1 INFO-VAX	Tue, 04 Jul 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 368       Contents: Re: Alpha remembrance day # Re: Console assigned to system user # Re: Console assigned to system user ! Re: Google hires Alpha developers ! Re: Google hires Alpha developers ! Re: Google hires Alpha developers ! Re: Google hires Alpha developers ! Re: Google hires Alpha developers ! Re: Google hires Alpha developers  help me please' Re: OT: Intel quad core X64 benchmarked 1 Re: 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: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 16:23:20 -0400 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>" Subject: Re: Alpha remembrance dayG Message-ID: <cq6dnTogw-4k4TTZnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com>    etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk wrote: F > Likewise Bill, the fact that you've been around for a while gives no > excuse for your rudeness.   G Correct:  it's persistent incompetence by those who should know better   that justifies the rudeness.  % >  you have one view, I have another.   G Some people believe men never landed on the moon, too.  I accord their  G 'view' a similar level of respect:  not all 'views' are created equal,  H though people with a sufficiently fuzzy understanding of both logic and 0 democracy often seem to get confused about that.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 13:51:37 -0500 6 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.no@spam.comcast.net>, Subject: Re: Console assigned to system user0 Message-ID: <44A96739.CBE63FC8@spam.comcast.net>   malanalan1@yahoo.com wrote:  > F > > OK. This is probably ALF. (no, not a cartoon character). It is the > > Automatic Login Facility.  > > < > > If you have an old version of VMS: @SYS$MANAGER:ALFMAINT > >  > > For recent versions: > > $MC SYSMAN > > SYSMAN> ALF SHOW > > " > > and then ALF REMOVE <terminal> > > . > > SYSMAN> HELP ALF give you more information > H > Thanks, that solved my problem.  I don't remember how I ever got thereE > in the first place. Since your memory serves you better than mine I D > have another question. I used to use a VMS utility/command to viewI > devices or haradware configuration (not sh dev command). Would you know  > what that might have been,   Perhaps:   $ ANAL/SYST   " OpenVMS (TM) Alpha system analyzer   SDA> CLUE CONFIG   --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  & Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page! http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/   ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/   ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Jul 2006 20:40:22 -0700  From: malanalan1@yahoo.com, Subject: Re: Console assigned to system userC Message-ID: <1151984422.346724.179590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>    David J. Dachtera wrote:  0 > > > SYSMAN> HELP ALF give you more information > > J > > Thanks, that solved my problem.  I don't remember how I ever got thereG > > in the first place. Since your memory serves you better than mine I F > > have another question. I used to use a VMS utility/command to viewK > > devices or haradware configuration (not sh dev command). Would you know  > > what that might have been, > 
 > Perhaps: > 
 > $ ANAL/SYST  > $ > OpenVMS (TM) Alpha system analyzer >  > SDA> CLUE CONFIG >  > -- > David J Dachtera > dba DJE Systems  > http://www.djesys.com/ > ( > Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page# > http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/  > * > Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:! > http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/  > $ > Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:! > http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/  > + > Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: $ > http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/       Thanks, = I am glad you have stopped by. That's what I was looking for.  That's what I was looking for.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 14:12:54 -0500 6 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.no@spam.comcast.net>* Subject: Re: Google hires Alpha developers0 Message-ID: <44A96C36.4775EE78@spam.comcast.net>   Larry Kilgallen wrote: > o > In article <1151945674.571772.142800@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Rich Jordan" <jordan@ccs4vms.com> writes:  > M > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/03/technology/03google.html?pagewanted=all  > $ > That leads to a registration page. > J > Please don't post URLs that require registration without mentioning that > so we don't waste our time.   * Came up o.k. for me in Interhose Exploder.  F If there are any entrepreneurial types left at HP, maybe they would doF well to approach Google about licensing Alpha technology to them. ThatG might help maintain enough production volume to keep HP/Alpha customers C comfortable so the move to I64 - if ever - can be based more on the 4 customer's needs than the vendor's desires/dictates.   --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  & Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page! http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/   ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/   ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Jul 2006 12:52:22 -0700 ( From: "Rich Jordan" <jordan@ccs4vms.com>* Subject: Re: Google hires Alpha developersC Message-ID: <1151956342.060068.162790@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>    Larry Kilgallen wrote:o > In article <1151945674.571772.142800@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Rich Jordan" <jordan@ccs4vms.com> writes:  > M > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/03/technology/03google.html?pagewanted=all  > $ > That leads to a registration page. > J > Please don't post URLs that require registration without mentioning that > so we don't waste our time.    Larry,G      apologies, it worked for me when I clicked on it from Slashdot; no  registration page came up.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 22:09:49 +0200 / From: Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> * Subject: Re: Google hires Alpha developers; Message-ID: <db29a$44a9798d$50db5015$23293@news.hispeed.ch>    Rich Jordan wrote: > Larry,I >      apologies, it worked for me when I clicked on it from Slashdot; no  > registration page came up. >   C You may find that sometime in the past you registered for the site. 4 I _know_ that I registered at some time in the past.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 20:16:10 -0400/ From: "Heywood Floyd" <heywood.floyd@yohoo.com> * Subject: Re: Google hires Alpha developers; Message-ID: <44a9b2c4$0$4147$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>   : A Search Engine That's Becoming an Inventor (July 3, 2006) http://www.NYTimes.com    By SAUL HANSELL and JOHN MARKOFFJ When Google was a graduate-school project being run from a Silicon Valley L garage, its founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, built their own computers L out of cheap parts meant for personal computers. They wanted to save money, G and they felt that they could design a network of computers that would  F search the Web more efficiently than those available from traditional  manufacturers.  M Google no longer needs to pinch pennies. It is a solid member of the Fortune  E 500 with $9 billion in cash. Still, it is stubbornly sticking to its  H do-it-yourself approach to technology. Even as it spends more than $1.5 M billion this year on operations centers and technology, most of the hundreds  F of thousands of servers it will deploy are being custom-made based on  Google's own eccentric designs.   D To be closer to its users and speed response time, it is building a M worldwide string of data centers, including a huge site in The Dalles, Ore.,  K with technologies it designed to reduce its ravenous need for electricity.  H These computers in turn use software developed with advanced tools that K Google also designed itself. There are signs that Google is even preparing  $ to create its own custom microchips.  K "Google is as much about infrastructure as it is about the search engine,"  L said Martin Reynolds, an analyst with the Gartner Group. "They are building K an enormous computing resource on a scale that is almost unimaginable." He  E said he believed that Google was the world's fourth-largest maker of  8 computer servers, after Dell, Hewlett-Packard and I.B.M.  L Google's biggest rivals, Microsoft and Yahoo, certainly write much of their M own software, and they work to configure their computers and data centers to  J their own needs. But they largely buy machines from existing manufactures 1 like Dell, Sun Microsystems and Rackable Systems.   J "At some point you have to ask yourself what is your core business," said H Kevin Timmons, Yahoo's vice president for operations. "Are you going to K design your own router, or are you going to build the world's most popular  + Web site? It is very difficult to do both."   M Google, in fact, has decided it will do both. In many ways, it still has the  K head of a graduate-school project grafted onto the body of a multinational  L corporation. The central tenet of its strategy is that its growing cadre of J world-class computer scientists can design a network of machines that can E store and process more information more efficiently than anyone else.   M Mr. Reynolds estimated that Google's computing costs are half those of other  D large Internet companies and a tenth those of traditional corporate  technology users.   J Google will not comment on its costs, but it does claim an advantage. "We M don't think our competitors can deploy systems cheaper, faster or at scale,"  L Alan Eustace, Google's vice president for research and systems engineering, K told analysts in March. "That will give us a two-, three-, five-year lead."   E Despite those boasts, some argue that Google's home-brew approach is  K unnecessary and inefficient, a headstrong indulgence masked for now by the  J growth and profitability of its advertising business. And Google's rivals 5 say their networks are plenty efficient and powerful.   E "Google doesn't have anything magic here," Bill Gates, the Microsoft  M chairman, said in an interview. "We spend a little bit more per machine. But  - to do the same tasks, we have less machines."   F Google is notoriously secretive about its technology. Yet it also has I published papers on some of its developments and been granted patents on  I others. These, along with the public statements of Google executives and  K interviews with current and former employees, vendors and other technology  K executives, paint a picture of a company devoted to pushing the boundaries  H of modern computer science, and applying those concepts on a vast scale.  J "Google took the best ideas from the supercomputer research community and G wove them into a working system," said Stephen E. Arnold, a technology  L consultant to investors and the author of "The Google Legacy" (Infonortics, % 2005), a book on Google's technology.   G Some of its innovations are designed to wring pennies from its growing  K spending on technology. Last year, it was granted a patent (06906920) on a  J "drive-cooling baffle," meant to funnel air into a rack of computers held 0 together with Velcro, a Google design signature.  F But some innovations are bolder, like a series of software tools that G simplify the way it can divide a problem to be handled by thousands of  B processors simultaneously, an approach called parallel processing.  L One such program, called MapReduce, is based on ideas discussed in computer I science literature for decades, according to Urs Hlzle, Google's senior  K vice president for operations. "What surprised us was how useful it turned  ' out to be in our environment," he said.   I MapReduce, he said, "allows Joe Schmo software engineer to process large  : amounts of data and take advantage of our infrastructure."  H Mr. Arnold, the consultant, said these tools created a significant cost I advantage. "If you talk to guys who work in massively parallel computing  J operations, as much as 30 percent of their coding time is spent trying to J figure out how to get the thing to run," he said. Google "has figured out F how they can reduce a lot of the hassle and work of creating parallel  applications."  K Mr. Gates acknowledged that MapReduce was a significant technology, but he  K asserted that Microsoft was building its own parallel processing software,  I opening another front in the technological war between the two companies.   I "They did MapReduce; we have this thing called Dryad that's better," Mr.  / Gates said. "But they'll do one that's better."   J Moreover, Google's focus on building general purpose tools and systems is I different from that of most companies, which develop systems tailored to  J specific applications. And it is building these systems rapidly, with the K billions of dollars in cash it generates and the thousands of engineers it  I hires each year. It hopes that it can build a lead that will allow it to  > create products that do more, for less money, than its rivals.  L "If they can get a 30 percent cost advantage, in operating a service on the D Internet that is a huge difference," said John M. Lervik, the chief @ executive of Fast Search & Transfer, a Norwegian search company.  L Google's academic approach can be traced not only to its founders' graduate H work in computer science, but even to their early home life, Mr. Arnold D said, noting that Mr. Page and Mr. Brin had come from families with . expertise in computer science and mathematics.  J "The stuff they did in 1996 to 1998 was not as immature as it should have I been," he said of the Google founders. He said that told him the two men  E learned a lot "when their parents were talking at the kitchen table."   M By the time Mr. Page and Mr. Brin were designing Google, parallel processing  L was more than an academic dream; it was enabled on a large scale by the low C prices of processors, memory and disk drives used to make personal  L computers. These components were hardly of the highest quality and could be  counted on to fail often.   M Mr. Page designed the initial Google servers, with the assumption that parts  L would fail on a regular basis. At first he tried to simplify assembly - and M reduce the presumed repair time - by not fastening components to the servers  L at all but simply laying them on a bed of cork. This proved to be unstable, ( and so parts were connected with Velcro.  L "Nobody builds servers as unreliably as we do," Mr. Hlzle said in a speech L last year at CERN, the Swiss particle physics institute. Google is reducing I cost while maintaining performance by shifting the burden of reliability  I from hardware to software - individual hardware components can fail, but  L software automatically shifts the local task and the data to other machines.  H For example, Google designed a software system it calls the Google File K System that keeps copies of data in several places so Google does not have  L to worry when one of its cheap servers fails. This approach also means that D it does not have to make regular backup copies of its data as other 
 companies do.   K Another system, called the Google Work Queue, allows a big pool of servers  K to be assigned to various tasks as needed and reassigned to other projects  M later. This concept, called "virtualization," has become a trend among large  G data center operators, which also want to reduce the expense of having  M separate servers dedicated to each system. But most companies buy commercial  D software to track which computers are doing what, a complex process.  K While Google's servers are built on inexpensive parts, the designs it uses  E have been modified every year or so, to improve their efficiency and  E increasingly to customize them to Google's applications. The current  M generation uses the powerful Opteron chip from Advanced Micro Devices, which  5 uses less power than the Intel chips Google had used.   L Google is among Advanced Micro's five largest clients, and the largest that I does not make computers to resell, according to a semiconductor industry  6 executive with knowledge of Advanced Micro's business.  J Google is increasingly doing business with Sun Microsystems as well. Sun, I known for systems that are both reliable and expensive, would not seem a  J natural match for a company that emphasizes economy and self-sufficiency. J But Eric E. Schmidt, Google's chief executive, is a former Sun executive, F and Sun has developed a new microchip that is especially efficient in  electricity use.  I Moreover, Google increasingly needs systems that are less likely to fail  F than those it uses for its search engine in order to handle important I information, like e-mail and payments in its new Google Checkout service.   E Beyond servers, there are signs that Google is now designing its own  L microchips. The company has hired many of the engineers responsible for the 9 Digital Equipment Corporation's well-regarded Alpha chip.   E "Google's next step is to build high-performance silicon," said Mark  , Stahlman, an independent technology analyst.  J Mr. Hlzle said Google had considered custom semiconductor design, but he H declined to say if the company had built any. He said that, in general, M Google did not want to build anything from scratch if it could buy something   that was just as good.  M But he added that Google continued to believe that its approach to designing  9 its own cheap and fast computer networks gave it an edge.   G "Having lots of relatively unreliable machines and turning them into a  L reliable service is a hard problem," Mr. Hlzle said. "That is what we have  been doing for a while."   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 18:47:01 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> * Subject: Re: Google hires Alpha developers) Message-ID: <op.tb45wnmfzgicya@hyrrokkin>   / On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 18:41:48 -0700, JF Mezei  =   % <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:   	 >> > >  =   I >> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/03/technology/03google.html?pagewanted=  =3Dall >> >' >> > That leads to a registration page.  > I > If you have registered at one point, they tend to remember you for a f=  ewI > years. I found it that I hadn't "logged in" to NYT in enough time that=   I > they zapped my account, and I was able to rebuild it. Once it is done,=   G > you have a cookie that identifies you as a subscriber and those links  > then work fine.  >  > D > In terms of the article itself, I found it very interesting. Seems? > Google wants to be competitive by building better things than I > competitors, and that includes building better PCs that better fit the=  irI > large scale environment. The other guys buy off the shelf systems that=   % > give them no edge over competitors.   + I thought Google was largely running Linux.    > I > My guess is that those alpha engineers would be workling on chipsets a=  ndD > not CPU chips. But it would be really neat to see Google resurrectI > Alpha. And imagine/dream if Google started to use VMS clusters :-) :-)=    > :-) ;-) :-) :-)    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 21:41:48 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> * Subject: Re: Google hires Alpha developers, Message-ID: <44A9C754.E74EFDD7@teksavvy.com>  O > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/03/technology/03google.html?pagewanted=all  > > & > > That leads to a registration page.  H If you have registered at one point, they tend to remember you for a fewF years. I found it that I hadn't "logged in" to NYT in enough time thatF they zapped my account, and I was able to rebuild it. Once it is done,E you have a cookie that identifies you as a subscriber and those links  then work fine.     B In terms of the article itself, I found it very interesting. Seems= Google wants to be competitive by building better things than H competitors, and that includes building better PCs that better fit theirF large scale environment. The other guys buy off the shelf systems that# give them no edge over competitors.   H My guess is that those alpha engineers would be workling on chipsets andB not CPU chips. But it would be really neat to see Google resurrectF Alpha. And imagine/dream if Google started to use VMS clusters :-) :-) :-) ;-) :-) :-)    ------------------------------   Date: 3 Jul 2006 11:07:31 -0700 , From: "sppermoi" <johanne_baker@hotmail.com> Subject: help me please C Message-ID: <1151950051.922277.129850@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>    hi!   :      i have a problem. i dont understand... help me please  3 http://www.animals-superstars.com/photo-109260.html    tank you  	 patate069    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 16:18:43 -0400 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>0 Subject: Re: OT: Intel quad core X64 benchmarkedG Message-ID: <4fydnRNbOOM55jTZnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com>   
 Andrew wrote:  > icerq4a@spray.se wrote:  >> Andrew skrev: >> >>> JF Mezei wrote:  >>>> Andrew wrote:J >>>>> 3.0 Ghz Xeon 5160 does 3057 SPEcint2005 vs 1.6 Ghz 9MB IA-64 at 15902 >>>>> SPECint and 2797 SPECfp vs 2712 for Itanium. >>>>> K >>>>> It would appear that with the introduction of Woodcrest that the last / >>>>> refuge for Itanium, FP has been breached.  >>>>I >>>> In fairness, that IA64 thing is expected to have its next generation K >>>> soon, so performance of the new 8086s should be compared once they get + >>>> that new IA64 thing out on the market.  >>>>I >>>> Also, for large systems, raw CPU performance is only one part of the J >>>> equation. The ability to exchange data with the rest of the system is >>>> equally important.  >>>>L >>>> Does IA64 still hold any advantage in terms of memory/bus interconnectsM >>>> 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. D >> As usual, one should not expect accurate information from Andrew. >> > ; > Although you are correct on your first point (or sort of)   $ No, Andrew - he was correct, period.  
   your second  > point is demonstrably bogus    Strike two, I'm afraid.   -   so you end up with a score of less than 50% : > shame that you came out with all guns blazing wasn't it.  D Not at all:   he was right, you are not, no bad marksmanship on his E part.  Since you seem somewhat confused in this matter, I'll explain  B below, with luck simply enough for you to understand it this time.   > H >> Itanium 2 use a double pumped 128-bit wide FSB while Xeon uses a quadH >> pumped 64-bit wide FSB. A 667 Mhz Itanium FSB have the same bandwidth >> as a 1333Mhz Xeon FSB.  >>H > Now for the first point, you are correct Itanium II has double the busE > width of Xeon 5160. However since no HP Itanium servers use a Front @ > Side Bus speed om more than 533 Mhz you are only partly right.  A The statement to which he was responding (which you conveniently   snipped) was  I "Itanium II supports up to 667 Mhz Frontside while Xeon 5160 supports up  8 to 1333 Mhz roughly double the bandwidth of Itanium II."  F *You* were the one who (correctly) stated that Itanium FSBs run up to F 667 MHz (with no qualification about HP chipsets, you will note), and E who then drew the absolutely incorrect conclusion that this meant it  H suffered about a 2:1 bandwidth deficit with respect to the new Xeon FSB.   *His* response to that drivel   G "Itanium 2 use a double pumped 128-bit wide FSB while Xeon uses a quad  I pumped 64-bit wide FSB. A 667 Mhz Itanium FSB have the same bandwidth as   a 1333Mhz Xeon FSB."  E also made no reference to HP products but only to your misstatements  I regarding the bandwidth of the busses which *you* had described, and was  $ in fact 100% correct, not 'sort of'.  	   In fact  > most use 400 mhz.  > H > Now on to your second point which is wrong and a bit mixed up as well. > F >> Xeon does not have a clear lead. HP's xz1 scale good to 4 cores and9 >> SGIs system scales linear from 1 to hundreds of cores.  > I > 1.    The HP chipset does not deliver anything like linear scalability.   G Neither, of course, does the Xeon chipset - as you yourself note below.   F > Here is an example using SPECfp_rate2000 which is a CPU/Cache/MemoryG > benchmark, it has negligable system overhead and no I/O which removes D > 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  > H > 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   H This, also, is too steep a decline to be described as good scalability, F I'm afraid, since linear scaling would yield 98.6 at 4 cores - nearly  15% higher.    > I > The best HP 4 way Itanium SPECfp_rate2000 result is actually 77.9 so in * > fact Xeon does have a pretty clear lead.  G Well, if you consider that 10% lead to be a 'clear' lead, then I guess  B you must consider the 15% discrepancy noted above to be 'clearly' ' deficient in 'good scalability', right?   E Of course, you're comparing a just-released Xeon product to a rather  I long-in-the-tooth Itanic product tested in 2004:  comparing to Montecito  C would be a lot more appropriate, and there's some reason to expect  E Montecito to post improved results even with no changes in bus speed  F (let alone with an increase to 533 MHz in a dual-socket configuration I comparable to the top-of-the-line Woodcrest that you're quoting - by the  I way, your phrase "small 1-4 Module systems" suggests that you may not be  ; aware that Woodcrest supports only single- and dual-socket  I configurations, not 4-socket boxes like the zx1 chipset does and the zx2  4 chipset will:  you *do* know about zx2, don't you?).   > E > Now your mix-up, the SGI large system scalability has nothing to do ! > with Front Side bus performance   G But it *does* have something to do with competitive SPECfp_rate scores  E in the *small* configurations you were citing:  his observation that  G this excellent performance scales linearly on up from there was simply   icing on the cake.  G You do know that a 4-core SGI Itanic system scores 104 in SPECfp_rate,  G don't you?  Rather significantly higher than the Woodcrest system that   you're touting...   A In sum, when you're being picky about someone else's comments it  E behooves you to be scrupulously correct as well if you want to avoid  E looking incompetent.  I may not have much use for Itanic, but I have  , even less for incompetence, so there you go.   Better luck next time,   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 07:46:01 +0800 ) From: Tim Sneddon <tesneddon@bigpond.com> : Subject: Re: Simple Directmedia Layer (SDL) for OpenVMS???8 Message-ID: <44a99ecf$0$9899$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>   JOUKJ wrote:	 > Hi All,  > E > Did anyone try to port SDL (see http://www.libsdl.org/index.php) to 
 > OpenVMS?  B Yes. It was done by Alexey Chupahin. However, it would appear that? the download link at his site is not working. You can check out  his libSDL site at:   8      http://fafner.dyndns.org/~alexey/libsdl/public.html  @ He offers kits for the following add-on packages also SDL_Image, SDL_TTF and SDL_NET.  A There is an email address there, so you could drop him a line and  ask if the link will be fixed.  
 Regards, Tim.    --  = Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 13:56:28 -0500 6 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.no@spam.comcast.net>/ Subject: Re: The possibility of vms opening up? 0 Message-ID: <44A9685C.C6DC35EA@spam.comcast.net>   geletine wrote:  >  > hello,) >  this is my second post to this forum.. G > >From an academic perspective, i think vms would greatly benifit from E > the source being available, from being the obscure os that it is to  > perhaps a wider audience ? > E > Is there a worrying factor that when the source becomes available , I > security vunerabilities will come out the closet, or the code is not so > > well documented for anyone but the core vms developers, will
 > understand.  > , > I opologise if this has been asked before. > 
 > thanks..  E One great obstacle to open-sourcing VMS is software that was licensed F from other parties where obtaining release rights/permission now would+ be prohibitive in terms of effort and cost.   H Another large obstacle is security. Some sites currently using VMS wouldD be rather put off by the idea of having such things become "commonly available".    --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  & Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page! http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/   ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/   ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Jul 2006 16:09:52 -0700 ( From: "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com>/ Subject: Re: The possibility of vms opening up? C Message-ID: <1151968192.820983.169180@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    David J. Dachtera wrote: snip... J > Another large obstacle is security. Some sites currently using VMS wouldF > be rather put off by the idea of having such things become "commonly
 > available".  > 5 Are you indicating that vms is security by obscurity?    ------------------------------   Date: 3 Jul 2006 23:30:05 -0500 - From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) / Subject: Re: The possibility of vms opening up? 3 Message-ID: <3VUlDNXdFiSO@eisner.encompasserve.org>   n In article <1151968192.820983.169180@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> writes: >  > David J. Dachtera wrote:	 > snip... K >> Another large obstacle is security. Some sites currently using VMS would G >> be rather put off by the idea of having such things become "commonly  >> available". >>  7 > Are you indicating that vms is security by obscurity?   H What you quoted merely indicates that some VMS customers think that way.& It is not good to annoy the customers.   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.368 ************************                                                                                                                                                                                  disk$misc/decus/info-vax./	 <<< PWDe; >>> 257 "/disk$misc/decus/info-vax" is current directory.9 <<< REST 650937 >>> 500 I never heard of the REST command.  Try HELP.T <<< CWD /info-vaxe1 >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/info-vax.W	 <<< PWD; >>> 257 "/disk$misc/decus/info-vax" is current directory.W <<< REST 650937 >>> 500 I never heard of the REST command.  Try HELP.TL FTP SERVER: Network Read: %MULTINET-F-ECONNRESET, Connection reset by peer:   ANONYMOUS    job terminated at  1-JUL-2006 21:29:35.75<<< PWDe; >>> 257 "/disk$misc/decus/info-vax" is current directory.9 <<< REST 650937 >>> 500 I never heard of the REST command.  Try HELP.T <<< CWD /info-vaxe1 >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/info-vax.W	 <<< PWD; >>> 257 "/disk$misc/decus/info-vax" is current directory.W <<< REST 650937 >>> 500 I never heard of the REST command.  Try HELP.TL FTP SERVER: Network Read: %MULTINET-F-ECONNRESET, Connection reset by peer:   ANONYMOUS    job terminated y-#a=6o=.jfbS<ͻPa	%[d~T'@?)nBw|>XKQ|H:6>Iϑα4
k]\ٮ_E 2v8ljn۸r/DPP͸hMܯtW/~ܲk;%NDT_DL}ܻ|LHӯByEdt2~3A..V,ID$LcjjA+ήTnb/Q7O3[EfV􀭕9]Ky+jK7ZHgzz:Noћ'ZP-; }>wMdI{~Ec	p&6.؁Hh3 VE&g,6Lﭪ{mYiFSlw߾z:Ur}]:@@߀;rc	&	M1pU)xr{F#s@ EQz5ǙaLˬcl sz{գi{m:C?