1 INFO-VAX	Sat, 03 Sep 2005	Volume 2005 : Issue 491       Contents:0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance8 Newbie - Booting Alphaserver 4/266 and third party disks< Re: Newbie - Booting Alphaserver 4/266 and third party disks< Re: Newbie - Booting Alphaserver 4/266 and third party disks Re: NTP Under UCX Questions  Re: NTP Under UCX Questions , Re: Percentage of customers with X-windows ? RD drive unit numbers  Re: RD drive unit numbers  Re: RD drive unit numbers 7 Re: TCPIP Services: SMTP bug/wrong logic with 450 codes   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 17:50:48 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) + Message-ID: <3nrhnoF1tcb6U1@individual.net>   9 In article <lU_Re.459$ix3.368@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, + 	Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net> writes:  >  >  > Bill Gunshannon wrote: >  >>  H >> How many people does a Bradley carry?  Rhetorical question, I used toJ >> drive one, I know.  And swimming any armored vehicle is only done underJ >> the direst of situations.  You know, the old M151A1 Jeep was capable of > I > And this isn't the direst of situations? There is no ideal solution to   > this. It's all bad.   ? Considering the instability of a Bradley floating, no it's not. > Adding into that how few people it holds, your better off with9 a Bassboat.  Carries more people and floats a lot better.    > E >> deepwater fording in depths up to 10-12 feet.  Too bad the drivers L >> didn't have gills.  Military vehicles are designed for specific purposes.7 >> Rescuing civilians from floods is not one of them.    > E > But getting armed personnel into flooded areas to provide armoured   > protection,   D Until the president formally declares martial law armed soldiers canI not be put on the streets.  Remember Kent State?  The Rules of Engagement B are such that that will never happen again.  Without martial law aC soldier has no law enforcement authority.  My wife just informed me F that there was an announcement that the 109th Field Artillery is beingG called up "to assist in relief efforts and help restore order."  Sadly, D that means they will be put on the streets unarmed when the press isF already full of reports of roving armed gangs of thugs.  Most of theseF guys have only recently returned from Iraq,  It would be pretty sad if( they survived that to be shot back here.  F >             even if not rescue, for civilians perhaps could be? The G > police had to pull back from the convention centre because they were   > shot at.    B They're allowed to shoot back, why don't they?  The National Guard isn't allowed to.   L >            Armoured amphibous vehicles are surely needed. I know it's not  > a magic wand.   F Don't confuse "can be made to float in an emergency" with "amphibous".$ Bradleys are not amphibous vehicles.  G The only use for Bradleys in this situation would be to bring in squads G if Infantry to securee the area and then, only after the declaration of C martial law, the issuance of live ammo and a change in the Rules of  Engagement.    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: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 18:06:36 GMT ( From: Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net>9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) 9 Message-ID: <Mw0Se.684$ix3.577@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:   > D > They're allowed to shoot back, why don't they?  The National Guard > isn't allowed to.   D Because they were being shot in from amongst groups of innocent and I terrified civilians. If they shot back innocents would die and their own  G police cars did not offer armoured protection. They were sitting ducks.   I The governor has said (I watched the press conference) that troops would  G be armed and she had issued instructions to shoot. The troops arriving  B at the conference centre are armed. Or certainly some of them are.  f http://www.wwltv.com/sharedcontent/nationworld/katrina/stories/090205cckatrinaexplosions.51009504.html " F Thousands of National Guardsmen with food, water and weapons streamed C into Louisiana on Friday to bring relief to New Orleans' suffering  F multitudes and put down the looting and violence. "The cavalry is and + will continue to arrive," said one general.   H Gov. Kathleen Blanco called the looters "hoodlums" and issued a warning ? to lawbreakers: Hundreds of National Guardsmen hardened on the  / battlefield in Iraq have landed in New Orleans.   I "They have M-16s and they're locked and loaded," she said. "These troops  I know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so, and   I expect they will." "    > H > Don't confuse "can be made to float in an emergency" with "amphibous".& > Bradleys are not amphibous vehicles.  5 Although that is specifically what they were sold as.      --  
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:19:49 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) , Message-ID: <431897C0.921D73C9@teksavvy.com>   Bill Gunshannon wrote:F > Until the president formally declares martial law armed soldiers can6 > not be put on the streets. ... Without martial law a+ > soldier has no law enforcement authority.   G Doesn't the state governor have the authority to call the president and  request military troups ?   E Also, law enforcement isn't the first goal. First goal is to care for E the people. And if there had been a huge military presence right from F the get go, providing food/water/toilets in an organised way, then youB probably would have found a lot less looting, even if the military2 didn't have "law enforcement" powers at that time.  F > that means they will be put on the streets unarmed when the press is: > already full of reports of roving armed gangs of thugs.   F I am unsure how much the media is exagerating those reports. They makeF it look like the whole city is under looter attack 7/24. My feeling isG that it isn't as widespread as the media make it it to be. (not denying 
 it is there).   E The lack of a authority presence immediatly following the storm would D have provided a sense of lawlessness bringing out the thugs/looters,G especially when FEMA was declaring it was perfecly normal that it would # take many days before help arrived.   D > They're allowed to shoot back, why don't they?  The National Guard > isn't allowed to.   @ I heard otherwise from CNN. What they did say though is that theA generals asked the troups not to have their guns aimed at people, B reminding them that they are in a relief operation, not in a IraqiG battleground. And the governor had stated that the troups had the power  to shoot to kill.    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 19:18:34 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) + Message-ID: <3nrmsaF2svn2U1@individual.net>   9 In article <Mw0Se.684$ix3.577@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, + 	Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net> writes:  >  >  > Bill Gunshannon wrote: >  >>  E >> They're allowed to shoot back, why don't they?  The National Guard  >> isn't allowed to. > F > Because they were being shot in from amongst groups of innocent and K > terrified civilians. If they shot back innocents would die and their own  I > police cars did not offer armoured protection. They were sitting ducks.  > K > The governor has said (I watched the press conference) that troops would  I > be armed and she had issued instructions to shoot. The troops arriving  D > at the conference centre are armed. Or certainly some of them are.  E I'll believe that when I see the first gunman shot dead by a National D Guard soldier.  Don't confuse carrying an M16 with being aremed.  I D have pulled guard duty (many, many years ago) in ammo dumps carryingH an unloaded M16.  I have done this overseas when the threat of terroristH attacks was very real (the war on terrorism isn't new.  we had communist( terrorists in Europe over 30 years ago.)   > h > http://www.wwltv.com/sharedcontent/nationworld/katrina/stories/090205cckatrinaexplosions.51009504.html > " H > Thousands of National Guardsmen with food, water and weapons streamed E > into Louisiana on Friday to bring relief to New Orleans' suffering  H > multitudes and put down the looting and violence. "The cavalry is and - > will continue to arrive," said one general.   G Sound bites.  Soldiers sent in to control civilian riots are not issued J ammunition.  I have seen nothing so far to hint that this is any differnt.G If it were, rather than pulling the Chinook out after it was fired upon F they would have sent in either Apaches or at the least Blackhawks with
 door gunners.    > J > Gov. Kathleen Blanco called the looters "hoodlums" and issued a warning A > to lawbreakers: Hundreds of National Guardsmen hardened on the  1 > battlefield in Iraq have landed in New Orleans.  > K > "They have M-16s and they're locked and loaded," she said. "These troops  K > know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so, and   > I expect they will."  G We will see.  But it will have to wait till I stop laughing and can get  back up in my chair.   > "  >  >>  I >> Don't confuse "can be made to float in an emergency" with "amphibous". ' >> Bradleys are not amphibous vehicles.  > 7 > Although that is specifically what they were sold as.   F Not that I saw.  It's called a Bradley Assault Vehicle.  Not a BradleyE Amphibious Vehicle.  You know, theortically, an Abrams Tank can float 0 too.  But I'm not going to be the one to try it.   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: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 19:37:08 GMT ( From: Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net>9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) 9 Message-ID: <ER1Se.983$pm2.725@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:  K >>"They have M-16s and they're locked and loaded," she said. "These troops  K >>know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so, and   >>I expect they will." >  > I > We will see.  But it will have to wait till I stop laughing and can get  > back up in my chair.  G Well take it up with the governor, the mayor and the president who are  B all saying the same thing. In fact they had a discussion on WWLTV F (Channel 4 News New Orleans which was still streaming on the Internet F from makeshift studios at the bottom of their transmission tower when G everything else in NO was off the air) on this very subject. The mayor  D said people with your viewpoint are just plain wrong in the current H circumstances. I'm only relaying what was said. They could all be wrong 5 and the lawyers can make money arguing over it later.   H > Not that I saw.  It's called a Bradley Assault Vehicle.  Not a BradleyG > Amphibious Vehicle.  You know, theortically, an Abrams Tank can float 2 > too.  But I'm not going to be the one to try it.  G Hey, it was a huge scandal inside FMC. The procurement committees that  G bought it obviously believed the sales pitch even if it wasn't true. I  F believe a number went to the bottom of various waterways in the first B Gulf war. I believe United Defense may have solved the problem by  dropping the claim.    --  
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 20:44:41 GMT % From: "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com> 9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) < Message-ID: <ZQ2Se.3859$v83.2085@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>  6 "Alan Greig" <greigaln@netscape.net> wrote in message 3 news:wy%Re.914$pm2.323@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...  >  >>F >> But getting armed personnel into flooded areas to provide armoured G >> protection, even if not rescue, for civilians perhaps could be? The  G >> police had to pull back from the convention centre because they were  > M > Can anyone confirm this conference centre is the same one the HP forum was  I > supposed to take place? Seems to be one and the same to me? Looks like  ; > there is a large military convoy heading there right now.   L Yes, it is the same Ernest Morial Convention Center that HP was going to be 
 in next week.    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 15:51:07 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) 3 Message-ID: <DZqsBHDgxVjT@eisner.encompasserve.org>   v In article <XRZRe.27025$Tq2.119374@twister.southeast.rr.com>, "Kenneth Farmer" <kfarmer@NOSPAM.spyderbyte.com> writes: > N > Wasn't the Higgin's boat made in NO?  They're the amphibious craft that hit   > the Normandy beaches and more.      Yep.    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 15:56:23 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) 3 Message-ID: <ZZvjT2jCtQXi@eisner.encompasserve.org>   \ In article <431897C0.921D73C9@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote:G >> Until the president formally declares martial law armed soldiers can 7 >> not be put on the streets. ... Without martial law a , >> soldier has no law enforcement authority. > I > Doesn't the state governor have the authority to call the president and  > request military troups ?   E    She has the authority to call the President and request he use his F    authority.  Yesterday Bush was waiting for her to make that call soC    as not to be impolite.  Personally I think being impolite to one B    Governor is no big deal compared to being impolite to thousands    of hungry thristy citizens.   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 15:54:21 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) 3 Message-ID: <h95p8sA6hBbe@eisner.encompasserve.org>   d In article <Mw0Se.684$ix3.577@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net> writes: > J > Gov. Kathleen Blanco called the looters "hoodlums" and issued a warning A > to lawbreakers: Hundreds of National Guardsmen hardened on the  1 > battlefield in Iraq have landed in New Orleans.   H    Shoot to kill looters is not the appropriate response.  No one blamesG    those looters who are only after food and water.  No one likes those F    looters who are after more (some have comefrom out of state just toF    loot).  Shoot to kill those who are doing violence to others, I canE    understand.  But the first order of business is rescue the people,     not stop the looting.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 04:03:26 +0800  From: prep@prep.synonet.com 9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) - Message-ID: <87y86f2q5t.fsf@prep.synonet.com>   / JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:   C > While NO looks terrible now, I think that once flooding subsides, D > progress will be very fast and significant. However, I don't think8 > the city will be ready to accept tourists before 2006.  H Reallity check. The flood WON'T subside. The flood is fine at sea level,! and has no plans to go any where.   B When they rebuild the levees, and get power to the pumps, then the! water level may be forced down...   + Until then, it is not going to go anywhere.    --  < Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda. @                                              West Australia 6076* comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 03:52:07 +0800  From: prep@prep.synonet.com 9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) - Message-ID: <877jdz4594.fsf@prep.synonet.com>   / JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:   F > This is an emergency. Yes you can. They don't stand, they sit on theF > floor.  When they evacuated Darwin after Tracy, Qantas put people in > the cargo hold of 747s.   C 700 odd AIR. Still the highest POB count for a 747 ever. And it was E a clasic, not a much larger 744. Mind you, the airport was functional + and didn't have several M of water over it.   F I can't believe how bad the NO situation is. A total cluster fuck from
 go to whoa...   A Just hope LOTS that there is not another cyclone in the gulf this ' year, no matter what the NOAO predicts.    --  < Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda. @                                              West Australia 6076* comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 04:00:33 +0800  From: prep@prep.synonet.com 9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) - Message-ID: <873bon44v2.fsf@prep.synonet.com>   * bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:  > > Only if your willing to personally assume all the liability.C > Otherwise, you can't expect the person who is going tobe hit with 7 > the multi-million dollar lawsuit to forget liability.   A We have laws that deal with emergency situations like that. There = where a could of retards who wanted to sue post Tracy. It was C explained to them that the case would take 10 minutes. 1 to have it D barred under `good faith emergency' laws, and 9 to work out how much# the costs they had to pay would be.   ; I was involved driving people from Perht airport to various E accomondion places and even private homes where people put up others.     It was a trying and hectic time.   --  < Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda. @                                              West Australia 6076* comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 18:31:22 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> 9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) 0 Message-ID: <11hhkcoqlio093b@corp.supernews.com>   Bill Gunshannon wrote:J >>Gov. Kathleen Blanco called the looters "hoodlums" and issued a warning A >>to lawbreakers: Hundreds of National Guardsmen hardened on the  1 >>battlefield in Iraq have landed in New Orleans.  >>K >>"They have M-16s and they're locked and loaded," she said. "These troops  K >>know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so, and   >>I expect they will." >  > I > We will see.  But it will have to wait till I stop laughing and can get  > back up in my chair.  G Yeah, I understand.  But I understand the statement also.  The lowlife  I that would use a disaster to cover their shameful actions probably don't  G know that the troops won't have ammo, and won't shoot.  Her bluff just   might help.   E This whole episode is a black mark on all the people who should have   done more, earlier.   I The gouging with fuel prices shows that some of the top corporate people  1 are just as low, or lower than the looters in NO.   F Lots of bass boats in Mississippi and Lousiana I'm betting.  In years A past, those would be the immediate help, not this waiting on the   government to do something.    --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 18:39:29 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> 9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) 0 Message-ID: <11hhks131f66a5b@corp.supernews.com>   prep@prep.synonet.com wrote:1 > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:  >  > C >>While NO looks terrible now, I think that once flooding subsides, D >>progress will be very fast and significant. However, I don't think8 >>the city will be ready to accept tourists before 2006. >  > J > Reallity check. The flood WON'T subside. The flood is fine at sea level,# > and has no plans to go any where.  > D > When they rebuild the levees, and get power to the pumps, then the# > water level may be forced down...  > - > Until then, it is not going to go anywhere.  >   H Correct.  NO is a geological disaster, just waiting to happen, over and I over again.  The intellegent thing to do would be to declare any and all  E areas that flooded 'wetlands', condemn the properties, clear off all  E buildings, and have a special effort to relocate the property owners  H elsewhere.  Pumping the water out is fine, but re-building in below sea % level locations is just plain stupid.   0 Oh, we're talking about humans, stupid will win.  F I'm hoping the insurance companies refuse to write policies for below H sea level areas.  Then again, insurance companies work on a percentage. /   30% of $1000 is sure better than 30% of $100.    --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 23:41:24 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) + Message-ID: <3ns694F348t0U1@individual.net>   9 In article <ER1Se.983$pm2.725@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, + 	Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net> writes:  >  >  > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > L >>>"They have M-16s and they're locked and loaded," she said. "These troops L >>>know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so, and  >>>I expect they will."  >>   >>  J >> We will see.  But it will have to wait till I stop laughing and can get >> back up in my chair.  > I > Well take it up with the governor, the mayor and the president who are  D > all saying the same thing. In fact they had a discussion on WWLTV H > (Channel 4 News New Orleans which was still streaming on the Internet H > from makeshift studios at the bottom of their transmission tower when I > everything else in NO was off the air) on this very subject. The mayor  F > said people with your viewpoint are just plain wrong in the current  > circumstances.  D Depends on what you think my viewpoint is.  I am totally in favor ofC shooting.  Anyone with a gun that isn't miltary ot law enforcement. F No questions asked.  But reality where the National Guard is concernedC tends to be rather different.  Let's hope that by sending in people F who are quite used to shooting back that they don't get something they are not expecting.  K >                 I'm only relaying what was said. They could all be wrong  7 > and the lawyers can make money arguing over it later.   J And the thing politicians are best at shooting is......  Their mouths off.G I will wait until I see the first shot fired before I will believe they E gave these people live ammunition and permission to use it.  If I get E the chance maybe I'll run by the Armory this weekend and ask someone.    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: 2 Sep 2005 23:51:13 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) + Message-ID: <3ns6rhF348t0U2@individual.net>   0 In article <11hhkcoqlio093b@corp.supernews.com>,* 	Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote:K >>>Gov. Kathleen Blanco called the looters "hoodlums" and issued a warning  B >>>to lawbreakers: Hundreds of National Guardsmen hardened on the 2 >>>battlefield in Iraq have landed in New Orleans. >>> L >>>"They have M-16s and they're locked and loaded," she said. "These troops L >>>know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so, and  >>>I expect they will."  >>   >>  J >> We will see.  But it will have to wait till I stop laughing and can get >> back up in my chair.  > I > Yeah, I understand.  But I understand the statement also.  The lowlife  K > that would use a disaster to cover their shameful actions probably don't  I > know that the troops won't have ammo, and won't shoot.  Her bluff just  
 > might help.   F Well, that's a nice thought, but most gun toting americans are cowardsE and only shoot at people and things that can't shoot back anyway. But C bluffing with someone else's life doesn't sound very nice to me.  I E hope they are armed and I hope the Rules of Engagement allow for them C to return fire.  I know they can and will.  But experience with the E military that dates from today all the way back to 1968 tends to make  me rather skeptical.   > G > This whole episode is a black mark on all the people who should have   > done more, earlier.  > K > The gouging with fuel prices shows that some of the top corporate people  3 > are just as low, or lower than the looters in NO.  > H > Lots of bass boats in Mississippi and Lousiana I'm betting.  In years C > past, those would be the immediate help, not this waiting on the   > government to do something.  >   E I watched some talk today that showed people trying to turn this into F a race thing.  It was nice to see even the blacks who make up the bulkG of the people left stranded knew it was not a race thing but a rich vs. G poor thing.  Poor whites were abandoned just as quickly as poor blacks. C I think if they had called in the Guard before disaster struck they C could very likely have evacuated most, if not all, of these people. C The only truly sad part still to come is the factt hat inmost cases D they are going to pur a fortune i nto putting all these people rightA back in harms way knowing that if the current trend continues the E hurricanes are going to get worse and worse for at least the next few B years before the cycle ends and reverses itself.  But then, if theE relocated all these poor people who didn't really have anything to go G back to anyway, who would serve all those rich people who's houses will + be repaired l ong before the poor people's.      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: 2 Sep 2005 23:53:48 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) + Message-ID: <3ns70cF348t0U3@individual.net>   3 In article <h95p8sA6hBbe@eisner.encompasserve.org>, > 	koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:f > In article <Mw0Se.684$ix3.577@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net> writes: >>  K >> Gov. Kathleen Blanco called the looters "hoodlums" and issued a warning  B >> to lawbreakers: Hundreds of National Guardsmen hardened on the 2 >> battlefield in Iraq have landed in New Orleans. > J >    Shoot to kill looters is not the appropriate response.  No one blamesI >    those looters who are only after food and water.  No one likes those H >    looters who are after more (some have comefrom out of state just toH >    loot).  Shoot to kill those who are doing violence to others, I canG >    understand.  But the first order of business is rescue the people,  >    not stop the looting.  J That's why I said shoot anyone with a gun.  Of course, I think they shouldM do the same in Iraq but those above me don't agree with that either.  Looters L are just common criminals.  One can always go afteer them later if it reallyH matters.  But shooting at police and rescue helicopters!  That I can not
 stand for.   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: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 19:04:57 -0500 (CDT)* From: sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda)9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) 2 Message-ID: <05090219045697_2040ABAC@antinode.org>  ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)   1 > > From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>  > > J > >    Would it be possible to solve this problem in some forum other thanE > > comp.os.vms?  I doubt that the FEMA people will be following this J > > discussion, and thus will miss all the brilliant advice offered here. ! > > Please contact them directly.  > >  > ; >    If we can't grouse amoungst freinds, what's the point?   B    Grouse all you want SOMEWHERE ELSE.  _My_ friends don't polluteA comp.os.vms with unrelated (and generally pointless) rantings and  ravings.  H    If all _your_ "friends" run when they see you coming, so that this isE the only forum where you can get anyone's attention, that should tell  you something.  H ------------------------------------------------------------------------  4    Steven M. Schweda               (+1) 651-699-98183    382 South Warwick Street        sms@antinode-org     Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 20:32:23 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) , Message-ID: <4318EF14.32582AFD@teksavvy.com>   Dave Froble wrote:G > Lots of bass boats in Mississippi and Lousiana I'm betting.  In years B > past, those would be the immediate help, not this waiting on the > government to do something.     E I am currently forming an opinion that the blame rests first with the F city of New Orleans. Lack of a real evacuation plan for one thing, andF lack of leadership to get the rest of the government moving. The mayorE should have gotten FEMA and the military moving ASAP before the storm F and told them to airlift supplies as soon as the winds die down eitherO use helicopters or, of runway is dry, lack large transport planes within HOURS.   G Even if the storm had not damaged the city, you're still need troups to H guard the city until it returns to life. And it was pretty sure that theD storm would cause damage SOMEWHERE in the region, so airborne relief? could go to mississipi if new orleans had not had any problems.     F I think that the rest of the government stayed on stand-by waiting for) the city of new orleans to make the call.   C The lesson in this is that FEMA should have the power to override a E mayor/government and implement what it takes to prepare post disaster # relief before the disaster happens.   D Where Bush failed is seizing an opportunity to lead and take controlD before the city stumbled and get the big artillery moving as soon asG city evacuation was called. But it is no surprise that he stayed in his B ranch and issues press nice fluffy press statements stating he wasT willing to provide any help the governor would ask. (reactive instead of proactive).  H But in the end, if the normal process is for city government to take the2 lead, then that is where the responsability rests.  H One media analyst compared the mayor of New Orleans with Rudolf GiulianiH on 9-11. The later took a clear leaderhsip role right away and stayed inG the forefront, leading New York back to life.  The mayor of New Orleans / seems to be overwhelmed, in way above his head.    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 00:38:43 GMT ( From: Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net>9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) ; Message-ID: <ng6Se.1157$ix3.1154@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>    Dave Froble wrote:   > I > Yeah, I understand.  But I understand the statement also.  The lowlife  K > that would use a disaster to cover their shameful actions probably don't  I > know that the troops won't have ammo, and won't shoot.  Her bluff just  
 > might help.   H The fact that she might be bluffing occurred to me but could she really J believe armed gangsters in New Orleans are watching her press conferences?   --  
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 20:39:33 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) , Message-ID: <4318F0C2.4B97CCBB@teksavvy.com>   Dave Froble wrote:I > Correct.  NO is a geological disaster, just waiting to happen, over and J > over again.  The intellegent thing to do would be to declare any and all9 > areas that flooded 'wetlands', condemn the properties,    H It gets much worse, and not just New Orleans. While the USA continues toF ignore Global Warming, consider that the melting ice on Greenland willA cause ocean leavels to rise 6m on a planetary scale. (and that is  Greenland alone).   G While getting a full 6m (19 feet) increase in sea level will take time, F consider that impact on cities whenever there is a storm since it willH get worse and worse.  And the more water in the ocean, the more the odds of powerful weather events.   B Not sure if insurance companies will take this into consideration.A (consider all the expensive properties on long island, as well as F california coast, airports near the sea such as JFK, portions of lower manhattan etc).   @ In the case of New Orleans, what is likely to happen is that theE governments will agree to rebuilding a bigger/better levee system and C that will satisfy insurance company worries for another 20-30 years  until the next big event.    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 00:58:48 GMT ( From: Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net>9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) 9 Message-ID: <cz6Se.1169$ix3.16@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>    JF Mezei wrote:     H > I think that the rest of the government stayed on stand-by waiting for+ > the city of new orleans to make the call.   H I don't believe it was that way. New Orleans and the Federal Government G pretty much *knew* they were heading to near certain disaster 24 hours  G before the storm hit. Computer simulations apparently showed an almost  H certain levee fail. The US government's own hurricane warning site said E something like "CATASTROPHIC WIDESPREAD DAMAGE. LEAVE IMMEDIATELY.".  H That was pretty strong for the National Hurricane Centre which normally H has all the urgency of a telex machine. I think they just all hoped the < simulations were wrong because there was no time to do more.   > J > One media analyst compared the mayor of New Orleans with Rudolf GiulianiJ > on 9-11. The later took a clear leaderhsip role right away and stayed inI > the forefront, leading New York back to life.  The mayor of New Orleans 1 > seems to be overwhelmed, in way above his head.   I You haven't been watching him on tv every night. I have. Miracles of the  8 web. He's been on-top of it but resources never arrived.   --  
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 20:59:55 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) , Message-ID: <4318F587.416DA975@teksavvy.com>  F BTW, they have used C-130 military aircraft to airlift refugees out of New Orleans.   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 18:52:56 -0700 $ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) B Message-ID: <1125712376.533706.67930@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>   Alan Greig wrote:  > JF Mezei wrote:  >  > J > > I think that the rest of the government stayed on stand-by waiting for- > > the city of new orleans to make the call.  > I > I don't believe it was that way. New Orleans and the Federal Government H > pretty much *knew* they were heading to near certain disaster 24 hoursH > before the storm hit. Computer simulations apparently showed an almostI > certain levee fail. The US government's own hurricane warning site said F > something like "CATASTROPHIC WIDESPREAD DAMAGE. LEAVE IMMEDIATELY.".I > That was pretty strong for the National Hurricane Centre which normally I > has all the urgency of a telex machine. I think they just all hoped the > > simulations were wrong because there was no time to do more. >  > > L > > One media analyst compared the mayor of New Orleans with Rudolf GiulianiL > > on 9-11. The later took a clear leaderhsip role right away and stayed inK > > the forefront, leading New York back to life.  The mayor of New Orleans 3 > > seems to be overwhelmed, in way above his head.  > J > You haven't been watching him on tv every night. I have. Miracles of the: > web. He's been on-top of it but resources never arrived.  G Furthermore, the situations are not comparable. I was 6 blocks from WTC E on 9/11. Evacuation was relatively easy. I walked to a ferry and took D that to Brooklyn. Most people walked up the FDR drive (it's actuallyE called something else at that point -- I can't remember exactly what) G to the Brooklyn Bridge and walked across it. These were long walks, but C doable. No one was stranded on rooftops. There wasn't feet of water @ everywhere. Though ceratinly those closer to the WTC site had it harder.   D People evacuated a large area of Lower Manahattan mostly because the power went out.   E This is not to say Giuliani didn't to a great job. But the situations G are not comparable. And there wasn't much Giuliani, or anyone, could do D to save the nearly 3000 that lost their lives that day. Once the AirA Force was late to thwart the attacks, catastrophe was pretty much G inevitable. The police and firefighters were not fully cooperating with A each other. No one warned the firefighters (or anyone else in the , buildings) that they were about to collapse.  D Also, a very large chunk of Manhattan was off limits for days (belowD Canal Street at least! maybe it was 14th St!!!). The off-limits areaE shrunk quickly at first, then rather slowly. Some of the subway lines E were re-routed for months. It took about a year (IIRC -- I can try to G look it up) to get the subway fully back to its normal routes. And PATH 5 service to the WTC site came back online still later.   E Hey, it's not even been a week for New Orleans. And in fact, Giuliani A almost got killed himself during the collapse of the first tower.   C Also, Lower Manhattan, until quite recently, was mostly businesses. G Even now Lower Manhattan turns into a bit of a ghost town late at night  and even on the weekends.    >  > --   > Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 22:27:51 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) , Message-ID: <43190A22.66AA1273@teksavvy.com>   Alan Greig wrote: I > I don't believe it was that way. New Orleans and the Federal Government H > pretty much *knew* they were heading to near certain disaster 24 hours > before the storm hit.   H The world knew.  But I don't think that things were set in motion at theF political level to get people/infrastructure going ASAP to be ready to intervene right away.   J > You haven't been watching him on tv every night. I have. Miracles of the: > web. He's been on-top of it but resources never arrived.  G Still not convinced. Consider how the mayor handled the evacuation, not D fighting to get airport, train and bus services running to help withF evacuation. If he was given access to the media, how come he forgot to mention the convention centre ?   F I hear him complaining about lack of services, calling an "SOS". But iH don't hear him leading. I hear him calling for total evacuation, I don't> hear him leading the peoiple who have remained and giving them= information on what works and what doesn't work in the city.    = Perhaps I am getting a squewed picture filtered by the media.    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 21:23:07 -0700 $ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) A Message-ID: <1125721387.510920.8210@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    JF Mezei wrote:  > Alan Greig wrote: K > > I don't believe it was that way. New Orleans and the Federal Government J > > pretty much *knew* they were heading to near certain disaster 24 hours > > before the storm hit.  > J > The world knew.  But I don't think that things were set in motion at theH > political level to get people/infrastructure going ASAP to be ready to > intervene right away.    Yes, it appears to be that way.   L > > You haven't been watching him on tv every night. I have. Miracles of the< > > web. He's been on-top of it but resources never arrived. > I > Still not convinced. Consider how the mayor handled the evacuation, not F > fighting to get airport, train and bus services running to help with
 > evacuation.   D Uh, if you're still comparing him to Giuliani, what did he do to aidF any evacuation? The subways were ordered to stop. Period. There was noF power for them in Lower Manhattan anyway, thru which the vast majorityG of them pass. People -- and I was one of them -- walked out of the city E and/or took ferries. These were people at work trying to get home. In F NO you have people trapped by flood waters on the roofs of their homesG trying to get out, but have no home to go to once they get out, if they  get out.  5 THESE SITUATIONS ARE NOT COMPARABLE. HELLOOOOOOO!!!!!   G Many people could walk to working transportation on 9/11. People in New F Orleans are trapped on their roofs or fighting each other for food and water.  < > If he was given access to the media, how come he forgot to! > mention the convention centre ?   E And just how is he going to get all these things running when they're A covered by feet of water that came from levees that broke? Do you E expect his police to swim to the levees with sandbags on their backs? C And then start removing the water with a bucket brigade? You may as F well criticize Giuliani for not preventing the planes from hitting the
 buildings.  F You can make the case that NO and the Feds were not prepared for this.C But is anyone anywhere well prepared for events like this that only B happen maybe once every 40 years? Was NYC, Washington, or the U.S. prepared for 9/11?  H > I hear him complaining about lack of services, calling an "SOS". But iJ > don't hear him leading. I hear him calling for total evacuation, I don't@ > hear him leading the peoiple who have remained and giving them> > information on what works and what doesn't work in the city.  * I thought pretty much nothing was working.  ? > Perhaps I am getting a squewed picture filtered by the media.   E You conclude a lot based on very little, as usual. The entire city is B simply completely overwhelmed. They couldn't even pick up the dead9 because that would have impeded the rescue of the living!   0 [BTW, your spelling of skewed is pretty skewed!]   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:47:22 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> 9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) 0 Message-ID: <11hidu7qh17qra6@corp.supernews.com>   Steven M. Schweda wrote:= > From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)  >  > 0 >>>From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> >>> I >>>   Would it be possible to solve this problem in some forum other than D >>>comp.os.vms?  I doubt that the FEMA people will be following thisI >>>discussion, and thus will miss all the brilliant advice offered here.    >>>Please contact them directly. >>>  >>; >>   If we can't grouse amoungst freinds, what's the point?  >  > D >    Grouse all you want SOMEWHERE ELSE.  _My_ friends don't polluteC > comp.os.vms with unrelated (and generally pointless) rantings and 
 > ravings. > J >    If all _your_ "friends" run when they see you coming, so that this isG > the only forum where you can get anyone's attention, that should tell  > you something.  ( Wooooo!  Feeling a bit testy today, huh?  @ Yes, the discussion is off topic.  Some of the posts are pretty H meaningless.  But it's a rather big thing, and c.o.v isn't some type of C vacuum that can shut out the rest of the world.  Don't read things  A you're not interest in.  Others won't tell you what you can post.    --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:08:08 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> ' Subject: Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance , Message-ID: <43189503.281D8112@teksavvy.com>   Rob Young wrote:M > The lone holdout Gelsinger referred to is IBM, whose Power processor is the M > second horse in what Intel likes to call a two-horse race, but it should be M > noted that Sun also shuns Itanium in favor of high-end systems built around  > Sparc processors.     < Intel may say it is a two horse race, but that is not true.   ; Right now, it is between the 8086, PaRisc, Sparc and Power.   E When HP's sales of IA64 surpass those of PaRisc, then you can include  that IA64 thing in the race.  H The 8086's market is being expanded to scale even higher in entrerprise.B Intel has restricted Ia64 to compete against only against high endF Power. It doesn't want to admit that IA64 is competing against its own 8086, and AMD's 8086 as well.    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 18:14:23 GMT ( From: Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net>' Subject: Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance 8 Message-ID: <3E0Se.969$pm2.87@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>   Rob Young wrote:  < > 	Why not?  I don't believe he is a liar.  Can you prove it
 > 	otherwise?   B I don't believe he is a liar - I just believe he picked his words A carefully. I *speculate* that he may have been very truthful and  I intentionally budgeted no time for it. Itanium also had a time budget to  & *knock-out* X86-64. It didn't make it.  E I would like to believe you are right but I fear not and thats why I  # want to see VMS get an X86-64 port.  --  
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:28:51 -0400 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>' Subject: Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance = Message-ID: <iJKdnYH1JfJpOoXeRVn-ow@metrocastcablevision.com>    Rob Young wrote:   ...       Keep searching  > 	for an Itanium exit strategy   A You're just not paying attention, Rob:  the shared common system  I infrastructure between Itanic and Intel x86 will be a *very* viable exit  H strategy for Intel, SGI is already moving in that direction by planning C to support x86 in Altix, and the dwarves who aren't selling enough  A Itanic systems to worry about anyway can easily adopt it as well.   E That leaves HP, and Intel might just have said "Tough tooties, guys:  F you suckered us into this mess and you can get yourselves out of it - 3 'cause *we* aren't going down the tubes for *you*."   I Though since Linux will run at least as happily on 64-bit x86 as it does  F on Itanic and HP doesn't really seem to be all that serious about its G proprietary OSs anyway, they may not really care all that much either:  I they'll just support (at least sort of) Itanic systems for an additional  D 5 years the same way they plan to handle Alpha, and never look back.  ? But there are none so blind as those who will not see, I guess.    - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 16:02:28 -0400 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>' Subject: Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance = Message-ID: <ctidnVZTKYhIMoXeRVn-pQ@metrocastcablevision.com>    Rob Young wrote: > In article <OdadnZ2dnZ2TqKu0nZ2dnSqbhd6dnZ2dRVn-0J2dnZ0@metrocastcablevision.com>, Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:  >  >>Rob Young wrote: >> >>...  >> >>   As Gelsinger points out >> >>>	about Itanium: >>; >>Mot exactly a completely unbiased source, one might note.  >> >  > ) > 	True.  But factual nonetheless, right?   I Since I already pointed out where he was *not* factual, that seems to be   a rather stupid question.    ...   R >>>"The industry has lined up--all but one--with Itanium as the platform of choiceO >>>for RISC replacement and mainframe platforms for the future," Pat Gelsinger, M >>>general manager of Intel's digital enterprise group, said last week at the * >>>Intel Developer Forum in San Francisco. >>K >>I guess Pat can count about as well as he can bring new architectures to   >>market success:  >>C >>IBM (that's one:  no current interest in Itanic at all, and only  " >>luke-warm interest in the past). >>B >>Sun (that's two, rather than 'all but one':  hasn't been at all + >>interested in Itanic for many years now).  >> >  > 4 > 	Need to scroll down a bit in that same article...  D No I don't, Rob:  I was responding to you and to your quote of what F Gelsinger said, not to whatever editorializing the article author may I have added to it.  Gelsinger (and you, incidentally) didn't note that he  ( had misspoken, the article's author did.   > M > The lone holdout Gelsinger referred to is IBM, whose Power processor is the M > second horse in what Intel likes to call a two-horse race, but it should be M > noted that Sun also shuns Itanium in favor of high-end systems built around  > Sparc processors.  >  > C > 	UltraSparc is "dead man walking".  He knows it, Sun's continuing # > 	shrinking server share shows it.   F 'Way off base again, Rob:  I didn't say a word about UltraSPARC, just E about Sun as another Tier 1 vendor who wasn't on board the Itanic at  H all.  And Sun is by no means synonymous with UltraSPARC any more:  they H have enthusiastically embraced Fujitsu and SPARC64 as partners (as well E as moving on themselves to new SPARC designs), and SPARC64 (lest you  H have managed to suppress this fact yet again) bests the top-of-the-line ? Itanics quite convincingly in several significant large-system   commercial benchmarks.   >  >  > H >>Fujitsu (that's three, even farther from 'all but one':  their Itanic G >>offering is pretty late to the party - or funeral - and pales beside  K >>their more per-core-performant and *far* more expandible SPARC64 systems  K >>which they are showing no sign whatsoever of preparing for the knacker's   >>yard). >  > , > 	Come on Bill... you are losing your edge.  C Not at all, Rob:  it's just apparently too sharp for you to notice  G immediately after you've been sliced.  But I'm always willing to point  ? out the blood that you've missed so that you can make whatever  > ineffectual attempts you can come up with to staunch the flow.      I mean, it was 9 > 	2 weeks ago whereby this presentation was made at IPF:  > M > Optimizing Your Datacenter with Intel-based Fujitsu Mainframe-class Mission  > Critical Server  > F > https://www28.cplan.com/cbi_export/PS_ISDS006_275590_82-9_FIN_v2.pdf > G > 	You'll notice on slide 11 their dual-syncrhonous system architecture 6 > 	has 34 patents applied.  Pointing out effort spent.  I No one I know of tries to disavow in any way the fortunes that have been  H shoveled into the Itanic money pit, Rob.  Many companies have done so - E the problem is that so far none have anything remotely comparable in  C returned value to show for it, with no obvious miracle in sight to   reverse that situation.   H So they make the best they can of the world as it has turned out to be, E while actively (though of course quietly) planning escape strategies  , from the hole they have dug themselves into.      You'll noticeH > 	on slide 23 the cpu is Itanium, and the two different models.  You'llC > 	notice on slide 24 the PrimeQuest roadmap shows 3 generations of * > 	Itanium (Madison, Montecito, Montvale).  A Well, that *was* an Itanic presentation, Rob:  you'd hardly have  9 expected them to lay out their SPARC64 roadmap there too.   B And one might note that '3 generations of Itanic' (whoops - minor D misquote there...) actually only covers about 18 months of calendar H time:  Fujitsu introduced their system only a couple of months ago (not H when Madison first appeared over 2 years ago), and Montvale is at least E *supposed* to appear before the end of next year.  So pardon me from  E being less than impressed by the length of that 'roadmap' - hell, it  B doesn't even include a single socket or interface change, so from H Fujitsu's point of view it's the same thing they're selling today, just ' with newer Intel parts plugged into it.    ...   9 >>>	Montecito will pull past Power5 in [tpmC] performance  >>J >>Horseshit.  Even *Intel* isn't claiming that - not even for the low-end = >>systems where it might have had any chance at all to do so.  >> >  > ' > 	Hey... never saw you challenge this:  > g > http://realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&PostNum=3689&Thread=5&entryID=55974&roomID=11  > / > 2) 1.8(2.0) GHz 24 MB Montecito + zx2 chipset  >  > 280k TPC-C  G I don't bother to challenge every word of drivel that Paul posts, Rob:  I not only would that take more of my time than I'm interested in devoting  0 to him, but it would start to resemble stalking.  H He posted an opinion, and I gave it all the attention that I thought it H deserved.  But since you've brought it up, I'll note that he appears to I expect miracles (funny how that kind of thinking keeps cropping up among  I Itanic supporters) from a Montecito 1.6 GHz part that clocks at the same  C speed the current Madison II does, and has almost exactly the same  I amount of cache per core that the current Madison II does (somewhat more  H L2, but the L1 and massive L3 are the same), and only a minor advantage G in inter-CPU communication speed (in a 4-core box with 2 chips, only 1  A out of 3 interchanges on average will be affected by moving from  G single-core to dual-core).  The only *real* performance enhancement is  I Montecito's somewhat primitive dual-thread-per-core capability, and even  @ Intel is not expecting this to add the 30% to Itanic's per-core C performance that Paul appears to expect - let alone enough more to  I compensate for the use of Intel's rather unimpressive chipset instead of  B HP's aging but at least respectable zx1 (which generated the only 0 respectable Itanic TPC-C 4-core scores to date).  D His rosy predictions for the effects of increased bus bandwidth are E similarly pathetic, and a mere 12.5% clock increase plus 33% more L3  0 cache aren't going to be overly dramatic either.   - bill   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 18:28:47 -0500 + From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) ' Subject: Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance 3 Message-ID: <GRGu4vvFWhIG@eisner.encompasserve.org>   h In article <ctidnVZTKYhIMoXeRVn-pQ@metrocastcablevision.com>, Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:   > Rob Young wrote: >>  N >> The lone holdout Gelsinger referred to is IBM, whose Power processor is theN >> second horse in what Intel likes to call a two-horse race, but it should beN >> noted that Sun also shuns Itanium in favor of high-end systems built around >> Sparc processors. >>   >>  D >> 	UltraSparc is "dead man walking".  He knows it, Sun's continuing$ >> 	shrinking server share shows it. > H > 'Way off base again, Rob:  I didn't say a word about UltraSPARC, just G > about Sun as another Tier 1 vendor who wasn't on board the Itanic at  J > all.  And Sun is by no means synonymous with UltraSPARC any more:  they J > have enthusiastically embraced Fujitsu and SPARC64 as partners (as well G > as moving on themselves to new SPARC designs), and SPARC64 (lest you  J > have managed to suppress this fact yet again) bests the top-of-the-line A > Itanics quite convincingly in several significant large-system   > commercial benchmarks. >   = 	Sure, with twice the CPUs.  But this is why Sun continues to > 	lose market share, SPARC in general is terribly under-powered? 	verus Power for example and one of the places Power is gaining 7 	(according to recent reports) by taking away from Sun.   I >>>Fujitsu (that's three, even farther from 'all but one':  their Itanic  H >>>offering is pretty late to the party - or funeral - and pales beside L >>>their more per-core-performant and *far* more expandible SPARC64 systems L >>>which they are showing no sign whatsoever of preparing for the knacker's 	 >>>yard).  >>   >>  - >> 	Come on Bill... you are losing your edge.  > E > Not at all, Rob:  it's just apparently too sharp for you to notice  I > immediately after you've been sliced.  But I'm always willing to point  A > out the blood that you've missed so that you can make whatever  @ > ineffectual attempts you can come up with to staunch the flow. >  >    I mean, it was : >> 	2 weeks ago whereby this presentation was made at IPF: >>  N >> Optimizing Your Datacenter with Intel-based Fujitsu Mainframe-class Mission >> Critical Server >>  G >> https://www28.cplan.com/cbi_export/PS_ISDS006_275590_82-9_FIN_v2.pdf  >>  H >> 	You'll notice on slide 11 their dual-syncrhonous system architecture7 >> 	has 34 patents applied.  Pointing out effort spent.  > K > No one I know of tries to disavow in any way the fortunes that have been  J > shoveled into the Itanic money pit, Rob.  Many companies have done so - G > the problem is that so far none have anything remotely comparable in  E > returned value to show for it, with no obvious miracle in sight to   > reverse that situation.  > J > So they make the best they can of the world as it has turned out to be, G > while actively (though of course quietly) planning escape strategies  . > from the hole they have dug themselves into. >   < 	But Fujitsu's projections are multi-billion in IPF sales in 	the next 3 years.   >    You'll noticeI >> 	on slide 23 the cpu is Itanium, and the two different models.  You'll D >> 	notice on slide 24 the PrimeQuest roadmap shows 3 generations of+ >> 	Itanium (Madison, Montecito, Montvale).  > C > Well, that *was* an Itanic presentation, Rob:  you'd hardly have  ; > expected them to lay out their SPARC64 roadmap there too.  > D > And one might note that '3 generations of Itanic' (whoops - minor F > misquote there...) actually only covers about 18 months of calendar J > time:  Fujitsu introduced their system only a couple of months ago (not J > when Madison first appeared over 2 years ago), and Montvale is at least G > *supposed* to appear before the end of next year.  So pardon me from  G > being less than impressed by the length of that 'roadmap' - hell, it  D > doesn't even include a single socket or interface change, so from J > Fujitsu's point of view it's the same thing they're selling today, just ) > with newer Intel parts plugged into it.  >   C 	Right, and the point of the slide I referenced.  No infrastructure - 	changes to support 3 generations if Itanium.    > ...  > : >>>>	Montecito will pull past Power5 in [tpmC] performance >>> K >>>Horseshit.  Even *Intel* isn't claiming that - not even for the low-end  > >>>systems where it might have had any chance at all to do so. >>>  >>   >>  ( >> 	Hey... never saw you challenge this: >>  h >> http://realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&PostNum=3689&Thread=5&entryID=55974&roomID=11 >>  0 >> 2) 1.8(2.0) GHz 24 MB Montecito + zx2 chipset >>  
 >> 280k TPC-C  > I > I don't bother to challenge every word of drivel that Paul posts, Rob:  K > not only would that take more of my time than I'm interested in devoting  2 > to him, but it would start to resemble stalking. > J > He posted an opinion, and I gave it all the attention that I thought it J > deserved.  But since you've brought it up, I'll note that he appears to K > expect miracles (funny how that kind of thinking keeps cropping up among  K > Itanic supporters) from a Montecito 1.6 GHz part that clocks at the same  E > speed the current Madison II does, and has almost exactly the same  K > amount of cache per core that the current Madison II does (somewhat more  / > L2, but the L1 and massive L3 are the same),    @ 	You are downplaying cache improvements.  As the designers point$ 	out, cache was a major improvement:  K http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/sscs/Presentations/2005.03.Montecito1.pdf    	Check out slide 4 and you see:    	New level of cache  	. 6 cycle 1MB L2I= 	. Addresses largest CPI component for transaction processing  	(Instruction misses) + 	. Frees 256KB L2D to be dedicated for data 3 	. ECC add in L2T tags, and parity added to L1I TLB  	. Parity in FP and Integer   1 	Cache improvements helps transaction processing.   - > The only *real* performance enhancement is  A > Montecito's somewhat primitive dual-thread-per-core capability,   ( 	Not so... see cache improvements above.   > and even  B > Intel is not expecting this to add the 30% to Itanic's per-core E > performance that Paul appears to expect - let alone enough more to  K > compensate for the use of Intel's rather unimpressive chipset instead of  D > HP's aging but at least respectable zx1 (which generated the only 2 > respectable Itanic TPC-C 4-core scores to date). > F > His rosy predictions for the effects of increased bus bandwidth are G > similarly pathetic, and a mere 12.5% clock increase plus 33% more L3  2 > cache aren't going to be overly dramatic either. >   < 	Ah... as you and MAS were exchanging pleasantries over this 	slide:   7 http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/712/untitled13jh.gif   ? 	HP/Intel talks about 200 tpmC 2S performance, as you point out > 	Power5+ in your estimation will do 270.  But I'll guess Intel> 	is sandbagging a bit - they have been known to do this and itF 	makes sense - upside surprise, etc.  But suppose they are sandbaggingD 	5% and actually do 210 , wouldn't that 1.6 be a floor?  Foxton letsB 	that 1.6 do 1.8?  Who knows... but the 1.8 that does 2.0 would beA 	at a minimum 10% over the 1.6 making what... 230 tpmC?  Paul is  D 	high at 280 but maybe he knows something we don't - maybe not.  But: 	I'm going to say 250K... Either way, a 1.8 GHz Montecito C 	(Foxton to 2.0 GHz) will surely do better than this recent 2S DB2   	submission of 200K:  C http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=105080802   = 	So you are so opposed to Montecito pulling even with Power5, F 	I think you are more than off the mark on that.  As for clock scalingB 	and improvements , I'd agree that 270K is reasonable for Power5+.  ? 	But this is one of those things I'm trying to shy away from as @ 	whatever shows up shows up and it doesn't make a big difference= 	either way in the shrot term.  But I believe it is more than > 	obvious Montecito will pull even with Power5.  You disagree - 	but we will see.    				Rob    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 23:11:04 -0400 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>' Subject: Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance = Message-ID: <-eGdnWNGVZLUiYTeRVn-jw@metrocastcablevision.com>    Rob Young wrote:j > In article <ctidnVZTKYhIMoXeRVn-pQ@metrocastcablevision.com>, Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes: >  >  >>Rob Young wrote:   ...   D >>>	UltraSparc is "dead man walking".  He knows it, Sun's continuing$ >>>	shrinking server share shows it. >>H >>'Way off base again, Rob:  I didn't say a word about UltraSPARC, just G >>about Sun as another Tier 1 vendor who wasn't on board the Itanic at  J >>all.  And Sun is by no means synonymous with UltraSPARC any more:  they J >>have enthusiastically embraced Fujitsu and SPARC64 as partners (as well G >>as moving on themselves to new SPARC designs), and SPARC64 (lest you  J >>have managed to suppress this fact yet again) bests the top-of-the-line A >>Itanics quite convincingly in several significant large-system   >>commercial benchmarks. >> >  >  > 	Sure, with twice the CPUs.   G No, moron:  on a strictly per-core basis.  With twice the cores (which  E of course Fujitsu *does* offer, and HP does not) it completely blows  D Itanic away (and beats POWER5's largest-supported-system numbers as I well, though of course not by nearly as much since POWER5 generates well  D over twice the per-core performance of the best Itanic submissions).  F Perhaps this is why HP and NEC have been kind of shy about submitting G any new jbb2K configurations using Madison II, but the top-of-the-line  H 1.5 GHz 6MB L3 original Madisons couldn't break 600K at 32 cores and HP G barely broke 1M at 64 cores.  By contrast, SPARC64 hits over 1.4M with  D 64 cores and goes all the way up to almost 2.44M with 120 cores (in I tests performed almost a year ago, so it's not as if this situation were  G anything new:  if you want new, consider that a 16-core SPARC64 system  H has recently broken 500K - closing in rapidly on HP's and NEC's 32-core  Itanic numbers).  A Even good old PA-RISC's latest hardware equals Itanic's per-core   performance.  G jbb2K not to your liking?  How about SAP SD 2-tier?  SPARC64 holds top  D honors there as well, with 128 cores scoring 21K - again edging out B POWER5's 20K using 64 cores, and blowing *far* past Itanic's best D showing of 5210 with 32 cores using current top-of-the-line Itanics F (note that SPARC64's score is also a tad higher per core, despite the H fact that it had to scale to 4x as large; Itanic has fared so poorly in I this benchmark that HP never submitted any large Itanic systems, instead  D relying upon EV7 to carry the flag - which it did quite effectively I until NEC finally managed to tweak a Madison system to a slightly better   32-core result).   ...   H >>>	You'll notice on slide 11 their dual-syncrhonous system architecture7 >>>	has 34 patents applied.  Pointing out effort spent.  >>K >>No one I know of tries to disavow in any way the fortunes that have been  J >>shoveled into the Itanic money pit, Rob.  Many companies have done so - G >>the problem is that so far none have anything remotely comparable in  E >>returned value to show for it, with no obvious miracle in sight to   >>reverse that situation.  >>J >>So they make the best they can of the world as it has turned out to be, G >>while actively (though of course quietly) planning escape strategies  . >>from the hole they have dug themselves into. >> >  > > > 	But Fujitsu's projections are multi-billion in IPF sales in > 	the next 3 years.  E Hey, in Y2K IDC was projecting that Itanic would sell $28 billion in  ? servers - in 2004.  Talk is cheap, and often utterly worthless  G (especially, it would seem, when it describes Itanic's glowing future).    >  >  >>   You'll notice >>I >>>	on slide 23 the cpu is Itanium, and the two different models.  You'll D >>>	notice on slide 24 the PrimeQuest roadmap shows 3 generations of+ >>>	Itanium (Madison, Montecito, Montvale).  >>C >>Well, that *was* an Itanic presentation, Rob:  you'd hardly have  ; >>expected them to lay out their SPARC64 roadmap there too.  >>D >>And one might note that '3 generations of Itanic' (whoops - minor F >>misquote there...) actually only covers about 18 months of calendar J >>time:  Fujitsu introduced their system only a couple of months ago (not J >>when Madison first appeared over 2 years ago), and Montvale is at least G >>*supposed* to appear before the end of next year.  So pardon me from  G >>being less than impressed by the length of that 'roadmap' - hell, it  D >>doesn't even include a single socket or interface change, so from J >>Fujitsu's point of view it's the same thing they're selling today, just ) >>with newer Intel parts plugged into it.  >> >  > E > 	Right, and the point of the slide I referenced.  No infrastructure / > 	changes to support 3 generations if Itanium.   F So they don't have to lift a finger:  this is supposed to demonstrate H their unswerving and monumental commitment, rather than an architecture F which can now be left on auto-pilot until they've had a chance to see C whether it's going to auger in or manage to clear the treetops for   another year or two?   ...      I'll note that he appears toK >>expect miracles (funny how that kind of thinking keeps cropping up among  K >>Itanic supporters) from a Montecito 1.6 GHz part that clocks at the same  E >>speed the current Madison II does, and has almost exactly the same  K >>amount of cache per core that the current Madison II does (somewhat more  / >>L2, but the L1 and massive L3 are the same),   >  > * > 	You are downplaying cache improvements.  I No, Rob:  as usual, you're hyping them far beyond what they're likely to  E be worth.  It's such a well-established pattern with you that you're  + probably not aware of it yourself any more.       As the designers point & > 	out, cache was a major improvement: > M > http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/sscs/Presentations/2005.03.Montecito1.pdf  > ! > 	Check out slide 4 and you see:  >  > 	New level of cache   G Not a new level at all, just a splitting and expansion of the existing  F L2 in McKinley/Madison.  And no faster access to it, either:  still 6 > cycles (actually, IIRC it may have been only 5 cycles before).   > 	. 6 cycle 1MB L2I? > 	. Addresses largest CPI component for transaction processing  > 	(Instruction misses) - > 	. Frees 256KB L2D to be dedicated for data 5 > 	. ECC add in L2T tags, and parity added to L1I TLB  > 	. Parity in FP and Integer  > 3 > 	Cache improvements helps transaction processing.   I No shit - but hardly dramatically in this case.  If the L3 didn't exist,  C it would be a different story, but when you've got a fast L3 (with  D latency only a bit over twice the L2 latency) backing up your L2 it L takes an earth-shattering change in L2 to make any major difference overall.   >  > - >>The only *real* performance enhancement is  A >>Montecito's somewhat primitive dual-thread-per-core capability,  >  > * > 	Not so... see cache improvements above.  F I saw them, Rob - I even mentioned them before you did.  They're just = nowhere nearly as impressive as you'd like people to believe.    >  >  >>and even  B >>Intel is not expecting this to add the 30% to Itanic's per-core E >>performance that Paul appears to expect - let alone enough more to  K >>compensate for the use of Intel's rather unimpressive chipset instead of  D >>HP's aging but at least respectable zx1 (which generated the only 2 >>respectable Itanic TPC-C 4-core scores to date). >>F >>His rosy predictions for the effects of increased bus bandwidth are G >>similarly pathetic, and a mere 12.5% clock increase plus 33% more L3  2 >>cache aren't going to be overly dramatic either. >> >  > > > 	Ah... as you and MAS were exchanging pleasantries over this	 > 	slide:  > 9 > http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/712/untitled13jh.gif  > A > 	HP/Intel talks about 200 tpmC 2S performance, as you point out @ > 	Power5+ in your estimation will do 270.  But I'll guess Intel > 	is sandbagging a bit   H Of course you will, Rob - just as you thought they were with McKinley's > clock rate, which you believed would hit 1.4 GHz or even more.  *   - they have been known to do this and itH > 	makes sense - upside surprise, etc.  But suppose they are sandbagging > 	5% and actually do 210   F Why should anyone suppose that, Rob?  I mean, they came right out and I said 200, and for the reasons I listed that number is credible (at least  0 if they're using HP's zx1 chipset to obtain it).  .   , wouldn't that 1.6 be a floor?  Foxton lets > 	that 1.6 do 1.8?   G So you're suggesting that they deliberately turned Foxton off in their   testing too.  Right.   >  Who knows  G You certainly don't, but it doesn't slow you down at all:  you'll jump  L on any wild-eyed speculation that makes Itanic look less like a boat anchor.  & ... but the 1.8 that does 2.0 would be9 > 	at a minimum 10% over the 1.6 making what... 230 tpmC?   H Only if we grant you the 5% above that we have no reason whatsoever to: &   otherwise, it's more like 220K tpmC.  
    Paul is4 > 	high at 280 but maybe he knows something we don't  A He pretty consistently hasn't so far:  after all, he was the one  G promoting the idea about a year ago that Madison II would hit 1.9 GHz,  G and then later that Montecito might well be introduced at *over* 2 GHz  3 (despite Intel's clear statements to the contrary).      - maybe not.  But < > 	I'm going to say 250K... Either way, a 1.8 GHz Montecito E > 	(Foxton to 2.0 GHz) will surely do better than this recent 2S DB2   > 	submission of 200K: > E > http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=105080802   H Assuming, of course, that Intel manages to get Montecito to ship at 1.8 E GHz - which the numbers they've released so far suggest may be a bit  I difficult.  But you also seem reluctant to confront the fact that a year  I ago POWER5 was significantly out-performing the score you refer to above  G (obtained on Linux) when running on AIX:  430K tpmC for 8 cores, which  : means *at least* 215K tpmC on 4 cores when running on AIX.   > ? > 	So you are so opposed to Montecito pulling even with Power5,   H Wrong yet again, Rob:  your original poppycock to which I responded was G that "Montecito will pull past Power5 in performance", and my response  I was "Perhaps a 1.8 GHz Montecito system (if they actually manage to ship  I it at that clock rate) can equal that, but it will hardly 'pull past' it   by any significant amount."   G Try a little harder to understand what you read before responding, and  A your responses might become at least *somewhat* less incompetent.    - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 12:09:39 +1200 % From: Steven Falvey <steve@ddt.co.nz> A Subject: Newbie - Booting Alphaserver 4/266 and third party disks 3 Message-ID: <8R5Se.8143$iM2.813595@news.xtra.co.nz>    Hello,  I I am not sure if this topic has already been done to death, apologies if  = it has. Couldn't find anything in the OpenVMS FAQ on this....     G I am trying to get an AlphaServer 1000 4/266 to boot off a third-party  @ Seagate 9Gb hard disk, after getting scared of the old original  diskpacks failing.  H I successfully installed OpenVMS 7.3-1 onto this disk - I verified this I by way of the VMS CD ROM, choosing option 4 to "Show Installed Products."   9 Anyway, this is what happens when I try to boot off dka0:    ============  ) V5.3-89, built on Oct  6 1998 at 11:14:27 
  >>>b dka0 (boot dka0.0.0.6.0 -flags A)- block 0 of dka0.0.0.6.0 is a valid boot block $ reading 969 blocks from dka0.0.0.6.0 bootstrap code read in Building FRU table FRU table size = 0x8b93 base = 1c0000, image_start = 0, image_bytes = 79200  initializing HWRPB at 2000" initializing page table at 7fd0000 initializing machine state# setting affinity to the primary CPU  jumping to bootstrap code F %APB-F-BADSYSROOT, System root [SYSA.] does not exist, check bootflags   halted CPU 0  
 halt code = 5  HALT instruction executed 
 PC = 20003be4  warning -- HWRPB is invalid   >>>   =======   I So it seems to me that the third-party Seagate disk is OK and acceptable  > to the Alpha hardware. But I obviously this is an unsupported F configuration to OpenVMS; it goes to look for the VMS image and can't $ find it, generating the fault above.  G I admittedly have rather limited knowledge on this aspect of DEC gear.  E Is there a Register I have to modify to get VMS looking in the right   place for it's image?    Many Thanks for any help.    Cheers,   
 Steven Falvey 
 Wellington NEW ZEALAND    ------------------------------   Date: 3 Sep 2005 00:29:59 GMT  From: healyzh@aracnet.com E Subject: Re: Newbie - Booting Alphaserver 4/266 and third party disks , Message-ID: <dfaqq702099@enews2.newsguy.com>  & Steven Falvey <steve@ddt.co.nz> wrote:+ > V5.3-89, built on Oct  6 1998 at 11:14:27  >  >>>b dka0 > (boot dka0.0.0.6.0 -flags A)/ > block 0 of dka0.0.0.6.0 is a valid boot block & > reading 969 blocks from dka0.0.0.6.0 > bootstrap code read in > Building FRU table > FRU table size = 0x8b95 > base = 1c0000, image_start = 0, image_bytes = 79200  > initializing HWRPB at 2000$ > initializing page table at 7fd0000 > initializing machine state% > setting affinity to the primary CPU  > jumping to bootstrap code H > %APB-F-BADSYSROOT, System root [SYSA.] does not exist, check bootflags  C I'm suspecting that your problem is that the system was setup for a 9 non-standard [SYSA.], and the new install created [SYS0.]   K I forget the exact syntax to correct this, based on the first part above it  might be as simply as:   b dka0 -flags 0   K However, in the long run you'll most likely want to change the default your : SRM console has set from "A" to "0" (note that is a zero).   		Zane   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:17:05 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> E Subject: Re: Newbie - Booting Alphaserver 4/266 and third party disks 0 Message-ID: <11hic5e9adp0t01@corp.supernews.com>   healyzh@aracnet.com wrote:( > Steven Falvey <steve@ddt.co.nz> wrote: > + >>V5.3-89, built on Oct  6 1998 at 11:14:27  >> >>>b dka0 >>(boot dka0.0.0.6.0 -flags A)/ >>block 0 of dka0.0.0.6.0 is a valid boot block & >>reading 969 blocks from dka0.0.0.6.0 >>bootstrap code read in >>Building FRU table >>FRU table size = 0x8b95 >>base = 1c0000, image_start = 0, image_bytes = 79200  >>initializing HWRPB at 2000$ >>initializing page table at 7fd0000 >>initializing machine state% >>setting affinity to the primary CPU  >>jumping to bootstrap code H >>%APB-F-BADSYSROOT, System root [SYSA.] does not exist, check bootflags >  > E > I'm suspecting that your problem is that the system was setup for a ; > non-standard [SYSA.], and the new install created [SYS0.]  > M > I forget the exact syntax to correct this, based on the first part above it  > might be as simply as: >  > b dka0 -flags 0  > M > However, in the long run you'll most likely want to change the default your < > SRM console has set from "A" to "0" (note that is a zero). >  > 		Zane >   I On the right track.  The last line your system wrote to you says it all.     "Check bootflags".  G It's been a few years since I was doing any of this, so I may be wrong  F in some of the following.  My systems just run, and run, and run .....  J When you're at the >>> prompt, the SRM console, try some of the following:  , SHOW - this should display all the settings.$ HELP - this is a good place to start  9 Somewhere in there you'll find something like 'bootflag'.   F Or if you prefer, and have the capability, just post the entire list. B There are plenty of people here who will have all kinds of advice.  A Basically, the standard root for the OS is SYS0.  Your system is  D attempting to boot into SYSA.  Don't know why anyone did that.  The E various roots allow multiple VMS operating systems to be on the same  I disk, and you can then boot into whatever one you want.  There are valid  @ reasons for this, but most users only ever need SYS0.  Set your / bootflags to boot into SYS0 and you'll be fine.    --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 03:30:51 +0800  From: prep@prep.synonet.com $ Subject: Re: NTP Under UCX Questions- Message-ID: <87irxj468k.fsf@prep.synonet.com>    nospam@nohost.no.net writes:  @ > I'd like to know if it's possible to set the maximum amount ofD > difference between the system time and the server time so that UCXC > does not change the time if it is greater than the set maximum. I D > believe that is referred to as aperture but I haven't seen a means > to set this.  ? If you are running ntp, there is a max tiem difference ntp will B continue to run with. Over that, it declares the world bonkers andF exits. It also slews the time by setting the tick rate fast or slow so@ time is monotonic and does not have large `holes' from stepping.   VMS really needs a current ntp.    --  < Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda. @                                              West Australia 6076* comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 00:07:17 +01006 From: "Alex Daniels" <AlexNoSpamDaniels@themail.co.uk>$ Subject: Re: NTP Under UCX Questions4 Message-ID: <4318db26$0$306$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>  ) <prep@prep.synonet.com> wrote in message  ' news:87irxj468k.fsf@prep.synonet.com...  > nospam@nohost.no.net writes: <SNIP> > ! > VMS really needs a current ntp.  >   H The NTP port in TCP/IP Services 5.5 (shipped with V8.2) is based on NTP  4.2.0 ( I http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/82FINAL/tcprn/TCPIP055_RELEASE_NOTES.PDF ).   1 NTP 4.2.0 is the current stable release of NTP (  U http://ntp.isc.org/bin/view/Main/SoftwareDownloads#Current_versions_of_NTP_Download )    Alex     ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 13:43:43 -0500 ? From: Swedish Chef <thisisafakeaddress@staffan.tjernstrom.name> 5 Subject: Re: Percentage of customers with X-windows ? D Message-ID: <pan.2005.09.02.18.43.43.211739@staffan.tjernstrom.name>  I jordan scribbled something like this, on Fri, 02 Sep 2005 06:52:27 -0700:   3 >>  Or is SMG still the lowest common denominator ? F > I prefer X-windows but based on our environment I'd have to vote for > SMG.  J Chances are that a lot of the 'big' environments (banking / defense / etc)D explicitly will not be running any kind of X, if only because of theH CPU/memory/network-hogging resources it consumes, when telnet / terminal> traffic is a lot cheaper and does all they/we need them to do.   --   ---  Swedish Chef+ The only thing I know, is that I don't know    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 04:35:40 +0800  From: prep@prep.synonet.com  Subject: RD drive unit numbers- Message-ID: <87psrr2oo3.fsf@prep.synonet.com>   6 I can't find the old info on this, so does anyone know8 the correct unit numbers to set on RD drives for 4 and 63 button BA23s and also World Box distribution cards.    Ditto for floppies.    tnx in advance.    --  < Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda. @                                              West Australia 6076* comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 20:08:31 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> " Subject: Re: RD drive unit numbers, Message-ID: <4318E97E.B1F5DA5F@teksavvy.com>   prep@prep.synonet.com wrote: > 8 > I can't find the old info on this, so does anyone know: > the correct unit numbers to set on RD drives for 4 and 65 > button BA23s and also World Box distribution cards.   F You mean you want the dip switch definitions for RD disk drives ? RD54	 or RD53 ?   F at http://www.vaxination.ca/vms/microvax/index.html I have a link to aE site that contains hardware documentation for most DEC devices, and I E think i also have a direct link to a PDF document for the Microvax II - hardware, and this may include RD54 settings.    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 18:09:38 -0700  From: dooleys@snowy.net.au" Subject: Re: RD drive unit numbersC Message-ID: <1125709778.377361.291440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   	 Off Topic 8 I don't know if you are selling this or already bidding,. but there is an Alphaserver 2000 4/233 on ebay in Perth currently at $20  Philm http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Digital-Alphaserver-2000-4-233_W0QQitemZ5804069095QQcategoryZ11214QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem    ------------------------------  * Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 00:29:47 -0500 (CDT)* From: sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda)@ Subject: Re: TCPIP Services: SMTP bug/wrong logic with 450 codes2 Message-ID: <05090300294757_2040B07C@antinode.org>  B From: Mike Rechtman <michael.rechtman.nospam@hp.com> [a while ago]   > JF Mezei wrote:  > > L > > The VMS SMTP server fails to handle greylisting by the receiving server.E > > (VAX TCPIP Services 5.3-2). And it gives the used erroneous error R > > message, and logs don't show the real error message unless you enable tracing. > > ' > > The standard (RFC 2821) stipulates:  > > = > > "450 Requested mail action not taken: mailbox unavailable " > >          (e.g., mailbox busy)"	 > > [...]   C > This has been fixed in the latest ECO (ECO 5 IIRC) for TCPIP V5.4  > [...]   G    I've updated to "HP TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS Alpha Version V5.4 - D ECO 5 on a[n] AlphaStation 200 4/233 running OpenVMS V7.3-2", and itA still seeems to be broken.  I routinely get the same old delivery  failures, for example:  & From:   SMTP%"TCPIP$SMTP@antinode.org" To:     sms@antinode.org CC:  Subj:   Returned mail   * Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 00:13:42 -0500 (CDT)2 Message-Id: <05090300133960_20400237@antinode.org> From: TCPIP$SMTP@Antinode.org  To: sms@antinode.org Subject: Returned mail    ' ---- Transcript of session follows ----   F 451  %TCPIP-E-SMTP_SERVICEUNA, remote service unavailable, waymark.net    ---- Unsent message follows ----   [...]         How fixed is it really?  H ------------------------------------------------------------------------  4    Steven M. Schweda               (+1) 651-699-98183    382 South Warwick Street        sms@antinode-org     Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2005.491 ************************