1 INFO-VAX	Tue, 09 May 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 257       Contents:' Re: Compatibility Not Without Its Costs ' Re: Compatibility Not Without Its Costs P Re: H P To Launch Multi Million Dollar Ad Campaign For The PC [WAS Re: OT: IntelP Have I Gone completely MAD? (Was: Re: This post will self-destruct in 10secs (WaP Re: Have I Gone completely MAD? (Was: Re: This post will self-destruct in 10secs+ Re: IMCB$V_PARENT_PROT What is it good for? 9 Re: Looking for power supply/supplies for DS20e in Europe - Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086s - Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086s - Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086s - Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086s - Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086s - Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086s - Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086s - Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086s  Re: Poster defective!  Re: SGI files for chapter 11 Re: SGI files for chapter 11 Re: SGI files for chapter 11 Re: SGI files for chapter 11 Re: SGI files for chapter 11 Re: SGI files for chapter 11 Re: SGI files for chapter 11 Re: SGI files for chapter 11 Re: SGI files for chapter 11 Re: SGI files for chapter 11 Re: SGI files for chapter 11 Re: SGI files for chapter 11- Re: TAB character in DCL command-line editing - Re: TAB character in DCL command-line editing  Re: TCPIP 5.4 anti-spam  Re: TCPIP 5.4 anti-spam  Re: TCPIP 5.4 anti-spam  Re: TCPIP 5.4 anti-spam  Re: TCPIP 5.4 anti-spam  Re: TCPIP 5.4 anti-spam  Re: TCPIP 5.4 anti-spam  Re: TCPIP 5.4 anti-spam  Re: TCPIP 5.4 anti-spam  Re: TCPIP 5.4 anti-spam  Re: TCPIP 5.4 anti-spam M Re: This post will self-destruct in 10secs (Was Re: X windows  vulnerability) P RE: This post will self-destruct in 10secs (Was Re: X windows  vulnerability)  vP Re: This post will self-destruct in 10secs (Was Re: X windows  vulnerability)  vP Re: This post will self-destruct in 10secs (Was Re: X windows  vulnerability)  vL Re: This post will self-destruct in 10secs (Was Re: X windows vulnerability)L Re: This post will self-destruct in 10secs (Was Re: X windows vulnerability)# Re: Updated VMS information May 7th  Re: X windows vulnerability  Re: X windows vulnerability   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------   Date: 9 May 2006 07:57:28 -0700 1 From: nothome@spammers.are.scum (Malcolm Dunnett) 0 Subject: Re: Compatibility Not Without Its Costs, Message-ID: <+1EVzgWW5lgq@malvm9.mala.bc.ca>  : In article <GLqdnZO_jLhEv_3ZnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@libcom.com>, ,    Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: > E > I wonder how many PC devices from 1990 would still be supported on   > windows today?  @    One data point: We had some Windows NT servers with Mylex DACD 960 raid controllers in them. Tried to upgrade them to Windows 2000.B Installation appeared to run smoothly but when we got to the pointH where it tried to boot from them it was BSOD time. Further investigation! showed they were "not supported".   I    OTOH I've had no problem using them in various versions of VMS ( up to F 7.x anyway ) and I'm pretty sure they still work with 8.2, though I've
 not tried it.    ------------------------------   Date: 9 May 2006 08:47:22 -0700 ; From: "johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com" <johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com> 0 Subject: Re: Compatibility Not Without Its CostsC Message-ID: <1147189642.657610.211140@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    Malcolm Dunnett wrote:; > In article <GLqdnZO_jLhEv_3ZnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@libcom.com>, . >    Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: > > F > > I wonder how many PC devices from 1990 would still be supported on > > windows today? > B >    One data point: We had some Windows NT servers with Mylex DACF > 960 raid controllers in them. Tried to upgrade them to Windows 2000.D > Installation appeared to run smoothly but when we got to the pointJ > where it tried to boot from them it was BSOD time. Further investigation# > showed they were "not supported".  > K >    OTOH I've had no problem using them in various versions of VMS ( up to H > 7.x anyway ) and I'm pretty sure they still work with 8.2, though I've > not tried it.   E Yep. They do.  I have two AS1200's with the Mylex 960's and they work  fine under V8.2    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 04:17:51 -0400 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>Y Subject: Re: H P To Launch Multi Million Dollar Ad Campaign For The PC [WAS Re: OT: Intel = Message-ID: <YNydnYOqp-mYzf3ZRVn-rg@metrocastcablevision.com>    Dan Notov wrote:   ...   9 > HP has grabbed market share from Dell in the PC market.   B Please provide a credible source for this 'fact':  I think I read D recently that Dell's Q1 growth was about the same as that which you E report for PSG, but the items in the relevant market baskets may not   have been identical.  I Of course, Dell continues to make far higher *profits* on its sales than   HP does in any event.    - bill   ------------------------------  $ Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 22:10:31 +08003 From: "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> Y Subject: Have I Gone completely MAD? (Was: Re: This post will self-destruct in 10secs (Wa 1 Message-ID: <e3q7ql$ocj$1@news-02.connect.com.au>    Hi,   D > One possible _good_ reason for just keeping it tight and not 'justD > fixing' it is perhaps that the elapsed time window for unsupportedG > (i.e. out-of support) versions of VMS could actually be quite long... H > Presumably, users of such versions would prefer the details kept quiet# > if there is no defense available.   E Your're right. We should announce a blanket ban on Release-Notes this I instant! Instead of the usual "Fixed in this release" we should include a F more generic "goodness statement" such as "Included in this release isH another box of fluffy ducks." or a statement-of-intent "to always do ourI duty to God and the Queen, to help other people and to keep the cub scout I law". After all we wouldn't want the Version-Challenged to feel bad about F themselves just because they didn't have the upward mobility needed to$ access the opposite-to-old features.  H It's ilk-minded people who have been fucking up our schools for years!!!   HAVE I GONE COMPLETELY MAD?   G This is like that scene from "The Snake-Pit" where she finally realizes K she's been off her tree for the last "n" years. Except in my case there are G all these guys with over-sized shoes, big red noses, riding tiny-little : bicycles and squirting water out of flower lapels. Da, Da, Diddle-Ilddle-Ud-Da; Di-Da. . .   L Where is The Enquirer when you need it? "VMS User-Base sanctions Max Smart'sK Cone-of-Silence for Support Calls! It ain't broke 'cos you're contractually  obliged not to discuss it".   D "There's alot more to coding then just right and wrong you know! Mr.% Smarty-Pantaloonys!." - Hoff Hoffman.   J "VMS Engineering has been covertly shipping security-critical bugfixes forJ years, Trojaned in overtly benign Peleg fodder!" - (Friends of the couple)  K Dave, "Prior version Support" (and I swear to God I'm doing my best to stop B rabbit-earing) means exactly that. If you've paid to have a bugfixK backported to VAX/VMS V5.5-2 then get out there and demand it. If not, shut K the fuck up and upgrade! What sort of tin-pot piece 'o shit company are you = anyway? (I swear that kettle was around here a minute ago :-)   K Look, do you really think I get my jollies, as a software developer, out of H painting a huge target on my arse and kicking sand in the face of Hoff'sH Cosa Nostra in this den of jackels? As much as I'm having a hoot, unlikeK most of you sickos, I'm actually here for answers and FACTS! Facts that are L sadly in short supply :-( But all is not lost. Given the information offeredK here I have personally come away with the following changes that have to be  made to my code:-   F 1) Lazily enough, I actually do call LIB$GET_VM from Exec mode and, asE previously stated, I will be changing that to some preallocated limit 	 mechanism = 2) sys$persona_create is a nightmare! I will be shifting to a F reserve/delegate strategy. (The plus side is I can uses the Username'sI natural Account rather than T3$ACC) If only someone had've told me it was H possible to reserve an Exec mode persona in the first place :-( But that2 would've been answering the question, wouldn't it?  H If you do a Google search on [maher "most vulnerable"] you may find someF othet useful information from 3 years ago. (Oh how things have changed *not*)  L Now, as referred to by Hoff in the Parent_Prot thread, with "Trusted Caller"K scenarios the discussion is [mute] (I think?) and in my case it is always a I Trusted-Caller situation. But even if all malicious attacks are countered I there is always the simple bug that can do just as much damage. So, while G there is no rush, I will be making the changes. But who will change the D honey-trap documentation for lib$get_vm_page and sys$persona_create?  G See? I am reasonable. Having said that, let me proffer this:- "There is H nothing wrong with calling out from one UWSS A to another UWSS B. If youF trust A to be called at inner mode in the first place, and behave withB decorum, then you implicitly trust A to be called from B". Hoff isF back-peddling big-time on his "AFAIK its not safe to call $getuai from% inner-mode". But the gaff is commin'!   L Anyway, (LOTS!) more later, we've just got some malley-roots in for the fire# and there's a glass of red waiting!    Regards Richard Maher   L PS. Why has BOONY started chirping up again after all this time? And how can" he possibly want a beer at 5:00AM?  = "Dave Weatherall" <djw-nothere@nospam.nohow> wrote in message 9 news:DTiotGxQ0bj6-pn2-4TBdt6sdUP33@dave2_os2.home.ours... 2 > On Sun, 7 May 2006 22:57:29 UTC, "Richard Maher"& > <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> wrote: >  > > Hi,  > > B > > "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message. > > news:eKednSQX1NQGYcDZRVn-jA@comcast.com...H > > > Would you prefer that the details of each vulnerability and how to/ > > > exploit it were published on comp.os.vms?  > > G > > I would prefer the details of each vulnerability and how to protect  against I > > it. (Obviously I'd prefer it if there were no vulnerabilities at all,  but " > > hey it's not a perfect world.) > > @ > > > IF you can't find out, the crackers probably can't either. > > J > > That's the spirit! Why didn't Homeland Security think of that and just saveG > > 1.25 million? I'll think you'll find that the hackers out there are  probablyJ > > far more dedicated to the cause and certainly have more resources than lowly  > > moi. > > J > > > If you could find out, do you have the resources to fix the problem? > > F > > If it was in my code yes. I do concede your point about the timing	 window of J > > opportunity but we are talking about prevention here aren't we? Or are we?  > > A > > > Not being part of the "in group" may sting but limiting the  distributionF > > >   of the details seems to have worked quite well over the years. > > K > > You're right! Just look at what maintaining the clique has done for VMS J > > growth over the years. We're kickin' arse! When there are no customers atE > > all then there will be absolutely zero vulnerabilities. Excellent 	 strategy!  > > L > > Anyway, I'm off to the office to burn that Bin Laden bible "The Guide to VMS J > > Security". What the hell were they thinking when they brought out that( > > little How-to-Hack guide? The fools! > D > One possible _good_ reason for just keeping it tight and not 'justD > fixing' it is perhaps that the elapsed time window for unsupportedG > (i.e. out-of support) versions of VMS could actually be quite long... H > Presumably, users of such versions would prefer the details kept quiet# > if there is no defense available.  >  > --   > Cheers - Dave W.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 10:57:15 -0400 From: norm.raphael@metso.comY Subject: Re: Have I Gone completely MAD? (Was: Re: This post will self-destruct in 10secs Q Message-ID: <OFE0FB1CAC.5799D4B0-ON85257169.0051A87C-85257169.00522594@metso.com>   
 [/APATHY=OFF]   J "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> wrote on 05/09/2006 10:10:31 AM:    > Hi,  >  > <snip>F > Now, as referred to by Hoff in the Parent_Prot thread, with "Trusted Caller" K > scenarios the discussion is [mute] (I think?) and in my case it is always  a  > Trusted-Caller situation.   E If only it was mute! I think you meant moot.  This part of the thread  should be both.   > <sinp> [/APATHY=ON]   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 14:20:42 GMT , From: Hoff Hoffman <hoff-remove-this@hp.com>4 Subject: Re: IMCB$V_PARENT_PROT What is it good for?/ Message-ID: <_y18g.268$bk3.19@news.cpqcorp.net>    Glenn and Mary Everhart wrote:  H >   I suspect this is somewhere within a country mile of where Steve is O > worried although it would be unsurprising if these guesses cannot in fact be  U > done in the case at hand. When you're trying to protect resources though, the less  T > cruft and layering between the defining code for the resource and your protection,K > the easier it is to convince yourself (correctly) that you're protecting   > what you think.  > K > There's been a fair amount of experience with what happens when programs  S > get run with more privs than they are expecting and get tricked. (In comp.os.vms  G > this will be understood. I would not expect understanding of such in   > very many other groups.)  F    There exists the potential for both privilege-based and mode-based . attacks, and there are many variants of these.  D    I've seen these used, and I've personally used a few of these to B break security with some existing (and deliberately unnamed) code.  I    I spent substantial time ensuring one of my images could be installed  G with privileges, down to adding privilege-set and then privilege-clear  D operations around particular operations; to the calls and the error ? paths where I needed to use and to manage the extra privileges.   F    If I can manage it, I use subsystem identifiers and not privileges D (or the implicit SETPRV granted to exec- and kernel-mode code) just C because of the relatively more targeted control that such provides.   I    If I can't manage it, I install the whole thing with privileges, or I  I grant the privilege(s) directly to the end users -- I prefer to be overt  9 about the security problems that I am knowingly creating.   ?    Whether or not this particular instance and this particular  C application and this particular UWSS is secure, I don't know.  And  D barring a detailed investigation and some testing, I'm not going to F hazard a guess here.  I do know that I tend to avoid UWSS operations, F and for the reasons I have stated earlier -- I have a rather visceral F appreciation for what can be involved when my code is a direct target  for security attacks.    ------------------------------  * Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 15:22:50 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.ukB Subject: Re: Looking for power supply/supplies for DS20e in Europe) Message-ID: <e3qc4a$gm0$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>   M In article <kRR7g.388$Lo.374@fe12.lga>, DrSlinky <drslinky@gmail.com> writes:  >Marc Schlensog wrote:A >> I recently got a DS20e for free, which has one defective power I >> supply/unit/module (whatchamacallit), thus the system shuts down after H >> a couple of minutes. Is there anyone in Europe who is able to help meJ >> out with one or two supplies? Additionally, if anyone is having a spareG >> 667MHz CPU which isn't needed anymore, I'd be very interested in it. B >> David: as much as I like what you do to keep up the supply withI >> relatively cheap alpha hardware, you're unfortunately still way beyond  >> what I can afford. Sorry. >>   >> TIA & regards,  >>   >> Marc  > H >I don't have an extra, seeing as I only bought the one.  But there's a A >seller on eBay selling the 667 21264 for $20 US.  Not sure what  ! >international shipping would be.  > < >Seller's name is "dynamic-components" if you're interested.   That looks to be just a CPU.? I'd suspect that what is really being asked for is a CPU board.   M There is a KN310-BA DS20E 500MHZ CPU REV F06 board for sale on ebay for $300   with free postage.  5 (and a similar KN310-BD 500MHZ board from the states)   I and  a couple of KN311-BA Alphaserver DS20e 677MHz boards from the US for  $699.99 each    H There are also some DS20e power supplies ranging from $424.95 to $619.99    A Just used ebay advanced search and search for DS20e  in Computing       
 David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University   ------------------------------   Date: 9 May 2006 14:33:17 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)6 Subject: Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086s, Message-ID: <4cbnhcF1567l6U2@individual.net>  9 In article <TZqdnVcEq_4Hhf3ZnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@libcom.com>, * 	Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > I >> Even after we put in whole labs of Unix Workstations with Unix Servers K >> backing them up we continued to use VMS, in particular for the first two J >> CS Programming Courses.  But it rapidly became a matter of the studentsL >> using VMS for those things they had to use VMS for while doing everythingO >> they could on the Unix Workstations.  I still run VMS here in the department L >> and we have at least one course that still requires that the students useO >> it. (This also helps with our accreditation which requires that the students H >> at least be exposed to more than one OS.)  Even with DECWindows beingK >> available so they can point-and-click to their hearts content they still < >> prefer Unix.  Can't tell you why, I am not a sociologist. > H > How about a survey, near the end of a course, trying to find out what  > students like in Unix vs VMS?   G It is long past too late for things like this.  Usage of VMS is down to E a negligible percentage, It might have been useful back when everyone G was a VMS user, but not of much value.  But, I'll tell you what I might E try.  I could try sending an email query to the last group to use VMS D and ask for comments.  Anybody have any suggestions for what I mightF ask?  Of course, I can't guarantee that any of them will actually take< the time to answer.  But then, that might say something too.   > K > I can understand e-mail and browsing, but I'd think most use windows for   > that.   	 Probably.    > D > You're in a location and position to attempt to find out what the $ > students, and even faculty, think.  @ Now, asking the faculty might be worthwhile.  What should I ask?@ Remember, though, the numbers are down enough that the sample is@ really statistically insignificant. Now, if there were enough of, us to ask this at hundreds of colleges.  :-)   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, 09 May 2006 11:27:40 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> 6 Subject: Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086s/ Message-ID: <SaudnWNiWuWqKf3ZRVn-gg@libcom.com>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:; > In article <TZqdnVcEq_4Hhf3ZnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@libcom.com>, , > 	Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: >> Bill Gunshannon wrote:  >>J >>> Even after we put in whole labs of Unix Workstations with Unix ServersL >>> backing them up we continued to use VMS, in particular for the first twoK >>> CS Programming Courses.  But it rapidly became a matter of the students M >>> using VMS for those things they had to use VMS for while doing everything P >>> they could on the Unix Workstations.  I still run VMS here in the departmentM >>> and we have at least one course that still requires that the students use P >>> it. (This also helps with our accreditation which requires that the studentsI >>> at least be exposed to more than one OS.)  Even with DECWindows being L >>> available so they can point-and-click to their hearts content they still= >>> prefer Unix.  Can't tell you why, I am not a sociologist. I >> How about a survey, near the end of a course, trying to find out what    >> students like in Unix vs VMS? > I > It is long past too late for things like this.  Usage of VMS is down to G > a negligible percentage, It might have been useful back when everyone I > was a VMS user, but not of much value.  But, I'll tell you what I might G > try.  I could try sending an email query to the last group to use VMS F > and ask for comments.  Anybody have any suggestions for what I mightH > ask?  Of course, I can't guarantee that any of them will actually take> > the time to answer.  But then, that might say something too. > L >> I can understand e-mail and browsing, but I'd think most use windows for  >> that. >  > Probably.  > E >> You're in a location and position to attempt to find out what the  % >> students, and even faculty, think.  > B > Now, asking the faculty might be worthwhile.  What should I ask?B > Remember, though, the numbers are down enough that the sample isB > really statistically insignificant. Now, if there were enough of. > us to ask this at hundreds of colleges.  :-) >  > bill >    >   > I've not done such so don't have vast experience to draw from.  F You made the statements that when both were available, many preferred 9 Unix over VMS.  That would be the basis of the questions.   # 1) Have you used both Unix and VMS?   ' 2) If so, which do you prefer, and why?    --  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: Tue, 9 May 2006 12:17:00 -0400 From: norm.raphael@metso.com6 Subject: Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086sQ Message-ID: <OF51CACFCF.BCEC670B-ON85257169.00591F9F-85257169.005972CC@metso.com>   B Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote on 05/09/2006 11:27:40 AM:   > Bill Gunshannon wrote:= > > In article <TZqdnVcEq_4Hhf3ZnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@libcom.com>, 0 > >    Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: > >> Bill Gunshannon wrote:  > >>D > >>> Even after we put in whole labs of Unix Workstations with Unix Servers J > >>> backing them up we continued to use VMS, in particular for the first two D > >>> CS Programming Courses.  But it rapidly became a matter of the studentsD > >>> using VMS for those things they had to use VMS for while doing
 everythingC > >>> they could on the Unix Workstations.  I still run VMS here in  > the departmentK > >>> and we have at least one course that still requires that the students  use E > >>> it. (This also helps with our accreditation which requires that  > the studentsK > >>> at least be exposed to more than one OS.)  Even with DECWindows being H > >>> available so they can point-and-click to their hearts content they still ? > >>> prefer Unix.  Can't tell you why, I am not a sociologist. J > >> How about a survey, near the end of a course, trying to find out what" > >> students like in Unix vs VMS? > > K > > It is long past too late for things like this.  Usage of VMS is down to I > > a negligible percentage, It might have been useful back when everyone K > > was a VMS user, but not of much value.  But, I'll tell you what I might I > > try.  I could try sending an email query to the last group to use VMS H > > and ask for comments.  Anybody have any suggestions for what I mightJ > > ask?  Of course, I can't guarantee that any of them will actually take@ > > the time to answer.  But then, that might say something too. > > I > >> I can understand e-mail and browsing, but I'd think most use windows  for 
 > >> that. > > 
 > > Probably.  > > F > >> You're in a location and position to attempt to find out what the' > >> students, and even faculty, think.  > > D > > Now, asking the faculty might be worthwhile.  What should I ask?D > > Remember, though, the numbers are down enough that the sample isD > > really statistically insignificant. Now, if there were enough of0 > > us to ask this at hundreds of colleges.  :-) > >  > > bill > >  > >  > @ > I've not done such so don't have vast experience to draw from. > G > You made the statements that when both were available, many preferred ; > Unix over VMS.  That would be the basis of the questions.  > % > 1) Have you used both Unix and VMS?  > ) > 2) If so, which do you prefer, and why?   < When I took the "Introduction to HP-UX" course, and told theA instructor that I came from a VMS background, he said IIRC that I C would find some things familiar, but most things harder to do, from B a system-management perspective.  I never really got the chance toG work with Unix enough develop insights.  VMS has been it for some time.    >  > --6 > 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: 9 May 2006 12:00:20 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 6 Subject: Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086s3 Message-ID: <1gYsPmJ9rYEa@eisner.encompasserve.org>   p In article <OF51CACFCF.BCEC670B-ON85257169.00591F9F-85257169.005972CC@metso.com>, norm.raphael@metso.com writes: > > > When I took the "Introduction to HP-UX" course, and told theC > instructor that I came from a VMS background, he said IIRC that I E > would find some things familiar, but most things harder to do, from D > a system-management perspective.  I never really got the chance toI > work with Unix enough develop insights.  VMS has been it for some time.        As with all UNIX, it depends.  F    BSD is somewhat harder to administer than VMS.  SVID is much harderA    than either BSD or VMS.  SVID has too many ways to enter admin I    data and then not be able to query the setting someone made last year.    ------------------------------   Date: 9 May 2006 11:58:14 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 6 Subject: Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086s3 Message-ID: <r++b$eYSpfBV@eisner.encompasserve.org>   Y In article <SaudnWNiWuWqKf3ZRVn-gg@libcom.com>, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:  > @ > I've not done such so don't have vast experience to draw from. > H > You made the statements that when both were available, many preferred ; > Unix over VMS.  That would be the basis of the questions.  > % > 1) Have you used both Unix and VMS?  > ) > 2) If so, which do you prefer, and why?       IMHO, I'd ask:      3) Which did you learn first?    ------------------------------   Date: 9 May 2006 17:30:07 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)6 Subject: Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086s, Message-ID: <4cc1svF15cq0gU4@individual.net>  / In article <SaudnWNiWuWqKf3ZRVn-gg@libcom.com>, * 	Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote:< >> In article <TZqdnVcEq_4Hhf3ZnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@libcom.com>,- >> 	Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:  >>> Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>> K >>>> Even after we put in whole labs of Unix Workstations with Unix Servers M >>>> backing them up we continued to use VMS, in particular for the first two L >>>> CS Programming Courses.  But it rapidly became a matter of the studentsN >>>> using VMS for those things they had to use VMS for while doing everythingQ >>>> they could on the Unix Workstations.  I still run VMS here in the department N >>>> and we have at least one course that still requires that the students useQ >>>> it. (This also helps with our accreditation which requires that the students J >>>> at least be exposed to more than one OS.)  Even with DECWindows beingM >>>> available so they can point-and-click to their hearts content they still > >>>> prefer Unix.  Can't tell you why, I am not a sociologist.J >>> How about a survey, near the end of a course, trying to find out what ! >>> students like in Unix vs VMS?  >>  J >> It is long past too late for things like this.  Usage of VMS is down toH >> a negligible percentage, It might have been useful back when everyoneJ >> was a VMS user, but not of much value.  But, I'll tell you what I mightH >> try.  I could try sending an email query to the last group to use VMSG >> and ask for comments.  Anybody have any suggestions for what I might I >> ask?  Of course, I can't guarantee that any of them will actually take ? >> the time to answer.  But then, that might say something too.  >>  M >>> I can understand e-mail and browsing, but I'd think most use windows for  	 >>> that.  >>   >> Probably. >>  F >>> You're in a location and position to attempt to find out what the & >>> students, and even faculty, think. >>  C >> Now, asking the faculty might be worthwhile.  What should I ask? C >> Remember, though, the numbers are down enough that the sample is C >> really statistically insignificant. Now, if there were enough of / >> us to ask this at hundreds of colleges.  :-)  >>   >> bill  >>   >>   > @ > I've not done such so don't have vast experience to draw from. > H > You made the statements that when both were available, many preferred ; > Unix over VMS.  That would be the basis of the questions.   H Yes, but those people are long gone.  Most users today have little or no VMS experience or eve exposure.    > % > 1) Have you used both Unix and VMS?  > ) > 2) If so, which do you prefer, and why?   I I can probably try, but my experience with various surveys that have been H done around here (we do periodic alumni surveys and senior exit surveys)I are that general questions like the above usually do not ellicit any kind @ of usable response.  More direct questions are usually required.   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: 9 May 2006 17:41:58 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)6 Subject: Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086s, Message-ID: <4cc2j6F15cq0gU6@individual.net>  3 In article <1gYsPmJ9rYEa@eisner.encompasserve.org>, > 	koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:r > In article <OF51CACFCF.BCEC670B-ON85257169.00591F9F-85257169.005972CC@metso.com>, norm.raphael@metso.com writes: >>  ? >> When I took the "Introduction to HP-UX" course, and told the D >> instructor that I came from a VMS background, he said IIRC that IF >> would find some things familiar, but most things harder to do, fromE >> a system-management perspective.  I never really got the chance to J >> work with Unix enough develop insights.  VMS has been it for some time. > " >    As with all UNIX, it depends. > H >    BSD is somewhat harder to administer than VMS.  SVID is much harderC >    than either BSD or VMS.  SVID has too many ways to enter admin K >    data and then not be able to query the setting someone made last year.   D There's that matter of opinion again, stated as a matter of fact.  IG have been admining Unix for over 2 decades and at his point I have been E admining VMS for over a decade.  Personally, I have always found Unix F easier.  BSD is easier than SYSV, but both are easier than VMS (IMHO).6 Oh yeah, I have also done Version 7 and SYS III.  :-)    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: 9 May 2006 17:33:34 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)6 Subject: Re: OT: Intels quickens cadence for new 8086s, Message-ID: <4cc23eF15cq0gU5@individual.net>  3 In article <r++b$eYSpfBV@eisner.encompasserve.org>, > 	koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:[ > In article <SaudnWNiWuWqKf3ZRVn-gg@libcom.com>, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:  >>  A >> I've not done such so don't have vast experience to draw from.  >>  I >> You made the statements that when both were available, many preferred  < >> Unix over VMS.  That would be the basis of the questions. >>  & >> 1) Have you used both Unix and VMS? >>  * >> 2) If so, which do you prefer, and why? >  >    IMHO, I'd ask:  > ! >   3) Which did you learn first?   C That would work for the faculty, but I already know the answer from F the students.  The first (and, at this point only) class requiring the= use of VMS is not taken until second semester Sophomore year.    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>       ------------------------------  $ Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 07:08:03 -06006 From: "Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> Subject: Re: Poster defective!- Message-ID: <Tu08g.6$Lr5.812@news.uswest.net>      I I'm starting to think that "bob at instantwhip.com" is a salesman for the 	 Inquirer.   
 Mike Ober.  2 "toby" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message< news:1147122660.410640.94270@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >  > bob@instantwhip.com wrote:- > > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31543  >  > In other news:+ > COMP.OS.VMS NO LONGER IMMUNE FROM TROLLS!  >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 03:54:56 -0400 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>% Subject: Re: SGI files for chapter 11 = Message-ID: <epGdnXG2AOw71_3ZRVn-jw@metrocastcablevision.com>    JF Mezei wrote:  > Bill Todd wrote:   ...   ? >> Chapter 11 (and Chapter 7) *define* bankruptcy in the U.S.:   > I > Chapter 11 is actually protection from bankrupcy. It prevents creditors J > from seizing assets of the company and allows the company to continue toI > function more or less normally with a judge overseeing the negotiations J > between creditors and management. Judge has the power to void contracts.C > In the USA, Chapter 11 also gives current management 18 months of A > control over the company to find a suitable deal to emerge from  > bankrupcy.  G If you're still maintaining that Chapter 11 does not constitute 'real'  H bankruptcy, please explain how one can 'emerge from bankruptcy' without E having been *in* it in the first place.  Chapter 11 may indeed allow  H protection from what would otherwise be the immediate drastic *effects* E of bankruptcy, but that doesn't mean that it's not still very 'real'   bankruptcy.    ...   F >> Intel has no $10 billion 'Itanic survival fund'.  There *is* no $10E >> billion Itanic survival fund:  it's merely the funds that existing H >> Itanic vendors *already* planned to spend on their own Itanic-related >> product development > J > It is still money that could be used to help SGI "develop new software".  D No, it is not:  it is money *already planned by Intel and the other H Itanic OEMs for their own Itanic development/marketing efforts*.  There I is *no* large pot of committed but yet-unallocated cash to help SGI with.    > H > Another possibility, and this one would be really "competitive" is AMDI > stepping in and offering to invest in SGI in exchange for SGI switching  > to AMD 8086s.   I Unless SGI is already *well* on the way to developing AMD-based systems,  G there would seem to be little reason for AMD to invest in it - because  G AMD will have their own large-system glueless architecture to offer in  H less than two years (that's one reason why Horus seems to have lost its H momentum:  AMD's own near-term developments will make Horus irrelevant).  F And if SGI (as some rumors have it) *is* already working on AMD-based F products, then AMD can just let it continue to do so (rather than get J into some kind of bidding war with people who might have different goals).   > H > This is quite an opportunity for AMD since getting SGI to convert from6 > IA64 to Opterons would be a big high visibility win.  D AMD (unlike Intel) already has more demand for its CPUs than it can H satisfy, and doesn't have gobs of superfluous cash searching for a good 
 home, either.    - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 04:01:01 -0400 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>% Subject: Re: SGI files for chapter 11 G Message-ID: <06-dncHI1faO0f3ZnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com>    JF Mezei wrote:    ...   G > And if they did look at Alpha, they would have seen all the convicing F > slides from Digital about how IA64 was a flawed architecture.It is aE > fair bet that SGI's engineers also saw that IA64 was a bloated boat B > anchor. They may have been given a business deal with Intel theyQ > couldn't refuse, and they chose to embark on an inferior platform. Their fault.   H Horseshit.  SGI decided to scuttle MIPS and take a voyage on the Itanic I in April, 1998 - long before Compaq's first Alpha/Itanic comparison that  H trashed Itanic, long before anyone had any idea that Itanic would start ? as its life as a boat anchor (it's no longer one today, just a  H competitive architecture whose reach has so consistently *far* exceeded G its grasp and hype that it makes people nervous and/or scornful), long  G before anyone (perhaps even inside Intel) had ever run Itanic hardware  H at all, long before the magnitude of its schedule slips even started to  become obvious.    - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 04:10:15 -0400 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>% Subject: Re: SGI files for chapter 11 G Message-ID: <fOqdnfylY4yh0_3ZnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com>    Dave Froble wrote:   ...   I > Then again, there was some mention in PC World (I think) about Tekewla  K > (spelling), about on chip memory controllers and routers and such.  Four  + > cores.  Good stuff from the Alpha people.   C Indeed - and only 5+ years after those features (save for multiple  I cores) appeared on Alpha (even after having been delayed more than a bit  B in the process).  How well I recall Itanic fanboys just after the D Alphacide bloviating that Itanic would start benefiting from "Alpha H Inside" by the time VMS shipped on the platform in 2004, and my caution G that they couldn't *possibly* appear before 2005 at the very earliest.  H Alas, I was far too optimistic (since Tukwila is now scheduled for 2008 G - though it'll still be using the same basic core design that appeared   on McKinley in 2002...).  > Gee, weren't Intel's vast resources supposed to make Itanic's - development move *faster* than Alpha's could?    - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 04:39:01 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> % Subject: Re: SGI files for chapter 11 , Message-ID: <446054FF.83D41A9B@teksavvy.com>   Bill Todd wrote:H > If you're still maintaining that Chapter 11 does not constitute 'real'I > bankruptcy, please explain how one can 'emerge from bankruptcy' without * > having been *in* it in the first place.   - Sorry, you emerge from bankrupcy protection.    B When you file for Chapter 11, a judge effectively becomes the sole6 shareholder. Shareholders becomes unsecured creditors.  G Management negotiates a a deal with creditors, and present that deal to H the judge for approval. If the plan makes sense, then the judge approvesA it and allow that deal to go through adn the company emerges from T bankrupcy protection with whatever new capitalisation, debt etc that was negotiated.  F The judge also has the power to void contracts. For instance, they canH void a union contract and impose new working conditions to the unionisedF employees as requested/justified by management. Or ift you have leasesE for expensive equipment you don't really need, the judge can agree to H terminate those leases and return the equipment to the lessors. (this is usually negotiated).  A All accounts payable on the date of chapter 11 filing are frozen. C Suppliers with unpaid bills become creditors for those amounts. But G services/goods delivered after that date are to be paid normally. There H are exception with leases where the company may get 2 months reprieve inF lease payments (but I think those are expected to be paid eventually).  > Since the company continues to operate normally and still paysH employees, suppliers for continued operations, and since it continues to? have full use of its assets, there is no "bankrupcy" at all.      E It is usually a step towards bankrupcy if the company isn't viable at C all. But for companies that are viable and just need a breather and G special protection/legal help to renegotiate debt etc, then it is not a F step towards bankrupcy, it si a convenient "time out" period with lots= of power to get the creditors/unions to agree to concessions.     C Delta Airlines is a good example. It was known for a long time that H Delta would eventually seek bankrupcy protection. Some of the creditors H required Delta have a minimum cash balance at all times. (I think it wasG 2 billion bucks). The minute Delta's cash balance went below 2 billion, H it was technically in breach of contract and creditors with such clausesD could seize airplanes or call on their loans. That would have forcedG Delta to shutdown. So seeking bankrupcy protection  ensured Delta could D still use its cash and aircraft. But it styill had plenty of cash to continue to operate.  D Now, it can renegotiate aircraft leases and other loans, renegotiateC empl9oyee contracts etc withot fear of creditors seizing equipment. H Creditors and potential investors will dictate some terms and conditionsC that management must acheive , after which they woudl be willing to H inject enough money into the coproration to allow it to stand on its ownD again and be fully compliant with new obligations negotiated for itsD debts. (aka: when compliant, you don't have to worry about creditors+ seizing your assets or calling your loans).   F In the case of SGI, what may happen is that existing shareholders willF find their ownership diluted to peanuts (or to 0% depending on how SGIF restructures), and some new owner who comes in with a big wad of cash.H Once it emerges from bankrupcy protection, it may then be able to invest1 money into new R&D (such as porting to the 8086).     F > of bankruptcy, but that doesn't mean that it's not still very 'real'
 > bankruptcy.   B Bankrupcy involves the seizing of assets and the bankrupcy laywersH disposing of all assets and distributing the proceeds to creditors in an equitable manner.   ) Bankrupcy protection has nothing of that.       E > No, it is not:  it is money *already planned by Intel and the other I > Itanic OEMs for their own Itanic development/marketing efforts*.  There K > is *no* large pot of committed but yet-unallocated cash to help SGI with.     H The 10 bilion pot announced earlier thsi year has not all been allocated@ from what I was told. If it has already been allocated, then theG announcement would be been very unethical since HP/Intel claimed it was 
 new money.  J > Unless SGI is already *well* on the way to developing AMD-based systems,H > there would seem to be little reason for AMD to invest in it - becauseH > AMD will have their own large-system glueless architecture to offer inI > less than two years (that's one reason why Horus seems to have lost its J > momentum:  AMD's own near-term developments will make Horus irrelevant).  G Which means that SGI can make use of the AMD infrastructure and develop D software that makes best use of it for the best performance. And SGI@ must still develop the systems around the AMD provided chipsets.    G > And if SGI (as some rumors have it) *is* already working on AMD-based 6 > products, then AMD can just let it continue to do so  H If AMD is already working on this, then Bankrupcy protection gives it 18G months of a breather with creditors and during that time, SGI can start G to announce new systems that will put a twinkle in potential investor's E eyes and SGI may get the new investment to emerge from chapter 11 and A soon after come to marklet with brand new systems that really are G competitive.  Essentially, SGI is crewing existing shareholder in order = to get the cash and to revamp itself with a new product line.        E > AMD (unlike Intel) already has more demand for its CPUs than it can I > satisfy, and doesn't have gobs of superfluous cash searching for a good  > home, either.   F AMD need not commit investment in SGI for the long term. It can investF along with others to restart SGI, and get a nice contract from SGIO toD use AMD chips. This may be worth its weight just for the advertising: value, and especially the harm it will do to Intel's IA64.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 05:47:36 -0400 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>% Subject: Re: SGI files for chapter 11 G Message-ID: <EfednVjO0ZmQ-P3ZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com>    JF Mezei wrote:  > Bill Todd wrote:   ...   @ > Since the company continues to operate normally and still paysJ > employees, suppliers for continued operations, and since it continues to> > have full use of its assets, there is no "bankrupcy" at all.  I I suppose you could be right about that, but it seems rather more likely  H to me that the SEC is ( http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/bankrupt.htm ) E and that you, as usual, are energetically blowing smoke out your ass  0 without having a clue what you're talking about.   ...   F >> No, it is not:  it is money *already planned by Intel and the otherJ >> Itanic OEMs for their own Itanic development/marketing efforts*.  ThereL >> is *no* large pot of committed but yet-unallocated cash to help SGI with. >  > J > The 10 bilion pot announced earlier thsi year has not all been allocated > from what I was told.   H By exactly whom were you told this?  Please provide credible citations: C   my own recollection of the applicable reporting does not suggest  E anything of the kind, but only that $10 billion in the aggregate was  I planned for spending on Itanic-related boondoggles over the next 5 years.   ,   If it has already been allocated, then theI > announcement would be been very unethical since HP/Intel claimed it was  > new money.  E That last claim about HP/Intel statements is an *explicit* assertion  5 which you need to back up with an explicit reference.   8 Your other speculations just aren't worth responding to.   - bill   ------------------------------   Date: 9 May 2006 05:51:58 -0700 - From: "Andrew" <andrew_harrison@symantec.com> % Subject: Re: SGI files for chapter 11 C Message-ID: <1147179118.156007.254190@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>    Malcolm Dunnett wrote:E > In article <1147108136.879764.277650@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, 3 >   "Andrew" <andrew_harrison@symantec.com> writes:  > > G > > Sun/IBM/The tooth Fairy are not going to buy OpenVMS and port it to 
 > > anything.  > > - > > HP are highly unlikely to port it to x86.  > >  >  >   How do you know that?  >   C I don't but all the indications are that HP are unlikely to port to B x86. Enough people have asked them for a port in the past and been rebuffed to justify my comment.   C >   Presumably they still believe (rightly or wrongly) that IA64 is L > a better choice, but one has to believe that with each port to a different/ > processor the subsequent port becomes easier.  >   G The ease or otherwise of the port isn't really the issue. HP would need E to create a whole new ecosystem (OpenVMS on x86) this would require a @ much, much more significant effort and expenditure than the port itself.   E >   If there are sufficient customers who let HP know that VMS is the G > only reason they are HP customers and if IA64 proves to not be viable I > then porting VMS to x86 would be a good business decision. I have every B > confidence the good folks in VMS engineering would have no great& > difficulty doing this port if asked. >   G Of course HP would be foolish to ignore the wishes of a their customers B if these customers could be guaranteed to vote with their feet andG desert HP if they droped OpenVMS and if the loss of these customers had ) a significant impact on HP's bottom line.   D Sadly I doubt that OpenVMS would satisfy any of these criteria. Very= few customers would drop HP entirely if they ditched OpenVMS, G particularlry if the demise of OpenVMS was caused by Intel axing IA-64. B Even if they did its doubtfull that there are enough major OpenVMS4 customers left to seriously impact HP's bottom line.   > > I > > The only thing that matters is that OpenVMS needs IA-64 to suceed and ! > > make HP and Intel very happy.  > >  > F >    No, what OpenVMS needs is customers who see value in it that theyK > can't get elsewhere. The processor it runs on is just a technical detail.  >   F Hardly, its a bit more practical than that. Without a platform OpenVMSA is as usefull as a chocolate teapot. The choice of processor also G materially effects the cost of the whole platform which in turn effects  peoples buying choices.   F >   Of course that does suggest that if they're going to pull the plug% > on IA64 then the sooner the better.   ? Sort of but removing the uncertainty about IA-64's future would G introduce another certainty the demise of OpenVMS and I am not sure you 
 want that.   Regards  Andrew   ------------------------------   Date: 9 May 2006 08:32:41 -0700  From: etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk% Subject: Re: SGI files for chapter 11 B Message-ID: <1147188761.789895.16620@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   > B >That's my point - the customers don't care that VMS runs on AlphaI >or IA64 or "Frammistat 3000", they care that they have a cost-effective, K >reliable platform; which is why making VMS run on x86 "commodity" hardware E >would be a good business decision, especially if IA64 can't get it's  >act together pretty soon. >   F Why would HP want to port VMS, an established 64-bit operating system,G back to a 32-bit platform?  Surely the interest would be in seeing what F other platforms there are that were 64-bit or that could pretend to be& 64-bit (a la the processors from AMD).  G A lot of effort went into making VMS talk 64bit.  I don't see the point D in taking a step backwards other than to see commodity hardware.  IfC VMS's high management wanted to achieve that they surely would have E done it by now and stopped some of the flow of users away from VMS to  Windows and Unix?    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 15:48:49 GMT ( From: Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net>% Subject: Re: SGI files for chapter 11 = Message-ID: <BR28g.126117$xt.22012@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>    etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk wrote:  >  > H > Why would HP want to port VMS, an established 64-bit operating system,I > back to a 32-bit platform?  Surely the interest would be in seeing what H > other platforms there are that were 64-bit or that could pretend to be( > 64-bit (a la the processors from AMD).  G I don't think anyone is asking for VMS to be ported to 32 bit X86 now.  I All shipping "x86" processors today are currently 64-bit already or will  G   be soon - both from AMD and Intel. When people say x86 these days it   tends to imply x86-64.   --  
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 11:57:30 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> % Subject: Re: SGI files for chapter 11 9 Message-ID: <d46dnabebOWoJv3ZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@libcom.com>    Malcolm Dunnett wrote:2 > In article <3pudnUbq26Uah_3ZRVn-gw@libcom.com>, / >     Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: G >>>   If there are sufficient customers who let HP know that VMS is the I >>> only reason they are HP customers and if IA64 proves to not be viable K >>> then porting VMS to x86 would be a good business decision. I have every E >>> confidence the good folks in VMS engineering would have no great  ( >>> difficulty doing this port if asked.K >> A company that makes an unpopular decision, knowing that they will lose  
 >> customers,  > G >    Unless not making the unpopular decision would have caused them to I > lose more money in the long run than it did to lose those customers, in : > which case they were making the best of a bad situation.  I In the last 5 years I've not seen much surface that indicated that Alpha  G was a loser.  Note that I'm not just talking about the CPUs, but about  I the complete business.  As for that point, IBM Microelectronics has been  H a loser, but IBM seems to appreciate the total picture, and the overall $ winning position they seem to be in.  H Just what did Compaq save when they canceled Alpha?  Figures I've heard D range from $150M to $300M per year.  Shortly prior to that time VMS < alone produced profits ($800M) to more than cover that cost.  G What did Compaq lose when they killed Alpha?  After all their promises  A that were broken, the trust of many customers.  Sales of systems  E dropping significantly.  Don't know how much, but one could guess it  B might be more than half of what occured prior to that act.  While @ shortly prior to killing Alpha I'd heard yearly revenue figures F associated with VMS of roughly $4B, and recently I'd heard statements H that VMS was once again growing, and VMS related yearly revenue of $2B. F   Keep in mind that a significant part of that total revenue includes E support, both hardware and software.  The support wouldn't evaporate  H immediately, which would indicate that other parts of total revenue did H even worse than their percentage of total revenue.  What was lost might = be some hugh number which of course they'd never make public.   @ That's not even getting into the cost to customers.  Even those H abandoning VMS, and HP, have the not insignificant cost of a conversion * to another vendor and perhaps application.  K >    We all want to believe the alphacide was a betrayal and a sellout, but ! > we don't know the whole story.    D We can pretty much believe that Compaq didn't want to be in the CPU F business.  They made that pretty clear.  That's not even getting into @ conspiracy theories concerning HP, which definitely was already 1 committed to the itanic, and wouldn't want Alpha.   @ >> isn't a company that customers can count upon.  I'm not sure > >> that customer opinion will be sought, nor given any weight. >>K >    Possibly not. We all need to do what little we can though. For my part I > whenever I get a call from HP ( rare though they are ) I try to make it L > clear to them that the only HP product I have any interest in is VMS. Will: > this do any good? Probably not, but at least I'm trying.  F And if that salesman doesn't care about VMS, then it's as if you told G him that you're only interested in IBM.  If his job is to sell wintel,  $ then he just doesn't care about VMS.   --  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: Tue, 09 May 2006 11:06:31 -0500 % From: Dan Foster <usenet@evilphb.org> % Subject: Re: SGI files for chapter 11 5 Message-ID: <slrne61fg7.3uh.usenet@zappy.catbert.org>   u In article <1147188761.789895.16620@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk <etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:  > H > Why would HP want to port VMS, an established 64-bit operating system, > back to a 32-bit platform?  ) I don't think anyone was suggesting that.   G > Surely the interest would be in seeing what other platforms there are ? > that were 64-bit or that could pretend to be 64-bit (a la the  > processors from AMD).   < How are the Intel EM64T or AMD AMD64 CPUs 64-bit pretenders?  - All of AMD64's GPR registers are 64-bit wide. 0 All of AMD64's arithmetic operations are 64-bit.+ All of AMD64's logic operations are 64-bit. 5 All of AMD64's memory/register operations are 64-bit. 7 All of AMD64's stack pushes/pops operations are 64-bit. # All of AMD64's pointers are 64-bit. F All of AMD64's SIMD registers are at least 64-bit (and often 128-bit).  H Granted, the address bus is currently 40 bits wide, about to be 56 bits.  C (2^40 and 2^56 directly addressable bytes is a significantly larger > address space than 2^32 or PAE's 2^36 by orders of magnitude.)  . So how is that processor a '64-bit pretender'?  G I'm not as familiar with EM64T, though I think it's a lot like, even if " it has specific minor differences.   -Dan   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 10:50:31 -0600 " From: GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com>% Subject: Re: SGI files for chapter 11 0 Message-ID: <xZKdnUAcV8jCVf3ZRVn-tQ@bresnan.com>   Bill Todd wrote: > JF Mezei wrote:  >  > ...  > H >> And if they did look at Alpha, they would have seen all the convicingG >> slides from Digital about how IA64 was a flawed architecture.It is a F >> fair bet that SGI's engineers also saw that IA64 was a bloated boatC >> anchor. They may have been given a business deal with Intel they F >> couldn't refuse, and they chose to embark on an inferior platform.  >> Their fault.  >  > J > Horseshit.  SGI decided to scuttle MIPS and take a voyage on the Itanic K > in April, 1998 - long before Compaq's first Alpha/Itanic comparison that  J > trashed Itanic, long before anyone had any idea that Itanic would start A > as its life as a boat anchor (it's no longer one today, just a  J > competitive architecture whose reach has so consistently *far* exceeded I > its grasp and hype that it makes people nervous and/or scornful), long  I > before anyone (perhaps even inside Intel) had ever run Itanic hardware  J > at all, long before the magnitude of its schedule slips even started to  > become obvious.  >   F I have a bigger question:  what is MIPS doing about their own line of  processors?      --   Where are we going?   And why am I in this handbasket?   ------------------------------   Date: 9 May 2006 10:16:32 -0700 - From: "Doug Phillips" <dphill46@netscape.net> % Subject: Re: SGI files for chapter 11 C Message-ID: <1147194992.765745.323790@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>    Dan Foster wrote: > > In article <4c9mm2F14tvo9U1@individual.net>, Bill Gunshannon > <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:  > > I > >> I have every confidence the good folks in VMS engineering would have 2 > >> no great difficulty doing this port if asked. > > H > > While I have no doubt that the VMS engineers are a rather remarkableF > > collection of Computer Scientists, I would not go so far as to sayJ > > they "would have no great difficulty" doing the port.  For a long timeI > > people ran around saying VMS would not run on x86.  If that was true, 8 > > not enough has changed to actually make a port easy. > 8 > Well, x86 has grown up a bit since Project Emerald. :) > I > For instance, 64-bit x86 these days has 16 64-bit GPRs (general purpose G > registers), at least 16 SIMD registers (a mixture of 64 and 128-bit), D > and some additional registers that aren't either GPRs or for SIMD. >  > In comparison: > G > VAX had 12 32-bit GPRs (encompassing both integer and floating point)  > and no SIMD. > D > Alpha had 32 64-bit integer registers and 32 64-bit floating pointD > registers. It also had SIMD starting with PCA56 (and for EV class, > starting with EV6).  > F > IA-64 has 128 82-bit floating point registers and 128 64-bit integer5 > registers. I'm not sure about SIMD status, offhand.  > ? > Clearly, even modern x86 falls short of both Alpha and IA-64.  > G > HP also has experience in doing special magic tricks in the compilers E > and back-ends to remap or insert synthetic code to take place of an G > actual physical register (at expense of some performance). Mr. Reagan ; > wrote about some of these in a past HP Technical Journal.  > G > While x86-64 is clearly better than the VAX for the registers, it may + > not be sufficiently significantly better.  > J > I bet it *could* be made to work on x86 if given sufficient interest and6 > money, but would guess it'd still be rather painful. >  > -Dan    F I hope we've all read the excellent Technical Journal V6 article about the porting:   < N http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/journal/v6/porting_openvms_to_integrity.html >    ------------------------------  $ Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 10:53:42 -0400* From: "Syltrem" <syltremzulu@videotron.ca>6 Subject: Re: TAB character in DCL command-line editing0 Message-ID: <1261b54l8bb6sd0@corp.supernews.com>  / "Fred Bach" <music@triumf.ca> wrote in message  " news:445BB014.3040602@triumf.ca... > > >    I have a strange problem.  I have checked the OpenVMS FAQ= >    and the DCL dictionary and the OpenVms Users Manual, and 8 >    I searched google.  No information was forthcoming. > > >    The problem is this:  Inserting a TAB anywhere on the DCL@ >    command line prevents inserting characters using Control-A.= >    DELETE still works, but no characters can be inserted on B >    my DCL command lines here as long as there is a tab character
 >    present.  >     0 I always had this problem, ever since VMS 4.x...- Before that, I wasn't using VMS, just RSTS...   G I never tried to go around it. How often does one use TAB in a command?    Syltrem    ------------------------------  $ Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 11:17:06 -0400 From: norm.raphael@metso.com6 Subject: Re: TAB character in DCL command-line editingQ Message-ID: <OF13CCDBDF.172B5C57-ON85257169.0053999D-85257169.0053F68A@metso.com>   E "Syltrem" <syltremzulu@videotron.ca> wrote on 05/09/2006 10:53:42 AM:    > 0 > "Fred Bach" <music@triumf.ca> wrote in message$ > news:445BB014.3040602@triumf.ca... > > @ > >    I have a strange problem.  I have checked the OpenVMS FAQ? > >    and the DCL dictionary and the OpenVms Users Manual, and : > >    I searched google.  No information was forthcoming. > > @ > >    The problem is this:  Inserting a TAB anywhere on the DCLB > >    command line prevents inserting characters using Control-A.? > >    DELETE still works, but no characters can be inserted on D > >    my DCL command lines here as long as there is a tab character > >    present.  > >  >  > 2 > I always had this problem, ever since VMS 4.x.../ > Before that, I wasn't using VMS, just RSTS...  > I > I never tried to go around it. How often does one use TAB in a command?   B It's a matter of style.  One is much more likely to use TAB's in aG command procedure (for readablity).  I suppose one could cut/paste from ? the procedure onto the command line and encounter this problem.   D I think your instincts are correct.  Just use spaces and the problem@ goes away.  Nevertheless, the line-wrap problem has no such easyE workaround, and the revelation of this TAB issue is of some interest.    > 	 > Syltrem  >  >    ------------------------------  * Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 06:39:26 +0000 (UTC)P From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)  Subject: Re: TCPIP 5.4 anti-spam$ Message-ID: <e3pdeu$qtg$1@online.de>  D In article <e3og2f$oss$1@online.de>, helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de3 (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) writes:    H > When is TCPIP.CONFIG read?  In particular, if changes are made, is it H > enough to stop and restart SMTP, or does one need to stop and restart  > TCPIP as well?  ) Sorry, that should have been SMTP.CONFIG.    ------------------------------  * Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 06:40:32 +0000 (UTC)P From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)  Subject: Re: TCPIP 5.4 anti-spam$ Message-ID: <e3pdh0$qtg$2@online.de>  F In article <2b0de$445fcf9c$50db5015$28078@news.hispeed.ch>, Paul Sture' <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> writes:     > Rich Jordan wrote:J > > I've always seen it work by restarting only the SMTP service.  No need( > > to restart the entire TCPIP product. > >  > E > I usually use STOP MAIL followed by START MAIL at the TCPIP prompt.   
 HELP says:  ?        Manually starts the SMTP sender queues (not the receiver         [server]).   H I'm interested in changes affecting the receiver queues, so this is not  enough.    ------------------------------  * Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 06:43:02 +0000 (UTC)P From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)  Subject: Re: TCPIP 5.4 anti-spam$ Message-ID: <e3pdlm$qtg$3@online.de>  5 In article <445FD851.F4311448@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei ' <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:    G > In terms of receiving messages, the SMTOP.CONFIG is actually read for F > each incoming messages, so making changes to it sort of takes effectG > when the next message comes in. But you can be sure of that with STOP  > MAIL and START MAIL.  G Really?  I changed the spam action to OPCOM, and it didn't take effect  E until I rebooted.  (Of course, the reboot was too much (I did it for  F other reasons) and, apparently, restarting TCPIP is too much.  On the C other hand, STOP MAIL START MAIL is not enough, so the question is  G whether DISABLE SERVICE SMTP ENABLE SERVICE SMTP is enough, or whether  ) one needs to shut down and restart SMTP.)    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 02:47:17 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>   Subject: Re: TCPIP 5.4 anti-spam, Message-ID: <44603AD5.9B1C3C47@teksavvy.com>  / Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote: I > I'm interested in changes affecting the receiver queues, so this is not 	 > enough.    There are no "receiver queues".   B When a call comes in to port 25, the TCPIP kernel starts a processE running the TCPIP receiver executable. This one reads the SMTP.CONFIG @ file to get the configuration, and received the message. It doesB validation for SPAM, and if it passes, it submits the email to theF symbiont for process, just like the SMTP% foreign protocol submits it.  B Since the receiver image starts from scratch for each new message,D changes to smtp.config come into effect for the receiver at the nextA incoming message. Same for the logicals specific to the receiver.    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 03:26:40 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>   Subject: Re: TCPIP 5.4 anti-spam, Message-ID: <4460440E.E43DE932@teksavvy.com>  / Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote: H > Really?  I changed the spam action to OPCOM, and it didn't take effect > until I rebooted.      Are you sure ?  F I just did a SET WATCH FILE on the TCPIP$SMTP_RECEIVER.EXE and it does read the SMTP.CONFIG file.  H For changes that affect the symbiont, (whether in smtp.config or logicalK names), you need to TCPIP STOP MAIL , wait some time, and TCPIP START MAIL.   E You may wish to DEFINE/SYSTEM TCPIP$SMTP_RECV_DEBUG 1  and then, when E when the next message comes in, you should see the configuration data ' included in the tcpip$smtp_recv_run.log   F Interestingly, it doesn't seem to include the spam action field in the debug listing.   ------------------------------  * Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 07:29:39 +0000 (UTC)P From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)  Subject: Re: TCPIP 5.4 anti-spam$ Message-ID: <e3pgd3$ues$1@online.de>  5 In article <44603AD5.9B1C3C47@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei ' <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:    1 > Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote: K > > I'm interested in changes affecting the receiver queues, so this is not  > > enough.  > ! > There are no "receiver queues".    Right; I just (mis)quoted HELP.   D > When a call comes in to port 25, the TCPIP kernel starts a processG > running the TCPIP receiver executable. This one reads the SMTP.CONFIG B > file to get the configuration, and received the message. It doesD > validation for SPAM, and if it passes, it submits the email to theH > symbiont for process, just like the SMTP% foreign protocol submits it. > D > Since the receiver image starts from scratch for each new message,F > changes to smtp.config come into effect for the receiver at the nextC > incoming message. Same for the logicals specific to the receiver.   H OK, I'll take your word for it.  I'll be testing some stuff today, so I F should see if this is the case.  I'm quite certain, though, that some / changes didn't take place until after a reboot.   G A somewhat related question.  I am getting a lot of spam to a domain I  F don't even accept mail for (I DO accept mail for a subdomain of it).  H This is a dictionary attack.  Since relaying is disabled, the "user not I local, relay disabled" message is sent and nothing is bounced.  (Even if  E I were to accept the mail, since the users are bogus, the connection  G will be dropped immediately, unless the bogus user name is longer than  G 12 characters (when will this be fixed?).)  However, I see that all of  E these spams come from the same IP address (which is in Korea).  What  C would be the advantage of rejecting this IP address?  Would such a  $ rejection also be reported in OPCOM?   ------------------------------  * Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 07:37:27 +0000 (UTC)P From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)  Subject: Re: TCPIP 5.4 anti-spam$ Message-ID: <e3pgrm$ues$2@online.de>  5 In article <4460440E.E43DE932@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei ' <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:    1 > Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote: J > > Really?  I changed the spam action to OPCOM, and it didn't take effect > > until I rebooted.    >  > Are you sure ? > H > I just did a SET WATCH FILE on the TCPIP$SMTP_RECEIVER.EXE and it does > read the SMTP.CONFIG file. > J > For changes that affect the symbiont, (whether in smtp.config or logicalM > names), you need to TCPIP STOP MAIL , wait some time, and TCPIP START MAIL.   : But that's just for sending mail, not receiving it, right?  G > You may wish to DEFINE/SYSTEM TCPIP$SMTP_RECV_DEBUG 1  and then, when G > when the next message comes in, you should see the configuration data ) > included in the tcpip$smtp_recv_run.log  > H > Interestingly, it doesn't seem to include the spam action field in the > debug listing.  E Does changing the behaviour of the spam-action field produce a change   I Another related question.  If I define TCPIP$SMTP_COMMON to be something  G other than SYS$SPECIFIC:[TCPIP_SMTP], then the log files will still go  G into SYS$SPECIFIC:[TCPIP_SMTP] but configuration files etc could be in  G the new TCPIP$SMTP_COMMON?  What about defining TCPIP$SMTP_COMMON as a  I search list with the second translation being on a non-system disk?  Can  I I put configuration files there and have the log files and node-specific  # stuff in SYS$SPECIFIC:[TCPIP_SMTP]?    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 03:58:55 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>   Subject: Re: TCPIP 5.4 anti-spam, Message-ID: <44604B9B.24DEF565@teksavvy.com>  / Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote: J > Another related question.  If I define TCPIP$SMTP_COMMON to be somethingH > other than SYS$SPECIFIC:[TCPIP_SMTP], then the log files will still goH > into SYS$SPECIFIC:[TCPIP_SMTP] but configuration files etc could be in > the new TCPIP$SMTP_COMMON?      G Read the management manual. This seems to have evolved so it depends on G version. And some files can be in a "common" directory, and other files 0 insist on being in the SYS$SPECIFIC:[TCPIP_SMTP]   ------------------------------  * Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 07:21:09 -0500 (CDT)* From: sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda)  Subject: Re: TCPIP 5.4 anti-spam2 Message-ID: <06050907210970_202791B9@antinode.org>  P From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)  7 > In article <445FD851.F4311448@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei ) > <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:    I > > In terms of receiving messages, the SMTOP.CONFIG is actually read for H > > each incoming messages, so making changes to it sort of takes effectI > > when the next message comes in. But you can be sure of that with STOP  > > MAIL and START MAIL. > I > Really?  I changed the spam action to OPCOM, and it didn't take effect  G > until I rebooted.  (Of course, the reboot was too much (I did it for  H > other reasons) and, apparently, restarting TCPIP is too much.  On the E > other hand, STOP MAIL START MAIL is not enough, so the question is  I > whether DISABLE SERVICE SMTP ENABLE SERVICE SMTP is enough, or whether  + > one needs to shut down and restart SMTP.)   F    The SMTP DISABLE + ENABLE is enough.  I do this all the time.  It'sC easy enough to run the experiment to show that it (or something) is E necessary, and that this sequence is sufficient.  (And, of course, no 4 delay is needed between DISABLE and ENABLE.)  I use:   ALP $ type SMTP_REENABLE.COMD $!                                              23 April 2004.  SMS. $!7 $! Disable and enable SMTP service to activate changes.  $! $ tcpip  disable service SMTP enable service SMTP  $!  H ------------------------------------------------------------------------  3    Steven M. Schweda               sms@antinode-org 4    382 South Warwick Street        (+1) 651-699-9818    Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547    ------------------------------  * Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 12:42:52 +0000 (UTC)P From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)  Subject: Re: TCPIP 5.4 anti-spam$ Message-ID: <e3q2oc$qhk$1@online.de>  C In article <06050907210970_202791B9@antinode.org>, sms@antinode.org  (Steven M. Schweda) writes:   K > > > In terms of receiving messages, the SMTOP.CONFIG is actually read for J > > > each incoming messages, so making changes to it sort of takes effectK > > > when the next message comes in. But you can be sure of that with STOP  > > > MAIL and START MAIL.  H >    The SMTP DISABLE + ENABLE is enough.  I do this all the time.  It'sE > easy enough to run the experiment to show that it (or something) is G > necessary, and that this sequence is sufficient.  (And, of course, no 6 > delay is needed between DISABLE and ENABLE.)  I use:  , According to JF, even that is not necessary.   ------------------------------  * Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 08:09:20 -0500 (CDT)* From: sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda)  Subject: Re: TCPIP 5.4 anti-spam2 Message-ID: <06050908092027_202791B9@antinode.org>  P From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)  J > >    The SMTP DISABLE + ENABLE is enough.  I do this all the time.  It'sG > > easy enough to run the experiment to show that it (or something) is I > > necessary, and that this sequence is sufficient.  (And, of course, no 8 > > delay is needed between DISABLE and ENABLE.)  I use:  . > According to JF, even that is not necessary.  D    That's right, he said that.  What do you think?  As I said, "It'sH easy enough to run the experiment [...]".  But, if you'd prefer to guessF which of the conflicting reports is correct instead, that's up to you.         Tad: Wake up, Tommy.       Tom Reagan: I am awake.        Tad: Your eyes are shut.(       Tom Reagan: Who you gonna believe?  H ------------------------------------------------------------------------  3    Steven M. Schweda               sms@antinode-org 4    382 South Warwick Street        (+1) 651-699-9818    Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547    ------------------------------   Date: 9 May 2006 11:54:11 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) V Subject: Re: This post will self-destruct in 10secs (Was Re: X windows  vulnerability)3 Message-ID: <n$qWyztTM9mm@eisner.encompasserve.org>   c In article <L9WdnfVuIpC_Xf3ZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@libcom.com>, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:  > ; > Now, does HP still sell licenses and SUPPORT for VAX/VMS?   ?    OpenVMS 5.5-2 originally sold as (and it's boot header says) =    VAX/VMS 5.5-2.  HP's roadmap showsthat HP plans to support ?    this version at least until 2011 with 24 months announcement "    prior to actual end of support.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 07:20:50 -0400' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> Y Subject: RE: This post will self-destruct in 10secs (Was Re: X windows  vulnerability)  v T Message-ID: <FA60F2C4B72A584DBFC6091F6A2B8684013AC92B@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----9 > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com]=20  > Sent: May 8, 2006 9:58 PM  > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com A > Subject: Re: This post will self-destruct in 10secs (Was Re:=20 8 > X windows vulnerability) vulnerability) vulnerability) >=20 > "Main, Kerry" wrote:< > > Bottom line is that as I stated in earlier thread, no=20 > vendor plans their' > > platform to be secure by obscurity.  >=20, > The lack of VMS exposure makes it obscure. >=20A > The lack of HP press releases to confirm that VMS version of=20  > a softwareG > does not suffer from a vulnerability just published leaves VMS out in G > the dark, with customers wondering if there is somebody  left to even ) > verify that VMS is or isn't vulnerable.  >=20E > In the case of the current BIND for VMS on VAX (Bind 8) there are a B > number of vulnerabilities and HP hasn't issued any statements=20 > to confirmD > or deny that they apply to VMS.  Is there anyone left at the TCPIP > Services group ? >=20  E I am not familiar with whether any of these BIND 8 issues you mention  are applicable or not to VAX.    Having stated that -  E Are there any resources left at Sun putting the latest security fixes  into Solaris 2/6?   E Are there any resources left at Microsoft putting the latest security G fixes into NT3.51?  Even NT4 has not been updated with all the security  patches for quite awhile now.   G Keep in mind that Microsoft itself is focussing fixes on Windows XP SP1 - and later (not even base Windows XP anymore).    Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax: 613-591-4477  kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  4 OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 09:41:56 -04003 From: "Peter Weaver" <newsonly@weaverconsulting.ca> Y Subject: Re: This post will self-destruct in 10secs (Was Re: X windows  vulnerability)  v 9 Message-ID: <d%08g.14672$M31.77449@news20.bellglobal.com>   3 "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> wrote in message  N news:FA60F2C4B72A584DBFC6091F6A2B8684013AC92B@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net...   > -----Original Message-----6 > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com] >...> > The lack of HP press releases to confirm that VMS version of > a softwareE > does not suffer from a vulnerability just published leaves VMS out   > inC > the dark, with customers wondering if there is somebody  left to   > even) > verify that VMS is or isn't vulnerable.  >...   Kerry,  G Maybe you can dismiss JF's question when he uses a VAX for his example  E (but I do not think you should considering how many VAX machines are  E still out there, as a CHARON-VAX reseller I get to meet a lot of VAX  A people who have not seen anyone from HP, Compaq or DEC since the  C Palmer days; If HP made half an effort they could easily get these  D customers back since most of these people really believe VMS is the F best OS out there), but the next time Sun releases a statement saying E that Java has a security bug just try to get an answer from HP about  C Java on VMS. A few months back a company I contract for received a  C notice that Java had a security problem. Because of this company's  F security policy I had to either upgrade Java or document that VMS was G safe. After many days and many emails the final answer was that HP did  E not know exactly what the bug was and if it would cause any problems  G on a VMS system, but the next release would be based on a version that  F did not have the bug. The worst part was that the Java/VMS people did D not even know about the security advisory until my question came in ? yet the advisory mentioned that IBM's version of Java was safe     ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 12:18:29 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> Y Subject: Re: This post will self-destruct in 10secs (Was Re: X windows  vulnerability)  v 9 Message-ID: <L9WdnfVuIpC_Xf3ZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@libcom.com>    Main, Kerry wrote: >  >> -----Original Message----- 8 >> From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com]  >> Sent: May 8, 2006 9:58 PM >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com@ >> Subject: Re: This post will self-destruct in 10secs (Was Re: 9 >> X windows vulnerability) vulnerability) vulnerability)  >> >> "Main, Kerry" wrote: : >>> Bottom line is that as I stated in earlier thread, no  >> vendor plans their ' >>> platform to be secure by obscurity. - >> The lack of VMS exposure makes it obscure.  >>@ >> The lack of HP press releases to confirm that VMS version of 
 >> a software H >> does not suffer from a vulnerability just published leaves VMS out inH >> the dark, with customers wondering if there is somebody  left to even* >> verify that VMS is or isn't vulnerable. >>F >> In the case of the current BIND for VMS on VAX (Bind 8) there are aA >> number of vulnerabilities and HP hasn't issued any statements  
 >> to confirm E >> or deny that they apply to VMS.  Is there anyone left at the TCPIP  >> Services group ?  >> > G > I am not familiar with whether any of these BIND 8 issues you mention  > are applicable or not to VAX.   2 I like ya Kerry, but you can't get away with such!   > Having stated that - > G > Are there any resources left at Sun putting the latest security fixes  > into Solaris 2/6?   ' Does Sun still sell/supply Solaris 2/6?   G > Are there any resources left at Microsoft putting the latest security I > fixes into NT3.51?  Even NT4 has not been updated with all the security  > patches for quite awhile now.   - Does Microsoft still sell NT3.51?  NT4?  W2K?   I > Keep in mind that Microsoft itself is focussing fixes on Windows XP SP1 / > and later (not even base Windows XP anymore).   9 Now, does HP still sell licenses and SUPPORT for VAX/VMS?    --  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: 9 May 2006 07:13:08 -0700 - From: "Andrew" <andrew_harrison@symantec.com> U Subject: Re: This post will self-destruct in 10secs (Was Re: X windows vulnerability) C Message-ID: <1147183987.936321.271810@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    bob@instantwhip.com wrote: > CERTS don't lie ...     Ohh I think we all know they do.   regards  Andrew   ------------------------------   Date: 9 May 2006 16:58:45 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)U Subject: Re: This post will self-destruct in 10secs (Was Re: X windows vulnerability) , Message-ID: <4cc025F15cq0gU3@individual.net>  T In article <FA60F2C4B72A584DBFC6091F6A2B8684013AC8B3@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>,* 	"Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> writes: >  >> -----Original Message-----  >> From: bill@cs.uofs.edu=209 >> [mailto:bill@cs.uofs.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Gunshannon  >> Sent: May 8, 2006 2:06 PM >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.ComB >> Subject: Re: This post will self-destruct in 10secs (Was Re:=20 >> X windows vulnerability)  >>=20 B >> In article <DTiotGxQ0bj6-pn2-4TBdt6sdUP33@dave2_os2.home.ours>,8 >> 	"Dave Weatherall" <djw-nothere@nospam.nohow> writes:8 >> > On Sun, 7 May 2006 22:57:29 UTC, "Richard Maher"=20) >> > <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> wrote:  >> >=20 	 >> >> Hi,  >> >>=20D >> >> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message0 >> >> news:eKednSQX1NQGYcDZRVn-jA@comcast.com...B >> >> > Would you prefer that the details of each vulnerability=20
 >> and how to 1 >> >> > exploit it were published on comp.os.vms?  >> >>=20A >> >> I would prefer the details of each vulnerability and how=20  >> to protect against 6 >> >> it. (Obviously I'd prefer it if there were no=20 >> vulnerabilities at all, but$ >> >> hey it's not a perfect world.) >> >>=20B >> >> > IF you can't find out, the crackers probably can't either. >> >>=20A >> >> That's the spirit! Why didn't Homeland Security think of=20  >> that and just save B >> >> 1.25 million? I'll think you'll find that the hackers out=20 >> there are probably @ >> >> far more dedicated to the cause and certainly have more=20 >> resources than lowly 
 >> >> moi. >> >>=20B >> >> > If you could find out, do you have the resources to fix=20 >> the problem?  >> >>=20@ >> >> If it was in my code yes. I do concede your point about=20 >> the timing window of = >> >> opportunity but we are talking about prevention here=20  >> aren't we? Or are we? >> >>=20B >> >> > Not being part of the "in group" may sting but limiting=20 >> the distribution H >> >> >   of the details seems to have worked quite well over the years. >> >>=20C >> >> You're right! Just look at what maintaining the clique has=20  >> done for VMS B >> >> growth over the years. We're kickin' arse! When there are=20 >> no customers at@ >> >> all then there will be absolutely zero vulnerabilities.=20 >> Excellent strategy! >> >>=20C >> >> Anyway, I'm off to the office to burn that Bin Laden bible=20  >> "The Guide to VMS> >> >> Security". What the hell were they thinking when they=20 >> brought out that * >> >> little How-to-Hack guide? The fools! >> >=20 J >> > One possible _good_ reason for just keeping it tight and not 'just=20J >> > fixing' it is perhaps that the elapsed time window for unsupported=20? >> > (i.e. out-of support) versions of VMS could actually be=20  >> quite long...=20 C >> > Presumably, users of such versions would prefer the details=20 
 >> kept quiet & >> > if there is no defense available. >>=20 G >> And this is what brought up the whole "Security by Obscurity" issue. F >> That is precisely what you are advocating.  The bad news is the badF >> guys have very good/fast/active channels for exchanging informationG >> on the latest exploit.  Keeping it quiet is very likely to ensure=20 G >> that potential victims are unaware while having little if any effect - >> on how many of the bad guys know about it.  >>=20 G >> It also feeds the idea that there actually are known problems in VMS I >> but that the powers that be choose to just not tell anyone about them.  >>=20  > J > Bottom line is that as I stated in earlier thread, no vendor plans theirF > platform to be secure by obscurity. And while there are no platformsF > that can state they are 100% secure, similar to the bigger banks andJ > casino's, there are some platforms which by nature of their basic designK > means a much more sophisticated attack is required to break into them.=20  > J > OpenVMS is like the bigger banks/casino's. Windows/Linux/others are likeH > the corner store/liquor store where they get hit more often because itI > is simply easier. Hackers thrive on successful hacks and so they attack  > the simpler targets. > J > Those who state OpenVMS is secure primarily because it does not have theC > same volume as Windows/Linux/ others typically do not have a full 0 > understanding of the basic design differences. > H > It is like stating the casino's and bigger get broken into less simplyG > because there are fewer of them than corner stores and liquor stores.  >   I Actually, I have read often over the years that a Casino (or a large bank K for that matter) is unlikely to admit to being robbed except in the blatant F gun totting case because of the fear of a loss of customer confidence.I Maybe you need to try and find a better analogy.  This one could actually  work against you.  :-)   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: 9 May 2006 07:44:16 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) , Subject: Re: Updated VMS information May 7th3 Message-ID: <uiaFDQqh2EMS@eisner.encompasserve.org>   o In article <1147140225.499643.251610@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Sue" <susan_skonetski@hotmail.com> writes:  > F > 2.1 New OpenVMS Roadmaps are on the web site as of May 6th I thought > you may want to know. @ > http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/roadmap/openvms_roadmaps.htm  F    I highly recommend reading this.  There are some interesting things    in there, such as:   A       1) the amount of work HP is doing to integrate VMS with its C          infrastructure offerings is impressive, which indicates to 9       	 me that someone at HP is fairly serious about VMS   6       2) SCS over IP protocols (a plan, not a promise)   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 07:01:01 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> $ Subject: Re: X windows vulnerability) Message-ID: <op.s9aejzfxzgicya@hyrrokkin>   @ On Mon, 08 May 2006 21:16:36 -0700, <davidc@montagar.com> wrote:  H > Strong typing is for weak minds! :-)   I do wish compilers would treatG > comparing a pointer to scalar 0 as a type mismatch, though...  That's  > what NULL is defined for!  > H On some machines (in the past) the NULL pointer was not represent by all zeroes.    ------------------------------   Date: 9 May 2006 16:53:56 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)$ Subject: Re: X windows vulnerability, Message-ID: <4cbvp3F15cq0gU2@individual.net>  ) In article <op.s9aejzfxzgicya@hyrrokkin>, & 	"Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> writes:B > On Mon, 08 May 2006 21:16:36 -0700, <davidc@montagar.com> wrote: > I >> Strong typing is for weak minds! :-)   I do wish compilers would treat H >> comparing a pointer to scalar 0 as a type mismatch, though...  That's >> what NULL is defined for! >>J > On some machines (in the past) the NULL pointer was not represent by all	 > zeroes.     Prime 50 Series.  :-)    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>       ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.257 ************************