1 INFO-VAX	Thu, 03 Aug 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 429       Contents:& ACCOUNTING Utility report presentation* Re: ACCOUNTING Utility report presentation Bob From Instantwhip?  FW: Linux on military aircraft" Re: FW: Linux on military aircraft Re: Linux on military aircraft Re: Linux on military aircraft Re: Linux on military aircraft Re: Linux on military aircraft Re: Linux on military aircraft Re: Linux on military aircraft RE: Linux on military aircraft; Re: OpenVMS, Alpha still rule roost in Intel fabs (2005-09) ; Re: OpenVMS, Alpha still rule roost in Intel fabs (2005-09) ; Re: OpenVMS, Alpha still rule roost in Intel fabs (2005-09) $ OT : interview with IBM's Unix chief+ RX2620 VS. ES45 - environmental requirments ) Re: strange problem: satellite won't boot ) Re: strange problem: satellite won't boot * Re: Sub directory tree size program needed* Re: Sub directory tree size program needed2 Re: The cost of OpenVMS security vs securing linux VT420 scroll down keys sequence   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------   Date: 3 Aug 2006 07:25:02 -0700  From: andrewr@cornasys.com/ Subject: ACCOUNTING Utility report presentation B Message-ID: <1154615102.713611.20160@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>   Hi,   @ I have a requirement to set up the ACCOUNTING utility to extract, reports on the OpenVMS resource utilisation.  G I can extract the reports, but the rporting format is pretty limited. I F would like to also have some charts and graphs. I am sure that I could= modiy the current reports so that they may be imported into a G spreadsheet, and then charted or graphed (/FORMAT=...). Has anybody got  any tips on this?    Thanks Andrew   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Aug 2006 07:44:48 -0700   From: "Ian Miller" <ijm@uk2.net>3 Subject: Re: ACCOUNTING Utility report presentation B Message-ID: <1154616288.724857.67610@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>  D the format of accounting records is documented so you can write yourE own reporting tool. There was a DTR defintion around someplace so you  could do reports from DTR.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:35:19 -0400& From: "Hal Kuff" <halkuff@verizon.net> Subject: Bob From Instantwhip?0 Message-ID: <sYmAg.64274$Jz1.61634@newsfe16.lga>  F Hey Bob from Instantwhip, can you give me a call or an e-mail (kuff atK tessco dot com) as your e-mail and phone are no longer operating?  I have a H question about Purveyor you could help with as well as a conversation we have been having for awhile...   ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 18:38:34 +10006 From: "O'Brien Paddy" <Paddy.O'Brien@transgrid.com.au>' Subject: FW: Linux on military aircraft X Message-ID: <0A7046B0A95F2B41B3712F0C5FD1CDC303BB86@ex-tg2-pr.corporate.transgrid.local>  , This is a multi-part message in MIME format.  ' ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6B6D8.351660E8 . Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"+ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   L Sorry for top posting, but I have to go through Outhouse which makes life v= ery difficult.  L IIRC, the bugs that arose on VMS were when such UNIXy things as TCPIP (thin=L k VHS versus Beta and TCPIP versus DECnet) were incorporated.  Also bugs in=L  MAIL and BACKUP were created when porting from VAX to ALPHA by re-writing = in C.   L Thanks Mr. Ritchie for "inventing" the abysmal C language and thanks Mr. Ga=L tes for "inventing" the worst OS ever.  Betwixt the two any user is so inse= cure.  =20  -----Original Message-----5 From: Karsten Nyblad [mailto:nospam@nospam.nospam]=20 & Sent: Wednesday, 2 August 2006 1:41 PM To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com ' Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft    [Big snips]   L Doug Phillips wrote:that VMS is more secure simply because Digital, Compaq =L and HP has not issued that many security patches is nothing but a belief an=? d may be wrong.  First of all, you can buy the sources for VMS, L   and hackers may also read the machine code of, e.g., TCP/IP packages and =L other parts, were you can not buy the sources.  Hackers have already demons=L trated that they are willing to read machine code to hack computers and tha=L t they are quite good at it.  They are capable of finding out what M$ is pa=L tching in their security patches.  They have been capable of issuing viruse=L s in just one week.  Thus it is a claim that cannot be proved that VMS is m=. ore secure because it is partly closed source.    L The bad guys will start attacking VMS the moment they consider it more prof=L itable to attack VMS than M$ and Linux and be sure they will find critical =L security errors.  Also, on Linux and Windows there are many good guys that =L hunt security bugs.  In the short term these guys are a pain because they d=L iscover bugs that must be fixed and the patches must installed by the users=K   In the long term it might lead to these two platforms becoming more secu= 8 re than platform without white hat security bug hunters.        G *********************************************************************** ; Please consider the environment before printing this email.   C "This electronic message and any attachments may contain privileged @ and confidential information intended only for the use of the=20D addressees named above.  If you are not the intended recipient of=20C this email, please delete the message and any attachment and advise D the sender.  You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,=207 distribution, reproduction of this email is prohibited.   C If you have received the email in error, please notify TransGrid=20 C immediately.  Any views expressed in this email are those of the=20 ? individual sender except where the sender expressly and with=20 C authority states them to be the views of TransGrid.  TransGrid uses > virus-scanning software but excludes any liability for viruses contained in any attachment.  < Please note the email address for TransGrid personnel is now$ firstname.lastname@transgrid.com.au"  G ***********************************************************************     ' ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6B6D8.351660E8 - Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" + Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   1 <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">  <HTML> <HEAD>L <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-= 1"> L <META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7233.69">- <TITLE>FW: Linux on military aircraft</TITLE>  </HEAD>  <BODY>) <!-- Converted from text/plain format -->   L <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sorry for top posting, but I have to go through Outhouse =$ which makes life very difficult.<BR> <BR>L IIRC, the bugs that arose on VMS were when such UNIXy things as TCPIP (thin=L k VHS versus Beta and TCPIP versus DECnet) were incorporated.&nbsp; Also bu=L gs in MAIL and BACKUP were created when porting from VAX to ALPHA by re-wri= ting in C.<BR> <BR>L Thanks Mr. Ritchie for &quot;inventing&quot; the abysmal C language and tha=L nks Mr. Gates for &quot;inventing&quot; the worst OS ever.&nbsp; Betwixt th=" e two any user is so insecure.<BR> <BR> -----Original Message-----<BR>L From: Karsten Nyblad [<A HREF=3D"mailto:nospam@nospam.nospam">mailto:nospam= @nospam.nospam</A>]<BR> * Sent: Wednesday, 2 August 2006 1:41 PM<BR> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com<BR> + Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft<BR>  <BR> [Big snips]<BR>  <BR>L Doug Phillips wrote:that VMS is more secure simply because Digital, Compaq =L and HP has not issued that many security patches is nothing but a belief an=H d may be wrong.&nbsp; First of all, you can buy the sources for VMS,<BR>L &nbsp; and hackers may also read the machine code of, e.g., TCP/IP packages=L  and other parts, were you can not buy the sources.&nbsp; Hackers have alre=L ady demonstrated that they are willing to read machine code to hack compute=L rs and that they are quite good at it.&nbsp; They are capable of finding ou=L t what M$ is patching in their security patches.&nbsp; They have been capab=L le of issuing viruses in just one week.&nbsp; Thus it is a claim that canno=K t be proved that VMS is more secure because it is partly closed source.<BR>  <BR> <BR>L The bad guys will start attacking VMS the moment they consider it more prof=L itable to attack VMS than M$ and Linux and be sure they will find critical =L security errors.&nbsp; Also, on Linux and Windows there are many good guys =L that hunt security bugs.&nbsp; In the short term these guys are a pain beca=L use they discover bugs that must be fixed and the patches must installed by=L  the users.&nbsp; In the long term it might lead to these two platforms bec=K oming more secure than platform without white hat security bug hunters.<BR>  <BR> <BR> </FONT>  </P>   <FONT SIZE=3D3><BR>  <BR>K ***********************************************************************<BR> ? Please consider the environment before printing this email.<BR>  <BR>G "This electronic message and any attachments may contain privileged<BR> B and confidential information intended only for the use of the <BR>F addressees named above.  If you are not the intended recipient of <BR>G this email, please delete the message and any attachment and advise<BR> F the sender.  You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, <BR>; distribution, reproduction of this email is prohibited.<BR>  <BR>E If you have received the email in error, please notify TransGrid <BR> E immediately.  Any views expressed in this email are those of the <BR> A individual sender except where the sender expressly and with <BR> G authority states them to be the views of TransGrid.  TransGrid uses<BR> B virus-scanning software but excludes any liability for viruses<BR>  contained in any attachment.<BR> <BR>@ Please note the email address for TransGrid personnel is now<BR>( firstname.lastname@transgrid.com.au"<BR> <BR>K ***********************************************************************<BR>  </FONT>  </BODY>  </HTML> ) ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6B6D8.351660E8--    ------------------------------   Date: 3 Aug 2006 10:41:53 -0700 - From: "Doug Phillips" <dphill46@netscape.net> + Subject: Re: FW: Linux on military aircraft C Message-ID: <1154626913.499147.197250@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    O'Brien Paddy wrote:[ > Sorry for top posting, but I have to go through Outhouse which makes life very difficult.  >  > IIRC, the bugs that arose on VMS were when such UNIXy things as TCPIP (think VHS versus Beta and TCPIP versus DECnet) were incorporated.  Also bugs in MAIL and BACKUP were created when porting from VAX to ALPHA by re-writing in C. >  > Thanks Mr. Ritchie for "inventing" the abysmal C language and thanks Mr. Gates for "inventing" the worst OS ever.  Betwixt the two any user is so insecure.  >  > -----Original Message-----4 > From: Karsten Nyblad [mailto:nospam@nospam.nospam]( > Sent: Wednesday, 2 August 2006 1:41 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com ) > Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft  > 
 > [Big snips]  > 8 > Doug Phillips wrote: ...<snip stuff doug didn't write>  D Doug didn't write any of that. He wrote some stuff, but not what youE quoted. (Doug'll stop talking about himself in the third person now.)   ; Why bother with Outleak when you can use Google Groups and:   +  - keep all the garbage off of your system. ?  - have access to all postings from any i-net capable computer.   - not need to use Outleak. #  - not need to use Outleak Express. 6  - did I mention, not need to use a Microsoft product?  G The setting "View Titles Only" on the message list screen, and "view as D tree" on the selected message view screen, are pretty good. Also, byG posting though GG you're less likely to break out of the thread, as you 	 did here.   E The down-side, or up-side, is that you must provide an E-mail address F to sign-up to post, but throw-aways such as through yahoo and netscapeE work just fine --- and keep the clutter out of your actual e-mail box D --- and you don't end up sending "out-of-office" replies to everyone@ who posts. Another neat thing about having a different thow-away@ address for each group is you can see how must spam is generated because of that one group.  D If you must use Outleak (I can't imagine why!) , you can adjust yourD settings to post in Text mode only --- you have your settings set to "both" (html & text).    Re Your points about VMS bugs:  F My recollection is that few VMS bugs have been security related --- asG gleaned from the files being patched and the description of the problem E (don't mention CERT or we'll have Andrew and bob here:-). VMS layered E product bugs mostly haven't caused security breaches but just loss of  the LP service.     - Me    ------------------------------   Date: 3 Aug 2006 05:13:42 -0700 - From: "Andrew" <andrew_harrison@symantec.com> ' Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft C Message-ID: <1154607222.715406.278010@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>    Main, Kerry wrote: > > -----Original Message-----8 > > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com]  > > Sent: August 2, 2006 4:48 PM > > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com + > > Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft  > >  > > bob@instantwhip.com wrote:J > > > our webserver has been running for over 7 years without a problem or > > > patch  > > J > > How far is your webserver now ? Are you ever going to be able to bring* > > it back ? Must be ver far away by now. > > J > > > OpenVMS is secure out the box pretty much, and once you use a few of@ > > > its many secuirty features and implement, you really never > > need to worry 8 > > > about it again unless modifications are needed ... > >  > > H > > YEP. VMS an an appliance. There is one problem with this though: theJ > > internet is not a fixed service, it constantly evolves, and to provideI > > modern services, you often need to upgrade software and this is where ) > > VMS lags behind the rest pf the pack.  > >  > > - > > > YOU CANNOT DO THE SAME ON ANY OTHER OS!  > > H > > The problem is that the other OSs are coming quite close to VMS, and? > > unlike VMS, they offer the modern state of the art service.  > >  > I > Yep, I remember a ceratain Redmond company who stated the same thing 10  > years ago. >  > :-)  > G > Sure every platform gets better with each release. One new feature in C > W2003 that was a big promotion item was "an improved command line C > interface that would enhance Operations batch type environments."  > H > As I understand it, another really big feature being planned for VistaG > (many delays, but I heard early next year for sure) is the ability to 3 > assign a few different priv's to different users.  > , > This is really ground breaking stuff here. >  > :-)  > H > However, many keep forgetting that the bar is constantly being raised.? > In a week or two, check out the new VMS 8.3 new features doc.   E So what are the top 5 new features that will be introduced in OpenVMS  8.3?  G Note, Performance and Scalability are not acceptable options since they : are or at least should be on every OS's mission statement.   Regards  Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------   Date: 3 Aug 2006 08:44:03 -0700 - From: "Andrew" <andrew_harrison@symantec.com> ' Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft C Message-ID: <1154619843.870753.164740@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    Karsten Nyblad wrote:   E > Kerry Main's belief that VMS is more secure simply because Digital, J > Compaq and HP has not issued that many security patches is nothing but aJ > belief and may be wrong.  First of all, you can buy the sources for VMS,H >   and hackers may also read the machine code of, e.g., TCP/IP packagesJ > and other parts, were you can not buy the sources.  Hackers have alreadyA > demonstrated that they are willing to read machine code to hack D > computers and that they are quite good at it.  They are capable ofG > finding out what M$ is patching in their security patches.  They have G > been capable of issuing viruses in just one week.  Thus it is a claim D > that cannot be proved that VMS is more secure because it is partly > closed source. >   F Since we know that there have been vunerabilites in OpenVMS which haveF not been reported I would suggest that Kerry is on rather soft ground. > H > The bad guys will start attacking VMS the moment they consider it moreG > profitable to attack VMS than M$ and Linux and be sure they will find F > critical security errors.  Also, on Linux and Windows there are manyH > good guys that hunt security bugs.  In the short term these guys are aI > pain because they discover bugs that must be fixed and the patches must F > installed by the users.  In the long term it might lead to these twoI > platforms becoming more secure than platform without white hat security  > bug hunters.  F Good point. Many of the UNIX and Linux "vunerabilities" listed in CERTG have never been exploited and require a convoluted set of circumstances ? to be effective. This is because they are exploits uncovered by A researchers helped in the case of UNIX and Linux by access to the  source code.  C There is a big difference between this and exploits that are in the @ wild ranging from DOS attacks on VMS/Windows/Linux to Malware onF Windows, however from a CERT perspective they all get counted the same4 or at least they will if the platform isn't OpenVMS.  F Does this mean that UNIX/Linux is more of less vunerable than OpenVMS?  ? Does this mean that if OpenVMS was subject to the same level of ; scrutiny as other OS's that it would fare better or worse ?   G Who knows. What is certain however is that anyone making pronouncements 4 either way is doing so from a position of ignorance.   Regards  Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------   Date: 3 Aug 2006 08:45:16 -0700 - From: "Doug Phillips" <dphill46@netscape.net> ' Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft A Message-ID: <1154619916.577955.25050@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>    Dave Froble wrote: > Doug Phillips wrote: > > Dave Froble wrote: > >> Karsten Nyblad wrote: > >>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:H > >>>> And somehow, I doubt this is true either.  Why would someon Email% > >>>> target coordinates to the B-2? K > >>> During the attack on Iraq, half of the bombers took of before getting L > >>> their targets.  In Afghanistan commanding officers can call in and askL > >>> for air support, and the enemies will be attacked by planes already inM > >>> the air.  I do not know how the planes are getting the coordinates, but N > >>> it would not surprise me if they get them by some messaging tool so thatI > >>> they have them in writing.  I am a bit skeptical that they would be M > >>> using ordinary E-mail considering that the people on the ground need to 3 > >>> be sure that the pilots the information fast. I > >> I don't know, but I'm also finding the e-mail claim hard to believe. F > >> I'd think that such data would be desired to be fed directly intoJ > >> on-board systems.  Why would anyone want a human entering data that'sK > >> already in electronic form?  A real chance of errors being introduced.  > >>6 > >> Yeah, it's got to be entered once, but not twice. > >> > > E > > Well, sure I just made it up. God forbid anyone should google it. J > > Here's a first-hand account published in the Christian Science Monitor" > > (presuming they're not lying): > J > It's to be hoped that there's not too much on this forum that's made up.D >   I'd not intended that.  It's possible that someone could pass onJ > something on which they were misinformed.  I'm sure it's happened to me. > 9 > > <http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0512/p25s01-usmi.html>  > >  > > Here's an article on COTS: > > 1 > > <http://www.armada.ch/02-5/complete_02-5.pdf>  > > I > > For secure communications, it's not the application that matters, its J > > the way the data is communicated; the level of encryption; the privacyI > > of the channel. Military software is not exposed to the public in any H > > way what-so-ever. While physical access to *anything* can compromiseF > > security, planting a trojan, worm or virus in one of these systemsE > > would be as likely as walking out of Fort Knox with a bar of gold  > > stuffed down your trousers.  > >  > H > It wasn't the security that bothered me.  I'd think that systems wouldH > be designed to decrease operator workload.  Loading data directly into- > on-board systems would have been my choice.  >   E Well, think about the B-2 on a mission for a moment. Stealth means no 8 EM emissions, meaning no telemetry feed back; no receiptE acknowledgment. At some point in the mission, we have as much trouble @ as the enemy "seeing" the plane. Having a (highly trained) humanG eye-ball verify the data and enter it into the system before committing ) a target to destruction makes good sense.   G Unmanned weapons rely on speed and/or low altitude approach to taget to A avoid interception. These can provide telemetry if needed, though 5 usually the target is pre-selected or marked at site.   E I'd expect anyone interested in such things would already know all of E this, and those not interested would have skipped the thread entirely F ;-) My interest comes from the time I spent as an aircrewman on a P-3,7 and a desire to come back as a bird in the next life;-)     -Doug   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 11:58:46 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> ' Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft 9 Message-ID: <gOidnVONfoZShk_ZnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@libcom.com>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:; > In article <h_KdnUQZi6aY5kzZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@libcom.com>, , > 	Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: >> Bill Gunshannon wrote: A >>> In article <44d10669$0$67260$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk>, 2 >>> 	Karsten Nyblad <nospam@nospam.nospam> writes: >>>> JF Mezei wrote: >>>>> Karsten Nyblad wrote: N >>>>>> VMS is frequently used in environments where downtime must be kept to aD >>>>>> minimum and were the machines should be up and running 24/7. M >>>>> And assuming that only VMS is able to do this is wrong. If the military N >>>>> can go Linux on military aircraft, it means that Linux is stable enough.I >>>>> If banks are starting to use Linux for a variety of customer facing I >>>>> applications, it means that Linux is good enough. If NASDAQ xan use N >>>>> Widnows and Microsoft web server as customer faciling inftastructure, noL >>>>> matter how much we may all poo-poo Microsoft, it means that it is good >>>>> enough to do the job. L >>>> Linux is barely ready of high availability operations.  It is only the H >>>> latest versions of the Linux kernel that has a cluster file system.@ >>> What percentage of commercial operations today use clusters? >>> G >>>> Not all organizations are equally smart when it comes to choosing  M >>>> platforms.  I was once asked to implement a 24/7 solution on Windows NT  O >>>> 3.51.  Anyone should know that that crab is not suited for 24/7 operation. ? >>> And yet, more businesses ran on it than on VMS.  Go figure.  >>> M >>>>> And guess what, if VMS were so great compared to the other, how come it ) >>>>> isn't growing be leaps and bounds ?  >>>>> F >>>>> VMS needs to be marketed, VMS need to be ported to a competitiveM >>>>> platform and its onwer must show *REAL* commitment to growth of VMS and N >>>>> make it part of a long term growth plan. Not just a couple of statementsN >>>>> now and then to quite down the naysayers who feel HP isn't doing enough.I >>>> That is not enough.  VMS must also be much more actively developed.  L >>>> Linux and Windows are getting better and better, and they are catching  >>>> up on VMS's strongholds. O >>> Not really, bu then, some of VMS's strongholds are really rather irrelevant  >>> in the real world. >>> K >> You keep saying that many of us just don't understand education.  I can   >> accept that.  >>I >> Then you start saying what business needs.  What do you base this on?  . >> Some of us are close to the business world. > K > Well, let's see.  I wasn't born at a college.  I started in business too. H > I worked for two of the largest Beltway Bandits designing and (when weH > won the bids) implementing some very large business systems.  And evenJ > in academia we need to keep very abreast of what is going on in the realH > world in order to keep the students education relevant.  Not much good? > teaching them about 1401's these days, other than as history.  > K >> There are many more users of computers today than in the past.  Many of  H >> them are going to hang themselves over the edge of a cliff and don't I >> even know it.  I don't think you can judge serious business users who  @ >> are aware of some of the dangers based upon the casual users. > + > Neither do I and that isn't what I said.   > K >> There are real world businesses who are serious about their operations,  I >> whether or not they're using VMS.  There are some of us who feel that  I >> VMS would give an advantage to some of these users, whether they know  4 >> it, or will acknowledge it, or just aren't aware. >>J >> Disasters occur to others, until it's your turn.  It may never be your ( >> turn, but can you really count on it? >> > I > All of this is true, but doesn't change what I said.  Assuming for just J > a moment that the VMS Constant (411,000) is still valid, what percentageI > of these are clusters and what percentage are standalone machines?  Now J > let's bring int he rest of the industry.  Hopefully, you will admit thatJ > 411,000 is not a majority of the total number of computer systems world-M > wide.  Given that no one but VMS has truly functional clustering capability K > what does that say about the percentage of machines that actually rely on L > clustering for their 24/7 operation?  Just like the"Linux has no security"I > red herring, people here like to tout VMS Clustering as a must have for J > business.  In the real world, the businesses don't seem to agree. Other-H > wise, they would be flocking to VMS's door marketing or not.  All I amH > really trying to say here is just because people here think VMS is theI > best thing since sliced bread doesn't mean the rest of the world shares K > that opinion.  Linux has proven that hype and marketing can sell anything H > no matter how inferior.  VMS is in the process of proving that lake of9 > marketing can kill any product, no matter how superior.  >  > bill >   G True, the majority of businesses do not use VMS.  At this time, it may   be windows.  Don't know.  I My best guess on why so many use the 'good enough' solution today is the  H advances in reliability of hardware.  Just about anything you buy today E will run for years without a hardware problem.  Since true disasters  G happen to so few, when compared to all users, most users disregard the   possibility.  H I'll agree with you, a cheap windows system can run for years.  What it A will not do is provide protection against a disaster.  Only when  ? disasters become more popular and numerous will such things as  : multi-site disaster tolerant clusters become more popular.   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com DFE Ultralights, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 12:36:58 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> ' Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft , Message-ID: <44D22625.D72537E0@teksavvy.com>   Bill Gunshannon wrote:L > The claim made was that you can't run 24/7 without VMS.  It just ain't so.  A While this is correct, it is also fair to point out that VMS does D provide features that make it a lot easier to run 24/7 *AND* perform> maintenance, upgrades, as well as add capacity to the cluster.  G It is possible on other platforms, but not as safe, not as easy and not B as elegant. And in the end, "elegant" solutions are more than leatD looking, they are aslo the ones that are the most straightforward to2 implement and thus the safest and best soolutions.   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Aug 2006 17:43:00 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)' Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft + Message-ID: <4jeqt4F7ojm8U1@individual.net>   , In article <44D22625.D72537E0@teksavvy.com>,0 	JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote:M >> The claim made was that you can't run 24/7 without VMS.  It just ain't so.  > C > While this is correct, it is also fair to point out that VMS does F > provide features that make it a lot easier to run 24/7 *AND* perform@ > maintenance, upgrades, as well as add capacity to the cluster.  G I admited that was true.  However, I also asked of the supposed 411,000 C VMS systems, how many are clusters as opposed to single, standalone D systems?  And, what percentage of all the systems in th eindustry doB they comprise?  The fact is that others seem to have little if anyF problem running 24/7 even without that feature. It's nice to have, but2 obviously not a show-stopper if you don't have it.   > I > It is possible on other platforms, but not as safe, not as easy and not  > as elegant.   E Matter of opinion.  I am int he process of doing a major hardware, os D and application upgrade on my whole server farm (in academia, that'sD what summer is for).  I will do all of this without any downtime forC my users (beyond the time it takes for a simple re-boot, which will E not even be noticed!)  Easy?  Elegant?  It is a damn sight easier and E much more elegant than what I have to go through to do the same thing # on the SWindows boxes in the labs!!   D >             And in the end, "elegant" solutions are more than leatF > looking, they are aslo the ones that are the most straightforward to4 > implement and thus the safest and best soolutions.  E I agree.  ANd upgrading my servers is really rather trivial.  Even if  they aren't running VMS.   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: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 13:42:07 -0400' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> ' Subject: RE: Linux on military aircraft T Message-ID: <FA60F2C4B72A584DBFC6091F6A2B86840182BEE9@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----7 > From: Andrew [mailto:andrew_harrison@symantec.com]=20  > Sent: August 3, 2006 11:44 AM  > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com ) > Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft  >=20 >=20 > Karsten Nyblad wrote:  >=20G > > Kerry Main's belief that VMS is more secure simply because Digital, A > > Compaq and HP has not issued that many security patches is=20  > nothing but a > > > belief and may be wrong.  First of all, you can buy the=20 > sources for VMS,= > >   and hackers may also read the machine code of, e.g.,=20  > TCP/IP packages B > > and other parts, were you can not buy the sources.  Hackers=20 > have alreadyC > > demonstrated that they are willing to read machine code to hack F > > computers and that they are quite good at it.  They are capable ofB > > finding out what M$ is patching in their security patches. =20 > They have A > > been capable of issuing viruses in just one week.  Thus it=20  > is a claimF > > that cannot be proved that VMS is more secure because it is partly > > closed source. > >  >=20H > Since we know that there have been vunerabilites in OpenVMS which haveH > not been reported I would suggest that Kerry is on rather soft ground. > >   ' Ahhhh .. Nice to hear from you again ..    :-)   G I never stated OpenVMS was 100% secure. In fact, I stated this a number ( of times. No OS platform is 100% secure.  C What I have been referring to in this thread is the 5-20 *security* F patches per month that Windows/Linux platforms have been releasing forC the last few years. The monthly RH *security* patches are on the RH F site, so that is well documented (23 in July alone - including bundled kernel patches).=20   H There are two security religious concepts at play here and I am sure notC going to be able to convince either supporter which is the best for  their environment.  G Scenario #1 - you need to release all your code to the Internet so that E everyone can see what your code looks like with the idea that the few ? senior resources out there that really understand cluster, SMP, E threading security can review it to see if there are any holes. Never H mind that some key code that differentiates your product might be pickedG up by competitors. This assumes those limited high end resources on the H Internet have the time and interest (remember they are not being paid toF review other peoples code) to actually do this review. It also assumesE that these high end reviewers will report issues they discover to the D vendor. Of course, the really bad folks using sophisticated tools toD bang away at the soft copy code they picked up off the Internet will? *not* report the issues they find, but that's seldom discussed.   H Scenario #2 - like the big bank concept, Customers trust their preferredG vendors to address and maintain high security with their products. They E assume that their preferred vendor keeps current with recent security A issues in the industry, does code reviews and addresses any short @ comings identified with a high priority and timely fashion. ThisE scenario depends on the vendor having a reputation of delivering what F these Customers are looking for when it comes to security. Their trackF record speaks for itself. The Customer does not have to ask their bankA whether they are susceptible to the same type of break-in as what E happened at the local corner store or some other bank last week. They E assume their vendor will have safe guards or will put them in ASAP to  prevent this from happening.  G So, like I stated, pick one and go with it. The only thing I am sure of A is that like OS religion, it is very unlikely you will be able to F convince a supporter of security scenario #1 to convert to scenario #2. or vice versa, so lets just agree to disagree.    	 [snip...]    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: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 11:23:34 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.ukD Subject: Re: OpenVMS, Alpha still rule roost in Intel fabs (2005-09), Message-ID: <easmbm$ap5$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>  d In article <U2bAg.1485$Y9.529@news.cpqcorp.net>, Keith Parris <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> writes: >JF Mezei wrote:I >> What would be more interesting to know vis-a-vis Intel's perception of E >> the future of Itanium is the state of Intel's plans for the future O >> i.e. are they planning on replacing VMS on Alpha systems with VMS on Itanium  >> systems.  > H >I can't speak for Intel, but having already chosen to migrate from VAX H >to Alpha, and since VMS is now available on Intel's own Itanium chips, G >and that new Alpha systems will soon no longer be sold, and given the  J >ease of migration from Alpha to Itanium (much easier than VAX-to-Alpha), D >I expect VMS on Itanium would be the most logical direction moving J >forward, should their existing Alpha systems run out of capacity at some  >point in the future.   M Keith your attribution in the above is incorrect. I posed the above question. N I know that moving their fabs from Alpha on VMS to Itanium on VMS would be theM simplest solution and almost certainly was the plan a few years ago. If it is L still the plan then it suggests that Intel still has faith in Itanium's longL term future - if on the otherhand they were less certain of Itanium's futureI they might be looking for alternatives (and possibly stocking up on spare : alphas to tide them over until that alternative is ready).O (I wonder if Intel have approached HP about porting VMS to x86-64 so that they   could use that in their fabs ?)     
 David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 12:34:24 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> D Subject: Re: OpenVMS, Alpha still rule roost in Intel fabs (2005-09), Message-ID: <44D2258B.676E3DD8@teksavvy.com>   david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: P > I know that moving their fabs from Alpha on VMS to Itanium on VMS would be theO > simplest solution and almost certainly was the plan a few years ago. If it is N > still the plan then it suggests that Intel still has faith in Itanium's longN > term future - if on the otherhand they were less certain of Itanium's futureK > they might be looking for alternatives (and possibly stocking up on spare < > alphas to tide them over until that alternative is ready).    H Consider how long Intel remained on VAX after VAX was replaced by Alpha.G I suspect that Intel may remain on Alpha for a very long time, and will F probably be ported to whatever succeed that IA64 thing (aka: the 8086)" if VMS survives the death of IA64.  G So far, HP employees are adament that VMS will not survive the death of B IA64 since they insist there are no plans to port VMS beyond IA64.  P > (I wonder if Intel have approached HP about porting VMS to x86-64 so that they! > could use that in their fabs ?)   G When the decision to abandon IA64 was taken in 2004, I am sure this was D discussed. My guess is that this 10 billion porting fund that HP hasG announced with other IA64 victims will really be used to help port from  IA64 to the 8086.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 13:05:01 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> D Subject: Re: OpenVMS, Alpha still rule roost in Intel fabs (2005-09), Message-ID: <44D22CB6.C15346F6@teksavvy.com>   david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: P > But new Vaxes were still being manufactured and sold long after Alpha had comeD > out whereas the Alpha end of sale date is now approaching rapidly.  E Yes, but that shows that despite "justa  simple recompile", there are E many VMS customers who resist platform changes because once they have B something that works, they don't want to mess with it and platform change is a costly endeavour.   F So if Intel stuck with VAX as long as possible, it is likely they willG want to stick with their current platform (Alpha) as long as possible.    D I wouldn't read anything into the fact that they haven't migrated to that IA64 thing.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 13:35:33 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> - Subject: OT : interview with IBM's Unix chief , Message-ID: <44D233DC.E91C2516@teksavvy.com>  W http://news.com.com/Firing+up+IBMs+Unix+business/2008-1010_3-6101559.html?tag=nefd.lede    Interesting points of view.   H Power 6 comes out next year at between 4 and 5 ghz, dual core.  IBM saysE that HP may have some short lived PR opportunity with Montecito based @ systems this fall but that IBM remains the overall clear winner.  H IBM spends much time in that interview pooh-poohing Sun, but very little8 time discussing HP. To me, it means that Sun is a biggerF competitor/threath than a HP which is without a clear viable platform.  F From that interview, it looks like IBM is really pushing AIX and LinuxC is just a side show. The "proprietary" Unix market has been flat in A rtecent years, but is still large enough to make plenty of money.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 09:18:58 -0500 + From: brandon@dalsemi.com (BRANDON, JOHN M) 4 Subject: RX2620 VS. ES45 - environmental requirments1 Message-ID: <06080309185834@dscis6-0.dalsemi.com>   N I was poking through the environmental requirements for an rx2620 and ES45 (40L or 47 take your pick) and found something odd... or at least I think it odd.  + The maximum rate of temperature change for:  ES4x = 20F degrees/hour  rx2620 = 50F degrees/hour   F That is a big difference - 50 degrees in one hour?  Is that correct???     John "REBOOT" Brandon  VMS Systems Administrator * firstname.lastname.spam.me.not@dalsemi.com   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 16:00:57 -04002 From: "Paul A. Jacobi" <Paul.Jacobi@nospam.hp.com>2 Subject: Re: strange problem: satellite won't boot* Message-ID: <44d1044f@usenet01.boi.hp.com>  M "Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply" <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>  / wrote in message news:eaqe4f$614$1@online.de... F > In article <eaqdr9$5sg$1@online.de>, helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de4 > (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) writes: > H >> Today, for the first time since then, I wanted to boot the satellite.C >> (It hadn't been booted since a few days before the problem above I >> occurured.)  It does a MOP boot.  This doesn't work.  It keeps trying. H >> The LAN is OK as far as I can tell (LEDs flashing when expected etc).B >> The console settings (BOOTDEF_DEV etc) on the satellite are OK. > % > The error message on the console is  > - >   ..file open failed for bootp/ewa0.0.0.4.1  >     + Reset the network boot protocol to MOP via:    >>>set ewa0_protocol mop >>>init      Paul A. Jacobi HP OpenVMS Systems Group Nashua, NH     ------------------------------   Date: 3 Aug 2006 07:21:47 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 2 Subject: Re: strange problem: satellite won't boot3 Message-ID: <DrwFOfgX+feF@eisner.encompasserve.org>   _ In article <7E9Ag.1479$On.456@news.cpqcorp.net>, Hoff Hoffman <hoff-remove-this@hp.com> writes:  > Bob Koehler wrote:z >> In article <eaqp6e$r4f$3@online.de>, helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) writes: > C >>> That's the error message.  I might not have all the terminology D >>> straight, but it's the standard setup for a LAVC without DECnet. >>  A >>    DECnet is irrelavent since MOP and DECnet are different LAN  >>    protocols. > G >    So you're really booting cluster satellite nodes over bootp/tftp?    G    No, I'm booting them over MOP.  Not DECnet, not bootp, and not tftp.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 08:46:36 -0400 & From: Thomas Wirt <twnews@kittles.com>3 Subject: Re: Sub directory tree size program needed E Message-ID: <4209c$44d1f02c$4367aba2$22255@msgid.meganewsservers.com>    Hoff Hoffman wrote:    > @ > If you wanted to be sneaky, use a resource identifier for the J > directories involved, and set up quotas to charge against it/them, then G > set the quotas to a value larger than the disk size.  Then watch the  	 > quotas.  > K > As for your request for a tool, it's about ten lines of DCL for the core  J > loop, and rather more to customize it for your particular requirements. K >  700 directories?  Yuck.  That's heading toward a second-level loop that  K > either reads in the list, or that scans for whatever characteristics are  * > used to identify one of the directories. > D > Off the top, the following pseudo-DCL is what the loop looks like: >  > $ alq = 0  > $ fn = f$search(wildcard) ! > $ if fn .eqs. "" then goto done  > $loop: > $ falq = f$file(fn,"ALQ")  > $ alq = alq + falq > $ fn = f$search(wildcard) ! > $ if fn .nes. "" then goto loop  > $done:) > $ write sys$output "allocation: ''alq'"  > $ exit > H > Any and all politics and policies to the contrary aside...  The other ? > question is around disk usage and disk structure and storage  I > organizations.  Just because somebody made a decision eons ago doesn't  K > mean you can't incrementally improve the storage configuration.  Whether  I > re-organizing directories, upgrading to newer disks -- massive efforts  G > and optimizations to fit everything on a (now ancient) 4GB disk only  K > make sense in very limited contexts, for instance, and particularly only  . > in those where disk upgrades are infeasible.  H I agree about improving this.  This disk was setup by my predecessor so G that every named user got a root directory on this disk.  When someone  E left the company their directory was left behind and a few people in  G their area would be given access to it, making it hard to even get rid  H of the dir of ex-employees.  Shortly after I started I bought new disks H and started a new policy where new users where added under a department H directory, so that the root only has as many dir as we have departments H and each department dir only has about the number of dir of their total 
 employees.  H The problem is that we have a lot of long term employees that use a lot H of disk space.  Because they have many hard coded symbols and logicals, I moving them is a project that is big enough that I can not do it quickly  = and on my own authority.  The boss was (he left last week) a  H micro-manager extreme and there were several cleanup projects like this H on which I was forbidden to do work, even on my own time.  I would slip H in a small piece every now and then, but now that he is gone, I want to 4 start a clean up to at least get this under control.  G Thanks to everyone for the help.  I have put the universally suggested  > comfile into my standard management tools bag and am using it  productively already.    --     Thomas Wirt  Operations Manager, IS Dept. Kittle's Home Furnishings  Indianapolis, IN   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:21:11 +0200 / From: Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> 3 Subject: Re: Sub directory tree size program needed ; Message-ID: <65d16$44d20658$50db5015$15707@news.hispeed.ch>    JF Mezei wrote:  > I > Also, you may wish to use /SIZE=ALL so that it uses the ALLocated space I > instead of the used space. (someone could allocate a 100,000 block file H > and only hage one line of text in it. In terms of disk management, you% > want to know how much is allocated.  >    Minor nitpick:  2 /SIZE=ALL will give both used and allocated blocks  0 /SIZE=ALLOCATION will give allocated blocks only   ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:11:38 -0400& From: "Hal Kuff" <halkuff@verizon.net>; Subject: Re: The cost of OpenVMS security vs securing linux 0 Message-ID: <eCmAg.105867$Dr.89183@newsfe18.lga>  G Hey Bob from Instantwhip, can you give me a call or an e-mail (kuff at  L tessco dot com) as your e-mail and phone are no longer operating?  I have a I question about Purveyor you could help with as well as a conversation we   have been having for awhile...    ' <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote in message  < news:1154551044.501017.26540@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > Main, Kerry wrote: > F >> Its just that in order to keep that level of enhanced security, theI >> sheer volume of so many security issues every month means that a great J >> deal of that SysAdmins time has to be spent on reviewing security patchG >> release notes, and then testing and QA'ing applications to make sure K >> there are no issues before releasing these monthly security patches into  >> production. >  > I >> If that SysAdmin maintains systems being used by a number of different E >> Dev groups then the problem becomes even worse as they likely have & >> different Apps that they are using. >  > H >> If the QA'ing and testing of these mission critical Apps is done by aH >> separate QA/Test group (which is often the case with prod Apps), then" >> their time is impacted as well. >  > K >> These are part of the hidden costs you usually do not hear to much about < >> (except from those in Operations and QA/Testing support). >  >  > 5 > and that is where the advantages of vms kick in ...  > F > our webserver has been running for over 7 years without a problem or > patch * > or virus ... same for the mailserver ... >  > G > so that means I can spend time doing other things instead of spending  > timeG > patching and watching every little hacker who comes along or hiring a  > security admin ... >  > F > OpenVMS is secure out the box pretty much, and once you use a few of > its F > many secuirty features and implement, you really never need to worry > about . > it again unless modifications are needed ... >  > E > and that saves companies money which means they can pay me more for C > doing more work and providing them an environment that NEVER goes  > down to hacks or viruses ... >  > ) > YOU CANNOT DO THE SAME ON ANY OTHER OS!  >    ------------------------------   Date: 3 Aug 2006 08:17:08 -0700  From: apogeusistemas@gmail.com( Subject: VT420 scroll down keys sequenceC Message-ID: <1154618228.007960.267180@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>   	 Hi folks:   3 Can you tell me which keys sequence need I press to / scrow down in a VT420 terminal ? I forgot that.    thanks.    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.429 ************************                                                    