0 INFO-VAX	Tue, 31 Jan 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 61      Contents: Re: 11/780 peripherals Re: 11/780 peripherals Re: Cluster timeouts question  Re: Cluster timeouts question  Re: FOR070.DAT files appearing Re: FOR070.DAT files appearing Get Rich Re: IA64: Montecito info Re: IA64: Montecito info Re: IA64: Montecito info Re: IA64: Montecito info8 Intel boycott along with HP if they try to kill OpenVMS!< Re: Intel boycott along with HP if they try to kill OpenVMS!< Re: Intel boycott along with HP if they try to kill OpenVMS!< Re: Intel boycott along with HP if they try to kill OpenVMS!& 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: Itanium lap tops are needed now!: Re: p2c (dave gillespie's pas to c converter) & VMS pascal: Re: p2c (dave gillespie's pas to c converter) & VMS pascal: Re: p2c (dave gillespie's pas to c converter) & VMS pascal$ Re: Problems with DECnetPlus-over-IP Selling Alphaservers!  Re: Splitting serial cables ?  Re: Splitting serial cables ?  Re: Splitting serial cables ?  Re: Splitting serial cables ? C Re: The processor wars Part V, Intel's Itanium: To be or not to be? A [OpenVMS V7.3-2, TCPware V5.7-2] Problems with DECnetPlus-over-IP E Re: [OpenVMS V7.3-2, TCPware V5.7-2] Problems with DECnetPlus-over-IP   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 30 Jan 2006 16:37:30 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)  Subject: Re: 11/780 peripherals 3 Message-ID: <aaB5ZsdShpR5@eisner.encompasserve.org>   a In article <9qadne3RtfSw3kPeRVn-tw@comcast.com>, Bob Blunt <RobertDOTblunt@digitalDOTcom> writes:  > E > It DEPENDS!  Do you know what your 11/780's configuration is?  The  D > system itself is SMI-based, but into the SMI you can have Unibus, A > Massbus or special SMI-based interfaces from STC or Intergraph.   C    SBI (synchronous backplan interconnect), not SMI.  The PDP-11/70 A    had the same bus layout as the VAX 11/780:  an SBI with UNIBUS ?    and MASSBUS adapters hanging off of it.  And even DEC had an @    I/O device (the DR70) that could hang directly off the SBI.  ,    Array processors sometimes hung off DR70.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:36:05 -0600 . From: Bob Blunt <RobertDOTblunt@digitalDOTcom> Subject: Re: 11/780 peripherals 0 Message-ID: <08mdnfmC1YrEI0PeRVn-ug@comcast.com>   Bob Koehler wrote:c > In article <9qadne3RtfSw3kPeRVn-tw@comcast.com>, Bob Blunt <RobertDOTblunt@digitalDOTcom> writes:  > E >>It DEPENDS!  Do you know what your 11/780's configuration is?  The  D >>system itself is SMI-based, but into the SMI you can have Unibus, A >>Massbus or special SMI-based interfaces from STC or Intergraph.  >  > E >    SBI (synchronous backplan interconnect), not SMI.  The PDP-11/70 C >    had the same bus layout as the VAX 11/780:  an SBI with UNIBUS A >    and MASSBUS adapters hanging off of it.  And even DEC had an B >    I/O device (the DR70) that could hang directly off the SBI.  . >    Array processors sometimes hung off DR70. >   H SBI, that was it.  Sorry!  Too many brain-cell killing activities since 2 I last worked with any SBI-based systems, I guess.  I While I never worked with the DR70, I knew it existed but didn't mention  F it in my list because I've never heard of a tapedrive hanging off one 	 directly.      bob    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:23:00 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> & Subject: Re: Cluster timeouts question, Message-ID: <43DE91BD.5500D1F0@teksavvy.com>  / Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote: F > VMS is robust.  I remember when I accidentally pulled the SCSI cableH > from the box housing the system disk of a VAX.  Apart from a couple of4 > mount-verification messages, nothing bad happened.  A Not that robust :-) Yesterday, while stringing ethernet cables, I F accidentally pulled the plug of a power bar feeding a vaxstation and aF mac. Both shut down and needed to be rebooted. :-) So VMS is no better than MacOS in that regards. :-)    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:05:13 -0800 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> & Subject: Re: Cluster timeouts question( Message-ID: <ops37xazx5zgicya@hyrrokkin>  K On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:37:40 +0000 (UTC), Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES   1 to reply <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:   7 > In article <43DDDBA5.C4011CCE@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei ( > <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: >  >> Richard Brodie wrote:H >> > > Also, which parameter determines how long a node can be without   >> ethernet I >> > > heartbeats from other nodes before declaring itself alone in the    >> cluster ? >> > >> > RECNXINTERVAL, mostly.  >> >> Mine is set to 20 seconds.  >>I >> While changing ethernet cables, a "lost connection" message was issued H >> within about 6 seconds. But I did reconnect within 20 seconds and the1 >> node didn't crash as it regained connectivity.  > F > VMS is robust.  I remember when I accidentally pulled the SCSI cableH > from the box housing the system disk of a VAX.  Apart from a couple of4 > mount-verification messages, nothing bad happened. > I > A couple of days later at work, while rearranging cables under my desk, D > I accidentally pulled the mouse cable from a Windows PC.  I had to > reboot it.  :-|  >   G Then explain this.  This morning I was getting excessive packet loss on F one of my alpha nodes,  so I tried reseating the ethernet cable simplyH by sliding  it in an out.  The node crashed.  Now the router is a cisco,I the orange light came on for some length of time which I interpreted to    meanG that it hadn't acquired sync, just a WAG.  It would be nice to have a    function) like, "I am going to move you so hang on"    ------------------------------    Date: 30 Jan 2006 16:27:56 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) ' Subject: Re: FOR070.DAT files appearing 3 Message-ID: <G$A1fqiVahw5@eisner.encompasserve.org>   W In article <43ve04F1oj93qU1@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:  > D > Why?  Seems the opposite is true.  If you don't explicitly declareB > everything how can you believe that ten years from now you will @ > remember what you really meant to do?  And yet you expect someG > stranger who may never have met you to?  One of the apparent problems D > with this code is that whoever is maintianing it now is in exactlyD > that boat.  When asked a simple question about what the file does, > they don't have a clue!! >   E    On the contrary:  the information is available both in the program 7    that creates the file and in the header of the file.    >>  C >>    I had a lot of Fortran code like that years ago.  The authors C >>    specified everything they could in OPEN statements, including A >>    everything RMS would have picked up from the file header.    > F > Well, RMS isn't Fortran, so youyr excused for throwing that out, butI > surely you didn't remove thngs like the file name!!  What about Fortran H > Variables?  Do you declrae them explicitly or just leave it to chance?  E    Only the things that didn't have to be specified were removed from G    the OPEN statement.  When they were specified two programs had to be E    updated to implement one change, and the second program could have     been left untouched.   H    The code was written with IMPLICIT NONE, which can be demonstrated toH    reduce errors, always a good enough reason to use it.  Makes the code    more maintainable, not less.   D >>                                                              WhenD >>    we changed the program that wrote the file, we just took thoseK >>    keywords out of the OPEN statement in the program that read the file, D >>    knowing we would never again have to update that code for that
 >>    reason.  >>  3 >>    I'm sure there have been many other examples.  > G > Actually, I think this just goes to show all those Unix/C haters that 3 > you can write bad code in any language on any OS.   H    I'd like to see you write a buffer overrun in Fortran I/O statements.   ------------------------------   Date: 31 Jan 2006 02:07:44 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)' Subject: Re: FOR070.DAT files appearing * Message-ID: <447v3gFs35lU1@individual.net>  3 In article <G$A1fqiVahw5@eisner.encompasserve.org>, > 	koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:Y > In article <43ve04F1oj93qU1@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:  >>  E >> Why?  Seems the opposite is true.  If you don't explicitly declare C >> everything how can you believe that ten years from now you will  A >> remember what you really meant to do?  And yet you expect some H >> stranger who may never have met you to?  One of the apparent problemsE >> with this code is that whoever is maintianing it now is in exactly E >> that boat.  When asked a simple question about what the file does,  >> they don't have a clue!!  >>   > G >    On the contrary:  the information is available both in the program 9 >    that creates the file and in the header of the file.   C What?  Where in the header of the file does it say what program and G which routine within that program created it? Or what the data actua;;y G means?  And the people with (one would think) the source to the program E said they didn't know.  So much getting the info fromthe program.  Of A course, you can, but that assumes you were left a program you can 2 actually understand or lots of documentation.  :-)   >  >>> D >>>    I had a lot of Fortran code like that years ago.  The authorsD >>>    specified everything they could in OPEN statements, includingB >>>    everything RMS would have picked up from the file header.   >>  G >> Well, RMS isn't Fortran, so youyr excused for throwing that out, but J >> surely you didn't remove thngs like the file name!!  What about FortranI >> Variables?  Do you declrae them explicitly or just leave it to chance?  > G >    Only the things that didn't have to be specified were removed from I >    the OPEN statement.  When they were specified two programs had to be G >    updated to implement one change, and the second program could have  >    been left untouched.  > . >    The code was written with IMPLICIT NONE,   D Must be a VMS extension cause there is no "IMPLICIT NONE" in my copyF of the standard. :-)  but, in any case that just supports exactly whatE I said in the paragraphs above.  Nothing should be left to implicit.  ) Everything should be explicitly declared.   J >                                             which can be demonstrated toJ >    reduce errors, always a good enough reason to use it.  Makes the code! >    more maintainable, not less.   C That's what I said.  Now you really have me confused as I no longer  know which side your on!!    > E >>>                                                              When E >>>    we changed the program that wrote the file, we just took those L >>>    keywords out of the OPEN statement in the program that read the file,E >>>    knowing we would never again have to update that code for that  >>>    reason. >>> 4 >>>    I'm sure there have been many other examples. >>  H >> Actually, I think this just goes to show all those Unix/C haters that4 >> you can write bad code in any language on any OS. > J >    I'd like to see you write a buffer overrun in Fortran I/O statements.   D Buffer overflows are not the only example of bad code.  Fortran (theD real language, not the extended implementation) has  no array boundsB checking.  Neither does COBOL.  Pascal does, but then every PascalG compiler I have ever used included an extension to let you turn it off. A It's not the OS or the language that makes bad programs it is the  programmer.    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: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:58:18 GMT , From: "Daun Johnson" <jmentola@ildmsnka.com> Subject: Get Rich 0 Message-ID: <sfBDf.15412$wk5.8196@news02.roc.ny>   Take advantage of a great deal   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:30:12 GMT ( From: Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net>! Subject: Re: IA64: Montecito info ? Message-ID: <8PtDf.219084$vl2.193613@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>    Dave Froble wrote: > bob@instantwhip.com wrote: > = >> what about companies that need 1P?  We do not want to have > >> to pay for two cpu licenses when we only need one for small? >> workgroups ... were is the 1P line of cheap 2K boxes we were  >> promised? >> > C > Hard to believe there is anyone who still believes Compaq's lies.   F Especially as HP are forced to follow the Intel line. I doubt that it I really was Rich Marcello's decision to terminate HP-UX for workstations.  I But he has to claim it was. Of course if it really was his decision then  : VMS's future, even on servers, has to be in serious doubt.  I Feedback I have heard (second-hand) is that HP have told workstation app  I vendors to concentrate on the Windows port. I still recall a Unigraphics  E developer almost in tears about 1990 when DEC told them (EDS at that  E time) to downplay the VMS port in favour of Ultrix. Ironically HP-UX  G benefited more from this stupid decision than the Ultrix port. Now the  H wheel has turned again and Unigraphics on HP-UX has no future. Same for I Pro-Engineer and numerous other applications. To me it looks like HP are  7 killing HP-UX bit by bit so what chance does VMS stand?      --  
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------    Date: 30 Jan 2006 14:00:49 -0800 From: bob@instantwhip.com ! Subject: Re: IA64: Montecito info C Message-ID: <1138658449.680057.301230@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   @ as long as customers, esp. major ones (i.e. US DOD) put pressure< on HP to honor current commitments and continue enhancementsB or else a boycott and lawsuits, then it stands a very good chance!  . What do you think got it to this point so far?   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:28:05 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> ! Subject: Re: IA64: Montecito info , Message-ID: <43DE92EE.81EF46AB@teksavvy.com>   bob@instantwhip.com wrote: > B > as long as customers, esp. major ones (i.e. US DOD) put pressure> > on HP to honor current commitments and continue enhancementsD > or else a boycott and lawsuits, then it stands a very good chance!    H I am not sure there are commitments for "enhancements". When you look atH those radar planes, they are built and the military expects the onwer ofG VMS to supply spare parts and patches if necessary. They are not likely ; to get much in terms of software upgrades at the VMS level.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:50:05 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> ! Subject: Re: IA64: Montecito info 9 Message-ID: <EOOdnbAJr41sCkPenZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@libcom.com>    Alan Greig wrote:  >  >  > Dave Froble wrote: >  >> bob@instantwhip.com wrote:  >>> >>> what about companies that need 1P?  We do not want to have? >>> to pay for two cpu licenses when we only need one for small @ >>> workgroups ... were is the 1P line of cheap 2K boxes we were
 >>> promised?  >>>  >>D >> Hard to believe there is anyone who still believes Compaq's lies. >  > H > Especially as HP are forced to follow the Intel line. I doubt that it K > really was Rich Marcello's decision to terminate HP-UX for workstations.  K > But he has to claim it was. Of course if it really was his decision then  < > VMS's future, even on servers, has to be in serious doubt. > K > Feedback I have heard (second-hand) is that HP have told workstation app  K > vendors to concentrate on the Windows port. I still recall a Unigraphics  G > developer almost in tears about 1990 when DEC told them (EDS at that  G > time) to downplay the VMS port in favour of Ultrix. Ironically HP-UX  I > benefited more from this stupid decision than the Ultrix port. Now the  J > wheel has turned again and Unigraphics on HP-UX has no future. Same for K > Pro-Engineer and numerous other applications. To me it looks like HP are  9 > killing HP-UX bit by bit so what chance does VMS stand?  >  >   E Well, I'm not a decision maker for Unigraphics, but if I was, I'd be  H sick and tired of continually being knifed in the back.  I'd be talking I to Sun and IBM.  Either a choice of Unix on Opteron, or on Power.  I'm a  I bit sorry that I wouldn't include SPARC, but, after multiple burn marks,   one tends to be conservative.    --  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: 30 Jan 2006 14:10:36 -0800 From: bob@instantwhip.com A Subject: Intel boycott along with HP if they try to kill OpenVMS! B Message-ID: <1138659036.623647.14740@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>  A AMD will always be the processor of choice for us if Intel thinks * their phony itanium strategy will work ...  7 http://www.digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20060127PR201.html    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:10:49 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> E Subject: Re: Intel boycott along with HP if they try to kill OpenVMS! 9 Message-ID: <2tOdnZJPyrtWAUPenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@libcom.com>    bob@instantwhip.com wrote:C > AMD will always be the processor of choice for us if Intel thinks , > their phony itanium strategy will work ... > 9 > http://www.digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20060127PR201.html  >   G boob, if you're going to just give URLs, at least give those all of us  I can read, not paid sites.  If you want to post something, please include  - the details in your post, or just don't post.    --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------    Date: 30 Jan 2006 15:24:09 -0800$ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>E Subject: Re: Intel boycott along with HP if they try to kill OpenVMS! B Message-ID: <1138663449.403753.91300@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>   Dave Froble wrote: > bob@instantwhip.com wrote:E > > AMD will always be the processor of choice for us if Intel thinks . > > their phony itanium strategy will work ... > > ; > > http://www.digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20060127PR201.html  > >  > H > boob, if you're going to just give URLs, at least give those all of usJ > can read, not paid sites.  If you want to post something, please include   Hmmm, it was free for me.   / > the details in your post, or just don't post.   D Agreed. It would be nice to have *some* introductory material in the post.    >  > --6 > David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04506 > Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596@ > DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com > 170 Grimplin Road  > Vanderbilt, PA  15486    AEF    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:27:34 -0700 " From: GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com>E Subject: Re: Intel boycott along with HP if they try to kill OpenVMS! 0 Message-ID: <b5SdneBn8r9CaEPeRVn-gA@bresnan.com>   bob@instantwhip.com wrote:C > AMD will always be the processor of choice for us if Intel thinks , > their phony itanium strategy will work ... > 9 > http://www.digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20060127PR201.html  >   / Sorry, but I won't pay to read the news online.  How about pasting a quote?   --   Where are we going?   And why am I in this handbasket?   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:15:08 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> / Subject: Re: Intel/Hp spend $10 billion on IA64 , Message-ID: <43DE8FE6.79DC4E2B@teksavvy.com>   Bill Todd wrote:I > Well, it's already evident that the cost and length of time to port VMS J > to Itanic was not a good thing.  But the cost and length of time to port= > it to an architecture with better prospects still might be.   E If the arguments used to murder Alpha and port VMS to that IA64 thing 5 are still valid, then VMS must be ported to the 8086.   B -The 8086 shows greater performance improvement promises than IA64T -The 8086 is truly industry standard and commodity and low priced due to competition, -The 8086 spans from handheld to datacentre.9 -Would allow HP to truly simplify its hardware platforms. D -IA64 is a low volume, expensive and proprietary single vendor  chip) with limited growth and market potential.     E HP should simply bite ist lips, admit IA64 isn't going to make it and E spend the 10 billion on porting VMS, HP-UX and NSK to the 8086 and be ? done with any specualtion about the future of its systems. That 8 speculation hurts sales, whether it is justified or not.  H We are merely REPORTING on the speculation here, not making it. HP could# stop that speculation if it wanted.    ------------------------------    Date: 30 Jan 2006 16:40:06 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) / Subject: Re: Intel/Hp spend $10 billion on IA64 3 Message-ID: <+Q6SbgoWo3Od@eisner.encompasserve.org>   \ In article <43DA8CD5.DCD6FC61@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: > F > The Solutions Alliance is merely a marketing organisation that sends > seed money to developpers.    E    And sounds all too much like the ACE alliance that was supposed to 4    provide shrink-wrapped software for UNIX on MIPS.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:57:08 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> / Subject: Re: Intel/Hp spend $10 billion on IA64 9 Message-ID: <2tOdnZFPyrsKBEPenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@libcom.com>    JF Mezei wrote:  > Bill Todd wrote: > I >>Well, it's already evident that the cost and length of time to port VMS J >>to Itanic was not a good thing.  But the cost and length of time to port= >>it to an architecture with better prospects still might be.  >  > G > If the arguments used to murder Alpha and port VMS to that IA64 thing 7 > are still valid, then VMS must be ported to the 8086.  > D > -The 8086 shows greater performance improvement promises than IA64V > -The 8086 is truly industry standard and commodity and low priced due to competition. > -The 8086 spans from handheld to datacentre.; > -Would allow HP to truly simplify its hardware platforms. F > -IA64 is a low volume, expensive and proprietary single vendor  chip+ > with limited growth and market potential.  >  > G > HP should simply bite ist lips, admit IA64 isn't going to make it and G > spend the 10 billion on porting VMS, HP-UX and NSK to the 8086 and be A > done with any specualtion about the future of its systems. That : > speculation hurts sales, whether it is justified or not. > J > We are merely REPORTING on the speculation here, not making it. HP could% > stop that speculation if it wanted.   H The speculation is that long term HP may not want to be in the software   business.  At least OS software.  I Someone mentioned recently that when asked about the itanic not becoming  G 'industry standard', Mark Gorham replied, "that's not an option".  I'm  G thinking that HP doesn't have a contigency for the itanic not becoming  C industry standard.  I'm thinking that they're just playing out the  @ original 'plan of record' (or whatever it was called during the G acquisition/merger) and when something disappears they just go on with  E what's left.  No future planning, just continuing with what they can.    --  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: 30 Jan 2006 16:45:26 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) / Subject: Re: Intel/Hp spend $10 billion on IA64 3 Message-ID: <a7FZ+7TeXHSm@eisner.encompasserve.org>   ` In article <43DC2FC3.229FBBEB@comcast.net>, David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> writes: > E > That's probably about as close as we can expect to come as far as a I > statement regarding VMS's fate if HP can't sell I64 to the industry. If ? > "the world" goes x86-64, VMS goes bye-bye, according to Fred.   F    Not a single one of my VMS based applications depend on IA64, sinceH    I have no IA64.  I will use it if the appropriate need comes up, but E    my VAX and Alpha and SIMH will keep right on running critical VMS  1    based applications whether IA64 lives or dies.   -    No, HP might go bye-bye; but I won't mind.   E    I fully expect to see an Alpha added to SIMH.  It won't outrun the E    real thing anytime soon like my SIMH VAX does, but I expect to see     it long before I need it.   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:23:11 GMT   From: John Santos <john@egh.com>/ Subject: Re: Intel/Hp spend $10 billion on IA64 * Message-ID: <jSzDf.25798$5G.7654@trnddc08>   JF Mezei wrote:  > Dave Froble wrote: > C >>Nope, it was to Fred I was replying, and yes, Bill Todd was in my I >>thoughts.  Not saying that he does or doesn't, just allowing that there * >>may be some who want to see itanic sink. >  >  > C > If HP/Intel,s plans are to sink it, then they might as well do it : > quickly instead of prolong the speculation indefinitely.  G "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly"  -  Another Bill   ! (Bill S., not Bill G. or Bill T.)    --   John Santos  Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------    Date: 16 Jan 2006 19:44:12 +01006 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)- Subject: Re: Itanium lap tops are needed now! , Message-ID: <43cbf78c$1@news.langstoeger.at>  N In article <ops3hg6gmvzgicya@hyrrokkin>, "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> writes:< >On 16 Jan 2006 10:03:20 -0800, <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote:B >> I should not have to buy an alpha or itanium server just to run< >> vms at home, and a laptop would also allow me to carry my< >> work with me ... the browser is there, so why not make an >> itanium lap top HP?  + Because the I64 still sucks too much power.    >VAX/SIMH or CHARON   J No, Tom, you missed the point. Point is, VMS is for small to big machines.N Why artificially limit it to big iron ? There is also still no CHARON-Alpha...  ; The point is, as JF is still not too tired/bored to repeat: G If/when Itanic sinks, VMS sinks with it. Only chance seems another port I to IA32-64 before the Itanic sinks (if it is not too late at all already)    Sigh   --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER % Network and OpenVMS system specialist  E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:27:54 GMT & From: John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com>C Subject: Re: p2c (dave gillespie's pas to c converter) & VMS pascal 1 Message-ID: <_MtDf.2307$H%1.207@news.cpqcorp.net>    Chris Sharman wrote:J > Has anyone had experience of this, and got (or failed to get) a working  > configuration ?  > H > I've got it compiled & working under fedora, and would like to port a K > number of our vms pascal programs to there (while retaining them on vms).  > C > My initial problems are with ! delimited line comments, and with  ? > [WEAK_GLOBAL] and other attributes (it doesn't like the '[').  > G > It does have a language VAX option, but it's very old, and there's a  ( > note "not tested with large programs". > F > I suspect other recent enhancements (%if etc) are going to cause me  > trouble too. > H > If anyone's already spent time looking at this, or has any tips, that 0 > would be great. Meantime I'll continue trying. >  > Thanks > Chris    Chris,  I I looked at this once many years ago just for fun.  Yes, it doesn't know  G   much about any OpenVMS Pascal extensions.  When it says VAX, I think  G it is dealing with the VAX Pascal V1 extension set, not the much newer  7 language definition that came along with VAX Pascal V2.   > In addition, the "!" end-of-line comments and %IF conditional G compilation feature came along MUCH later than V2.  So even if he knew  D about VAX Pascal V2 when p2c was written, I'm not surprised that it & can't handle your code that uses them.  @ You might be better off using one of the VAX emulator solutions.   --   John Reagan / HP Pascal/{A|I}MACRO for OpenVMS Project Leader  Hewlett-Packard Company    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:00:41 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> C Subject: Re: p2c (dave gillespie's pas to c converter) & VMS pascal 9 Message-ID: <2tOdnZBPyrv3B0PenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@libcom.com>    John Reagan wrote: > B > You might be better off using one of the VAX emulator solutions. >   7 Not picking on you John, please don't take it that way.   A Reading this, it occurs to me (scares me) that this might become  4 boilerplate HP advice for meny things in the future.   --  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: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:08:57 -0500 2 From: "Stanley F. Quayle" <squayle@insight.rr.com>C Subject: Re: p2c (dave gillespie's pas to c converter) & VMS pascal . Message-ID: <43DE7259.4421.59A13C2A@localhost>  + On 30 Jan 2006 at 18:00, Dave Froble wrote:  > John Reagan wrote:D > > You might be better off using one of the VAX emulator solutions. > B > Reading this, it occurs to me (scares me) that this might become6 > boilerplate HP advice for meny things in the future.   Okay by me   :-)  : [Shameless Plug Alert (tm) -- from a CHARON-VAX reseller.]  
 --Stan Quayle  Quayle Consulting Inc.  
 ----------8 Stanley F. Quayle, P.E. N8SQ  Toll free: 1-888-I-LUV-VAX3 8572 North Spring Ct., Pickerington, OH  43147  USA 0 stan-at-stanq-dot-com       http://www.stanq.com) "OpenVMS, when downtime is not an option"    ------------------------------    Date: 30 Jan 2006 13:58:15 -0800 From: bob@instantwhip.com - Subject: Re: Problems with DECnetPlus-over-IP B Message-ID: <1138658295.599945.95010@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>  1 if you can not ask Process techs, why not go back  to the stable 5.6-2 version?   ------------------------------    Date: 30 Jan 2006 12:43:14 -0800 From: vanjkos@gmail.com  Subject: Selling Alphaservers!C Message-ID: <1138653794.144592.320190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>    Hi to everyone! D I'm owner of 2 Compaq Alphaservers DS20,configured more or less like this:   ) -500MHz 64bit DEC processor 4MB Cache L2; 6 -3 GB RAM memory (by banks of 256MB),branded Infineon;= -2 Seagate Cheetah 18.2GB Ultra SCSI 80 pin in raid-5 config; 0 -DAT,Floppy drive,cd rom,720W power supply 220V;) -Serial terminal with keyboard,cables....   E I'm selling them  because my garage got full and my car is outside in  the rain... ;-) F If anyone is interested,i'm in Italy,and for any info or questions you& can mail to: vanjkos at gmail dot com.   ------------------------------   Date: 30 Jan 06 14:13:53 EST) From: cook@wvnvms.wvnet.edu (George Cook) & Subject: Re: Splitting serial cables ?! Message-ID: <bzSPQvS$PV5J@wvnvms>   e In article <2ZnDf.1882$Iw6.130468@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> writes: : > "Steven M. Schweda" <sms@antinode.org> wrote in message . > news:06012920442024_20331674@antinode.org... >> >  > [...snip...] > G >>   As RS232 signals generally run positive and negative, I'd be a bit G >> suspicious of the advice from folks who suggest adding diodes to the G >> system.  (Of course, having seen some before, I'd be more than a bit E >> suspicious of _any_ advice on electricity (or physics, in general)  >> offered in this forum.) > O > Except that I actually did this on a PDP-11/73 using only two diodes. We had  M > an LA-120 console in the computer room and a VT100 about 25 feet away in a  N > secondary equipment room. You are right about positive and negative signals L > but, if memory serves, only the negative signals are really required over J > short distances. Now I must point out that there is no way an RS-232 or J > RS-423 signal bastardized in this way will be able to support the rated L > distance/speed charts. I should also mention that we never started up any  > CRT-based apps on the VT100. > O > p.s. you may think that only software people hang out in this news group but  L > many of us started out life in the hardware world. I was DEC-qualified to O > work on many PDP and VAX products. Most of my DEC training (except the diode  5 > mod above) came from Bedford, Maynard, and Kantata.   G We have also used several similar setups for many years (20+) and never H had any significant problems.  We still have two systems wired with dualJ VT terminals (currently a dual ported VT330, a VT320 and a VT420) on theirJ OPA0 ports.  Years ago we even had serial ports on an Heathkit H8 computerH (a kit which I put together) wired into multiple VAX (11/780, etc.) OPA0. ports with each port also hooked to an LA-120.  G One minor issue to keep in mind is software flow control (Control-S and C Control-Q).  The serial port speed must be set so that no more than H one of the terminals ever needs to do auto software flow control (unlessB you don't care if the terminals experience receive data overruns).     George Cook  WVNET    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:19:49 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> & Subject: Re: Splitting serial cables ?, Message-ID: <43DE82F4.D2B20C71@teksavvy.com>   Michael Moroney wrote:H > Now, if you want bad, by coincidence, yesterday I saw a web page whereK > someone claimed to have implemented an RS232 circuit with just two wires.  > No ground!  G When i first dabbed with DECconnect wall plugs, I used pin 1 for ground E instead of 7. So technically I had only 2 signal wires. And it worked C for at least one year until, while adding wiring to more offices, I E realised the mistake and retrofitted the existing cables to use pin 7 D for ground. (I was young and innocent back then and saw Digital as a perfect computer company :-)   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:24:32 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> & Subject: Re: Splitting serial cables ?, Message-ID: <43DE840F.5F6138CA@teksavvy.com>   briggs@encompasserve.org wrote: F > If you've ever put a breakout box on an RS232 connector, you'll have) > noticed that TD and RD are always live.   & Good point. Looks like a show stopper.  E > You can have one source sending data to multiple receivers.  That's I > no problem since the receivers aren't trying to coerce the signal line.   / Yeah, that is why I though the idea would work.       B So I guess getting a DECserver is perhaps best solution. And get aF program to run on 2 nodes, and the first one to start takes a lock andF then reverse LAT connects to the terminal server to talk to the OPA0:.E Second one waits for lock to go away before it immediatly reverse lat  connects to the port.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:55:37 -0500 ) From: "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> & Subject: Re: Splitting serial cables ?9 Message-ID: <v%vDf.2975$Iw6.196541@news20.bellglobal.com>   , <briggs@encompasserve.org> wrote in message - news:oCgSttFou3DR@eisner.encompasserve.org... 8 > In article <43DD3DBC.6E32BF1E@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei ( > <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: [...snip...] > E > Transmit data is on one of those wires.  You have two stations both C > wired into transmit data.  Both of them will be holding that lead E > in the space condition (or mark -- I can never remember) when idle. > > This is not tri-state logic where the lead floats when idle. > F > If you've ever put a breakout box on an RS232 connector, you'll have) > noticed that TD and RD are always live.  >  [...snip...] > E > You can have one source sending data to multiple receivers.  That's I > no problem since the receivers aren't trying to coerce the signal line.  > D > You can't have multiple sources sending data to a single receiver.C > That's a problem since multiple senders are each trying to coerce  > the signal line differently. > J Umm, if you read my original post you'll notice that I said 2 diodes were K required to isolate the two transmit lines from each other. Only one phase  H of the signal (negative if memory serves) is required to send data from E transmitter to receiver. Without the diodes one transmitter would be  B positive while the other is negative and you would have a problem.  
 Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,  Ontario, Canada.8 http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html   ------------------------------    Date: 30 Jan 2006 13:48:55 -06004 From: kuhrt.nospammy@encompasserve.org (Marty Kuhrt)L Subject: Re: The processor wars Part V, Intel's Itanium: To be or not to be?3 Message-ID: <xzgwBRuPJaZ9@eisner.encompasserve.org>   f In article <K3xCf.16996$ft2.293690@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> writes:K > For all you chip heads out there, part 5/5 was posted today (2006-01-27). 9 > http://www.digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20060127PR201.html  > I > Please note that this same site contains another article titled: "Intel L > Itanium gets US$10 billion new lease on life". Itanium Solutions Alliance?H > This sounds a lot like Alpha Alliance between Digital and Samsung etc.4 > http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20060127PR204.html  $ Everytime I try those links I get...  B "Sorry, the page you are trying to open is available only for our  paid subscribers."   ------------------------------    Date: 30 Jan 2006 21:04:54 +01006 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)J Subject: [OpenVMS V7.3-2, TCPware V5.7-2] Problems with DECnetPlus-over-IP, Message-ID: <43de7f76$1@news.langstoeger.at>  K I recently upgraded my OpenVMS Alpha V7.3-2 PWS433au from TCPware V5.6-2 to L V5.7-2. And since then, DECnet-Plus over IP incoming is not working anymore.E Note: I didn't change any configuration, did only an TCPware upgrade.   9 I noticed it with the X11 security where I got no access. 
 Instead of  N 29-JAN-2006 08:34:35.6 Access granted to: DECNET 85-90-146-7.DSL.YCN.COM EPLANN                            matched entry: DECNET 85-90-146-7.dsl.ycn.com EPLAN   I got   P 28-JAN-2006 23:08:09.0 %DECW-I-ACCEPT_FAILED, could not accept connection requesH t from 85-90-146-7.DSL.YCN.COM::"0=EPLAN/. ........................X$X0"P 28-JAN-2006 23:08:09.0 -SYSTEM-F-LINKDISCON, network partner disconnected logica l link  F And every incoming DECnet link (I tested CTERM and FAL) gets a timeoutH -SYSTEM-F-LINKEXIT, network partner exited and no process (and of course- no logfile) gets created on the local system.   1 Does anyone have an idea what is happening here ? 0 TCP Port 399 is open (checked also with TELNET).I And why the change in the X11 access string (and is LINKDISCON the result  or the cause) ?   I Does anyone use TCPware V5.7-2 on OpenVMS Alpha V7.3-2 and does it work ?    -EPLAN  L PS: In the meantime I'm back to V5.6-2 (probably until the VMS V8.2 upgrade) --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER % Network and OpenVMS system specialist  E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 05:44:59 GMT   From: John Santos <john@egh.com>N Subject: Re: [OpenVMS V7.3-2, TCPware V5.7-2] Problems with DECnetPlus-over-IP, Message-ID: <vPCDf.17060$K17.12697@trnddc03>    Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote:M > I recently upgraded my OpenVMS Alpha V7.3-2 PWS433au from TCPware V5.6-2 to N > V5.7-2. And since then, DECnet-Plus over IP incoming is not working anymore.G > Note: I didn't change any configuration, did only an TCPware upgrade.     G I have it "working" (for some values of "working :-() on a VAX V7.3 and  an Alpha V7.3-2.  H I have recently seen some serious problems on the VAX (not on the Alpha)F where DECnet file copies of large files (~100,000 blocks) die with CRCD DAP errors and FTP of same file appears to work (backup saveset) butG BACKUP says it is corrupt.  I haven't narrowed down yet; copying a file G (pulling it) from a VAX and/or an Alpha with TCPware V5.6-2 through LAN E to Netopia router then via VPN over DSL and the Internet to a Linksys F DSL router to a Win2K PC (other end of VPN tunnel over a LAN through aF cheap switch to the VAX 3600 VMS V7.3/TCPware 5.7-2.  So there is lotsB that could go wrong.  For various reasons, mostly wishful thinkingF because it is the easiest and cheapest thing to replace, I suspect the cheapo Ethernet switch.   D I was also trying to configure a "new" VAX 3400 as a satellite node,D and couldn't get it to boot.  It kept crashing with various reserved@ OPCODE and ACCVIO random bugchecks, usually but not always after@ printing the VMS banner, but before announcing it had joined theC cluster.  (It got far enough, at least some of the time, to show up G on the boot server's "SHOW CLUSTER" display.)  A bad ethernet interface F or bad switch (failing to detect collisions?  framing problems? duplexF mismatch?) would explain both the cluster boot problem and the FTP and DECnet problems.  H No errors logged on the VAX 3600 and the ethernet counters looked pretty clean...  D This is a hobbyist system, so no support.  (The VAX and Alpha at theE other end of the VPN are at work, and do have a support contract, but H they don't seem to be showing any problems.  Besides, I haven't upgraded
 them yet.)     > ; > I noticed it with the X11 security where I got no access.  > Instead of > P > 29-JAN-2006 08:34:35.6 Access granted to: DECNET 85-90-146-7.DSL.YCN.COM EPLANP >                            matched entry: DECNET 85-90-146-7.dsl.ycn.com EPLAN >  > I got  > R > 28-JAN-2006 23:08:09.0 %DECW-I-ACCEPT_FAILED, could not accept connection requesJ > t from 85-90-146-7.DSL.YCN.COM::"0=EPLAN/. ........................X$X0"R > 28-JAN-2006 23:08:09.0 -SYSTEM-F-LINKDISCON, network partner disconnected logica > l link > H > And every incoming DECnet link (I tested CTERM and FAL) gets a timeoutJ > -SYSTEM-F-LINKEXIT, network partner exited and no process (and of course/ > no logfile) gets created on the local system.  > 3 > Does anyone have an idea what is happening here ? 2 > TCP Port 399 is open (checked also with TELNET).K > And why the change in the X11 access string (and is LINKDISCON the result  > or the cause) ?   D Not sure if this is more relevant to your problem than my divergenceC above, but I've seen this for a long time:  Sometimes, when TCPware C starts up, TPCONS doesn't start up right.  You should see two OPCOM  messages saying:  (     Message from user TPCONS on <xxxxxx>"     -- TPCONS: Listen to PWIP Done  G Sometimes (seems to be more prevalent on slower systems), you don't see D these messages, and DECnet-over-IP doesn't work.  The only cure I'veE found is rebooting, which works about 98% of the time.  (I think once ) I had to reboot twice to get it to work.)   B I've never seen this on any of our customer systems, which are allF much faster than any of our systems (at work), and it seems to be mostE prevalent on our VAX 4000-200, and my VAX 3600 at home, which are our  slowest TCPware systems.  D The first time I booted the VAX 3600 after upgrading it to V5.7-2, IF had this TPCONS startup problem, but after rebooting, it was okay.  At: least, I can set host to/from it, and copy small files ;-)    K > Does anyone use TCPware V5.7-2 on OpenVMS Alpha V7.3-2 and does it work ?    Yes.  Seems to work so far.    >  > -EPLAN > N > PS: In the meantime I'm back to V5.6-2 (probably until the VMS V8.2 upgrade)     --   John Santos  Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.061 ************************