INFO-VAX Fri, 31 Aug 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 477 Contents: Confusion abounds (was Re: VMS License Plates) Re: Exporting data tied up in a VAX/VMS system Re: HP TCP/IP for OpenVMS IPsec EAK I have to tell you this Re: kernel question RE: MONITOR with different architectures Re: MONITOR with different architectures Re: MONITOR with different architectures Re: MONITOR with different architectures Re: References: header (was Re: Exporting data tied up in a VAX/VMS system) syst RE: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect RE: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect RE: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect RE: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect RE: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect RE: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates RE: VMS License Plates RE: VMS License Plates RE: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax! Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax! Re: World Wide Rdb Forums Re: Xyplex RJ45-DB9 wiring Re: Xyplex RJ45-DB9 wiring Re: Xyplex RJ45-DB9 wiring Re: Your chance to be involved in our 30th anniversary ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:40:11 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Confusion abounds (was Re: VMS License Plates) Message-ID: On 08/30/07 16:00, Sue wrote: > On Aug 30, 4:19 pm, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote: [snip] >> >> http://tmesis.com/drat.jpg When I click on that link,this pops up in the web browser (FF 2.0.0.6): -ERROR-(404): i/o error Requested method: GET Requested URL: /drat.jpg HTTP protocol: HTTP/1.1 -------- additional request headers -------- Host: tmesis.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070723 Firefox/2.0.0.6 (Debian-2.0.0.6-1) Accept: text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5 Accept-Language: en-us,en;q=0.5 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Keep-Alive: 300 Connection: keep-alive -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:05:11 GMT From: John Santos Subject: Re: Exporting data tied up in a VAX/VMS system Message-ID: Tom Linden wrote: > On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 06:10:07 -0700, Bob Koehler > wrote: > >> In article , "Tom Linden" >> writes: >> >>> >>> Norm, I use Opera which has a pretty good newsreader, displaying >>> threads >>> by >>> indentation, but your reply appears as a new thread. Why is that? >> >> >> An Opera bug? anunews didn't have any problem finding Norm's reply >> as the next in thread. >> > Don't think so. > > Everything looked properly threaded to me (Mozilla on VMS). -- John Santos Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:48:30 -0700 From: Rich Jordan Subject: Re: HP TCP/IP for OpenVMS IPsec EAK Message-ID: <1188499710.469663.36310@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com> On Aug 30, 10:36 am, Sue wrote: > Dear Newsgrou, > > Great news the TCP/IP team just sent mail that the IPsec Early > Adopters Kit (EAK) is now available for download (Alpha and > Integrity). Details are below > > Warm Regards, > Sue > ------------------------------------------------------ > > http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/products/ipsec/index.html > > Announcing the HP TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS IPsec T5.7 Early > Adopters Kit (EAK) available > > IPsec functionality has been incorporated into and will be distributed > as part of the HP TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS V5.7 release for > Integrity and Alpha systems. The EAK is being delivered as a complete > HP TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS T5.7 kit that includes an early version > of the IPsec functionality. Below is a brief overview. > > HP TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS IPsec > > OpenVMS IPsec provides an infrastructure to allow secure > communications > (authentication, integrity, confidentiality) over IP-based > networks > between systems and devices that implement the IPsec protocol > suite. > OpenVMS IPsec offers protection against replay attacks, packet > tampering, and spoofing -- and it keeps others from viewing > critical > data such as passwords and financial information sent over the > Internet. > > Features and Benefits > > Some of the benefits of OpenVMS IPsec are: > > - Adheres to all relevant IPsec standards, including IKE (Internet > Key Exchange) for automated key generation. > > - Allows secure tunnels between business partners to be set up and > torn > down quickly and easily > > - Easily adopted and transparent to existing applications. > Protects > the customer's investment. > > - Demonstrated multi-vendor interoperability (future) > > - Thwarts attacks by encrypting data transmitted between two > authenticated servers > > - Host-based authentication: > - preshared keys > - Digital certificates (future) > > - Full stateful packet inspection firewall > > - Command line interface (CLI) for policy configuration: > - ipsec_config configuration utility based on the HP-UX > IPSec ipsec_config utility > - profile file to provide default parameter values that can be > modified by the user > - flexible rule-based security attribute and access control > policy configurations -- allows combinations of IP > addresses, > prefix lengths, ports, and protocols in specifying security > attributes configuration and packet filtering > - dynamic configuration and batch mode for bulk configuration > > - Focused on end-system IPsec. OpenVMS IPsec can communicate with > other end-systems (transport mode) or VPN gateways (tunnel > mode). > > =========== Thank you, Sue. We've been looking for this to happen (I wish I had time to start looking at it now). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:36:34 -0700 From: Sue Subject: I have to tell you this Message-ID: <1188520594.204299.85830@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com> Dear Newsgroup, So you probably know that I like to talk to folks. Anyway, this will be no big deal to you but its really cool to me. So I was talking (well really exchanging email) with this customer this week. He is a Sys Admin at a big company and he has one (1) colleague so there is two of them (2) and they manage 260 VMS systems. Do you know how cool that is. Can you imagine doing that on lesser systems? Brian and Susan if you are reading this you are doing an awesome job! Have a great weekend everyone. Sue ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:22:07 -0000 From: "dpm_google@myths.com" Subject: Re: kernel question Message-ID: <1188501727.928522.283610@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com> On Aug 30, 9:38 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote: > It's my understanding that $GETJPI posts an AST > to the target process to get information. This is true for *some* items. Bear in mind that what the general user thinks of as "process information" is kept in no less than four different structures (PCB, PHD, JIB, CTL). My code (which looks at each process every few minutes) separates the JPI items into four different categories: "frozen" (data which never changes) "cold" (data which seldom changes) "warm" (unable to obtain if process is outswapped) "hot" (relatively cheap to obtain) to prevent the AST you mention from being triggered unless one or more of those items is actually needed. > I assume that it doesn't do anything > special if the target process happens to be the current process. > If so, then when the target process is the current process how is > it that the current process can run user mode code in the main > thread prior to return of the requested data? I thought the scheduler > would honor the request for the AST in the current process and then the > kernel would copy the data to the user's buffer before returning to user > mode. Doesn't the AST code pre-empt the main thread? Or is there a > delay somehow between AST completion and return to the kernel to copy > out the data? Gah. I used to know this. I'll look through my notes when I get home, and post if I find anything useful. ok dpm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:27:06 +0000 From: "Main, Kerry" Subject: RE: MONITOR with different architectures Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca] > Sent: August 30, 2007 12:05 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: MONITOR with different architectures > > >> Surely the patch maintainer is reading this thread and the patch > will be > >> up within 24 hours? > > > 1- The engineers would have known, at the time 8.3 came out, that they > had put code in Monitor to prevent interoperability with Vax. By that > time, it seemed pretty clear that the "roadmap" promise of an 8.* for > VAX wasn't going to come, so they would have known that > interoperability > with VAX 7.3 was on the SPD. > Wow, better duck, here come the black helicopters again .... > 2- So, they release 8.3 anyways with a broken Monitor and non-adherance > to SPDs. And they remained silent on the whole thing. We find out a > secret patch was made available in february 2007. > You seem to be under the impression that all patches are and/or should be r= eleased to the public. Every vendor has both public patches and private patches that are available= under certain Conditions to Customers who actually pay for support. Same goes for Microso= ft, Red Hat, IBM, Sun etc. its not a matter of being secretive, but in being cautious as= the patch may not have gone through all of the rigorous testing that a public patch d= oes. Once a fix has been sufficiently qualified, then it *may* be incorporated i= nto a public fix or if the impact is minimal, then it may be just incorporated into the = next release cycle. All the SW/OS/ISV vendors take this approach. > 3- Compare this with an OS such as Linux where such a huge bug would > not > be tolerated and would be fixed very rapidly and the patch made very > public. Do you naively think Red Hat releases all of their patches to their public = web sites? Of course they have private "paying support" Cust patches as well. Huge bug? I don't know the specifics of this issue, but I would hardly clas= sify this as a "huge" bug since you can always do a monitor cluster or monitor system fr= om each node to see that nodes information. > The real story here is that VMS engineering no longer has the > resources to provide a proper , tested, patch for an important > component > of the OS that was released broken. And VMS management are perfectly > happy to decided to not publically release the patch when it finally is > made. > Here come more of the helicopters now ... > As a hobbyist, I cannot complain. But the way this is handled > certaintly > doesn't give me confidence that VMS management still has access to > enough engineering resources to fix problems in a timely fashion. They > would rather hide them under a rug. I have yet to hear about whether > the > VMS version of Bind 8 (VAX) is immune from all the vulnerabilities that > have been made public over the years. > > The does not do much good to the confidence level that VMS is still > actively being developed. The public and private patch processes have been around for many moons - li= kely dating back to V1 of OpenVMS. 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. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:17:24 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: MONITOR with different architectures Message-ID: Main, Kerry wrote: > You seem to be under the impression that all patches are and/or should be released to > the public. When it comes to non conformance to the SPD, I would say so. > Once a fix has been sufficiently qualified, then it *may* be incorporated into a public > fix or if the impact is minimal, then it may be just incorporated into the next release > cycle. There is no "next release cycle" for VAX-VMS. So a Patch is the only way to make this work and conform to SPD. > Huge bug? I don't know the specifics of this issue, but I would hardly classify this as > a "huge" bug since you can always do a monitor cluster or monitor system from each node > to see that nodes information. Then HP should modify the SPDs to include MONITOR CLUSTER as part of the features with limited inteoperability (similar to ODS-5 which has limited operability with VAX 7.3 nodes). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:10:27 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: MONITOR with different architectures Message-ID: On 08/30/07 13:27, Main, Kerry wrote: [snip] > > Do you naively think Red Hat releases all of their patches to their public web sites? Big Red Flag that you know *squat* about the GPL and how the Linux universe (I despise the word "community"). RH *must* release their patches (to any GPL or LGPL code that they fix) to anyone that they distribute their software to. And that means it percolates out to the rest of the world. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:19:59 +0200 From: Jur van der Burg <"lddriver at digiater dot nl"> Subject: Re: MONITOR with different architectures Message-ID: <46d73489$0$236$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> Rest assured that my fix for this issue has been applied to the masterpack in VMS engineering so that future VMS versions after V8.3 have the fix. Jur. JF Mezei wrote: > Larry Kilgallen wrote: > >> If HP is good and competent they will be working on real problems >> submitted by supported customers, rather than ewasting time on >> comp.os.vms. > > > My unfortunate experience with LD driver wiping off 25% of my files > resulted in the now independant engineer fixing it, and perhaps warning > real customers not to use LD driver in bound volume sets, preventing > disasters at paying customers. > > Waste of time you say ? > > Hobbyists tend to be early adopters and they will spot problems often > before paying customers get hit by them. Listening to hobbyists would > make a lot of sense. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:07:36 GMT From: John Santos Subject: Re: References: header (was Re: Exporting data tied up in a VAX/VMS system) syst Message-ID: norm.raphael@metso.com wrote: > > > > > Michael Unger wrote on 08/29/2007 > 04:22:40 PM: > > > On 2007-08-29 20:13, "Tom Linden" wrote: > > > > > Norm, I use Opera which has a pretty good newsreader, displaying > threads > > > by > > > indentation, but your reply appears as a new thread. Why is that? > > > > I don't know Opera -- but there is *no* "References:" header at all in > > that posting which made its way through Info-VAX. > > > > I don't know enough about headers to discuss this. I have been using > Info-VAX for years from NotesMail and this is the first time a threading > issue has been mentioned. > > Perhaps it is related to not using a newsreader web protocol. > > I would welcome a pointer to any controlling RFP and a suggestion as to > what > to ask my Notes Admistration Service Desk (ironic emoticon suppressed). > > > Michael > > > > -- > > Real names enhance the probability of getting real answers. > > My e-mail account at DECUS Munich is no longer valid. > > ... But then this message came along which wasn't properly threaded (maybe due to the change in subject?) and is in a weird font. (Still in VMS Mozilla) -- John Santos Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:59:24 +0000 From: "Main, Kerry" Subject: RE: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca] > Sent: August 30, 2007 12:27 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect > > Main, Kerry wrote: > > JF asked why a Cust might choose an Integrity based system with CSI > over a similar > > X86 system - I assume he meant CSI or AMD based. The answer which I > provided, but > > which you appear to not believe, is that the App and OS play much > greater into > > the overall equation than low level HW. > > You know perfectly well what my question was. And the fact that you > chose to avoid the response means that you know very well what the > response is and know that it is not a response that an HP employee can > make in a public forum: AKA: IA64 will not longer have a large enough > niche left to warrant it continued existance since 8086 will scale even > further upwards. > I answered twice. Its not the server HW that primarily matters, but what is running on it. You did not read my response as you viewed this as simply another opportuni= ty to flog your personal views that the primarily "One App, One OS" x86 server HW plat= form is going to take over the server world like it did the desktop. I disagree. I think the HW is becoming an increasingly small factor in IT s= erver decisions, especially with such massive consolidation efforts going on right now (70-8= 0% of which is X86 focussed). And btw, if I quit HP right now, my response tomorrow would be exactly the = same. However, feel free to continue to promote that 8086 thingy. :-) 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. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:12:47 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect Message-ID: Main, Kerry wrote: > You did not read my response as you viewed this as simply another opportunity to flog > your personal views that the primarily "One App, One OS" x86 server HW platform is going > to take over the server world like it did the desktop. 8086 is not a "one app one server platform". Windows is. You can have a serious 64 bit 8086 server running a serious operating system which supports multiple applications. The point is that the 8086 is coming of age and with common interfaces with IA64, it will become possible to build large systems that have similar or better performance with an 8086 compared to IA64. At that point, there is no point in continuing to try to shove an unpopular platform down customer's throats. There is no reason HP couldn't build a CSI based 8086 with EFI console with all the same bells and whistles as IA64 systems. And once this happens, there is also no reason to continue to build IA64 based systems. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 2007 21:42:20 +0200 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER) Subject: RE: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect Message-ID: <46d739bc$1@news.langstoeger.at> In article , "Main, Kerry" writes: >>I disagree. I think the HW is becoming an increasingly small factor in IT >server decisions, Yup. As long it is x86 (because the software only runs there now)... -- Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER Network and OpenVMS system specialist E-mail peter@langstoeger.at A-1030 VIENNA AUSTRIA I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:09:54 -0700 From: Doug Phillips Subject: Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect Message-ID: <1188508194.604920.164130@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com> On Aug 30, 8:05 am, "Main, Kerry" wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca] > > Sent: August 29, 2007 9:35 PM > > To: Info-...@Mvb.Saic.Com > > Subject: Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect > > > Main, Kerry wrote: > > > All, > > > > The following article may be of interest: (August 28, 2007) > > >http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT082807020032&p=1 > > > Mr Main, > > > What will differentiate a 64 bit 8086 plugged into a CSI interface from > > a 64 bit IA64 also plugged into a CSI interface ? > > > If both have access to the same type of memory, cache etc, then won't > > the industry standard architecture that has competition from AMD end up > > being far superior than some proprietary IA64 thing that requires its > > own proprietary funky compilers due to ist EPIC nature ? > > JF - > > Remember the relative importance to Cust's in terms of both what they have and what they > need In the future: > > 1. App = 50-60% > 2. OS = 25-35% > 3. Server HW - 10-15% I really didn't want to get into this again, but let's talk about those numbers. You say "relative importance to Cust's" of the App is 50-60% ?? I say relative importance of the App is 100% and the OS & hardware (and I include workstations, printers and all other peripherals and infrastructure) fall into the category of "necessary evils." Your numbers more closely reflect the rough cost of acquiring the ability to perform the application. Platform security, support, reliability, performance and all other OS/ hardware factors effect cost and are certainly important but they are subordinate to and dependent upon the needs of the application. You don't buy an application you can't run, and you don't buy a platform that won't run your application. Before anyone else says it, I'll say it first: "Duh!" > > While #3 gets all sorts of attention in techie newsgroups, in the pig picture, > #1 and #2 are much more important to Cust's. With a massive glut in available compute > cycles in most Cust's environment today, Cust's are not impressed with fantastic new > computer speeds that will increase their glut of available compute cycles even more. > > Btw, this applies to all platforms. > > Also, keep in mind that there is now a massive trend to consolidating both servers and > DC's. This is a huge change from the distributed computing designs of the last 10 years. > > Imho, the question that will become increasingly important in the future - "Can a company > afford OS platforms for their future centralized, very HA strategy that have "one app, > one OS" App/ISV support cultures... Well, unless you're considering something like ERP or an office productivity suite a single app, then I guess I'd disagree. Server consolidation is happening and will continue to happen, but if OpenVMS doesn't run the applications that are being consolidated, why would OpenVMS even be a consideration? The "one app, one OS" scene hasn't played in years. Nobody I can think of today does that other than on existing older equipment that *will* be consolidated as equipment is replaced (or for very specialized applications on special purpose servers that *should* be kept isolated.) > and where the OS vendors release 5-20 security patches > per month?" > You really should stop using that argument, too. It's been rebutted in many previous threads. Windows and *nix are so much better today vs. the past, in every aspect, that anyone paying even a little attention can predict that they will only get better. > My advice to Cust's - think like Wayne Gretzky (ok, he's a hockey player) and the way > He became a great player .. "Do not skate to where the puck is, but where it will be in > the next play sequence .." > > :-) The puck looks to me like it's still heading towards x86. The article you reference supports this argument better than most I've read. Thanks. ---------- And a semi-non-related news item just in: + "Nigeria overtakes Ireland as Guinness' second-largest market." + If anyone needed proof that the world is getting weirder, there it is! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:55:16 +0000 From: "Main, Kerry" Subject: RE: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Phillips [mailto:dphill46@netscape.net] > Sent: August 30, 2007 5:10 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect [snip] > > > > Remember the relative importance to Cust's in terms of both what they > have and what they > > need In the future: > > > > 1. App =3D 50-60% > > 2. OS =3D 25-35% > > 3. Server HW - 10-15% > > I really didn't want to get into this again, but let's talk about > those numbers. You say "relative importance to Cust's" of the App is > 50-60% ?? I say relative importance of the App is 100% and the OS & > hardware (and I include workstations, printers and all other > peripherals and infrastructure) fall into the category of "necessary > evils." Your numbers more closely reflect the rough cost of acquiring > the ability to perform the application. > Lets not get silly here ok? Very few Cust's run an application by itself. There are OS customizations l= ike batch jobs, OS security on files, custom reports, DCL scripts (and their equivale= nt in UNIX world), ISV customizations in terms of support utilities, pre and post proc= essing jobs, OS specific backups, data archiving, security auditing etc. These are all typically heavily integrated with the primary App's. on that = system. When looking at new OS platforms, Cust's understand that these are all cons= iderations that need to be taken into consideration. Saying the application priority is 100% is a tad naive. > Platform security, support, reliability, performance and all other OS/ > hardware factors effect cost and are certainly important but they are > subordinate to and dependent upon the needs of the application. > > You don't buy an application you can't run, and you don't buy a > platform that won't run your application. Before anyone else says it, > I'll say it first: "Duh!" > Never said anything otherwise .. are you trying to make a point in there so= mewhere? > > > > While #3 gets all sorts of attention in techie newsgroups, in the big > picture, > > #1 and #2 are much more important to Cust's. With a massive glut in > available compute > > cycles in most Cust's environment today, Cust's are not impressed > with fantastic new > > computer speeds that will increase their glut of available compute > cycles even more. > > > > Btw, this applies to all platforms. > > > > Also, keep in mind that there is now a massive trend to consolidating > both servers and > > DC's. This is a huge change from the distributed computing designs of > the last 10 years. > > > > Imho, the question that will become increasingly important in the > future - "Can a company > > afford OS platforms for their future centralized, very HA strategy > that have "one app, > > one OS" App/ISV support cultures... > > Well, unless you're considering something like ERP or an office > productivity suite a single app, then I guess I'd disagree. > > Server consolidation is happening and will continue to happen, but if > OpenVMS doesn't run the applications that are being consolidated, why > would OpenVMS even be a consideration? > Consolidation within the same platform is what I was referring to. Unless i= t is a very simple IT service or application, changing OS Platforms during any server c= onsolidation initiative raises the risk level from 2-3 to something like 7-8. > The "one app, one OS" scene hasn't played in years. Nobody I can think > of today does that other than on existing older equipment that *will* > be consolidated as equipment is replaced (or for very specialized > applications on special purpose servers that *should* be kept > isolated.) > Again, you have obviously not been in real world Operations or IT environme= nts for awhile. Why is VMware so hot? Lots of CPU cycles are available, so Why not take 5-1= 0 Windows Biz applications and put them on a single Windows OS instance? Because there is a One App, One OS culture and each group does not want the= ir App sharing the same OS resources as someone else's. Even if both Apps run on s= ervers that in their peak times only reach 10-15% CPU utilization. That's reality. VMware shares are going through the roof right now and this is the absolute biggest reason why this is happening. [Course, VMware does not actually red= uce the work to maintain all the various OS instances, but that's another discussio= n.] > > and where the OS vendors release 5-20 security patches > > per month?" > > > > You really should stop using that argument, too. It's been rebutted in > many previous threads. > > Windows and *nix are so much better today vs. the past, in every > aspect, that anyone paying even a little attention can predict that > they will only get better. > [Note that I referred to Linux and Windows, not UNIX] Please, again your statement reflects only that you likely have an applicat= ion focus with little DC Operations experience. And likely one that has been bitten b= y all the Linux and Windows hype. And likely not someone who has an environment with = hundreds of Wintel/Linux servers that need security patches every month. Here is the Linux RH web site for security patches: https://www.redhat.com/archives/enterprise-watch-list/ Now click on "thread" for each month and go back as many months as you want= Each and every month, there are 5-20 security patches (sometimes many more). Why not create a graph from 2003-2007 to show how the number of security pa= tches released each month has gone down? [hint - you won't like the trend] What's to rebut? Yes, not every security patch applies to all systems, but most shops have n= o idea what all the services their development and production systems are using, a= nd each readme file on the security patch is often vague (for good reason) as to al= l of the associated details around each patch. And many of these one line patch link= s are bundled security patches as well. So, saying the Windows (and Linux) server issues are getting any better is = really laughable and is really only an indication of someone bitten by the hype bu= g. Microsoft still also releases numerous security patches each and every mont= h. Here is a recent example: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2127475,00.asp (May 2007) Microsoft has released patches for 19 vulnerabilities, 14 of which are crit= ical, hitting at holes in Excel, Word, Office, Exchange, Internet Explorer, cryptographic= technology and the whopper of them all, the zero-day vulnerability in the DNS Server's= use of RPC. [and yes, you do need explorer on your Windows servers] http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=3D41698 (August 2007) SOFTWARE GIANT Microsoft has issued patches for nine security flaws, includ= ing six critical ones. .. "Four of the patches keep hackers from breaking into computers through = Web pages and are rated critical. [snip] The other three updates are rated important and = one of them is for the "super secure" Vista OS." > > My advice to Cust's - think like Wayne Gretzky (ok, he's a hockey > player) and the way > > He became a great player .. "Do not skate to where the puck is, but > where it will be in > > the next play sequence .." > > > > :-) > > The puck looks to me like it's still heading towards x86. The article > you reference supports this argument better than most I've read. > Thanks. > Once the hype bug has bitten someone, it is tough to get them back to reali= ty. Hey, I know what it is like. Back in mid 90's, in addition to being an Open= VMS Ambassador, I used to also be part of the Digital Windows NT Wizards Program. At that t= ime, there were many monthly Windows security patches, but even back then the std response = was "hey, its getting better and soon Windows will take over the world.." (ok, even then = I did not believe all of the hype, but the hype bug is tough to shake.) 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. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:58:48 GMT From: John Santos Subject: Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect Message-ID: Main, Kerry wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca] >>Sent: August 29, 2007 9:35 PM >>To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com >>Subject: Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect >> >>Main, Kerry wrote: >> >>>All, >>> >>>The following article may be of interest: (August 28, 2007) >>>http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT082807020032&p=1 >> >> >>Mr Main, >> >>What will differentiate a 64 bit 8086 plugged into a CSI interface from >>a 64 bit IA64 also plugged into a CSI interface ? >> >>If both have access to the same type of memory, cache etc, then won't >>the industry standard architecture that has competition from AMD end up >>being far superior than some proprietary IA64 thing that requires its >>own proprietary funky compilers due to ist EPIC nature ? > > > JF - > > Remember the relative importance to Cust's in terms of both what they have and what they > need In the future: > > 1. App = 50-60% > 2. OS = 25-35% > 3. Server HW - 10-15% > > While #3 gets all sorts of attention in techie newsgroups, in the pig picture, > #1 and #2 are much more important to Cust's. With a massive glut in available compute > cycles in most Cust's environment today, Cust's are not impressed with fantastic new > computer speeds that will increase their glut of available compute cycles even more. > > Btw, this applies to all platforms. > > Also, keep in mind that there is now a massive trend to consolidating both servers and > DC's. This is a huge change from the distributed computing designs of the last 10 years. > > Imho, the question that will become increasingly important in the future - "Can a company > afford OS platforms for their future centralized, very HA strategy that have "one app, > one OS" App/ISV support cultures and where the OS vendors release 5-20 security patches > per month?" > > My advice to Cust's - think like Wayne Gretzky (ok, he's a hockey player) and the way > He became a great player .. "Do not skate to where the puck is, but where it will be in > the next play sequence .." > > :-) I've long noticed this cycle. For example, when I first started, one of our biggest customers was a large NY bank that had been burned by its centralized data processing operation. All their eggs in one basket, and someone had dropped the basket. (I don't know the details.) At any rate, when I started out, they were in the midst of distributing their computer resources out to the end users, i.e. the branches and departments of the bank. We (and many other vendors) were using RSTS/E systems for this. (Other vendors were basing their applications on other platforms, DG, Prime, Perkin-Elmer, ...) Many of the changes DEC made to RSTS/E V6B were specifically for this customer. Quite soon, they networked all these little systems together, since it was much more efficient than producing dozens of tapes to hand off each day and shuttle around the city. Eventually, this "let 100 flowers bloom" strategy resulted in too much (perceived) inefficiency, too much duplication of effort, too many operational and security issues (e.g. making sure all the systems correctly enforced the bank's security policies, proper backups were being done, etc.), and improve network efficiency by putting everything in one room on one Ethernet rather than having dozens of 56Kb leased lines, so they (and other of our customers) instituted a policy of consolidation. Get everything into a proper data center, make sure the systems were run by professionals, make sure operations procedures were documented and followed, and make sure proper testing and change procedures were followed. A lot of this consolidation was done onto VAX/VMS systems in the early '80s. This of course re-instituted the original problems that caused the distribution in the first place, such as a large, high-inertia IT structure that took a long time to make application changes and was run by people who understood the IT stuff much better than they understood the business, so often the changes didn't really address the problems they were intended to solve, or were "one step forward, two steps back", or took much longer to implement or cost the "customer" (i.e. the company's department that was the user of the application), far more than seemed reasonable. ("You mean you want to charge my department $$$$$ just to produce a summary page at the end of the report and email it to me twice a day?!?!?! And it's going to take 6 months to implement? Get real!") So when it became practical to move a big chunk of the data center into a small box in the corner, under the direct control of the user (i.e. a PC) and bypass the IT bureaucracy, that's exactly what happened. Now all the PC's are getting reconsolidated, which will eventually result in another redistribution, this time most likely to a (small) rack of blade servers in the corner with a (small) SAN array for storage. "Small" in this context means a few tens of multi-GHz processors and a few Terabytes of storage, i.e. orders of magnitude more powerful than the PCs which preceded them last time around, which were in turn orders of magnitude more powerful than the PDP-11/70's in the first cycle. The cycle keeps repeating. I expect it will go on for ever :-) > 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. > > > > > -- John Santos Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:04:49 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect Message-ID: Main, Kerry wrote: > Microsoft still also releases numerous security patches each and every month. Here is > a recent example: Until HP decides to release that MONITOR CLUSTER patch, you are in no position to talk. I'd much rather have patches come out rapidly than having to live with dysfunctional software that doesn't match what the SPD promised. > and the whopper of them all, the zero-day vulnerability in the DNS Server's use of RPC. Can't read beyond "use". But again, DNS isn't exactly your forte, since the owner of VMS hasn't given any indication of whether its BIND implementation has the same flaws as BIND on other platforms, flaws which have been made public and for which patches exist. Perhpas you might wish to compare VMS with MAC OS classic. (say 8.6). Not many new patches have been issued for 8.6 in recent years. Must be a stable, full features OS without security vulnerabilities. Or perhaps the idea behind lack of patches is the fact that MAC OS classic is "mature" and no longer developped and no new patches exist and very few modern applications still run on it ? Reminds me of VMS. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:28:35 +0000 From: "Main, Kerry" Subject: RE: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca] > Sent: August 30, 2007 3:13 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect > > Main, Kerry wrote: > > You did not read my response as you viewed this as simply another > opportunity to flog > > your personal views that the primarily "One App, One OS" x86 server > HW platform is going > > to take over the server world like it did the desktop. > > > 8086 is not a "one app one server platform". Windows is. You can have a > serious 64 bit 8086 server running a serious operating system which > supports multiple applications. > Great theory ..what is the reality? What is the proportion of Windows/Linux servers on x86 servers vs. other OS Platforms on X86? Perhaps something like 85-95% range? > > The point is that the 8086 is coming of age and with common interfaces > with IA64, it will become possible to build large systems that have > similar or better performance with an 8086 compared to IA64. At that > point, there is no point in continuing to try to shove an unpopular > platform down customer's throats. > Again, you are missing the point. Great hardware goes no where without the = OS culture and applications that go with it. How do you propose to solve the "One App, One OS" culture associated with W= indows and Linux? Most of the Customers X86 servers today are running at 10-15% at peak times= , so they do not need faster systems to drop this utilization to 5%. In order to redu= ce their FTE staffing counts that make up 60-70% of their IT budget, they need to co= nsolidate their applications on fewer servers and fewer OS instances. > There is no reason HP couldn't build a CSI based 8086 with EFI console > with all the same bells and whistles as IA64 systems. And once this > happens, there is also no reason to continue to build IA64 based > systems. Been discussed many times by many people. See previous threads. Bottom line is that if a Cust wants Appx and Appx is available on OpenVMS, = or is developing /porting AppY on OpenVMS because of the added security and HA va= lue it brings, then whether the server is Integrity or x86 CPU's is a very small part of t= he equation. 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. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:45:59 +0000 From: "Main, Kerry" Subject: RE: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca] > Sent: August 30, 2007 9:05 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect > > Main, Kerry wrote: > > Microsoft still also releases numerous security patches each and > every month. Here is > > a recent example: > > > Until HP decides to release that MONITOR CLUSTER patch, you are in no > position to talk. I'd much rather have patches come out rapidly than > having to live with dysfunctional software that doesn't match what the > SPD promised. > We are talking about *security* patches here. What security problem does th= e Monitor problem cause? > > and the whopper of them all, the zero-day vulnerability in the DNS > Server's use of RPC. > > > Can't read beyond "use". But again, DNS isn't exactly your forte, since > the owner of VMS hasn't given any indication of whether its BIND > implementation has the same flaws as BIND on other platforms, flaws > which have been made public and for which patches exist. > Same answer as before - as security issues are discovered (internally or ex= ternally), they are reviewed to determine if it really is a problem and if so, the pot= ential impact, what the fix requires and how to distribute the patch. OpenVMS has an excellent reputation in this regard. > > Perhpas you might wish to compare VMS with MAC OS classic. (say 8.6). > Not many new patches have been issued for 8.6 in recent years. Must be > a > stable, full features OS without security vulnerabilities. > > Or perhaps the idea behind lack of patches is the fact that MAC OS > classic is "mature" and no longer developped and no new patches exist > and very few modern applications still run on it ? Reminds me of VMS. Don't know MAC's or even follow them. However, what little I have heard of them is that they seem to have pretty = good security. 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. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:59:51 +0000 From: "Main, Kerry" Subject: RE: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: John Santos [mailto:john@egh.com] > Sent: August 30, 2007 8:59 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect > > Main, Kerry wrote: > >>-----Original Message----- [snip] > > > > Also, keep in mind that there is now a massive trend to consolidating > both servers and > > DC's. This is a huge change from the distributed computing designs of > the last 10 years. > > > > Imho, the question that will become increasingly important in the > future - "Can a company > > afford OS platforms for their future centralized, very HA strategy > that have "one app, > > one OS" App/ISV support cultures and where the OS vendors release 5- > 20 security patches > > per month?" > > > > My advice to Cust's - think like Wayne Gretzky (ok, he's a hockey > player) and the way > > He became a great player .. "Do not skate to where the puck is, but > where it will be in > > the next play sequence .." > > > > :-) > > I've long noticed this cycle. For example, when I first > started, one of our biggest customers was a large NY bank > that had been burned by its centralized data processing > operation. All their eggs in one basket, and someone had > dropped the basket. (I don't know the details.) > [snip] Re: consolidation - distributed computing cycle. Imho, what is now happening is a struggle to find the "happy medium". Neith= er of these strategies on their own is the right strategy in all cases. What seems to be happening more and more is centralized technology where it= makes sense (latency and bandwidth are restrictions that might require some servers lef= t distributed), but dedicating IT Resources to deal with the Business Units i.e. IT resourc= es who attend regular BU meetings and who's role is to assist the BU's understand how IT = can help their bottom line by assisting them in providing more competitive and cost effici= ent solutions. This is designed to fix the "glass house does not understand our requiremen= ts" complaints Associated with previous centralized computing strategies. And make no mistake - IT groups today are motivated to ensure the BU's are = happy, because they know they will be outsourced if they continue to ignore the BU's. 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. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:44:01 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect Message-ID: Main, Kerry wrote: > What is the proportion of Windows/Linux servers on x86 servers vs. other OS > Platforms on X86? > How do you propose to solve the "One App, One OS" culture associated with Windows > and Linux? Like it or not, 8086 is the industry standard, and its future is NOT in question. IA64's future is in question, and with CSI, its future will continue to be in question, especially since the 8086 will scale even higher into IA64's market niche. VMS is hindered by running only on that IA64 thing. IA64 is not an asset it is a liability to VMS. If you want to attract new customers to VMS, you need VMS on a popular platform, one which will not generate question about its future. Porting VMS to a platform that everyone uses and which will exist in the long term would show HP's true commmitment to VMS, and would show the world HP intends to allow VMS to grow. Refusing to port VMS to 8086 sends a clear message that HP does not intend to continue VMS beyond IA64 (and when combined with Livermore's recent statements as well as HP's invitation for Cerner to abandon VMS in favour of HP-UX, VMS may spiral down faster and go down before IA64. CSI will give the 8086 capabilities once reserved to high end chips. And porting VMS to it would give VMS access to a far greater market. Of course, HP's actions are in fact resulting in a faster decline of VMS. If they had been interested in just maintaining the installed base, they would have continued Alpha sales. Forcing customers to go thorugh the hassles of porting to IA64 will accelerate the loss of VMS customers. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:27:20 -0700 From: Doug Phillips Subject: Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect Message-ID: <1188538040.708808.108580@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com> On Aug 30, 7:55 pm, "Main, Kerry" wrote: > From: Doug Phillips [mailto:dphil...@netscape.net] > > Kerry Main wrote: > > > have and what they > > > need In the future: > > > > 1. App = 50-60% > > > 2. OS = 25-35% > > > 3. Server HW - 10-15% > > > I really didn't want to get into this again, but let's talk about > > those numbers. You say "relative importance to Cust's" of the App is > > 50-60% ?? I say relative importance of the App is 100% and the OS & > > hardware (and I include workstations, printers and all other > > peripherals and infrastructure) fall into the category of "necessary > > evils." Your numbers more closely reflect the rough cost of acquiring > > the ability to perform the application. > > Lets not get silly here ok? > Hey, you started it. > Very few Cust's run an application by itself. There are OS customizations like batch > jobs, OS security on files, custom reports, DCL scripts (and their equivalent in UNIX > world), ISV customizations in terms of support utilities, pre and post processing jobs, > OS specific backups, data archiving, security auditing etc. > If those aren't "applications", then what are they? Which of the other two classifications do they fit into: Operating Systems or Severs? Calling Batch jobs, custom reports, DCL scripts, support utilities and such "OS customizations" doesn't make them part of the OS. All of those "applications" can be done on other operating system platforms, too. If you're claiming VMS does security better than most other OS's, I agree, but lose the straw-men and stick to your original point. > These are all typically heavily integrated with the primary App's. on that system. > Now you're breaking Apps into Primary and Secondary? How about Tertiary. I always liked that word. > When looking at new OS platforms, Cust's understand that these are all considerations > that need to be taken into consideration. > > Saying the application priority is 100% is a tad naive. > Saying otherwise shows a very narrow view of what the word "application" means, and what IT is all about. If I'm naive, maybe I'll grow out of it during the second 40 years I spend in this business. If anything, I'm admittedly jaded. But I do understand business management systems and applications. > > Platform security, support, reliability, performance and all other OS/ > > hardware factors effect cost and are certainly important but they are > > subordinate to and dependent upon the needs of the application. > > > You don't buy an application you can't run, and you don't buy a > > platform that won't run your application. Before anyone else says it, > > I'll say it first: "Duh!" > > Never said anything otherwise .. are you trying to make a point in there somewhere? > Sorry, I thought you said that OpenVMS should be the platform of choice for server consolidation... Hmm. Yep, that's what you said. Found it in more than one of your posts. Now, read my statement again and consider which platform runs the most applications. Maybe you'll get it. > > > > While #3 gets all sorts of attention in techie newsgroups, in the big > > picture, > > > #1 and #2 are much more important to Cust's. With a massive glut in > > available compute > > > cycles in most Cust's environment today, Cust's are not impressed > > with fantastic new > > > computer speeds that will increase their glut of available compute > > cycles even more. > > > > Btw, this applies to all platforms. > > > > Also, keep in mind that there is now a massive trend to consolidating > > both servers and > > > DC's. This is a huge change from the distributed computing designs of > > the last 10 years. > > > > Imho, the question that will become increasingly important in the > > future - "Can a company > > > afford OS platforms for their future centralized, very HA strategy > > that have "one app, > > > one OS" App/ISV support cultures... > > > Well, unless you're considering something like ERP or an office > > productivity suite a single app, then I guess I'd disagree. > > > Server consolidation is happening and will continue to happen, but if > > OpenVMS doesn't run the applications that are being consolidated, why > > would OpenVMS even be a consideration? > > Consolidation within the same platform is what I was referring to. Unless it is a very > simple IT service or application, changing OS Platforms during any server consolidation > initiative raises the risk level from 2-3 to something like 7-8. > I see. So, you're no longer advocating OpenVMS as the consolidation platform of choice? > > The "one app, one OS" scene hasn't played in years. Nobody I can think > > of today does that other than on existing older equipment that *will* > > be consolidated as equipment is replaced (or for very specialized > > applications on special purpose servers that *should* be kept > > isolated.) > > Again, you have obviously not been in real world Operations or IT environments > for awhile. > Well, today wasn't too long ago, was it? Plan to be here/there tomorrow and as long after that as I can, too. Unless I'm dreaming and I'll wake up and discover that I'm a plumber. Maybe I should have been a plumber; there's no disagreement in the world about which way s*** flows. Anyway. I'd say if you know a lot of people still moving in the "one app, one server" direction (except as I noted above), you're stuck in some kinda time-warp. > Why is VMware so hot? Lots of CPU cycles are available, so Why not take 5-10 Windows > Biz applications and put them on a single Windows OS instance? > Sure, but you don't need VMware to do that for just run Windows apps. If you want to *mix* OS' on the same server, then use it. Otherwise it's just another layer of potential problems. BTW, Windows on Itanium is *not* being advanced on-par with x86-64, or have you not noticed? > Because there is a One App, One OS culture and each group does not want their App > sharing the same OS resources as someone else's. Even if both Apps run on servers that > in their peak times only reach 10-15% CPU utilization. That's reality. > That's B*** S***. Not saying it's not what happens, but your "OS culture" argument is B*** S***. It's not the "culture's" money, is it? The "culture" isn't buying the servers, are they? You're talking about a management problem that has nothing to do with "OS culture" or any other technical reality. John Santos story posted in this thread is a reality I've seen, too. It's a management problem, and the problem is mostly related to ignorance at the management level high enough to effect proper change. I can point to periods in time where major marketing campaigns pushed the ignorance forward, and the lack of advertising of better solutions allowed the ignorance to grow. Today, and in the recent past, it's Microsoft, but I remember one of the first ad's I saw that caused me grief. Maybe some others remember it: It was an IBM TV ad back in very early PC days. Two Monks got a new PC, turned it on and one sat down and said something like "look, if we (do whatever) we can get (some number) more barrels of wine this year" or some such. I couldn't believe how many of my clients (PDP-11 & others) afterwards said something like: If they can do that on a PC maybe I should get rid of this expensive equipment and buy an IBM PC. and: Why does it take all this programming to get that kind of information from our computer? These were not stupid people, but it took an effort to undo the damage. I told them to buy a PC if they wanted to, and I'd help them understand how it worked. Some did so. Good marketing is powerful, and ad-driven hype is hard to fight without help from the owners of the good technology. (yes, that's an old dig, but if you actually read what we're discussing, and what you've said about the windows-culture mentality, you'll see how it is appropriate here.) > VMware shares are going through the roof right now and this is the absolute > biggest reason why this is happening. [Course, VMware does not actually reduce the > work to maintain all the various OS instances, but that's another discussion.] > > > > and where the OS vendors release 5-20 security patches > > > per month?" > > > You really should stop using that argument, too. It's been rebutted in > > many previous threads. > > > Windows and *nix are so much better today vs. the past, in every > > aspect, that anyone paying even a little attention can predict that > > they will only get better. > > [Note that I referred to Linux and Windows, not UNIX] > And I said "*nix" not UNIX nor Linux. Reading your above fully quoted post, I see the word UNIX, but I do *not* see the word Linux. I spoke generically because there is no one UNIX or Linux, is there, but all share a common theme, no? > Please, again your statement reflects only that you likely have an application focus > with little DC Operations experience. And likely one that has been bitten by all the > Linux and Windows hype. And likely not someone who has an environment with hundreds of > Wintel/Linux servers that need security patches every month. > Well, if by DC Operations experience you mean hands-on operation of day-to-day data-center hardware, and add the word "recent" between "little" and "DC", then you're right. Not since my Mainframe days. If you mean any other level *above* that, you're wrong. Yes, my focus is on applications. That includes *all* applications of information technology and my focus isn't limited by the belief that an application is just a program running on an operating system running on a computer. A business (my mainstay, although I've spent lot's of time working with governments and non-profits) is a system. All of the parts must work together for it to run smoothly. Finding or building the tools and putting them together to make that happen is what I do. I prefer the SME environment because one can accomplish more with less waste than in the LE world; I know that because I've been there and sometimes still get dragged back in. Your comments make be believe you have little recent experience with well run organizations. > Here is the Linux RH web site for security patches:https://www.redhat.com/archives/enterprise-watch-list/ > * [RHSA-2007:0875-01] Important: mysql security update, bugzilla * [RHSA-2007:0860-01] Moderate: tar security update, bugzilla * [RHSA-2007:0841-01] Critical: RealPlayer security update, bugzilla * [RHSA-2007:0671-01] Moderate: kernel security and bugfix update, bugzilla * [RHSA-2007:0673-01] Important: kernel security update, bugzilla * [RHSA-2007:0672-01] Important: kernel security update, bugzilla * [RHSA-2007:0829-01] Critical: java-1.5.0-ibm security update, bugzilla * [RHSA-2007:0777-01] Moderate: gdm security and bug fix update, bugzilla * [RHSA-2007:0765-01] Moderate: libgtop2 security update, bugzilla * [RHSA-2007:0818-01] Critical: java-1.5.0-sun security update, bugzilla * [RHSA-2007:0817-01] Critical: java-1.4.2-ibm security update, bugzilla * [RHSA-2007:0731-01] Important: tetex security update, bugzilla I see no "critical" kernel patches, do you? I guess Java still has some problems (Surprise!) and there's a RealPlayer patch I'm sure everyone needs. Ok, maybe I'll dig into some of them deeper to see what they're all about, but probably I won't because (here it comes) none of them apply to anything I'm using on my servers. > Now click on "thread" for each month and go back as many months as you want. Each > and every month, there are 5-20 security patches (sometimes many more). > > Why not create a graph from 2003-2007 to show how the number of security patches > released each month has gone down? [hint - you won't like the trend] > > What's to rebut? > > Yes, not every security patch applies to all systems, but most shops have no idea > what all the services their development and production systems are using, and each > readme file on the security patch is often vague (for good reason) as to all of the > associated details around each patch. And many of these one line patch links are bundled > security patches as well. > > So, saying the Windows (and Linux) server issues are getting any better is really > laughable and is really only an indication of someone bitten by the hype bug. > > Microsoft still also releases numerous security patches each and every month. Here is > a recent example: > > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2127475,00.asp (May 2007) > Microsoft has released patches for 19 vulnerabilities, 14 of which are critical, hitting > at holes in Excel, Word, Office, Exchange, Internet Explorer, cryptographic technology > and the whopper of them all, the zero-day vulnerability in the DNS Server's use of RPC. > That was from May, so I hope you've installed that on all of your Windows servers by now. Looks like most of the patches have to do with IE and MIME and email attachments and such. Oh, and other layered products that I don't have running on any of my servers. One thing I have to say in Microsoft's favor: they aren't afraid to call even a minor potential security bug a "security patch" and when there is a real security threat they make it clear that it is important. Many of the bugs are ones they've discovered themselves, it seems, so it's real decent of them to let everyone have those patches. Real easy to install, too. > [and yes, you do need explorer on your Windows servers] > But you should only use it for external access from a server for the Microsoft update site, which seems pretty secure, and actually you don't really need IE for that: you can go to the site with Firefox or a brand-x browser and download the patches. I'm sure you must have known that. > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=41698(August 2007) > SOFTWARE GIANT Microsoft has issued patches for nine security flaws, including six > critical ones. > > .. "Four of the patches keep hackers from breaking into computers through Web pages and > are rated critical. [snip] The other three updates are rated important and one of them > is for the "super secure" Vista OS." > Stay off of those porn sites from the server, please. And, I don't have any servers running Vista. Do you? > > > My advice to Cust's - think like Wayne Gretzky (ok, he's a hockey > > player) and the way > > > He became a great player .. "Do not skate to where the puck is, but > > where it will be in > > > the next play sequence .." > > > > :-) > > > The puck looks to me like it's still heading towards x86. The article > > you reference supports this argument better than most I've read. > > Thanks. > > Once the hype bug has bitten someone, it is tough to get them back to reality. > You've shown that to be true. You seem to ignore the facts presented in the very article you referenced. > Hey, I know what it is like. Back in mid 90's, in addition to being an OpenVMS Ambassador, > I used to also be part of the Digital Windows NT Wizards Program. At that time, there were > many monthly Windows security patches, but even back then the std response was "hey, its > getting better and soon Windows will take over the world.." (ok, even then I did not believe > all of the hype, but the hype bug is tough to shake.) > Well, having lived through that myself, and seeing as how I'm still having to deal with the Windows "culture" I can see for myself that Windows2003 *is* better than Windows2000 which was better than Windows NT 4.0 etc and I won't even get into the advancements in the desktop world. No hype. Just lots of experience. > 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. I agree with that 100% but the gap *is* closing not matter how loudly you protest. If you reply to this and I respond, I'll do some major snipping. This is getting to be ridiculous. Anyway, time to hit the sack. I've made enough typo's and sufficiently butchered the King's English for this day. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 2007 13:08:26 -0500 From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: In article <1188489170.332475.258080@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, Sue writes: > Dear Newsgroup, > > If you remember we have done VMS License plates over the years. The > last one we did had "When downtime is NOT an option" > > I was thinking about doing them again for our 30th. Let me know what > you think. Certainly if the slogan is that good. That slogan would be fine, or perhaps "For 30 years, when downtime is NOT an option" (says the person who does not have to make the text fit). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:30:35 -0400 From: "Ken Robinson" Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <7dd80f60708301130h6711e738r6a657de4eecae94d@mail.gmail.com> On 8/30/07, Sue wrote: > Dear Newsgroup, > > If you remember we have done VMS License plates over the years. The > last one we did had "When downtime is NOT an option" > > I was thinking about doing them again for our 30th. Let me know what > you think. I inadvertently sent my reply directly to Sue, so here it is for everyone to see... :-) Using a slight modification on the old "Don't trust anyone over 30" ... Don't trust any OS under 30 Ken ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:44:30 -0700 From: Rich Jordan Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <1188499470.254415.17460@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com> On Aug 30, 10:52 am, Sue wrote: > Dear Newsgroup, > > If you remember we have done VMS License plates over the years. The > last one we did had "When downtime is NOT an option" > > I was thinking about doing them again for our 30th. Let me know what > you think. > > Warm Regards, > Sue "Cool and unhackable" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:59:40 -0400 From: "Syltrem" Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <13de4ster3jla65@corp.supernews.com> "Sue" wrote in message news:1188489170.332475.258080@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > Dear Newsgroup, > > If you remember we have done VMS License plates over the years. The > last one we did had "When downtime is NOT an option" > > I was thinking about doing them again for our 30th. Let me know what > you think. > > Warm Regards, > Sue > "No reboots necessary - just use it" Syltrem ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:04:44 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <640b1$46d714cd$cef8887a$7689@TEKSAVVY.COM> Bill Gunshannon wrote: > C'mon JF. Don't hold back like that. Tell us what you really think!! :-) In a Logan's Run theme: "VMS is about to turn 30. Come and watch as it enters Caroussel" (To control the OS population, all OS are sent to be "reborn" on their 30th birthday). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:13:33 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <605c7$46d716e0$cef8887a$25584@TEKSAVVY.COM> Bill Gunshannon wrote: > > C'mon JF. Don't hold back like that. Tell us what you really think!! :-) "Still waiting to be adopted by parents who care" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:19:28 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: I still think they should have VMS branded condoms with the catch phrase: "Always Up when you need it". or "When staying up for more than 4 hours is perfectly normal" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:34:27 -0400 From: "John Smith" Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <49b91$46d71bb9$cef8b04d$28264@TEKSAVVY.COM-Free> 1) The Operating System for Adults 2) It's What I Play With In The Dark 3) An Operating System For Real Work 4) You Can Neglect It But It Won't Stop Working 5) Viruses? You Must Be Thinking Of A Different Operating System 6) Reboot? .....Why? 7) Better Than Operating Systems Half Its Age 8) Doesn't Need Viagra To Stay Up all (c) 2007, John Smith. All Rights Reserved. --will licence the slogans in return for $100 million advertising campaign for OpenVMS, to be directed by me. -- OpenVMS - The never-advertised operating system with the dwindling ISV base. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:47:15 -0700 From: Rich Jordan Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <1188503235.697058.316430@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com> On Aug 30, 1:44 pm, Rich Jordan wrote: > On Aug 30, 10:52 am, Sue wrote: > > > Dear Newsgroup, > > > If you remember we have done VMS License plates over the years. The > > last one we did had "When downtime is NOT an option" > > > I was thinking about doing them again for our 30th. Let me know what > > you think. > > > Warm Regards, > > Sue > > "Cool and unhackable" "Your data is worth it" "Because your data matters" "Forestalling doom for 30 years!" "Clusters for grown-ups" "Optimized for service and integrity, not games" "Where would you rather have your critical data?" "So you don't have to patch, and patch, and patch, and patch, and patch...." "Buffer overflows don't get us down" "Restart, Reboot, Reload, Reformat.... NOT!" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:16:41 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: On 08/30/07 13:30, Ken Robinson wrote: [snip] > Using a slight modification on the old "Don't trust anyone over 30" ... > > Don't trust any OS under 30 Unix is over 30. Does that mean we should trust HP-UX? -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:18:47 -0400 From: "FredK" Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: "Ron Johnson" wrote in message news:KAFBi.69200$GO6.38406@newsfe21.lga... > On 08/30/07 13:30, Ken Robinson wrote: > [snip] >> Using a slight modification on the old "Don't trust anyone over 30" ... >> >> Don't trust any OS under 30 > > Unix is over 30. Does that mean we should trust HP-UX? > Yes. But don't trust JF. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:19:45 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: In article , JF Mezei writes: > > >I still think they should have VMS branded condoms with the catch phrase: > >"Always Up when you need it". > >or > >"When staying up for more than 4 hours is perfectly normal" Marty Kuhrt made purple VMS shirts one year and gave them out at a DECUS. They read: Can't keep it up? You need VMS! He gave one to Rich Marcello! I have one too in my stash of d|i|g|i|t|a|l and VMS memorabilia. -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" http://tmesis.com/drat.jpg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:00:21 -0700 From: Sue Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <1188507621.429600.70890@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com> On Aug 30, 4:19 pm, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote: > In article , JF Mezei writes: > > > > >I still think they should have VMS branded condoms with the catch phrase: > > >"Always Up when you need it". > > >or > > >"When staying up for more than 4 hours is perfectly normal" > > Marty Kuhrt made purple VMS shirts one year and gave them out at a DECUS. > They read: Can't keep it up? You need VMS! > > He gave one to Rich Marcello! I have one too in my stash of d|i|g|i|t|a|l > and VMS memorabilia. > > -- > VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM > > "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" > > http://tmesis.com/drat.jpg now thats one to one marketing ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:02:14 -0700 From: Sue Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <1188507734.391311.128360@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com> On Aug 30, 11:52 am, Sue wrote: > Dear Newsgroup, > > If you remember we have done VMS License plates over the years. The > last one we did had "When downtime is NOT an option" > > I was thinking about doing them again for our 30th. Let me know what > you think. > > Warm Regards, > Sue You folks are great, I love the suggestions maybe we should get blank ones and provide letters and folks can make their own ;'). sue ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:09:42 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: VMS, where 30 years of stability and compatibility have proven themselves. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:04:07 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: (Stolen from a brokerage commercial...) When Sue Speaks, People Listen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:10:11 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: VMS, written by serious people for serious people. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:08:05 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <16705$46d731b6$cef8887a$31313@TEKSAVVY.COM> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote: http://tmesis.com/drat.jpg $ fetch_http http://tmesis.com/drat.jpg HTTP/1.0 404 error opening file in request MIME-version: 1.0 Server: OSU/3.10a;UCX Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:06:57 GMT -ERROR-(404): i/o error Requested method: GET Requested URL: /drat.jpg HTTP protocol: HTTP/1.0 -------- additional request headers -------- Accept: */* Host: tmesis.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:11:04 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <15ff1$46d73269$cef8887a$31313@TEKSAVVY.COM> FredK wrote: >> Unix is over 30. Does that mean we should trust HP-UX? >> > Yes. But don't trust JF. > Thank you for the compliment ! I think it may be the first time someone thinks I am older than 16 :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:14:33 -0500 From: "Lee K. Gleason" Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: "JF Mezei" wrote in message news:e3714$46d73233$cef8887a$31313@TEKSAVVY.COM... > VMS, written by serious people for serious people. From my readings of the sources for the VAX version, I can say that I don't think they were always that serious...some of the comments were extremely funny! -- Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR Control-G Consultants lee.gleason@comcast.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:06:07 -0700 From: sean@obanion.us Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <1188518767.595387.110670@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com> I made a t-shirt a couple of years ago that read: I run OpenVMS I've got it up NOW Sean On Aug 30, 1:19 pm, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote: > In article , JF Mezei writes: > > > > >I still think they should have VMS branded condoms with the catch phrase: > > >"Always Up when you need it". > > >or > > >"When staying up for more than 4 hours is perfectly normal" > > Marty Kuhrt made purple VMS shirts one year and gave them out at a DECUS. > They read: Can't keep it up? You need VMS! > > He gave one to Rich Marcello! I have one too in my stash of d|i|g|i|t|a|l > and VMS memorabilia. > > -- > VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM > > "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" > > http://tmesis.com/drat.jpg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:52:47 +1000 From: Phaeton Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <46d76654_1@news.chariot.net.au> Sue wrote: > Dear Newsgroup, > > If you remember we have done VMS License plates over the years. The > last one we did had "When downtime is NOT an option" > > I was thinking about doing them again for our 30th. Let me know what > you think. > > Warm Regards, > Sue "VMS - Still the One !" Cheers, Csaba ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |d|i|g|i|t|a|l| http://accounts.zotspot.com/?source=10965&m=l ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EARTH::AUSTRALIA:[SYDNEY]HARANGOZO.CSABA;1, delete? [N]: He who laughs last probably made a backup. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:57:52 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <39033$46d76794$cef8887a$22000@TEKSAVVY.COM> I run VMS, do you ? I am not affraid of clusters I perform well in a cluster. I like it when many play with my peripherals at the same time. Does your OS have good documentation ? My GUI developped before I hit puberty. (The above is important since so many think that VMS is old character cell only). I was doing email before Windows was born. Would Windows survive Palmer and Capellas ? VMS did. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:59:17 +0000 From: "Main, Kerry" Subject: RE: VMS License Plates Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Sue [mailto:susan_skonetski@hotmail.com] > Sent: August 30, 2007 11:53 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: VMS License Plates > > Dear Newsgroup, > > If you remember we have done VMS License plates over the years. The > last one we did had "When downtime is NOT an option" > > I was thinking about doing them again for our 30th. Let me know what > you think. > > Warm Regards, > Sue OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works. :-) Kerry Main Senior Consultant HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660 Fax: 613-591-4477 kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT) OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:01:46 -0500 From: "Paul Raulerson" Subject: RE: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <009c01c7eb72$e340eab0$a9c2c010$@com> > -----Original Message----- > From: Sue [mailto:susan_skonetski@hotmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:53 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: VMS License Plates > > Dear Newsgroup, > > If you remember we have done VMS License plates over the years. The > last one we did had "When downtime is NOT an option" > > I was thinking about doing them again for our 30th. Let me know what > you think. > > Warm Regards, > Sue VMS>=MVS ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:08:26 -0500 From: "Paul Raulerson" Subject: RE: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <009d01c7eb73$d14588b0$73d09a10$@com> > -----Original Message----- > From: Sue [mailto:susan_skonetski@hotmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:53 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: VMS License Plates > > Dear Newsgroup, > > If you remember we have done VMS License plates over the years. The > last one we did had "When downtime is NOT an option" > > I was thinking about doing them again for our 30th. Let me know what > you think. > > Warm Regards, > Sue Got VMS? When it absolutely positively has to work in the morning ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:17:42 -0500 From: David J Dachtera Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <46D77A46.B8929B8B@spam.comcast.net> VMS: Viagra for Computers -- David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems http://www.djesys.com/ Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/ Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/ Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/ Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:19:11 -0500 From: David J Dachtera Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <46D77A9F.DFAE0E75@spam.comcast.net> Sue wrote: > > On Aug 30, 11:52 am, Sue wrote: > > Dear Newsgroup, > > > > If you remember we have done VMS License plates over the years. The > > last one we did had "When downtime is NOT an option" > > > > I was thinking about doing them again for our 30th. Let me know what > > you think. > > > > Warm Regards, > > Sue > > You folks are great, I love the suggestions maybe we should get blank > ones and provide letters and folks can make their own ;'). Hey! Better Still!!! -- David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems http://www.djesys.com/ Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/ Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/ Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/ Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:20:24 -0500 From: David J Dachtera Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <46D77AE8.431DC4F0@spam.comcast.net> "Lee K. Gleason" wrote: > > "JF Mezei" wrote in message > news:e3714$46d73233$cef8887a$31313@TEKSAVVY.COM... > > VMS, written by serious people for serious people. > > From my readings of the sources for the VAX version, I can say that I > don't think they were always that serious...some of the comments were > extremely funny! Fish mentioned in error messages? Wombats mentioned in HELP? (I know - that's DTR, not VMS!) -- David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems http://www.djesys.com/ Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/ Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/ Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/ Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:30:49 -0500 From: David J Dachtera Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <46D77D59.FD775D65@spam.comcast.net> Sue wrote: > > Dear Newsgroup, > > If you remember we have done VMS License plates over the years. The > last one we did had "When downtime is NOT an option" > > I was thinking about doing them again for our 30th. Let me know what > you think. > > Warm Regards, > Sue VMS: Kevin Mitnick's Waterloo ...and if he takes it as a challenge, we'll be able to use this headline afterward: VMS BEATS RECIDIVIST HACKER AGAIN How 'bout: VMS: A Hacker's Worst Nightmare Was VMS the only o.s. ever banned from the DEFCON Hacker's convention? If so: VMS: Only OS ever banned from DEFCON VMS: Even Survived 21st Century Corporate America The VMS Muchachos: "We don't need no stinkin' EULA!" -- David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems http://www.djesys.com/ Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/ Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/ Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/ Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:00:41 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk Subject: Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax! Message-ID: In article <46D4C1BB.483EBD4@spam.comcast.net>, David J Dachtera writes: >Neil Rieck wrote: >> >> On Aug 25, 11:09 am, David J Dachtera >> wrote: >> > >> > I would opine that it may be possible to buffer the effects of a naturally >> > occuring phenomenon - "may": no guarantees - within the limits of our >> > technology. "Stopping" would be rather akin to adjusting the output of old Sol >> > out there, adjusting the orbit of Terra around it or Terra's rotation about its >> > axis, or otherwise attempting to modify the very nature of either the planet, >> > the solar system or the universe. >> > >> > I'll repeat my conviction here as well: humankind did not cause climate change, >> > humankind will not prevent it. >> > >> >> You are speaking "black and white" but the answer is really in the >> thousand shades of gray in between. But I do not accept your defeatist >> attitude. (sorry) > >To paraphrase e-plan Peter's .sig, "I'm not a defeatist - I'm a realist". If >futility is your thing, go for it. With luck, you'll be too busy to notice when >"the big one" hits. > >On the other hand, if you dedicate your efforts to launching some artifacts of >human society into space such that they will eventually land back on what ever >is left of Mother Earth, that may actually prove useful in the long run if found >and eventually studied by whatever intelligent life form succeeds us. > >> Mars is much colder than it should be, and this is > >....possibly... > >> caused by the lack >> of an atmosphere. > Mars has a thin atmosphere which is mostly carbon dioxide this does result in a weak greenhouse effect which raises the surface temperature by about 5 degrees centigrade over what it would be if Mars had no atmosphere see for instance http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Marsatmos.html and http://ww.nineplanets.org/mars.html Scientists have discussed plans for manufacturing powerful greenhouse gases (PFCs) on Mars in order to raise the temperature as part of a terraforming project which could be accomplished in as little as 200 years. >.... indirectly, or directly by whatever caused Mars's atmosphere - assuming it >ever had one - to be stripped away (which might even be the ultimate fate of >Terra - who knows?). > Cooling of the planet because of it's much smaller size leading to less vulcanism and a lack of plate tectonics meant that gas absorbed by rocks from the atmosphere was not recycled back into the atmosphere. Also the lack of a magnetic field meant that the atmosphere was (and to some extent still is) being stripped away by the solar wind. The heating of the Sun leading to evaporation of the oceans and the Earth becoming more like Venus with a gigantic greenhouse effect in about a billion years time is probably more likely than the Earth cooling enough to stop plate tectonics, vulcanism and permanently turn off the Earth's Magnetic field in the same time period. >> Venus is much hotter than it should be, and this is > >....believed to be... > >> caused by a run-away greenhouse effect of the atmosphere. > The greenhouse effect exists - the Earth is much hotter than it would be if it had no atmosphere. Similarly Venus is much much hotter than it would be if it had no atmosphere. >....or is the run-away "greenhouse effect" the result of being much hotter since >it is closer to the Sun? The jury is still out on that question, though a large >portion of the scientific community seems convinced as you are based onthe >incomplete evidence in our possession. > The two viewpoints are not contradictory. It is theorised that the increased temperature caused by Venus being closer to the Sun led to the evaporation of it's water which led to the runaway greenhouse effect. The closeness of Venus to the Sun would not produce a surface temperature of 460 degrees centigrade if it had no atmosphere. Venus is hotter than Mercury although it is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance. >> So it is >> obvious to me that tweaking the atmosphere is the primary key to >> solving this problem. > >Well, I had to qualify your statements above. In the purest sense, they do not >support your conclusion - the current understanding of the issues is incomplete, >and the conclusion is, therefore, brash and not well founded. It also ignores >factors outside of the planet and its atmosphere which produces an incomplete >data set. Conclusions based on incomplete data are, at best, faulty. > The existence of the greenhouse effect is well established - the only question is how much the Co2 released by humanity has enhanced that effect on earth. >> There are other factors in global warming but I think we can get >> control of the atmosphere. But we just can't give up now after coming >> so far! > >How far have we come? > >Have we managed to change the precession of the earth's axis? ...the orbit of >the Earth around the Sun? > >What did I miss? Changing the earth's orbit might be one solution in a Billion years when the Sun threatens to boil off the oceans but isn't necessary at the moment. > >Earth's climate has changed cyclically since before the dawn of recorded >history. It will continue to change long after humankind goes the way of the >dinosaur and the dodo. > Of course the Earth has been much warmer than it is now. However mankind and civilisation have prospered in the current interglacial under current conditions. Global warming will change those conditions producing both economic and human costs as sea levels rise etc Hence we need to explore how we can best maintain the current conditions or at least minimise and slow the changes. It is certainly much too early to just say we can do nothing especially since most scientists think we can do something by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University >> > ...and if you think now is bad, do a little research into "the dust bowl days". >> > We can cause weather patterns to shift through mismanaging our soil and other >> > resources, but we cannot effect factors that operate on a cosmic scale. >> > >> >> I'm not sure if the dirty-thirties was a world-wide phenomenon or >> something local to North America. > >Well, given that I said: >> > We can cause weather patterns to shift through mismanaging our soil and other >> > resources, but we cannot effect factors that operate on a cosmic scale. > >...., I believe its is safe to say that the "Dust Bowl" phenomenon was local to >the Central Plains of the U.S. Other places on other continents may have >experienced similar issues - I did not address them, nor did I intend to. > >> However, everyone in the field of >> agriculture (no pun) has been taught that the top soil just blew and >> that this was caused by poor agricultural practices (such as always >> plowing fields in a straight line; plowing too deeply; not rotating >> crops; not letting a field go fallow; not having a wind-break of >> trees; etc.). That is why the US Department of Agriculture uses county >> agents to eductate farmers. > >....which seems to support my statement. > >If you disagree with me and still think I'm a "defeatist", read this again, and >see if you can understand what I'm trying to say here: >> > ..., but we cannot effect factors that operate on a cosmic scale. > >-- >David J Dachtera >dba DJE Systems >http://www.djesys.com/ > >Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page >http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/ > >Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: >http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/ > >Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: >http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/ > >Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: >http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:58:12 -0500 From: David J Dachtera Subject: Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax! Message-ID: <46D775B4.FFCA22E8@spam.comcast.net> Ron Johnson wrote: > > On 08/28/07 19:45, David J Dachtera wrote: > > Neil Rieck wrote: > >> On Aug 25, 11:09 am, David J Dachtera > >> wrote: > [snip] > > > > On the other hand, if you dedicate your efforts to launching some artifacts of > > human society into space such that they will eventually land back on what ever > > is left of Mother Earth, that may actually prove useful in the long run if found > > and eventually studied by whatever intelligent life form succeeds us. > > Unless (70.8% chance) it lands in water. "Water" - brash assumption > Or the 90% of the terra firma that is uninhabited. Likewise; however, note the use of "may" and "if" in the quoted text. Doesn't really suggest more than a remote possibility. -- David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems http://www.djesys.com/ Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/ Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/ Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/ Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:57:53 GMT From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= Subject: Re: World Wide Rdb Forums Message-ID: Sue wrote: > The location and dates for this year's Forums are: > > Europe > > September 10-11, Stockholm, Sweden Yep, I'll be there... :-) Jan-Erik. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:59:23 +0200 From: Albrecht Schlosser Subject: Re: Xyplex RJ45-DB9 wiring Message-ID: Tom Linden wrote: > Trying to bring up a terminal server, and have difficult time getting > the wiring correct for the RJ45-DB9 (to go on OPA0) using straight > through cable. I'm not sure, what you want to do, but I think what you need would be only a three/four pin wiring (data signals only, no modem control). Connect: xyplex pin 4/5 (signal ground) to OPA0(DB9) pin 5 (signal ground). xyplex pin 3 (XMT) to OPA0(DB9) pin 2 (RCV). xyplex pin 6 (RCV) to OPA0(DB9) pin 3 (XMT). I assume that you want to use a VMS system as console device for the terminal server. If yes, then you would have to $ alloc OPA0 (or TTA0) $ set term/type OPA0 (or TTA0) $ set term/speed=9600 OPA0 (or TTA0, maybe another speed) $ set host/dte OPA0 (or TTA0) Then you should be connected to the terminal server's console port (you plugged the cable before this, didn't you?). If it's anything else that you want to do, then please be more detailed what you want to do and what doesn't work ... Albrecht ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:34:14 -0500 From: David J Dachtera Subject: Re: Xyplex RJ45-DB9 wiring Message-ID: <46D77E26.29353131@spam.comcast.net> Albrecht Schlosser wrote: > > Tom Linden wrote: > > Trying to bring up a terminal server, and have difficult time getting > > the wiring correct for the RJ45-DB9 (to go on OPA0) using straight > > through cable. > > I'm not sure, what you want to do, but I think what you need would be > only a three/four pin wiring (data signals only, no modem control). > > Connect: > > xyplex pin 4/5 (signal ground) to OPA0(DB9) pin 5 (signal ground). > xyplex pin 3 (XMT) to OPA0(DB9) pin 2 (RCV). > xyplex pin 6 (RCV) to OPA0(DB9) pin 3 (XMT). Hhmmm... then, a TTY cord for VT(MMJ) <-> HSx(RJ11) controller console port should work for VT's, huh? -- David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems http://www.djesys.com/ Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/ Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/ Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/ Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 03:16:32 GMT From: "John E. Malmberg" Subject: Re: Xyplex RJ45-DB9 wiring Message-ID: Albrecht Schlosser wrote: > Tom Linden wrote: > >> Trying to bring up a terminal server, and have difficult time getting >> the wiring correct for the RJ45-DB9 (to go on OPA0) using straight >> through cable. > > > I'm not sure, what you want to do, but I think what you need would be > only a three/four pin wiring (data signals only, no modem control). > > Connect: > > xyplex pin 4/5 (signal ground) to OPA0(DB9) pin 5 (signal ground). > xyplex pin 3 (XMT) to OPA0(DB9) pin 2 (RCV). > xyplex pin 6 (RCV) to OPA0(DB9) pin 3 (XMT). Some terminal emulators require the rts-cts lines to be jumpered if you are not sending them from end to end. Others require the dsr-dtr lines to be jumpered. It is best to always jumper these lines when they are not connected through so that the resulting cable or adapter can be used everywhere. -John wb8tyw@qsl.network Personal Opinion Only ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:35:59 -0400 From: "John Smith" Subject: Re: Your chance to be involved in our 30th anniversary Message-ID: <7120$46d71c16$cef8b04d$28330@TEKSAVVY.COM-Free> Sue, Just a remineder .... you shouldn't have put Dan's e-mail address in cleartext in a newsgroup. I know you didn't mean to. Sue wrote: > Dear Newsgroup, > > The OpenVMS Group is working on a number of things for our 30th > anniversary. What are we doing, you may ask and how can you help. We > are putting together a CD with some great information, we have a PR > plan around the 30th, there is a new screen saver, new presentation > all kinds of things. Some of the regions are planning celebrations > and offers. If you need the graphic for the 30th please let either > Dan or myself know. We really look forward to hearing from you. > > Thank you for your support. > > Warm Regards, > Sue > > -------------- This is important ---------------- > > Ways you can help > > 1. HP PR would like to talk to several of our customers about your > experiences with OpenVMS and the 30th anniversary of OpenVMS. This is > an opportunity to help out in the most public part of this occasion -- > the PR campaign. > > We only need a few minutes of your time to hear about your best, most > fun, etc. reasons for loving OpenVMS. > > Please get in touch with Dan Klein as soon as you can if you have > questions or would like to help out. Dan.Klein@hp.com > > 2. Your funny stories, stories about reliability, longevity, migration > and even your mistakes (and what you did about them). > AND > > You know you are running OpenVMS when... > The best thing about OpenVMS is... > Because of OpenVMS my business (my employer) is able to... > > > A web form has been set up for this purpose; > > http://h71000.www7.hp.com/fb_30years.html > > We plan to post as many of your stories and factoids as possible when > we launch our 30th anniversary web pages. -- OpenVMS - The never-advertised operating system with the dwindling ISV base. ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.477 ************************