1 INFO-VAX	Tue, 20 Sep 2005	Volume 2005 : Issue 525       Contents:. Re: Cannot Ping or Telnet Server After Restore( Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79?$ Re: HP SWB V1.7.8 consistent crasherP Re: HP will have to give back 1.25 M EUR help that it got to create jobs. jobs.jH Re: HP will have to give back 1.25 M EUR help that it got to createjobs./ InfoWorld: Itanium is "a compiler's dream date" 3 Re: InfoWorld: Itanium is "a compiler's dream date" 3 Re: InfoWorld: Itanium is "a compiler's dream date" 3 Re: InfoWorld: Itanium is "a compiler's dream date" / OT: Re: Strike in HP France against the layoffs 3 Re: OT: Re: Strike in HP France against the layoffs % Re: OT: Sun's quarterly announcements  Public-access 780 or 785?  Remote backups via WAN  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:45:41 GMT A From: "Colin Butcher" <colin_DOT.butcher_AT@xdelta_DOT.co_DOT.uk> 7 Subject: Re: Cannot Ping or Telnet Server After Restore > Message-ID: <pHDXe.111573$G8.76994@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>  G It sounds as if this isn't a restore so much as a clone. That's a risky G procedure if you don't get everything set up properly on the new cloned D machine (and I assume that you've got the correct licenses as well).  H Did you actually change the IP address of the 'new' machine? If not thenF you've probably got a duplicate IP address (maybe even a duplicate MACF address if you're also running DECnet with Phase IV addressing). ThoseG conditions will (fortunately for you network) stop it connecting to the . network and thus protect the original machine.  H Get the machine up without connecting it to the network, then log in andK change the IP address(es) and host name(s) with TCPIP$CONFIG (or UCX$CONFIG  if you're still running UCX).   L You will also need to run AUTOGEN and set the system parameters to match theE new (smaller) memory. You should also change the SCSNODE, SCSSYSTEMID J parameters, the DECnet nodename & address with NETCONFIG (or NET$CONFIGUREH if you're running Phase V). Remember that SCSSYSTEMID must match the new- DECnet address where ID = area*1024 + number.   L There's a few other corners you might need to poke into as well, such as the$ license database and the rightslist.  K Is this intended to be a cluster member? Was the source system you used for  cloning a cluster member?   I See the OpenVMS FAQ: "MGMT9.  How do I change the node name of an OpenVMS 	 System?".    --     Hope this helps, Colin. ) colin DOT butcher AT xdelta DOT co DOT uk E It's not mine, but I like this definition: Legacy = stuff that works.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:44:10 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 1 Subject: Re: How much did IBM pay to not do EV79? , Message-ID: <432F5B59.CB0DC330@teksavvy.com>   FredK wrote:8 >     AFAIK, FMS is still available, and supported by HP    F FMS had been declared dead by Palmer and wasn't to be ported to Alpha.F It was resurected by the ALLIN1 folks who convinced management to portE it to Alpha. It has since been in maintenance mode. There hasn't been + active development on it for over a decade.   F In an interesting twist, this time around, FMS was ported to that IA64 thing, but ALLIN1 wasn't.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:48:01 -0700 ! From: Fred Bach <music@triumf.ca> - Subject: Re: HP SWB V1.7.8 consistent crasher & Message-ID: <432F15F1.10108@triumf.ca>   John Santos wrote:   > Stanley F. Quayle wrote: > G >>>> :SWB V1.7.8 will crash 100% reliably by visiting either of the two ! >>>> :following commercial sites,  >>>  >>>     http://www.crucial.com  >>>     http://www.coldsteel.com >>7 >> No problems with Mozilla 1.7.8 under Windows 2000...  >> >   *   I also have this under Windows 2000 pro:         Netscape 7.1=       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) &       Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)        Shockwave Flash          File name: NPSWF32.dll         Shockwave Flash 7.0 r19- 	MIME Type 			Description 		Suffixes 	Enabled A 	application/x-shockwave-flash 	Macromedia Flash movie 	swf 		Yes 8 	application/futuresplash 	FutureSplash movie 	spl 		Yes    E     Just a comment about the above.  Under the above Netscape 7.1 the G     whole page SCROLLS LEFT across the window and then reappears on the B     right a few seconds later, still scrolling left.  This processC     continues seemingly forever.  I haven't found a way to stop it.   ;     It does NOT do this under FireFox or Mozilla under VMS.      Which behaviour is correct?   1        .. fred bach    music at triumf dot ca  ..    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:42:04 -0700  From: Z <Z@no.spam> Y Subject: Re: HP will have to give back 1.25 M EUR help that it got to create jobs. jobs.j + Message-ID: <0GKXe.15655$Q71.1178@fe02.lga>    mark_hpq@yahoo.com wrote: a > http://www.boursorama.com/infos/actualites/detail_actu_societes.phtml?&symbole=HPQ&news=2947714  > C > Hewlett Packard: le conseil gnral de l'Isre souhaite rcuprer  > 1,25 M EUR  6 Q. Just how screwed up _is_ the French economic model?C A. So much so that they need to pay companies to create jobs there.   I A few years back France decided the way to ease its chronic unemployment  I problems was to mandate a shorter work week - at the same pay, of course  G - forcing employers to hire 10% more workers to get the same man-hours   of work.  F The rest of the world laughed at first.  Then, when it was clear this   wasn't a sick joke, they gasped.  G France, undaunted, undeterred went ahead with this great, new economic  I idea! Now, of course, unemployment is back where it was before the Great  7 Idea and companies in France are much less competitive.   B How long will France continue to wallow in the Economic Dark Ages?   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:20:29 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> Q Subject: Re: HP will have to give back 1.25 M EUR help that it got to createjobs. , Message-ID: <432F7FF0.F8AEC234@teksavvy.com>   Z wrote:8 > Q. Just how screwed up _is_ the French economic model?E > A. So much so that they need to pay companies to create jobs there.   G Same applies to Boeing in Washington State and every other state Boeing F has facilities, same happens wherever GM/Ford/Chrysler have plants and$ the list goes on and on in the USA.   G I realise that since 2003, it has become fashionable to insult your new D enemy France. But your ilsuls apply equally to most western nations, including your own.    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:06:29 GMT 1 From: Keith Parris <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> 8 Subject: InfoWorld: Itanium is "a compiler's dream date"3 Message-ID: <9oIXe.12910$jV1.5741@news.cpqcorp.net>     From InfoWorld, Sept. 7, 2005: : http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/09/07/37OPcurve_1.html   The CPUs next 20 years   @ The compiler is the processor of the future, and the IA-64 is a  compilers dream date    Ahead of the Curve By Tom Yager, September 7, 2005   F With great respect, you probably wont be deciding the outcome of the : CPU race; not if your normal shopping list has called for F backward-compatible, x86 systems (25 percent faster than the previous & years models) at about the same cost.  F No offense, but youre not the one who hires technologists to analyze E CPU trends and plan four horizons ahead. That task goes to AMD, IBM,  E Intel, Sun, and other chipmakers. When AMD cast its mind (named Fred  F Weber) beyond, it saw its clean room x86 trimmed back to its core and I built into a shockingly well-designed machine. When IBM looked ahead, it  E saw ever more powerful Power and PowerPCs. When Sun looked ahead ...   well, who knows what Sun saw?   I When Intel set its gurus to work, they saw Itanium. The world laughed at  I this processor that Intel could not describe in understandable language.  E The only things clear to all were that that Itanium was incompatible  B with everything else and it didnt have as many gigahertz as Xeon.  G Itanium and its progeny, known as IA-64 on Intels family tree, embody  I the right idea. IA-64 makes what Intel is doing now with x64 seem like a  G waste of time and money. How can one say this about the king of market  K share? Shouldnt Intel be in there fighting to win its honor back from AMD?   I Honor, schmonor. Intels got the volume business and itll keep it until  D x64 is relegated to digital watches. Chalk up the win, we say, quit - brooding, and start planning for next season.   C The time is right for IA-64 because, except for the AMD hitch, the  G future played out precisely as Intel planned. We are coming to a place  F where instruction sets, pipelines, RISC, and CISC dont matter. Intel I rolled out the original Itanium as the processor for the next 20 years.   G Almost. The compiler is the processor for the next 20 years, and IA-64  I is a compilers dream date. IA-64 is exactly what we need ... The future  G belongs to processors that are essentially big clusters of logic gates  G that switch very, very rapidly. It doesnt matter that a CPU like this  D is almost impossible to code to, because, as Intel saw so long ago, 2 almost nobody writes in machine language any more.  > The road ahead isnt about 8GHz Xeons or 32-core Opterons. ...  H Im bullish on IA-64 because a dream world of compilers that take their I sweet time to build and optimize but that produce mind-blowing code will   surface there first."  ...    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:11:20 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> < Subject: Re: InfoWorld: Itanium is "a compiler's dream date"0 Message-ID: <11iuo3a97jcj076@corp.supernews.com>   Keith Parris wrote: ! >  From InfoWorld, Sept. 7, 2005: < > http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/09/07/37OPcurve_1.html >  > The CPUs next 20 years  > B > The compiler is the processor of the future, and the IA-64 is a  > compilers dream date  >  > Ahead of the Curve! > By Tom Yager, September 7, 2005   F Come on Keith.  If you're going to quote some writer (remember, those G who can, do, those who can't teach, and if they can't teach, then they  I write) at least find someone who has half a clue.  This guy doesn't even  H know that the itanic was HP's idea, not Intel's.  Must have been a slow # day for such FUD to get into print.    --  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: 19 Sep 2005 18:35:37 -0700$ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>< Subject: Re: InfoWorld: Itanium is "a compiler's dream date"B Message-ID: <1127180137.900277.35380@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>   Dave Froble wrote: > Keith Parris wrote: # > >  From InfoWorld, Sept. 7, 2005: > > > http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/09/07/37OPcurve_1.html > >  > > The CPU's next 20 years  > > C > > The compiler is the processor of the future, and the IA-64 is a  > > compiler's dream date  > >  > > Ahead of the Curve# > > By Tom Yager, September 7, 2005  > G > Come on Keith.  If you're going to quote some writer (remember, those H > who can, do, those who can't teach, and if they can't teach, then theyJ > write) at least find someone who has half a clue.  This guy doesn't even    ) And what about those who can't write? ;-)    Isn't it really...  E    "Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, teach gym." :-)      [...]    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:32:41 -0400 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>< Subject: Re: InfoWorld: Itanium is "a compiler's dream date"= Message-ID: <PdSdnVWx4vNHH7LeRVn-1Q@metrocastcablevision.com>   
 AEF wrote: > Dave Froble wrote: >  >>Keith Parris wrote:  >>" >>> From InfoWorld, Sept. 7, 2005:= >>>http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/09/07/37OPcurve_1.html  >>>  >>>The CPU's next 20 years >>> B >>>The compiler is the processor of the future, and the IA-64 is a >>>compiler's dream date >>>  >>>Ahead of the Curve " >>>By Tom Yager, September 7, 2005 >>G >>Come on Keith.  If you're going to quote some writer (remember, those H >>who can, do, those who can't teach, and if they can't teach, then theyJ >>write) at least find someone who has half a clue.  This guy doesn't even >  >  > + > And what about those who can't write? ;-)   D Apparently they go to work at Infoworld, where only the desperately 7 credulous like Keith pay any attention to their drivel.   8 Writing, after all, is not just a matter of form but of E competently-delivered content as well.  And the level of revisionist  D history (let alone complete fabrication) here is worthy of the Bush I administration at the very least:  whoever fed this guy his lines was no  @ shrinking violet when it came to outright lies, and since Yager < apparently completely missed the past decade-plus of Itanic D accomplishment he trotted them out without the slightest hesitation.  E "IA-64 is a compilers dream date" - well, perhaps if the compiler's  F dreams are of the Freddy Krueger variety.  The same reasons that make F writing Itanic assembler 'challenging' make writing a compiler for it A (at least a compiler with any pretense of being able to generate  C something resembling optimal code) truly a nightmare.  HP has been  H working on this problem for *well* over a decade, and the real advances H they envisioned have stubbornly remained well beyond the horizon (which C at least gives Itanic aficionados a perpetual "Just wait until the  A compilers mature!" mantra to use to try to counter the perpetual    disappointments of the present).  H "When Intel set its gurus to work, they saw Itanium."  No:  as Dave has E already observed, they did not - *HP* saw it, and sold its vision to  I Intel to replace the x86-64 vision that Intel had been starting to flesh   out in the early '90s.  F "The world laughed at this processor..."  No, it did not:  rather, it I trembled before the might and apparent competence of Intel (plus HP) and  G took very much to heart Albert Yu's infamous 1994 statement "If I were  H competitors, I'd be really worried. If you think you have a future, you D don't."  So much so that SGI started relegating MIPS futures to the E dustbin (then later had to scramble to issue a few more MIPS product  D cycles when Itanic's schedule proved just as over-optimistic as its A performance projections), HP itself started winding down PA-RISC  I development (then, as had SGI, had to reinvigorate it when Itanic failed  D to appear anywhere nearly on schedule), and many other more prudent F vendors still at least began to plow major amounts of time and effort H into developing their own Itanic hardware and software platforms.  (I'm I not counting Compaq's Alphacide here, since that came *much* later, at a  < time when there was no excuse whatsoever for such insanity.)  I Even Itanic's failure to appear as scheduled in late 1997/1998, or 1999,  H or 2000 didn't really stem the perception that a real juggernaut was on C the move and about to devour the industry.  The first real titters  G didn't start to be heard until the monumental mid-2001 brain-fart that  I was Merced, but even then Intel managed to deflect a lot of criticism by  G warning in advance that Merced really was more a development prototype  , than anything remotely ready for prime-time.  H "Itanium and its progeny, known as IA-64 on Intels family tree, embody I the right idea."  Well, that's of course a personal value-judgment - and  H one might be wise to question the credibility of someone as clueless as C this turkey has already proven to be.  So we'll leave that for the  E moment and press on to see just how well he justifies that statement    (care to venture a wild guess?).  D "The time is right for IA-64 because, except for the AMD hitch, the C future played out precisely as Intel planned."  Horseshit:  almost  8 *nothing* played out *anywhere nearly* as Intel planned:  G 1.  Itanic did *not* ship in late 1997/8 - or for another 4+ years (if  ' we discount the non-release of Merced).   A 2.  The competing RISC architectures did *not* hit the projected  H performance wall that was a major reason why HP (and then Intel) sought I a different approach:  instead, not only Alpha but HP's own PA-RISC made  I out-of-order execution a stunning success and made a complete mockery of  A Itanic's early claim that it would out-perform contemporary RISC  I products by factors of 2x - 3x (hell, even with Alpha and PA-RISC on the  G sidelines POWER5 has turned that projection completely on its head and  E is currently managing to out-perform Itanic by factors of 2x - 3x in   large commercial systems).  > 3.  x86 didn't hit its projected performance wall either:  it H transformed underneath into a RISC-like micro-engined architecture that 3 also achieved splendid results using 0oO execution.   E 4.  After all that, Intel decided that the only way to give Itanic a  F foothold in the commodity market segments was to hobble x86 - but AMD F forced it to abandon that strategy by fielding its very competent and  attractive x86-64 products.   F 5.  And, of course, it's now ludicrous to suggest that Itanic will be H *replacing* x86 any time soon (let alone in the 2002 - 2004 time-frame, - as Intel was indeed suggesting in 1994-1995).   G "The future belongs to processors that are essentially big clusters of  D logic gates that switch very, very rapidly."  Hmmm - didn't he just I finish saying that GHz didn't matter?  And hasn't he noticed that Itanic  D tends to bring up the rear of the pack whenever such subjects arise D (with Montecito recently offering up just the latest in a string of I clock-rate disappointments that have accompanied every Itanic generation  @ that has been released - this from an architecture one of whose D projected benefits was clocking *faster* than its RISC competition)?  F If this guy had a reputation to protect he'd have blown it big-time - H but it's really, really difficult to imagine that someone this clueless F had any following beyond (as I noted above) those truly desperate for 8 any positive words, no matter how incompetently uttered.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:47:37 -0600 6 From: "Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospam>8 Subject: OT: Re: Strike in HP France against the layoffs/ Message-ID: <_QCXe.37$8z1.5602@news.uswest.net>   5 "Michael Kraemer" <m.kraemer@gsi.de> wrote in message / news:dgmrc4$k34$1@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de... B > In article <O2zXe.19$rh7.464@news.uswest.net>, "Michael D. Ober"( > <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> writes:K > > I can't read French, but the first line gives it away.  The interviewee C > > appears to be a member of the French Socialist party.  Thus any 	 workforce / > > reduction by _ANY_ company will be immoral.  >   > And ? What's wrong with that ?; > A company making apparent profits - and which is expected 2 > to do so in the future - acts immoral if layoffs3 > are just to increase stockprice. One can't repeat > > that too often, and it's a socialist party's job to do that.  E The purpose of a corporation is to make money for its owners.  Not to G provide employment.  The fact that a corporation provides employment is 3 incidental to the basic purpose of the corporation.    > # > > Sounds like it will be easy for H > > HP to figure out which 5000 jobs to eliminate - the strikers'.  They haveI > > already announced that 5000 jobs will be eliminated so there won't be  any B > > ethical issues with eliminating jobs that are currently empty. > # > welcome back in the 19th century. F > Seems Marx (Karl, not Groucho) was right when he invented communism. >    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:57:27 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> < Subject: Re: OT: Re: Strike in HP France against the layoffs, Message-ID: <432F5E75.576F4153@teksavvy.com>   "Michael D. Ober" wrote:G > The purpose of a corporation is to make money for its owners.  Not to I > provide employment.  The fact that a corporation provides employment is 5 > incidental to the basic purpose of the corporation.     G In a perfect world, yes. But in reality, no. Corporations are "persons" E in a society. They participate in a local economy, pay taxes to local C governments and make deals with local governments for tax breaks in  exchange for employment.  ? Even in the USA, there are tons of "subsidies" that are tied to H corporations generating employment and economic activity, especially for+ large businesses. Boeing is a good example.   D It is normal to see a local government fight any announcement of jobA cuts, especially if that company had been given grants or special ; consideration in exhchange for the provision of employment.    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 01:34:24 +0200 3 From: "Dr. Dweeb" <NOSPAM_5msg0h202@sneakemail.com> . Subject: Re: OT: Sun's quarterly announcements= Message-ID: <432f4b00$0$78282$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk>    JF Mezei wrote:  > Tom Linden wrote:  >>F >> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 05:05:35 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote: >>A >>> Is there any likelihood of confusion?  Isn't it clear they're 7 >>> different when one is hardware and one is software?  >>>  >>B >> How about a computer company and a record label?  Any confusion	 >> there?  >  > D > Apple Records got pretty nervous when Apple Computesr got into theG > music business with Ipod and Itunes. They signed some sort of deal to C > please Apple Record  and prevent ugly legal actions against Apple  > Computers.  I IIRC Apple Records locked Apple Computer Corp. out of the music business  M contractually shortly after Apple Computer Corp was incorporated.  Until the  L iPod came out, Apple did stay out of the music business.  I do not know the - current state of play between the two Apples.   
 Dr. Dweeb    ------------------------------    Date: 19 Sep 2005 16:43:18 -04003 From: Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> " Subject: Public-access 780 or 785?. Message-ID: <mdd64swn5zt.fsf@panix5.panix.com>  J Does anyone know of any public-access 11/780 or 11/785 systems on the net?   --  L Rich Alderson                                       | /"\ ASCII ribbon     |L news@alderson.users.panix.com                       | \ / campaign against |L "You get what anybody gets. You get a lifetime."    |  x  HTML mail and    |L                          --Death, of the Endless    | / \ postings         |   ------------------------------    Date: 19 Sep 2005 20:26:31 -0700, From: "Scott  Coats" <scott.coats@gmail.com> Subject: Remote backups via WAN C Message-ID: <1127186791.051886.133560@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   F I am trying to setup a remote OpenVMS system and would like some ideasF as to how to keep the two systems data current.  The link is via a VPNG over a 5 MB connection.  The systems need to be OpenVMS of Alphas.  The 2 data needs to be as current as our nightly backup.   Please give me some advise.   	 Thanks...    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2005.525 ************************