1 INFO-VAX	Mon, 03 Jul 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 367       Contents: Re: Alpha remembrance day + Re: Gates says vista "most secure os ever"? + Re: Gates says vista "most secure os ever"?  Google hires Alpha developers ! Re: Google hires Alpha developers  Make Microsoft angry' Re: OT: Intel quad core X64 benchmarked - Simple Directmedia Layer (SDL) for OpenVMS??? & Re: The possibility of vms opening up?& Re: The possibility of vms opening up?& RE: The possibility of vms opening up?  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------   Date: 3 Jul 2006 04:48:22 -0700  From: etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk" Subject: Re: Alpha remembrance dayC Message-ID: <1151927302.726440.264680@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   D Likewise Bill, the fact that you've been around for a while gives no= excuse for your rudeness.  you have one view, I have another.   F If Alpha had been a mass-market chip capable of holding its own in theE market, would Hudson have lost so much money?  Whether PA-RISC or any = other processor had similar market share is largely academic.   8 But, that's my obviously uneducated and uninformed view.   Bill Todd wrote: > Alan Greig wrote:  > >  > >  > > Bill Todd wrote:  > >> etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > >> > >>> Well, that's one view. > >> > >>J > >> And, at least compared with your own, a relatively informed one.  WhyK > >> is it that there's always some clueless newbie eager to pop up and put I > >> his ignorance on display without having bothered to develop any real ! > >> acquaintance with a subject?  > > I > > It's a new email but the poster is Steeve Reece who's been around for & > > years as I'm sure you will recall! > ? > Oh - then I guess there's no excuse at all for his ignorance.  >    ------------------------------   Date: 3 Jul 2006 06:27:17 -0700  From: etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk4 Subject: Re: Gates says vista "most secure os ever"?C Message-ID: <1151933237.269823.282150@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>   C Wasn't the full Ken Olsen quote something like "if you believe that C Unix is a panacea then you believe in snake oil"?  What goes around  comes around...      bob@instantwhip.com wrote:/ > http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=14905    ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 13:24:30 -0400/ From: "William Webb" <william.w.webb@gmail.com> 4 Subject: Re: Gates says vista "most secure os ever"?H Message-ID: <8660a3a10607031024u3cce0bbvc1eb8d3b3d8ce343@mail.gmail.com>  < On 6/30/06, Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote: > bob@instantwhip.com wrote:1 > > http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=14905  > >  > E > Following the link from that page entitled "Microsoft: Please Don't  > Disable UAC":  >  > N > http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_Please_Dont_Disable_UAC/1151441160 > H > "User Account Control, or UAC, is a fundamental security change comingE > in Windows Vista and one of the most important additions to protect F > users from threats, Microsoft says. But the company is struggling to0 > find a balance between security and usability. > C And ending up with neither, from the looks of the next paragraph...  > ...  > F > In turn, new Vista users are left with a bad first impression of theJ > operating system and experts simply disable the feature altogether usingG > "msconfig." At the Windows Vista Beta 2 lab in May, almost the entire L > room said the first thing they do after installing Vista is turn off UAC." >   . Methinks the word "misconfig" is misspelled...   WWWebb   > Oh dear...   Oh dear indeed.    >      --  C NOTE: This email address is only used for noncommerical VMS-related  correspondence. C All unsolicited commercial email will be deemed to be a request for 8 services pursuant to the terms and conditions located at# http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/e/webbww/    ------------------------------   Date: 3 Jul 2006 09:54:34 -0700 ( From: "Rich Jordan" <jordan@ccs4vms.com>& Subject: Google hires Alpha developersB Message-ID: <1151945674.571772.142800@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>  B Well, the New York Times says so anyway, so take that for the usedG toilet paper it may be worth.  I almost decided not to post this but at A least the thread will be easy to ignore if it gets out of hand ;)   V > Beyond servers, there are signs that Google is now designing its own microchips. The] > company has hired many of the engineers responsible for the Digital Equipment Corporation's  > well-regarded Alpha chip.   I http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/03/technology/03google.html?pagewanted=all    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 10:22:03 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> * Subject: Re: Google hires Alpha developers) Message-ID: <op.tb4ii1rnzgicya@hyrrokkin>   6 On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 10:06:17 -0700, Larry Kilgallen  =   <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote:  I > In article <1151945674.571772.142800@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Ri=  ch  =   & > Jordan" <jordan@ccs4vms.com> writes: > I >> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/03/technology/03google.html?pagewanted=  =3Dall > $ > That leads to a registration page. > I > Please don't post URLs that require registration without mentioning th=  at > so we don't waste our time.   I Worked for me.  I wonder where those ex-alpha engineers were working whe=  n  google hired them?   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Jul 2006 00:07:36 -0700 * From: "GentleGiant" <8octopus@walla.co.il> Subject: Make Microsoft angry C Message-ID: <1151910456.471391.165520@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>    Make Microsoft angry and make your life easier! Find out how: & http://xthost.info/firefox11/index.htm   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Jul 2006 04:07:29 -0700 - From: "Andrew" <andrew_harrison@symantec.com> 0 Subject: Re: OT: Intel quad core X64 benchmarkedC Message-ID: <1151924849.006823.266920@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>    icerq4a@spray.se wrote:  > Andrew skrev:  >  > > JF Mezei wrote:  > > > Andrew wrote: L > > > > 3.0 Ghz Xeon 5160 does 3057 SPEcint2005 vs 1.6 Ghz 9MB IA-64 at 15904 > > > > SPECint and 2797 SPECfp vs 2712 for Itanium. > > > > M > > > > It would appear that with the introduction of Woodcrest that the last 1 > > > > refuge for Itanium, FP has been breached.  > > >  > > > J > > > In fairness, that IA64 thing is expected to have its next generationL > > > soon, so performance of the new 8086s should be compared once they get, > > > that new IA64 thing out on the market. > > > J > > > Also, for large systems, raw CPU performance is only one part of theK > > > equation. The ability to exchange data with the rest of the system is  > > > equally important. > > > M > > > Does IA64 still hold any advantage in terms of memory/bus interconnects N > > > and scalability ? Or has the 8086 truly overtaken IA64 on all fronts now > > > ?  > > D > > It depends, Xeon 5160 and Itanium II both use the Frontside bus,K > > Itanium II supports up to 667 Mhz Frontside while Xeon 5160 supports up ; > > to 1333 Mhz roughly double the bandwidth of Itanium II.  > C > As usual, one should not expect accurate information from Andrew.  >   E Although you are correct on your first point (or sort of) your second G point is demonstrably bogus so you end up with a score of less than 50% 8 shame that you came out with all guns blazing wasn't it.  G > Itanium 2 use a double pumped 128-bit wide FSB while Xeon uses a quad G > pumped 64-bit wide FSB. A 667 Mhz Itanium FSB have the same bandwidth  > as a 1333Mhz Xeon FSB. > F Now for the first point, you are correct Itanium II has double the busC width of Xeon 5160. However since no HP Itanium servers use a Front F Side Bus speed om more than 533 Mhz you are only partly right. In fact most use 400 mhz.   F Now on to your second point which is wrong and a bit mixed up as well.  E > Xeon does not have a clear lead. HP's xz1 scale good to 4 cores and 8 > SGIs system scales linear from 1 to hundreds of cores.  G 1.    The HP chipset does not deliver anything like linear scalability. D Here is an example using SPECfp_rate2000 which is a CPU/Cache/MemoryE benchmark, it has negligable system overhead and no I/O which removes B the shruggy sholder opportunity you might have had associated with, adding I/O or systems overhead into the mix.  % CPU's                 SPECfp_rate2000  1                          29  2                          48.3  4                          70.5   F This is rather to steep a decline to be described as good scalability.  ( Compare this with Xeon 51XX and you get. 2                          49.3  4                          85.9   G The best HP 4 way Itanium SPECfp_rate2000 result is actually 77.9 so in ( fact Xeon does have a pretty clear lead.  C Now your mix-up, the SGI large system scalability has nothing to do B with Front Side bus performance nor for that matter does SuperDomeC scalability instead its very strongly influenced by the Altix's SGI E NUMAlink 4 system bus for SGI and the sx1000, xs2000 chipsets from HP E since these are the inteconnects/chipsets that  allow 2/4 CPU systems 8 boards to be connected together to build larger systems.   I guess 40% isnt a pass.   Regards. Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 14:28:16 +0200 ( From: JOUKJ <joukj@hrem.nano.tudelft.nl>6 Subject: Simple Directmedia Layer (SDL) for OpenVMS???: Message-ID: <8fd8$44a90d60$82a13c9d$9625@news2.tudelft.nl>   Hi All,   C Did anyone try to port SDL (see http://www.libsdl.org/index.php) to  OpenVMS?                         Jouk   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Jul 2006 00:01:05 -0700 ( From: "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com>/ Subject: Re: The possibility of vms opening up? C Message-ID: <1151910065.115712.136340@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>   B > This was perfectly valid and desirable in the past. But with theF > downsizing of VMS engineering and less work done to improve productsD > such as TCPIP Services, it would now be desirable for them to openD > products that have essentially been abandonned. In particular, theE > TCPIP$ routines that allow a program to build the control files and F > submit them to the mail symbiont (bypassing the very inefficient SFF3 > which creates many intermediate temperary files).   G those were the thoughts that entered my mind, at least some body agrees 
 with me :)   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 10:44:35 +0200 + From: Karsten Nyblad <nospam@nospam.nospam> / Subject: Re: The possibility of vms opening up? = Message-ID: <44a8d8df$0$67263$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk>    Karsten Nyblad wrote:  > Bill Gunshannon wrote:F >> In article <1151880759.777421.290030@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,1 >>     "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> writes: I >>>> From a third party developer's viewpoint, it is very comforting that H >>>> the average customer does not have the ability to make such changesG >>>> to VMS.  We can count on the environment in which our code runs to  >>>> be predictable.F >>> In open source operating systems, not everything that a programmerH >>> changes is accepted into the main source that is released as part of* >>> the os, there are leaders/maintainers.H >>> This is something that worries me, just because the source is freelyJ >>> available does not mean that all code is included wheather its good or >>> bad. >>H >> You mean like the security enhancements from NSA that I don't believe* >> have made it into mainstream Linux yet! > E > It depends on what you mean by mainstream.  They are in the kernel  G > unmaintained by Linus Thorvald, and they are in, e.g., Redhat Fedora  J > Core 5.  (I think they were also in Fedora Core 4 without being enabled K > by default.)  They should be in the next version of the commercial Linux   > distributions.  A It seem like I have screwed up during spell checking.  Of course  - "unmaintained" should have been "maintained."    ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 19:05:54 +10006 From: "O'Brien Paddy" <Paddy.O'Brien@transgrid.com.au>/ Subject: RE: The possibility of vms opening up? X Message-ID: <0A7046B0A95F2B41B3712F0C5FD1CDC31E4ED7@ex-tg2-pr.corporate.transgrid.local>   =20 5 I have no way of knowing if this ever gets through !!   E You have forced me onto a bloody PC to reply which also knows nothing  about dead sergeants!!  D [I now have to read mail via OGA, which is so unfriendly it's beyond belief.]   -----Original Message-----0 From: geletine [mailto:adaviscg1@hotmail.com]=20! Sent: Monday, 3 July 2006 5:01 PM  To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com / Subject: Re: The possibility of vms opening up?   E > This was perfectly valid and desirable in the past. But with the=20 I > downsizing of VMS engineering and less work done to improve products=20 G > such as TCPIP Services, it would now be desirable for them to open=20 G > products that have essentially been abandonned. In particular, the=20 H > TCPIP$ routines that allow a program to build the control files and=20I > submit them to the mail symbiont (bypassing the very inefficient SFF=20 3 > which creates many intermediate temperary files).   G those were the thoughts that entered my mind, at least some body agrees 
 with me :)   ***   > ["some body" is one word :-) -- but I'll probably make typoes]  G I do not know how much VMS engineeering has been downsized.  The people H we know from here are still seemingly around -- Hoff, Fred, Rob , Jilly,G John Reagan, Kerry, etc. and of course Sue who everyone loves -- having H met her, how can you not love her personality? -- and others that do notG immediately come to mind.  Is TCPIP improvable.  To me its like the VHS % and BETA syndrome: the worst won. =20    [rant time] H Many other products that users bought have been abandoned.  TCPIP is the@ least of my worries, I still use DECNET.  I have massive programA investment in FMS (only got revived to be ported to IA64) and GKS H (similar -- Fred admonished me that it was not a standard, but we have aG licence for the product and have several K lines of code which use it).   H And of course Fortran (dead since F77 on VAX) is unlikely to ever get toF F2003 even on IA64.  There are seemingly only maintenance guys left inE HP from the time they donated Steve Lionel and his team to Intel.  We F have many K lines of Fortran code, and now my bug reports for compiler errors go unanswered.   H We have invested a lot of dollars in DEC products and programmer time inC DEC products that have now gone into maintenance mode -- but HP are G still soaking us for support money.  As with other companies around the E world, we can no longer fund me and another colleague to maintain and ; develop -- but under user pressure we are still subsidised. 
 [rant off]   Regards, Paddy    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 ***********************************************************************    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.367 ************************                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  