INFO-VAX Sun, 24 Jun 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 341 Contents: Re: And the question was? (Re: Amazing, two new articles on Computerworld.com ac Re: And the question was? (Re: Amazing, two new articles on Computerworld.com ac Re: Another PDP-11/RSX MCR question Re: Mac OS Re: Multiple Hobbyist Layered Products Licenses for more than 1 Alpha? Re: Multiple Hobbyist Layered Products Licenses for more than 1 Alpha? Re: Multiple Hobbyist Layered Products Licenses for more than 1 Alpha? Re: NFS Startup error ? Re: OpenVMS - When downtime is not an option RE: OpenVMS - When downtime is not an option Re: OpenVMS - When downtime is not an option Re: Question about TCPIP$ftp - copy taking a long time Re: Question about TCPIP$ftp - copy taking a long time ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Jun 2007 18:24:02 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: And the question was? (Re: Amazing, two new articles on Computerworld.com ac Message-ID: <5e56q2F3674fsU1@mid.individual.net> In article , "Main, Kerry" writes: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bill@cs.uofs.edu [mailto:bill@cs.uofs.edu] On >> Behalf Of Bill Gunshannon >> Sent: June 23, 2007 8:00 AM >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com >> Subject: Re: And the question was? (Re: Amazing, two new articles on >> Computerworld.com actual mention OpenVMS!) >>=20 >> In article >> > t>, >> "Main, Kerry" writes: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Dr. Dweeb [mailto:spam@dweeb.net] >> >> Sent: June 22, 2007 8:58 PM >> >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com >> >> Subject: Re: And the question was? (Re: Amazing, two new articles >> on >> >> Computerworld.com actual mention OpenVMS!) >> >>=3D20 >> >> Main, Kerry wrote: >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> From: Dr. Dweeb [mailto:spam@dweeb.net] >> >> >> Sent: June 21, 2007 4:51 PM >> >> >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com >> >> >> Subject: Re: And the question was? (Re: Amazing, two new >> articles >> >> on >> >> >> Computerworld.com actual mention OpenVMS!) >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > [snip...] >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Few companies are investing in new VMS systems, its all >> maintenance >> >> >> and >> >> >> migration away from VMS, except for the few sites where Rdb >> and/or >> >> >> VMS is so >> >> >> entrenched that the cost and risk of moving outweighs all other >> >> >> factors. >> >> > >> >> > Shhh.. please don't tell Cust's with mission critical >> environments >> >> > like the following: >> >>=3D20 >> >> Kerry, I just left one. >> >>=3D20 >> >> A multi-billion doillar p.a. houshhold name. They are expending a >> >> VERY >> >> large amount of money to migrate away from HP (VMS/Rdb). Anything >> but >> >> HP at >> >> any cost (and I mean *any* cost). They have absolutely sound >> reasons >> >> for >> >> doing so, none of which have to do with VMS quality or >> functionality. >> >>=3D20 >> >> Dweeb >> >>=3D20 >> > >> > Well, as you stated, it sounds like this Cust has issues with HP >> that >> > extend well beyond OpenVMS. >>=20 >> What makes you say that? We have had numerous people say that because >> of HP's traetment of OpenVMS they would never buy another HP product. >> Sounds pretty much the same to me. >>=20 > > Mmm, re-read his statement "They have absolutely sound reasons for doing > so, none of which have to do with VMS quality or functionality." What in what I said above has anything to do with "VMS quality or functionality"? > > Sounds like lots of non-OpenVMS issues to me. You don't think uncertainty about VMS's future is a VMS issue? You don't think HP's refusal to promote VMS in order to secure it's future is a VMS issue? > >> > >> > Certainly not something HP wants (no vendor wants unhappy Cust's), >> and I >> > would hope the account team is working to correct whatever the issue >> is. >>=20 >> If it ain't PC's or ink, I don't think HP cares one way or the other. >>=20 >> bill >>=20 > > Yeah, you are likely correct, who cares about all the billions of $'s > that the other depts bring in eh? > > That's like saying Universities only care about Arts and Science > students (typically the biggest number by far) - following your analogy, > Universities do not care about Engineering and other Colleges / Depts. Actually, your closer than you might think. They pore a lot more mone into the School of Management here than they do the School of Art's and Sciences. In the department that needs to work the hardest to keep up with changes in technology, we are the one's who see our budget eroding more and more each year. All I was pointing out above is the same thing that everyone has continuously pointed out. HP seems happiest pouring money into the things with the lowest margin. Think what those billions could look like if they involved things where the margin was greater than 4% and most of the proifit didn't just go back out the door to Bill Gates bank account. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 14:55:24 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: And the question was? (Re: Amazing, two new articles on Computerworld.com ac Message-ID: <467D6C9C.7070401@comcast.net> Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article , > "Main, Kerry" writes: > >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: bill@cs.uofs.edu [mailto:bill@cs.uofs.edu] On >>>Behalf Of Bill Gunshannon >>>Sent: June 23, 2007 8:00 AM >>>To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com >>>Subject: Re: And the question was? (Re: Amazing, two new articles on >>>Computerworld.com actual mention OpenVMS!) >>>=20 >>>In article >>>>>t>, >>> "Main, Kerry" writes: >>> >>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>From: Dr. Dweeb [mailto:spam@dweeb.net] >>>>>Sent: June 22, 2007 8:58 PM >>>>>To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com >>>>>Subject: Re: And the question was? (Re: Amazing, two new articles >>>> >>>on >>> >>>>>Computerworld.com actual mention OpenVMS!) >>>>>=3D20 >>>>>Main, Kerry wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>>>From: Dr. Dweeb [mailto:spam@dweeb.net] >>>>>>>Sent: June 21, 2007 4:51 PM >>>>>>>To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com >>>>>>>Subject: Re: And the question was? (Re: Amazing, two new >>>>>> >>>articles >>> >>>>>on >>>>> >>>>>>>Computerworld.com actual mention OpenVMS!) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>[snip...] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Few companies are investing in new VMS systems, its all >>>>>> >>>maintenance >>> >>>>>>>and >>>>>>>migration away from VMS, except for the few sites where Rdb >>>>>> >>>and/or >>> >>>>>>>VMS is so >>>>>>>entrenched that the cost and risk of moving outweighs all other >>>>>>>factors. >>>>>> >>>>>>Shhh.. please don't tell Cust's with mission critical >>>>> >>>environments >>> >>>>>>like the following: >>>>> >>>>>=3D20 >>>>>Kerry, I just left one. >>>>>=3D20 >>>>>A multi-billion doillar p.a. houshhold name. They are expending a >>>>>VERY >>>>>large amount of money to migrate away from HP (VMS/Rdb). Anything >>>> >>>but >>> >>>>>HP at >>>>>any cost (and I mean *any* cost). They have absolutely sound >>>> >>>reasons >>> >>>>>for >>>>>doing so, none of which have to do with VMS quality or >>>> >>>functionality. >>> >>>>>=3D20 >>>>>Dweeb >>>>>=3D20 >>>> >>>>Well, as you stated, it sounds like this Cust has issues with HP >>> >>>that >>> >>>>extend well beyond OpenVMS. >>> >>>=20 >>>What makes you say that? We have had numerous people say that because >>>of HP's traetment of OpenVMS they would never buy another HP product. >>>Sounds pretty much the same to me. >>>=20 >> >>Mmm, re-read his statement "They have absolutely sound reasons for doing >>so, none of which have to do with VMS quality or functionality." > > > What in what I said above has anything to do with "VMS quality or > functionality"? > > >>Sounds like lots of non-OpenVMS issues to me. > > > You don't think uncertainty about VMS's future is a VMS issue? > You don't think HP's refusal to promote VMS in order to secure > it's future is a VMS issue? > > >>>>Certainly not something HP wants (no vendor wants unhappy Cust's), >>> >>>and I >>> >>>>would hope the account team is working to correct whatever the issue >>> >>>is. >>>=20 >>>If it ain't PC's or ink, I don't think HP cares one way or the other. >>>=20 >>>bill >>>=20 >> >>Yeah, you are likely correct, who cares about all the billions of $'s >>that the other depts bring in eh? >> >>That's like saying Universities only care about Arts and Science >>students (typically the biggest number by far) - following your analogy, >>Universities do not care about Engineering and other Colleges / Depts. > > > Actually, your closer than you might think. They pore a lot more > mone into the School of Management here than they do the School of > Art's and Sciences. In the department that needs to work the hardest > to keep up with changes in technology, we are the one's who see our > budget eroding more and more each year. > > All I was pointing out above is the same thing that everyone has > continuously pointed out. HP seems happiest pouring money into > the things with the lowest margin. Think what those billions > could look like if they involved things where the margin was > greater than 4% and most of the proifit didn't just go back out > the door to Bill Gates bank account. > > bill > Do the multiplication. margin * volume I think it will show that VMS is not where the money is. Even if VMS ran on commodity hardware, who really needs it? Competing O/Ss get the job done somehow or other. Linux is free. Solaris is free. Windows is bundled with virtually every PC. Sure, there are a few niches where VMS is clearly the O/S for the job, but not enough of them! VMS could survive in its niche if HP gave a shit. But they don't! And won't! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 21:37:29 -0500 From: "Lee K. Gleason" Subject: Re: Another PDP-11/RSX MCR question Message-ID: <467dd853$0$3159$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> "Rob Brown" wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.61.0706201648110.1911@localhost.localdomain... > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Jeff Cameron wrote: > > > In general, I would like to be able to get the output of any command > > (besides PIP) into a file. > > In general, RSX does not have this capability. > > You could send the command to a batch job and then parse the log file. > > The better way would be a utility that captures the output of a > command. I don't know if it has ever been written. I have never > needed it, so I have never looked for it nor written it. > I'd probably see about writing a TTDRVR ACD for this function. Good way to hook into the character stream - doing the file IO might take a little work. -- Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR Control-G Consultants lgleason@houston.rr.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 17:08:11 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Mac OS Message-ID: Larry Kilgallen wrote: > A major difference I see is that Mac OS X breaks compatibility > with older on-disk structures. AND breaks compatibility with file sharing. 8.6 is not able to succesfully copy non trivial files to a OS-X machine. And 10.4 they purposefully removed latent appletalk support for Appleshare, but kept appleshare on IP. Problem is that older macs don't do appleshare over IP as servers, and I found out that their client doesn't work well either. I've had to resort to STUFFIT to pack my files and they FTP to the new mac and unpack them there. Very slow process. I am happy to report that I have been able to start all my major apps (photoshop etc) on the classic emulator. Slot to start an app though. Interestingly, I have found some pretty neat system management tools. There is a logfile inspector. (seems that OS-X logs a lot of stuff). There is a GUI equivalent to MON SYS and SHOW SYS, and it has the logical equivalents of SHOW PROC/FILES which VMS lacks. (we,, you sort of can with: $PIPE SHOW DEV/FILES/NOSYS device: | search sys$input And you also see the percentage of CPU usage for each process. Not just the top one. It is a real shame that Apple didn't buy VMS at a discount from Palmer and then used its vastly superior kernel with all the clustering assets and put its GUI and applications on top of it. (and yes, that would have means porting VMS to PowerPC and later to the 8086. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 02:46:39 +0200 From: "P. Sture" Subject: Re: Multiple Hobbyist Layered Products Licenses for more than 1 Alpha? Message-ID: In article , Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote: > In article , Michael Kraemer > writes: > > Martin Vorlaender schrieb: > >> You can use the single set of LP licenses on all your boxes. It's just > >> the base VMS license that is bound to a machine. > > > > Not even that. I found a single base license to work on different > > machines. At least this was the case about 2 years ago, on VAXen. > > But doing so, rather than getting a separate license, decreases the > official statistics on the popularity of the hobbyist program. Indeed, the SIMH documentation recommends that a license is taken out even for older versions of VMS which don't require PAKs. The intent of that recommendation is for the legal side of things, but the official statistics are important too. -- Paul Sture ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 03:12:48 +0200 From: Michael Kraemer Subject: Re: Multiple Hobbyist Layered Products Licenses for more than 1 Alpha? Message-ID: Larry Kilgallen schrieb: > But doing so, rather than getting a separate license, decreases the > official statistics on the popularity of the hobbyist program. Strange logic. Even if I applied for a separate license for each of my couple of boxes in the basement this wouldn't increase the popularity. It still would represent only a single person. Maybe it would "improve" the statistics, but if you think that VMS needs this kind of fakes, then this OS is deeper in the mess than expected. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 21:32:13 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Multiple Hobbyist Layered Products Licenses for more than 1 Alpha? Message-ID: <528dc$467dc9b5$cef8887a$13001@TEKSAVVY.COM> Michael Kraemer wrote: > person. Maybe it would "improve" the statistics, but if you > think that VMS needs this kind of fakes, then this OS > is deeper in the mess than expected. > It isn't the number of persons that count, it is the number of machines still running VMS that does. Also, while it may not have been done, the fine folk who operates the hobbysit programme could also draw statistics on the types of machines in use, average number of machines per member, and how this changes year after year. Getting one licence per machine is really no big deal. And believe me, when/if you do cluster them, you not only require difference licences, but you'll also want to tag each licence to a node because you will want a single licence database. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 02:25:25 +0200 From: "P. Sture" Subject: Re: NFS Startup error ? Message-ID: In article , "P. Sture" wrote: > In article <1c0e6$467a50af$cef8887a$26108@TEKSAVVY.COM>, > JF Mezei wrote: > > > VMS 8.3 Alpha. TCPIP Services 5.6 > > > > After an enable service NFS : > > > > (many opcom messages about related things) > > > > %%%%%%%%%% OPCOM 21-JUN-2007 06:02:52.88 %%%%%%%%%%% > > Message from user INTERnet on CHAIN > > INTERnet ACP Activate NFS Server > > > > $ > > %%%%%%%%%%% OPCOM 21-JUN-2007 06:02:52.88 %%%%%%%%%%% > > Message from user INTERnet on CHAIN > > INTERnet ACP NOLISTEN Process creation success: Service - NFS > > > > $ > > %%%%%%%%%%% OPCOM 21-JUN-2007 06:02:53.74 %%%%%%%%%%% > > Message from user NFS Server on CHAIN > > Process 00100073 configured as an NFS server > > > > $ > > %%%%%%%%%%% OPCOM 21-JUN-2007 06:02:53.74 %%%%%%%%%%% > > Message from user TCPIP$NFS on CHAIN > > NFS memory (000B4000) at system virtual FFFFFFFF7DDA0000, user virtual > > 000000000 > > 03EE000 > > > > > > There is TCPIP$NFS_x process still running. The opcom message appears > > before the MAC even tries to connect. Is this some error/warning ? Or > > just a normal happening ? > > > > Does this thread at > > b190018/8fbceb4ae7db5ac8?&hl=en#8fbceb4ae7db5ac8> > > look like the same problem? Sorry, have to go out now - I'll look at it > more closely later on. > > > > > Mr Google made a vague reference to GH_EXEC_DATA being too low. (mine is > > at the default 512 pages). Is this something that needs to be changed > > (with reboot required) ? > > Something to try here... Well, GH-EXEC_DATA was at 484. I raised it to 1024, but still no joy. I'm not getting the errors loading the TCPIP proxies any more, but looking at my startup logs, that was already solved at some point since upgrading to V8.3 & TCPIP V5.6. I'll have another go, but given the amount of time I spent banging my head against a brick wall on this last year with V8.2, I'm not too optimistic. -- Paul Sture ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 16:56:17 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: OpenVMS - When downtime is not an option Message-ID: <72e96$467d8908$cef8887a$9042@TEKSAVVY.COM> Main, Kerry wrote: > HP is a huge company made up of lots of depts that use lots of different > products. If HP were so large, individual products would not get the attention of folks like Livermore who went out of her way to provide the corporate policy on VMS (hoping to keep installed base when they migrate FROM vms). And if HP were so large, there wouldn't be a corporate policy to prevent even press releases related to VMS from being sent out to the newswires. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 20:21:53 -0400 From: "Main, Kerry" Subject: RE: OpenVMS - When downtime is not an option Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca] > Sent: June 23, 2007 4:56 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: OpenVMS - When downtime is not an option >=20 > Main, Kerry wrote: > > HP is a huge company made up of lots of depts that use lots of > different > > products. >=20 >=20 > If HP were so large, individual products would not get the attention > of > folks like Livermore who went out of her way to provide the corporate > policy on VMS (hoping to keep installed base when they migrate FROM > vms). >=20 The same "we want to assist Cust's to stay with HP.." statement is made when talking about HP-UX users moving to Linux or Windows. Regardless of what the source platform is, as long as the target remains HP, that is what senior Exec's typically concern themselves with. Same is true for IBM or Sun. If a Cust decides to switch from AIX or Solaris to Linux, then they want that Cust to switch to a platform from their company. Nothing really earth shattering about this approach. > And if HP were so large, there wouldn't be a corporate policy to > prevent > even press releases related to VMS from being sent out to the > newswires. Where did you read or hear about that that corporate policy? Oh, I see, you did not read such a policy, so you made it up to suit your point? Regards, Kerry Main Senior Consultant HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660 Fax: 613-591-4477 kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20 OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 06:20:41 +0100 From: Russell Wallace Subject: Re: OpenVMS - When downtime is not an option Message-ID: Very cool video! I'm curious, how was failover achieved on the five operating systems? I'm assuming not an OS-specific feature? And, given the above assumption, what was the cause of the different time lags for the different OSs? -- "Always look on the bright side of life." To reply by email, replace no.spam with my last name. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 04:20:51 +0200 From: "P. Sture" Subject: Re: Question about TCPIP$ftp - copy taking a long time Message-ID: In article <07061908045909_202003EE@antinode.org>, sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda) wrote: > From: "P. Sture" > > > So once set, how does one clear the console value? > > There may be some dependence on SRM details, but, for example, on an > XP1000 (with its latest-but-obsolete firmware), "set eXXX_mode" provides > a list of "valid selections" between "bad value: complaints, one of > which is "Auto-Negotiate". ("eXXX" in my case includes device names > like "eia0" ($2.50) and "ewa0" (built-in).) So, you don't _clear_ it, > you set it to something else. > An update on this. I set EWA0_MODE to "Auto-Negotiate" on my PWS 600au, and it works fine. During startup it now comes up with messages such as: Negotiated 100 BaseTX: full duplex PS. I have 2 NICs on this system. Can anyone suggest a practical use for the second one? -- Paul Sture ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 23:05:44 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Question about TCPIP$ftp - copy taking a long time Message-ID: <94b8a$467ddf9f$cef8887a$11524@TEKSAVVY.COM> P. Sture wrote: > PS. I have 2 NICs on this system. Can anyone suggest a practical use for > the second one? I plan to use the second ethernet o my DS10Ls to link them directly (bypass the switch). This way, when the switch fails, those two machines can maintain quorum. Not sure of SCS will be spread amongst both lines, but worse case scenario, SCS bypasses the switch leaving decnet, lat and TCPIP traffic on the first port. ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.341 ************************