0 INFO-VAX	Mon, 30 Jan 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 59      Contents: Connectivity problem?  Re: Connectivity problem?  IA64: Montecito info& Re: Intel/Hp spend $10 billion on IA64& Re: Intel/Hp spend $10 billion on IA64& Re: Intel/Hp spend $10 billion on IA64& Re: Intel/Hp spend $10 billion on IA64& Re: Intel/Hp spend $10 billion on IA64 Re: Open VMS programing in C Re: Open VMS programing in C Splitting serial cables ?  Splitting serial cables ?  Re: Splitting serial cables ?  Re: Splitting serial cables ?  Re: Splitting serial cables ?  Re: Splitting serial cables ?  Re: Splitting serial cables ?   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:32:37 -0800 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>  Subject: Connectivity problem?( Message-ID: <ops36b8nrnzgicya@hyrrokkin>  E I rebooted a 7.3-2 node and when I tried to connect to it using PuTTY 8 SSH I got "server unexpectedly closed server connection"  D But from the attached kybd I can login directly; however when I tred $ SET HOST node = %SYSTEM-F-UNREACHABLE, remote node is not currently reachable   I  From the attached kybd if I do a SET HOST whatever  It gives the message  %SYSTEM-F-DEVNOTMOUNT    So what might have happened?   Tom    ------------------------------    Date: 29 Jan 2006 21:34:23 -0800/ From: "David B Sneddon" <dbsneddon@bigpond.com> " Subject: Re: Connectivity problem?C Message-ID: <1138599263.521233.134690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    Tom Linden wrote: G > I rebooted a 7.3-2 node and when I tried to connect to it using PuTTY : > SSH I got "server unexpectedly closed server connection" > F > But from the attached kybd I can login directly; however when I tred > $ SET HOST node ? > %SYSTEM-F-UNREACHABLE, remote node is not currently reachable  > K >  From the attached kybd if I do a SET HOST whatever  It gives the message  > %SYSTEM-F-DEVNOTMOUNT  >  > So what might have happened? >  > Tom    Tom,  8 Looks like the reboot didn't start everything as normal.- The DEVNOTMOUNT looks like the RT devices are 1 possibly not there (DECnet not started properly). 6 The error related to SSH looks like TCPIP didn't start properly either." Why the reboot?  What has changed?   Dave   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:15:08 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>  Subject: IA64: Montecito info , Message-ID: <43DD92BC.6A0DA374@teksavvy.com>   from:   Z http://news.com.com/Next+Itanium+consumes+less+power/2100-1006_3-6032148.html?tag=nefd.top  D SAN FRANCISCO--Intel's forthcoming "Montecito" member of the ItaniumH processor family will consume 100 watts, a significant drop from the 130= watts of current models and an advantage in an era when power  consumption is a top enemy.  ... H The major reason for the lower power is the shift to a new manufacturingF process employing 90-nanometer features, which means the circuitry canH be made smaller compared with the 130-nanometer size used by the currentA Itanium, McLaughlin said. (A nanometer is a billionth of a meter; E Intel's PC processors are already produced on a more advanced process A with 65-nanometer features, and the chipmaker just demonstrated a ' prototype with 45-nanometer features.)   ... E But part of the lower power consumption came because Intel sacrificed H features and clock speed in an October delay of Montecito, Krewell said.G Intel lowered Montecito's top speed to 1.6GHz from 1.8GHz and dropped a E feature called Foxton that would have let the chip jump to 2GHz if it F was running cool enough. "It's disappointing that something they hopedF would provide a greater kicker couldn't be there and that they delayed> the launch for nine months to close to a year," Krewell said.       ------------------  H Question: Since that IA64 is finally going dual core, will VMS licencing get any changes ?   G From an OS point of view, I take it they will need to wait for the next D release of VMS to support this new chip ? Or is the chip coing to beE functionally identical to existing IA64 things and support 8.2 out of 8 the box and appear like a machine with 2 separate CPUs ?   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:12:25 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> / Subject: Re: Intel/Hp spend $10 billion on IA64 9 Message-ID: <zdWdneWL95vhvEDenZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@libcom.com>    bob@instantwhip.com wrote:  - > And here is what is really stupid, spending * > 10B for a chip design that DEC engineers+ > told us was flawed from the start instead , > of just a few hundred million a year for a. > proven design in alpha that has been already+ > designed to compete for the next 20 years + > and would trounce every other alpha clone  > chip out there!  > , > Now that is a brilliant business decision!  I Well, actually, from some perspectives, it can be considered a brilliant   business decision.  D As John has guessed, it may have been a matter of 'our (Compaq) few H hundred million a year' vs someone else's $10B.  In the short term they F would save say $300M and continue to get the nice VMS profits.  Short # term, it should have been a winner.   I Some issues that the idiots didn't think of, or thought wouldn't happen,   or didn't care:   E The busted Alpha promises caused a hugh drop in orders, so there was   lost profit almost immediately.   3 Intel didn't deliver what they apparently promised.   C Intel will never deliver the itanic as 'industry standard' as they   intended/promised.  A Intel could drop the processor in the future, but, some of those  @ decision makers are long gone with their bonus money and golden 4 parachutes and such, and today couldn't give a damn.  C Technical people look at such things from a technical perspective.  F Money people look at such things solely from a financial perspective, G and some of them did quite well, financially.  As long as money talks,  
 we're f**ked.   C In a way, we can consider AMD's wrench thrown into the works as an  C instance of the technology people beating the money people.  Intel  E intended to lock up the processor world with the itanic.  Little AMD  F caused giant Intel to drop their grandious plans and do an about-face.   --  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: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:54:50 -0500 . From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca>/ Subject: Re: Intel/Hp spend $10 billion on IA64 - Message-ID: <43DD2B98.DEC2E726@vaxination.ca>    Dave Froble wrote:D > In a way, we can consider AMD's wrench thrown into the works as anD > instance of the technology people beating the money people.  Intel< > intended to lock up the processor world with the itanic.      H In the series of articles pointed to my Niel Rieck, that author presents an interesting scenario:  H Intel used Itanium as a scare tactic to force all other enterprise chipsB to perform harakiri sooner rather than later. When you look at it,C except for Power, Intel succeeded. It got HP to jump into the intel F bandwagon first, killing off Pa-Risc, then MIPS followed, then Alpha. F SPARC almost fell into the IA64 bible predictions but didn't (but will? fall with the prediction that the 8086 will be supreme leader).   G Power remains, but has now been marginalised by the departure of Apple. G Apple may have been relatively low volume and high maintenance for IBM, H but it was also high visibility. Power now becomes a hidden chip in game0 consoles and some special IBM high end machines.  G Pretty amazing that Intel was able to get competitors to kill off their ) high end chips even before IA64 was out.    F In the gang, Sun is the smartest. Keeping SPARC and not announcing its- demise until the 8086 will have grown enough.   F HP and Compaq prematurely announced the end of their own chips and setG timetables difficult to change to adapt to delays with that IA64 thing.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 18:57:47 -0500 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>/ Subject: Re: Intel/Hp spend $10 billion on IA64 G Message-ID: <I-GdnYVMV93hy0DenZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com>    JF Mezei wrote:    ...   J > In the series of articles pointed to my Niel Rieck, that author presents > an interesting scenario:  " Interesting - yes.  Credible - no.   > J > Intel used Itanium as a scare tactic to force all other enterprise chips/ > to perform harakiri sooner rather than later.   I It's certainly true that Intel and HP attempted to scare the competition  G into submission, but there's no indication whatsoever that they lacked  @ confidence during the early years of the Itanic voyage in their A product's ability to surpass that competition if it failed to be  G intimidated.  The tendency of competent industry players back then was  H to think that both x86 and RISC were going to run out of steam (x86 due B to its legacy baggage, RISC due to difficulties in achieving good H out-of-order performance) by the end of the '90s and that something new 1 would be needed to continue performance progress.   F Furthermore, Intel very much wanted that something to be something it H didn't have to share with AMD and other x86 licensees - and went to the ; effort of creating a new corporation to try to ensure that.      When you look at it,$ > except for Power, Intel succeeded.   Not even close.   G 1.  The intimidation was at least as much HP's doing as Intel's:  save  G for some incautious comments by Albert Yu in 1994, Intel mostly kept a  G relatively low profile and let HP blatantly over-hype the architecture.   E 2.  You can't count PA-RISC as having been 'scared into submission',  E since HP had *always* planned to replace it with what became Itanic.  E And even so, some of the HP engineers reportedly became sufficiently  B horrified at the unfolding Itanic catastrophe that they urged Her C Blondness to reverse that decision (unfortunately without success:  F Carly never hesitated to play aggressive high-stakes poker with other A people's money, and was still throwing large bank notes into the  B increasingly long-shot pot in her quest for eventual HP processor @ supremacy when the BoD finally decided it had had enough of her  incompetence).  I 3.  You can't count Alpha as having been 'scared into submission', since  H by the Alphacide in 2001 it had become absolutely clear that Itanic was F not even a faint shadow of the juggernaut which had been promised and H would at best achieve decent competitive performance levels if McKinley H and its successors managed to avoid the debacle that was Merced.  Alpha C was knifed in the back, pure and simple, because Capellas (perhaps  G controlled by Rosen) didn't want Compaq to be in the processor biz and  B later (even if this was not the original motivation when he began G cutting the ground out from under Alpha in 1999) could be sure that HP  F wouldn't be able to acquire Compaq with Alpha still relatively intact  (due to anti-trust issues).   G 4.  You certainly can't count SPARC:  Sun bailed out of Itanic about 6  F years ago without ever having even hinted that Itanic would have been G more than a companion to SPARC rather than any kind of replacement for  ? it.  And Fujitsu continued its SPARC64 development with rather  A impressive results (it continues to beat Itanic core-for-core in  F important commercial benchmarks, as well as scaling up to higher core D counts - well, at least equal core counts, but Itanic can reach 128 G cores in commercial systems only at the reduced clock-rates apparently   required for the mx2 modules).  F So the only enterprise processor that Itanic actually *scared* out of F competition was MIPS - and that in large part because SGI felt it was I spread too thin to continue its own processor development (and/or wanted  I a more Windows-friendly platform, since they were already trying to move  F their workstation customers onto NT - a pair of disastrous moves that  they barely survived).   ...   I > Power remains, but has now been marginalised by the departure of Apple.   I Horseshit.  Apple was never more than a diversion for POWER - hell, they  B didn't even get their POWER chips from IBM until recently.  POWER F continues its healthy presence in both high-end and embedded systems, B with a major volume boost from its game-console trifecta plus the F developing open-POWER initiative (the long-term potential of which is @ significant, and they've already landed one interesting client).   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:03:18 -0500 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>/ Subject: Re: Intel/Hp spend $10 billion on IA64 G Message-ID: <m5ednSndccJaykDenZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com>    Dave Froble wrote:   ...      Money K > people look at such things solely from a financial perspective, and some  M > of them did quite well, financially.  As long as money talks, we're f**ked.   F Actually, the problem was more that money failed to talk, and let the F opportunists and/or incompetents run away with their bags full at the F expense of those (the stockholders) who were providing the cash.  But G when investors fail to exercise their own due diligence, it's arguable    that they deserve what they get.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:13:41 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> / Subject: Re: Intel/Hp spend $10 billion on IA64 / Message-ID: <dYqdneHCjZ-F9UDeRVn-pA@libcom.com>    JF Mezei wrote:  > Dave Froble wrote: > D >>In a way, we can consider AMD's wrench thrown into the works as anD >>instance of the technology people beating the money people.  Intel< >>intended to lock up the processor world with the itanic.   >  >  > J > In the series of articles pointed to my Niel Rieck, that author presents > an interesting scenario: > J > Intel used Itanium as a scare tactic to force all other enterprise chipsD > to perform harakiri sooner rather than later. When you look at it,E > except for Power, Intel succeeded. It got HP to jump into the intel H > bandwagon first, killing off Pa-Risc, then MIPS followed, then Alpha. H > SPARC almost fell into the IA64 bible predictions but didn't (but willA > fall with the prediction that the 8086 will be supreme leader).   1 As Bill also points out, in his words, horseshit!   G Intel to some extent, it can be thought, wanted the itanic to sail on,  H because it was something that nobody else could copy.  One might almost G wonder if things were allowed into the architecure only if Intel could   get a patent on them.   I > Power remains, but has now been marginalised by the departure of Apple. I > Apple may have been relatively low volume and high maintenance for IBM, J > but it was also high visibility. Power now becomes a hidden chip in game2 > consoles and some special IBM high end machines.  D Well, the numbers here greatly favor IBM.  Think of all the x86 PCs G Intel can claim as 'Intel Inside', and then compare that to the number  F of game consoles that will eventually be sold.  This alone might move  Intel to #2.  E Numbers wise, and that's all that counts with commodities, and FABs,  & Apple was a distraction, not an asset.  I > Pretty amazing that Intel was able to get competitors to kill off their + > high end chips even before IA64 was out.    G I've said many times, and snippets of information at times back up the  > idea, Compaq didn't want to be in the processor business, and F specifically didn't want Alpha.  Compaq buying DEC was perhaps one of D the biggest screw-up of corporate acquisitions.  Just what did they  want, and what did they get?  B Also consider, Compaq had to be much happier with what they knew. F Compaq was formed to build INTEL based PCs.  That was their business. H Moving away from that, which Alpha surely was, had to be scary to many,  including the BOD.  H > In the gang, Sun is the smartest. Keeping SPARC and not announcing its/ > demise until the 8086 will have grown enough.   A As with many of your perdictions, hot air, or as Bill would say,  F horseshit!  It's not clear that Sun will do away with SPARC.  If they G get to a position where they cannot sell it, then, but most likely not  : before.  As you say, they are smart, or at least stubborn.  H > HP and Compaq prematurely announced the end of their own chips and setI > timetables difficult to change to adapt to delays with that IA64 thing.   B The itanic was an HP idea, not an Intel idea.  You need to get an 2 attention span a bit longer than you seem to have.   --  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: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:43:29 -0500 ) From: "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> % Subject: Re: Open VMS programing in C 8 Message-ID: <9ybDf.1468$Iw6.68116@news20.bellglobal.com>  B "Mike Rechtman" <michael.rechtman.nospam@hp.com> wrote in message   news:43D34399.16F28C78@hp.com..." > SanthoshfromJay@gmail.com wrote: >  [...snip...] > G > If you can find a copy of the (EXTREMELY OLD) manual for VAX-11 C, it H > has an explanation of an editor (EDT, which is also very out-of-date),E > the edit-compile-link cycle on VMS, descriptors and the use of some  > basic system calls from C.2 > As a non-C person I find it occasionally useful. > * Hey, what's that cheap shot regarding EDT.   :-)   K For those of us who started out life on the PDP-11, we use it all the time  J in OpenVMS via the DCL command $EDIT/EDT. Hitting the PF2-key ("/" on the L side keypad of a PC) for help or "<PF1>7" (keypad-NumLock then keypad-7) to G get a command prompt then typing "help"<enter> gets you even more help.   
 Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,  Ontario, Canada.9 http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html     ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:52:15 -0500 ' From: Ken Robinson <kenrbnsn@gmail.com> % Subject: Re: Open VMS programing in C H Message-ID: <7dd80f60601291652h3a2f4bf2o4b38714cbe7ec736@mail.gmail.com>  4 On 1/29/06, Neil Rieck <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> wrote:, > Hey, what's that cheap shot regarding EDT. >  > :-)  > L > For those of us who started out life on the PDP-11, we use it all the tim= e K > in OpenVMS via the DCL command $EDIT/EDT. Hitting the PF2-key ("/" on the L > side keypad of a PC) for help or "<PF1>7" (keypad-NumLock then keypad-7) = toI > get a command prompt then typing "help"<enter> gets you even more help.   C Hey, I started out on the PDP-10, Decsystem-20, PDP-11, IBM 360/67, C etc ... I used what ever editor was around from edlin to edi to edt D (v1) to Teco's VT100 screen mode, to SOS, to EVE (TPU) on VMS, vi onE UN*X/Linux, vim om Windows. I currently use EVE on VMS. Have you ever D tried using EDT on a screen that 200 columns by 48 lines? It doesn't work too well.  > I've gotten used to using the keys on the PC keyboard. In most@ emulators (except KEA), shift F6 is the "DO" key, the "Delete" &F "Insert" key do the "Cut" & Paste", the "End" key toggles the "Select"> mode, "Home" is "Find" and "Page Up" & Page Down" are correct.  @ It's been so long since I really used EDT that if I inadvertanlyC invoke it I need to quit immediately. (except in line mode, where I  can still function!).    Ken    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:58:53 -0500 . From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca>" Subject: Splitting serial cables ?- Message-ID: <43DD2C88.CAB68891@vaxination.ca>   F Is it possible to split a serial cable coming from an OPA0: to go to 2E separate serial ports ? (not a switch, I want hardwired connections).   G Goal: have a node's OPA0: go to serial ports on 2 different machines so C that no matter which node is up, I can always SET HOST/DTE from the   running node to access the OPA0:      D And while I am at it, how about a 3 way ? Have OPA0: go to 2 serialsH ports as well as a true blue VT220 (actually, they are now yellowish :-)   ------------------------------  + Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:17:28 -0600 (CST) * From: sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda)" Subject: Splitting serial cables ?2 Message-ID: <06012915172890_20331674@antinode.org>  . From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca>  H > Is it possible to split a serial cable coming from an OPA0: to go to 2G > separate serial ports ? (not a switch, I want hardwired connections).       Of course, it is.  I > Goal: have a node's OPA0: go to serial ports on 2 different machines so E > that no matter which node is up, I can always SET HOST/DTE from the " > running node to access the OPA0:  ,    Oh.  You want it to work, too?  Then, no.  F > And while I am at it, how about a 3 way ? Have OPA0: go to 2 serialsJ > ports as well as a true blue VT220 (actually, they are now yellowish :-)  H    First figure out what is supposed to happen to all the outputs you'veC wired together, and who wins the arguments when one says "+12V" and  another says "-12V".  E    This is one of the reasons for which God created terminal servers.   H ------------------------------------------------------------------------  4    Steven M. Schweda               (+1) 651-699-98183    382 South Warwick Street        sms@antinode-org     Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 14:26:01 -0700 % From: Dan O'Reilly <dano@process.com> & Subject: Re: Splitting serial cables ?A Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20060129142454.02386c50@raptor.psccos.com>   J My guess is that you'll have the potential for noise on those cables that F could cause unintended consequences.  I personally would find a cheap  DECserver and use that instead.   & At 01:58 PM 1/29/2006, JF Mezei wrote:G >Is it possible to split a serial cable coming from an OPA0: to go to 2 F >separate serial ports ? (not a switch, I want hardwired connections). > H >Goal: have a node's OPA0: go to serial ports on 2 different machines soD >that no matter which node is up, I can always SET HOST/DTE from the! >running node to access the OPA0:  >  >  > E >And while I am at it, how about a 3 way ? Have OPA0: go to 2 serials I >ports as well as a true blue VT220 (actually, they are now yellowish :-)    ------J +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+J | Dan O'Reilly                  |  "There are 10 types of people in this |J | Principal Engineer            |   world: those who understand binary   |J | Process Software              |   and those who don't."                |J | http://www.process.com        |                                        |J +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:12:21 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> & Subject: Re: Splitting serial cables ?, Message-ID: <43DD3DBC.6E32BF1E@teksavvy.com>   "Steven M. Schweda" wrote:J >    First figure out what is supposed to happen to all the outputs you'veE > wired together, and who wins the arguments when one says "+12V" and  > another says "-12V".  G Since an OPA0: doesn't have modem controls, is that still a big problem  ?   C The goal isn't to have multiple people writing to OPA0: at the same ( time. That would indeed cause gibberish.G The goal is more to log the output opf OPA0: to two different ports and 9 possibly have one of those ports send data out at a time.    Would that still fail ?   G >    This is one of the reasons for which God created terminal servers.   ? Yeah, I guess. However a terminal server wouldn't let me have 2 3 applications access the same port at the same time.   E And I would have to find a decserver that is UP without any help of a G boot node. Consider after a total shutdown, if I wish to access the >>> A prompt before booting, without a working decserver, I couldn't...   A But you are right, a decserver is probably still the most elegant 	 solution.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:29:42 -0500 ) From: "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> & Subject: Re: Splitting serial cables ?8 Message-ID: <slbDf.1378$Iw6.67075@news20.bellglobal.com>  < "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote in message ' news:43DD2C88.CAB68891@vaxination.ca... H > Is it possible to split a serial cable coming from an OPA0: to go to 2G > separate serial ports ? (not a switch, I want hardwired connections).  > I > Goal: have a node's OPA0: go to serial ports on 2 different machines so E > that no matter which node is up, I can always SET HOST/DTE from the " > running node to access the OPA0: > F > And while I am at it, how about a 3 way ? Have OPA0: go to 2 serialsJ > ports as well as a true blue VT220 (actually, they are now yellowish :-) > L If what you are trying to do is have a single computer serial port (DCE) go K to two different terminals (DTE) then the answer is yes. It's been a while  K since I did this (PDP-11/73 days) but it is possible as long as the signal  L paths are not too long. You need to build a Y-cable with the transmit lines 5 (pin-2?) of each terminal each going through a diode.   H If memory serves, the banded end of the diode connects to the terminal. M Tomorrow I'll check my office for the schematic but if you're in a hurry and  L my memory is faulty then just flip around the diodes. (for short periods an 7 error of this kind will not blow the transceiver chips)   J p.s. this works really well with pure RS-232. If you are using any RS-423 D devices then you need to make sure your reference grounds are wired 
 correctly.  
 Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,  Ontario, Canada.8 http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html   ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:12:27 +0000 (UTC) 7 From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) & Subject: Re: Splitting serial cables ?( Message-ID: <drjllb$n7e$1@pcls4.std.com>  0 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:  G >Is it possible to split a serial cable coming from an OPA0: to go to 2 F >separate serial ports ? (not a switch, I want hardwired connections).  H >Goal: have a node's OPA0: go to serial ports on 2 different machines soD >that no matter which node is up, I can always SET HOST/DTE from the! >running node to access the OPA0:   H Probably some sort of programmable RS232 switch device is what you want.  D I did something similar once, to download files from a remote systemE to a VAX years ago.  I made a cable with three DB-25 connectors wired D such that the modem's transmit line went to the transmit line of twoC connectors, but the receive line went to only one of them.  One end E (went into the modem, the end with the modem's receive line went to a I VT100, the end without the modem's line connected went to a TXAn: port on J the vax.  A process doing a $ COPY TXAn: file.ext captured the file, whose4 tranfer was initiated from commands on the terminal.  H You could connect both serial port's transmit lines together with diodesH (diode OR logic) and it will sort of work, but you'll see weirdness whenI both serial ports try to stop input with a ^S at almost (but not exactly) C the same time, or if someone starts typing on one serial port while  you are using the other.   ------------------------------  + Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:44:20 -0600 (CST) * From: sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda)& Subject: Re: Splitting serial cables ?2 Message-ID: <06012920442024_20331674@antinode.org>  - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>   I > Since an OPA0: doesn't have modem controls, is that still a big problem  > ?   #    The data lines are signals, too.   E > The goal isn't to have multiple people writing to OPA0: at the same * > time. That would indeed cause gibberish.I > The goal is more to log the output opf OPA0: to two different ports and ; > possibly have one of those ports send data out at a time.   B    Having multiple people sending data at the same time is not theE problem.  Having multiple data transmitters connected together is the  problem.  H    If you connect only one set of output lines to multiple sets of inputG lines, then there's some (considerable) hope.  If you wish to talk _to_ H a single port from multiple places (without fancy hardware), then you're probably doomed.  E    As RS232 signals generally run positive and negative, I'd be a bit D suspicious of the advice from folks who suggest adding diodes to theD system.  (Of course, having seen some before, I'd be more than a bitB suspicious of _any_ advice on electricity (or physics, in general) offered in this forum.)   H ------------------------------------------------------------------------  4    Steven M. Schweda               (+1) 651-699-98183    382 South Warwick Street        sms@antinode-org     Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.059 ************************                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Іb7sEy⠻S[F hQ%pG*ԩwy]a	.ʴYG\ѽK;םBk+bGP _~χ#\/#\ܫcTEVLq/c<QC[寬j	CnrG$1Zoqϫk(Suc>ujkmp4hx:[˝B-?U~M%%/"tHsA~#.j9#MF=;M}p3mnS䀠<*S'y{]ה
~"
sqC"\SYC6=4zQ=1<,|IW8o;1J%݋:](Q="?QD
v6^`kfvn$%z,xT7|o3'DO1ߧ4Ƭao#=0^(?xm69~K􄳁#h4'^-XO_Q̚=*yN3|M]Y>Ew6uh$<N[\ND?!&#c-/ŪٸVlمGeȞhb`[=zgՃ'&
*ĊF8~#]_5MPܫP(E35_YF~6;w/6Y?7}9+tvek]^9ey/]'K#>tg)/tzjV+N)ڌvP+[Eߜ|)U߆
٢M@z|

Oa_8\lZ>_u"݊#!*	@3@%^݊ĩ3wSLwV/U6!
q>ø'3]߱;;t.ߛ&].e(_negکG;쟖_\ߤ3cC6PhkkQ*Og`^18Pr
;lXA^^7	:^#	7(UߠiX
V+x&uiEu~#M(rmDGQ9RsMtq0QzXS<R?**Z?&o9+ߤm0]G"TN1-oD
ϫEӹ?vPsY>;Qtzu{#E}GhϏ%o$Q[ˋmU?6҂Z'h߃\c_~^7fr`39jM9I)(_rbB}L0]Yu?\>ks<7LV!nH7It_O8V&J.[?5{>~xsgxIhcn@8՞6|Mhe|,)ZdeX,SِA6L2``!)Xonΰ򌱕堺E]hSs)VG=:gO
?|bPOX_BMk^:>sC=󪸮uEqz)?ngP:?벜hVpS/vyc[ufa9qqX%ቺ(@
ԩs <W9qYڏ~~$ϽJ,	\g@t݁1>WhNN: -,/ԯF==t2Mf:ݪ=Qe.7ݏf1_YLu,|5cK<W(2h]>L[HڇmӇio7,V/au 2H;d<+[DegQkKI=݀GQqE4@
/`p}\?gR,B?4)gANXG/?3_3!~Y,8B/^z4Ўq1εpĨfkl𾓎6`P~5}:o/gלv	8aI=j<:\cx<gH<T ͮf36ae+TKkW/}fų":ฒ1i"]N].e*P98f
׈K*gP-ZkD+*Bt&qRu+ЂPy	q]*DX=LzOQqWD3h!ޥrT
\WB4	U^Hbk?\W	Uxo?|ّψs9Xlcm"pt>}y|-A#j<.Su& qVh`{Њ.)#+e0Nv=r~Y
<l63]{r}?t{z7wxπì2>
=;}vt,%(_qʕn&ȆX^:;EƳƢ
Q88([8ߟBV7dˋ0.ƣcbl䓉KchV}-'QG=q6wZ3m<3lk[|<3AQcc:ԇ,:^foFE$ϞJE$ՠE)ypyQ轏9,3rVqs|é_3.DUWv=L3پϼ%:ĝ٢C{Cĵ;l)TΩ3@Ϻ_lwW	*񿷂}>1fLЏ.*i.Ktge܏`M6XeéIUX-uOlvgidW<6E=g'Pg噬>t^֣7V.C]`Πjh^S{rzvR?ޏ}u|WBD"Ȋ1Fp1ʷ$Vi<^ʞpOV:'