?   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Apr 2005 14:39:46 -0700$ From: "Ed Wilts" <ewilts@ewilts.org> Subject: Appletalk on AlphasB Message-ID: <1114637986.111114.68190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>  D The DCPS 2.4 release notes state that Appletalk no longer works withC VMS V8.2.  There's nothing in the 8.2 release notes and I do recall B that in an earlier release of VMS, Engineering had discovered that: Appletalk was broken but managed to bring it back to life.  C Is there any hope that we'll get Appletalk working on 8.2?  If not, E we're stuck at 7.3 with over 300 Appletalk-only printers out there in E my user base...  If it's dead, it's dead - heck, it has been 6+ years A since Appletalk was sold, but I need the facts to do my planning.    Thanks, 	    .../Ed    ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 02:34:57 GMT 5 From: rdeininger@mindspringdot.com (Robert Deininger) J Subject: Re: create new operator.log file from batch (I should know this.)L Message-ID: <rdeininger-2704052234560001@user-105n8b8.dialup.mindspring.com>  
 In articleF <OF0F9D115F.D7B9F6BF-ON85256FEF.00713AFA-85256FEF.007142C4@metso.com>, norm.raphael@metso.com wrote:   A >How does one do this (create a new operator.log file) from batch  >where there is no terminal? >  >$ reply/enable  >$ reply/log >$ reply/disable  O The process's SYS$COMMAND has to be enabled as an operator terminal.  You don't F have to use OPA0:, and trying to use OPA0: can be troublesome if it is already in use.   F I create a LAT pseudo-terminal, which I know will not be in use by anyC other process, and enable it as an operator terminal. I use the DCL  snippet below.     -- Robert     G $! In order to start a new operator log file, the process's SYS$COMMAND G $! has to be enabled as an operator terminal.  We don't have a terminal C $! if we are running in a batch or detached process.  So we have to  $! appropriate one.  $ J $! The method used here is fairly hardware independent.  It depends on theJ $! LAT protocol being started, which in turn requires at least one network
 $! device. $ ? $! The REPLY command works with whatever device is SYS$COMMAND.  $ A $! Create a LAT port pseudo-terminal to use for REPLY operations.  $ latcp := $latcp > $ latcp create port/application/logical=(name=oplog_oper_port) $ $ $ define sys$command oplog_oper_port $ reply/enable $ reply/log  $ reply/disable  $ deassign sys$command $ # $ latcp delete port oplog_oper_port  $ deassign oplog_oper_port $    ------------------------------    Date: 27 Apr 2005 12:01:55 -0700% From: "jjinva" <jjinva@earthlink.net> ? Subject: Re: How do I block an ip address in tcpip for OpenVMS? C Message-ID: <1114627198.250925.275770@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>   F Within TCPIP for each Service, i.e Telnet, FTP etc you can issue a set> service/accept=nohost to block a particular node or with a set/ service/accept=nonetwork to block an IP scheme. F This is assuming you are using HP's version of TCPIP.   For example ifD you wanted to block IP Address 10.4.10.10 from accessing your system' via telnet you would issue the command: 3 TCPIP> set service/accept=nohost=10.4.10.10 Telnet.   C Take a look at the help within tcpip for set service to see if this  what you are looking for.    ------------------------------    Date: 27 Apr 2005 21:27:19 -0700) From: valent314@mail.ru (Valentin Likoum) 9 Subject: How to get queue name from inside it's symbiont? < Message-ID: <57c54cc6.0504272027.f787f57@posting.google.com>  
 Hello all,  E   I wrote small symbiont replacement routines and I need to pass some 8 parameters to them. Obvious way is through logicals likeB <fac>$<queue>_<param>, but then I need to know the queue name this) symbiont is running for. How can I do it?    --   Valentin Likoum )   valentin.likoum at ncc dot volga dot ru    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:20:06 +0200 3 From: "Dr. Dweeb" <NOSPAM_5msg0h202@sneakemail.com> B Subject: Re: HP Athlon 64 laptop for $1000 - oh if only it ran VMS= Message-ID: <42701014$0$78282$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk>   & <jordan@ccs4vms.com> wrote in message = news:1114443928.521093.220290@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...  > Alan Greig wrote: F >> Thanks to the Inquirer I've just noticed HP is selling the HP R4000D >> laptop with Athlon 64 3200+ for approx $1000. This should also be > ableF >> to handle the two core mobile Athlon 64 when launched with a simple >> BIOS upgrade. >>H >> Another HP offering that would make a damn fine VMS system if not for2 >> the slight inconvenience of the lack of a port. > I > Of course back when the Alpha was killed we were regaled with fantasies D > of inexpensive (because they were the "Industry Standard") itaniumD > systems that would finally push VMS into more affordable ranges onC > non-proprietary hardware. Even laptops were discussed as probable F > options down the road when they got the heat and power demands down. > E > No port would have been required because it would have already been  > done.  >   I Not wishing to rain on the parade, but is there someone who has actually  I gone through the exercise of comparing the current Itanium offerings and  K price points with the current Alph offerings and price points for machines  K of similar performance characteristics to determine whether the Itanium is  = currently a better price performance choice than the Alpha ??   J I do not think that this is likely true for 8-way or over systems, but it A may already be for smaller boxes - but I admit to having no clue.    Dr. Dweeb.     ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:12:44 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> B Subject: Re: HP Athlon 64 laptop for $1000 - oh if only it ran VMS0 Message-ID: <1170hknpec42o01@corp.supernews.com>   Dr. Dweeb wrote:( > <jordan@ccs4vms.com> wrote in message ? > news:1114443928.521093.220290@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...  >  >>Alan Greig wrote:  >>F >>>Thanks to the Inquirer I've just noticed HP is selling the HP R4000D >>>laptop with Athlon 64 3200+ for approx $1000. This should also be >> >>able >>F >>>to handle the two core mobile Athlon 64 when launched with a simple >>>BIOS upgrade. >>> H >>>Another HP offering that would make a damn fine VMS system if not for2 >>>the slight inconvenience of the lack of a port. >>I >>Of course back when the Alpha was killed we were regaled with fantasies D >>of inexpensive (because they were the "Industry Standard") itaniumD >>systems that would finally push VMS into more affordable ranges onC >>non-proprietary hardware. Even laptops were discussed as probable F >>options down the road when they got the heat and power demands down. >>E >>No port would have been required because it would have already been  >>done.  >> >  > K > Not wishing to rain on the parade, but is there someone who has actually  K > gone through the exercise of comparing the current Itanium offerings and  M > price points with the current Alph offerings and price points for machines  M > of similar performance characteristics to determine whether the Itanium is  ? > currently a better price performance choice than the Alpha ??  > L > I do not think that this is likely true for 8-way or over systems, but it C > may already be for smaller boxes - but I admit to having no clue.  > 
 > Dr. Dweeb.   >  >   F Just recently I read about some prices for itanics.  The figure $3900 I was used for one of the CPUs, not sure which one, possibly a future dual  B core model.  Then again, maybe that was a Xeon, since I think the & article was comparing Xeon and itanic.  E  From some years ago I think I read something about an Alpha costing  D $1000, or $1200, or in that range, and how it couldn't compete with  Pentiums on price.  G I think your idea of comparing OEM pricing on current Alpha and itanic  G CPUs might be interesting.  Don't know that you could get an OEM quote   on an Alpha.   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 Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:09:51 -0400 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> B Subject: Re: HP Athlon 64 laptop for $1000 - oh if only it ran VMS, Message-ID: <l6CdnfiOZZxt2O3fRVn-iQ@igs.net>   Dr. Dweeb wrote:' > <jordan@ccs4vms.com> wrote in message ? > news:1114443928.521093.220290@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...  >> Alan Greig wrote:G >>> Thanks to the Inquirer I've just noticed HP is selling the HP R4000 E >>> laptop with Athlon 64 3200+ for approx $1000. This should also be  >> able G >>> to handle the two core mobile Athlon 64 when launched with a simple  >>> BIOS upgrade.  >>> E >>> Another HP offering that would make a damn fine VMS system if not 7 >>> for the slight inconvenience of the lack of a port.  >>@ >> Of course back when the Alpha was killed we were regaled withG >> fantasies of inexpensive (because they were the "Industry Standard") C >> itanium systems that would finally push VMS into more affordable E >> ranges on non-proprietary hardware. Even laptops were discussed as B >> probable options down the road when they got the heat and power >> demands down. >>F >> No port would have been required because it would have already been >> done. >> > A > Not wishing to rain on the parade, but is there someone who has E > actually gone through the exercise of comparing the current Itanium F > offerings and price points with the current Alph offerings and price? > points for machines of similar performance characteristics to G > determine whether the Itanium is currently a better price performance  > choice than the Alpha ?? > D > I do not think that this is likely true for 8-way or over systems,D > but it may already be for smaller boxes - but I admit to having no > clue.     J I believe it's probably lower but that isn't due to high production rates.I It's due to the political decision to make pricing in the field match the H political rhetoric that has been espoused 'lo these many years about how> inexpensive it's going to be because it's "industry standard".  L Digital and Compaq and HP all could have accelerated Alpha adoption rates by following the same policy    ------------------------------    Date: 27 Apr 2005 12:03:35 -0700$ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>" Subject: Re: Image Backup QuestionC Message-ID: <1114628615.490263.172180@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>    Chuck Aaron wrote: > Hello, > E > I have two stand alone Alpha servers, a ds20e and alpha 800. On the ) > alpha 800 i have one disk that is 36gb. G > The alpha 800 has a tz885 tape loader is a 20gb. 77% of the 36gb disk  is# > being utilized. When I try to  do D > an image backup of the disk it is filling up one tape, assigning a new ' > volume, and wants to load the rest of G > the backup file onto a new tape. Is there any way I can get this onto   $ > one tape on this alpha 800? I haveF > tried to backup the file to disk onto another server that has a 36gb( > disk but am in danger of filing up theF > disk and stop the process before it finishes 95% of disk capacity on the # > other server (production system).  > 4 > I am using the following command on the alpha 800: >  > $ G backup/media=compaction/image/record/noalias/ignore=(interlock,label)/- E > block=32255/nocrc/group=0/list='listname' 'disk' tape$c:'file'/save  > % > Thank you for your help in advance,  >  > Chuck   D It depends on the mount. If you use a MOUNT command before this thatD includes /MEDIA=COMPACTION, you should be getting compaction. If youE don't use a MOUNT command before the BACKUP command, then you need to A ensure that the tape drive's compaction is enabled. Check this by @ running SH DEV/FULL <drive-name> while the job is running. If itF doesn't tell you there is another way and I think it's in the VMS FAQ.= The FAQ can be found in the VMS section of http://www.hp.com.   F BTW, I'd get rid of the /nocrc qualifier. Leaving CRC on gives anotherF check for data corruption and I think the increased processing time is likely to be negligible.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:05:15 -0400 $ From: "Chris" <an.other@not_here.ca>" Subject: Re: Image Backup Question9 Message-ID: <BnRbe.3991$gA5.509246@news20.bellglobal.com>   , This is a multi-part message in MIME format.  + ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C54B3A.84B3F620  Content-Type: text/plain;  	charset="iso-8859-1" + Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   I Make sure that you initialize the tape with /MEDIA=3DCOMPACT, and Mount = I it with that switch as well.  You might also want to "force" the format = 4 of the tape from the front panel of the tape loader.  8 (btw, you also want to use PLAIN TEXT when posting here)    <   "Chuck Aaron" <caaron@ceris.purdue.edu> wrote in message =/ news:d4ofgq$36n$1@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu...    Hello,  G   I have two stand alone Alpha servers, a ds20e and alpha 800. On the = ' alpha 800 i have one disk that is 36gb. I   The alpha 800 has a tz885 tape loader is a 20gb. 77% of the 36gb disk = $ is being utilized. When I try to  doJ   an image backup of the disk it is filling up one tape, assigning a new =% volume, and wants to load the rest of I   the backup file onto a new tape. Is there any way I can get this onto = " one tape on this alpha 800? I haveH   tried to backup the file to disk onto another server that has a 36gb =& disk but am in danger of filing up theH   disk and stop the process before it finishes 95% of disk capacity on =% the other server (production system).   4   I am using the following command on the alpha 800:     $  =J backup/media=3Dcompaction/image/record/noalias/ignore=3D(interlock,label)= /-:   block=3D32255/nocrc/group=3D0/list=3D'listname' 'disk' = tape$c:'file'/save  %   Thank you for your help in advance,      Chuck   + ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C54B3A.84B3F620  Content-Type: text/html; 	charset="iso-8859-1" + Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE> ! <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type = ) content=3Dtext/html;charset=3DISO-8859-1> 9 <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1498" name=3DGENERATOR>  <STYLE></STYLE>  </HEAD> ' <BODY text=3D#ffffff bgColor=3D#339999> F <DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Make sure = that you=20 J initialize the tape with /MEDIA=3DCOMPACT, and Mount it with that switch = as=20 H well.&nbsp; You might also want to "force" the format of the tape from = the front=20& panel of the tape loader.</FONT></DIV>3 <DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#000000 =  size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>F <DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#000000 size=3D2>(btw, you = also want to use=20 * PLAIN TEXT when posting here)</FONT></DIV>3 <DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#000000 =  size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>  <BLOCKQUOTE=20C style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = 3 BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">    <DIV>"Chuck Aaron" &lt;<A=20   = I href=3D"mailto:caaron@ceris.purdue.edu">caaron@ceris.purdue.edu</A>&gt; =  wrote in=20    message <A=20    = J href=3D"news:d4ofgq$36n$1@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu">news:d4ofgq$36n$1@m=8 ailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu</A>...</DIV>Hello,<BR><BR>I=20E   have two stand alone Alpha servers, a ds20e and alpha 800. On the =  alpha 800 i=20H   have one disk that is 36gb.<BR>The alpha 800 has a tz885 tape loader = is a=20 E   20gb. 77% of the 36gb disk is being utilized. When I try to&nbsp; =  do<BR>an=20 G   image backup of the disk it is filling up one tape, assigning a new = 
 volume,=20H   and wants to load the rest of<BR>the backup file onto a new tape. Is = there any=20J   way I can get this onto one tape on this alpha 800? I have<BR>tried to =	 backup=20 G   the file to disk onto another server that has a 36gb disk but am in =  danger of=20H   filing up the<BR>disk and stop the process before it finishes 95% of = disk=20 G   capacity on the other server (production system).<BR><BR>I am using =  the=207   following command on the alpha 800:<BR><BR>$&nbsp;=20    = J backup/media=3Dcompaction/image/record/noalias/ignore=3D(interlock,label)=8 /-<BR>block=3D32255/nocrc/group=3D0/list=3D'listname'=20@   'disk' tape$c:'file'/save<BR><BR>Thank you for your help in=206   advance,<BR><BR>Chuck<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>  - ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C54B3A.84B3F620--    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:52:06 -0500 ( From: brandon@dalsemi.com (John Brandon)/ Subject: INSTALL utility callable from FORTRAN? 1 Message-ID: <05042714520665@dscis6-0.dalsemi.com>   < Is there a way to call the DCL utility INSTALL from FORTRAN?         John "REBOOT" Brandon  VMS Systems Administrator * firstname.lastname.spam.me.not@dalsemi.com   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Apr 2005 16:59:19 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) 3 Subject: Re: INSTALL utility callable from FORTRAN? 3 Message-ID: <j78HCYMc$aJT@eisner.encompasserve.org>   \ In article <05042714520665@dscis6-0.dalsemi.com>, brandon@dalsemi.com (John Brandon) writes:> > Is there a way to call the DCL utility INSTALL from FORTRAN?  C You can check this out by doing an ANALYZE/IMAGE of INSTALL.EXE and D seeing that there is no shareable image specific to INSTALL.  So the% answer to your direct question is No.   H Presumably you do not like LIB$SPAWN or LIB$DO_COMMAND for your purpose.= It would be good for you to explain what is wrong with those.    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:21:32 -0500 ( From: brandon@dalsemi.com (John Brandon)3 Subject: Re: INSTALL utility callable from FORTRAN? 1 Message-ID: <05042717213282@dscis6-0.dalsemi.com>   M > In article <05042714520665@dscis6-0.dalsemi.com>, brandon@dalsemi.com (John  > Brandon) writes:@ > > Is there a way to call the DCL utility INSTALL from FORTRAN? > E > You can check this out by doing an ANALYZE/IMAGE of INSTALL.EXE and F > seeing that there is no shareable image specific to INSTALL.  So the' > answer to your direct question is No.  > J > Presumably you do not like LIB$SPAWN or LIB$DO_COMMAND for your purpose.? > It would be good for you to explain what is wrong with those.   N I was looking for a way to allow a non-privelged user (development) to install specific applications.    K I could create an application that makes use of $SNDJBC or create a captive / account that allows for intended installations.    Was just wondering.      John "REBOOT" Brandon  VMS Systems Administrator * firstname.lastname.spam.me.not@dalsemi.com   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:40:08 GMT 0 From: "Matt Muggeridge" <Matt.Muggeridge@hp.com>+ Subject: Re: IP Failover: strange behaviour = Message-ID: <cxUbe.31379$5F3.9566@news-server.bigpond.net.au>   I Your ifconfig output does not match your description, so I'll assume the  5 ifconfig output was what you were trying to describe.   L On machine 1, you don't want to monitor IE1, so modify TCPIP$FAILSAFE (it's 5 a logical) to have failSAFE only monitor IE0 and IE2.   C On machine 2, you don't want to monitor IE2, so once again, modify  + TCPIP$FAILSAFE to monitor IE0 and IE1 only.   M Keep in mind that if these machines share a common system disk you will need  F to modify the TCPIP$FAILSAFE logical to point to the machine specific  variants of the config file.   Have you seen my other reply?     B >1) intermittent loss of interface ip configuration on the devices) >which are participating in the failover.   & Take a look at OPCOM messages and the H SYS$SYSDEVICE:[TCPIP$FSAFE]*<scsnode>.log file.  If that doesn't reveal 3 anything helpful, then increase the log level with:   I     $ def/sys tcpip$failsafe_log_level 100  ! extreme.  Use 1-4 for less   extreme logging.  E >2) with a 2 alphaserver configuration, when shutting down 1 machine, C >the other alphaserver (connected to the same switch)  disables the   L See my earlier reply, and please take the time to review the whitepaper and  management docs.   Matt.   . "Manser" <nmanser@progis.de> wrote in message 6 news:2178d61f.0504270454.5bb8fe8@posting.google.com...3 > ksidibaba@gmail.com (ksidibaba) wrote in message  ; > news:<3dd11af5.0504252332.72d19069@posting.google.com>... 
 >> Hi all, >>H >> just trying to get to grisp with VMS, we are encountering quite a fewD >> unexpected problems, one of which being IP-Failover. We are usingF >> OpenVMS 7.3-2, with all recommended actual patches on 2 DS15, *not*B >> participating in an OpenVMS cluster, both connected to the sameG >> switch. On both machines, 2 NICs are configured to take part into IP E >> Failover. As long as both machines are up and running, IP failover G >> behaves the way one would expect it to work (i.e. pulling one of the E >> network cables from one active NIC results in the other one taking H >> over). But when one of the machine is powered down, the other machineE >> starts losing connectivity. It looks as if the system is trying to G >> reconfigure the IP address of the failover-enabled NICs. Is this the F >> expected behaviour? that would imply that if a machine breaks down,E >> the other one would lose connectivity (!). Any help on that matter " >> would be very much appreciated! >> Thanks in advance,  >> > 	 > Hi all,  > B > i am the colleage of karim, working on the openVMS side so i can? > provide more detailed infos about our problem with failsafeIP  > % > our configuration is the following:  > 3 > 2 alphaserver DS15 EV68 / 1000 Mhz CPU / 1 GB RAM > > with 3 NIC (2 onboard NIC and 1 in a combo card 3X-DEPVZ-AA) >  > Machine 1  > , > EIA0: (10.1.1.30 255.255.255.0 10.1.1.255)2 > EIA1: (172.16.38.30 255.255.255.0 172.16.38.255). > EIA2: (participating in a failover of IEA0:) >  > Machine 2  > , > EIA0: (10.1.1.30 255.255.255.0 10.1.1.255)2 > EIA2: (172.16.38.30 255.255.255.0 172.16.38.255). > EIA1: (participating in a failover of IEA0:) > C > 1) intermittent loss of interface ip configuration on the devices * > which are participating in the failover. >  > F > 2) with a 2 alphaserver configuration, when shutting down 1 machine,D > the other alphaserver (connected to the same switch)  disables the; > network interface, and enters the status described in 1). D > please provide us with the solution of this problem as we urgently< > require getting tcpip failover for our production systems. > . > here are the logfiles and the debugging info >  > machine1:  >  >  > IPPSA1> tcpip ifconfig -a 8 > IE0: flags=c43<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST,SIMPLEX>E >    *inet 10.1.1.30 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 10.1.1.255 ipmtu 1500  > 8 > IE1: flags=c43<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST,SIMPLEX>F >    *inet 172.16.38.30 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 172.16.38.255 ipmtu > 1500 > 0 > IE2: flags=c03<UP,BROADCAST,MULTICAST,SIMPLEX> >     failSAFE IP Addresses:A >        inet 10.1.1.30 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 10.1.1.255 (on 
 > IPPSA1 IE0)  > C > LO0: flags=100c89<UP,LOOPBACK,NOARP,MULTICAST,SIMPLEX,NOCHECKSUM> 0 >     inet 127.0.0.1 netmask ff000000 ipmtu 4096 >  > TN0: flags=80<NOARP> >  > TN1: flags=80<NOARP> >  > IPPSA1> tcpip show interf C >                                                           Packets ; > Interface   IP_Addr         Network mask          Receive  > Send     MTU > : > IE0        10.1.1.30       255.255.255.0          374000 > 335782    1500: > IE1        172.16.38.30    255.255.255.0            2037 > 40    1500: > IE2                                                14874 > 0    1500 : > LO0        127.0.0.1       255.0.0.0                 227
 > 227    4096 " > IPPSA1> tcpip show config interf >  > Interface: LO0@ >   IP_Addr: 127.0.0.1         NETWRK: 255.0.0.0         BRDCST: >  > Interface: IE0@ >   IP_Addr: 10.1.1.30         NETWRK: 255.255.255.0     BRDCST: > 10.1.1.255 >  > Interface: IE1@ >   IP_Addr: 172.16.38.30      NETWRK: 255.255.255.0     BRDCST: > 172.16.38.255  >  > Interface: IEC0 @ >   IP_Addr: 10.1.1.30         NETWRK: 255.255.255.0     BRDCST: > 10.1.1.255 >  >  > 6 > IE0,IE2 are participating in a failover on 10.1.1.30. > IE1 are not participating in tcpip failover. > ! > IPPSA1> show device eia0: /full  > D > Device EIA0:, device type i82559, is online, network device, error > logging is( >    enabled, device is a template only. > ! > IPPSA1> show device eib0: /full  > D > Device EIB0:, device type i82559, is online, network device, error > logging is( >    enabled, device is a template only. > ! > IPPSA1> show device eic0: /full  > D > Device EIC0:, device type i82559, is online, network device, error > logging is( >    enabled, device is a template only. > $ > IPPSA1> mc lancp show device /char >  > Device Characteristics EIA0:( >                  Value  Characteristic( >                  -----  --------------, >                   1500  Device buffer size) >                 Normal  Controller mode 0 >               External  Internal loopback mode. >      00-0F-20-D8-40-C5  Hardware LAN address0 >                         Multicast address list. >                CSMA/CD  Communication medium- >      FF-FF-FF-FF-FF-FF  Current LAN address 1 >                    128  Minimum receive buffers 1 >                    256  Maximum receive buffers , >                     No  Full duplex enable1 >                     No  Full duplex operational ) >            TwistedPair  Line media type + >                    100  Line speed (mbps) + >    Disabled/No Failset  Logical LAN state + >                      0  Failover priority  >  > Device Characteristics EIB0:( >                  Value  Characteristic( >                  -----  --------------, >                   1500  Device buffer size) >                 Normal  Controller mode 0 >               External  Internal loopback mode. >      00-0F-20-D8-40-C6  Hardware LAN address0 >                         Multicast address list. >                CSMA/CD  Communication medium- >      FF-FF-FF-FF-FF-FF  Current LAN address 1 >                    128  Minimum receive buffers 1 >                    256  Maximum receive buffers , >                     No  Full duplex enable1 >                     No  Full duplex operational ) >            TwistedPair  Line media type + >                    100  Line speed (mbps) + >    Disabled/No Failset  Logical LAN state + >                      0  Failover priority  >  > Device Characteristics EIC0:( >                  Value  Characteristic( >                  -----  --------------, >                   1500  Device buffer size) >                 Normal  Controller mode 0 >               External  Internal loopback mode. >      00-06-2B-03-3C-32  Hardware LAN address0 >                         Multicast address list. >                CSMA/CD  Communication medium- >      FF-FF-FF-FF-FF-FF  Current LAN addressi1 >                    128  Minimum receive buffersi1 >                    256  Maximum receive buffers , >                     No  Full duplex enable1 >                     No  Full duplex operational ) >            TwistedPair  Line media type + >                    100  Line speed (mbps) + >    Disabled/No Failset  Logical LAN state + >                      0  Failover priority  >v >O >V >f > Machine2 : >  > IPPSA2> tcpip ifconfig -a 8 > IE0: flags=c43<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST,SIMPLEX>E >    *inet 10.1.1.40 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 10.1.1.255 ipmtu 1500b >t8 > IE1: flags=c43<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST,SIMPLEX> >     failSAFE IP Addresses:A >        inet 10.1.1.40 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 10.1.1.255 (ont
 > IPPSA2 IE0)  > 8 > IE2: flags=c43<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST,SIMPLEX>F >    *inet 172.16.38.40 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 172.16.38.255 ipmtu > 1500 >VC > LO0: flags=100c89<UP,LOOPBACK,NOARP,MULTICAST,SIMPLEX,NOCHECKSUM>e0 >     inet 127.0.0.1 netmask ff000000 ipmtu 4096 >  > TN0: flags=80<NOARP> >y > TN1: flags=80<NOARP> >n > IPPSA2> tcpip show interfeC >                                                           Packetsr; > Interface   IP_Addr         Network mask          Receive  > Send     MTU >l: > IE0        10.1.1.40       255.255.255.0         9918544 > 6057029    1500w: > IE1                                               234211
 > 383    1500 : > IE2        172.16.38.40    255.255.255.0           32311 > 3299    1500: > LO0        127.0.0.1       255.0.0.0               40819 > 40819    4096r" > IPPSA2> tcpip show config interf >  > Interface: LO0@ >   IP_Addr: 127.0.0.1         NETWRK: 255.0.0.0         BRDCST: >e > Interface: IE0@ >   IP_Addr: 10.1.1.40         NETWRK: 255.255.255.0     BRDCST: > 10.1.1.255 >h > Interface: IE2@ >   IP_Addr: 172.16.38.40      NETWRK: 255.255.255.0     BRDCST: > 172.16.38.255e >u > Interface: IEB0u@ >   IP_Addr: 10.1.1.40         NETWRK: 255.255.255.0     BRDCST: > 10.1.1.255 >s; > IE0,IE1 are participating in the ipfailover  on 10.1.1.40l- > IE2 are not participating in a ip failover.b >P. > we have 2 networks, 10.1.1.x and 172.16.38.x >I >s$ > IPPSA2> mc lancp show device /char >l > Device Characteristics EIA0:( >                  Value  Characteristic( >                  -----  --------------, >                   1500  Device buffer size) >                 Normal  Controller modes0 >               External  Internal loopback mode. >      00-0F-20-2B-E1-57  Hardware LAN address0 >                         Multicast address list. >                CSMA/CD  Communication medium- >      FF-FF-FF-FF-FF-FF  Current LAN addresse1 >                    128  Minimum receive bufferss1 >                    256  Maximum receive buffersd, >                     No  Full duplex enable1 >                     No  Full duplex operationalT) >            TwistedPair  Line media typev+ >                    100  Line speed (mbps)d+ >    Disabled/No Failset  Logical LAN statee+ >                      0  Failover priority_ >t > Device Characteristics EIB0:( >                  Value  Characteristic( >                  -----  --------------, >                   1500  Device buffer size) >                 Normal  Controller mode 0 >               External  Internal loopback mode. >      00-0F-20-2B-E1-56  Hardware LAN address0 >                         Multicast address list. >                CSMA/CD  Communication medium- >      FF-FF-FF-FF-FF-FF  Current LAN address 1 >                    128  Minimum receive buffersr1 >                    256  Maximum receive buffersr, >                     No  Full duplex enable1 >                     No  Full duplex operationali) >            TwistedPair  Line media typee+ >                    100  Line speed (mbps)e+ >    Disabled/No Failset  Logical LAN statee+ >                      0  Failover prioritye >l > Device Characteristics EIC0:( >                  Value  Characteristic( >                  -----  --------------, >                   1500  Device buffer size) >                 Normal  Controller modet0 >               External  Internal loopback mode. >      00-06-2B-03-38-A7  Hardware LAN address0 >                         Multicast address list. >                CSMA/CD  Communication medium- >      FF-FF-FF-FF-FF-FF  Current LAN address-1 >                    128  Minimum receive buffers 1 >                    256  Maximum receive buffersi, >                     No  Full duplex enable1 >                     No  Full duplex operationalr) >            TwistedPair  Line media type + >                    100  Line speed (mbps)o+ >    Disabled/No Failset  Logical LAN state + >                      0  Failover priorityh >  >  >r >cD > here are an extract of the contents of the logfiles of the machine >k >TH > 21-Apr-2005 16:00:08  EVENT: IE2 - no route failover:default 10.1.1.408 > gateway:10.1.1.40 unreachable via available interfacesD > 21-Apr-2005 16:00:08  EVENT: IE2 - interface has become functional8 > 21-Apr-2005 16:00:13   INFO: IE2 - retry limit reached6 > 21-Apr-2005 16:00:13  EVENT: IE2 - ifconfig IE2 fail7 > 21-Apr-2005 16:00:43  EVENT: IE2 - ifconfig IE2 -failtA > 21-Apr-2005 16:00:43   INFO: IE2 - assuming -net (flags:US) foruG > route:default          10.1.1.40          US          0       63  IE0s >- > and in the operator.log> > : > %%%%%%%%%%%  OPCOM  21-APR-2005 17:00:08.00  %%%%%%%%%%%) > Message from user TCPIP$FSAFE on IPPSA2s, > TCPIP-I-FAILSAFE, IE2 - ifconfig IE2 -fail > : > %%%%%%%%%%%  OPCOM  21-APR-2005 17:00:08.04  %%%%%%%%%%%& > Message from user INTERnet on IPPSA2. > %TCPIP-I-FSINTAVAIL, IE2 interface available >r: > %%%%%%%%%%%  OPCOM  21-APR-2005 17:00:08.04  %%%%%%%%%%%& > Message from user INTERnet on IPPSA2? > %TCPIP-W-FSQEMPTY, IE2 172.16.38.40 no other failover targetsC > configured >t: > %%%%%%%%%%%  OPCOM  21-APR-2005 17:00:08.04  %%%%%%%%%%%& > Message from user INTERnet on IPPSA2F > %TCPIP-I-FSIPADDRUP, IE2 172.16.38.40 primary active on node IPPSA2, > interface IE2t > : > %%%%%%%%%%%  OPCOM  21-APR-2005 17:00:08.13  %%%%%%%%%%%) > Message from user TCPIP$FSAFE on IPPSA2o= > TCPIP-I-FAILSAFE, IE2 - no route failover:default 10.1.1.40l8 > gateway:10.1.1.40 unreachable via available interfaces > : > %%%%%%%%%%%  OPCOM  21-APR-2005 17:00:08.20  %%%%%%%%%%%) > Message from user TCPIP$FSAFE on IPPSA2 9 > TCPIP-I-FAILSAFE, IE2 - interface has become functional  >e: > %%%%%%%%%%%  OPCOM  21-APR-2005 17:00:13.09  %%%%%%%%%%%) > Message from user TCPIP$FSAFE on IPPSA2c+ > TCPIP-I-FAILSAFE, IE2 - ifconfig IE2 failu >k: > %%%%%%%%%%%  OPCOM  21-APR-2005 17:00:13.12  %%%%%%%%%%%& > Message from user INTERnet on IPPSA20 > %TCPIP-W-FSINTUNAVL, IE2 interface unavailable >.: > %%%%%%%%%%%  OPCOM  21-APR-2005 17:00:13.13  %%%%%%%%%%%& > Message from user INTERnet on IPPSA2? > %TCPIP-W-FSQEMPTY, IE2 172.16.38.40 no other failover targetsy > configured >y: > %%%%%%%%%%%  OPCOM  21-APR-2005 17:00:13.13  %%%%%%%%%%%& > Message from user INTERnet on IPPSA2B > %TCPIP-W-FSADDRUNAVAIL, IE2 172.16.38.40 Address unavailable, no > failover targets >u	 >> Nazim r   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:24:16 -0400r' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>n1 Subject: Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability! 0 Message-ID: <116vpmqt17f155d@corp.supernews.com>   Keith Parris wrote:N > John Smith wrote:l >  >> they are L >> running on Alpha and praying that Itanic isn't killed before they have to >> migrate from Alpha in 2011. >  > J > You're trying to put words into their mouths. They are running on Alpha E > today, but here's what they have to say about Itanium (in what the t > material Bob pointed us to): > D > [ISE's Senior Vice President for Technology and Chief Information K > Officer Danny] "Friel explains [ISE's application vendor] OM Technology =G > has made a commitment that OpenVMS will be their operating system of  D > choice for the foreseeable future. And HP backs its commitment to K > OpenVMS with a roadmap to the future. Were looking forward to moving to rB > the new HP Itanium-based Integrity server family and achieving F > unprecedented performance and flexibility. Were seeing nothing but H > positive indications that HP is the platform upon which we will build  > the ISEs future.  G You forgot to post everything.  One thing is missing.  Please post the e5 guarantees from Intel that itanics will be available./   -- 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 RoadP Vanderbilt, PA  15486m   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:02:38 -0400t' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> 1 Subject: RE: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!rR Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB5ECE09@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----3 > From: Dave Froble [mailto:davef@tsoft-inc.com]=20c > Sent: April 27, 2005 3:24 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com-3 > Subject: Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!  >=20 > Keith Parris wrote:l > > John Smith wrote:r > >=20
 > >> they area= > >> running on Alpha and praying that Itanic isn't killed=20i > before they have tom  > >> migrate from Alpha in 2011. > >=20 > >=20= > > You're trying to put words into their mouths. They are=20u > running on Alpha=20tI > > today, but here's what they have to say about Itanium (in what the=20p  > > material Bob pointed us to): > >=20H > > [ISE's Senior Vice President for Technology and Chief Information=20@ > > Officer Danny] "Friel explains [ISE's application vendor]=20 > "OM Technology=20.A > > has made a commitment that OpenVMS will be their operating=200 > system of=20H > > choice for the foreseeable future. And HP backs its commitment to=20B > > OpenVMS with a roadmap to the future. We're looking forward=20 > to moving to=20oH > > the new HP Itanium(r)-based Integrity server family and achieving=20J > > unprecedented performance and flexibility. We're seeing nothing but=20A > > positive indications that HP is the platform upon which we=20h > will build=20f > > the ISE's future." >=20B > You forgot to post everything.  One thing is missing.  Please=20
 > post the=20n7 > guarantees from Intel that itanics will be available.  >=20 > --=20w   Dave,l  C Perhaps you could post the public url of "guarantees" from IBM that 8 Powerx will be absolutely be available in the future?=20  ? Or the public url's of "guarantees" from Sun that SPARC hw willr& absolutely be available in the future?   Regardsr  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultanti HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax: 613-591-4477u kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  $ "OpenVMS has always had integrity .. Now, Integrity has OpenVMS .."   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:19:48 -0400t' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>r1 Subject: Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!p0 Message-ID: <11700ffkg7q3a29@corp.supernews.com>   Main, Kerry wrote: >>-----Original Message-----1 >>From: Dave Froble [mailto:davef@tsoft-inc.com]   >>Sent: April 27, 2005 3:24 PM >>To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com,3 >>Subject: Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!f >> >>Keith Parris wrote:R >> >>>John Smith wrote: >>>0 >>>  >>>>they are: >>>>running on Alpha and praying that Itanic isn't killed  >> >>before they have toc >> >>>>migrate from Alpha in 2011.1 >>>3 >>>2: >>>You're trying to put words into their mouths. They are  >> >>running on Alpha   >>F >>>today, but here's what they have to say about Itanium (in what the  >>>material Bob pointed us to):. >>> E >>>[ISE's Senior Vice President for Technology and Chief Information  = >>>Officer Danny] "Friel explains [ISE's application vendor] h >> >>"OM Technology l >>> >>>has made a commitment that OpenVMS will be their operating  >> >>system of  >>E >>>choice for the foreseeable future. And HP backs its commitment to  ? >>>OpenVMS with a roadmap to the future. We're looking forward n >> >>to moving to t >>E >>>the new HP Itanium(r)-based Integrity server family and achieving iG >>>unprecedented performance and flexibility. We're seeing nothing but t> >>>positive indications that HP is the platform upon which we  >>
 >>will build e >> >>>the ISE's future."  >>@ >>You forgot to post everything.  One thing is missing.  Please  >>post the i7 >>guarantees from Intel that itanics will be available.e >> >>-- m >  >  > Dave,t > E > Perhaps you could post the public url of "guarantees" from IBM thatd8 > Powerx will be absolutely be available in the future?   ) IBM can make such a guarantee, HP cannot. 3 IBM has a vested interest in seeing Power continue.h Power is rather successful.n8 Power is expanding it's targetted uses, not contracting.G And most important, Power isn't vital to VMS, which is my only concern.   A > Or the public url's of "guarantees" from Sun that SPARC hw will ( > absolutely be available in the future?  ) Sun can make such a guarantee, HP cannot.e3 Sun has a vested interest in seeing SPARC continue.m& SPARC has been exceedingly successful.  SPARC has a hugh installed base.G And most important, SPARC isn't vital to VMS, which is my only concern.s   Dave   -- o4 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 Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:50:53 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>,1 Subject: Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability! B Message-ID: <1114638674.2b7ec0bb6743f523606f470037b286a7@teranews>   "Main, Kerry" wrote:E > Perhaps you could post the public url of "guarantees" from IBM thatr7 > Powerx will be absolutely be available in the future?n  C There is a big difference here. Nobody is questioning the future of2H Power. People question the future of IA64 in the face of the 64 bit 8086H whose performance, at least from AMD, is impressive and whcih will forceE Intel to moe its 8086 to compete against AMD and thus compete againsts	 its IA64.e   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Apr 2005 16:52:54 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)o1 Subject: RE: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!>3 Message-ID: <x6II0$p7IzwJ@eisner.encompasserve.org>w  | In article <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB5ECE09@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>, "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> writes: >> -----Original Message-----a4 >> From: Dave Froble [mailto:davef@tsoft-inc.com]=20  C >> You forgot to post everything.  One thing is missing.  Please=20h >> post the=208 >> guarantees from Intel that itanics will be available. >>=20e >> --=20 >  > Dave,o > E > Perhaps you could post the public url of "guarantees" from IBM thatw: > Powerx will be absolutely be available in the future?=20 > A > Or the public url's of "guarantees" from Sun that SPARC hw willd( > absolutely be available in the future?  F Never mind that -- how about the same guarantees from Wang and Prime ?   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:13:45 -0400m' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com>s1 Subject: RE: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!tR Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB5ECE0F@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----3 > From: Dave Froble [mailto:davef@tsoft-inc.com]=20  > Sent: April 27, 2005 5:20 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Coms3 > Subject: Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!  >=20   [snip..]    I > >>>the new HP Itanium(r)-based Integrity server family and achieving=20t? > >>>unprecedented performance and flexibility. We're seeing=20e > nothing but=20B > >>>positive indications that HP is the platform upon which we=20 > >> > >>will build=20d > >> > >>>the ISE's future."w > >>D > >>You forgot to post everything.  One thing is missing.  Please=20 > >>post the=20r9 > >>guarantees from Intel that itanics will be available.u > >>	 > >>--=20g > >=20 > >=20	 > > Dave,2 > >=20G > > Perhaps you could post the public url of "guarantees" from IBM thatt< > > Powerx will be absolutely be available in the future?=20 >=20+ > IBM can make such a guarantee, HP cannot.l5 > IBM has a vested interest in seeing Power continue.6 > Power is rather successful. : > Power is expanding it's targetted uses, not contracting.> > And most important, Power isn't vital to VMS, which is my=20 > only concern.h >=20C > > Or the public url's of "guarantees" from Sun that SPARC hw willn* > > absolutely be available in the future? >=20+ > Sun can make such a guarantee, HP cannot.a5 > Sun has a vested interest in seeing SPARC continue.i( > SPARC has been exceedingly successful." > SPARC has a hugh installed base.> > And most important, SPARC isn't vital to VMS, which is my=20 > only concern.l >=20 > Dave >=20    G And while I obviously want to see the success of Itanium (and OpenVMS),lE my point is that neither IBM or Sun have made any public *guarantees* B about the future of their platforms, so you are asking Intel to do- something that their competitors will not do.t  E Course, if there is somewhere where IBM and Sun have posted in publicf@ these future platform "guarantees*, I am certainly willing to be
 corrected.   Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultanta HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax: 613-591-4477t kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  $ "OpenVMS has always had integrity .. Now, Integrity has OpenVMS .."   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:27:11 -0400i' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com>o1 Subject: RE: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!iR Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB5ECE11@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----9 > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com]=20u > Sent: April 27, 2005 5:51 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Comb3 > Subject: Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!a >=20 > "Main, Kerry" wrote:G > > Perhaps you could post the public url of "guarantees" from IBM that 9 > > Powerx will be absolutely be available in the future?h >=20E > There is a big difference here. Nobody is questioning the future ofsA > Power. People question the future of IA64 in the face of the=20e
 > 64 bit 8086fB > whose performance, at least from AMD, is impressive and whcih=20 > will forceG > Intel to moe its 8086 to compete against AMD and thus compete against= > its IA64.$ >=20  F Nice try, but if using the feedback from some folks here in the group,F if the new AMD x64 chips are so great that the whole world should moveG to these immediately, then do you not think the question might also gethD asked "why should we adopt Powerx, if we can use cheap AMD x64 chips that are "good enough"?n  : Lets not play favourites wrt anti-vendor rhetoric here.=20  E Why would Cust's who are questioning Itanium not also question Power5 * when presented with these AMD x64 numbers?  D In addition to pure performance numbers, do you not think IBM vs AMD@ vendor futures, market acceptance, application availability, RASE features, investment protection might also come in to the equation asr well?c     Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultantm HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660m Fax: 613-591-4477m kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  $ "OpenVMS has always had integrity .. Now, Integrity has OpenVMS .."   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:08:54 GMTt* From: "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com>1 Subject: Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!n2 Message-ID: <W3Ube.4630$8B1.2980@news.cpqcorp.net>  4 "Dave Froble" <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote in message* news:11700ffkg7q3a29@corp.supernews.com...  C > > Or the public url's of "guarantees" from Sun that SPARC hw will=* > > absolutely be available in the future? >S+ > Sun can make such a guarantee, HP cannot.f  D Got that in writing with specific penalty clauses?  Without it, whatC you have is a vendors current best thinking *or* the vendors publicD posture.  5 > Sun has a vested interest in seeing SPARC continue.i  A Not really.  Once Opteron systems have scaled sufficiently, SPARC 	 will die.e  ( > SPARC has been exceedingly successful.  0 You can only throw good money after bad so long.  " > SPARC has a hugh installed base.  I Solaris has the huge (sic) installed base, and it will be shifting off of  SPARC.   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Apr 2005 16:26:35 -0700 From: bob@instantwhip.comN1 Subject: Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability! C Message-ID: <1114644395.300674.240260@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>   D who cares weither they buy alphas or itaniums ... they are COMMITTEDD to OPENVMS!  You can have the fastest chip in the world (IBM or AMD)D but what good is that when the os's running it crash every other day andsF get hacked every other day and need patched every other day ... do you get the point?   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:54:07 -0400s- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 1 Subject: Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!tB Message-ID: <1114649661.3c8a77b26e6e0fe88108355568f48194@teranews>   "Main, Kerry" wrote:G > Why would Cust's who are questioning Itanium not also question Power5a, > when presented with these AMD x64 numbers?   Prioritties first.  H Intel is stuck with 2 competing architecture, one of which is low volumeC high cost, and the other is high volume industry standard. It is no H surprise that we would question the survivability of the low volume high	 cost one.   H IBM not only sells Power to others such as Apple, but it is also used asF a building block for its own servers, so IBM, like Digital, is able toF justify chip development costs with all the direct system and sofwtareE sales. Intel only sells chips and can't justify losing money on IA64.r  G Sparc future is also cloudy. However, as long as Sun can generate sparcdH system/software/support revenus, it can justified continued development.B But it one point, if/when 8086 becomes competitive in large systenH features. nobody will be surprised to see Sun move to 8086 fully. Sun is* also in a problem of Solaris versus Linux.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:58:51 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>m1 Subject: Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!LB Message-ID: <1114649931.3cf114e30b53e3707919828e8cb7e71e@teranews>   bob@instantwhip.com wrote: > F > who cares weither they buy alphas or itaniums ... they are COMMITTED > to OPENVMS!    Bob, on this, we agree.   H The problem happens when uit becomes harder to get new customers because$ VMS runs on a platform nobody wants.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:00:48 -0400a( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>1 Subject: Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!A= Message-ID: <b_idnWnSFu1P3u3fRVn-ow@metrocastcablevision.com>L   Main, Kerry wrote:   ...   H > if the new AMD x64 chips are so great that the whole world should moveI > to these immediately, then do you not think the question might also getrF > asked "why should we adopt Powerx, if we can use cheap AMD x64 chips > that are "good enough"?-  H Probably not:  POWER5 has a devastating lead in large-system commercial E performance over all comers, and maintains at least some superiority ND right down to the 4-core system size.  By contrast, Itanic averages H 3rd-4th place in commercial benchmark results, with an occasional 2nd - F noticeably behind AMD64 in their areas of overlap (which are about to  get a lot wider).a  E There's an excellent argument for POWER5 at the high end, especially tF given that it will take some time for x86 to overtake it there (if it H ever does).  And an excellent argument for x86 in the low end (and soon 4 mid-range), for both compatibility and cost reasons.  G What's the argument for Itanic?  The fact that Intel would desperately  I like to have a major monopoly product that might allow it to escape from nH the need to actually compete for its revenue, and that HP would find it H inconvenient to port all its major systems again (the ones it considers I worth porting, anyway) because its previous gamble in that area was such m an unmitigated disaster?   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:18:27 -0400r' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>.1 Subject: Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability! 0 Message-ID: <1170hvfkqsmn828@corp.supernews.com>   FredK wrote:6 > "Dave Froble" <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote in message, > news:11700ffkg7q3a29@corp.supernews.com... >  > B >>>Or the public url's of "guarantees" from Sun that SPARC hw will) >>>absolutely be available in the future?) >>+ >>Sun can make such a guarantee, HP cannot.n >  > F > Got that in writing with specific penalty clauses?  Without it, whatE > you have is a vendors current best thinking *or* the vendors public 
 > posture. >  > 5 >>Sun has a vested interest in seeing SPARC continue.g >  > C > Not really.  Once Opteron systems have scaled sufficiently, SPARCy > will die.h >  > ( >>SPARC has been exceedingly successful. >  > 2 > You can only throw good money after bad so long. >  > " >>SPARC has a hugh installed base. >  > K > Solaris has the huge (sic) installed base, and it will be shifting off ofa > SPARC. >  >  >   D What you write probably has a significant probability of happening. I Maybe yes, maybe no.  However, #1, you picked a few lines to respond to, a not all of them.  I Sadly, your last remark is the potential horror story.  It brings up the tH rather unsavory question of what VMS will be shifting to, should itanic 2 sink?  Which gets back to the topic of the thread.   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 Road0 Vanderbilt, PA  15486.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:57:30 -0400e' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> 1 Subject: RE: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!eR Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB5ECE29@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----4 > From: Bill Todd [mailto:billtodd@metrocast.net]=20 > Sent: April 27, 2005 10:01 PMI > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Como3 > Subject: Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!v >=20 > Main, Kerry wrote: >=20 > .... >=20A > > if the new AMD x64 chips are so great that the whole world=20t
 > should movek? > > to these immediately, then do you not think the question=20o > might also getH > > asked "why should we adopt Powerx, if we can use cheap AMD x64 chips > > that are "good enough"?e >=20A > Probably not:  POWER5 has a devastating lead in large-system=20m > commercial=20hI > performance over all comers, and maintains at least some superiority=20 H > right down to the 4-core system size.  By contrast, Itanic averages=20; > 3rd-4th place in commercial benchmark results, with an=20  > occasional 2nd -=20iJ > noticeably behind AMD64 in their areas of overlap (which are about to=20 > get a lot wider).s >=20I > There's an excellent argument for POWER5 at the high end, especially=20hJ > given that it will take some time for x86 to overtake it there (if it=20B > ever does).  And an excellent argument for x86 in the low end=20 > (and soon=206 > mid-range), for both compatibility and cost reasons. >=20? > What's the argument for Itanic?  The fact that Intel would=20. > desperately=20A > like to have a major monopoly product that might allow it to=20  > escape from=20> > the need to actually compete for its revenue, and that HP=20 > would find it=20B > inconvenient to port all its major systems again (the ones it=20 > considers=20? > worth porting, anyway) because its previous gamble in that=20d > area was such=20 > an unmitigated disaster? >=20 > - bill  F Well, lets see what the performance numbers are for Itanium later this year.r  E While I would love to see Itanium at the #1 position later this year, E even if it is not, I also recognize that performance is only one of ahF number of factors which will determine whether a chip is successful or not.  H As someone else reported in another thread, those that do not learn fromG the past are doomed to repeat it e.g. focus on Alpha from a performance,E perspective and just assuming that because it was much faster that it2& would automatically make it a success.  F Like all vendors moving from 32bit to 64bit, AMD has a ton of ISV workG to do to get their app's running and optimized for the 64bit components H of their chip. For many of the developers in the x86 Windows/Linux worldF optimizing features like 64bit tuning, threads and SMP is not going to happen overnight.s   The game has only just begun.h   :-)r   Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax: 613-591-4477w kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  $ "OpenVMS has always had integrity .. Now, Integrity has OpenVMS .."   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:34:29 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> 1 Subject: Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!10 Message-ID: <1170ithm0r38c91@corp.supernews.com>   Main, Kerry wrote: >>-----Original Message-----1 >>From: Dave Froble [mailto:davef@tsoft-inc.com] 5 >>Sent: April 27, 2005 5:20 PM >>To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com.3 >>Subject: Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!0 >> >  > 
 > [snip..] >  >  > G >>>>>the new HP Itanium(r)-based Integrity server family and achieving .= >>>>>unprecedented performance and flexibility. We're seeing T >> >>nothing but  >>@ >>>>>positive indications that HP is the platform upon which we  >>>> >>>>will build   >>>> >>>> >>>>>the ISE's future."f >>>>B >>>>You forgot to post everything.  One thing is missing.  Please 
 >>>>post the  9 >>>>guarantees from Intel that itanics will be available.d >>>> >>>>-- e >>>e >>>. >>>Dave, >>> F >>>Perhaps you could post the public url of "guarantees" from IBM that9 >>>Powerx will be absolutely be available in the future? i >>+ >>IBM can make such a guarantee, HP cannot. 5 >>IBM has a vested interest in seeing Power continue.s >>Power is rather successful. : >>Power is expanding it's targetted uses, not contracting.< >>And most important, Power isn't vital to VMS, which is my  >>only concern.  >> >>B >>>Or the public url's of "guarantees" from Sun that SPARC hw will) >>>absolutely be available in the future?i >>+ >>Sun can make such a guarantee, HP cannot. 5 >>Sun has a vested interest in seeing SPARC continue.0( >>SPARC has been exceedingly successful." >>SPARC has a hugh installed base.< >>And most important, SPARC isn't vital to VMS, which is my  >>only concern.F >> >>Dave >> >  >  > I > And while I obviously want to see the success of Itanium (and OpenVMS),6G > my point is that neither IBM or Sun have made any public *guarantees* D > about the future of their platforms, so you are asking Intel to do/ > something that their competitors will not do.0  I Let's say we're watching a horse race.  Several horses are competing for  ' the lead.  Other horses are far behind.   F It's reasonable for a watcher to feel that the horses in the lead are  competitive.  L It's reasonable to question the capabilities of the horses far off the lead.  + You've got two different perspectives here.   B Show me the people who doubt the capabilities of IBM's Power CPUs.  F Show me the people who deny the currently large installed base of Sun  systems.  F I won't exert the energy to list those who doubt the capabilities and I future of itanic.  It goes back to before Alpha was killed.  If you want  F the list, you can search the archives.  You won't be lacking for hits.  H There is a real concern in some people today over the future of itanic. E   It's there for anyone with an open mind to see.  Opteron is in the  C lead over IA-32, and if anything, it appears to be opening the gap.0  F True, Intel is still making lots of money, and from that perspective, ? could allow AMD to beat them at the top end.  From a marketing -F perspective, it's sure death for Intel to continue to allow AMD to be  perceived the leader.   C Whether IA-32, x86-64, or whatever you want to call it, is able to  H compete with AMD, Intel will put maximum effort into the attempt.  When H these efforts produce an Intel x86-64 product that out performs itanic, = what will be the incentive for Intel to continue with itanic?u  I Try to answer the above as an unbiased observer.  If you do so, then you  ) will see that itanic could be in trouble.   I Forget about your roadmaps, or lack of same, just look at the issue from  H the perspective of where AMD will push Intel.  Then remember one little G thing, HP doesn't own the itanic, has moved the rest of it's engineers  ) to Intel, and cannot proceed on it's own.f  G If you want another reason to respect Poewr and SPARC, it's that their *. owners control their own destiny.  HP doesn't.   Dave   -- 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 Roada Vanderbilt, PA  15486N   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:58:32 -04001- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>01 Subject: Re: ISE proves OpenVMS future viability!eB Message-ID: <1114660702.62048ea88b9647ada9b05391f06e3ca3@teranews>   "Main, Kerry" wrote:H > Like all vendors moving from 32bit to 64bit, AMD has a ton of ISV workI > to do to get their app's running and optimized for the 64bit components J > of their chip. For many of the developers in the x86 Windows/Linux worldH > optimizing features like 64bit tuning, threads and SMP is not going to > happen overnight.   H And this presents an opportunity for VMS. WIthin 2 years, it could be inF the 8086 market with full use of SMP and 64 bits, leaving windows wellI behind and could gain many customers because of its leadership position. f  B Imagine clusters of 96 8086 workstations and clusters. Imagine theG publicity about being able to use CPU cycles in worker's desktops whileNF they are out to lunch etc etc etc. This is all stuff that VMS has been@ capable of dor 2 decades and which Windows can only dream about.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:18:11 -0400R4 From: "Peter Weaver" <newsgroup@weaverconsulting.ca>6 Subject: Re: Lexical function for getting display name, Message-ID: <3da3b7F6smpehU1@individual.net>  / Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:x >...2 > Where would we be without undocumented features! >CF > After you've done SET DISPLAY, do SHOW DISPLAY/SYMBOL.  At first, itE > looks like SHOW DISPLAY.  However, do SHOW SYMBOL DECW$DISPLAY* ande > see what you get.   / No longer undocumented, it is in the V8.2 help;n   SHOW  	   DISPLAY        /SYMBOLS  #           /SYMBOLS (Alpha/I64 only)   ?        Defines one or more global DCL symbols for each propertyMD        displayed by the SHOW DISPLAY command. You can then use these2        property symbols in DCL command procedures.  0        Each global symbol name follows the form:          DECW$DISPLAY_name  ?        The following are the symbols for predefined properties:t             DECW$DISPLAY_NODEr            DECW$DISPLAY_TRANSPORT           DECW$DISPLAY_SCREEN            DECW$DISPLAY_SERVERa           DECW$DISPLAY_XAUTH  B        Note that symbols for user-defined properties have a doubleC        underscore in the name. For example, the user-defined symbol-C        for the value DISK$USER:[JONES] would be defined as follows:   "        $ SHOW SYMBOL DECW$DISPLAY*  .          DECW$DISPLAY_NODE == "101.124.99.119"#          DECW$DISPLAY_SCREEN == "0"s#          DECW$DISPLAY_SERVER == "0" *          DECW$DISPLAY_TRANSPORT == "TCPIP"D          DECW$DISPLAY_XAUTH == "DISK$USER:[SMITH]SERVER1.DECW$XAUTH"3          DECW$DISPLAY__JONES == "DISK$USER:[JONES]"   F        If a symbol name or value exceeds or violates any DCL limits orH        naming conventions, the symbol is not set and an error message is        displayed.r  =        If the display device uses a proxy server, the symbols C        DECW$DISPLAY_NODE, DECW$DISPLAY_TRANSPORT, and DECW$DISPLAY_0E        SERVER reflect values associated with the proxy server and not         the X display server.     --   Peter Weaver Weaver Consulting Services Inc.  Canadian VAR for CHARON-VAX  www.weaverconsulting.cao   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Apr 2005 21:38:23 +01006 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)6 Subject: Re: Lexical function for getting display name, Message-ID: <4270064f$1@news.langstoeger.at>  c In article <3da3b7F6smpehU1@individual.net>, "Peter Weaver" <newsgroup@weaverconsulting.ca> writes: 0 >Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:3 >> Where would we be without undocumented features!  >>G >> After you've done SET DISPLAY, do SHOW DISPLAY/SYMBOL.  At first, it F >> looks like SHOW DISPLAY.  However, do SHOW SYMBOL DECW$DISPLAY* and >> see what you get. > 0 >No longer undocumented, it is in the V8.2 help; >e >SHOW  >r
 >  DISPLAY >e
 >    /SYMBOLSi > $ >          /SYMBOLS (Alpha/I64 only)  ? Why this restriction ? My VAX still can do SHOW DISPLAY/SYMBOLSa= (ok, the DECW$DISPLAY_XAUTH is not there, but the command is)   - Somebody should tell them to fix the docs ;-)i   --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER:% Network and OpenVMS system specialist0 E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:59:19 -0400:- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 6 Subject: Re: Lexical function for getting display nameB Message-ID: <1114635556.bd746f8c8a7fc7876641a1397620b2b3@teranews>   Peter Weaver wrote:n > SHOW >  >   DISPLAYA >  >     /SYMBOLS > % >           /SYMBOLS (Alpha/I64 only)2    ? Funny, it works on VAX VMS 7.2, so I wonder why they would have G specified that it only works on Alpha/IA64, especially since 8.2 of VAX  hasn't been released yet.%   ------------------------------  + Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:30:20 +0000 (UTC).P From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)6 Subject: Re: Lexical function for getting display name$ Message-ID: <d4p09b$m6k$4@online.de>  E In article <1114635556.bd746f8c8a7fc7876641a1397620b2b3@teranews>, JF%- Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: %   > Peter Weaver wrote:e > > SHOW > > 
 > >   DISPLAYI > >  > >     /SYMBOLS > > ' > >           /SYMBOLS (Alpha/I64 only)1 >  > A > Funny, it works on VAX VMS 7.2, so I wonder why they would haveRI > specified that it only works on Alpha/IA64, especially since 8.2 of VAX  > hasn't been released yet.e  F Will it ever be released?  I know that is what the road map said, but F sometimes I have the feeling that they are written by the same people G who reported on WMD in Iraq.  :-(  Originally, 8.2 was to be the first 0I public release for all three platforms (and no, no-one EVER claimed that PG VAX would then have all the features of ALPHA).  I think this has been RD retracted, and I believe I read here that 7.3 will be supported for H clustering, not just for migration, with 8.2.  This sounds like 7.3 for   VAX will be the end of the line.   Sic transit gloria mundi.%   ------------------------------  + Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:27:51 +0000 (UTC).P From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)6 Subject: Re: Lexical function for getting display name$ Message-ID: <d4p04n$m6k$3@online.de>  H In article <4270064f$1@news.langstoeger.at>, peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER) writes: .  e > In article <3da3b7F6smpehU1@individual.net>, "Peter Weaver" <newsgroup@weaverconsulting.ca> writes:t2 > >Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:5 > >> Where would we be without undocumented features!r > >>I > >> After you've done SET DISPLAY, do SHOW DISPLAY/SYMBOL.  At first, itaH > >> looks like SHOW DISPLAY.  However, do SHOW SYMBOL DECW$DISPLAY* and > >> see what you get. > >e2 > >No longer undocumented, it is in the V8.2 help; > >] > >SHOWx > >s > >  DISPLAY > >  > >    /SYMBOLSo > >=& > >          /SYMBOLS (Alpha/I64 only) > A > Why this restriction ? My VAX still can do SHOW DISPLAY/SYMBOLS.? > (ok, the DECW$DISPLAY_XAUTH is not there, but the command is)  > / > Somebody should tell them to fix the docs ;-)e  I Maybe this is the unofficial way of saying that there will be no 8.2 for e VAX.   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 03:06:51 GMTa  From: John Santos <john@egh.com> Subject: Re: Login mystery) Message-ID: <frYbe.6432$Yc.4036@trnddc06>n   Bob Koehler wrote:\ > In article <d4bn42$i2o$1@news01.intel.com>, Ken Fairfield <my.full.name@intel.com> writes: >  >>Bob Koehler wrote: >  > ; >>>   You haven't yet realized MC is a unique abbreviation?  >>, >>     Where's the smiley, Bob?  Of course.  >  > 
 >       	 8-)l  D Unless someone has added a new verb "MC_bletch" to DCLTABLES...  :-<  ? (The underscore is important, when you forget that things otheri; then alphanumerics are valid in DCL verbs.  Argh!!!  Shouldr@ probably have tried the VERB utility, but this was on a customer@ system and they didn't like freeware/shareware to be installed.)     -- i John Santosf Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Apr 2005 22:49:03 -0500; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)r Subject: Re: Login mystery3 Message-ID: <NWLP0+TpN+xE@eisner.encompasserve.org>l  L In article <frYbe.6432$Yc.4036@trnddc06>, John Santos <john@egh.com> writes: > F > Unless someone has added a new verb "MC_bletch" to DCLTABLES...  :-<  @    Ever since the day I installed LOTUS/123 and broke "lo", I've@    been wary of this.  But of course, VMS Engineering fixed this$    little problem with the alias LO.  A    I'd say adding MC_bletch to DCL tables certainly would justify[C    adding an alias MC for MCR.  I'm still recovering from "rec" notm     being unique since years ago.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:58:19 GMTd& From: Rick Jones <foo@bar.baz.invalid>A Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....v2 Message-ID: <%oQbe.4604$Rm1.4208@news.cpqcorp.net>  ) Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote:dF > Could be.  Benchmarks like TPC-C don't allow release of results more> > than x months (3 or 6 in TPC-C's case, IIRC) prior to systemE > availability dates, so that could be the hold-up (I think Horus hadh% > early silicon available last fall).   D TPC-C allows 6 months until availablity of the entire solution, SPEC tends to allow 3.   
 rick jones -- o. a wide gulf separates "what if" from "if only"F these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)A feel free to post, OR email to raj in cup.hp.com  but NOT BOTH...b   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:29:41 -0400u' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>2A Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....'0 Message-ID: <116vq0v90q06j06@corp.supernews.com>   bob@instantwhip.com wrote:0 > as long as vms runs on it, it has a chance ... >   = No, it's more like as long as it's produced VMS has a chance.m   -- j4 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 Roadn Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------    Date: 27 Apr 2005 12:36:10 -0700* From: "Alan Greig" <greigaln@netscape.net>A Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business.... C Message-ID: <1114630570.412411.312020@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>o   Bill Todd wrote:  8 > While the slope beyond 16 sockets levels off some (theE > 16-socket-and-under systems are fully-connected at the board level, @ > while the larger systems are not), they seem to suggest that a 64-core F > Horus system will offer at least comparable TPC-C performance to theD > current top 64-processor Itanic submission which uses 1.5 GHz/6 MBG > Madisons, and might match a 64-processor 1.6 GHz/9 MB Madison system.d  E > We'll have to wait to see how well Montecito does in TPC-C plus how> wellB > Superdome can scale it up (though it's hard to imagine that they won'tVD > get *something* significant merely by the increase to a maximum of 128oE > cores - not that any noticeable percentage of systems need anythinge likeC > that kind of capability, which is why the 16-socket/32-core Horusb sweet> > spot should be plenty).H  B The AMD/HP press release to mark the launch of HP's 8 core Opteron? servers says that this is just the first of upcoming HP OpteronsC products which will scale all the way to the largest enterprise. SolG it's quite possible that HP already has a prototype large scale Opterono? SMP system running in its labs which is already way faster thaneF anything it can ship soon with Itanic. If this is the case (and thingsF seem to be pointing in that direction), if I were HP CEO, I would have@ taken the decision there and then to end Itanic. No ifs, no butsG (except for keeing it secret while regrouping). I would probably fire as= large number of people. Probably not as many as Intel though!m  F VMS needs an announcement of X86-64 port now. Not in two years time or@ never. If VMS engineering has had one eye on X64 portability allG through the Itanic fiasco maybe it could come quicker than we think. If D not WORRY NOW folks! Or at least raise this question with HP throughC formal contacts. Or else don't say say you weren't warned when that > brand new Itanium server you bought last week is end-of-lined.D Microsoft may not play the pretend game of talking of Itanic futures8 much longer even if Intel try to stagger on for a while.  ? >   Also I think the projected figures are slighly conservative5= > > in light of actual dual-core figures announced last week.c >RB > On the other hand, they may be projecting based on significantly higherB > clock rates than dual-core Opterons currently offer (some of the earlylD > projections assumed 2.8 GHz, whereas they currently top out at 2.2 GHz -t1 > though 2.4 GHz is reportedly coming very soon).d  G If they projected scalability for 2.8Ghz chips wouldn't the scalabilityn1 for 2.2Ghz likely be slightly better if anything?    -- e
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:20:13 +0200 3 From: "Dr. Dweeb" <NOSPAM_5msg0h202@sneakemail.com> A Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....:= Message-ID: <426ff3fd$0$78284$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk>c  / "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in message g& news:E-ydnUtUa-Cc__PfRVn-oQ@igs.net... > Alan Greig wrote:< >> John Smith wrote:B >>> ....and just sell operating systems. If HP can't/won't build aB >>> workstation for VMS at a competitive price-point, please don't@ >>> hobble us with the inability to run VMS on hardware that areC >>> price/performance leaders (please don't bring up the $2000 DSPPa" >>> 'deal' as a counter argument). >>>v> >>> The rationalization of going Itanic in the first place wasC >>> 'commoditization', but at this juncture Opteron is arguably theeA >>> commodity processor of choice for most OEM's, and it will get'0 >>> cheaper and faster more quickly than Itanic. >>D >> Seems that AMD have managed to make a very scalable system - muchD >> better than the 64 bit Xeon. Intel can't allow AMD to get too farB >> ahead so there's every reason to expect future Intel X86-64 bitA >> processors that scale well and outperform Itanium in large SMPy >> configurations. >>I >> The release of the HP benchmarks makes sense of something I read in aniF >> HP employee blog which seemed to hint at such an astonishingly wellG >> performing SMP Opteron system. Makes me wonder when/if we see X86-64: >> variants of Integrity.u >v >i > <cynical> J > With zero advertising for VMS, only slightly more for NSK and HP-UX, HP  > doesL > not seem to be concerned with growing the market for Itanic-based systems.7 > Pretty soon there'll be no need for Integrity at all.a >r > </cynical> >0   Good point !   Dweeb. >  > --H > OpenVMS - The never advertised operating system with the dwindling ISV > base.i >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:46:24 -0400a( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>A Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business...."= Message-ID: <wtWdndogN72_Z_LfRVn-1w@metrocastcablevision.com>a   Alan Greig wrote:=   ...0  D > The AMD/HP press release to mark the launch of HP's 8 core OpteronA > servers says that this is just the first of upcoming HP OpteronoB > products which will scale all the way to the largest enterprise.  G Wow!  I hadn't seen *that*.  But my guess is that HP will be reselling  G Horus rather than offering anything designed in-house (they would have  D had to have started developing any in-house architecture at least a B couple of years ago to have anything useful to offer before 2007).   ...i  ? >>  Also I think the projected figures are slighly conservativea >>< >>>in light of actual dual-core figures announced last week. >>B >>On the other hand, they may be projecting based on significantly >  > higher > B >>clock rates than dual-core Opterons currently offer (some of the >  > early  > D >>projections assumed 2.8 GHz, whereas they currently top out at 2.2 >  > GHz -t > 1 >>though 2.4 GHz is reportedly coming very soon).  >  > I > If they projected scalability for 2.8Ghz chips wouldn't the scalabilitye3 > for 2.2Ghz likely be slightly better if anything?   ? It might be, but it sounded above as if you were talking about eA achievable absolute performance rather than relative scalability.p  H For that matter, the current dual-core figures don't say anything about F Horus scalability at all:  they merely indicate that (at least at the G 2.2 GHz level) going to dual cores allows a single quad-socket Opteron cB system to get close to twice the TPC-C performance of its 2.2 GHz E single-core quad sibling (i.e., that the HT and memory interconnects >H seem to be sufficiently over-designed for single-core use to allow both G cores to contribute pretty much full performance - at least at the 2.2 i GHz level in TPC-C).   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:56:03 -0400 ' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> A Subject: RE: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....uR Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB5ECE07@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----4 > From: Alan Greig [mailto:greigaln@netscape.net]=20 > Sent: April 27, 2005 3:36 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.ComiC > Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....d >=20 >=20 > Bill Todd wrote: >=20: > > While the slope beyond 16 sockets levels off some (theG > > 16-socket-and-under systems are fully-connected at the board level,wB > > while the larger systems are not), they seem to suggest that a	 > 64-coretH > > Horus system will offer at least comparable TPC-C performance to theF > > current top 64-processor Itanic submission which uses 1.5 GHz/6 MB< > > Madisons, and might match a 64-processor 1.6 GHz/9 MB=20 > Madison system.u >=20G > > We'll have to wait to see how well Montecito does in TPC-C plus howr > wellD > > Superdome can scale it up (though it's hard to imagine that they > won'taF > > get *something* significant merely by the increase to a maximum of > 128nG > > cores - not that any noticeable percentage of systems need anythingn > likeE > > that kind of capability, which is why the 16-socket/32-core HorusT > sweet  > > spot should be plenty).  >=20D > The AMD/HP press release to mark the launch of HP's 8 core OpteronA > servers says that this is just the first of upcoming HP OpterontE > products which will scale all the way to the largest enterprise. Sop> > it's quite possible that HP already has a prototype large=20 > scale OpteronDA > SMP system running in its labs which is already way faster thanqH > anything it can ship soon with Itanic. If this is the case (and thingsH > seem to be pointing in that direction), if I were HP CEO, I would haveB > taken the decision there and then to end Itanic. No ifs, no buts< > (except for keeing it secret while regrouping). I would=20 > probably fire ae? > large number of people. Probably not as many as Intel though!t >=20H > VMS needs an announcement of X86-64 port now. Not in two years time orB > never. If VMS engineering has had one eye on X64 portability allB > through the Itanic fiasco maybe it could come quicker than we=20 > think. IfaF > not WORRY NOW folks! Or at least raise this question with HP throughE > formal contacts. Or else don't say say you weren't warned when that-@ > brand new Itanium server you bought last week is end-of-lined.F > Microsoft may not play the pretend game of talking of Itanic futures: > much longer even if Intel try to stagger on for a while. >=20A > >   Also I think the projected figures are slighly conservative ? > > > in light of actual dual-core figures announced last week.t > > D > > On the other hand, they may be projecting based on significantly > higherD > > clock rates than dual-core Opterons currently offer (some of the > early-F > > projections assumed 2.8 GHz, whereas they currently top out at 2.2 > GHz -<3 > > though 2.4 GHz is reportedly coming very soon).e >=20@ > If they projected scalability for 2.8Ghz chips wouldn't the=20
 > scalabilityt3 > for 2.2Ghz likely be slightly better if anything?w >=20 > --=20i > Alan Greig     Alan,i  C I know the AMD benchmark numbers right now are very good. That is a 7 tribute to the folks at AMD and their Eng expertise.=20n  E However, as we know from the Alpha experience, great performance doesyH not guarrantee success. You need industry acceptance (yes, marketing to)D and applications that can take advantage of not only the 64bits, butA also dual core which by its very nature implies an application/OSnC developer understanding threads and SMP optimization techniques.=20c  4 That part is almost totally out of the hands of AMD.  G And from an overall Windows perspective, something else to keep in mindeH - almost every med to large Customer these days wants to consolidate bigE time their Windows environment. Why? Well, partly because each of thee< servers they have is typically 15-20% busy at peak times.=20  A What is interesting about this, is that each one of these Windows D servers was purchased at the time because of not only cost, but alsoF "latest and greatest" performance numbers. So, x years later and these? "great performance" servers are only 15-20% busy at peak times.v  A Now, as part of consolidation, you could argue that you need hight@ performance servers as the load will be higher and that is true.C However, you are typically then into greater than 4 way servers.=20o  D If Andrew was still in the conference, to "spark" things up a bit, IE would add a note that reminded all just how successful Sun used to be-. even though it only had SPARC hw to run on.=20  D Anyway, it will be interesting to see how all of this shapes up, butH just keep in mind that performance is only one of many factors that will4 determine which chip is successful in the future.=20   :-)    Regardse  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultanth HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660e Fax: 613-591-4477d kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  $ "OpenVMS has always had integrity .. Now, Integrity has OpenVMS .."   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:55:12 -0400-- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>,A Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....eB Message-ID: <1114635312.b54d039feba270dbdd9721bae6be75c8@teranews>   Bill Gunshannon wrote:C > As usual, you have it backwards.  It is Itanium that is currentlyv2 > keeping VMS alive and not the other way around.   G I would have said that Alpha is still keeping VMS alive. At least until $ HP prematurely stops sales of Alpha.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:50:05 -0400i- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>cA Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....TB Message-ID: <1114635021.b19cecc2d5ab6f0e922509f6abefaf8f@teranews>   Bill Todd wrote:8 > While the slope beyond 16 sockets levels off some (theE > 16-socket-and-under systems are fully-connected at the board level,s    E In the case of Wildwire/Galaxy class machines, doesn't that allow thee@ scaling beyond the maximum combination of CPUs on one "system" ?  E I.E.,  could they, today, build an opteron based Galaxy class machine5E with similar interconnects between  4 cpu units, allowing much bigger: machines to be built ?    If now, what does Opteron lack ?   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:21:19 -0400i# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>0A Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business.... , Message-ID: <s7WdnQmyZJHSn-3fRVn-vQ@igs.net>   Main, Kerry wrote: >> -----Original Message----- 2 >> From: Alan Greig [mailto:greigaln@netscape.net] >> Sent: April 27, 2005 3:36 PMt >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.ComD >> Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business.... >> >> >> Bill Todd wrote:a >>: >>> While the slope beyond 16 sockets levels off some (theG >>> 16-socket-and-under systems are fully-connected at the board level,hB >>> while the larger systems are not), they seem to suggest that a= >>> 64-core Horus system will offer at least comparable TPC-C G >>> performance to the current top 64-processor Itanic submission whichsB >>> uses 1.5 GHz/6 MB Madisons, and might match a 64-processor 1.6 >>> GHz/9 MB >> Madison system. >>G >>> We'll have to wait to see how well Montecito does in TPC-C plus howeD >>> well Superdome can scale it up (though it's hard to imagine thatF >>> they won't get *something* significant merely by the increase to a@ >>> maximum of 128 cores - not that any noticeable percentage ofD >>> systems need anything like that kind of capability, which is why= >>> the 16-socket/32-core Horus sweet spot should be plenty)., >>E >> The AMD/HP press release to mark the launch of HP's 8 core OpteronvB >> servers says that this is just the first of upcoming HP OpteronF >> products which will scale all the way to the largest enterprise. So< >> it's quite possible that HP already has a prototype large >> scale OpteronB >> SMP system running in its labs which is already way faster thanB >> anything it can ship soon with Itanic. If this is the case (andE >> things seem to be pointing in that direction), if I were HP CEO, I:F >> would have taken the decision there and then to end Itanic. No ifs,B >> no buts (except for keeing it secret while regrouping). I would >> probably fire a@ >> large number of people. Probably not as many as Intel though! >>F >> VMS needs an announcement of X86-64 port now. Not in two years timeF >> or never. If VMS engineering has had one eye on X64 portability all@ >> through the Itanic fiasco maybe it could come quicker than we >> think. IfG >> not WORRY NOW folks! Or at least raise this question with HP throughcF >> formal contacts. Or else don't say say you weren't warned when thatA >> brand new Itanium server you bought last week is end-of-lined.cG >> Microsoft may not play the pretend game of talking of Itanic futures ; >> much longer even if Intel try to stagger on for a while.a >>A >>>   Also I think the projected figures are slighly conservative > >>>> in light of actual dual-core figures announced last week. >>> D >>> On the other hand, they may be projecting based on significantlyG >>> higher clock rates than dual-core Opterons currently offer (some ofgE >>> the early projections assumed 2.8 GHz, whereas they currently topnD >>> out at 2.2 GHz - though 2.4 GHz is reportedly coming very soon). >>> >> If they projected scalability for 2.8Ghz chips wouldn't the >> scalability4 >> for 2.2Ghz likely be slightly better if anything? >> >> --l
 >> Alan Greig  >o >n > Alan,o >aE > I know the AMD benchmark numbers right now are very good. That is at6 > tribute to the folks at AMD and their Eng expertise. >aG > However, as we know from the Alpha experience, great performance doeseF > not guarrantee success. You need industry acceptance (yes, marketingF > to) and applications that can take advantage of not only the 64bits,G > but also dual core which by its very nature implies an application/OSrB > developer understanding threads and SMP optimization techniques. > 6 > That part is almost totally out of the hands of AMD. > D > And from an overall Windows perspective, something else to keep in? > mind - almost every med to large Customer these days wants to C > consolidate big time their Windows environment. Why? Well, partlyiC > because each of the servers they have is typically 15-20% busy at 
 > peak times.e >aC > What is interesting about this, is that each one of these WindowsFF > servers was purchased at the time because of not only cost, but alsoH > "latest and greatest" performance numbers. So, x years later and theseA > "great performance" servers are only 15-20% busy at peak times.a > C > Now, as part of consolidation, you could argue that you need high3B > performance servers as the load will be higher and that is true.B > However, you are typically then into greater than 4 way servers. > F > If Andrew was still in the conference, to "spark" things up a bit, IG > would add a note that reminded all just how successful Sun used to beM- > even though it only had SPARC hw to run on.c >cF > Anyway, it will be interesting to see how all of this shapes up, butE > just keep in mind that performance is only one of many factors that08 > will determine which chip is successful in the future.    E Well then Mr. Main, if I were Mr. Hurd, I'd take note of HP's vaunted>F systems engineering expertise and also the bundle of cash that's beingJ repatriated on a tax favorable basis back into HP's corporate headquartersL courtesy of the one-time tax holiday (more or less) on overseas profits, andI use that cash and more to do a takeover of AMD and get back into the chip J business and then sell nothing but in-house chips in all products HP sellsL in addition to selling the same chip line to any and all willing purchasers.  H Each Opteron is more than a little bit Alpha-Inside. Heck, the 4-way and$ above Opterons could be renamed EV8.     --F OpenVMS - The never advertised operating system with the dwindling ISV base.n   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Apr 2005 14:48:39 -0700* From: "Alan Greig" <greigaln@netscape.net>A Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business.... C Message-ID: <1114638519.388767.115580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    Bill Todd wrote: > Alan Greig wrote:t >A > ...i > F > > The AMD/HP press release to mark the launch of HP's 8 core OpteronC > > servers says that this is just the first of upcoming HP OpterontD > > products which will scale all the way to the largest enterprise. >a> > Wow!  I hadn't seen *that*.  But my guess is that HP will be	 reselling>C > Horus rather than offering anything designed in-house (they woulda haveE > had to have started developing any in-house architecture at least aID > couple of years ago to have anything useful to offer before 2007).  / http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050421/206151.html?.v=1e. "Press Release	Source: Hewlett-Packard Company ..  F "In the same way that AMD and HP collaborated to make pervasive 64-bitE computing a reality, today's announcements signify the beginning of aoB new era in enterprise computing," said Marty Seyer, corporate vice< president and general manager, Microprocessor Business Unit,C Computation Products Group, AMD. "AMD64 technology enables the mostpE upgradeable platforms in the industry -- to faster single cores, fromeD 32- to 64-bit, and now from single core to dual core. With our close? and expanding relationship producing a multitude of upcoming HP F platforms powered by Dual-Core AMD Opteron processors, enterprise dataG centers and compute-intensive environments will soon be able to benefittB from pervasive multi-core processing that can deliver double-digitC performance increases with little or no rise in power consumption."n     > >e? > > If they projected scalability for 2.8Ghz chips wouldn't thee scalabilitye5 > > for 2.2Ghz likely be slightly better if anything?r >c@ > It might be, but it sounded above as if you were talking aboutC > achievable absolute performance rather than relative scalability.M  B I was trying to justify the x5 factor I guessed at for the 64 coreD Horus chipset versus the 8 core glueless Sun (2.2Hhz) benchmark. TheE figures you pointed me at on the Microsoft web site suggest somewherexD over 4 at 2.8Ghz but these seem to have been revised down a bit fromD earlier figures. Maybe it is about 5 at 2.2Ghz. We just have to wait@ and see. Either way X64 is catapulted into the super SMP league.  C > For that matter, the current dual-core figures don't say anythings aboutaG > Horus scalability at all:  they merely indicate that (at least at thee  @ > 2.2 GHz level) going to dual cores allows a single quad-socket OpterontC > system to get close to twice the TPC-C performance of its 2.2 GHzwF > single-core quad sibling (i.e., that the HT and memory interconnectsD > seem to be sufficiently over-designed for single-core use to allow bothD > cores to contribute pretty much full performance - at least at the 2.2  > GHz level in TPC-C).  8 All true of course until we can see some actual figures. -- n
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:05:57 -04000' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com>eA Subject: RE: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....aR Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB5ECE0E@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message------ > From: John Smith [mailto:a@nonymous.com]=20o > Sent: April 27, 2005 5:21 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.ComfC > Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....  >=20  	 [snip ..]L     > >dH > > If Andrew was still in the conference, to "spark" things up a bit, IA > > would add a note that reminded all just how successful Sun=20  > used to be/ > > even though it only had SPARC hw to run on.f > >aH > > Anyway, it will be interesting to see how all of this shapes up, butG > > just keep in mind that performance is only one of many factors thatt: > > will determine which chip is successful in the future. >=20 >=20G > Well then Mr. Main, if I were Mr. Hurd, I'd take note of HP's vaunted H > systems engineering expertise and also the bundle of cash that's beingB > repatriated on a tax favorable basis back into HP's corporate=20 > headquarters; > courtesy of the one-time tax holiday (more or less) on=20i > overseas profits, andc@ > use that cash and more to do a takeover of AMD and get back=20 > into the chip = > business and then sell nothing but in-house chips in all=20r > products HP sells = > in addition to selling the same chip line to any and all=20  > willing purchasers.t    A Actually Mr. Smith, I would prefer to see some of that cash go toS employees ..=20    :-) :-)t  D And of course, using your scenario, the NSK folks would love to hearD they need to focus on moving to another chip (MIPS-Alpha-Itanium-new chip?)   Regardse  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultante HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660Y Fax: 613-591-4477h kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  $ "OpenVMS has always had integrity .. Now, Integrity has OpenVMS .."   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:16:31 +0200r3 From: "Dr. Dweeb" <NOSPAM_5msg0h202@sneakemail.com> A Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....E= Message-ID: <42700f3d$0$78284$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk>   	 clip ....f  A What is interesting about this, is that each one of these WindowsmD servers was purchased at the time because of not only cost, but alsoF "latest and greatest" performance numbers. So, x years later and these? "great performance" servers are only 15-20% busy at peak times.     J I think the reason they all have so many servers is that each server only K runs ONE service.  IIRC this was the MS recommended deployment strategy, I IM guess to cover up the obvious problems the OS had dealing with more than one  J task simultaneously, and one service crashing whole machines and thus all  other services.i  K  It may be that Win2003/EE SP1 (my current OS version btw) is sufficiently  K stable and adept that it is now a feasible exercise to consolidate windows _ servers.  + I am not an expert on these matters though.S  	 Dr. Dweeb    clip ..c   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:27:19 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> A Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....-B Message-ID: <1114648066.ce06d22fe97446079033191c341ed8a0@teranews>   "Main, Kerry" wrote:F > And of course, using your scenario, the NSK folks would love to hearF > they need to focus on moving to another chip (MIPS-Alpha-Itanium-new > chip?)  H The NSK people have been tossed around even more than VMS. (From IA64 to Alpha to IA64)  G They deserve to be targeted on a sustainable platform once and for all.  And that rules out IA64.  : Heck, these people may get tired and just stick with MIPS.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:34:32 -0400>- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>,A Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....BB Message-ID: <1114648494.60f2e4a8ab8afa493fc96eb01fa00e82@teranews>   "Dr. Dweeb" wrote:K > I think the reason they all have so many servers is that each server onlyoL > runs ONE service.  IIRC this was the MS recommended deployment strategy, IN > guess to cover up the obvious problems the OS had dealing with more than one > task simultaneously,    C With Wintel manufacturers measured in units shipped, it is to their-E advantage to have one machine per process, and with Microsoft forcingzB manufacturers to include one Windows license per machine, it is toE Microsoft's advantage to have customers buy as many machines as there9 will be processes/tasks.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:06:47 -0400 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>uA Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....c, Message-ID: <l6CdnfmOZZxy2O3fRVn-iQ@igs.net>   Main, Kerry wrote: >> -----Original Message----- + >> From: John Smith [mailto:a@nonymous.com]2 >> Sent: April 27, 2005 5:21 PM  >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.ComD >> Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business.... >> >t > [snip ..]n >i >a >>>eH >>> If Andrew was still in the conference, to "spark" things up a bit, I> >>> would add a note that reminded all just how successful Sun
 >> used to bei/ >>> even though it only had SPARC hw to run on.  >>> H >>> Anyway, it will be interesting to see how all of this shapes up, butG >>> just keep in mind that performance is only one of many factors thatu: >>> will determine which chip is successful in the future. >> >>H >> Well then Mr. Main, if I were Mr. Hurd, I'd take note of HP's vauntedC >> systems engineering expertise and also the bundle of cash that'sfF >> being repatriated on a tax favorable basis back into HP's corporate >> headquartersi9 >> courtesy of the one-time tax holiday (more or less) onr >> overseas profits, and> >> use that cash and more to do a takeover of AMD and get back >> into the chip; >> business and then sell nothing but in-house chips in all  >> products HP sells; >> in addition to selling the same chip line to any and alll >> willing purchasers. >h >nC > Actually Mr. Smith, I would prefer to see some of that cash go to- > employees .. >e	 > :-) :-)0 >2F > And of course, using your scenario, the NSK folks would love to hearF > they need to focus on moving to another chip (MIPS-Alpha-Itanium-new > chip?)    I Not my fault ChumHPaq tripped the claymore and blew its lower extremitiestJ away. Nor is it my fault that the prosthesis it chose to limp around on isF an albatross on a plywood platform with some broken down shopping cart wheels..  K A mask shrink on Alpha EV7z would carry VMS until an Opteron port was done.e   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:57:30 -0400e' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> A Subject: RE: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....DR Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB5ECE28@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----9 > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com]=20  > Sent: April 27, 2005 8:35 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com C > Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....  >=20 > "Dr. Dweeb" wrote:? > > I think the reason they all have so many servers is that=20a > each server only: > > runs ONE service.  IIRC this was the MS recommended=20 > deployment strategy, I@ > > guess to cover up the obvious problems the OS had dealing=20 > with more than one > > task simultaneously, >=20 >=20E > With Wintel manufacturers measured in units shipped, it is to theiriG > advantage to have one machine per process, and with Microsoft forcing D > manufacturers to include one Windows license per machine, it is toG > Microsoft's advantage to have customers buy as many machines as there  > will be processes/tasks. >=20  E The one app, one server model worked ok in the distributed times whenrD network costs were high and unreliable and CPU / memory capabilitiesE were limited .. Remember the 200-400Mhz "servers"? Remember the "move B servers closer to the end user" models that everyone was preaching about?  ? Now add in the exponentially higher than anticipated mgmt costsiE associated with the distributed model, add in the BU requirements for-C increased levels of service and you end up with a very expensive ITo infrastructure.b  C However, fast forward to today with multiple Ghz cpus, many GB's ofrB memory, 10GB WAN's, high speed SAN's, very cheap and very reliableG networks and all of a sudden, you begin to realize why Customers are sor hot to centralize.=20L  C The bottom line is that the IT models need to adapt to the changing", technologies in order to reduce their costs.  G Its no wonder why technologies like VMware are high on the list of manysF Windows Customers looking at IT Consolidation strategies. While VMware= does not typically reduce OS instances, it does reduce the HWiE requirements. Many Customers are looking to run anywhere from 5-20 VMe7 sessions on these "small" dual/quad 3Ghz blade servers.a   Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultanto HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660- Fax: 613-591-4477. kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  $ "OpenVMS has always had integrity .. Now, Integrity has OpenVMS .."   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Apr 2005 11:22:45 -0700 From: bob@instantwhip.comtA Subject: More ISE's OpenVMS/RTR cluster - talk about scalability!oC Message-ID: <1114626165.419965.205140@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>f  ; talk about scalability ... ISE's OpenVMS solution is a true- display of the power of vms ...f  \ http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/downloads/4AA0-0148ENW_ISE%20White%20Paper%20050317.pdf   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:04:05 -0400-# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>pE Subject: Re: More ISE's OpenVMS/RTR cluster - talk about scalability!c, Message-ID: <PaednegySpZYYvLfRVn-og@igs.net>   bob@instantwhip.com wrote:= > talk about scalability ... ISE's OpenVMS solution is a true:! > display of the power of vms ...a >  >nL http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/downloads/4AA0-0148ENW_ISE%20White%20Pa per%20050317.pdf      J a) With 1 million quotes per second capability on Alpha, I don't think the; ISE is going to be looking to move to Itanic any time soon.v  K b) Bob, whatever HP is paying you to do their 'marketing' for them is waaay-	 too much.-   --F OpenVMS - The never advertised operating system with the dwindling ISV base.u   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:02:46 GMT-* From: "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com>E Subject: Re: More ISE's OpenVMS/RTR cluster - talk about scalability!k1 Message-ID: <a_Tbe.4628$EA1.114@news.cpqcorp.net>t  . "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in message& news:PaednegySpZYYvLfRVn-og@igs.net... > bob@instantwhip.com wrote: >  >uL > a) With 1 million quotes per second capability on Alpha, I don't think the= > ISE is going to be looking to move to Itanic any time soon.i >s  A 1 million quotes/sec may be good for their volume today, but wheneC they need to grow beyond that, HP Itanium Integrity Servers will beeB there with the capacity they need.  Alpha is good today, Integrity? for the systems we ship on today are roughly at parity with thet: equivalent sized Alpha systems - depending on the specific9 workload (sometimes faster, sometimes slower, sometimes ab@ wash).  As we bring the larger cellular systems online, I expect* that this will probably hold true as well.  B Plus Itanium will continue to grow in performance - both on the HWE level and on the SW level as compliers and OS software is refined and  tuned for the new architecture..  B You may now return to your normally scheduled "Itanic Deathwatch".   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:44:33 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> E Subject: Re: More ISE's OpenVMS/RTR cluster - talk about scalability!f0 Message-ID: <1170jgjai81m660@corp.supernews.com>   FredK wrote:  D > You may now return to your normally scheduled "Itanic Deathwatch".  A Isn't the fact that there is such a monster a reason for concern?a  I Keep in mind that overall, these aren't people saying "Oh Boy, itanic is  I gonna die!"  These are (the majority) people saying "Oh Shit, where will a we be if itanic dies?"   -- f4 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 Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486v   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 03:13:33 GMTe* From: "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com>E Subject: Re: More ISE's OpenVMS/RTR cluster - talk about scalability!t2 Message-ID: <xxYbe.4637$qH1.1624@news.cpqcorp.net>  4 "Dave Froble" <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote in message* news:1170jgjai81m660@corp.supernews.com... > FredK wrote: >gF > > You may now return to your normally scheduled "Itanic Deathwatch". >sC > Isn't the fact that there is such a monster a reason for concern?n > J > Keep in mind that overall, these aren't people saying "Oh Boy, itanic isJ > gonna die!"  These are (the majority) people saying "Oh Shit, where will > we be if itanic dies?"  D Frankly Dave, you'd be suprised just how little the subject actually/ comes up, and how quickly the issue is settled.   > Now, of course - *this* is the Internet, where anybody with an> opinion can repeat it over and over and over and over until it seems like the truth.5  A The "Itanic Deathwatch" has an easily countable number of people, D and no matter what forum you go to - odds are it will contain mostly the same people.  A Keep in mind, that overall these people have been predicting bothbC the demise of VMS *and* the demise of Itanium for years.  They alsodD tend to be the same people who continue to flog the Alpha-EV8-would-? have-solved-world-hunger and Curly and Carly are Evil ratholes.D@ These people seem to have lost any touch with reality, and won'tG even consider for an instant that Itanium isn't anything but a steaminga= pile of crap...  because geeze, Alpha could have been better.o   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:53:28 -0400u- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>mE Subject: Re: More ISE's OpenVMS/RTR cluster - talk about scalability! B Message-ID: <1114660395.6702ca07cc6ba028f74662330123a0bd@teranews>   Dave Froble wrote:J > Keep in mind that overall, these aren't people saying "Oh Boy, itanic isJ > gonna die!"  These are (the majority) people saying "Oh Shit, where will > we be if itanic dies?"    G At this point in time, there is no point worrying about VMS' future. HP F will either port VMS to the 8086 or it won't. The decision is probablyH already made. I suspect that some VMS engineering resources have alreadyF been tasked to look into it, and maybe that is why we don't have a VAX( version of 8.2 (re-allocated resources).  G The problem we face is that to HP, having a face saving way out of IA64rF is more important than having a quick resolution of the uncertainty of VMS. M  C Where customers might start to make a difference is if they clearlyeB state to HP that the end of IA64 is so obvious that it is actuallyG hurting HP to keep on denying it and putting on a happy face about IA64:6 and that HP should annoucned ports to 8086 right away.  F They could put that $3 billion they have to donate to Intel for IA64'sG life support and put it to much better and more productive use.  PaRisc'E still has one more iteration coming, so all that is needed is anothergC speed bump on Alpha (the promised EV79 without any artificial speede barriers) to bridge the bag.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:37:38 -0700 " From: Crabs <spamsucks@nospam.com>  Subject: Re: Multia needs new OS/ Message-ID: <kpSdna-ekYM2--3fRVn-tg@sunset.net>s   Christopher Smith wrote:0> Hasn't everyone? :)  Actually, I think my membership may not be in such good standing at the moment, since they haven't heard from me in a while.  I'm more than willing to go and get another one, though; worst case, they count me twice and HP thinks there's one more VMS user than there actually is. ;) >  > Chrisr >  > -----Original Message-----$ > From: Crabs <spamsucks@NOSPAM.COM> > A > Have you joined the Hobbyist program to get your free licenses?4 >  >  Chris:  D Drop me a an Email off the NG, tccrab@*I_really_hate_spam*sunset.net Remove obvious munge.c I may be of some assistance.F Providing of course, that you reside in roughly the same geographical 
 continuum.   TomC   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:13:53 +0200y1 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Pi=E9ronne?=s< Subject: Re: mysql #1030 - Got error 127 from storage engine6 Message-ID: <426ff288$0$3139$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>   Hi,u  6 > Alpha VMS 7.3-1, Apache 2.0, php 4.3.2, mysql 4.1.9, > php_msql client 3.23.49C > K > Using the issue tracker 4.0.4 package, it broke with no error indication.oF > Using phpmyadmin indicates #1030 - Got error 127 from storage engine > on the issues table. >   # Which storage engine have you used?n  @ Only Innodb work correctly, MyISAM is know to have some problem.I Anyway ony Innodb support transaction, so I strongly suggest to only use MD this storage engine, this is the default on OpenVMS and probably in  future MySQL version.s  ' > I'm guessing it's a mysql corruption.E > Can anyone confirm ? > How can I fix it ?1 > Is there any known issue which could cause it ?g >  > Cross-posted to VAMP > 	 > Thanks,  > Chris  >   
 Jean-Franoisn   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Apr 2005 16:29:13 -0700 From: tomarsin2015@comcast.net# Subject: OpenVMS and Novell Netware C Message-ID: <1114644553.631588.251350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>n   HellomF Does anybody still use Netware and VMS??? Looking thru my old paks,  IG came across a Netware for Pathworks and a OS/2 pak also. I am wondering A what made DEC/HP drop support for Novell with a Pathworks system.  phillips   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Apr 2005 17:49:47 -0700! From: susan_skonetski@hotmail.com0 Subject: OpenVMS License plateseC Message-ID: <1114649387.641371.224700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    Dear Folks,d  D One thing is for sure the VMS folks are truly a creative bunch, fromC the hundreds of suggestions I have managed to narrow it down to the G ones that I could possibly do without offending trademarks, cultures oryF people and other companies (not mentioning names but blue screens wereD mentioned a lot) which eliminated a huge percentage of them.  What IG would like to do is get the following list down to about 5 then put thea> 5 on www.openvms.org and have folks vote.  If you see anythingD seriously wrong with any of the suggestions below please let me knowF and I will eliminate the choice.  Please send your feedback by Friday.  G How to get them once we decide - Boot Camp (of course)  and I will makenB sure that they are in New Orleans as well as any OpenVMS Technical9 Update Day and then we will see what else comes along ;')O   Warm Regards as always,  Suei    ' Always had integrity - Now on Integrityu  & Serious Computing for Serious Business  ( When you are done playing with computers   Safe and Securee  ' The Gold Standard in Cluster Technologyt  # Reliability, Security, AvailabilityX   When downtime is not an option  # My only Operating System Is OpenVMS    I'd rather be running OpenVMSl   Run OpenVMS Ask me how   Hack free and cool  2 OpenVMS - Reliability measured in years, not tears  & OpenVMS - When security REALLY matters  ! OpenVMS -Now with added Integritye   Solid, Secure, Savvy    Facing the future with Integrity   Your Money Rides on Us  " OpenVMS - The Bet Your Business OS   Integrity Matterse  ! OpenVMS - 100% uptime is possible    OpenVMS - Drive Safe!e   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:34:46 -0400g- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>o# Subject: Re: OpenVMS License plateslB Message-ID: <1114652090.ddb1ee0c374663d80754e2e58e372d50@teranews>  " susan_skonetski@hotmail.com wrote:) > Always had integrity - Now on Integrityf" > Facing the future with Integrity# > OpenVMS -Now with added Integrity   E The second one is a no no. It makes it look like VMS didn't have datan integrity before.0  D Also, you are marketing VMS, not some hardware. Since "integrity" isM also a trademark of HP that refres to hardware, i would not want this at all.i   Now, what I'd love to see:  $ 			 Coming soon to an 8086 near you:  
 						VMS   A But I realise you're not allowed to pre-announce stuff like that.2    ( > Serious Computing for Serious Business   A definite candidate.d  ) > The Gold Standard in Cluster Technologyr   Gold Standard in Clustering.   Or:p  . Its clustering leaves the others in the dust.     
 How about:  0 "Made by serious engineers, not teenage hackers"  $ > OpenVMS - The Bet Your Business OS   Or:n  4 Don't bet your business on a toy (or game), get VMS.    * If this is meant as a front licence plate:   VMS will kick ass !e  6 (thinking about front bumper hitting back of a car :-)   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:50:16 -0400e# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> # Subject: Re: OpenVMS License platesp, Message-ID: <TLqdnbiwEKVM3-3fRVn-jQ@igs.net>  " susan_skonetski@hotmail.com wrote:
 > Dear Folks,i >wF > One thing is for sure the VMS folks are truly a creative bunch, fromE > the hundreds of suggestions I have managed to narrow it down to theeF > ones that I could possibly do without offending trademarks, culturesF > or people and other companies (not mentioning names but blue screensC > were mentioned a lot) which eliminated a huge percentage of them.yC > What I would like to do is get the following list down to about 5eD > then put the 5 on www.openvms.org and have folks vote.  If you seeG > anything seriously wrong with any of the suggestions below please letgE > me know and I will eliminate the choice.  Please send your feedbackt > by Friday.      I Nothing with Integrity on it. Hurd could decide tomorrow that he's buyingcJ AMD and you'll be porting to Opteron. Or Intel could throw in the towel on Itanic.d   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:09:29 -04006' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>O# Subject: Re: OpenVMS License plates 0 Message-ID: <1170kv43cjtu78d@corp.supernews.com>  " susan_skonetski@hotmail.com wrote:
 > Dear Folks,  > F > One thing is for sure the VMS folks are truly a creative bunch, fromE > the hundreds of suggestions I have managed to narrow it down to thenI > ones that I could possibly do without offending trademarks, cultures or>H > people and other companies (not mentioning names but blue screens wereF > mentioned a lot) which eliminated a huge percentage of them.  What II > would like to do is get the following list down to about 5 then put thei@ > 5 on www.openvms.org and have folks vote.  If you see anythingF > seriously wrong with any of the suggestions below please let me knowH > and I will eliminate the choice.  Please send your feedback by Friday. > I > How to get them once we decide - Boot Camp (of course)  and I will maketD > sure that they are in New Orleans as well as any OpenVMS Technical; > Update Day and then we will see what else comes along ;')n >  > Warm Regards as always,  > Suec >   @ I know you're looking to shorten the list, not lengthen it, but:  ( > OpenVMS - When security REALLY matters    OpenVMS - When IT really matters   -- u4 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 Road- Vanderbilt, PA  15486e   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Apr 2005 17:48:12 -0700! From: susan_skonetski@hotmail.comt/ Subject: OpenVMS Pearl from today ComputerWorldsC Message-ID: <1114649292.694529.219000@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>l   -----Original Message----- From: Skonetski, Susan' Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 1:51 PM6 To: Skonetski, SusanB Subject: Excellent HP Pearl - Disaster Recovery: Are you ready forF trouble? Article in ComputerWorld, quotes from the Deutsche Borse - OK for external distributions     Dear Distribution Lists,  F This is a good story with quotes from the Deutsche Borse on page 3 andD the Deutsche Borse has also provided a DR tip in the side bar on the right.  D Article Title: Disaster Recovery: Are you ready for trouble? ArticleG Sub title: Faced with potential catastrophe caused by anything from thei@ weather to a malicious attack, companies need to make sure theirF disaster recovery plans match best practices Article Author: Drew Robb Article URL:\ "http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/recovery/story/0,10801,101249,00.html"  . You can also provide feedback on this article.  
 Warm Regards,t Sue    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:19:20 -0400a- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>r3 Subject: Re: OpenVMS Pearl from today ComputerWorldDB Message-ID: <1114651167.5aa0aadccf2d129b316a6f704d011610@teranews>  " susan_skonetski@hotmail.com wrote:^ > "http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/recovery/story/0,10801,101249,00.html"   Here is a relevant paragraph:rG                                        Among operating systems, OpenVMSs and UnixK                                        seem to be favored more than others.iO                                        Alpha/OpenVMS, for example, has built-inPF                                        clustering technology that many
 companies use D                                        to mirror data between sites. Many financial>                                        institutions, including Commerzbank, theH                                        International Securities Exchange and DeutscheB                                        Borse AG, rely on VMS-based mirroring to?                                        protect their heavy-dutyaG                                        transaction-processing systems.        H Sue, if you had a hand in this, kudos to you. If you didn't, try to huntH down the person who did and take him/her/it to a nice lunch. This is the& type of publiclty that is worth a LOT.  H but since this complain.os.vms.... WHY COULDN'T YOU GET THEM TO SAY THIS ON THE FIRST PAGE ? :-) :-) :-)y   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:51:35 -0400e# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> 4 Subject: Re: OpenVMS Pearl from today from IT Weekly, Message-ID: <I5adnUmcBKK6TPLfRVn-tg@igs.net>   Bill Gunshannon wrote:. > In article <hp-dnVbSDtOnVPLfRVn-qA@igs.net>,' > "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes:  >> Bill Gunshannon wrote:g0 >>> In article <8rqdndMFqu69dfPfRVn-sA@igs.net>,) >>> "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes:i' >>>> susan_skonetski@hotmail.com wrote:e >>>>> ----Original Message-----a >>>>> From: Skonetski, Susan+ >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 1:00 PMw >>>>> To: Skonetski, SusanB >>>>> Subject: HP OpenVMS Pearl - from IT Weekly - Vendors enhance+ >>>>> server strategies - OK for public uset >>>>>m >>>>>e >>>>>o >>>>> Dear Distribution Lists, >>>>> ? >>>>> http://www.itp.net/features/details.php?id=2585&category=a >>>>>eH >>>>> This article compares AMD, Intel, IBM, Sun, FSC, Microsoft, HP andB >>>>> Dell.  The portion on HP is amazing in that it mentions bothG >>>>> OpenVMS and NSK.  Obviously by the title the focus is on Servers.n@ >>>>> In case you are wondering the numbers are off, the 400K is >>>>> licenses not users.- >>>> >>>>F >>>> I trust that somebody from HP will write IT Weekly to correct theD >>>> article (which IT Weekly ought to publish as an errata) with anE >>>> *official* number of VMS licences installed and in use, lest theiH >>>> 400,000 user number leave the world at large with a bad impression.F >>>> I imagine that many here will be most interested in that official >>>> HP number too.c >>>> >>>S >>> It's 411,000.d >> >>5 >> Oh, you mean the same number it's been since 1992?e >>E >> With the known attrition rate, there must be a LOT of new licenseseE >> being sold into the CIA, NSA, etc... that they can't talk about ort >> write up success stories. >> >e9 > Well, they could, but then they would have to kill you.l    C Nah.....I'm sure there are a few here in c.o.v. who would do it fora them...no charge.  ;-)   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:33:58 +0200 3 From: "Dr. Dweeb" <NOSPAM_5msg0h202@sneakemail.com>f- Subject: Re: Operating System Security Surveyp= Message-ID: <42701355$0$78285$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk>w  6 "Bill Gunshannon" <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message & news:3c79j3F6mpet0U1@individual.net.... > In article <E6adnVxUi4aOTMDfRVn-tQ@igs.net>,' > "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes:  >>M >> Then you should know that there are plenty of people in comp.os.vms who'd y >> be H >> happy to help you write an article about VMS that doesn't begin with 
 >> "LegacyI >> operating system OpenVMS", but rather begins with something along the n >> linesH >> of, "More than 50% of the world's financial transactions flow through# >> OpenVMS systems on a daily basish >rC > I would sure like to see the proof of this.  Not meaning to knock4? > VMS, but I doubt that still hold that much sway in any of the @ > industries they once controlled.  This smacks of the perpetual > 411,000 VMS systems. >-L >>                                   and we spoke with a number of financialH >> institutions to why they continue to bet their lifeblood on OpenVMS". > C > We could start with a list of these institutions (and evidence to 1 > support the claim beyond historical anecdotes.). >   L Every OM (Click) based exchange (Sydney (ASX), Stockholm (OMX), most baltic  states, etc. etc.  www.om.com)> NYMEX, CBOT, Deutsche Brse (EUREX & Xetra), Shanghai, Zrich. The FED (?)o  ( Has Swift via VMS died completely yet ??  E I probably left out quite a few others.  I think 50% and climbing is h probably accurate !!!n  	 Dr. Dweeb-   >>F >> Then of course there's the use by the NSA, and other multi-letteredI >> agencies, but if we told you about them......ever hear of Jimmy Hoffa?b >rC > Actually, NSA does Linux.  I would be very surprised if there wasRC > anything beyond a few legacy (there's that word again) systems atME > NSA running VMS.  DOD is rapidly moving to Linux (even to the pointdE > of ceasing to train Solaris at all.)  I expect that most .gov sitesoC > that are not running Windows are in fact, running Linux.  While IaA > used to work on machines running VMS in the bowels of the funny.C > shaped building in VA, they were VAXen and I seriously doubt theyd > are still there. >l > bill >o > --  L > Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesF > bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > University of Scranton   |A > Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h> w   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:24:05 GMTa  From: John Santos <john@egh.com>% Subject: Re: Problem with file deleteo* Message-ID: <paVbe.12953$Nc.7069@trnddc09>   John Laird wrote:o; > On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 10:31:52 -0400, "@no$pam.comcast.net"k2 > <""thomas.simpson1\"@no$pam.comcast.net"> wrote: >  > H >>Thanks for the tip.  After re-examining the log file a little closer, H >>(I'm embarrassed to say) I can see that a rogue process still had the H >>file open.  I had assumed the CONVERT would fail if this happened (it  >>usually does). >  > N > Phew - some of us were going slightly mad.  I've seen badly fragmented filesK > take some time to delete, but would have always sworn that the disk spacee, > was released once the delete was complete.  > Doesn't seem to be the case here, but if the file is marked asB containing bad blocks, VMS will sometimes (depending on whether itC knows which blocks are actually bad???) run the bad block exercisery@ on it and not actually release the space until the exerciser hasA finished.  You'll see a system process with a name something like ; "BAD BLOCK EXERCISER" in SHOW SYSTEM, if this is happening.   ? I thought this only occurred on pre-SDA disks (which don't have @ bad-block flagging and recovery built-in), such as RP06's, etc.,? but I think I've seen this happen in the last few years.  Maybet: it is something that has come back with SCSI or IDE disks.   --   John Santosa Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:13:39 GMT   From: John Santos <john@egh.com>* Subject: Re: System disk migration problem) Message-ID: <D0Vbe.12947$Nc.861@trnddc09>E   Dave Froble wrote: > JF Mezei wrote:c >  >> John Santos wrote:  >>J >>> And it will still be broken.  SET FILE/BACKUP SYS$SYSTEM:NET*CONF*.DATI >>> (to cover both NETCONF.DAT and NET$CONFIG.DAT, whatever the real nameg >>> of the file is.) >> >> >>G >> Actually BACKUP/IGNORE=NOBACKUP does this. It backs up file contentsc& >> despite a /NOBACKUP file attribute. >  > I > You miss John's point.  NETCONFIG.DAT is NOT a VMS system file.  As he n= > pointed out, NETCONF.DAT is the filename used by DECnet IV.w  F Actually, my real point is that neither NETCONF.DAT nor NET$CONFIG.DAT> should be marked "NOBACKUP".  Neither of these files is markedE "NOBACKUP" on any of my systems.  And obviously, the contents must belG important bacause the OP was unable to boot his system with a defectivetC file.  (I don't think it has been confirmed that the file is marked D NOBACKUP.  I think this is just speculation, though it sounds like aC good guess to me.)  Of course, I'm assuming that NETCONFIG.DAT is a2 typo for the real file name.  F Dave, I'm not sure what you mean by "system file".  It you mean a .SYSA file, like PAGEFILE.SYS or SWAPFILE.SYS, then I agree it is not alB system file.  If you mean that particular file isn't a system fileD (i.e. it must be misspelled or whatever is complaining isn't part ofF the standard VMS system, since there is no such thing as NETCONFIG.DATD on any of our systems), I also agree.  Or maybe you're distiguishingA "VMS system file" from "DECNET system file", in which case I alsoI0 agree.  Just not sure what I'm agreeing with :-)   -- u John Santosr Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:14:23 -0500w/ From: Chris Scheers <chris@applied-synergy.com>. Subject: Re: TK50-2 Message-ID: <426FE48F.3050802@applied-synergy.com>   Bill Gunshannon wrote:E > In article <1114550718.655470.288790@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,t0 > 	"DEC Hardware guy" <mness@bbcusa.com> writes: > 6 >>Bill, I have some TK50Z-FA and TK50Z-GA drives here. >>Will any of those work?  >  > F > I'm not sure of the differences in particular models (FA vs. GA) butE > I assume pretty much any of them will work for my needs.  I'mm justrE > trying to make sure I have a few spares for the future as they just-D > get rarer and I expect my PDP-11's to start getting heavier use as$ > I turn the students loose on them.  A The -FA is the MV2000 sorta-SCSI version, hardwired at SCSI ID 1.,  ( The -GA is the VS3100 full SCSI version.  I You can change a -FA to a -GA by replacing the ROMs and adding a SCSI ID eD switch.  Alternately, skip the switch and use jumpers to set the ID.   -- iG -----------------------------------------------------------------------e$ Chris Scheers, Applied Synergy, Inc.  B Voice: 817-237-3360            Internet: chris@applied-synergy.com    Fax: 817-237-3074   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:27:48 GMT0% From: Roger Ivie <rivie@ridgenet.net>e Subject: Re: TK50y3 Message-ID: <slrnd70bg5.onr.rivie@Stench.no.domain>a  8 On 2005-04-27, Bill Gunshannon <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:) > In article <426fce7f$1@news.spies.com>,y$ > 	Al Kossow <aek@spies.com> writes: >> Bill Gunshannon wrote:l >>> I am back in begging mode. >>> @ >>> Is there anyone who has TK50 drives (and maybe even a TK50Z) >> e* >> I would suggest getting a TZ30 instead.5 >> 1/2 height, integrated SCSI control and I've founde6 >> them MUCH more reliable at recovering data than the >> TK50 or 70. >> 67 >> Only downside is the head stack is more difficult toh	 >> clean.- >-? > Oh, there's a couple more.  Rarer. More expensive. Won't work> > on your typical PDP-11.  :-)  J And that cable on the left side in the rear makes it difficult to mount inG a MicroVAX 2000 box (had to cut a notch in the bracket for that cable).> -- D
 Roger Ivie rivie@ridgenet.net http://anachronda.webhop.org/r -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- 
 Version: 3.12eH GCS/P d- s:+++ a+ C++ UB--(++++) !P L- !E W++ N++ o-- K w O- M+ V+++ PS+? PE++ Y+ PGP t+ 5+ X-- R tv++ b++ DI+++ D+ G e++ h--- r+++ z+++   ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------W   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:55:37 -0400o- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>f> Subject: Re: VMS equivalent of % xset fp+ directory_with_fontsB Message-ID: <1114638937.cf30c24a043fb2a4bd06d61f75bb83ae@teranews>  / Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:-F >> What is "the right place"?  My goal is to have web browsers displayG > Cyrillic fonts correctly.  I don't like the idea of putting them in aoH > directory on the system disk which by default already has stuff in it.   Use fileview and check out   sys$sysroot:[sysfont]   G You will find a DECW directory which has both "system" and "user" fontsP for 75 and 100 dpi.v   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:23:19 GMTe* From: "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com>> Subject: Re: VMS equivalent of % xset fp+ directory_with_fonts2 Message-ID: <rhUbe.4631$oA1.2639@news.cpqcorp.net>  L "Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply" <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>/ wrote in message news:d4ovla$m6k$1@online.de...t: > In article <DPLbe.4571$3%.118@news.cpqcorp.net>, "FredK"& > <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> writes: >sF > > The xset command is, I believe, trying to set the font *path* (the placesI > > to look for fonts).  This is usually set to the sys$fonts seach path.s UsinggK > > the X11 call to change the font path needs to be done carefully.  It isoI > > usually easier to simply change the logical name *or* to just put thet* > > font in the right place to begin with. >o > What is "the right place"?  ) DECW$SYSCOMMON:[SYSFONT.DECW.USER_COMMON]   + >  My goal is to have web browsers  display G > Cyrillic fonts correctly.  I don't like the idea of putting them in a>H > directory on the system disk which by default already has stuff in it.  G This directory is normally empty.  Putting them on some other disk thatcA might (for example) not be mounted - is a *bad* idea.  The USER_*i/ directories are intended just for this purpose.r  G > I would prefer another directory, and somehow tell the server to look  > there. >o  & DECW$FONT is in the DECW$SERVER0_TABLE  > Write a DCL command procedure to parse out the current serarch; list and append your own area.  Stick it into DECW$PRIVATE_l SERVER_SETUP.COM  B > I don't seem to have such a logical defined.  Where should it be
 > defined?  & Sorry.  I meant DECW$FONT not SYS$FONT  @ >  If I redefine it (or add some font to the path), do I have to > restart DECwindows?r >   < The xset command command will do it if you must, but you are& better off doing it as outlined above.  E > Is the behaviour on VAX and ALPHA (apart from the fonts themselves, 2 > which in ALPHA can be in more formats) the same? >m  K I don't recall.  The font directory stuff came about after XLFS (or whateveMF the font naming standard is called) was done.  I haven't used a VAX in> many, many years and I have CRS (Can't Remember S***) disease.  F The VAX required fonts to be compiled into a VMS-specific format (kindI of oddball, the font compiler actually turns it into a VMS executable and  uses the loader to do fixups).  C Alpha is based on the MIT code (VAX is a home rolled implementationeD based on X11R1-Beta) and uses the standard formats supported by X11.  K > > If you add a new font, you need to rebuild the font directory file thatrF > > is located in the same directory as the font by using the FONT/DIRF > > command.  You then need to force the server to reset the font path? > > (re-read the font directories) or  just restart the server.o >s: > Can one force the re-read without restarting the server? >o  $ Log out of the session should do it.  D The xset command you wanted to use should do it, but as I said, what I recommend is:    Put the fonts into one of the   $ DECW$SYSCOMMON:[SYSFONT.DECW.USER_*]  @ directories.  Set your default to the directory and do FONT/DIR.  D Restart the server, and you will never have to worry about the fontsC again.  They will not be replaced by upgrades.  You will never haveID the issue of a dangling search list if your private disk is offline.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:32:03 GMTa* From: "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com>> Subject: Re: VMS equivalent of % xset fp+ directory_with_fonts1 Message-ID: <DpUbe.4632$gB1.129@news.cpqcorp.net>d   >dH > The VAX required fonts to be compiled into a VMS-specific format (kindK > of oddball, the font compiler actually turns it into a VMS executable and   > uses the loader to do fixups). > E > Alpha is based on the MIT code (VAX is a home rolled implementationeF > based on X11R1-Beta) and uses the standard formats supported by X11. >f  A To clarify my own post.  Both VAX and Alpha use BDF as the sourceaC format for bitmap fonts.  VAX can only do bitmap fonts.  On VAX theoF FONT compiler turns the font into a VMS image file that is loaded whenE needed using the image loader.  On Alpha you can directly use the BDFgI file (it will parse and create it on the fly), or you can compile it into  PCF:9 format.  Alpha also supports TrueType and Speedo formats.p   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:59:02 -04005* From: "Syltrem" <syltremzulu@videotron.ca>4 Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?3 Message-ID: <fnQbe.1402$g4.28272@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>2  9 "Craig Dedo" <cdedo@wi.rr.com> a crit dans le message de0= news:1114621246.207240.321290@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...eB > Recently, I have been asked to make a presentation about the VMSG > operating system to an introductory computer science class at an area I > high school.  The time for the presentation, including Q&A, will last a D > little under an hour.  Most of the students are at an introductory3 > level in terms of software development expertise.w >hE > The teacher has asked me to concentrate on what makes VMS differentpG > from other operating systems, e.g., Windows or the various Unixes.  ItB > should answer the question, "Why should a person choose VMS as a& > development or production platform?" >oE > I have done VMS software development for 20 years, so I know a fairhF > amount about the operating system.  Most of my recent experience has, > been in the area of manufacturing systems. >   > Here are some of my own ideas.3 > * DCL is easy to learn, use, and fairly intuitive  > * Documentation is superbo > * Security > * Robustness& > * OS-wide Procedure Calling Standard' > * OS-wide Condition Handling Standardm5 > * Mixed language software development is faily easyn; > * Software upgrades are relatively easy & straightforwards >n@ > I would like the readers to respond with their own ideas.  Any4 > constructive ideas would be very much appreciated. >u > Sincerely,> > Craig T. Dedo                   Voice Phone:  (262) 783-5869> > 17130 W. Burleigh Place         Fax Phone:    (262) 783-5928A > Brookfield, WI   53005-2759     E-mail:       <cdedo@wi.rr.com>  > USA  >t  I You can integrate fully with a Windows network. That is, make VMS part ofiK the Windows domain (with Pathworks / Advanded Server). When setup like thisbK users on Windows can share directories or printers that sit on VMS, and you L can use DCL to automate tasks likes creating new users (a piece of DC:L thatL asks for username, password, and user group then does all for you) that willJ save you from doing click-click-click for hours on your Windows station to do the same task.e  I All that you've known, or been doing, for 20 years, will not go away with @ the next release of the OS. You can continue to use all existingJ applications without recompiling, relinking or anything. And you can startL learning the new features and use them when your're ready. The newer versionJ of VMS will never break existing applications. Also you can easily go to aK newer architecture (VAX-->Alpha-->Itanium) as the newer architecture can belK integrated into a cluster and you can start moving applications one by one.hL Only the application needs recompiling, the data can be accessed by the sameH application from 2 nodes with a different architecture (we've been doing this for over 10 years...).2  J The concept of processes in interactive, detached or batch mode is simple.G Always the same thing happens, and you can always get a log file of the ! execution to trace what happened.e  B There are tools that come with VMS (no need to install junk from aA supplemental CD or buy 3rd party tools): ANALYZE, MONITOR, AUDIT,4G ACCOUNTING, etc. Those can help greatly when comed the time to diagnoset' problems and they are always available.u   Etc, etc, etc.   -- r Syltrem    OpenVMS 7.3-1 + Oracle 8.1.7.4H http://pages.infinit.net/syltrem (OpenVMS related web site, en franais)% ---zulu is not in my email address---    ------------------------------    Date: 27 Apr 2005 11:28:54 -0700 From: bob@instantwhip.come4 Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?C Message-ID: <1114626534.659552.230540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>w    "unhackable" per defcon 9 ... :)   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:22:55 -0400e' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> 4 Subject: RE: What is Different or Special About VMS?R Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB5ECDF2@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message----- > From: Barker, Nigel=20 > Sent: April 27, 2005 1:39 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Comt6 > Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? >=20D > On 27 Apr 2005 17:16:13 GMT, "Doc." <doc@openvms-rocks.com> wrote: >=20D > >%NEWS-I-NEWMSG, Craig Dedo wrote in news:1114621246.207240.321290  > >@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com > >h	 > ><snip>s > >p# > >> Here are some of my own ideas.e6 > >> * DCL is easy to learn, use, and fairly intuitive > >> * Documentation is superb > >> * Security. > >> * Robustnessl) > >> * OS-wide Procedure Calling Standard-* > >> * OS-wide Condition Handling Standard8 > >> * Mixed language software development is faily easy> > >> * Software upgrades are relatively easy & straightforward > >>=20iC > >> I would like the readers to respond with their own ideas.  Anyw7 > >> constructive ideas would be very much appreciated.e > >eB > >You've picked out the things that are obvious if you have no=20 > involvement=20I > >in systems management/administration.  In that area (and associated=20tG > >problem/disaster management) things like clustering are special. =20VB > >However, they're not that simple to explain when you have to=20 > detail the=20mA > >differences between VMS clustering and what almost everyone=20i > else calls=20  > >clustering. > >a > >  > >Doc.f >=20? > I've found OpenVMS clustering very simple to explain to my=20v > UNIX & WindowsA > colleagues. It's a shared file system that is transparent to=20o > the user. Disksf= > mounted cluster wide are accessible just as if they were=20  > local. Add in host@ > based volume shadowing & failover & scalability is obvious.=20 > Not to mention8 > managing multiple physical systems as a single entity. >=20 > -- > Nigel Barker! > Live from the sunny Cote d'Azurd >=20  H Yep, no viruses, ultra-high security and scalable i.e. support for up toD 3,072 cpu's in cluster (96x32). Integrated and load balanced clusterG batch queues that allows support staff to write batch jobs that can runhF on any node in the cluster and still do direct read or write IO's i.e. not shared over the network.  F Detailed system error reporting and system crash facilities that allow6 detailed analysis should a system crash ever occur.=20  D Another nice OpenVMS feature is its virtualization capabilities i.e.C dynamic CPU migration between different OS partitions on designatednF systems that support this feature. Hence, one OS partition can have 10F CPU's to handle the interactive load during the day but only 2-3 cpu's? after hours. The other cpu's can be automatically switched to a G different OS partition for after-hours batch and/or maint utility work.-  H Best demo of virtualization I saw was at the last HP World event (or wasG it the one before??) where a iPaq using wireless technology was used tooD drag-n-drop cpu's between different OpenVMS OS partitions on a large Alpha GS1280. Very cool.   :-)    Regardsf  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultantl HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660o Fax: 613-591-4477- kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  $ "OpenVMS has always had integrity .. Now, Integrity has OpenVMS .."   ------------------------------   Date: 27 Apr 2005 18:51:50 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)4 Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?, Message-ID: <3da5a5F6o3ic3U1@individual.net>  C In article <1114626534.659552.230540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,  	bob@instantwhip.com writes:" > "unhackable" per defcon 9 ... :) >   C Give it a break, Bob.  Using that criteria so are Primos, RSX, RSTSn and CPM.  / Hey, guess what!  They pass your CERT test too..   bill   -- nJ Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   t   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:51:15 -0400t' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com>e4 Subject: RE: What is Different or Special About VMS?R Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB5ECDF8@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message------ > From: John Smith [mailto:a@nonymous.com]=20c > Sent: April 27, 2005 1:16 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Comk6 > Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? >=20 > Craig Dedo wrote:ID > > Recently, I have been asked to make a presentation about the VMSA > > operating system to an introductory computer science class=207 > at an areaB > > high school.  The time for the presentation, including Q&A,=20 > will last H > > a little under an hour.  Most of the students are at an introductory5 > > level in terms of software development expertise.r > > G > > The teacher has asked me to concentrate on what makes VMS differentwA > > from other operating systems, e.g., Windows or the various=20r > Unixes.  ID > > should answer the question, "Why should a person choose VMS as a( > > development or production platform?" > > G > > I have done VMS software development for 20 years, so I know a fairiH > > amount about the operating system.  Most of my recent experience has. > > been in the area of manufacturing systems. > >h" > > Here are some of my own ideas.5 > > * DCL is easy to learn, use, and fairly intuitivef > > * Documentation is superbt > > * Security > > * Robustness( > > * OS-wide Procedure Calling Standard) > > * OS-wide Condition Handling StandardS7 > > * Mixed language software development is faily easye= > > * Software upgrades are relatively easy & straightforwardi > >iB > > I would like the readers to respond with their own ideas.  Any6 > > constructive ideas would be very much appreciated. >=207 > You can (in your own words suitable to the audience):, >=20? > - Cluster individual systems together, each with dozens of=20p > processors, to? > create one large virtual machine. When your students start=20h > working in the? > real world they can be comforted to know that even if they=20p > run out of cpu@ > slots in one box they can simply add boxes to create a more=20 > powerful system.= > - Disaster tolerance second to none. Your cluster can be=20n > setup to span 500sA > miles right out-of-the-box, and can span longer distances if=20  > required. ThatF > way when the big meteor hits the company your students then own will: > survive. Even NSK can lose transactions under certain=20 > circumstances across a8 > cluster, so there's no advantage to NSK in that sense.; > - It's been 64-bits for nearly 13 years, not like some=20  > Johnny-Come-Lately+ > operating systems, so it's well debugged.hA > - It can operate as a real-time os when the need/application=20i > calls for it.e > No need to learn another os.7 > - They can get VMS running for nearly nothing on a=20n > laptop/desktop by usingtA > SimH and a VMS hobbyist license - there's a school project..... > > - It was designed as a cohesive whole - vs. a hodge-podge of > semi-contradictory concepts. >=20   John,u  C As a follow-up to your comments, check out new article online today  (April 25, 2005)  + Just released article on DR: April 25, 2005 H http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/recovery/story/0,10 801,101249p2,00.html  2 Check out page 3: (also page 4 for Windows review) =20MG "Among operating systems, OpenVMS and Unix seem to be favored more thanrF others. Alpha/OpenVMS, for example, has built-in clustering technologyD that many companies use to mirror data between sites. Many financialA institutions, including Commerzbank, the International Securities F Exchange and Deutsche Borse AG, rely on VMS-based mirroring to protect3 their heavy-duty transaction-processing systems.=20O  A Deutsche Borse, a German exchange for stocks and derivatives, has G deployed an OpenVMS cluster over two sites situated 5 kilometers apart.f? It also uses Fibre Channel switches from San Jose-based BrocadedA Communications Systems Inc. and Cisco switches and routers in itss' network to ensure high availability.=20n  B "DR is not about cold or warm backups, it's about having your dataF active and online no matter what," says Michael Gruth, head of systemsH and network support at Deutsche Borse. "That requires cluster technology- which is online at both sites."   continued>>n   Regards  =20f   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:42:29 +0200o0 From: Keith Cayemberg <keith.cayemberg@arcor.de>4 Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?B Message-ID: <426feb26$0$10506$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net>   Craig Dedo wrote: B > Recently, I have been asked to make a presentation about the VMSG > operating system to an introductory computer science class at an area2I > high school.  The time for the presentation, including Q&A, will last aVD > little under an hour.  Most of the students are at an introductory3 > level in terms of software development expertise.  > E > The teacher has asked me to concentrate on what makes VMS different G > from other operating systems, e.g., Windows or the various Unixes.  I B > should answer the question, "Why should a person choose VMS as a& > development or production platform?" > E > I have done VMS software development for 20 years, so I know a fair F > amount about the operating system.  Most of my recent experience has, > been in the area of manufacturing systems. >   > Here are some of my own ideas.3 > * DCL is easy to learn, use, and fairly intuitiveh > * Documentation is superbt > * Security > * Robustness& > * OS-wide Procedure Calling Standard' > * OS-wide Condition Handling Standardw5 > * Mixed language software development is faily easyu; > * Software upgrades are relatively easy & straightforwardc > @ > I would like the readers to respond with their own ideas.  Any4 > constructive ideas would be very much appreciated. >  > Sincerely,> > Craig T. Dedo                   Voice Phone:  (262) 783-5869> > 17130 W. Burleigh Place         Fax Phone:    (262) 783-5928A > Brookfield, WI   53005-2759     E-mail:       <cdedo@wi.rr.com>p > USAI >   B Here are some more useful concepts that beginners can quickly see 
 advantages...m   - integrated file versioning  G - integrated global (for VMS) record management system for controlling 2. correct interpretation and use of file formats  B - system services, RTL, call-standard, debugger, linker and other I utilities and api's which are integrated in the operating system and are  D designed to be language-neutral and enable mixed language executableC construction and debugging. Also note availability of many of thesee* powerful services to DCL through lexicals.  H - a native integrated time data type that is available to all languages B and common to most all native utilities and applications having...  E        - a much earlier epoch (MJD = JDN - 2400000.5 also Smithsonian E          Time Standard used by astronomers) (evtl. also space vehicle A          path calculation and telemetry) starting Nov. 17th, 1858 =        - a much longer valid time span (till July 31st 31086)s4           http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/critdate.htm>        - a much more fine granularity (up to 0.0000001 second)6        - providing a very useful delta-time capability  -        than can be found in more popular OS's    - the wonders of logical names        - search-listsR        - rooted-logicals        - concealed-devices3        - with modality (kernel,exec,super,user) and<5          scope (cluster,system,group,job,process) fora"          security and organisationC        - also useful for for parameterizing/controlling application_'          behavior even during executionw  ; - environmental symbols with scope and and automatic typing8  H - also emphasize the availability of nearly all web-standard languages,   tools and utilities for OpenVMS.  F - I am aware of c.a. 60 programming, script, and 2GL-to-4GL languages  for OpenVMS.  E - the availability of many graphing and graphics utilities and API's o> contrary to the popular belief OpenVMS is a text-only dullard.  - For more advanced Operating System studies... H Discuss the inherent advantages for security, stability and availabilityC of OpenVMS's integrated design around a "descriptor based" calling uG standard with 3 or more privilege rings (VMS has 4, Kernel, executive, n< supervisor and user) and finely controlled through about 40 H well-designed privileges. This architecture greatly reduces (by design) F the likely-hood of buffer-overflows and other problems when accessing I kernel services (thus more fully protecting other processes and users as   well)   ; In university courses professors teach "pass-by-value" and  J "pass-by-reference", but fail to discuss the "pass-by-descriptor" concept.     Cheers!    Keith Cayemberg    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:53:44 -0400T' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>-4 Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?0 Message-ID: <116vre2aujoo935@corp.supernews.com>   Craig Dedo wrote: B > Recently, I have been asked to make a presentation about the VMSG > operating system to an introductory computer science class at an area I > high school.  The time for the presentation, including Q&A, will last anD > little under an hour.  Most of the students are at an introductory3 > level in terms of software development expertise.o > E > The teacher has asked me to concentrate on what makes VMS different G > from other operating systems, e.g., Windows or the various Unixes.  I B > should answer the question, "Why should a person choose VMS as a& > development or production platform?" > E > I have done VMS software development for 20 years, so I know a fair/F > amount about the operating system.  Most of my recent experience has, > been in the area of manufacturing systems. >   > Here are some of my own ideas.3 > * DCL is easy to learn, use, and fairly intuitive  > * Documentation is superby > * Security > * Robustness& > * OS-wide Procedure Calling Standard' > * OS-wide Condition Handling Standardi5 > * Mixed language software development is faily easyo; > * Software upgrades are relatively easy & straightforward( > @ > I would like the readers to respond with their own ideas.  Any4 > constructive ideas would be very much appreciated. >  > Sincerely,> > Craig T. Dedo                   Voice Phone:  (262) 783-5869> > 17130 W. Burleigh Place         Fax Phone:    (262) 783-5928A > Brookfield, WI   53005-2759     E-mail:       <cdedo@wi.rr.com>> > USAu >   F One of my favorites is the robust development environment, but, after I all the suggestions, your problem will be how to cut it down to one hour.,   Dave   -- e4 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 Roado Vanderbilt, PA  15486;   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:12:48 -04000' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com>n4 Subject: RE: What is Different or Special About VMS?R Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB5ECDFC@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----$ > From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu=20A > [mailto:bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Gunshannon  > Sent: April 27, 2005 2:52 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Comd6 > Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? >=20E > In article <1114626534.659552.230540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,g > 	bob@instantwhip.com writes:$ > > "unhackable" per defcon 9 ... :) > >=20 >=20E > Give it a break, Bob.  Using that criteria so are Primos, RSX, RSTSt
 > and CPM. >=201 > Hey, guess what!  They pass your CERT test too.  >=20 > bill >=20 > --=20p   Bill,h  F How many of those other OS's were represented at DEFCON9 and that were1 actively being accessed by the hackers at DEFCON?e  C How many of those other OS's were given similar titles as "cool and 0 unhackable" by the hackers attending that event?   Regardsn  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660S Fax: 613-591-4477s kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  $ "OpenVMS has always had integrity .. Now, Integrity has OpenVMS .."   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Apr 2005 13:12:42 -0700 From: sean@obanion.us.4 Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?B Message-ID: <1114632762.133748.26640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>  C After your presentation, could you come back and let us know how itn7 went, what the reaction was, what the questions were...e     Sean   Craig Dedo wrote:tB > Recently, I have been asked to make a presentation about the VMSG > operating system to an introductory computer science class at an area G > high school.  The time for the presentation, including Q&A, will last( arD > little under an hour.  Most of the students are at an introductory3 > level in terms of software development expertise.r > E > The teacher has asked me to concentrate on what makes VMS differentgG > from other operating systems, e.g., Windows or the various Unixes.  IsB > should answer the question, "Why should a person choose VMS as a& > development or production platform?" > E > I have done VMS software development for 20 years, so I know a fair|F > amount about the operating system.  Most of my recent experience has, > been in the area of manufacturing systems. >   > Here are some of my own ideas.3 > * DCL is easy to learn, use, and fairly intuitivei > * Documentation is superb- > * Security > * Robustness& > * OS-wide Procedure Calling Standard' > * OS-wide Condition Handling Standardt5 > * Mixed language software development is faily easy0; > * Software upgrades are relatively easy & straightforward0 >@@ > I would like the readers to respond with their own ideas.  Any4 > constructive ideas would be very much appreciated. >  > Sincerely,> > Craig T. Dedo                   Voice Phone:  (262) 783-5869> > 17130 W. Burleigh Place         Fax Phone:    (262) 783-5928A > Brookfield, WI   53005-2759     E-mail:       <cdedo@wi.rr.com>h > USAm   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:41:08 -0400s- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 4 Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?B Message-ID: <1114634491.6e6c353048b1ddd6d4e3e7404f4d7f95@teranews>   norm.raphael@metso.com wrote:,  S> > Do not forget that the executable can migrate as-is (in most; > cases) or very easily from any old VAX to any newer Alpha  > to any new IA64.  B I certaintly would not push on that at all. This is one area whereA Digital didn't exactly succeed when you compare to what Apple had   succeeded in doing when it went.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:01:19 -0400g* From: "Syltrem" <syltremzulu@videotron.ca>4 Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?3 Message-ID: <a2Tbe.1405$g4.28340@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>t  L One other thing of interest is that you can do a BACKUP/IMAGE and restore toJ any other machine (same architecture) whether bigger or smaller, with sameJ or different number of CPUs and disks, etc and all you have to change is aF few logical names for your disks, to get going (important for disaster
 recovery).  D Or, you can have small and big machines in your cluster, and use the software on any of them.   -- Y SyltremC   OpenVMS 7.3-1 + Oracle 8.1.7.4H http://pages.infinit.net/syltrem (OpenVMS related web site, en franais)% ---zulu is not in my email address---O   ------------------------------   Date: 27 Apr 2005 21:30:46 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)4 Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?, Message-ID: <3daek5F6rin7cU1@individual.net>  R In article <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB5ECDFC@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>,* 	"Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> writes: >  >> -----Original Message-----B >> From: bill@cs.uofs.edu=20 >> Sent: April 27, 2005 2:52 PMb >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com7 >> Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?  >>=20hF >> In article <1114626534.659552.230540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, >> 	bob@instantwhip.com writes:t% >> > "unhackable" per defcon 9 ... :)c >> >=20m >>=20nF >> Give it a break, Bob.  Using that criteria so are Primos, RSX, RSTS >> and CPM.o >>=20b2 >> Hey, guess what!  They pass your CERT test too. >>=20Y >> billF >>=20, >> --=20 >  > Bill,  > H > How many of those other OS's were represented at DEFCON9 and that were3 > actively being accessed by the hackers at DEFCON?t  E Who knows.  They would have garnered aboutt he same interest which isF pretty much none.u   > E > How many of those other OS's were given similar titles as "cool andr2 > unhackable" by the hackers attending that event?  ? Anybody who places value on the rantings of pre-pubescent geeks * without a real life needs to get out more.  I The fact remains that VMS's biggest cause for success at these gatherings0H is it's obscurity.  And that is not something to be proud of.  No systemJ is un-hackable.  Sometimes the method used needs to be social engineering, but any system can be broken.5   bill   -- 2J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   b   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:10:29 -0400 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>a4 Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?, Message-ID: <PaednesySpZHYvLfRVn-og@igs.net>   Keith Cayemberg wrote: > Craig Dedo wrote: C >> Recently, I have been asked to make a presentation about the VMS H >> operating system to an introductory computer science class at an areaC >> high school.  The time for the presentation, including Q&A, willt? >> last a little under an hour.  Most of the students are at an-A >> introductory level in terms of software development expertise.e >>F >> The teacher has asked me to concentrate on what makes VMS differentH >> from other operating systems, e.g., Windows or the various Unixes.  IC >> should answer the question, "Why should a person choose VMS as ai' >> development or production platform?"- >>F >> I have done VMS software development for 20 years, so I know a fairG >> amount about the operating system.  Most of my recent experience has - >> been in the area of manufacturing systems.u >>! >> Here are some of my own ideas.i4 >> * DCL is easy to learn, use, and fairly intuitive >> * Documentation is superb
 >> * Securitys >> * RobustnessT' >> * OS-wide Procedure Calling StandardC( >> * OS-wide Condition Handling Standard6 >> * Mixed language software development is faily easy< >> * Software upgrades are relatively easy & straightforward >>A >> I would like the readers to respond with their own ideas.  Any.5 >> constructive ideas would be very much appreciated.t >>
 >> Sincerely,s? >> Craig T. Dedo                   Voice Phone:  (262) 783-5869o? >> 17130 W. Burleigh Place         Fax Phone:    (262) 783-5928eB >> Brookfield, WI   53005-2759     E-mail:       <cdedo@wi.rr.com> >> USA >> >OC > Here are some more useful concepts that beginners can quickly see+ > advantages...M >+ > - integrated file versioning >+H > - integrated global (for VMS) record management system for controlling0 > correct interpretation and use of file formats >0C > - system services, RTL, call-standard, debugger, linker and otheruF > utilities and api's which are integrated in the operating system and? > are designed to be language-neutral and enable mixed languageiG > executable construction and debugging. Also note availability of many 5 > of these powerful services to DCL through lexicals.n >c? > - a native integrated time data type that is available to allrD > languages and common to most all native utilities and applications > having...c >kG >        - a much earlier epoch (MJD = JDN - 2400000.5 also SmithsoniansG >          Time Standard used by astronomers) (evtl. also space vehicle-C >          path calculation and telemetry) starting Nov. 17th, 1858 ? >        - a much longer valid time span (till July 31st 31086)e6 >           http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/critdate.htm@ >        - a much more fine granularity (up to 0.0000001 second)8 >        - providing a very useful delta-time capability >4/ >        than can be found in more popular OS's1 >.  > - the wonders of logical names >        - search-listso >        - rooted-logicals >        - concealed-devices5 >        - with modality (kernel,exec,super,user) ando7 >          scope (cluster,system,group,job,process) for $ >          security and organisationE >        - also useful for for parameterizing/controlling applicationi) >          behavior even during executionu >h= > - environmental symbols with scope and and automatic typingt >r> > - also emphasize the availability of nearly all web-standard- > languages, tools and utilities for OpenVMS.y >lG > - I am aware of c.a. 60 programming, script, and 2GL-to-4GL languagest > for OpenVMS. >iF > - the availability of many graphing and graphics utilities and API's@ > contrary to the popular belief OpenVMS is a text-only dullard. > / > For more advanced Operating System studies...i= > Discuss the inherent advantages for security, stability andfB > availability of OpenVMS's integrated design around a "descriptorD > based" calling standard with 3 or more privilege rings (VMS has 4,G > Kernel, executive, supervisor and user) and finely controlled through.
 > about 40A > well-designed privileges. This architecture greatly reduces (by E > design) the likely-hood of buffer-overflows and other problems whenEG > accessing kernel services (thus more fully protecting other processes) > and users as well) > < > In university courses professors teach "pass-by-value" andC > "pass-by-reference", but fail to discuss the "pass-by-descriptor"e
 > concept.  J With all the things being mentioned in this thread, I could come up with aK pretty good *series* of ads for VMS which could go in all the computer ragse and financial publications.M   --F OpenVMS - The never advertised operating system with the dwindling ISV base.y   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:12:40 -0400s# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>o4 Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?, Message-ID: <o8ednc7ZXOLVne3fRVn-3Q@igs.net>   Main, Kerry wrote: >> -----Original Message-----(" >> From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.eduB >> [mailto:bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Gunshannon >> Sent: April 27, 2005 2:52 PMy >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com7 >> Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?a >>F >> In article <1114626534.659552.230540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, >> bob@instantwhip.com writes:$ >>> "unhackable" per defcon 9 ... :) >>>e >>F >> Give it a break, Bob.  Using that criteria so are Primos, RSX, RSTS >> and CPM.  >>2 >> Hey, guess what!  They pass your CERT test too. >> >> billo >> >> --  >i > Bill,  >aH > How many of those other OS's were represented at DEFCON9 and that were3 > actively being accessed by the hackers at DEFCON?d >uE > How many of those other OS's were given similar titles as "cool andl2 > unhackable" by the hackers attending that event?    * They're just as obscure as VMS these days.  I When is HP going to advertise VMS - and not as a one word inclusion in an 9 Itanic ad?  Do I have to write Hurd, Tsparis, and others?2   --F OpenVMS - The never advertised operating system with the dwindling ISV base.    ------------------------------  + Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:39:03 +0000 (UTC)nP From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)4 Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?$ Message-ID: <d4p0pn$m6k$6@online.de>  C In article <1114621246.207240.321290@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,h' "Craig Dedo" <cdedo@wi.rr.com> writes: 1  3 > * DCL is easy to learn, use, and fairly intuitive. > * Documentation is superbt > * Security > * Robustness& > * OS-wide Procedure Calling Standard' > * OS-wide Condition Handling Standardh5 > * Mixed language software development is faily easyt; > * Software upgrades are relatively easy & straightforwardy  	 CLUSTERS!l   Good compilers.e   Host-based volume shadowing.  H Compatibility: old code will run under a much newer OS version, and old G hardware will run OS versions developed several years or even a couple e of decades later.9  I Good out-of-the-box tools: most of what one needs is on the distribution D5 CDs; most unix types will add a lot of gnu stuff etc.$  H Free patches for old versions of the OS.  (I friend of mine nearly fell H off his chair when I told him that if a bug is found and fixed, one can H download the patch for no charge.  Apparently some vendors charge money F for fixing their own bugs---either directly or by only fixing them in 5 the new, otherwise untested, must-be-bought version.)i   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Apr 2005 16:49:34 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)a4 Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?3 Message-ID: <MU+opFAz1Zfh@eisner.encompasserve.org>r  W In article <3daek5F6rin7cU1@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:u  K > The fact remains that VMS's biggest cause for success at these gatheringso > is it's obscurity.  3 Biggest only in the number of times you mention it.i  A I would have difficulty breaking into a default-configuration VMSeF system, and I think I know a few things about VMS Security mechanisms.   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Apr 2005 16:47:04 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) 4 Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?3 Message-ID: <ijjESwg+Q2V4@eisner.encompasserve.org>a  p In article <OF5B7866DF.97C48143-ON85256FF0.005F7A94-85256FF0.005F8C0F@metso.com>, norm.raphael@metso.com writes:  > > Do not forget that the executable can migrate as-is (in most; > cases) or very easily from any old VAX to any newer Alphal > to any new IA64.  M With considerably more difficulty that going from 68K MacOS to PowerPC MacOS>    ------------------------------    Date: 27 Apr 2005 16:51:05 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)a4 Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?3 Message-ID: <iSoAsiv8Hqh1@eisner.encompasserve.org>A  ] In article <Xns9645C41E1E7Edcovmsrox@212.100.160.126>, "Doc." <doc@openvms-rocks.com> writes:i  K > You've picked out the things that are obvious if you have no involvement iF > in systems management/administration.  In that area (and associated D > problem/disaster management) things like clustering are special.  J > However, they're not that simple to explain when you have to detail the I > differences between VMS clustering and what almost everyone else calls  
 > clustering.t  F No, if you want something that is hard to explain, try ASTs (which are) probably the most unique feature of VMS).w   ------------------------------   Date: 27 Apr 2005 22:08:10 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)4 Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?, Message-ID: <3dagqaF6r7hu5U1@individual.net>  3 In article <MU+opFAz1Zfh@eisner.encompasserve.org>,g0 	Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:Y > In article <3daek5F6rin7cU1@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:f > L >> The fact remains that VMS's biggest cause for success at these gatherings >> is it's obscurity.t > 5 > Biggest only in the number of times you mention it.n  D I don't mention as much as Bob continues to bring up DEFCON or CERT.F My argument is just a provable as Bob's. (Which is what I was replying to int he first place.)t   > C > I would have difficulty breaking into a default-configuration VMSTH > system, and I think I know a few things about VMS Security mechanisms.  K Read the rest of what I said.  When all else fails, use social-engineering.rH Any system can be broken into. It's not the break-in you know about that: is the biggest problem, it's the one you don't know about.  E VMS may very well be the most secure OS in the world (a claim not yet@@ proven and probably un-provable) but no system is "un-hackable".  B Now let's move on toe how we are going to get HP to market VMS andD how we are going to get HP to do the x86-64 port and other important things.a   bill   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:59:29 -0400o' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com>p4 Subject: RE: What is Different or Special About VMS?R Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB5ECE17@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----$ > From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu=20A > [mailto:bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu] On Behalf Of Bill GunshannonL > Sent: April 27, 2005 5:31 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Coma6 > Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? >=20 > In article=20C@ > <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB5ECDFC@tayexc19.americas.cpqc > orp.net>,u, > 	"Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> writes: > >=20 > >> -----Original Message-----s  > >> From: bill@cs.uofs.edu=3D20! > >> Sent: April 27, 2005 2:52 PMt > >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com9 > >> Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? 	 > >>=3D20kH > >> In article <1114626534.659552.230540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,! > >> 	bob@instantwhip.com writes:o' > >> > "unhackable" per defcon 9 ... :)p > >> >=3D20e	 > >>=3D20tH > >> Give it a break, Bob.  Using that criteria so are Primos, RSX, RSTS
 > >> and CPM.n	 > >>=3D20a4 > >> Hey, guess what!  They pass your CERT test too.	 > >>=3D20 	 > >> billm	 > >>=3D20e > >> --=3D20 > >=20	 > > Bill,r > >=20? > > How many of those other OS's were represented at DEFCON9=20m > and that were 5 > > actively being accessed by the hackers at DEFCON?i >=20G > Who knows.  They would have garnered aboutt he same interest which ise > pretty much none.a >=20  G Nice try, but you are forgetting that a fair number of these hackers atc( the event *did* try and hack the system.   > >=20G > > How many of those other OS's were given similar titles as "cool andk4 > > unhackable" by the hackers attending that event? >=20A > Anybody who places value on the rantings of pre-pubescent geeks , > without a real life needs to get out more. >=20= > The fact remains that VMS's biggest cause for success at=20c > these gatheringsB > is it's obscurity.  And that is not something to be proud of.=20 >  No systemB > is un-hackable.  Sometimes the method used needs to be social=20 > engineering, > but any system can be broken.u >=20   That's crap.=20c  F Yes, you are correct in that no OS can guarantee it is unhackable, butC the inherent base design of the OS plays a huge part in the overalla security of the solution.=20  B There are two major parts to a secure solution - the skills of theG admin's and the design of the base OS itself. The most secure consciouscG Windows/Linux admin person on the planet can not prevent an attack on ar; hole in the core OS itself which they were not aware of.=20u  E As an example, how many Linux admins have applied (or are even aware)?F all of the approx 106 security patches (last count I did) that Red HatD has released since January of this year? Same thing (not sure of the number) for Windows.=20d  G Do you think this many security specific patches is not a factor in the6 overall solution?7  G The fact that there have not been piles of security patches for OpenVMSwC (like other platforms) is not because it is not as "popular" in the-G mainstream, but rather, as  discussed many times in this group, OpenVMSuA was designed from the beginning to be a highly secure OS and that / security was not something "added on" later.=20>   Regardsc  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant2 HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660h Fax: 613-591-4477u kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  $ "OpenVMS has always had integrity .. Now, Integrity has OpenVMS .."   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Apr 2005 16:21:22 -0700 From: tomarsin2015@comcast.net4 Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?C Message-ID: <1114644082.005061.298950@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>t   As most replysG Damn near hack proof  - to hack VMS you need privi and most users donot- have the privi to do so 
 No virsuesC Clusters - True clusters - not some well my cluster can only have 2c nodesWF Failover - True VMS clusters will failover in a second or so (Linux/NT can only wish that)a6 Uptime - You dont need to reboot VMS every week or dayF Upgrades  - You can go from a VAX to A IA64 with little or no problems - try that on your Win box2 Easy of use - you can customize VMS to your choiceB VMS - VMS 8.2 is more secure then any other os out of the box - no  weekly security updates- no well+ we need to apply this patch and that patch.t+ Yes I am a VMS bigot and proud to be one!!!    ------------------------------    Date: 27 Apr 2005 16:42:40 -0700 From: bob@instantwhip.comt4 Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?B Message-ID: <1114645360.807890.90080@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>  < why don't I let you into one of our captive ftp vms accounts) and watch you try to get out of it ... :)e   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:35:02 -0700u From: Z <Z@no.spam> 4 Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?+ Message-ID: <UcWbe.25433$c42.7190@fe07.lga>e   Craig Dedo wrote:eB > Recently, I have been asked to make a presentation about the VMSG > operating system to an introductory computer science class at an areamI > high school.  The time for the presentation, including Q&A, will last as  F Most of the items mentioned here will be far too abstract and obscure D for the vast majority of the high school students in an intro class.  1 I'd focus on clustering - that's easy to explain.e  I Everyone has shared storage these days - even Windows 98 - so I wouldn't eI get into that in any detail ... but shared processing is cool so explain tI that. Also explain how one system box in a cluster can be miles from the . other.  F Definitely touch on the basic idea of a cluster behaving as an entity @ and how systems can dynamically join a cluster to add resources.  G The Linux geeks will probably ask some related questions about Beowulf  G clusters. Learn the basic limitations of Beowulfs (there are many) and h; if anyone asks, you can differentiate against VMS clusters.a  D Maybe touch on the variety of programming languages available. With F Linux/Unix, you pretty much have Perl, C (and some variants) and Java.  G With Windows, you get pretty much the same plus VB. With VMS, you have tG dozens of programming languages, all of which can be combined into one   application.  @ I'd stay clear of DCL. Compared alongside the better Linux/Unix / scripting langugaes, DCL is just not that good.t   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:56:31 -0400 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>m4 Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?, Message-ID: <84CdnZBIN97d2O3fRVn-ig@igs.net>   Z wrote: > Craig Dedo wrote:aC >> Recently, I have been asked to make a presentation about the VMS H >> operating system to an introductory computer science class at an areaC >> high school.  The time for the presentation, including Q&A, will 	 >> last a  > G > Most of the items mentioned here will be far too abstract and obscurecF > for the vast majority of the high school students in an intro class. >a3 > I'd focus on clustering - that's easy to explain.e >rA > Everyone has shared storage these days - even Windows 98 - so I.C > wouldn't get into that in any detail ... but shared processing isoD > cool so explain that. Also explain how one system box in a cluster > can be miles from the other. > G > Definitely touch on the basic idea of a cluster behaving as an entityaB > and how systems can dynamically join a cluster to add resources. >eH > The Linux geeks will probably ask some related questions about BeowulfH > clusters. Learn the basic limitations of Beowulfs (there are many) and= > if anyone asks, you can differentiate against VMS clusters.t >sE > Maybe touch on the variety of programming languages available. WithsH > Linux/Unix, you pretty much have Perl, C (and some variants) and Java. >o5 > With Windows, you get pretty much the same plus VB.s    G Actually, Microsoft is gradually phasing traditional VB out in favor ofrJ .NET - Microsoft has decided to discontinue support for Visual Basic 6 and earlier versions. Seeh9 http://www.eweek.com/article2/0%2C1759%2C1774528%2C00.aspt  J I don't believe that anything has changed Microsoft's mind about this yet.   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2005.235 ************************