1 INFO-VAX	Mon, 17 Oct 2005	Volume 2005 : Issue 580       Contents:: Re: Announcing the closing of the VMSGateway Experts Group6 Re: Announcing the proVMS Computer Experts Association Re: ES40 MODEL NUMBER F$GETSYI@ Re: fork() (Was: Re: Will "COM for OpenVMS" be ported to Itanium3 Historical point on VMS and security certifications 7 Re: Historical point on VMS and security certifications 7 Re: Historical point on VMS and security certifications 7 Re: Historical point on VMS and security certifications 7 Re: Historical point on VMS and security certifications 7 Re: Historical point on VMS and security certifications 7 Re: Historical point on VMS and security certifications / Re: HP : Massive strike and protest march today 
 OpenVMS 8.2-1  RE: OpenVMS 8.2-1  Re: OpenVMS 8.2-1  Re: Porting VMS back to VAX ?  Re: Porting VMS back to VAX ?  Re: Porting VMS back to VAX ?  set time on Itanium OpenVMS  Re: VMS support strategy?  Re: VMS support strategy?  Re: VMS support strategy?  Re: VMS support strategy?  Re: VMS support strategy?  Re: VMS support strategy? 1 Re: Will "COM for OpenVMS" be ported to Itanium ? 1 Re: Will "COM for OpenVMS" be ported to Itanium ?  [CSWS V2.1] When expected ?  Re: [CSWS V2.1] When expected ?   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 17 Oct 2005 08:17:10 -0700 From: bob@instantwhip.com C Subject: Re: Announcing the closing of the VMSGateway Experts Group B Message-ID: <1129562230.045024.77410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>  2 sorry, I don't read french ... where is an english site?    ------------------------------    Date: 17 Oct 2005 05:44:50 -0700 From: thierry.uso@wanadoo.fr? Subject: Re: Announcing the proVMS Computer Experts Association C Message-ID: <1129553090.125309.320350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   $ Translation of the official announce   /---- , French professionnal join to promote OpenVMS  B The launch of the proVMS association is the culmination of several@ months of reflection by a group of OpenVMS contractors including1 independant consultants and IT service providers.   F The members of proVMS believe in a future for OpenVMS; this belief hasB been further strengthened in recent months by a number of positiveF events : the improvement in HPs sales figures for OpenVMS after a longE period of stagnation, advertising campaigns launched by distributors, $ the good health of Interex Europe...  E The proVMS association proposes to (i) promote the networks of skills A surrounding OpenVMS, (ii) offer forum space for discussion on the G OpenVMS renaissance and its commercial interest to enterprise and (iii) 2 to facilitate contractor to client communications.  G The future only will tell the extent and nature of this revival  but by C supporting proVMS it is at least possible to actively contribute to  this future.  @ The launch of www.provms.org web site (currently only in french)) constitutes the first offering of proVMS.    Pay us a visit ! -----/  @ proVMS targets the french OpenVMS market in a fisrt step. We can# contact us at : contact@provms.org.    ------------------------------   Date: 17 OCT 2005 10:52:30 GMT4 From: karcher@thuria.waisman.wisc.edu (Carl Karcher)' Subject: Re: ES40 MODEL NUMBER F$GETSYI 6 Message-ID: <17OCT05.10523046@thuria.waisman.wisc.edu>  4 And for a ES40-2 with a single 833 cpu you get 1984. Makes sense I guess.  ) In a previous article, John Santos wrote:   > ->> Anyone out there with an ES40-2 with 4 each 833-MHz CPU's?6 ->> If so, could you please post the following result? ->> + ->> $ WRITE SYS$OUTPUT F$GETSYI("HW_MODEL")  ->   John Brandon wrote:    ->1987 ->  8 ->(Definitely an ES40 w/ 4 833MHz's.  Not sure if it's a@ ->model 1 or model 2.  It has lots of PCI slots, if that helps.)   --G -- Carl Karcher, Waisman Computing Services, Waisman Center, UW-Madison 5 --              karcher.nomorespam@waisman.wisc.edu      ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:15:49 GMT & From: John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com>I Subject: Re: fork() (Was: Re: Will "COM for OpenVMS" be ported to Itanium 2 Message-ID: <pmO4f.14714$rP.7427@news.cpqcorp.net>   Bob Koehler wrote:] > In article <jvV3f.14614$oa.7260@news.cpqcorp.net>, John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com> writes:  >  > 0 >>No.  Memory and devices are always consistent. >  > G >    According to the Architecture reference, an MB is necessary before F >    handing a buffer off for DMA output so that the data that the CPUJ >    instructions put into the buffer will actually be in RAM be when the I >    DMA starts, just as it is necessary for handing off the same buffer  0 >    to another CPU in a multi-processor system. > J >    And in reverse, and MB is specified after DMA input, although I don't7 >    know if any I/O subsystems actually required this.  >   I See, I don't know everything.  Thanks to you (and FredK) for catching my   error.   --   John Reagan / HP Pascal/{A|I}MACRO for OpenVMS Project Leader  Hewlett-Packard Company    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:01:53 +0200  From: S <soterroatyahoodotcom>< Subject: Historical point on VMS and security certifications& Message-ID: <43538495$1@news1.ethz.ch>   Hi all,   G I recently read something which mentioned that the VMS VAX kernel (and  < hardware) was built according to the NCSC A1 level security E certification requirements. I should presume that also the Alpha and  . Itanium later preserved the same rules, right?  E Now for the operating system, apparently Digital was not aiming that  I high as an A1 certification. OpenVMS didn't reach higher than C2, and B1  C was attained only by the SEVMS 6.0 (which offered a few bits extra  ? beyond B1). Some interest may have been there as both OSs were  = registered to the RAMP program which would have extended the  E certification to newer versions. However the recertification program  H ended with 6.1 and soon after SEVMS died at 6.2. (BTW, I'd appreciate a 0 link to SEVMS documentation, if not secret ...).  I As this happened around '96 we shouldn't blame Compaq (I think), nor HP.  F Was there no market for more security? Was the process of documenting F the securities policies too costly? Was the product around the kernel I not conforming at all? Was the certification not important? Any comments?   
 Thanks a lot,  S    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:53:44 GMT 5 From: rdeininger@mindspringdot.com (Robert Deininger) @ Subject: Re: Historical point on VMS and security certificationsL Message-ID: <rdeininger-1710050754040001@user-uinj4cv.dialup.mindspring.com>  F In article <43538495$1@news1.ethz.ch>, S <soterroatyahoodotcom> wrote:   >Hi all, > H >I recently read something which mentioned that the VMS VAX kernel (and = >hardware) was built according to the NCSC A1 level security  F >certification requirements. I should presume that also the Alpha and / >Itanium later preserved the same rules, right?  > F >Now for the operating system, apparently Digital was not aiming that J >high as an A1 certification. OpenVMS didn't reach higher than C2, and B1 D >was attained only by the SEVMS 6.0 (which offered a few bits extra @ >beyond B1). Some interest may have been there as both OSs were > >registered to the RAMP program which would have extended the F >certification to newer versions. However the recertification program I >ended with 6.1 and soon after SEVMS died at 6.2. (BTW, I'd appreciate a  1 >link to SEVMS documentation, if not secret ...).  > J >As this happened around '96 we shouldn't blame Compaq (I think), nor HP. ( >Was there no market for more security?   A My understanding is that the market was small and SEVMS was not a F financial success.  There are probably still some customers (there areI still customers running much older versions of VMS) but there's little or D no demand for an up-to-date SEVMS version.  There's clearly a lot ofH higher-priority VMS work to be done, both in terms of customer needs and VMS business for HP.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 08:51:58 -0400 * From: "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com>@ Subject: Re: Historical point on VMS and security certifications* Message-ID: <43539e6f@usenet01.boi.hp.com>  B "Robert Deininger" <rdeininger@mindspringdot.com> wrote in messageF news:rdeininger-1710050754040001@user-uinj4cv.dialup.mindspring.com...H > In article <43538495$1@news1.ethz.ch>, S <soterroatyahoodotcom> wrote: > 
 > >Hi all, > > I > >I recently read something which mentioned that the VMS VAX kernel (and > > >hardware) was built according to the NCSC A1 level securityG > >certification requirements. I should presume that also the Alpha and 1 > >Itanium later preserved the same rules, right?  > > G > >Now for the operating system, apparently Digital was not aiming that K > >high as an A1 certification. OpenVMS didn't reach higher than C2, and B1 E > >was attained only by the SEVMS 6.0 (which offered a few bits extra A > >beyond B1). Some interest may have been there as both OSs were ? > >registered to the RAMP program which would have extended the G > >certification to newer versions. However the recertification program J > >ended with 6.1 and soon after SEVMS died at 6.2. (BTW, I'd appreciate a3 > >link to SEVMS documentation, if not secret ...).  > > K > >As this happened around '96 we shouldn't blame Compaq (I think), nor HP. ) > >Was there no market for more security?  > C > My understanding is that the market was small and SEVMS was not a H > financial success.  There are probably still some customers (there areK > still customers running much older versions of VMS) but there's little or F > no demand for an up-to-date SEVMS version.  There's clearly a lot ofJ > higher-priority VMS work to be done, both in terms of customer needs and > VMS business for HP.  I The code for SEVMS is still latent in the existing code.  As the original F poster said, and Robert indicated - SEVMS withered on the vine because@ the defense industry lost interest in it - at least for a while.  E There is some increasing noise in the defense industry to revive it - D none the least of which is SUN deciding to offer a secure kernel andF push it as if this was something new.  The issues now really boil downJ to:  Is this for real?  DII/COE was supposed to be real/important/requiredG and it too was a SUN inspired check-the-box, pie-in-the-sky solution to C creating a common environment - and it too fizzled.  And because of I things like COE - is there a very high probability of a payback for doing ' the work (i.e. who's gonna pay for it).   I SEVMS for the most part (AFAIK) requires mostly that the code be enabled, J tested, packaged, certified.  New features that were added also need to be< checked - like Galaxy - or forbidden in a SEVMS environment.  B Not many people truly realize what a MLS environment and manditoryA controls mean.  Environments that might use them typically end up H simply avoiding it by requiring the entire environment be classified and secure.   B In any case, we have several people working for VMS who know a lotG more than I do about security, SEVMS, MLS, etc.  If you have a specific @ business need or question - we can direct you to the appropriate person.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:45:50 -0500 ) From: Wayne  Sewell <wayne@tachysoft.com> @ Subject: Re: Historical point on VMS and security certificationsB Message-ID: <1129560351.c8b222b61daa14b55fc3d75dc7a5c02b@teranews>  H On 2005-10-17 07:51:58 -0500, "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> said:   > D > "Robert Deininger" <rdeininger@mindspringdot.com> wrote in messageG > news:rdeininger-1710050754040001@user-uinj4cv.dialup.mindspring.com..  > D > Not many people truly realize what a MLS environment and manditoryC > controls mean.  Environments that might use them typically end up J > simply avoiding it by requiring the entire environment be classified and	 > secure.  >   F When I worked for a defense contractor back in the eighties, that was B what we did.  The entire facility was secure and everybody coming D anywhere near it it had to have a high octane clearance, so we just  used regular vms.    --   Wayne Sewell   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:10:44 -0400 - From: William Webb <william.w.webb@gmail.com> @ Subject: Re: Historical point on VMS and security certificationsI Message-ID: <8660a3a10510170810m229c0560v8b0a89a0faffcc74@mail.gmail.com>   6 On 10/17/05, FredK <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> wrote: > D > "Robert Deininger" <rdeininger@mindspringdot.com> wrote in messageH > news:rdeininger-1710050754040001@user-uinj4cv.dialup.mindspring.com...J > > In article <43538495$1@news1.ethz.ch>, S <soterroatyahoodotcom> wrote: > >  > > >Hi all, > > > K > > >I recently read something which mentioned that the VMS VAX kernel (and @ > > >hardware) was built according to the NCSC A1 level securityI > > >certification requirements. I should presume that also the Alpha and 3 > > >Itanium later preserved the same rules, right?  > > > I > > >Now for the operating system, apparently Digital was not aiming that L > > >high as an A1 certification. OpenVMS didn't reach higher than C2, and = B1G > > >was attained only by the SEVMS 6.0 (which offered a few bits extra C > > >beyond B1). Some interest may have been there as both OSs were A > > >registered to the RAMP program which would have extended the I > > >certification to newer versions. However the recertification program L > > >ended with 6.1 and soon after SEVMS died at 6.2. (BTW, I'd appreciate = a 5 > > >link to SEVMS documentation, if not secret ...).  > > > L > > >As this happened around '96 we shouldn't blame Compaq (I think), nor H= P.+ > > >Was there no market for more security?  > > E > > My understanding is that the market was small and SEVMS was not a J > > financial success.  There are probably still some customers (there areL > > still customers running much older versions of VMS) but there's little = orH > > no demand for an up-to-date SEVMS version.  There's clearly a lot ofL > > higher-priority VMS work to be done, both in terms of customer needs an= d  > > VMS business for HP. > K > The code for SEVMS is still latent in the existing code.  As the original H > poster said, and Robert indicated - SEVMS withered on the vine becauseB > the defense industry lost interest in it - at least for a while. > G > There is some increasing noise in the defense industry to revive it - F > none the least of which is SUN deciding to offer a secure kernel andH > push it as if this was something new.  The issues now really boil downL > to:  Is this for real?  DII/COE was supposed to be real/important/require= d I > and it too was a SUN inspired check-the-box, pie-in-the-sky solution to E > creating a common environment - and it too fizzled.  And because of K > things like COE - is there a very high probability of a payback for doing ) > the work (i.e. who's gonna pay for it).  > K > SEVMS for the most part (AFAIK) requires mostly that the code be enabled, L > tested, packaged, certified.  New features that were added also need to b= e > > checked - like Galaxy - or forbidden in a SEVMS environment. > D > Not many people truly realize what a MLS environment and manditoryC > controls mean.  Environments that might use them typically end up J > simply avoiding it by requiring the entire environment be classified and	 > secure.  > D > In any case, we have several people working for VMS who know a lotI > more than I do about security, SEVMS, MLS, etc.  If you have a specific B > business need or question - we can direct you to the appropriate	 > person.  >  >  >  >  >   	 Hi, Fred-   F I've sent emails sporadically for a good while now, to someone I won'tF name asking about Common Criteria certification and whether there wereC plans to pursue it for VMS-- last I heard (which has been some time * ago) the decision was still up in the air.   Regards,   WWWebb   --C NOTE: This email address is only used for noncommerical VMS-related  correspondence. C All unsolicited commercial email will be deemed to be a request for 8 services pursuant to the terms and conditions located at# http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/e/webbww/    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:58:15 GMT  From: "Jim" <j.n@nospam.com>@ Subject: Re: Historical point on VMS and security certifications> Message-ID: <HKQ4f.17118$6e1.13086@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>  L "S" <soterroatyahoodotcom> wrote in message news:43538495$1@news1.ethz.ch...	 > Hi all,  > I > I recently read something which mentioned that the VMS VAX kernel (and  L > hardware) was built according to the NCSC A1 level security certification G > requirements. I should presume that also the Alpha and Itanium later  " > preserved the same rules, right?K No, it was not and is not an A1 kernel.  While it certainly is possible to  K create an A1 operating system for almost any hardware, the result would be   far far from VMS.  > L > Now for the operating system, apparently Digital was not aiming that high J > as an A1 certification. OpenVMS didn't reach higher than C2, and B1 was M > attained only by the SEVMS 6.0 (which offered a few bits extra beyond B1).  L > Some interest may have been there as both OSs were registered to the RAMP I > program which would have extended the certification to newer versions.  J > However the recertification program ended with 6.1 and soon after SEVMS J > died at 6.2. (BTW, I'd appreciate a link to SEVMS documentation, if not  > secret ...). > K > As this happened around '96 we shouldn't blame Compaq (I think), nor HP.  L > Was there no market for more security? Was the process of documenting the H > securities policies too costly? Was the product around the kernel not G > conforming at all? Was the certification not important? Any comments? 0 There is no market for such an operating system. Jim  >  > Thanks a lot,  > S    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:07:59 -0400 * From: "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com>@ Subject: Re: Historical point on VMS and security certifications, Message-ID: <4353da6f$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>  K If it is Leo, that is the right person.  What you need to really provide is G not just the question, but a projection.  That is, "we have $30 million C dollars in projected OpenVMS sales in CY200X that require XXX for a : successdul bid.  How do we work with HP and OpenVMS to get this support."  A Now you have someones attention.  The governments handling of COE @ left a bad taste in everyones mouth and people are gun-shy about= committing engineering resources, time and money on this type ? of requirement unless we see an actual bottom line return or up  front cash.     : "William Webb" <william.w.webb@gmail.com> wrote in messageC news:8660a3a10510170810m229c0560v8b0a89a0faffcc74@mail.gmail.com... 6 On 10/17/05, FredK <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> wrote:  	 Hi, Fred-   F I've sent emails sporadically for a good while now, to someone I won'tF name asking about Common Criteria certification and whether there wereC plans to pursue it for VMS-- last I heard (which has been some time * ago) the decision was still up in the air.   ------------------------------   Date: 17 Oct 2005 13:02:21 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)8 Subject: Re: HP : Massive strike and protest march today+ Message-ID: <3rhlmtFjibrcU1@individual.net>   1 In article <vhj4f.643$S24.43731@news.xtra.co.nz>, ' 	"Lurker" <nowhere@nothing.com> writes: 7 > "Bill Gunshannon" <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message ' > news:3rdqi7FiiihsU1@individual.net... . >> In article <4351AE21.5BC5F080@comcast.net>,7 >> David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> writes:  >> >J >> > Questions for all you people who are so vehemently anti-union... PostM >> > answers only if you choose to do so. I pose these questions primarily to  >> > provoke thought.  >> >H >> >  1. Have your parents or other fore-bearers ever had the benefit of >> > collective bargaining?  >>E >> Can't answer that one.  My father was forced into union membership I >> (as was I) a number of times.  It is highly debatable if that resulted G >> in any benefit.  In at least two cases it resulted in the his losing K >> his job entirely as the union stayed on strike longer than he could hold ! >> out and still feed his family.  > E > No idea what union Bill is talking about but if it was large enough D > and strong enough to stage that, it also means that it was hurtingB > not just it's own members but also innocent bystanders and other > univolved businesses.    G What's your point?  Unions do this all the time.  Interestingly enough, F the two cases involving my father were two different companies but theF same union and about a decade apart.  Of course, other than the incomeG lost during the strike there is also the loss of seniority and position F within the company that is lost as well. He finally ended up in a non-E union shop where he then stayed until retirement and actually retired D with a a really nice nestegg.  Although he has passed-on it is still  taking good care of my mother.     bill     --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 08:43:28 -0400 " From: "Hal Kuff" <kuff@tessco.com> Subject: OpenVMS 8.2-10 Message-ID: <11l773hr30sju13@corp.supernews.com>  L Has anyone received a kit, and if so how recently... does everyone on Alpha 5 continue to get the kits or was it un-obtanium only?     ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:37:55 -0400 ' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com>  Subject: RE: OpenVMS 8.2-1R Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB70C475@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----, > From: Hal Kuff [mailto:kuff@tessco.com]=20  > Sent: October 17, 2005 8:43 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com  > Subject: OpenVMS 8.2-1 >=20> > Has anyone received a kit, and if so how recently... does=20 > everyone on Alpha=209 > continue to get the kits or was it un-obtanium only?=20  >=20   Hal -   E OpenVMS V8.2-1 is Integrity only - adds support for features to bring G Integrity in line with Alpha (e.g. 96 node clusters etc), has bug fixes ) and a number of performance enhancements.    The V8.2-1 doc's are online at: - http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/os82_index.html    Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax: 613-591-4477  kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  4 OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:14:41 GMT " From:   VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: OpenVMS 8.2-10 Message-ID: <00A4B69C.D0F0A535@SendSpamHere.ORG>  U In article <11l773hr30sju13@corp.supernews.com>, "Hal Kuff" <kuff@tessco.com> writes: M >Has anyone received a kit, and if so how recently... does everyone on Alpha  6 >continue to get the kits or was it un-obtanium only?      Middle of last week.   --  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: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:22:16 +0200 - From: Alex van Denzel <vandenzel@hotmail.com> & Subject: Re: Porting VMS back to VAX ?7 Message-ID: <43535128$0$53120$dbd45001@news.wanadoo.nl>    Dr. Dweeb wrote:N > Well, I want one - then I will have VAX/VMS and Alpha/VMS VMs on my Win2003 ' > machine - one box is better than 3 !!    Single point of down-time. :-)   -- Alex.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 07:36:18 -0500 ) From: Wayne  Sewell <wayne@tachysoft.com> & Subject: Re: Porting VMS back to VAX ?B Message-ID: <1129552585.fa88acce2d86f6d8372b08ad443c7692@teranews>  K On 2005-10-17 02:22:16 -0500, Alex van Denzel <vandenzel@hotmail.com> said:    > Dr. Dweeb wrote:G >> Well, I want one - then I will have VAX/VMS and Alpha/VMS VMs on my  0 >> Win2003 machine - one box is better than 3 !! >   > Single point of down-time. :-)  > And a billybox at that, making the down time much more likely.   --   Wayne Sewell   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:30:50 GMT & From: John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com>& Subject: Re: Porting VMS back to VAX ?4 Message-ID: <uAO4f.14715$1o3.12741@news.cpqcorp.net>   JF Mezei wrote:    > K > Not at all. When VMS is ported to the 8086, I expect only 64 bit support.  > G > I was asking more in the point of view of source code management with H > regards to the efforts that had been made during port to IA64 to allowH > multiple platform support from same code base, in relation to the factE > that VAX-VMS has unofficially been abandonned, partly because it it . > costs more to maintain a separate code base.  E With a little first hand knowledge, but mostly just listening at the   lunch table...  G A few of the Alpha/I64-only features could be moved back to VAX easily  G but it would require integrating the code back to the VAX source/build  C system.  It would also require testing, documentation changes, etc.   D However, most of the Alpha/I64-only features are by-products of the E system having the additional address space to work with.  You aren't  . going to get VAX to implement S2/P2 addresses.  D Also, much of the Macro-32 code over the years has evolved to using H various EVAX_ builtins and referencing the additional R16-R24 registers G for increased performance.  Plus most of the Macro-32 code was touched  G when moving from VAX to Alpha to add things like .CALL_ENTRY, etc. and  G recoding to not use features that the Macro compiler couldn't support.  I It would be substantial work to recode that to avoid those registers and  G builtins.  More engineering work, more testing, etc.  In the meantime,  E we would have to slow down work on supporting newer I64 boxes, newer   adapters/controlers/etc.  H Also, several of the Alpha/I64-only features have some calling standard C knowledge.  Taking the new functionality back to VAX would require  K modification to adapt it back to the VAX calling standard if even possible.   F Bottom line is that the amount of effort would be substantial for low F payback in most cases.  If you believe there is a business reason for F moving a specific feature back to VAX, then please share that with us.     --   John Reagan / HP Pascal/{A|I}MACRO for OpenVMS Project Leader  Hewlett-Packard Company    ------------------------------    Date: 17 Oct 2005 10:06:02 -0700 From: Don.Zong@gmail.com$ Subject: set time on Itanium OpenVMSC Message-ID: <1129568762.479534.190700@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   @ I was trying to set time on Itanium OpenVMS 8.2-1, but no go, noE error/warning message, time doesn't get changed at all. DTSS disabled B and deleted. NTP was shutdown. Can someone give it try on your ownG itanium OpenVMS box and please let me know the result. I might overlook & something. But this is really strange.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:43:51 GMT 5 From: rdeininger@mindspringdot.com (Robert Deininger) " Subject: Re: VMS support strategy?L Message-ID: <rdeininger-1710050744100001@user-uinj4cv.dialup.mindspring.com>  J In article <1129504031.150711.236730@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Pete"! <peter.giza@spitbrook.com> wrote:      >...' > As I state I have created a new group C >http://groups.google.com/group/systems-support-vms to separate the H >management and marketing issues from the core technical issues involvedH >in supporting VMS such as are discussed here.  If you are interested inE >the marketing and management issues please join.  More importantly I D >invite any and all VMS users and decision makers that have concernsF >regarding the future of their VMS investment to join in.  The goal is >to make our voices heard.   Heard by whom?  E The participants will hear each other.  It is far from clear that the $ voices will be heard by anyone else.  H Several years ago, comp.os.vms started to be dominated by posts that areH wildly inaccurate, insulting, confrontational, loony, off-topic, or someF combination of these.  VMS management stopped paying attention to thisG forum, and stopped asking anyone in the VMS organization to do so.  Any @ information that flows into HP via this newsgroup is accidental.  G Any new forum that shares the same tone as comp.os.vms will likely meet E the same fate.  It might make some folks feel better, but it won't be  heard by decision makers in HP.   H The VMS managers are well known, and anyone with half a brain can figureH out how to contact them by email.  In addition, most of the HP web pagesG have "feedback" links, and email sent via those links should eventually E reach someone with knowledge of the topic.  It appears to me that VMS F management responds to customer emails, provided the emails are civil,G coherent, and at least minimally sane.  That doesn't mean every wish is  immediately granted.   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Oct 2005 06:55:32 -0700' From: "Pete" <peter.giza@spitbrook.com> " Subject: Re: VMS support strategy?C Message-ID: <1129557332.388486.209730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>   C A view of defeat results in defeat.  HP rarely responds to a single C individual.  When I say "responds" that is in a meaningful fashion. = The last time I saw a meaningful reaction from HP to a single E individual was back in 90's when someone posted an open letter to the B Internet over support issues.  The letter struck a chord with manyF others at the time and caused HP to act.  If you believe that a singleC individual in this forum can move HP to action - Great keep posting F here.  If you believe that the user community can come together make a' difference - then go to the link above.    -pete    ------------------------------    Date: 17 Oct 2005 08:55:56 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) " Subject: Re: VMS support strategy?3 Message-ID: <bnoROTi66gSJ@eisner.encompasserve.org>    In article <rdeininger-1710050744100001@user-uinj4cv.dialup.mindspring.com>, rdeininger@mindspringdot.com (Robert Deininger) writes:  I > Any new forum that shares the same tone as comp.os.vms will likely meet G > the same fate.  It might make some folks feel better, but it won't be ! > heard by decision makers in HP.   H But at least we will have cleared comp.os.vms for technical discussions.   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Oct 2005 08:54:31 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) " Subject: Re: VMS support strategy?3 Message-ID: <5bj5rQ3yhBab@eisner.encompasserve.org>   [ In article <4352CA08.BAC1798@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:   F > When you have a dwindling interest in a platform, you do not wish toJ > split newsgroups because you then lose critical mass to make a newsgroup: > worthwhile since none of the groups have enough posters.  K Is that worse than losing critical mass by driving away technical posters ?   G > The naysayers proved to be the most loyal are are still around in one Q > remaining active newsgroup where what is left of the psion community "gathers".   @ And what value is provided by forming a community of naysayers ?   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Oct 2005 07:07:25 -0700' From: "Pete" <peter.giza@spitbrook.com> " Subject: Re: VMS support strategy?C Message-ID: <1129558045.775299.121290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   % Yeah and it only took 32 responses!^)    -pete    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:28:53 +0200 6 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk>" Subject: Re: VMS support strategy?: Message-ID: <4353df51$0$189$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk>   Larry Kilgallen wrote:E > No, _generally_ the feeling is that a bunch of loudmouths spend all E > their time grousing about non-technical issues rather than creating  > great software on VMS.   Unfortunatetly that is not new.   : This newsgroup/maillist changed from a primarily technical2 forum to a primarily pseudo-business forum several
 years ago.   Arne   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:18:21 +0200 6 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk>: Subject: Re: Will "COM for OpenVMS" be ported to Itanium ?: Message-ID: <4353dcd9$0$114$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk>   Main, Kerry wrote:I > I have no idea, but I would also have to ask - I know its possible, but H > how many Cust's are actually doing 2PC in real production environments > today with Windows servers?   4 Unlike other replies which read "with VMS servers" I5 will assume that you meant literally what your wrote.   / There must be some hardcore enterprise C++ apps - that do (MTS and COM+ was made for a reason).   0 Also in .NET, but nowadays it appears that MS is7 pushing the idea of using only SQLServer as a database,  which makes 2PC unnecesarry.  5 There must be a lot of J2EE solutions doing it. It is 4 build into the server. JDBC, JMS and JCA all support1 it. And a lot of theese solutions must be running  on Windows 2000 and 2003.    Arne   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:24:38 +0200 6 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk>: Subject: Re: Will "COM for OpenVMS" be ported to Itanium ?: Message-ID: <4353de52$0$189$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk>   Richard Maher wrote:D > BTW. What's the difference between COM and COM+ apart from the 2PC
 > capability?   3 I am not an COM expert, but as I understand it then / COM is a very advanced object oriented language , neutral way of calling components in process/ (=VMS calling standard + 15 years of progress). 1 DCOM/COM+ is a standard that exposes a compatible - interface for distributed components. Instead / of loading a DLL and call a method you activate 0 a process on another server and communicate with1 it using a MS enhanced version of DCE (most known 3 for the worm that infected several millions Windows 3 systems due to a bug). 2PC, object pooling etc. are ) support functions for that functionality.    Arne   ------------------------------    Date: 17 Oct 2005 19:08:06 -02006 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)$ Subject: [CSWS V2.1] When expected ?, Message-ID: <4353f696$1@news.langstoeger.at>  3 I wanted to upgrade a CSWS V2.0 system to VMS V8.2, 5 but CSWS V2.1 with support for V8.2 is not yet there.  On< 	http://www.openvms.digital.com/openvms/products/ips/apache/  9 one can read of "is expected to be available in Q3 2005". 1 So, on average, it is three months late so far...   9 What now, wait for V2.1 or better change to CSWS V1.3-1 ? < And will CSWS V2.1 lift the restriction to Stream-LF Files ?   TIA    --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER % Network and OpenVMS system specialist  E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:14:23 -0400 ) From: "Rick Barry" <richard.barry@hp.com> ( Subject: Re: [CSWS V2.1] When expected ?, Message-ID: <4353dbef$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>  K We now expect a mid-November availability for SWS 2.1 on Alpha and Itanium.   * SWS 2.1 removes the stream-lf restriction.  
 Rick Barry Hewlett-Packard Company  Secure Web Server Engineering  OpenVMS System Software Group 
 Nashua, NH  C "Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER" <peter@langstoeger.at> wrote in message & news:4353f696$1@news.langstoeger.at...5 > I wanted to upgrade a CSWS V2.0 system to VMS V8.2, 7 > but CSWS V2.1 with support for V8.2 is not yet there.  > On= > http://www.openvms.digital.com/openvms/products/ips/apache/  > ; > one can read of "is expected to be available in Q3 2005". 3 > So, on average, it is three months late so far...  > ; > What now, wait for V2.1 or better change to CSWS V1.3-1 ? > > And will CSWS V2.1 lift the restriction to Stream-LF Files ? >  > TIA  >  > --   > Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER ' > Network and OpenVMS system specialist  > E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atH > A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2005.580 ************************