0 INFO-VAX	Sun, 06 Feb 2005	Volume 2005 : Issue 73      Contents:! Re: Curly soon to be out of a job ! Re: Curly soon to be out of a job ! Re: Curly soon to be out of a job ! Re: Curly soon to be out of a job ! Re: Curly soon to be out of a job ! Re: Curly soon to be out of a job ! Re: Curly soon to be out of a job ! Re: Curly soon to be out of a job ! Re: Curly soon to be out of a job ! Re: Curly soon to be out of a job ! Re: Curly soon to be out of a job ! Re: Curly soon to be out of a job ! Re: Curly soon to be out of a job ! Re: Curly soon to be out of a job ! Re: Curly soon to be out of a job ! Re: Curly soon to be out of a job 2 Re: FBI gets hacked - should have been on OpenVMS!9 Re: How do I use terminal emulator with escape sequences? 9 Re: How do I use terminal emulator with escape sequences? ( Re: Need an IDE for C++ (CXX) on OpenVMS( Re: Need an IDE for C++ (CXX) on OpenVMS( Re: Need an IDE for C++ (CXX) on OpenVMS( Re: Need an IDE for C++ (CXX) on OpenVMS( Re: Need an IDE for C++ (CXX) on OpenVMS  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 13:49:53 -0500 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>* Subject: Re: Curly soon to be out of a job= Message-ID: <ZYCdnWemnaTOiJjfRVn-oQ@metrocastcablevision.com>    Rob Young wrote:T > In article <6tadnV2nw4vsdpnfRVn-2w@igs.net>, "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes: >  >>Sue, >>) >>I appreciate your opinion and thoughts.  >>L >>Curly was less Napoleonic in his dealings with staff than carly(tm) - it'sE >>actually nice to hear - but don't forget I never badmouthed the man # >>personally....only his decisions.  >>4 >>As to carly(tm), never equate 'smart' with 'wise'. >> >>I >>I won't ask you to answer these in a public forum but I will ask you to M >>consider the following questions I'm sure you have opinions on, and reflect L >>upon how hubris has been the downfall of man good people and corporations: >>L >>- Do you agree with the report published by DEC/Compaq engineers about theL >>relative merits of Alpha vs. IA64? (see the recently posted url from Keith >>C.)  >  > A > 	That paper has been around for quite some time.  It is a great > > 	paper.  But alpha is no more and it isn't as if Itanium is 	 > 	a dog.   F That's not the issue, Rob:  the paper in question never asserted that I Itanic was a dog, just that its potential was unimpressive compared with  I Alpha's - an assertion which certainly seems to have been borne out over   time.    >  > F >>- Do you believe that killing Alpha in favor of IA64 was the correctM >>decision for all Compaq's product lines that were slated to continue to use ' >>Alpha or were slated to use it (NSK)?  >  > A > 	Yes.  For the same reason when UltraSparc goes away it will be @ > 	quite apparent that was a good decision.  The problem as Paul@ > 	DeMone outlines at RWT is merchant vs. house.  Merchant will  > 	always win.   > < > 	Here Paul is tutoring Linus on the advantages of merchant > 	versus house, a key segment:   I It's rather ironic (though perhaps not all that surprising) that someone  G of your religious convictions appears to have confused a blowhard like   Paul with God.  E Paul has some experience in the industry (though primarily in memory  H rather than processor manufacturing) and a while ago parlayed that into I a position of prominence at a moderately obscure Web site.  However, his  G ego far exceeds his competence, and since not long after the Alphacide  E he has consistently been significantly over-optimistic in predicting  1 Itanic's performance relative to its competition.   E His predictions about Itanic's market success have been even farther  D from reality.  Paul has a financial stake in Intel:  it's not clear > whether that or his ego is at fault, but something clearly is.   ...   J >>- Do you believe that the loss of revenue and resulting profits, and theI >>porting costs incurred from that decision were justifiable to Compaq/HP  >>shareholders?  >  > ( > 	Can you specify exact dollar amounts?  I The relative magnitudes make the situation sufficiently clear that exact  D amounts are superfluous, Rob - just another red-herring demand from % someone in abject denial, I'm afraid.   I Compaq stated in March, 2001, that Tru64 systems generated $3 billion in  I annual revenue and VMS systems $4 billion, and Rich Marcello indicated 9  H months earlier that VMS systems generated $800 million in annual profit H (stating the same $4 billion annual revenue figure).   Rich also stated C at the time of the Alphacide that Alpha development costs ran $150  H million annually (whether that included EV7 costs that would not be cut H by the Alphacide or just EV8 was left unstated, but any way you look at  it it was a real bargain).  I 6 months after the Alphacide Compaq stated (in a letter to Gartner) that  D VMS system revenues were only $2 billion annually.  Since Tru64 had I already been consigned to the dustbin by HP by then, one can make a very  F reasonable guess that their revenues were far lower.  Last year Keith G quoted a Gorham figure for VMS revenue of $2.5 - $3 billion - a slight  I rebound that's not too surprising given the industry-leading EV7 systems  I which had appeared by then, but still a far cry from the earlier figures.   C Considering that VMS *service* revenues alone likely accounted for  G something close to half of the $4 billion annual system revenue before  F the Alphacide, it seems clear that VMS *sales* fell off a cliff after E that point and have never recovered all that much - with Tru64 sales  - likely hovering right around zero since then.       Can you also showE > 	the win transitioning house to merchant and where on the timeline	  > 	that becomes obvious?  I No, Rob:  it's up to people who actually believe such a win will someday  D occur to trot out figures supporting that thesis so that others can ! point out how laughable they are.   +    For SGI, they have just about turned the 
 > 	corner.  ? You mean from a company at the edge of bankruptcy because they  @ prematurely abandoned their bread-and-butter architecture for a H pie-in-the-sky replacement to a company which might, someday, return to C its previous position in the industry?  I guess that's better than  I nothing, but it's hardly a glowing recommendation for such a sequence of   actions.  7    As Paul points out in another post, SGI is now 80/20 = > 	IPF/MIPS.  Perhaps with HP the crossover will occur 50/50?   I A reasonable criterion for success would be when, say, VMS annual system  H profits return to $800 million, I'd say (assuming, of course, that they I are continuing to trend upward from that point).  While that ignores the  I significantly higher potential which VMS had if Compaq had only promoted  F it, it's at least an apples-to-apples comparison (given that HP isn't  promoting VMS either).  " I'm not exactly holding my breath.   >  > I >>- Do you agree that most of the delays in advancing Alpha design were a C >>result of on-again/off-again funding for chip design/development?  >  >  > 	It is dead.  Get over it.  I Just as soon as those responsible join it, Rob.  Bit of unfinished karma  3 still to take care of yet, but we're getting there.    >  > G >>- Do you believe that the performance of IA64 will match the expected H >>performance of Alpha at like points in time had Alpha development beenM >>continued on a properly funded timetable?, ie. IA64 without DEC/Compaq chip K >>people in 2007 vs. Alpha fully funded with DEC/Compaq chip people in 2007 : >>(just to pick a date - choose another date if you wish). >  > @ > 	Small consideration.  Larger consideration for Enterprises isA > 	IPF value add (see above) and increased feature set of Itanium  > 	(Foxton, Pellston, etc.)   I Rob, you've been vigorously selling Itanic futures since June 25, 2001 -  H getting close on to 4 years now.  Isn't it about time you had something  a bit more *current* to sell?   G Of course, if you *want* to compare futures, then you've really got to  I give the Alpha roadmap its due as well - which, as usual, makes even the  H current Itanic prospects look pretty sick.  But while we no longer have G Alpha to do that job in the present day, POWER5 seems to have taken up   at least a lot of the slack.   >  > M >>- Do you believe that the low-volume high-cost chip called IA64 is a better L >>bet even if it is $100 cheaper than a low-volume high-cost Alpha given the9 >>billions sunk into IA64 and its relative sales volume?   >  > I > 	Absolutely.  Intel has FAB space.  FABs cost big money and fortunately E > 	Intel cranks out millions of CPUs to offset the cost.  IBM doesn't , > 	and of course loses money with IBM micro. >  >  >>ie. how many hundredM >>million Alpha's would it take at $100 more per chip to equal the money sunk 
 >>into IA64?   >  > F > 	This is the wrong question.  The question to ask that SKHPC answersD > 	is how much was lost on each Alpha CPU manufactured?  It is quiteG > 	obvious that IBM micro is losing money on every CPU they manufacture - > 	as IBM micro consistently turns in a loss.   @ A paper loss, Rob.  Just as Alpha generated significant profits B *overall* for Compaq at the system level (even after taking those J per-chip 'losses' into account), so POWER generates similar gravy for IBM.  G If we were talking about high-volume commodity products you might have  H more of a point.  But of course by Intel's own admission we're not, and A by all appearances never will be (save for the POWER variants in   embedded systems, that is).    ...   M >>- Do you agree that the lack of public comment about VMS between Sept. 2001 K >>and May 2002 when indeed all other major products were being commented on K >>publicly by curly and carly(tm) introduced FUD with the customer base and 9 >>'froze' potential commitment to VMS by *new* customers?  >  > H > 	Who knows.  But Mark reports a reasonable percentage of new customers	 > 	- 15%.   F Given the continuing superiority of EV7 systems in some applications, C that's hardly surprising.  Still, 15% of a small number is an even  D smaller number, and such numbers are extremely susceptible to large 7 percentage variations with only small absolute changes.    - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:54:36 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> * Subject: Re: Curly soon to be out of a jobB Message-ID: <1107632608.52b14b7eb5cb211b87a084431c76333b@teranews>  " susan_skonetski@hotmail.com wrote:G > give it.  Michael, I knew and did meet on several occasions enough to F > form an opinion.  He also did something that I respect he told me "II > have your back on this" and really did protect me.  That is pretty rare D > from his level to mine (he was a president and I am well a nobody.    G Sue, remember that Curly wasn't really president. He was just some high G level accountant who got the job because they coudln't find anyone else C to replace Pfeiffer. So he would have definitely felt very insecure H initially and not felt so separate from the grunts since he was way overH his head with his new job.  Carly, on the other hand, got in at the veryF top with all the perks and business jets she could negotiate. She felt3 over secure and doesn't need to talk to the grunts.   G To me, no matter how Curly was nice to you and/or other individuals, he F is still the one who knewingly lied about his plans for Alpha, sellingD Alpha to the Qubec government big time just a few months before theH annoucnement that Alpha was being killed. This is very dishonest and I'dF say that you were lucky you didn't get screwed by Curly. My feeling isF that he was perfectly capable of screwing people if it helped save his5 job, and would help people if it helped save his job.   E Mafia leaders can be very nice and help a lot of people, but they are F also perfectly capable of killing their own mothers if the mother gets in the way.   H Sue, when you see how Curly lied and was dishonest to customers, doesn't, that devalue any nice thing he did for you ?   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 14:54:25 -0500# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> * Subject: Re: Curly soon to be out of a job, Message-ID: <A5qdnS7fmcjvuZjfRVn-vg@igs.net>   Rob Young wrote:; > In article <6tadnV2nw4vsdpnfRVn-2w@igs.net>, "John Smith"  > <a@nonymous.com> writes: > C >> - Do you agree that the lack of public comment about VMS between D >> Sept. 2001 and May 2002 when indeed all other major products wereD >> being commented on publicly by curly and carly(tm) introduced FUDD >> with the customer base and 'froze' potential commitment to VMS by >> *new* customers?  > G > Who knows.  But Mark reports a reasonable percentage of new customers  > - 15%.     Example: T(0)  = 100,000 customers  T(1)  =   80,000 customers  - Between T(0) and T(1) the following occurred:    T(0) customers shrank by 30,500 G 10,500 *new* customers were added - 15% of the attritted customer base.   ) A far different model than 100,000 + 15%.    Which is true?   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:15:12 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> * Subject: Re: Curly soon to be out of a jobB Message-ID: <1107633842.005de4ac32d91d42ff64947da9e1ff8f@teranews>   Bill Todd wrote:G > That's not the issue, Rob:  the paper in question never asserted that J > Itanic was a dog, just that its potential was unimpressive compared with
 > Alpha's     F When I was on the DECUS Canada board, the then rep gave a presentationH to the board on alpha vs IA64 based on internal documents. This was justF after the merger was announced, but before Compaq started to dismantleH DEC facilities). The arguments were damning on IA64. Not "unimpressive", but "fatally flawed".   H Some time ago here, someone posted a link to a long on-line presentationC by an ex Intel 8086 engineer and he too used description similar to 3 "fatally flawed" when looking at the IA64 project.    A So it wasn't just some DEC propaganda against IA64. I suspect SUN G probably had similar documents as well. And you don't see AMD trying to  make an IA64 clone.   C And I remember seing a presentation by John Loether who, while more G diplomatic than the wording I got in that decus board presentation, was B also pretty damning of IA64. Of course, post Alpha Murder, he gave? presentation that forced him to toe the Compaq corporate line.    A There were arguments not on the actual implementation, but on the H concepts of IA64. And those concepts are what constitute the fatal flaws because they won't go away.   D I suspect that EV7 work started to slow down under Palmer. (rememberF that Palmer had begun to port DEC-Unix to IA64, but not VMS).  had EV7H work progressed at its original rate, despite technical delays, it wouldF have been on the market a few years earlier. And it would have further( proven how pathetic that IA64 thing was.  B Alpha is very much like VMS. Despite attempst to kill it, it still outshines the competition.   ------------------------------   Date: 5 Feb 2005 14:58:45 -0600 - From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) * Subject: Re: Curly soon to be out of a job3 Message-ID: <AEHn0MTuHCug@eisner.encompasserve.org>   _ In article <Ic8Nd.7271$%j7.1206@news.cpqcorp.net>, "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> writes:  > 0 > "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in message( > news:cN2dnczkqY90Y57fRVn-iQ@igs.net... >> Sue,  >># >> I respect your opinion of Curly.  >>L >> At a personal level I'm pretty sure that carly isn't a bad person either.M >> She probably doesn't beat her dog or kick little kids. She can probably be  > a 7 >> great dinner date, and maybe she's great in bed too.  >> > : > Am I the only one who is just outright offended by this?  K Certainly he did not (this time) offend those of us who have him killfiled.   , Why do you make such things visible Fred :-)   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:44:14 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> * Subject: Re: Curly soon to be out of a job, Message-ID: <42053E2E.8040605@tsoft-inc.com>   FredK wrote:  0 > "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in message( > news:cN2dnczkqY90Y57fRVn-iQ@igs.net... >  >>Sue, >>" >>I respect your opinion of Curly. >>K >>At a personal level I'm pretty sure that carly isn't a bad person either. L >>She probably doesn't beat her dog or kick little kids. She can probably be >> > a  > 6 >>great dinner date, and maybe she's great in bed too. >> >> > : > Am I the only one who is just outright offended by this?    O Probably not, but I've seen much worse.  Your pointing it out just intensifies  = the statement.  It isn't appropriate.  Let such pass quietly.    Dave   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 18:53:29 -0500) From: "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> * Subject: Re: Curly soon to be out of a job; Message-ID: <Z%cNd.27204$Ck1.2097247@news20.bellglobal.com>   5 "Dave Froble" <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote in message  & news:42053E2E.8040605@tsoft-inc.com... > FredK wrote: >  [...big snip...]  ; >> Am I the only one who is just outright offended by this?  >  > E > Probably not, but I've seen much worse.  Your pointing it out just  K > intensifies the statement.  It isn't appropriate.  Let such pass quietly.  >  > Dave >   M More than several people, from time to time, have behaved badly in this news  J group. Aside from being generally uncivilized,  I find it odd that people K would do while knowing every key stroke is being recorded for posterity at   Google via www.deja.com   L To make things worse, the price of storage continues to plummet which means ) this stuff might hang around for decades.   I Let's forget about the personal comments and get back to a discussion of   OpenVMS related technology.   
 Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,  Ontario, Canada.9 http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html     ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 19:50:52 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> * Subject: Re: Curly soon to be out of a jobB Message-ID: <1107650357.e6fe05a5826f23df7e8d7a4861f4a492@teranews>   Neil Rieck wrote: N > More than several people, from time to time, have behaved badly in this newsK > group. Aside from being generally uncivilized,  I find it odd that people L > would do while knowing every key stroke is being recorded for posterity at > Google via www.deja.com   H People will learn that many many many comments can be and are quoted out of context.   D Personally, I saw that "offending" post in  context and saw it as an" insult/joke to Carly's competence.  G One needs to remember that this is a worldwide forum. In some cultures, G some comments can be considered taboo and inappropriate, while in other P cultures, they are common jokes and comments that are never seen as "offensive".  H In the USA, it si now inappropriate to call someone "black" and one mustA call him/her "african american", even if the person is from south C pacific roots. Elsewhere in the world, one would never call a black H person "african american". And calling someone "black" wouldn't have theE taboo/racist connotations that the USA gave the word (or whatever the 6 USA gave "black" to make it politically unacceptable).  C It seems that the rest of the world has underestimated the cultural H shifts occuring in the USA if even such an innocuous comment/joke is now seen as offensive.  C High profile people are fair game for jokes. They are fair game for H caricatures. And Carly is about as high profile as one can get for a CEOH in the world. Bill gates is the butt of many jokes too, even in the USA.   ------------------------------   Date: 5 Feb 2005 18:39:50 -0600 + From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) * Subject: Re: Curly soon to be out of a job3 Message-ID: <gEQ90FAzO5MZ@eisner.encompasserve.org>   h In article <ZYCdnWemnaTOiJjfRVn-oQ@metrocastcablevision.com>, Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes: > Rob Young wrote: >>  B >> 	That paper has been around for quite some time.  It is a great? >> 	paper.  But alpha is no more and it isn't as if Itanium is  
 >> 	a dog. > H > That's not the issue, Rob:  the paper in question never asserted that K > Itanic was a dog, just that its potential was unimpressive compared with  K > Alpha's - an assertion which certainly seems to have been borne out over   > time.  >   A 	True - if you quit measuring time.  According to Paul, Montecito ? 	puts IPF ahead of Power5 - even Power5+.  But we shall see and , 	know a whole lot more in the coming months.   >>   >>  G >>>- Do you believe that killing Alpha in favor of IA64 was the correct N >>>decision for all Compaq's product lines that were slated to continue to use( >>>Alpha or were slated to use it (NSK)? >>   >>  B >> 	Yes.  For the same reason when UltraSparc goes away it will beA >> 	quite apparent that was a good decision.  The problem as Paul A >> 	DeMone outlines at RWT is merchant vs. house.  Merchant will   >> 	always win.    >>  = >> 	Here Paul is tutoring Linus on the advantages of merchant   >> 	versus house, a key segment: > K > It's rather ironic (though perhaps not all that surprising) that someone  I > of your religious convictions appears to have confused a blowhard like   > Paul with God.  = 	Not at all.  Just that he is very good at what he does and I : 	certainly don't see you lecturing him about the industry.  G > Paul has some experience in the industry (though primarily in memory  J > rather than processor manufacturing) and a while ago parlayed that into K > a position of prominence at a moderately obscure Web site.  However, his  I > ego far exceeds his competence, and since not long after the Alphacide  G > he has consistently been significantly over-optimistic in predicting  3 > Itanic's performance relative to its competition.   = 	But performance is getting consistently better and Montecito ; 	will obtain much greater performance at 100 Watts to boot.   G > His predictions about Itanic's market success have been even farther  F > from reality.  Paul has a financial stake in Intel:  it's not clear @ > whether that or his ego is at fault, but something clearly is.  ? 	As Paul points out, Intel is less than 5% of his portfolio, so % 	his financial stake is not an issue.  >  >    Can you also showF >> 	the win transitioning house to merchant and where on the timeline	 >> 	that becomes obvious?  > K > No, Rob:  it's up to people who actually believe such a win will someday  F > occur to trot out figures supporting that thesis so that others can # > point out how laughable they are.  >    	But it will happen.  - >    For SGI, they have just about turned the  >> 	corner.  > A > You mean from a company at the edge of bankruptcy because they  B > prematurely abandoned their bread-and-butter architecture for a J > pie-in-the-sky replacement to a company which might, someday, return to E > its previous position in the industry?  I guess that's better than  K > nothing, but it's hardly a glowing recommendation for such a sequence of  
 > actions. >   D 	No.  MIPS as a computing CPU was doomed - they had to do something.@ 	John Mashey says in comp.arch that several mis-steps really put 	them behind the curve:    http://tinyurl.com/5dc2h  L 1) People comment that MIPS chips are behind in clock rate, and then ascribeI all sorts of architectural reasons to this.  This is mostly silly, as the F primary reason is some decisions (in my view, not good ones, but I wasI distracted by a heart attack at the time) made by some no-longer-with-SGI M executives around 1995, which essentially starved the R10K team of resources. L In particular, they didn't staff the followon tuneup projects that engineers> begged for, in favor of staving 1 and then 2 separate high-end< projects (H1 & H2), both of which were eventually cancelled.  )   	But that was then, this is now and SGI ? 	using IPF merchant is a good thing (as they wind down anything B 	to do with MIPS cpus).  Who will be the last house CPU standing -D 	Power - no doubt.  How many years you give UltraSparc?  I give them< 	3 years - at most.  Remember that Sun is the only major OEM= 	that hasn't adopted IPF - they're going to be feeling pretty % 	lonely and left out in a year or so.   9 >    As Paul points out in another post, SGI is now 80/20 > >> 	IPF/MIPS.  Perhaps with HP the crossover will occur 50/50? > K > A reasonable criterion for success would be when, say, VMS annual system  J > profits return to $800 million, I'd say (assuming, of course, that they K > are continuing to trend upward from that point).  While that ignores the  K > significantly higher potential which VMS had if Compaq had only promoted  H > it, it's at least an apples-to-apples comparison (given that HP isn't  > promoting VMS either). >   ? 	Can't depend on VMS as a criteria.  Overall IPF adoption would  	be more accurate.   >>  J >>>- Do you agree that most of the delays in advancing Alpha design were aD >>>result of on-again/off-again funding for chip design/development? >>   >>   >> 	It is dead.  Get over it.  > K > Just as soon as those responsible join it, Rob.  Bit of unfinished karma  5 > still to take care of yet, but we're getting there.  >    	Still dead.  Get over it.  H >>>- Do you believe that the performance of IA64 will match the expectedI >>>performance of Alpha at like points in time had Alpha development been N >>>continued on a properly funded timetable?, ie. IA64 without DEC/Compaq chipL >>>people in 2007 vs. Alpha fully funded with DEC/Compaq chip people in 2007; >>>(just to pick a date - choose another date if you wish).  >>   >>  A >> 	Small consideration.  Larger consideration for Enterprises is B >> 	IPF value add (see above) and increased feature set of Itanium >> 	(Foxton, Pellston, etc.) > K > Rob, you've been vigorously selling Itanic futures since June 25, 2001 -  J > getting close on to 4 years now.  Isn't it about time you had something  > a bit more *current* to sell?  >   ? 	Nah - futures are the exciting part.  After all, strategically > 	you have to know what is coming and how it will affect you.  > 	Montecito is quite exciting with Foxton and Pellston and much 	better performance.    I > Of course, if you *want* to compare futures, then you've really got to  K > give the Alpha roadmap its due as well - which, as usual, makes even the  J > current Itanic prospects look pretty sick.  But while we no longer have I > Alpha to do that job in the present day, POWER5 seems to have taken up   > at least a lot of the slack.  @ 	Forget Alpha - it is dead.  Get over it.  And yes - Power5 is a2 	wonderful performer and Montecito will do better.   >  >>   >>  N >>>- Do you believe that the low-volume high-cost chip called IA64 is a betterM >>>bet even if it is $100 cheaper than a low-volume high-cost Alpha given the : >>>billions sunk into IA64 and its relative sales volume?  >>   >>  J >> 	Absolutely.  Intel has FAB space.  FABs cost big money and fortunatelyF >> 	Intel cranks out millions of CPUs to offset the cost.  IBM doesn't- >> 	and of course loses money with IBM micro.  >>   >>   >>>ie. how many hundred N >>>million Alpha's would it take at $100 more per chip to equal the money sunk >>>into IA64?  >>   >>  G >> 	This is the wrong question.  The question to ask that SKHPC answers E >> 	is how much was lost on each Alpha CPU manufactured?  It is quite H >> 	obvious that IBM micro is losing money on every CPU they manufacture. >> 	as IBM micro consistently turns in a loss. > B > A paper loss, Rob.  Just as Alpha generated significant profits D > *overall* for Compaq at the system level (even after taking those L > per-chip 'losses' into account), so POWER generates similar gravy for IBM.  = 	This is correct.  But by the time you shift the paper profit @ 	to cover the paper loss - at the end of the day you have a muchA 	less profitable business teetering on a money losing business.   C 	Paul's whole point merchant versus house CPU.  Dell is a big clue  ? 	in this regard, by the way.  Because of the OEMs unburdened by D 	infrastructure support costs, the ones that have the infrastructure@ 	to support - whether IBM soup to nuts or Sun.  Now Sun is smartC 	in that they have shifted some of the burden to Fujitsu, but we'll @ 	see how long that lasts when Fujitsu sees declining Sun/SolarisB 	(this isn't new - old discussion, as we know the Sun is setting).  I > If we were talking about high-volume commodity products you might have  J > more of a point.  But of course by Intel's own admission we're not, and C > by all appearances never will be (save for the POWER variants in   > embedded systems, that is).   < 	Right - even less of a reason not to go merchant.  You have= 	all the infrastructure for a small number of CPUs, hence IBM  	micro is a big money loser.  N >>>- Do you agree that the lack of public comment about VMS between Sept. 2001L >>>and May 2002 when indeed all other major products were being commented onL >>>publicly by curly and carly(tm) introduced FUD with the customer base and: >>>'froze' potential commitment to VMS by *new* customers? >>   >>  I >> 	Who knows.  But Mark reports a reasonable percentage of new customers 
 >> 	- 15%. > H > Given the continuing superiority of EV7 systems in some applications, E > that's hardly surprising.  Still, 15% of a small number is an even  F > smaller number, and such numbers are extremely susceptible to large 9 > percentage variations with only small absolute changes.  >   A 	I highly doubt folks are buying because of EV7.  At this point - @ 	they are buying in spite of EV7.  After all, Alpha is dead.  If> 	it wasn't for the fact there is a good story in IPF (and the B 	story gets much better Montecito on), you certainly wouldn't wantE 	to take up a bunch of Alpha infrastructure as a new customer without  	a good path forward.    				Rob    ------------------------------   Date: 5 Feb 2005 19:06:38 -0600 + From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) * Subject: Re: Curly soon to be out of a job3 Message-ID: <1N6CEX95dWMl@eisner.encompasserve.org>   r In article <1107633842.005de4ac32d91d42ff64947da9e1ff8f@teranews>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: > Bill Todd wrote:H >> That's not the issue, Rob:  the paper in question never asserted thatK >> Itanic was a dog, just that its potential was unimpressive compared with  >> Alpha's   >  > H > When I was on the DECUS Canada board, the then rep gave a presentationJ > to the board on alpha vs IA64 based on internal documents. This was justH > after the merger was announced, but before Compaq started to dismantleJ > DEC facilities). The arguments were damning on IA64. Not "unimpressive", > but "fatally flawed".   < 	And in hindsight "fatally flawed" was just pompous bluster.  1 http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041216/sfth046_1.html   M "MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., Dec. 16 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- After searching the N world over for the most powerful computing technology, the Bavarian Academy ofI Sciences and Humanities (BAdW) has selected the latest generation of SGI. N Altix. systems from Silicon Graphics (NYSE: SGI - News) to power Germany's newE national supercomputing system. The new system, which eventually will L incorporate 3,328 dual-core Intel. Itanium. 2 processors, will be capable ofJ generating 69 trillion calculations per second of performance, effectivelyK boosting the computing capacity at Germany's Leibniz Computing Center (LRZ) M 30-fold. LRZ, the BAdw computing center, also will deploy a 660-terabyte SGI. H InfiniteStorage solution to accommodate its rapidly growing stockpile of scientific of data."  O "In early 2006, SGI will begin installation of the SGI Altix system, which will O feature 40 terabytes of globally addressable memory and will be integrated with N 660 terabytes of storage. Named "Hoechstleistungsrechner in Bayern" (HLRB-II),L the new system will replace LRZ's existing Hitachi SR8000 system, which runsD more than 200 projects requiring top performance from scientists andK researchers from all over Germany. The system will be upgraded to its final  configuration in 2007."    [snip]  L The aggregate revenue to SGI for hardware and services under the contract isI anticipated to be in excess of $50 million, the bulk of which will not be  recognized until 2007.   ---   @ 	That is 3328 Montecitos/Montvales delivering 69 Teraflops.  AndE 	they are dropping $50 million on it after an extended search.  Very  G 	impressive no matter how you measure it, certainly not "unimpressive."2D 	To suggest at this point that Itanium is "fatally flawed" is quite 
 	the chuckle.   J > Some time ago here, someone posted a link to a long on-line presentationE > by an ex Intel 8086 engineer and he too used description similar tot5 > "fatally flawed" when looking at the IA64 project. l  > 	Yes - just a disgruntled ex-Inteller.  There are disgruntled  	people all over the place.o  C > So it wasn't just some DEC propaganda against IA64. I suspect SUNoI > probably had similar documents as well. And you don't see AMD trying to  > make an IA64 clone.t  ? 	Funny you should mention Sun, they are the only major OEM that  	hasn't adopted Itanium.  C > There were arguments not on the actual implementation, but on theoJ > concepts of IA64. And those concepts are what constitute the fatal flaws > because they won't go away.  	 > 	I'm sitting here laughing.  IPF isn't fatally flawed.  If you; 	repeat it often enough, someone actually believes it?  And ? 	you certainly wouldn't trot out any of these "fatal flaws" for-E 	closer examination.  Sorta like school yard rumours - "if you drink 0@ 	Pepto Bismol, you will grow faster."  I'm sure there are a few 8 	gullible kids that would actually believe such a thing.  = 	There are hints all over the place about just how much of a t; 	screamer it is.  It will dominate HPC (at 100 watts , and w? 	screamer performance, no one comes close to Montecito for HPC  F 	applications and you can bet it will do very well at TPC benchmarks).  D > Alpha is very much like VMS. Despite attempst to kill it, it still > outshines the competition.  > 	I have no idea what you are comparing Alpha to or what metric 	you would be using.   				Rob    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 20:33:25 -0500e( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>* Subject: Re: Curly soon to be out of a job= Message-ID: <f-WdnfsHEfh77pjfRVn-3w@metrocastcablevision.com>>   Rob Young wrote:j > In article <ZYCdnWemnaTOiJjfRVn-oQ@metrocastcablevision.com>, Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes: >  >>Rob Young wrote: >>B >>>	That paper has been around for quite some time.  It is a great? >>>	paper.  But alpha is no more and it isn't as if Itanium is I
 >>>	a dog. >>H >>That's not the issue, Rob:  the paper in question never asserted that K >>Itanic was a dog, just that its potential was unimpressive compared with iK >>Alpha's - an assertion which certainly seems to have been borne out over r >>time.  >> >  > C > 	True - if you quit measuring time.  According to Paul, Montecitot+ > 	puts IPF ahead of Power5 - even Power5+.h  G Which I fully expect will just be another in his long string of overly  H optimistic projections.  Hardly a good record on which to base your own  prognostications.n   ...w  K >>It's rather ironic (though perhaps not all that surprising) that someone  I >>of your religious convictions appears to have confused a blowhard like L >>Paul with God. >  > ? > 	Not at all.  Just that he is very good at what he does and I(< > 	certainly don't see you lecturing him about the industry.  I Only because it got too boring to continue to do so.  There's a point at  G which repeating oneself starts seeming silly, though Paul doesn't seem o to share that view.c   >  > G >>Paul has some experience in the industry (though primarily in memory aJ >>rather than processor manufacturing) and a while ago parlayed that into K >>a position of prominence at a moderately obscure Web site.  However, his iI >>ego far exceeds his competence, and since not long after the Alphacide iG >>he has consistently been significantly over-optimistic in predicting e3 >>Itanic's performance relative to its competition.  >  > ? > 	But performance is getting consistently better and Montecitot= > 	will obtain much greater performance at 100 Watts to boot.o  H Well, duh:  funny how the passage of time and the advance of technology G seem to have that effect on things.  Just *how much* better has always  C been the real question, and so far Itanic has always come up short.e   ...t   >>   Can you also show >>F >>>	the win transitioning house to merchant and where on the timeline	 >>>	that becomes obvious?e >>K >>No, Rob:  it's up to people who actually believe such a win will someday $F >>occur to trot out figures supporting that thesis so that others can # >>point out how laughable they are.a >> >  >  > 	But it will happen.  F Ah - an article of faith, I see.  Why not apply the same criteria you E wanted to apply to John's statements and pony up some actual figures  ) which one could laugh at, as I suggested?    >  > - >>   For SGI, they have just about turned thep >> >>>	corner.8 >>A >>You mean from a company at the edge of bankruptcy because they .B >>prematurely abandoned their bread-and-butter architecture for a J >>pie-in-the-sky replacement to a company which might, someday, return to E >>its previous position in the industry?  I guess that's better than  K >>nothing, but it's hardly a glowing recommendation for such a sequence of t
 >>actions. >> >  > F > 	No.  MIPS as a computing CPU was doomed - they had to do something.B > 	John Mashey says in comp.arch that several mis-steps really put > 	them behind the curve:  >  > http://tinyurl.com/5dc2h > N > 1) People comment that MIPS chips are behind in clock rate, and then ascribeK > all sorts of architectural reasons to this.  This is mostly silly, as thecH > primary reason is some decisions (in my view, not good ones, but I wasK > distracted by a heart attack at the time) made by some no-longer-with-SGIiO > executives around 1995, which essentially starved the R10K team of resources.u  F Why not actually try to understand the material you just quoted, Rob, H rather than present it as a confirmation of your thesis when in fact it  rather clearly refutes it?  E MIPS was doomed only because SGI gave up on it in its enthusiasm for e@ becoming an Intel OEM - first with its misguided emphasis on NT H workstations, then with its misguided emphasis on Itanic, both of which I contributed to the starvation of MIPS resources which Mashey referred to.p  @ The same kind of self-fulfilling prophecy which now makes Alpha E increasingly uncompetitive:  nothing to do with technical potential, i. everything to do with managerial incompetence.  3 >  How many years you give UltraSparc?  I give themh > 	3 years - at most.2  D Is 'UltraSPARC' even still being developed?  Hasn't Sun moved on to 7 Niagara, Rock, and in cooperation with Fujitsu SPARC64?a  I I suspect those products, or their successors, will keep SPARC around at  G least well into the next decade - and quite possibly long after Itanic iF has sunk beneath the waves.  But you're the one who has such complete H confidence in your ability to predict the future despite such extensive H historical evidence of your complete incompetence at such endeavors:  I ? just make reasonable guesses based on the evidence rather than n2 categorical pronouncements based on my prejudices.  *    Remember that Sun is the only major OEM? > 	that hasn't adopted IPF - they're going to be feeling prettyi' > 	lonely and left out in a year or so.a  G Or pretty smug at not having wasted the kind of resources on a sinking yE architecture that HP and (though to far lesser extents) other Itanic f	 OEMs did.A   ...   G >>>	This is the wrong question.  The question to ask that SKHPC answersuE >>>	is how much was lost on each Alpha CPU manufactured?  It is quite.H >>>	obvious that IBM micro is losing money on every CPU they manufacture. >>>	as IBM micro consistently turns in a loss. >>B >>A paper loss, Rob.  Just as Alpha generated significant profits D >>*overall* for Compaq at the system level (even after taking those L >>per-chip 'losses' into account), so POWER generates similar gravy for IBM. >  > ? > 	This is correct.  But by the time you shift the paper profittB > 	to cover the paper loss - at the end of the day you have a muchC > 	less profitable business teetering on a money losing business.  e  E Much less profitable than what, Rob?  Than a CPU business into which uF Intel has sunk $billions and so far only received $millions in return?  F Being less profitable than that would be quite a challenge.  In fact, B most corporations couldn't afford to be even significantly *more* D profitable than Itanic.  The real question, now that Intel has been G forced to come up with a 64-bit x86 extension, is just how much longer nH they will choose to be that unprofitable in an increasingly unpromising  cause.   ....  I >>If we were talking about high-volume commodity products you might have tJ >>more of a point.  But of course by Intel's own admission we're not, and C >>by all appearances never will be (save for the POWER variants in t >>embedded systems, that is).e >  > > > 	Right - even less of a reason not to go merchant.  You have? > 	all the infrastructure for a small number of CPUs, hence IBMe > 	micro is a big money loser.  ; You just don't get it, Rob (not that this is anything new):U  C For low-end, high-volume servers, there's x86-64.  For higher-end,  E low-volume servers there's whatever you're currently using (assuming l> your vendor is willing to continue selling it to you, as most D non-brain-dead vendors seem to be) - because the cost of the CPU in A those servers is such a minor component of their overall cost of hF ownership that any savings from using a merchant CPU would be lost in I the noise (whereas the costs of *moving* to another hardware or software n* architecture would be significant indeed).  F Of course, IBM and Sun have demonstrated that they can sell POWER and E SPARC systems that are just as inexpensive as HP's Itanics (in Sun's mH case, at an entry price of about $1K considerably *less* expensive than A the least-expensive HP Itanic).  So the 'merchant CPU advantage' oI argument doesn't even seem to apply to the low end:  just another failed n1 hypothesis foundering upon the shoals of reality.p   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:30:44 GMT5L From: winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing)* Subject: Re: Curly soon to be out of a job6 Message-ID: <00A3EF30.E2CB059D@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>  r In article <1107650357.e6fe05a5826f23df7e8d7a4861f4a492@teranews>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: >Neil Rieck wrote:O >> More than several people, from time to time, have behaved badly in this newstL >> group. Aside from being generally uncivilized,  I find it odd that peopleM >> would do while knowing every key stroke is being recorded for posterity ate >> Google via www.deja.com > I >People will learn that many many many comments can be and are quoted outr >of context. >vE >Personally, I saw that "offending" post in  context and saw it as ane# >insult/joke to Carly's competence.   
 [snippage]   >gD >High profile people are fair game for jokes. They are fair game forI >caricatures. And Carly is about as high profile as one can get for a CEO I >in the world. Bill gates is the butt of many jokes too, even in the USA.   G I think the problem isn't jokes about Carly's competence, so much.  YouoK wouldn't care about Carly's hairstyle if you thought she was a good CEO, soc> it seems like cracks about her hairstyle aren't really earned.  G I hold no brief for Carly's competence, or for her participation in thewK discussion of the traditional HP Way.  I think it's absolutely fine to slameJ her for her job performance.  But I think I detect a strain of misogyny inK some of the comments about her that makes me kind of nervous, as though thetK problem weren't that she's a bad CEO but that she's a woman trying to be a nL CEO.  I'm not completely sure that's what's going on, which is why I haven't4 spoken up before.  But it looks a little suspicious.  N (I've seen this stuff from you and sometimes from "John Smith."  Without doingM a literature review, I don't recall Bill Todd saying anything misogynist in as) considerable volume of ranking on Carly.)a   -- Alann   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 20:43:54 -05000( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>* Subject: Re: Curly soon to be out of a job= Message-ID: <acudneOynfDG65jfRVn-qg@metrocastcablevision.com>o   Rob Young wrote:   ...e  N > The aggregate revenue to SGI for hardware and services under the contract isK > anticipated to be in excess of $50 million, the bulk of which will not be. > recognized until 2007.  I Wow - $50 million!  Only another 140 such sales each and every year, and nH they'll be generating about the same revenue that VMS and Tru64 systems  used to.  I Please post the relevant press releases every 2 - 3 days or so so we can o keep track of their progress.r   >  > ---  > B > 	That is 3328 Montecitos/Montvales delivering 69 Teraflops.  AndG > 	they are dropping $50 million on it after an extended search.  Very yI > 	impressive no matter how you measure it, certainly not "unimpressive."   H Well, there used to be a sense in which Cray systems were 'impressive', C but it wasn't in any commercial capacity.  For that matter, Merced  H certainly qualified as 'impressive' in terms of generated BTUs per unit  of work completed.  H If HP's and Intel's goal was to create the HPC core for the new decade, G I can't argue convincingly that they haven't come at least *somewhere* eG near achieving it.  But my impression was that they had something more c& resembling commercial success in mind.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:02:00 -0500s- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>t* Subject: Re: Curly soon to be out of a jobB Message-ID: <1107654630.828fd851d1ca025dae50b7b54af5c912@teranews>   Rob Young wrote:O > "MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., Dec. 16 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- After searching thenP > world over for the most powerful computing technology, the Bavarian Academy ofK > Sciences and Humanities (BAdW) has selected the latest generation of SGI.   N > The aggregate revenue to SGI for hardware and services under the contract isK > anticipated to be in excess of $50 million, the bulk of which will not bee > recognized until 2007.  H Yep, that says a lot about IA64. They have to give them away in the hopeD that maintenace/support revenus will pay for these boxes in the longG term. But this is not sustainable in the long term, especially now thatm> HP had to pay Intel real dollars to purchase those IA64 chips.  H >         Funny you should mention Sun, they are the only major OEM that! >         hasn't adopted Itanium.f  C Your definition of "adopted" is flawed.  While many vendors offer aoF token model of an IA64 based box, they certaintly have not adopted it.G Dell is still very much an 8086 shop, and IBM is certaintly not an IA64 G shop. Of the well known player, only HP and SGI have bet their businessa solely on that IA64 thing.  G >         I'm sitting here laughing.  IPF isn't fatally flawed.  If youM@ >         repeat it often enough, someone actually believes it?   @ The DEC engineers that had made that presentation to us was very	 credible.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:04:15 -0500 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>* Subject: Re: Curly soon to be out of a job= Message-ID: <G7ydnU3VC-695pjfRVn-tQ@metrocastcablevision.com>c  , Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing wrote:   ...   I > I think the problem isn't jokes about Carly's competence, so much.  YoueM > wouldn't care about Carly's hairstyle if you thought she was a good CEO, sol@ > it seems like cracks about her hairstyle aren't really earned. > I > I hold no brief for Carly's competence, or for her participation in thebM > discussion of the traditional HP Way.  I think it's absolutely fine to slamfL > her for her job performance.  But I think I detect a strain of misogyny inM > some of the comments about her that makes me kind of nervous, as though the-M > problem weren't that she's a bad CEO but that she's a woman trying to be a  N > CEO.  I'm not completely sure that's what's going on, which is why I haven't6 > spoken up before.  But it looks a little suspicious. > P > (I've seen this stuff from you and sometimes from "John Smith."  Without doingO > a literature review, I don't recall Bill Todd saying anything misogynist in a'+ > considerable volume of ranking on Carly.)i  % Well, since you brought me into it...o  C Though I was not entirely comfortable with John's comment, I could rL imagine having said something similar myself if in the proper frame of mind.  F It would have been because I suspect Carly of having largely gotten a E free ride because of her sex:  national public exposure as Fortune's tD 'most influential businesswoman' (or whatever she was until getting I dethroned recently), plus considerable slack from people who either felt iG that a woman deserved some or were loath to risk being considered male DH chauvinists if they subjected her to the kind of criticism she deserved.  C Now, *some* such consideration may in other cases be reasonable as .E compensation for the very real additional hurdles which a woman must  F still clear in order to reach the top.  But once she's gotten there I H don't see them as being appropriate any more:  CEOs should be judged on G their performance, and hers has been execrable while receiving nothing  ! like the examination it deserves.h  G And to all appearances she has no reluctance to take advantage of such iC unearned forbearance.  Now, one could argue that using any and all rG advantages is her *obligation* as a CEO, and I'd find such an argument mF at least partly persuasive.  But I also think it makes gender-related  attacks fair game in return.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 22:08:51 -0500o- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>e* Subject: Re: Curly soon to be out of a jobB Message-ID: <1107658627.0a142c897ac32b3d0151a4ba98ffa1f5@teranews>   Bill Todd wrote:H > advantages is her *obligation* as a CEO, and I'd find such an argumentG > at least partly persuasive.  But I also think it makes gender-relatedb > attacks fair game in return.  F Why has the dumb blonde been staring at the can of frozen orange juice for over half an hour ?o                  $ Because it says "CONCENTRATE "on it.   ---n  A Today, at the supermarket, there were USA magazines talking abouteG Jenifer Aniston and Brad Pitt.  The one on the bottom proclaimed on itsaC cover "Brad fights to get Jen back". The one just above it had "Jenb fights to get Brad back".  e  G How is one, outside the USA, supposed to know that americans don't findn@ t acceptable to joke about dating when  US exports such as those3 supermarket magazines talk about nothing but that ?c   -----a    D A blonde sits down in first class section of an aircraft. The flightF attendants, upon checking her ticket, find out she should be seated inH coach. They try to explain to her that she is in the wrong seat, but sheD refuses to move. So the FAs call the captain. Captain whispers a fewA words to her, and then she runs to the coach section. FAs ask thesG captain "how did you do this ?". Captain responds "Simple, I am marriedoF to a blonde, so I know how to handle those cases. I just told her thatA the first class section wasn't going to new york, it was going to : Cleveland, so she moved to the section going to new york".   ---r  N Are dumb blonde jokes now off limits because the CEO of HP is a blonde ???????   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 10:58:59 -0800* From: "Jack Peacock" <peacock@simconv.com>; Subject: Re: FBI gets hacked - should have been on OpenVMS!u2 Message-ID: <ne2dnbt3rc7pipjfRVn-pg@mpowercom.net>  7 "John S." <j.simakauskas@comcast.net> wrote in message r* news:edydnQLRmNAo2ZnfRVn-qw@comcast.com...( > Photos of a DEC system used by the FBI# > http://www.vistadome.com/fbi.htmlc >aF I understand there's a budget request before Congress to upgrade that K particular machine to one of the new PDP-20 systems (aren't bigger numbers >K better?).  Even now FBI field offices are scouring museums all over the US   in search of bidders...i   Jack Peacock n   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:46:36 -0500o- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>tB Subject: Re: How do I use terminal emulator with escape sequences?B Message-ID: <1107632143.259088e3c5e26de8cf3ae57af93bc2f9@teranews>   prep@prep.synonet.com wrote:G > > SYS$BRKTHRU to put messages on line 24 of selected terminals and it  > > works like this. > M > Why not use the terminal driver to do the work? It has terminal independantD > addressing built in.  A Out of curiosity, how does one use the terminal driver to have itqC generate terminal independant escape sequences to position cursor ?e  H I know that the terminal driver can use escape sequences for the currentH line (ctrl R, ctrl U for instance), but didn'T know how you could use it? to position cursor without including escape sequences yourself..  G For the original poster, if you want to know about VT escape sequences,nB you can go to www.vt100.net and you'll have all the stuff you needG there. Essentially, you want to save current cursor position, then movehD to line 24 column 1, write your alarm, then restore cursor position.G Make sure your message does not exceed 80 characters (which woudl causey. screen to scroll down and mess everything up).   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:19:40 -0500h' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> B Subject: Re: How do I use terminal emulator with escape sequences?, Message-ID: <4205386C.7080907@tsoft-inc.com>   JF Mezei wrote:t   > prep@prep.synonet.com wrote: > F >>>SYS$BRKTHRU to put messages on line 24 of selected terminals and it >>>works like this.a >>>oM >>Why not use the terminal driver to do the work? It has terminal independanti >>addressing built in. >> > C > Out of curiosity, how does one use the terminal driver to have itfE > generate terminal independant escape sequences to position cursor ?e > J > I know that the terminal driver can use escape sequences for the currentJ > line (ctrl R, ctrl U for instance), but didn'T know how you could use itA > to position cursor without including escape sequences yourself.i > I > For the original poster, if you want to know about VT escape sequences, D > you can go to www.vt100.net and you'll have all the stuff you needI > there. Essentially, you want to save current cursor position, then movecF > to line 24 column 1, write your alarm, then restore cursor position.I > Make sure your message does not exceed 80 characters (which woudl causee0 > screen to scroll down and mess everything up). >   " I'm guessing we're discussing SMG.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:34:46 +0100 0 From: Keith Cayemberg <keith.cayemberg@arcor.de>1 Subject: Re: Need an IDE for C++ (CXX) on OpenVMS B Message-ID: <42052de8$0$18559$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net>   Neil Rieck wrote:sL > Our team is "considering" a shift from HP-BASIC to HP-C++ on OpenVMS. Can O > anyone recommend an IDE (Interactive/Integrated Development Environment) for d > use with HP-C on OpenVMS?  >  > Neil Rieck > Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,p > Ontario, Canada.# > http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/c >  > C As others have already mentioned there is the Plug-in for Netbeans.hD http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/products/ips/netbeans/modules.html  ( A potential alternative would be jGRASP.   jGRASP Wedge for OpenVMS2 http://perso.wanadoo.fr/thierry.uso/jgrasp-en.html   jGRASP Homepagee http://www.jgrasp.org/    3 Also there is the OpenVMS ETK for MS Visual Studio.t5 http://h71000.www7.hp.com/commercial/et/et_index.htmle  0 or the DECwindows interfaces to the DECset tools= http://h71000.www7.hp.com/commercial/decset/decset_index.html(  1 or Whisper Technology Limited - Programmer Studio " develop beyond your code editor...) http://www.programmerstudio.com/index.htm   6 or dare I mention - Sun ONE Unified Development Server1 (says it can integrate C Code)C++ Code Generation D Converts the native transactional object oriented language into C++ @ code, which can then be complied on any client or server machineK http://wwws.sun.com/software/products/unified_devsrvr/home_unified_dev.htmlr     Cheers!    Keith Cayembergu   ------------------------------   Date: 5 Feb 2005 15:01:21 -0600t- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)b1 Subject: Re: Need an IDE for C++ (CXX) on OpenVMSn3 Message-ID: <JRTKZzIISc1I@eisner.encompasserve.org>a  \ In article <ei2a01luiifgei0v9mgtm1llgfqrtdudu4@4ax.com>, Nigel Barker <nigel@hp.com> writes:O > On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 12:22:12 -0500, "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> wrote:l > L >>Our team is "considering" a shift from HP-BASIC to HP-C++ on OpenVMS. Can O >>anyone recommend an IDE (Interactive/Integrated Development Environment) for l >>use with HP-C on OpenVMS?e > R > Take a look at NetBeans http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/products/ips/netbeans/P > It started life as a pure Java IDE but the OpenVMS NetBeans team have produced: > plug ins or extensions for C++, FORTRAN, CMS & even EDT.  ( So can anyone create such an extension ?  I Could I do one for things I use on VMS (none of which are on that list) ?    ------------------------------  $ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:49:35 -0500) From: "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca>n1 Subject: Re: Need an IDE for C++ (CXX) on OpenVMSp; Message-ID: <RjaNd.24932$Ck1.2070213@news20.bellglobal.com>   / "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> wrote in message  " news:opslqlfpmvzgicya@hyrrokkin...G > On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 12:22:12 -0500, Neil Rieck <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> w > wrote: > L >> Our team is "considering" a shift from HP-BASIC to HP-C++ on OpenVMS. CanL >> anyone recommend an IDE (Interactive/Integrated Development Environment)  >> for >> use with HP-C on OpenVMS? >>
 >> Neil Rieck   >> Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge, >> Ontario, Canada. $ >> http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/ >> >> >o > Why? >    Why?  L I don't know how to answer this question without using the word "religion". K Younger people have joined our team and they are pulling us in a different  
 direction.  M I am not a language bigot (although I prefer Pascal), but have to admit that  L "HP-BASIC for OpenVMS" has been a very successful watering-hole language at I my employer's company for more than 20 years and I have never found it a  B road block to any problem. IMHO, if your work is modular and well M documented, who cares what you use? But on the HR front, we were always able  M to find programmers who either knew BASIC or easily could be taught BASIC so A& it became the defacto standard for us.  M We all know that bad programs can be written in any language but some of the lL C++ advocates have correctly pointed out a significant number of "bad code" J examples (written by less disciplined BASIC programmers) which might have L been avoided had we used an object oriented language. (p.s. it is my belief J that this only works by raising the skill-bar high enough to exclude less M disciplined programmers in the first place; but programmers still need to be M( on their best behaviour no matter what).  I I've written a number of C++ programs for Windows-2k but came to realize eG that large object-oriented programs can only be properly maintained by qM people (other than the original author) when an IDE is available. Anyone who mK has experienced the inteli-sense features of "MS-Visual Studio" or Eclipse rL (JAVA) will find it difficult to go back to a vanilla editor. So the bottom I line is I'll check out any IDE's available for HP-C++ and see if they're lL something we can use. If the IDEs look promising then we may have to slowly I migrate away from HP-BASIC (probably new code only). If they do not look eH promising then I'll recommend to the decision makers that we stick with 	 HP-BASIC.n  
 Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,e Ontario, Canada.8 http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 22:16:09 +0100 0 From: Keith Cayemberg <keith.cayemberg@arcor.de>1 Subject: Re: Need an IDE for C++ (CXX) on OpenVMSu@ Message-ID: <4205379b$0$817$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net>   Larry Kilgallen wrote:  ^ > In article <ei2a01luiifgei0v9mgtm1llgfqrtdudu4@4ax.com>, Nigel Barker <nigel@hp.com> writes: > O >>On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 12:22:12 -0500, "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> wrote:  >> >>M >>>Our team is "considering" a shift from HP-BASIC to HP-C++ on OpenVMS. Can  P >>>anyone recommend an IDE (Interactive/Integrated Development Environment) for  >>>use with HP-C on OpenVMS? >>R >>Take a look at NetBeans http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/products/ips/netbeans/P >>It started life as a pure Java IDE but the OpenVMS NetBeans team have produced: >>plug ins or extensions for C++, FORTRAN, CMS & even EDT. >  > * > So can anyone create such an extension ? > K > Could I do one for things I use on VMS (none of which are on that list) ?n  $ Based on the Netbeans.org code - Yes7 http://www.netbeans.org/community/contribute/index.htmlp *Contributing Code*oD As mentioned above, NetBeans is an open-source project - all of the I source code is available, and if there's a feature you'd like to see, or tG a bug you'd like to see fixed, you have the power to make that happen.  F See the sections on contributing patches and contributing modules for  more information.a  H The OpenVMS adaptations appear to be submitted back to the main project." http://www.netbeans.org/catalogue/   Cheers!    Keith Cayembergo   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 18:09:16 -0800h# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>c1 Subject: Re: Need an IDE for C++ (CXX) on OpenVMSt( Message-ID: <opslq6xqsizgicya@hyrrokkin>  K On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:49:35 -0500, Neil Rieck <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> wrote:i   > 0 > "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> wrote in message$ > news:opslqlfpmvzgicya@hyrrokkin...G >> On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 12:22:12 -0500, Neil Rieck <n.rieck@sympatico.ca>:	 >> wrote:s >>K >>> Our team is "considering" a shift from HP-BASIC to HP-C++ on OpenVMS.  n >>> Can<A >>> anyone recommend an IDE (Interactive/Integrated Development  m >>> Environment) >>> forw >>> use with HP-C on OpenVMS?T >>>  >>> Neil Rieck! >>> Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,s >>> Ontario, Canada.% >>> http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/u >>>e >>>  >> >> Why?  >> >p > Why? > C > I don't know how to answer this question without using the word  n
 > "religion".eD > Younger people have joined our team and they are pulling us in a   > differentg > direction. > K > I am not a language bigot (although I prefer Pascal), but have to admit    > thatL > "HP-BASIC for OpenVMS" has been a very successful watering-hole language   > atJ > my employer's company for more than 20 years and I have never found it aC > road block to any problem. IMHO, if your work is modular and well/K > documented, who cares what you use? But on the HR front, we were always  g > ableG > to find programmers who either knew BASIC or easily could be taught  t
 > BASIC so( > it became the defacto standard for us. >sL > We all know that bad programs can be written in any language but some of   > theyI > C++ advocates have correctly pointed out a significant number of "bad    > code"sK > examples (written by less disciplined BASIC programmers) which might haverH > been avoided had we used an object oriented language. (p.s. it is my   > beliefK > that this only works by raising the skill-bar high enough to exclude less-J > disciplined programmers in the first place; but programmers still need   > to be * > on their best behaviour no matter what). > J > I've written a number of C++ programs for Windows-2k but came to realizeH > that large object-oriented programs can only be properly maintained byL > people (other than the original author) when an IDE is available. Anyone   > whotF > has experienced the inteli-sense features of "MS-Visual Studio" or  	 > EclipsejH > (JAVA) will find it difficult to go back to a vanilla editor. So the   > bottomJ > line is I'll check out any IDE's available for HP-C++ and see if they'reH > something we can use. If the IDEs look promising then we may have to   > slowlyJ > migrate away from HP-BASIC (probably new code only). If they do not lookI > promising then I'll recommend to the decision makers that we stick withv > HP-BASIC.f >s > Neil Rieck > Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,t > Ontario, Canada.: > http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html >  > J Neil, your response is at best apologetic.  You either lead or you follow.C You set your standards based on criteria to which you have given,  l presumably, J some thought.  The fact that you are hiring kids who seem comfortable in   C++sI and are willing to accomodate their petulence is your problem and it will-J get worse.  Now I have programmed in most languages and most people know  	 my biases K and I won't expand on them here, but at least I have intellectual argumentsbB for my choice, and am willing to debate those on technical merits.  H Your hiring practices are wrong.  Hire people who have an aptitude and   attitudeE that is to your liking and train them.  They don't need a degree in  c Computer Science,,1 probably even better, they will be more creative.s     --  C Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/s   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2005.073 ************************