1 INFO-VAX	Wed, 03 Aug 2005	Volume 2005 : Issue 429       Contents: "the normal ordering process"?" Re: $setuai prc$m_tcb and auditing Re: 'Nuff said Re: 'Nuff said Re: 'Nuff said ANNOUNCE: XPdf v3.00pl3  Re: ANNOUNCE: XPdf v3.00pl3  Re: ANNOUNCE: XPdf v3.00pl3  Re: Another blue screen  Re: Another blue screen  Re: Appletalk on VMS 7.3-2 Re: Appletalk on VMS 7.3-20 Re: Creating Custom Printer Banner Page in DCPS?0 Re: Creating Custom Printer Banner Page in DCPS?0 Re: Creating Custom Printer Banner Page in DCPS? Re: hardware i/o and 500au+ Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin / Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin / Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin / Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin / Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin / Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin / Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin / Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin / Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin / Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin / Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin / Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin / Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin 0 Re: The cause of the Air France crash in Toronto  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:57:08 GMT " From:   VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG' Subject: "the normal ordering process"? 0 Message-ID: <00A47B0B.AE905A81@SendSpamHere.ORG>  G OK... I need to break down and get myself a copy of the OpenVMS Itanium 4 source listings.  On one of the /DSPP pages it says:  E DSPP does not provide listings kits.  Partners may order them from HP F through the normal ordering process.  Part numbers are provided below.    E OK, what *is* a normal ordering process with HP.  My experiences have D not left me to believe that there is such a beast.  Anybody that has@ obtained the Itanium source listings, please help me out here.    E I'm sincerely hoping this doesn't turn into the rack mounting kit de-  bacle of several months ago.   --  K VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM              5   "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"     ------------------------------   Date: 2 Aug 2005 07:33:22 -0500 - From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) + Subject: Re: $setuai prc$m_tcb and auditing 3 Message-ID: <79GTFp1QjNne@eisner.encompasserve.org>   u In article <dcluu1$i1o$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> writes:  > Hi,  > J > This is on VAX/VMS 6.2 and does not appear to be reproduceable on Alpha.J > (Yes I know it's old but if anyone's memory is jogged then please let me > know)  > L > Two detached processes created, both running the same image under the same8 > username after the $creprc stsflg parameter was set atM > <prc$m_detach!prc$m_tcb>. One of them is happily informing $setuai *not* to I > audit changes to the UAF (via $setuai) but the other one starts telling 8 > everyone that logfails/successes etc is being updated.  @ You have not made it clear (to me anyway) what the difference is between the two processes.  J > Anyone familiar enough with the $setuai code to tell me why the TCB flagE > could be being ignored? (The creprc_flags and the phdflags for both  > processes are the same)    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Aug 2005 16:41:16 -0500  From: briggs@encompasserve.org Subject: Re: 'Nuff said 3 Message-ID: <pyUenr8DquPj@eisner.encompasserve.org>   u In article <dcon5r$3bm$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> writes:  >  > 
 > Hi Richard,  > B > We don't run DECnet on the TestDrive systems.  Try this instead. >  > $ set host 0/telnet    $ set host 0 /telnet ?Illegal internet address    $ set host 127.0.0.1 /telnet	 Username:    	John Briggs   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 00:00:34 GMT   From: John Santos <john@egh.com> Subject: Re: 'Nuff said , Message-ID: <COTHe.26331$MW5.21798@trnddc08>   briggs@encompasserve.org wrote: w > In article <dcon5r$3bm$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> writes:  >  >>
 >>Hi Richard,  >>B >>We don't run DECnet on the TestDrive systems.  Try this instead. >> >>$ set host 0/telnet  >  >  > $ set host 0 /telnet > ?Illegal internet address  >  > $ set host 127.0.0.1 /telnet > Username:  >  > 	John Briggs     What stack are you running?    $ set host 0 /telnet  F works on all my systems:  Alpha w/TCPWARE, Alpha w/UCX, VAX w/TCPWARE.   --   John Santos  Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:38:45 -0500 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> Subject: Re: 'Nuff said + Message-ID: <42F02025.CD8D53CE@comcast.net>    John Santos wrote: > ! > briggs@encompasserve.org wrote: y > > In article <dcon5r$3bm$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> writes:  > >  > >> > >>Hi Richard,  > >>D > >>We don't run DECnet on the TestDrive systems.  Try this instead. > >> > >>$ set host 0/telnet  > >  > >  > > $ set host 0 /telnet > > ?Illegal internet address  > >   > > $ set host 127.0.0.1 /telnet
 > > Username:  > >  > >       John Briggs  >  > What stack are you running?  >  > $ set host 0 /telnet > H > works on all my systems:  Alpha w/TCPWARE, Alpha w/UCX, VAX w/TCPWARE.  G Doesn't seem to work with Multinet, but this version here is quite old:    $ set host 0/telnet  ?Illegal internet address  $ mult show/versE Process Software MultiNet V4.2 Rev A, AlphaStation 200 4/233, OpenVMS 
 AXP V7.2-2  < Last I looked, the TestDrive cluster was running (UCX) V5.5.   --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    Coming soon:& Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page   ------------------------------  $ Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 20:03:16 -0400+ From: Chip Coldwell <coldwell@gmail.nospam>   Subject: ANNOUNCE: XPdf v3.00pl3@ Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0508022000290.6278@frank.harvard.edu>  C With some effort, I've managed to compile Xpdf version 3.00pl3 (the C latest as of this writing) for OpenVMS/Alpha. This is an up-to-date 6 PDF viewer (analogous to Adobe Acrobat) for VMS users.  B Xpdf requires two shared libraries: T1Lib and Freetype. As of this: writing, the latest versions of each are 5.0.2 and 2.1.10,F respectively. Xpdf also requires Ghostscript, in order to use the Type@ 1 fonts that come with it (especially the 13 required PostScript fonts).   @ To make it convenient to install and remove, I have packaged theD compiled binaries in PCSI (PolyCenter Software Installation utility) format.   < Downloads and installation instructions are on my website at  0 http://frank.harvard.edu/~coldwell/vms/xpdf.html   --   Charles M. "Chip" Coldwell Turn on, log in, tune out    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:15:26 -0400 . From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca>$ Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: XPdf v3.00pl3- Message-ID: <42F01AA8.75BFBA8E@vaxination.ca>    Chip Coldwell wrote: > E > With some effort, I've managed to compile Xpdf version 3.00pl3 (the E > latest as of this writing) for OpenVMS/Alpha. This is an up-to-date 8 > PDF viewer (analogous to Adobe Acrobat) for VMS users.  M What would it take to emulate your work for VAX ? Woudl downloading your PCSI N kit and then manually extracting files allow oen to start th ebuild process onC VAX ? Or does you PCSI thing only contain compiled/linked modules ?    ------------------------------  $ Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 21:40:13 -0400+ From: Chip Coldwell <coldwell@gmail.nospam> $ Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: XPdf v3.00pl3@ Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0508022137110.8999@frank.harvard.edu>  # On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, JF Mezei wrote:    > Chip Coldwell wrote: >>F >> With some effort, I've managed to compile Xpdf version 3.00pl3 (theF >> latest as of this writing) for OpenVMS/Alpha. This is an up-to-date9 >> PDF viewer (analogous to Adobe Acrobat) for VMS users.  > O > What would it take to emulate your work for VAX ? Woudl downloading your PCSI P > kit and then manually extracting files allow oen to start th ebuild process onE > VAX ? Or does you PCSI thing only contain compiled/linked modules ?   K The PCSI thing only contains the compiled and linked modules.  But really,  J I should put my source code up on the website, too (I'm legally obligated F to since this software is under the GPL).  The build system is fairly H easy to run and I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work on VMS D provided you have the C++ compiler and MMS.  I'll try to get my act F together over the next day or two and get the source up on my website.   Chip   --   Charles M. "Chip" Coldwell Turn on, log in, tune out    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 06:46:38 -0700  From: Z <Z@no.spam>   Subject: Re: Another blue screen* Message-ID: <2PKHe.1735$_41.1043@fe02.lga>   S wrote: > Mike Rechtman wrote: > J >> In the 60's there was a line from a song that went "when will they ever >> learn..." >  > 0 > Those guys should read the uptime project top. > C > But for most of the people, even relatively computer-literate, a  I > computer is a thing that *does* crash from time to time. They are used  K > to it like having rain in the autumn. Some of them know there are things  J > rumored more stable, but look the sales reps say this solution *can* be G > made safer with this and that and and and. Now it crashes badly only  D > once a year, isn't that a huge improvement for the record? So why M > migrate to unix? Or even worse, to that other platform what-was-its-name...   E This isn't a PC/Windows issue, it's a design issue. It's not hard to  I design computing redundancy and failover into a collection of PCs; we do   it all the time.  B And, FWIW, even Alpha servers crash, so climb off that high horse.  E We have fully patched ES-40s running 7.2-1 in a 24/7/365 environment  B that will crash when mounting a faulty CD if the SYSTEM user gets I impatient with ^Y. Oh, and then there were the TIG error crashes. That's  ) why you build in redundancy and failover.    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:23:35 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>   Subject: Re: Another blue screen, Message-ID: <42EFBA23.A2989C46@teksavvy.com>   Z wrote:F > This isn't a PC/Windows issue, it's a design issue. It's not hard toJ > design computing redundancy and failover into a collection of PCs; we do > it all the time.    J Correct. But most shops opt for Windows because it is standard and because5 "expertise" is plentiful and more importantly CHEAP.    J Those shops are told by the windows weenies that they can build a reliableJ system at low cost without the complexity of multiple systems (and in mostN cases, those weenies woudln't know how to do that). So they go ahead and buildK the system and after they has spent so much money on it, it eventually gets K completed. The weenies leave onto other projecst and eventually the windows  thing falls flat on its face.    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Aug 2005 10:58:57 -0700 $ From: "Ed Wilts" <ewilts@ewilts.org># Subject: Re: Appletalk on VMS 7.3-2 C Message-ID: <1123005536.996003.259220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>   O > We don't make much use of it here anymore, but we've had no problems on Alpha  > 7.3-1, current patches.   D It worked fine for us before some of the 7.3-2 patches were applied.  E >  Does DCPS provide a 'supported' route ? Last I heard, it was fully I > supported, and sat on top of Appletalk - implying support of that too - & > an ambiguity I never did understand.  @ DCPS supports functioning stacks.  DCPS merely uses the stack toC deliver the print information but it does not imply support of that C stack.  DCPS supports printing over MultiNet too, but that does NOT B mean that HP supports MultiNet since it clearly does not.  There'sD nothing ambiguous about it - if the DCPS data doesn't make it to the6 printer, it's not DCPS's fault and you're on your own.  = Any issues in AppleTalk need to be fixed by the maintainer of ; AppleTalk.  Unfortunately, there is no active maintainer...   	    .../Ed    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:31:24 GMT * From: Paul Anderson <paul.anderson@hp.com># Subject: Re: Appletalk on VMS 7.3-2 5 Message-ID: <020820051515337889%paul.anderson@hp.com>   B In article <dcndgl$4d8$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, Chris Sharman# <chris.sharman@sorry.nospam> wrote:   F > We don't make much use of it here anymore, but we've had no problems" > on Alpha 7.3-1, current patches.  G We in DCPS Land have had no problems with AppleTalk either, until V8.n, D when it's definitely broke.  Then again, we don't load up our system with too many patches, either.  D > Does DCPS provide a 'supported' route ? Last I heard, it was fullyG > supported, and sat on top of Appletalk - implying support of that too ( > - an ambiguity I never did understand.  D DCPS will work with AppleTalk if AppleTalk is functioning.  The factD that the product that provides AppleTalk on OpenVMS has been retiredE and unsupported for years does make DCPS's support of AppleTalk a bit = ambiguous.  We have done nothing to remove or break DCPS over @ AppleTalk, but we say clearly in the DCPS SPD that PATHWORKS for@ OpenVMS (Macintosh) has been retired and is no longer supported.   Paul   --    Paul Anderson   OpenVMS Engineering    Hewlett-Packard Company    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:19:31 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 9 Subject: Re: Creating Custom Printer Banner Page in DCPS? , Message-ID: <42EFB92F.71A42A60@teksavvy.com>   Dave Froble wrote:J > Well, I was thinking of something really simple, that wouldn't even needH > DCPS.  That was where this started, but things might be more useful ifI > it helped all VMS users, including those not using DCPS.  Don't know if  > that exists anymore.    I Ok, and I now see where you were coming from with "change the qhole queue 	 system".    J Actually, it wouldn't be the queue system, but each printer symbiont wouldB have to be modified to make use of some customizable banner bage.   L In the particular case of DCPS, this is relatively easy to do beccause it isM just the need to change a few $FAO formats to cause data to create postscript K variables to be sent instead of sending calls to postcript subroutines with 6 the data as argument. No major change in the symbiont.  D In the case of the standard text symbionts, it would be much harder.F Essentially, there would have to be some lib$FIND_IMAGE_SYMBOL call toJ dynamically link to a user shareable image that would contain the logic toN print the banner page, and document all the internal ways for a routing in theK shreable image to access the variables for that job, as well as paper size. U (banner pages are different if printing on 132 column paper than on 80 column paper).    ------------------------------  $ Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 13:45:35 -0500? From: "Christopher Story" <ke6rwj@spam-eater-remove-me-msn.com> 9 Subject: Re: Creating Custom Printer Banner Page in DCPS? ( Message-ID: <09PHe.645$qv2.348@fe07.lga>  K > In the particular case of DCPS, this is relatively easy to do beccause it  isD > just the need to change a few $FAO formats to cause data to create
 postscriptH > variables to be sent instead of sending calls to postcript subroutines with8 > the data as argument. No major change in the symbiont.  J The PS variables can be called in the SYTEMPAGES module to format the page in any way desired.   B So are the changes a possibility for VMS admins? or is this a DCPS< programming issue, which requires access to the DCPS source?   Chris    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:36:52 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> 9 Subject: Re: Creating Custom Printer Banner Page in DCPS? 0 Message-ID: <11evikh8pb1ue5b@corp.supernews.com>   JF Mezei wrote:  > Dave Froble wrote: > J >>Well, I was thinking of something really simple, that wouldn't even needH >>DCPS.  That was where this started, but things might be more useful ifI >>it helped all VMS users, including those not using DCPS.  Don't know if  >>that exists anymore. >  >  > K > Ok, and I now see where you were coming from with "change the qhole queue  > system".   > L > Actually, it wouldn't be the queue system, but each printer symbiont wouldD > have to be modified to make use of some customizable banner bage.   G I was thinking of things, options, switches, in the SUBMIT command for  F specifying what should go on the burst/flag pages.  Actually, I don't F think that's so good, because then you require today's users to think  and take a specific action.   N > In the particular case of DCPS, this is relatively easy to do beccause it isO > just the need to change a few $FAO formats to cause data to create postscript M > variables to be sent instead of sending calls to postcript subroutines with 8 > the data as argument. No major change in the symbiont. > F > In the case of the standard text symbionts, it would be much harder.H > Essentially, there would have to be some lib$FIND_IMAGE_SYMBOL call toL > dynamically link to a user shareable image that would contain the logic toP > print the banner page, and document all the internal ways for a routing in theM > shreable image to access the variables for that job, as well as paper size. W > (banner pages are different if printing on 132 column paper than on 80 column paper).   H I was thinking of being much simpler.  The flag/burst page would be the D same for everyone, only one set-up for a system, but, being able to C enable or surpress by each item the data that's now on those pages.   H It's been a very long time since I've seen a burst/flag page.  I forget  what's normally on those pages.    --  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: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:30:39 -0700 ! From: Crabs <Crabs@ihatespam.com> # Subject: Re: hardware i/o and 500au / Message-ID: <lu2dnUtB0oxNJnLfRVn-rw@sunset.net>    gobo20@lycos.com wrote:  > hi,  > D > i have been doing bit-twiddling on external devices with linux andI > parallel port cards for a while now.  i generally use old ibm isa cards F > and an import pci card where i have the docs for the chip.  as a vmsH > admin during the day, i thought i would take a shot at doing this withE > vms.  picked up a used jensen, but have since learned the jensen is G > probably not the platform to do this on.  there are some used 500au's I > on ebay, but i don't know a thing about the 500au other than it must be G > an au for vms.  what kind of bus is in these things?  can you disable I > the on-board parallel port as on a pc so a different one can be plugged H > in?  would the 500au be a better choice than the jensen, not as picky? > any other suggestions? > 	 > thanks.  > I Jensens were OK for their time, but they are really_really outdated now.  G I'd keep it around for the curiosity quotient, (much the same reason I  I still have 3 Multias, but I digress), but for what you can buy a 500A at  3 eBay, they're not worth the hassle and aggravation. I PWS 500A's run VMS nicely, they just need the right "guts".  Usually all  A you need to change is the video card, SCSI card and CD Rom drive. H Someone else will have to answer your ?'s about what bus and if you can # disable the built in parallel port.    TomC   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:04:56 GMT ( From: Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net>4 Subject: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin< Message-ID: <c4LHe.11289$GO1.7926@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>  D According to the Intel slides published on the The Inquirer website B Intel are now targetting the Itanium only at market segment "RISC H replacement (2/4/8+sockets)". The market segment "Enterprise and volume A (4/8+ sockets)" is now targetted by the 64 bit Intel Xeon MP and  D successors. The roadmap shows that Intel have no remaining residual 6 plans to force Itanic into the wider Enterprise space.  @ See the slides at http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25073. In 7 particular the Intel Enterprise Server Platform Roadmap  --  
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:31:47 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> 8 Subject: Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin0 Message-ID: <11ev48vr6olc28f@corp.supernews.com>   Alan Greig wrote: F > According to the Intel slides published on the The Inquirer website D > Intel are now targetting the Itanium only at market segment "RISC J > replacement (2/4/8+sockets)". The market segment "Enterprise and volume C > (4/8+ sockets)" is now targetted by the 64 bit Intel Xeon MP and  F > successors. The roadmap shows that Intel have no remaining residual 8 > plans to force Itanic into the wider Enterprise space. > B > See the slides at http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25073. In 9 > particular the Intel Enterprise Server Platform Roadmap   B Are there still any who doubt what AMD could/did do to the itanic?  D Come on, you know who you are, the ones that loudly proclaimed that H Hammer would never make it, that Intel had too much money, etc.  Any of K you want to comment on how things developed?  Too busy licking your wounds?    --  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: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:24:57 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 8 Subject: Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin, Message-ID: <42EFBA75.F0DA1452@teksavvy.com>   Alan Greig wrote:  > E > According to the Intel slides published on the The Inquirer website C > Intel are now targetting the Itanium only at market segment "RISC I > replacement (2/4/8+sockets)". The market segment "Enterprise and volume ? > (4/8+ sockets)" is now targetted by the 64 bit Intel Xeon MP      K Still on track for a 2007 announcement that development on IA64 would stop.    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Aug 2005 12:57:00 -0700  From: bob@instantwhip.com 8 Subject: Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffinC Message-ID: <1123012620.444507.183680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>   % so that means the return of alpha! :)    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:47:09 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> 8 Subject: Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin0 Message-ID: <11evj7q412ij3a6@corp.supernews.com>   Bill Gunshannon wrote:2 > In article <11ev48vr6olc28f@corp.supernews.com>,, > 	Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: >  >>Alan Greig wrote:  >>G >>>According to the Intel slides published on the The Inquirer website  E >>>Intel are now targetting the Itanium only at market segment "RISC  K >>>replacement (2/4/8+sockets)". The market segment "Enterprise and volume  D >>>(4/8+ sockets)" is now targetted by the 64 bit Intel Xeon MP and G >>>successors. The roadmap shows that Intel have no remaining residual  9 >>>plans to force Itanic into the wider Enterprise space.  >>> C >>>See the slides at http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25073. In  : >>>particular the Intel Enterprise Server Platform Roadmap >>D >>Are there still any who doubt what AMD could/did do to the itanic? >>F >>Come on, you know who you are, the ones that loudly proclaimed that J >>Hammer would never make it, that Intel had too much money, etc.  Any of M >>you want to comment on how things developed?  Too busy licking your wounds?  >> >  > J > So Dave, come on.  Don't hold back.  Tell us what you really think.  :-) >  > bill >    Ok.   , It's been a bad week, and it's only Tuesday.  F Went to pay the property taxes.  (Now you know how bad it is.)  Write G out a check.  "We need to see a photo ID."  Why?  It's property taxes.  H If the check is no good, you know where the property is.  It's not like E some merchandise that I can run off with.  Drive 20 miles back home.  D Get a sandwich.  Leave to go back to pay the taxes.  Two miles from < home, and I realize I once again forgot the drivers license.  I Trying to buy a small quantity of mold release.  "Our smallest container  F is a gallon."  Ok, can't find it anywhere else, call the distributor, G I'm coming over to pick up the cleaner, sealer, and release.  "Oh, you  G want sealer?  All I have in stock is pails."  (That's 5 gallons, and I  
 need a pint.)   I Oh, sorry, you want to know how I feel about carp that bought the itanic  ' is better line, hook, line, and sinker?   H Our dog has lost his sight.  Sorry thing.  Now I can see how the itanic ) defenders were operating.  Totally blind.    --  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: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:33:22 -0500 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>8 Subject: Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin+ Message-ID: <42F01EE2.5F272C0E@comcast.net>    bob@instantwhip.com wrote: > ' > so that means the return of alpha! :)   ? Doubtful, though I dunno what the relationship is with Samsung.   = If anything, and if not Alpha, it's either x86-64 or history.   H I'm thinking history at this point. We all know it should be x86-64, but= the powers-that-be are oblivious to what we know for certain.   D Actually, it should be native OpenVMS-IA32 and OpenVMS-x86/64 via an IEST utility:   = $ IEST image_spec/IA32	! For direct VAX -> 32-bit translation    ...or...  G $ IEST image_spec/X86_64 ! To include 64-bit extensions in Alpha images   F I know, not likely. Then again, my being here making this post was not likely 27 years ago.  A Amazing what can happen when hands are forced by time and tide...    --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    Coming soon:& Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:55:11 -0400 . From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca>8 Subject: Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin- Message-ID: <42F023F7.4CC84F27@vaxination.ca>    David J Dachtera wrote: J > I'm thinking history at this point. We all know it should be x86-64, but? > the powers-that-be are oblivious to what we know for certain.     L No. I am sure that many at HP are fully aware of the true future of IA64 (orN lack therreof).  But they cannot admit that we are right and must maintain theM image that IA64 has a bright future because that is the official HP PR stance  until 2007.   L Now, the big question is whether HP has decided that IA64 will be a dead-endL for VMS, or if VMS will be ported to the 64 but 8086, and in the later case,J whether the port was already and covertly begun or if they will wait until 2007 before starting the work.    N (Is John Covert still a VMS engineer ? Seems he would be the perfect fit to do$ a covert port of VMS to the 8086 :-)   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Aug 2005 22:55:17 -0500 + From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) 8 Subject: Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin3 Message-ID: <RlDxqiuvas7t@eisner.encompasserve.org>   g In article <c4LHe.11289$GO1.7926@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net> writes: F > According to the Intel slides published on the The Inquirer website D > Intel are now targetting the Itanium only at market segment "RISC  > replacement (2/4/8+sockets)".   ; 	"now targetting" as in: "this is news?"  I don't think so.  	Don't get out much do you?     2 http://www.itjungle.com/tlb/tlb030805-story04.html  $ Volume 2, Number 10 -- March 8, 2005  N "The server and workstation market is a $60 billion marketplace where a singleM architecture does not really fit all needs," said Talwalker. "We have taken a K dual architecture approach. We are focusing Itanium at the RISC replacement K market, and the primary target is IBM Power." Talwalker lasered in on IBM's N Power, not mentioning Sun Microsystems's Sparc or Hewlett-Packard's PA-RISC orO Alpha processors, or other architectures, such as the few remaining proprietary ! mainframe and midrange platforms.     , > The market segment "Enterprise and volume C > (4/8+ sockets)" is now targetted by the 64 bit Intel Xeon MP and  F > successors. The roadmap shows that Intel have no remaining residual 8 > plans to force Itanic into the wider Enterprise space.  = 	Ummm... it is a $60 billion dollar market.  Itanium only has = 	to garner so much to be a success.  Look at that link above. ; 	Notice how they diss Sun UltraSparc by not even mentioning < 	it.  In Intel's eyes, UltraSparc is doomed.  Power is going 	to take a bit longer.  7 	Here's a bit of a teaser... Montecito is a barn burner ( 	on floating point.  Paul DeMone writes:   http://tinyurl.com/bp7rs  > A four socket 1.6 GHz prototype Montecito box gets ~46 GFLOP/s on Linpack.   @ The design improvements in Montecito did not focus on FP at all. Be afraid, very afraid. ;-)    ---    				Rob    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 00:12:03 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> 8 Subject: Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin0 Message-ID: <11f0gqj7kkj9i69@corp.supernews.com>   Rob Young wrote:i > In article <c4LHe.11289$GO1.7926@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net> writes:  > F >>According to the Intel slides published on the The Inquirer website D >>Intel are now targetting the Itanium only at market segment "RISC  >>replacement (2/4/8+sockets)".  >  > = > 	"now targetting" as in: "this is news?"  I don't think so.  > 	Don't get out much do you?  >  > 4 > http://www.itjungle.com/tlb/tlb030805-story04.html > & > Volume 2, Number 10 -- March 8, 2005 > P > "The server and workstation market is a $60 billion marketplace where a singleO > architecture does not really fit all needs," said Talwalker. "We have taken a M > dual architecture approach. We are focusing Itanium at the RISC replacement M > market, and the primary target is IBM Power." Talwalker lasered in on IBM's P > Power, not mentioning Sun Microsystems's Sparc or Hewlett-Packard's PA-RISC orQ > Alpha processors, or other architectures, such as the few remaining proprietary # > mainframe and midrange platforms.  >  >  > , >>The market segment "Enterprise and volume C >>(4/8+ sockets)" is now targetted by the 64 bit Intel Xeon MP and  F >>successors. The roadmap shows that Intel have no remaining residual 8 >>plans to force Itanic into the wider Enterprise space. >  > ? > 	Ummm... it is a $60 billion dollar market.  Itanium only has ? > 	to garner so much to be a success.  Look at that link above. = > 	Notice how they diss Sun UltraSparc by not even mentioning > > 	it.  In Intel's eyes, UltraSparc is doomed.  Power is going > 	to take a bit longer. > 9 > 	Here's a bit of a teaser... Montecito is a barn burner * > 	on floating point.  Paul DeMone writes: >  > http://tinyurl.com/bp7rs > @ > A four socket 1.6 GHz prototype Montecito box gets ~46 GFLOP/s
 > on Linpack.  > B > The design improvements in Montecito did not focus on FP at all. > Be afraid, very afraid. ;-)   H Well, at least one of the moles will still stick his head up.  The rest B seem to have learned.  Lots of bumps on the head does that to you.  I Target IBM and Power?  Get real Rob.  Intel would need a rather powerful  G (sic) telescope to target Power.  A few benchmarks that favor all that  F cache they're using (since they haven't any clues on what else to do) / does not translate into a versitile useful CPU.   I Lets see a show of hands.  How many are willing to compile and test many  F times to attempt to optimize their applications?  After every mod, do  the whole thing again?  H And AMD's Opteron keeps driving the need to enhance Intel's 64 bit x86, B which is what will probably get fast enough that even the favored ! benchmarks won't save the itanic.   @ Repeat after me Rob, "Intel wants volume!"  That's their mantra.   --  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, 03 Aug 2005 00:39:54 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 8 Subject: Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin, Message-ID: <42F04A86.3F642DA6@teksavvy.com>   Rob Young wrote:P > "The server and workstation market is a $60 billion marketplace where a single> > architecture does not really fit all needs," said Talwalker.  J server and workstation market != chip market for sersver and workstations.  J And since IA64's niche has narrowed to only a portion of the server market1 (high end), its market potential is even smaller.     M Now, if it costs 1 billion to upgrade IA64 and 1 billion to upgrade the 8086, N but IA64 only sells a few thousand chips per year (eg: not given away at belowL cost), there is no way that IA64 can be cost competitive with the 8086 which sells in high volume.   N In the end, HP's servers based on IA64 won't be competitive against the 64 bitM 8086 based servers.  HP may be able to introduce artificial price/performance L barriers to protect IA64, but Dell and IBM won't have such barriers and will take the market away from HP.   B > The design improvements in Montecito did not focus on FP at all. > Be afraid, very afraid. ;-)   I Isn't montecito just a dual core version of the current chip ? (Something H which Power has had for many year, and Power has a coherent single cache- whereas IA64 will have dual separare caches).    ------------------------------   Date: 3 Aug 2005 00:05:35 -0500 + From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) 8 Subject: Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin3 Message-ID: <L$+pnbQxwU2M@eisner.encompasserve.org>   Z In article <11f0gqj7kkj9i69@corp.supernews.com>, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: > Rob Young wrote:j >> In article <c4LHe.11289$GO1.7926@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net> writes: >>  G >>>According to the Intel slides published on the The Inquirer website  E >>>Intel are now targetting the Itanium only at market segment "RISC    >>>replacement (2/4/8+sockets)". >>   >>  > >> 	"now targetting" as in: "this is news?"  I don't think so. >> 	Don't get out much do you? >>   >>  5 >> http://www.itjungle.com/tlb/tlb030805-story04.html  >>  ' >> Volume 2, Number 10 -- March 8, 2005  >>  Q >> "The server and workstation market is a $60 billion marketplace where a single P >> architecture does not really fit all needs," said Talwalker. "We have taken aN >> dual architecture approach. We are focusing Itanium at the RISC replacementN >> market, and the primary target is IBM Power." Talwalker lasered in on IBM'sQ >> Power, not mentioning Sun Microsystems's Sparc or Hewlett-Packard's PA-RISC or R >> Alpha processors, or other architectures, such as the few remaining proprietary$ >> mainframe and midrange platforms. >>   >>   >>  - >>>The market segment "Enterprise and volume  D >>>(4/8+ sockets)" is now targetted by the 64 bit Intel Xeon MP and G >>>successors. The roadmap shows that Intel have no remaining residual  9 >>>plans to force Itanic into the wider Enterprise space.  >>   >>  @ >> 	Ummm... it is a $60 billion dollar market.  Itanium only has@ >> 	to garner so much to be a success.  Look at that link above.> >> 	Notice how they diss Sun UltraSparc by not even mentioning? >> 	it.  In Intel's eyes, UltraSparc is doomed.  Power is going  >> 	to take a bit longer.  >>  : >> 	Here's a bit of a teaser... Montecito is a barn burner+ >> 	on floating point.  Paul DeMone writes:  >>   >> http://tinyurl.com/bp7rs  >>  A >> A four socket 1.6 GHz prototype Montecito box gets ~46 GFLOP/s  >> on Linpack. >>  C >> The design improvements in Montecito did not focus on FP at all.  >> Be afraid, very afraid. ;-) > J > Well, at least one of the moles will still stick his head up.  The rest D > seem to have learned.  Lots of bumps on the head does that to you. > K > Target IBM and Power?  Get real Rob.  Intel would need a rather powerful  I > (sic) telescope to target Power.  A few benchmarks that favor all that  H > cache they're using (since they haven't any clues on what else to do) 1 > does not translate into a versitile useful CPU.   * 	Oh, you don't get out much either do you?@ 	Check out page 11 that shows the coorelation of cache size and B 	tpcc scaling (and other important benchmarks, maybe not important	 	to you):   ` http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~dbrooks/cs246-fall2004/ieee_micro_power_aware_microarchitecture.pdf  7 	Maybe you recall reading or hearing about IBM research ? 	that points out that tpcc scaling occurs up to 512 MByte sized  	CPU caches?  K > Lets see a show of hands.  How many are willing to compile and test many  H > times to attempt to optimize their applications?  After every mod, do  > the whole thing again?   	Oracle  	DB2 	MS SQL    > B > Repeat after me Rob, "Intel wants volume!"  That's their mantra. >   ; 	Intel has volume and because of that can squeeze the small < 	amount of Itaniums (in comparison) into their manufacturing; 	infrastructure.  Meanwhile, IBM microelectronics continues A 	to lose money and is desperate to maintain a fab and to fill it.    				Rob    ------------------------------   Date: 3 Aug 2005 00:13:34 -0500 + From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) 8 Subject: Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin3 Message-ID: <p4IpnHbaKP8z@eisner.encompasserve.org>   a In article <L$+pnbQxwU2M@eisner.encompasserve.org>, young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) writes: \ > In article <11f0gqj7kkj9i69@corp.supernews.com>, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: >> Rob Young wrote: k >>> In article <c4LHe.11289$GO1.7926@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net> writes:  >>> H >>>>According to the Intel slides published on the The Inquirer website F >>>>Intel are now targetting the Itanium only at market segment "RISC ! >>>>replacement (2/4/8+sockets)".  >>>  >>> ? >>> 	"now targetting" as in: "this is news?"  I don't think so.  >>> 	Don't get out much do you?  >>>  >>> 6 >>> http://www.itjungle.com/tlb/tlb030805-story04.html >>> ( >>> Volume 2, Number 10 -- March 8, 2005 >>> R >>> "The server and workstation market is a $60 billion marketplace where a singleQ >>> architecture does not really fit all needs," said Talwalker. "We have taken a O >>> dual architecture approach. We are focusing Itanium at the RISC replacement O >>> market, and the primary target is IBM Power." Talwalker lasered in on IBM's R >>> Power, not mentioning Sun Microsystems's Sparc or Hewlett-Packard's PA-RISC orS >>> Alpha processors, or other architectures, such as the few remaining proprietary % >>> mainframe and midrange platforms.  >>>  >>>  >>> . >>>>The market segment "Enterprise and volume E >>>>(4/8+ sockets)" is now targetted by the 64 bit Intel Xeon MP and  H >>>>successors. The roadmap shows that Intel have no remaining residual : >>>>plans to force Itanic into the wider Enterprise space. >>>  >>> A >>> 	Ummm... it is a $60 billion dollar market.  Itanium only has A >>> 	to garner so much to be a success.  Look at that link above. ? >>> 	Notice how they diss Sun UltraSparc by not even mentioning @ >>> 	it.  In Intel's eyes, UltraSparc is doomed.  Power is going >>> 	to take a bit longer. >>> ; >>> 	Here's a bit of a teaser... Montecito is a barn burner , >>> 	on floating point.  Paul DeMone writes: >>>  >>> http://tinyurl.com/bp7rs >>> B >>> A four socket 1.6 GHz prototype Montecito box gets ~46 GFLOP/s >>> on Linpack.  >>> D >>> The design improvements in Montecito did not focus on FP at all. >>> Be afraid, very afraid. ;-)  >>  K >> Well, at least one of the moles will still stick his head up.  The rest  E >> seem to have learned.  Lots of bumps on the head does that to you.  >>  L >> Target IBM and Power?  Get real Rob.  Intel would need a rather powerful J >> (sic) telescope to target Power.  A few benchmarks that favor all that I >> cache they're using (since they haven't any clues on what else to do)  2 >> does not translate into a versitile useful CPU. > , > 	Oh, you don't get out much either do you?B > 	Check out page 11 that shows the coorelation of cache size and D > 	tpcc scaling (and other important benchmarks, maybe not important > 	to you):  > b > http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~dbrooks/cs246-fall2004/ieee_micro_power_aware_microarchitecture.pdf >    	Wrong paper and links above.   9 > 	Maybe you recall reading or hearing about IBM research A > 	that points out that tpcc scaling occurs up to 512 MByte sized  > 	CPU caches?   	Here is that paper:  / http://iacoma.cs.uiuc.edu/caecw01/tpch_miss.pdf   ! 	Shows scaling out to 512 MBytes.    > L >> Lets see a show of hands.  How many are willing to compile and test many I >> times to attempt to optimize their applications?  After every mod, do   >> the whole thing again?  > 	 > 	Oracle  > 	DB2	 > 	MS SQL  >  >>  C >> Repeat after me Rob, "Intel wants volume!"  That's their mantra.  >>   > = > 	Intel has volume and because of that can squeeze the small > > 	amount of Itaniums (in comparison) into their manufacturing= > 	infrastructure.  Meanwhile, IBM microelectronics continues C > 	to lose money and is desperate to maintain a fab and to fill it.  > 	 > 				Rob  >    ------------------------------   Date: 3 Aug 2005 00:31:10 -0500 + From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) 8 Subject: Re: Intel hammer another nail in Itanium coffin3 Message-ID: <NsMftV3MYpzS@eisner.encompasserve.org>   \ In article <42F04A86.3F642DA6@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: > Rob Young wrote:Q >> "The server and workstation market is a $60 billion marketplace where a single ? >> architecture does not really fit all needs," said Talwalker.  > L > server and workstation market != chip market for sersver and workstations. > L > And since IA64's niche has narrowed to only a portion of the server market3 > (high end), its market potential is even smaller.  >   ? 	And yet worth billions.  It will be HP/UX, NSK, VMS, NEC, SGI,  	Fujitsu, etc.  O > Now, if it costs 1 billion to upgrade IA64 and 1 billion to upgrade the 8086, P > but IA64 only sells a few thousand chips per year (eg: not given away at belowN > cost), there is no way that IA64 can be cost competitive with the 8086 which > sells in high volume.   @ 	It doesn't have to be.  It sells at a premium.  Paul points out+ 	it doesn't take much for it to make money.   P > In the end, HP's servers based on IA64 won't be competitive against the 64 bitO > 8086 based servers.  HP may be able to introduce artificial price/performance N > barriers to protect IA64, but Dell and IBM won't have such barriers and will > take the market away from HP.   > 	Competitive in which sense?  Won't compete against what?  How; 	does Power compare in a like comparison?  (Hint:  Power is   	RISC based - Itanium's target).  C >> The design improvements in Montecito did not focus on FP at all.  >> Be afraid, very afraid. ;-) > K > Isn't montecito just a dual core version of the current chip ? (Something J > which Power has had for many year, and Power has a coherent single cache/ > whereas IA64 will have dual separare caches).   C 	Far beyond "just a dual core version."  Foxton, Pellston, 24 MByte % 	L3 cache, higher speed, 667 MHz FSB.    				Rob    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 05:40:01 GMT S From: "Gregory Morrow" <gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@earthlink.net> 9 Subject: Re: The cause of the Air France crash in Toronto A Message-ID: <RMYHe.9711$6f.7647@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>    Nomen Nescio wrote:   ) > From the Canadian Broadcasting Company:  > K > TORONTO, Aug. 2  - An Air France A-340 crashed at Toronto Pearson airport H > this afternoon during landing.  Our reporter, JF Mezei, was riding his bikeH > along the runway racing planes as he does every afternoon.  He saw theE > plane coming in for landing, then run off the runway and burst into  flames. J > He filed this eyewitness report: "The cause of the accident was that theI > pilot was masturbating while landing.  All French pilots do that.  They  are H > very horny.  The problem was his pesky foreskin.  He had a bad case ofH > phimosis and he tore his foreskin while beating his meat very heavily. The J > Airbus practically lands itself.  Despite what the Bush Regime wants you toK > believe, it is a very advanced plane.  The Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz axis J > of evil wants to take over Europe, like it did Iraq in that illegal war.@ > Bush Jr. is a war criminal and needs to be tried as such in anJ > international court of law.  Americans are a bunch of idiots who believeH > everything the media in their police state feed them.  That's why theyK > circumcise all their boys when they are born.  They are afraid of smegma. H > Terrified!  If they practiced the method of penile manipulation that II > advocate, that would not be necessary.  All parents need to check their E > boys' penises on a daily basis, and make sure the foreskin retracts I > completely, so they can masturbate without problems.  But the Americans  are L > a bunch of puritanical prudes who don't want to admit that masturbation isJ > a wonderful practice and is beneficial for your health.  So instead theyL > get rich off the cannibalisation of their children's foreskins, which theyL > then sell for skin grafts, the greedy blood-sucking capitalist leeches.  IL > know this because I look at other guys' cocks in the locker room at my gymI > everyday and try to measure how much foreskin they have left after they G > were mutilated by the Bush Regime.  So they pass legislation like the F > Homeland Security Act to distract the world from this craziness, and that'sG > what makes the world hate them, justifiably, and want to attack them. D > That's why the moslems hate them.  That's why all those planes get divertedJ > to Canada when the Bush Regime police state get the communist manifesto,K > oops I mean the passenger manifest for all flights ahead of time, so they K > can send the plane to Canada if it has terrorists and let them crash into L > buildings there, because Americans are jealous of Canadians and how we canI > masturbate freely all we want, and that is why the plane crashed today.  IfK > the whole world went back to VAX and they used VMS to program the cockpit G > instruments on airliners this would never have happened.  The shuttle I > disasters would have never happened.  The astronauts who are trapped in  the I > evil Space Shuttle in space right now would not be awaiting their death J > upon re-entry as they are right now!  Down with America!!  Down with the > evil Bush Regime!!!" > J > -JF Mezei is our correspondent on aviation, circumcision, foreskins, andH > masturbation.  He is based in Montreal, where he lives in his mother'sC > basement, playing with his VAX machine, which he calls his "son", 	 inserting  > porn into it's "hard" drive.    & Wow!  He's a regular Edward R. Murrow!   --   Best Greg   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2005.429 ************************                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              