INFO-VAX Sun, 13 May 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 262
Contents:
Re: How to reset X-window
PRODUCT EXTRACT RELEASE_NOTES /DESTINATION
Re: PRODUCT EXTRACT RELEASE_NOTES /DESTINATION
Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
SHOW HOST [was Re: TCPIP 5.4 ECO 6: any problems?]
RE: Sun Studio 11 (Solaris IDE)
Re: Symbiont-Checks-Deliverability: FALSE and invalid VMS usernames
Re: TCPIP 5.4 ECO 6: any problems?
Re: VMS Audio Update - Episode #9 available...
Re: VT200 emulation under Mac OS X
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 07:56:19 -0700
From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos-remove.com>
Subject: Re: How to reset X-window
Message-ID: <op.tr9s350btte90l@hyrrokkin>
On Sat, 12 May 2007 18:04:54 -0700, <david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <op.tr70lga5tte90l@hyrrokkin>, "Tom Linden"
> <tom@kednos-remove.com> writes:
>> PuTTY SSH window on W2K to Alpha 7.3 ran program with garbage output to
>> display causing it to go into funny state, printing odd chars. It is a
>> simple enough matter to kill the display and open a new one, but is
>> there
>> a way to reset it? It appears that characters have been remapped.
>
>
> Do you mean the effect you get by for instance typing out a binary file
> where
> the escape sequences output change the characterset mapping.
>
> A trick that often works to reset it is to edit a file
> just type
>
> edit test.txt
Neat trick. Thanks.
>
>
> The command you type will display as complete garbage but when you press
> return you will be in the editor and the screen will be back to normal.
> You
> can then just exit the editor. This seems to work with both EVE and EDT
> though
> with EDT you will probably have to type in c (which will again show as
> some
> garbage character) to get into screen mode before the screen will reset.
>
>
>
> David Webb
> Security team leader
> CCSS
> Middlesex University
>
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 09:52:26 +0000 (UTC)
From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)
Subject: PRODUCT EXTRACT RELEASE_NOTES /DESTINATION
Message-ID: <f26n4q$psl$1@online.de>
The readme files for patches say, for example:
o To extract all release notes files at once use:
PRODUCT EXTRACT RELEASE_NOTES VMS732_UPDATE/VERSION=11.0-
/DESTINATION= destination_directory
However, the /DESTINATION qualifier is neither recognised nor shown in
HELP. The /FILE qualifier, however, is mentioned in HELP and works as
described.
What's up with the /DESTINATION qualifier?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 11:07:28 -0400
From: "Jilly" <jilly@stny.rr.com>
Subject: Re: PRODUCT EXTRACT RELEASE_NOTES /DESTINATION
Message-ID: <464728ef$0$20101$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>
"Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply" <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>
wrote in message news:f26n4q$psl$1@online.de...
> The readme files for patches say, for example:
>
> o To extract all release notes files at once use:
>
> PRODUCT EXTRACT RELEASE_NOTES VMS732_UPDATE/VERSION=11.0-
> /DESTINATION= destination_directory
>
> However, the /DESTINATION qualifier is neither recognised nor shown in
> HELP. The /FILE qualifier, however, is mentioned in HELP and works as
> described.
>
> What's up with the /DESTINATION qualifier?
/DESTINATION is used when installing a product. Thanks for reporting this
issue, it will be officially reported to the patch maintainers.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 10:10:26 +0200
From: Martin Krischik <martin@krischik.com>
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Message-ID: <1802129.jWaE124rQ9@linux1.krischik.com>
david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> If HP had ported it to x86-64 then it might make sense for someone else to
> purchase VMS presuming HP was willing to sell. However if HP had ported
> VMS to x86-64 then that would probably indicate that HP was taking VMS
> seriously and hence would not wish to sell.
Well, they could also sell the source with the option to port it anywhere
the new owner likes.
Martin
--
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 08:36:41 +0000 (UTC)
From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Message-ID: <f26imp$jdn$2@online.de>
In article <464622B5.97884DC4@spam.comcast.net>, David J Dachtera
<djesys.no@spam.comcast.net> writes:
> In the end, the question remains as it has been for some time now: what
> will it take to buy VMS away from HP and put it into the hands of a
> competent custodian?
I would guess about $ 1 billion. Compaq bought all of DEC (or, rather,
what was left of it) for $ 9 billion about 10 years ago. Thus, a rough
guess is that it would take at least a billion dollars to buy VMS. (I
don't know what the annual VMS profit is, but keep in mind that it is
not unusual for one company to buy another for a price of 40 or 50 times
the annual profit.)
I think this is beyond the scope of a consortium of c.o.v regulars. At
most, a consortium of companies heavily reliant on VMS might have the
money and have the motivation. However, their main aim would be to keep
the things they need going, not keep VMS alive as a general-purpose OS.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 11:01:35 +0200
From: Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl>
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Message-ID: <f26p5h$8if$1@news4.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>
david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
<snip>
> If HP had ported it to x86-64 then it might make sense for someone else to
> purchase VMS presuming HP was willing to sell. However if HP had ported VMS
> to x86-64 then that would probably indicate that HP was taking VMS seriously
> and hence would not wish to sell.
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that the x86 architecture is lacking some
features that are essential for what is most important to OpenVMS, its
security. If I remember correctly, not all modes (kernel, supervisor
etc.) are supported. I'm sure technically more competent members in this
group will know more.
>
>
>
> David Webb
> Security team leader
> CCSS
> Middlesex University
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 09:59:32 +0000 (UTC)
From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Message-ID: <f26ni4$52t$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>
In article <1802129.jWaE124rQ9@linux1.krischik.com>, Martin Krischik <martin@krischik.com> writes:
>david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>
>> If HP had ported it to x86-64 then it might make sense for someone else to
>> purchase VMS presuming HP was willing to sell. However if HP had ported
>> VMS to x86-64 then that would probably indicate that HP was taking VMS
>> seriously and hence would not wish to sell.
>
>Well, they could also sell the source with the option to port it anywhere
>the new owner likes.
>
(assuming you meant the source + build environment + any necessary compiler
sources eg Bliss + all the VMS layered products that at the very least are
currently supported on Itanium and their build environments etc and if possible
all the VMS layered products supported on Alpha so that any which haven't been
ported to Itanium might have a chance of being ported to x86-64)
How much would porting VMS + layered products to another architecture cost the
company who purchases it and how long would it take ?
Would they be working cold or would they be able to attract significant numbers
of the VMS engineering team to help with the port - how much would it cost them
to poach members of the VMS engineering team ?
Would HP be tempted to immediately drop support for VMS as a cost cutting
exercise saying that it was now the responsibility of the new company.
Would the new company have a support infrastructure able to continue to provide
VMS support to users on VAX, Alpha and Itanium until they had produced a new
x86-64 version of VMS and everyone had moved to that new architecture ?
HP already have these pieces in place and could do a port to x86-64. For a
third-party it would be much more difficult.
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>Martin
>
>--
>mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
>Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 10:19:43 +0000 (UTC)
From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Message-ID: <f26onv$5eu$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>
In article <f26p5h$8if$1@news4.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>, Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl> writes:
>david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> If HP had ported it to x86-64 then it might make sense for someone else to
>> purchase VMS presuming HP was willing to sell. However if HP had ported VMS
>> to x86-64 then that would probably indicate that HP was taking VMS seriously
>> and hence would not wish to sell.
>
>Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that the x86 architecture is lacking some
>features that are essential for what is most important to OpenVMS, its
>security. If I remember correctly, not all modes (kernel, supervisor
>etc.) are supported. I'm sure technically more competent members in this
>group will know more.
>
This has been discussed before and hasn't been true even on x86-32 for
years. The use of four rings appears to have been first introduced with the
80286 running in 16 bit protected mode see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_x86
Most modern operating systems run in protected mode see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_mode
in particular
"
Most modern x86 operating systems run in protected mode, including Linux,
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD and Microsoft Windows 3.0 (which also ran in real
mode for compatibility with Windows 2.x applications) and later.
The other main operational mode of 286 and later CPUs is real mode, a backwards
compatibility mode that disables these features, designed to allow old software
to run on newer chips. As a design specification, all x86 CPUs, except the
obscure embedded Intel 80376, start in real mode at boot time to ensure
backwards compatibility with legacy operating systems. They must be switched
into protected mode by a program before any protected mode features are
available. In modern computers, this switch is usually one of the very first
tasks performed by the operating system at boot time.
"
and
"
In protected mode, there are four privilege levels or rings, numbered from 0 to
3. Kernel code that needs to use privileged instructions runs in ring 0, and
user applications normally run in ring 3.
The operating system may assign rings 1 and 2 to system services that
applications can call, like network protocols or window management. Doing so
lets the services directly access the data of the application, while protecting
the services from the application and the kernel from the services.
"
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>>
>>
>>
>> David Webb
>> Security team leader
>> CCSS
>> Middlesex University
>>
>>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 08:13:32 -0400
From: "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Message-ID: <464700EC.4080207@comcast.net>
Dirk Munk wrote:
> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> If HP had ported it to x86-64 then it might make sense for someone
>> else to
>> purchase VMS presuming HP was willing to sell. However if HP had
>> ported VMS
>> to x86-64 then that would probably indicate that HP was taking VMS
>> seriously
>> and hence would not wish to sell.
>
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that the x86 architecture is lacking some
> features that are essential for what is most important to OpenVMS, its
> security. If I remember correctly, not all modes (kernel, supervisor
> etc.) are supported. I'm sure technically more competent members in this
> group will know more.
>
You are not mistaken, at least as far as the earlier members of that
family are concerned. The 80286, 80386, 80486 and 80586 simply don't
have what it takes to run VMS natively. I don't know about the newer
64-bit chips. The older 32-bit chips simply did not support the
necessary four modes, or the memory access control by mode. There were
probably other problems as well. VMS and the VAX Architecture were
designed side-by-side; the designers decided what would be implemented
in hardware, firmare, or software. As we all know, the design was a
howling success. The Alpha chips were designed with the needs of VMS in
mind. They too were a howling success; at one point the Alpha was the
fastest "iron" that money could buy.
The 80x86 family was designed for a different application and a
different market. It, too, was a howling success. Had it been designed
to run VMS, it probably would not have been. It might, instead, have
become a famous flop like a certain chip HP has been trying to bet its
business on lately; the one that was christened "Unobtainium" after its
release was delayed five or six times over nearly as many years!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 07:31:13 -0500
From: Dan Foster <usenet@evilphb.org>
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Message-ID: <slrnf4e18h.ah6.usenet@zappy.catbert.org>
In article <464700EC.4080207@comcast.net>, Richard B. Gilbert <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> You are not mistaken, at least as far as the earlier members of that
> family are concerned. The 80286, 80386, 80486 and 80586 simply don't
> have what it takes to run VMS natively.
They've got privilege levels, but not the number of registers (or size)
needed. So, on that score, that's correct.
> I don't know about the newer 64-bit chips.
The x86-series 64-bit chips has the minimum features required to support
a port of OpenVMS.
However, I wouldn't necessarily be as crazy about thoughts of a OpenVMS
port to x86-64 because they don't have as good of built-in chip-level
RAS features as the enterprise server class chips (e.g. UltraSPARC,
POWER, Alpha, Itanium, etc) or the number of registers.
Granted, enterprise level RAS features are slowly starting to appear in
low-end commodity server hardware. But enterprise hardware still rules
the roost if you need absolute visibility, management, and
serviceability.
VMS on x86-64 would be technically feasible, but there would be some
serious register pressure as well as backend compiler developer agony in
dealing with it. :-)
If Intel and AMD were to add quite a few more registers -- by the dozens
-- and added more RAS features and better system-level chipsets that
more closely matched enterprise hardware's chipsets and bus design, then
that'd be an easier sell from a technical perspective.
It'd be much more attractive to port OpenVMS to an existing mid/high end
enterprise server platform that's got all the proper architectural hooks
for enterprise RAS support. Not quite how I would describe x86-64 today.
In the end, it's ultimately a moot point as HP has bet the entire farm
on Integrity/Itanium without any backup options that could undermine
uptake of Integrity.
-Dan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 12:46:54 +0000 (UTC)
From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Message-ID: <f271bu$7u3$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>
In article <464700EC.4080207@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes:
>Dirk Munk wrote:
>> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> If HP had ported it to x86-64 then it might make sense for someone
>>> else to
>>> purchase VMS presuming HP was willing to sell. However if HP had
>>> ported VMS
>>> to x86-64 then that would probably indicate that HP was taking VMS
>>> seriously
>>> and hence would not wish to sell.
>>
>>
>> Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that the x86 architecture is lacking some
>> features that are essential for what is most important to OpenVMS, its
>> security. If I remember correctly, not all modes (kernel, supervisor
>> etc.) are supported. I'm sure technically more competent members in this
>> group will know more.
>>
>
>You are not mistaken, at least as far as the earlier members of that
>family are concerned. The 80286, 80386, 80486 and 80586 simply don't
>have what it takes to run VMS natively. I don't know about the newer
>64-bit chips. The older 32-bit chips simply did not support the
>necessary four modes, or the memory access control by mode. There were
>probably other problems as well. VMS and the VAX Architecture were
>designed side-by-side; the designers decided what would be implemented
>in hardware, firmare, or software. As we all know, the design was a
>howling success. The Alpha chips were designed with the needs of VMS in
>mind. They too were a howling success; at one point the Alpha was the
>fastest "iron" that money could buy.
>
Sorry you are wrong even the 80286 supported 4 protection rings in 16 bit
protected mode.
See my previous reply.
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>The 80x86 family was designed for a different application and a
>different market. It, too, was a howling success. Had it been designed
>to run VMS, it probably would not have been. It might, instead, have
>become a famous flop like a certain chip HP has been trying to bet its
>business on lately; the one that was christened "Unobtainium" after its
>release was delayed five or six times over nearly as many years!
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 13:30:47 +0000 (UTC)
From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Message-ID: <f273u7$8kq$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>
In article <slrnf4e18h.ah6.usenet@zappy.catbert.org>, Dan Foster <usenet@evilphb.org> writes:
>In article <464700EC.4080207@comcast.net>, Richard B. Gilbert <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> You are not mistaken, at least as far as the earlier members of that
>> family are concerned. The 80286, 80386, 80486 and 80586 simply don't
>> have what it takes to run VMS natively.
>
>They've got privilege levels, but not the number of registers (or size)
>needed. So, on that score, that's correct.
>
>> I don't know about the newer 64-bit chips.
>
>The x86-series 64-bit chips has the minimum features required to support
>a port of OpenVMS.
>
It would be pointless to port a 64bit operating system back to x86-32 and
it would be equally pointless to port the VAX codebase to x86-32.
The future for x86 is x86-64.
>However, I wouldn't necessarily be as crazy about thoughts of a OpenVMS
>port to x86-64 because they don't have as good of built-in chip-level
>RAS features as the enterprise server class chips (e.g. UltraSPARC,
>POWER, Alpha, Itanium, etc) or the number of registers.
>
My understanding is that x86-64 will have parity with Itanium as far as RAS is
concerned very shortly. Almost certainly before any port of VMS to x86-64 could
possibly be completed.
>Granted, enterprise level RAS features are slowly starting to appear in
>low-end commodity server hardware. But enterprise hardware still rules
>the roost if you need absolute visibility, management, and
>serviceability.
>
>VMS on x86-64 would be technically feasible, but there would be some
>serious register pressure as well as backend compiler developer agony in
>dealing with it. :-)
>
>If Intel and AMD were to add quite a few more registers -- by the dozens
>-- and added more RAS features and better system-level chipsets that
>more closely matched enterprise hardware's chipsets and bus design, then
>that'd be an easier sell from a technical perspective.
Note. x86-64 has increased the number of architectural registers compared with
x86-32. But this is still far short of the number of architectural registers on
Alpha. However x86 does have a vast array of physical registers which are used
for hardware register renaming (the P4 had an additional 120 such registers)
see
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/x86-64/x86-64-3.html
Although I could see that a tool such as a VEST from Alpha to x86-64 might be
more difficult to write with the reduced number of architectural registers
I wouldn't have thought that compiled programs would be too much of a problem.
After all there are lots of compilers for other OS's which cope with the
reduced number of registers and indeed coped with the still smaller number of
architectural registers on x86-32.
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>
>It'd be much more attractive to port OpenVMS to an existing mid/high end
>enterprise server platform that's got all the proper architectural hooks
>for enterprise RAS support. Not quite how I would describe x86-64 today.
>
>In the end, it's ultimately a moot point as HP has bet the entire farm
>on Integrity/Itanium without any backup options that could undermine
>uptake of Integrity.
>
>-Dan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 07:48:32 -0700
From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos-remove.com>
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Message-ID: <op.tr9sq6emtte90l@hyrrokkin>
On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:36:41 -0700, Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to
reply <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
> In article <464622B5.97884DC4@spam.comcast.net>, David J Dachtera
> <djesys.no@spam.comcast.net> writes:
>
>> In the end, the question remains as it has been for some time now: what
>> will it take to buy VMS away from HP and put it into the hands of a
>> competent custodian?
>
> I would guess about $ 1 billion. Compaq bought all of DEC (or, rather,
> what was left of it) for $ 9 billion about 10 years ago. Thus, a rough
> guess is that it would take at least a billion dollars to buy VMS. (I
> don't know what the annual VMS profit is, but keep in mind that it is
> not unusual for one company to buy another for a price of 40 or 50 times
> the annual profit.)
$800 Million on revenue of $4,000 Million, two years ago, but i don't
expect it has dropped much, yet.
>
> I think this is beyond the scope of a consortium of c.o.v regulars. At
> most, a consortium of companies heavily reliant on VMS might have the
> money and have the motivation. However, their main aim would be to keep
> the things they need going, not keep VMS alive as a general-purpose OS.
>
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 18:02:43 +0200
From: Martin Borgman <martin.borgman@oooovms.dyndns.org>
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Message-ID: <464736a3$0$334$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
genius@marblecliff.com wrote:
> On May 12, 4:26 am, Martin Krischik <mar...@krischik.com> wrote:
>> JF Mezei wrote:
>>> Is it really worth fighting against HP for the survival of VMS ?
>>> What would happen if the VMS community were to start to help HP in very
>>> visible and public ways and convince the press and people that HP is
>>> truly winding down VMS and expecting people to switch to HP-UX ?
>> I saw this all before (yep I was a Team OS/2 member). And somehow the OS/2
>> compunity managed to rescue OS/2:
>>
>> http://www.ecomstation.com
>>
>> But then there is difference: OS/2 is desktop OS which more rewarding for
>> the hobby user. It got Firefox, OpenOffice etc. pp.
>>
>> Can you surf the Net with VMS?
>> Can you write an E-Mail with VMS?
>> Can you write an Letter with VMS?
>>
>> That's the three main tasks I do at home with a computer.
>>
>> Note: Software which has not been upgraded (mayor update) in the last 10
>> years or so (as is the case with DecMail, DewWrite etc. pp.) are not
>> acceptable the answer.
>>
>> Martin
>> --
>> mailto://krisc...@users.sourceforge.net
>> Ada programming at:http://ada.krischik.com
>
> Word11 word processor still works for us very nicely
> and even interfaces with Goldfax and Goldmail ...
>
> Sanface software has a text to PDF converter that
> allows you to create PDF files on vms then you
> can use PMDF mail to send them as an attachment.
>
> any c code can be ported fairly easily to vms ...
> pgp, gpg, apache ...
>
> vms can do ANYTHING, and do it securly without
> worrying about viruses or trojans or other security
> issues ...
>
> why doesn't apple buy vms?
>
Wy didn't Microsoft buy Digital when they had the chance...
Didn't Microsoft hire a large part of OpenVMS engineering when they had
some problems creating WNT?
--
Martin Borgman,
OpenOffice.org On OpenVMS porting group
http://www.oooovms.dyndns.org
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 13:02:31 -0400
From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca>
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Message-ID: <4a43c$464744c1$cef8887a$28697@TEKSAVVY.COM>
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
> I would guess about $ 1 billion. Compaq bought all of DEC (or, rather,
> what was left of it) for $ 9 billion about 10 years ago.
9 billion included not only the service business, but also alpha, true
64 and a small PC business as well as a sales force and lots of engineers.
HP no longer has Alpha, no longer has alpha engineers, has lot a lot of
senior VMS engineers, the VMS business is set to drop at least 30%
because of that IA64 thing, VMS doesn't run on a viable platform. Since
HP is set on a course to let VMS die on its own, it can be argued that
the value of VMS is much less than that.
The buyer of VMS wouldn't be buying alpha, wouldn't be getting the
former senior VMS engineers etc etc etc.
Also, even if the price is too high, a deal could be structured as a
franchise where the franchisee would do as it wishes to VMS and only
give a portion of its profits to HP. After a number of years, the
franchisee becomes the owner of VMS. (number of years being that which
HP expected to kill VMS off anyways).
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 19:35:25 +0200
From: Martin Borgman <martin.borgman@oooovms.dyndns.org>
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we be helping HP ?
Message-ID: <46474c5d$0$339$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
Martin Krischik wrote:
>
>> Hasn't Apple become the number one reseller of UNIX...
>
> Maybe - but Apple mainly sells desktop OS.
>
This is true, but they started in the 68000 era with Apple Unix (AUX)
and currently they make products like Xserve
http://www.apple.com/xserve/ and Xserve RAID
http://www.apple.com/xserve/raid/ running MacOS X Server, but this is
all low-end stuff.
One could also argue that HP mainly sells Printers and Ink. And of
course they have just become the biggest Desktop PC manufacturer.
Isn't the (Enterprise) server and OS business becoming a pain in the ass
for them?
And this isn't just a problem for HP...
--
Martin Borgman,
OpenOffice.org On OpenVMS porting group
http://www.oooovms.dyndns.org
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 08:09:28 -0700
From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos-remove.com>
Subject: SHOW HOST [was Re: TCPIP 5.4 ECO 6: any problems?]
Message-ID: <op.tr9tp2jttte90l@hyrrokkin>
On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:31:14 -0700, Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to
reply <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
> In article <07051214023872_202002DA@antinode.org>, sms@antinode.org
> (Steven M. Schweda) writes:
>
>> DEC AXPVMS TCPIP_ECO V5.4-156 Patch Install 22-SEP-2006 16:11:25 0
>> SYSTEM
>>
>> So it's apparently been working for me for a while. As I recall, the
>> problems involved systems which were _not_ using DNS,
>
> IIRC, it wasn't working if the hostname was obtained from the local
> hosts database, rather than via a DNS lookup. Presumably one could do a
> SHOW HOST and get the IP address and then do the ping, so it wouldn't be
> a show-stopper, unless things other than ping had similar problems.
>
SHOW HOST displays the primary IP in both Local and Bind databases, How
do you display aliases as well other than running ifconfig on each node?
I use both routable and non-routable IPs on the same lan allowing windows
boxes only non-routable IPs, and when adding a new node it would be useful
to know how to assign an IP.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 10:39:44 -0400
From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com>
Subject: RE: Sun Studio 11 (Solaris IDE)
Message-ID: <FA60F2C4B72A584DBFC6091F6A2B8684023691F9@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Pechter [mailto:pechter@pechter.dyndns.org]
> Sent: May 12, 2007 3:15 PM
> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
> Subject: Re: Sun Studio 11 (Solaris IDE)
>=20
> In article
> <FA60F2C4B72A584DBFC6091F6A2B868402368F5E@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.ne
> t>,
> Main, Kerry <Kerry.Main@hp.com> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Stephen Hoffman [mailto:Hoff@HoffmanLabs-RemoveThis-.Org]
> >> Sent: May 9, 2007 2:01 PM
> >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
> >> Subject: Re: Sun Studio 11 (Solaris IDE)
> >>
> >
[snip ...]
> >Something else to consider .. remember about 3-5 years ago when
> everyone
> >was touting the latest HW spec's and TPC's and which HW platform was
> the
> >fastest and based on this was the one people should buy?
> >
> >Fast forward to today and look at those servers now - the average
> >Wintel/Linux server in peak times is running about 10-20% busy and
> UNIX
> >server is about 15-30% busy in peak times.
> >
> >So, in retrospect, while everyone always makes a big deal out of the
> >latest server performance numbers (and yes there are some
> environments
> >which do need high performance servers), until companies get out of
> the
> >one app, one server model, the performance numbers of HW servers are
> >really not that much of a factor.
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >
> >Kerry Main
> >Senior Consultant
> >HP Services Canada
> >Voice: 613-592-4660
> >Fax: 613-591-4477
> >kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom
> >(remove the DOT's and AT)
> >
> >OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.
> >
>=20
> I'm back in the job market at a University in NJ now.
> It appears the new thing is one app one virtual server under VMware
> now.
>=20
> Easy to migrate to new hardware. Easy to configure new ones at a
> moments notice. Perhaps what's needed is something like an Alpha
> version of SimH under VMware... Configure a Virtual VMS box and run.
>=20
> Then you could run the stuff on Proliants.
> No expensive ia64 needed.
>=20
> Bill
>=20
Running environments on VMware is a temporary solution that provides a
way to reduce a small amount of costs related to hardware, space, power
and cooling. OS stacking technologies like VMware and Zen definitely
have a place in order to alleviate the immediate pressures to reduce IT
costs.
However, it does very little to address the much, much bigger IT costs
related to staffing i.e. FTE counts and these are directly related to
the number of OS instances you need to manage. If you have ever been in
a VMware environment, the number of OS instances starts to increase very
quickly as they are very easy to create (a good thing), but then each
instance that has any importance needs to be monitored, licensed,
patched etc (a really bad thing from a staffing perspective).
So, while the IT shop can claim a small victory with OS stacking
technologies like VMware, about 12-18 months after they implement
VMware, these same IT staff will then be asked to address their FTE
counts and then what?
Then, the really hard part of OS instance consolidation will begin and
then watch the stress levels increase - not only from a technical
perspective, but also a culture perspective i.e. tackling the one
app-one OS instance culture.=20
Regards
Kerry Main
Senior Consultant
HP Services Canada
Voice: 613-592-4660
Fax: 613-591-4477
kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom
(remove the DOT's and AT)=20
OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 08:50:18 +0000 (UTC)
From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)
Subject: Re: Symbiont-Checks-Deliverability: FALSE and invalid VMS usernames
Message-ID: <f26jga$jdn$3@online.de>
In article <4646314e$1@news.langstoeger.at>, peter@langstoeger.at (Peter
'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER) writes:
> >Weren't there some issues with V5.4 (ECO6)? Has anyone installed it and
> >has it running with no problems?
>
> Yup. The problems was in Non-BIND (= HOSTS) environment. We run in BIND world.
So the only problem is with ping (and not with other utilities) and only
when the IP address is derived from the local hosts database and not via
a DNS lookup? In other words, with an external DNS server (not
maintained by me, outside of my cluster and my home) there are no
problems, only when I ping a host (such as one on my LAN) whose IP
address can only be obtained by looking in the local hosts database?
And in that case one could still obtain the IP address by hand and ping
the IP address normally?
> And the problem could be workarounded by using a image file of ECO5 instead.
Which file is that? Are there other differences besides avoiding the
problem when using the file from ECO 5?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 08:31:14 +0000 (UTC)
From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)
Subject: Re: TCPIP 5.4 ECO 6: any problems?
Message-ID: <f26ici$jdn$1@online.de>
In article <07051214023872_202002DA@antinode.org>, sms@antinode.org
(Steven M. Schweda) writes:
> DEC AXPVMS TCPIP_ECO V5.4-156 Patch Install 22-SEP-2006 16:11:25 0 SYSTEM
>
> So it's apparently been working for me for a while. As I recall, the
> problems involved systems which were _not_ using DNS,
IIRC, it wasn't working if the hostname was obtained from the local
hosts database, rather than via a DNS lookup. Presumably one could do a
SHOW HOST and get the IP address and then do the ping, so it wouldn't be
a show-stopper, unless things other than ping had similar problems.
------------------------------
Date: 13 May 2007 01:49:56 -0700
From: Ian Miller <gxys@googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: VMS Audio Update - Episode #9 available...
Message-ID: <1179046196.807215.26690@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
See also
VMS Audio Update feedabck and community participation...
http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=07/05/12/7873285
------------------------------
Date: 13 May 2007 08:29:37 -0700
From: "vmsmangler@earthlink.net" <vmsmangler@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: VT200 emulation under Mac OS X
Message-ID: <1179070177.111366.123180@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
Thanks to VAXman and Bob for their helpful replies. Since I am mainly
interested in Mac to Alpha connections I picked up iTerm 0.9.5 Panther
from Sourceforge. I will give it a good try.
Thanks again for the help.
Bill LaCounte
------------------------------
End of INFO-VAX 2007.262
************************