1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 11 Jun 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 323       Contents:' Re: Cost of used alphas vs 8086+charron ' Re: Cost of used alphas vs 8086+charron - DECwindows server: why the change of username P More cogent argument from COV (Was Re: So how representative is this experience  Re: Results of my straw poll.   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 11:30:32 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> 0 Subject: Re: Cost of used alphas vs 8086+charron9 Message-ID: <EOydneU_co2eqxHZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@libcom.com>    Wilm Boerhout wrote:) > Dave Froble wrote on 10-6-2006 19:31...  > 1 >> The slowest Alpha is much faster than an 8086!  >>% >> You're both being subverted by JF.  >>1 >> Perhaps you wish to discuss x86-64, or AMD-64?  >  > ???  > I > We're discussing CHARON-VAX on Intel vs. CHARON-VAX on Alpha, starting  E > from JF's question about CHARON-AXP on 8086. Are you still with us?  >  > /Wilm   F Has Charon-VAX ever run on an 8086?  I doubt it.  First you'd have to  find an 8086 still being used.   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com DFE Ultralights, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 17:31:00 +0200 3 From: Wilm Boerhout <w5OLD.boerhout@PAINTplanet.nl> 0 Subject: Re: Cost of used alphas vs 8086+charron5 Message-ID: <448c3734$0$8409$ba620dc5@nova.planet.nl>   ' Dave Froble wrote on 11-6-2006 17:30...  > Wilm Boerhout wrote:* >> Dave Froble wrote on 10-6-2006 19:31... >>2 >>> The slowest Alpha is much faster than an 8086! >>> & >>> You're both being subverted by JF. >>> 2 >>> Perhaps you wish to discuss x86-64, or AMD-64? >> >> ??? >>J >> We're discussing CHARON-VAX on Intel vs. CHARON-VAX on Alpha, starting F >> from JF's question about CHARON-AXP on 8086. Are you still with us? >> >> /Wilm > H > Has Charon-VAX ever run on an 8086?  I doubt it.  First you'd have to   > find an 8086 still being used.  I C'mon Dave, read up on your threads. I use "8086" (in quotes) the way JF  G   did/does. CHARON-VAX runs on modern Intel and (better still) on AMD,  H as well as on Alpha. CHARON-AXP runs on Intel (64 bits) and AMD (ditto,  also preferred).   /Wilm    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 03:07:09 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 6 Subject: DECwindows server: why the change of username, Message-ID: <448BC100.8117D0C7@teksavvy.com>  E When a workstation boots, the decwindows X server is started and runs  under the system account.   E What is the rationale behind switching the Decwidnows server UIC to a  user when that user logs in ?   ? What is it that the server itself needs from a specific user ?    H I can understand the decwidnows session (obvious) and the window managerD (which picks up user configs), but does the server really change its/ behaviour depending on which use is logged in ?   F I it correct to allow any user to define their own "who can connect toA this server" policies, shoudln't that be restricted to the system 	 manager ?    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 16:48:56 +0800 3 From: "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> Y Subject: More cogent argument from COV (Was Re: So how representative is this experience  1 Message-ID: <e6glal$rp8$1@news-02.connect.com.au>    Hi Bill,  * "Bill Gunshannon" <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote& > On what do you base this little gem?  H That gem stems from the fact that not only am I very, very beautiful butL also an absolute delight to be around. (I'm also thinking of writing anotherH book as I've often felt there was a requirement for a 5th Gospel.) OtherF than that I'm afraid I'm not at liberty (in this forum) to discuss the matter further.    Regards Richard Maher   5 "Bill Gunshannon" <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message & news:4dv56lF1cf9h1U1@individual.net...3 > In article <e5d9jn$19o$1@news-02.connect.com.au>, 7 > "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> writes:  > > Hi,  > >  > >> and the: > >> problems caused by compilers optimisations were vast. > > 4 > > Any more details on this? To help other porters. > > H > > Let me guess, VMS Engineering's (or the public face of) response was "Oooh,H > > I wouldn't have done it that way" or "If I was trying to get there IA > > certainly wouldn't start from here" or "During the war. . .".  > > B > >> As a result they decided it would be easier and less risky to* > >> re-impliment from scratch on Windows. > > B > > Is this not really just someone's political agend to seize the opportunity K > > to change architecture? That is, Windows would look better on their CV,  VMS G > > is perceived as legacy, yadda, yadda, yadda (Same stuff for last 15  years  > >:-) > J > Didfn't sound like it.  They tried moving to Itanium and it didn't work. >  > > L > > I'm sure if the right people in HP new of the specific problems then the1 > > FACTS could make it harder to justify a move.  > >  > >> less risky  > > K > > Yep re-implementing from stratch is a walk in the park! How risky could  thatJ > > be? (Good news is they'll never fully replace the functionality of the old 
 > > system > & > On what do you base this little gem? > ? > >        and will end up having to upgrade to itanium anyway.  > K > And how do you dras this conclusion?  They moved to Windows which doesn't $ > now and never will run in Itanium. >  > bill >  > --  L > Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesF > bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > University of Scranton   |@ > Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 10:26:30 +0200 ( From: Michael Kraemer <M.Kraemer@gsi.de>& Subject: Re: Results of my straw poll./ Message-ID: <e6gk31$rlt$00$1@news.t-online.com>    Richard B. Gilbert schrieb:  > Michael Kraemer wrote:= >> "Traditionaly, VMS was famous for compatibility. It is our = >> experience that this is no longer true. We find that every < >> new release of anything (e.g. Fortran compiler, C, socket< >> libraries, VMS itself) breaks something. We spend alot ofC >> time coping with this and it is getting increasingly difficult."  >> (as of Oct-1994). > K > I find the above a little puzzling.  It has been my experience over many  E > years that applications that stick to the documented and supported  F > interfaces work without problems on newer versions of VMS.  Can you H > provide examples of things that broke while using only the documented  > and supported interfaces?  >   H The above sentences reflect the overal practical experience of said 3rd  party A software developer. Hence I don't have details, but I have little = reason to doubt what he said, he's a knowledgeable person and  usually OS agnostic, AFAIK. H  From my own experience I recall headaches that the socket library once H gave me, it couldn't handle blocks >64k (or was it 32k?) transparently,  and it took F me quite some time to find out, since it was a very unusual behaviour,& compared with other OSes of that time.E Another glitch of that time frame I remotely recall was a mail system F breakdown after some VMS upgrade, it took several days until that was  fixed, IIRC.A However, all that happened well over a decade ago, so there might : have been more of such stuff, but it's all history anyway.   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.323 ************************