1 INFO-VAX	Sat, 17 Sep 2005	Volume 2005 : Issue 519       Contents:& Re: Changing the primary TCPIP address Re: DELL dumped Itanic?  RE: DELL dumped Itanic?  Re: For Whom the Dell Tolls 9 Re: Former Intel chief architect (P4) shoots from the hip ( Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79?( Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79?( Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79?( Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79?( Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79?( Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79?( Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79?( Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79?( Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79?( Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79?( Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79?( Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79? HP *does* listen) Re: HP to lay off 5,000 in France/Europe? ( RE: initialize disk, how on openvms 6.x?( RE: initialize disk, how on openvms 6.x?A Re: Pathworks for the hobbyist, and general pricing of VMS things A Re: Pathworks for the hobbyist, and general pricing of VMS things A Re: Pathworks for the hobbyist, and general pricing of VMS things A Re: Pathworks for the hobbyist, and general pricing of VMS things  Re: Pathworks32 in Citrix  Re: Pathworks32 in Citrix ' Strike in HP France against the layoffs - Re: Was itanium just a ploy to destroy alpha?   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:36:22 GMT # From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) / Subject: Re: Changing the primary TCPIP address 2 Message-ID: <GgEWe.12806$m46.281@news.cpqcorp.net>  i In article <1126834195.109002.322950@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, gconstantinides@myrealbox.com writes:   2 :We are running OpenVMS Alpha Version V5.3 - ECO 2 :on a Alpha 1200 box.  : = :We need to change the IP address on this machine permanently  :(across reboots).  B   As others have stated, TCPIP$CONFIG.COM is the proper tool here.  B   Additional details on TCP/IP Servies are available in the TCP/IPD   Services manuals available at <http://www.hp.com/go/openvms/doc/>.A   The manangement and operations manual is the one you want here.   D   I will add this question to the OpenVMS Frequently Asked QuestionsF   (FAQ) for the next edition of the FAQ -- I have no idea how I missedC   this question, as this topic arises regularly here and within the E   OpenVMS Ask The Wizard area, and likely also in ITRC and elsewhere.     N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faq N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:23:38 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>   Subject: Re: DELL dumped Itanic?, Message-ID: <432B1BB9.1DE3487B@teksavvy.com>   Keith Parris wrote: L > Because Dell stops selling boxes with Itanium chips, then Itanium is dead?    H It provides an image that IA64 based machines are not selling/growing atH a pace that make them attractive to Dell. The real message is: Companies> who focus on low prices and are competitive don't choose IA64.    > IA64 is a low volume proprietary chip whose performance, while palatable, is not stellar.  G For a company who hasn't made the mistake of betting its whole business C on IA64, IA64 isn't good business, although for some, it might be a E political decision to keep good relationship with Intel and get lower  prices on strategic products.   E For Dell, the political advantages of selling IA64 things just wasn't , worth the costs of selling low volume boxes.  J Dell pulling out of IA64 may not kill IA64. But every bad news weakens it.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:59:55 -0400 ' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com>   Subject: RE: DELL dumped Itanic?R Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB6B2997@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>    -----Original Message----- 9 > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com]=20 " > Sent: September 16, 2005 3:24 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com " > Subject: Re: DELL dumped Itanic? >=20 > Keith Parris wrote: @ > > Because Dell stops selling boxes with Itanium chips, then=20 > Itanium is dead? >=20 >=20: > It provides an image that IA64 based machines are not=20 > selling/growing at? > a pace that make them attractive to Dell. The real message=20  > is: Companies @ > who focus on low prices and are competitive don't choose IA64. >=20 >=20@ > IA64 is a low volume proprietary chip whose performance, while > palatable, is not stellar. >=20= > For a company who hasn't made the mistake of betting its=20  > whole businessE > on IA64, IA64 isn't good business, although for some, it might be a G > political decision to keep good relationship with Intel and get lower  > prices on strategic products.  >=20G > For Dell, the political advantages of selling IA64 things just wasn't . > worth the costs of selling low volume boxes. >=20> > Dell pulling out of IA64 may not kill IA64. But every bad=20 > news weakens it. >=20  : See my reply in the "For whom the Dell tolls" thread ..=20  H Dell has some history of attempting to create Customer fud about product3 areas where it does not have competitive offerings.   D Downplaying importance of blades and of AMD and Opterons (until they# offer them of course) are examples.    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: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:47:28 GMT ( From: Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net>$ Subject: Re: For Whom the Dell Tolls= Message-ID: <QyDWe.38878$k22.15090@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>    Bob Koehler wrote:  I >    So if you cut and paste, it was probably the original author who had  >    MS Dumb-Quotes turned on.  D I'm sure they did. After all they had a quote about NASA rebuilding E "spaceship Columbia" with Itaniums and launching it back into space.  F Can't get dumber quotes than that :-) I emailed them pointing out the I error and asking if it was their mistake or Intel's. No response and the  ! article is still there unchanged.    --  
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:37:10 -0400 ) From: "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> B Subject: Re: Former Intel chief architect (P4) shoots from the hip: Message-ID: <JyJWe.4033$6Z1.1022676@news20.bellglobal.com>  ? "Keith Parris" <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message  - news:ofiVe.12425$dW2.2148@news.cpqcorp.net...  > Neil Rieck wrote: 9 >> Former Intel chief architect (P4) shoots from the hip:  > L > This is old news, in fact from way back in February 2004, and was already  > discussed here at the time: H > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.vms/msg/fa5c5d665ad8bf47?hl=en&  K Sorry about that. I've been a "Bob Colwell" fan for years (he is a regular  E contributor to IEEE's "Computer" magazine) and was poking around the  M internet searching more of his material when I happened to stumble upon this  H video. Now I think it must be mentioned that his cautious 2004 comments L about Itanium are still valid today. Also, the historical perspective about L why graphics work stations have gone the way of the Brontosaurus makes me a L little nervous about IA64 and also makes me wonder why HP hasn't decided to G quietly port OpenVMS to IA32+ (but that is discussion for another day).   
 Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,  Ontario, Canada.8 http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:51:18 GMT ( From: Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net>1 Subject: Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79? = Message-ID: <qCDWe.18715$Kk3.10369@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>    perfnerd@yahoo.com wrote:     F > Does it matter?  Intel owns the Alpha designs now, not HP.  CapellasE > sold it to them just before the merger.  Assuming HP even wanted to 9 > bring back the Alpha, HP would need Intel's permission.   A I think I remember one thing Compaq did retain was the rights to  F manufacture future Alpha cpus. That may have been transferred since I  suppose.   --  
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:56:44 GMT & From: John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com>1 Subject: Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79? 3 Message-ID: <MzEWe.12808$U36.6595@news.cpqcorp.net>    perfnerd@yahoo.com wrote:  > bob@instantwhip.com wrote: > F >>IBM was obliged to produce alphas because of patent infringement ...$ >>the EV79 "we can't do them easily"3 >>story doesn't wash, except that they bought their * >>way out of it ... for how much I wonder? >>: >>Can they still be forced to produce them in case itanium >>falls? >  > F > Does it matter?  Intel owns the Alpha designs now, not HP.  CapellasE > sold it to them just before the merger.  Assuming HP even wanted to 9 > bring back the Alpha, HP would need Intel's permission.  >   H I don't believe that is true.  My understanding is that Compaq (and now D HP) still owns the Alpha designs and patents.  Compaq granted Intel G access to the patents and designs (which Intel paid for as part of the   overall transaction I'd guess).    --   John Reagan / HP Pascal/{A|I}MACRO for OpenVMS Project Leader  Hewlett-Packard Company    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:33:42 GMT 1 From: Keith Parris <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> 1 Subject: Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79? 2 Message-ID: <q6FWe.12814$R16.685@news.cpqcorp.net>   bob@instantwhip.com wrote:F > IBM was obliged to produce alphas because of patent infringement ...  ? Intel, not IBM, was the subject of a lawsuit by DEC for patent  B infringement. Part of the settlement of that lawsuit (and Intel's G counter-suit) was that Intel purchased the Hudson, MA fab from DEC and  ; agreed to produce Alpha chips for DEC, at specified prices.   C DEC systems also used Alpha chips fabbed by Samsung and later IBM.  > Samsung bought Alpha licenses; IBM was merely a semiconductor I fabrication partner. As I recall, eventually Intel's price was higher so  % other sources became more attractive.    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:06:51 GMT # From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) 1 Subject: Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79? 3 Message-ID: <vBFWe.12819$H06.5507@news.cpqcorp.net>   ^ In article <1126892601.918337.235270@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, perfnerd@yahoo.com writes: :bob@instantwhip.com wrote:  ..; :> Can they still be forced to produce them in case itanium 	 :> falls?  : E :Does it matter?  Intel owns the Alpha designs now, not HP.  Capellas D :sold it to them just before the merger.  Assuming HP even wanted to8 :bring back the Alpha, HP would need Intel's permission.  G   As for the licenses and patents, Compaq licensed the Alpha technology 3   to Intel.  Here is an Intel announcement of same:   D     http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20010625corp.htm  4   The relevent statement from the above URL is this:  D   "Under the multi-year technology agreement, Compaq is transferringE   significant Alpha tools and engineering resources to Intel, as well C   as granting licenses to Compaq's Alpha microprocessor technology     and compilers."   E   AFAIK, this Alpha technology status has not changed, and yes, AFAIK F   HP maintains full rights to VAX, too.  As for OpenVMS, Intel Itanium2   is the microprocessor target for HP OpenVMS I64.      N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faq N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.com    ------------------------------    Date: 16 Sep 2005 13:02:31 -0700 From: perfnerd@yahoo.com1 Subject: Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79? C Message-ID: <1126900951.190957.100080@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    John Reagan wrote: > perfnerd@yahoo.com wrote:  > > bob@instantwhip.com wrote: > > H > >>IBM was obliged to produce alphas because of patent infringement ...& > >>the EV79 "we can't do them easily"5 > >>story doesn't wash, except that they bought their , > >>way out of it ... for how much I wonder? > >>< > >>Can they still be forced to produce them in case itanium
 > >>falls? > >  > > H > > Does it matter?  Intel owns the Alpha designs now, not HP.  CapellasG > > sold it to them just before the merger.  Assuming HP even wanted to ; > > bring back the Alpha, HP would need Intel's permission.  > >  > I > I don't believe that is true.  My understanding is that Compaq (and now E > HP) still owns the Alpha designs and patents.  Compaq granted Intel H > access to the patents and designs (which Intel paid for as part of the! > overall transaction I'd guess).  >  > --
 > John Reagan 1 > HP Pascal/{A|I}MACRO for OpenVMS Project Leader  > Hewlett-Packard Company   D I accept your knowledge of the facts over my vague memories of press	 releases.   G However, who would design the next generation of Alpha for HP?  I don't E see Intel being interested in it.  As for HP ... Aren't all the Alpha ? processor designers working for either Intel or AMD?  Hasn't HP E transferred all of it's other processor (Itanium) designers to Intel?    ------------------------------    Date: 16 Sep 2005 15:14:13 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) 1 Subject: Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79? 3 Message-ID: <HEzgr8dk1zB8@eisner.encompasserve.org>   ^ In article <1126892601.918337.235270@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, perfnerd@yahoo.com writes: >  > bob@instantwhip.com wrote:G >> IBM was obliged to produce alphas because of patent infringement ... % >> the EV79 "we can't do them easily" 4 >> story doesn't wash, except that they bought their+ >> way out of it ... for how much I wonder?  >>; >> Can they still be forced to produce them in case itanium 	 >> falls?  > F > Does it matter?  Intel owns the Alpha designs now, not HP.  CapellasE > sold it to them just before the merger.  Assuming HP even wanted to 9 > bring back the Alpha, HP would need Intel's permission.   ! Do you have a citation for that ?   + What I remember is a non-exclusive license.    ------------------------------    Date: 16 Sep 2005 14:02:58 -0700 From: perfnerd@yahoo.com1 Subject: Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79? B Message-ID: <1126904578.736646.32760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>  F Nope, as can be seen from posts by real HP posters.  My post was based- on unverified memories of old press releases.    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:40:10 GMT & From: John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com>1 Subject: Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79? 3 Message-ID: <_YGWe.12828$3a6.2103@news.cpqcorp.net>    perfnerd@yahoo.com wrote:    > F > I accept your knowledge of the facts over my vague memories of press > releases.  > I > However, who would design the next generation of Alpha for HP?  I don't G > see Intel being interested in it.  As for HP ... Aren't all the Alpha A > processor designers working for either Intel or AMD?  Hasn't HP G > transferred all of it's other processor (Itanium) designers to Intel?  >   D *IF* HP wanted to design a new Alpha, I'd guess they'd have to find F designers.  I don't believe any previous Alpha designers work for HP, G but I'm not sure.  As for where they are, who knows?  Some with Intel,  I some with AMD, some with other companies, some might be sitting on their   front porch sipping ice tea.  D As for Itanium designers, yes, I believe that the remaining Itanium % designers from HP were sold to Intel.   H I'm not sure of your question however.  Are you trying to imply that if F HP wanted to bring Alpha back that it would require lots of expertise F that doesn't exist in the company anymore?  That isn't a newsflash to ! anybody who reads this newsgroup.    --   John Reagan / HP Pascal/{A|I}MACRO for OpenVMS Project Leader  Hewlett-Packard Company    ------------------------------    Date: 16 Sep 2005 14:41:09 -0700 From: perfnerd@yahoo.com1 Subject: Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79? C Message-ID: <1126906869.185904.105670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   > It may not be a newsflash, but the distain for Itanium and theG nostalgia for Alpha sometimes border on the extreme.  Some posters seem G to go as far as actively wanting Itanium to fail in the hopes that this  will revive Alpha.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:57:53 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 1 Subject: Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79? , Message-ID: <432B8630.F5FF22D7@teksavvy.com>   John Reagan wrote:E > As for Itanium designers, yes, I believe that the remaining Itanium ' > designers from HP were sold to Intel.   C Isn't it more like HP paid Intel to take those designers so that HP B would no longer have any responsabiulity over IA64 development ? IF recall HP annoucing it would give Intel some 3 billion bucks for this.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:15:38 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 1 Subject: Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79? , Message-ID: <432B8A57.89F92D3C@teksavvy.com>   perfnerd@yahoo.com wrote: I > nostalgia for Alpha sometimes border on the extreme.  Some posters seem I > to go as far as actively wanting Itanium to fail in the hopes that this  > will revive Alpha.  H And some want VMS to succeed and know that as long as VMS is constrainedF by a niche chip that is not popular and whose future is uncertain, VMS cannot succeed.   D If you're giving up being a chip maker, then chose the platform that0 will be succesful and which is widely accepted.   H While the 8086 may not be the best platform from a performanmce point of< view, it is the best platform from a business point of view.    = Moving VMS to the 8086 would end once and for all any and all 1 speculation about the future of the VMS platform.   G Valid or not, warranted or not, the uncertain future and lack of market " acceptable fo IA64 is hurting VMS.    D It isn't VMS' role to help Intel.  VMS needs to choose the platforms? that will maximise its growth and profitability, and should not > sacrifice itself to help some political decision to help Intel/ shareholders at the expense of HP shareholders.    ------------------------------    Date: 16 Sep 2005 23:57:24 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) 1 Subject: Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79? 3 Message-ID: <dwFxS9FtRvlo@eisner.encompasserve.org>   ^ In article <1126906869.185904.105670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, perfnerd@yahoo.com writes:  @ > It may not be a newsflash, but the distain for Itanium and theI > nostalgia for Alpha sometimes border on the extreme.  Some posters seem I > to go as far as actively wanting Itanium to fail in the hopes that this  > will revive Alpha.  B Those individuals are pikers compared to those who _truly_ tilt at& windmills and want new VAX processors.  B (Yes they could be made to run faster, but address space is a real issue.)    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:21:30 -0400 2 From: "Stanley F. Quayle" <squayle@insight.rr.com> Subject: HP *does* listen . Message-ID: <432B456A.26403.7EE0E8B@localhost>  > At HP World last year, I pointed out to Rich Gossman that the C Certified Professional lounge was wonderful -- ice cream, wireless  C Internet access, prizes, etc. -- but no AC outlets!  Laptops don't   run forever on battery.   % Things will be different this year...     ) ------- Forwarded message follows ------- 2 Subject:        	RE: Certified Professional lounge0 Date sent:      	Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:51:49 -05006 From:           	"Gossman, Rich" <rich.gossman@hp.com>! To:             	<stan@stanq.com>    Hi Stan,A And it was because of your discussion that we are running 110 to  " every single table.  Thanks again!   See you there!       Rich Gossman1 Americas HP Certified Professional Program Office   5 ------- End of forwarded message ---------Stan Quayle  Quayle Consulting Inc.  
 ----------- Stanley F. Quayle, P.E. N8SQ  +1 614-868-1363 3 8572 North Spring Ct., Pickerington, OH  43147  USA 0 stan-at-stanq-dot-com       http://www.stanq.com) "OpenVMS, when downtime is not an option"    ------------------------------    Date: 16 Sep 2005 14:21:38 -0700 From: mark_hpq@yahoo.com2 Subject: Re: HP to lay off 5,000 in France/Europe?B Message-ID: <1126905698.080926.23790@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>  0 Strike in HP France all over the country today :   Associated Press   AP) French HP Workers Walk Off Job in Protest   Friday September 16, 12:06 pm ETD Hundreds of French Hewlett-Packard Employees Walk Off Job to Protest Planned Job Cuts    E GRENOBLE, France (AP) -- Hundreds of Hewlett-Packard employees walked C off the job Friday to protest planned job cuts by the U.S. maker of  computers and printers. C The largest of three walkouts was at the company's Grenoble site in F southeastern France, which drew several hundred employees led by local" officials and Mayor Michel Destot.  A "Grenoble needs Hewlett-Packard, but Hewlett-Packard doesn't need  Grenoble," Destot said.   D Hewlett-Packard Co. said Monday it would cut 5,900 jobs in Europe asG part of a global restructuring plan announced in July. HP France -- the C French arm of the company -- said that 1,240 of the country's 4,800  jobs would be cut.  8 About 200 employees marched near a site outside Paris inA Issy-les-Moulineaux and another 100 protested near their plant in  Isle-d'Abeau in eastern France.   F Shares of HP rose 11 cents to $27.98 in early afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange.   Photos of the strike :   http://cftchp.blogspot.com/     ! Video of the strike in Grenoble :   . http://www.raa.france3.fr/info/13812625-fr.php         More info :     ? http://www.lci.fr/news/economie/0,,3245593-VU5WX0lEIDUy,00.html   8 http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0,36-689776,0.html   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:37:35 +0200 . From: "Martin-Info" <mhm.info@martinnovats.nl>1 Subject: RE: initialize disk, how on openvms 6.x? > Message-ID: <200509162137.j8GLbw1a038273@smtp-vbr15.xs4all.nl>   Hans,   B This customer probably has defined a symbol INIT as something like INITIALIZE/QUEUE /...blah   ! Obviously conflicting qualifiers.    Martin Hoogenboom   " > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----+ > Van: Hans Blom [mailto:tocum2@yahoo.com]  . > Verzonden: donderdag 15 september 2005 22:36 > Aan: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com1 > Onderwerp: initialize disk, how on openvms 6.x?  >  > Hello all,@ > I received a question via telephone from a customer on how to 0 > initialize a disk. Valiant as ever I answered:7 >  "init dev: /nohigh/header=30000/owner=system my_lab" > > I even tried the command on a local disk on my computer and / > patted my back. Smart and cunning as usual!!!  > 	 > But.... < > When the customer entered the command he got "conflicting  > qualifiers..."; > MMM? I run 7.3-2 and it worked for me, the customer runs  < > something like 6.? and gets the error. We both are on the  > Alpha-platform.  > / > Anybody got any idea what could be the cause?  >  > Thanks in advance  >  > Hans B > Senior Software Consultant > Sweden >  > PS@ > Might be double posted, sorry, I just reposted since it never = > showed up for me in the newsgroup and it's a high priority   > issue for me.  >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:39:54 +0200 . From: "Martin-Info" <mhm.info@martinnovats.nl>1 Subject: RE: initialize disk, how on openvms 6.x? = Message-ID: <200509162140.j8GLeH9F023919@smtp-vbr6.xs4all.nl>    Hans,   B This customer probably has defined a symbol INIT as something like INITIALIZE/QUEUE /...blah   ! Obviously conflicting qualifiers.    Martin Hoogenboom   " > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----+ > Van: Hans Blom [mailto:tocum2@yahoo.com]  . > Verzonden: donderdag 15 september 2005 22:36 > Aan: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com1 > Onderwerp: initialize disk, how on openvms 6.x?  >  > Hello all,@ > I received a question via telephone from a customer on how to 0 > initialize a disk. Valiant as ever I answered:7 >  "init dev: /nohigh/header=30000/owner=system my_lab" > > I even tried the command on a local disk on my computer and / > patted my back. Smart and cunning as usual!!!  > 	 > But.... < > When the customer entered the command he got "conflicting  > qualifiers..."; > MMM? I run 7.3-2 and it worked for me, the customer runs  < > something like 6.? and gets the error. We both are on the  > Alpha-platform.  > / > Anybody got any idea what could be the cause?  >  > Thanks in advance  >  > Hans B > Senior Software Consultant > Sweden >  > PS@ > Might be double posted, sorry, I just reposted since it never = > showed up for me in the newsgroup and it's a high priority   > issue for me.  >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:59:21 +0100 # From: issinoho <issinoho@gmail.com> J Subject: Re: Pathworks for the hobbyist, and general pricing of VMS things4 Message-ID: <dgf15l$r35$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>   Larry Kilgallen wrote:r > In article <OKednerrGsLvCLfeRVnyiQ@eclipse.net.uk>, "Tom Garcia" <tgarcia@hivemind.REMOVE-SPAM-TRAP.org> writes: >  > G >>(4) New servers come with one or two client access licenses, and the  I >>September 2003 DECcampus provided perpetual licensing for some limited  M >>number of clients (35?), so they *are* being bundled in some places -- but  B >>are they being bundled with anything accessible to the hobbyist? >  > @ > As I understand it, Pathworks includes some code encumbered by> > royalty payments.  Thus it is unlikely to be included in the > hobbyist program.  > B > Note that Motif licensing now includes terminology that supports' > free (to HP) licensing for hobbyists.   A It seems that the PC connectivity products are unavailable to us  H hobbyists, including Pathworks (Advanced Server), Pathworks32 & SoftPC.  Shame.  E The other big one on my wishlist is PMDF. As a young system manager,  G PMDF (back in Innosoft days) was my first exposure to enterprise-grade  L message routing and to this day it remains unsurpassed. Any chance, Process?   ------------------------------    Date: 16 Sep 2005 15:16:05 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) J Subject: Re: Pathworks for the hobbyist, and general pricing of VMS things3 Message-ID: <1xeGOfMhUJGF@eisner.encompasserve.org>   Z In article <dgf15l$r35$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>, issinoho <issinoho@gmail.com> writes:  C > It seems that the PC connectivity products are unavailable to us  J > hobbyists, including Pathworks (Advanced Server), Pathworks32 & SoftPC.    What about Samba ?   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:50:02 +0100 # From: issinoho <issinoho@gmail.com> J Subject: Re: Pathworks for the hobbyist, and general pricing of VMS things4 Message-ID: <dgfb4t$79t$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>   Larry Kilgallen wrote:\ > In article <dgf15l$r35$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>, issinoho <issinoho@gmail.com> writes: >  > C >>It seems that the PC connectivity products are unavailable to us  J >>hobbyists, including Pathworks (Advanced Server), Pathworks32 & SoftPC.  >  >  > What about Samba ?  / Yes, I know, but Pathworks is *SO* much better.    ------------------------------    Date: 16 Sep 2005 16:05:45 -0500; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) J Subject: Re: Pathworks for the hobbyist, and general pricing of VMS things3 Message-ID: <4XB$oJ1gtk1T@eisner.encompasserve.org>   Z In article <dgf15l$r35$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>, issinoho <issinoho@gmail.com> writes: > C > It seems that the PC connectivity products are unavailable to us  J > hobbyists, including Pathworks (Advanced Server), Pathworks32 & SoftPC.  > Shame.  F    Samba comes to mind.  Not a DEC product, but if it works, it works.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:24:46 -0400 * From: "Syltrem" <syltremzulu@videotron.ca>" Subject: Re: Pathworks32 in Citrix/ Message-ID: <11im7072ctpebc@corp.supernews.com>   C No problems with PowerTerm on Citrix. For the last 5 years and many 	 versions. I Only thing is, there is only one set of setup files (colors, keyboard) so H you may want to protect them because if one user changes it, all get it.= Those are in the PTW525 directory, not in the user's profile. I I would be happy to know if there's a way around that if someone knows. I  never really bothered but...   --   Syltrem   H http://pages.infinit.net/syltrem (OpenVMS related web site, en franais)< "David Gray" <police@spamcop.net> a crit dans le message de2 news:4b8ji1tp4fltm3dgnua5sn4rq0lefg4b2m@4ax.com...	 > Hi all,  > C > Anyone using Pathworks32 (Powerterm etc) in a Citrix environment?   > Does it work ok, any pitfalls? >  > Dave.    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:04:15 -0500 & From: Thomas Wirt <twnews@kittles.com>" Subject: Re: Pathworks32 in Citrix* Message-ID: <432B334F.9090007@kittles.com>   Syltrem wrote:  E > No problems with PowerTerm on Citrix. For the last 5 years and many  > versions. K > Only thing is, there is only one set of setup files (colors, keyboard) so J > you may want to protect them because if one user changes it, all get it.? > Those are in the PTW525 directory, not in the user's profile. K > I would be happy to know if there's a way around that if someone knows. I  > never really bothered but... > H We created an all user desktop shortcut with "X:\progs\ptw525\pt525.exe G m:\profiles\ptdef.pts" for the Target line.  When we create a new user  G they get a copy of the master ptdef.pts file put in their m:\profiles\  F directory.  (This is done by a .bat windows file that is created by a F DCL adduser script that we run on VMS.)  As long as the user uses the H desktop shortcut to open their Powerterm session, they get their custom F settings.  If they open a second Powerterm session from the Powerterm I tool bar, then they get the write protected global settings.  One of the  0 keys to this is that all users have an M: drive.  B Shameless plug to follow.  For more tips on using Citrix in a VMS H environment, attend my HP Tech Forum session "1185: Managing Multi-user / Windows (Citrix) from a System Manager's View".    --     Thomas Wirt  Operations Manager, IS Dept. Kittle's Home Furnishings  Indianapolis, IN   ------------------------------    Date: 16 Sep 2005 14:54:29 -0700 From: mark_hpq@yahoo.com0 Subject: Strike in HP France against the layoffsC Message-ID: <1126907668.960509.177540@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   ? Extract from an interview of Michel Destot, mayor of Grenoble :     A How did you react when you learnt about the numbers of layoffs in  France :  F I was shoked, then angry. Of course we are all with the employees, the; more so as the decision of the company cannot be justified. @ There is no industrial or strategic reason would could make this@ understandable : it is enough to look at the results of HP to be= convinced : profits and dividends are growing, the comparison # Europe/Asia is favorable to Europe.   D It is a complete nonsense, a decision made solely to presumably help> the stock price, we are totally in amorality. HP seems to have permanently ; lost with the citizen attitude it had only a few years ago.    Source :  H http://www.weblmi.com/sections/articles/2005/09/defaultvalue_for_fi5882/   ------------------------------    Date: 16 Sep 2005 13:05:30 -0700 From: perfnerd@yahoo.com6 Subject: Re: Was itanium just a ploy to destroy alpha?C Message-ID: <1126901130.781851.116240@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   G Well, probably, at least about destroying Alpha. At the time HP started G the design of Itanium, Alpha was a product of DEC - a competitor of HP.    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2005.519 ************************                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              