INFO-VAX Thu, 06 Nov 2008 Volume 2008 : Issue 600 Contents: Re: Bell Labs closes Re: Bell Labs closes Re: IO TIME vs COMputable Re: IO TIME vs COMputable Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Re: Synchronizing SYSUAF between independent machines Re: Synchronizing SYSUAF between independent machines Re: WPSPLUS on Layered Products? Re: WPSPLUS on Layered Products? Re: WPSPLUS on Layered Products? Re: WPSPLUS on Layered Products? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 23:54:35 +0100 From: "P. Sture" Subject: Re: Bell Labs closes Message-ID: In article <00A81B95.5CC47CE3@SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote: > In article , Michael Kraemer > writes: > >Richard B. Gilbert schrieb: > > > >> Right now I'd be VERY careful with ANYTHING "Made > >> in China". > > > >Unfortunately there is not much choice left over to buy > >sth *not* made in China. > > I didn't even have to buy. APC just sent me a "Swiss Army Knife" made > in China (from the peel off sticker on the knife). Cough, splutter. The real version looks like this: http://www.victorinox.ch/index.cfm?page=0&lang=E -- Paul Sture ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 02:47:08 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: Bell Labs closes Message-ID: <00A82318.8399663C@SendSpamHere.ORG> In article , "P. Sture" writes: >In article <00A81B95.5CC47CE3@SendSpamHere.ORG>, > VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote: > >> In article , Michael Kraemer >> writes: >> >Richard B. Gilbert schrieb: >> > >> >> Right now I'd be VERY careful with ANYTHING "Made >> >> in China". >> > >> >Unfortunately there is not much choice left over to buy >> >sth *not* made in China. >> >> I didn't even have to buy. APC just sent me a "Swiss Army Knife" made >> in China (from the peel off sticker on the knife). > >Cough, splutter. The real version looks like this: > >http://www.victorinox.ch/index.cfm?page=0&lang=E I know Paul. Mine look almost like that but in lieu of the spoon and fork extractable widgets it has chop-sticks. :) -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM ... pejorative statements of opinion are entitled to constitutional protection no matter how extreme, vituperous, or vigorously expressed they may be. (NJSC) Copr. 2008 Brian Schenkenberger. Publication of _this_ usenet article outside of usenet _must_ include its contents in its entirety including this copyright notice, disclaimer and quotations. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:41:08 -0700 From: Keith Parris Subject: Re: IO TIME vs COMputable Message-ID: Bob Koehler wrote: > I don't know of any tracking of I/O time in VMS. Not exactly tracking I/O time as defined in this thread, but nevertheless very useful, is the ability of OpenVMS to track response times for Fibre Channel I/Os, creating a histogram of response times versus I/O size, and tracking reads and writes separately. See the output of SDA> FC PERF [devicename] T4's Fibre Channel Monitor (FCM) data collector also collects response time data for Fibre Channel disks, which is then easy to visualize using TLviz. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:12:44 -0600 From: David J Dachtera Subject: Re: IO TIME vs COMputable Message-ID: <4912529C.4DE3B23D@spam.comcast.net> Keith Parris wrote: > > Bob Koehler wrote: > > I don't know of any tracking of I/O time in VMS. > > Not exactly tracking I/O time as defined in this thread, but > nevertheless very useful, is the ability of OpenVMS to track response > times for Fibre Channel I/Os, creating a histogram of response times > versus I/O size, and tracking reads and writes separately. See the > output of SDA> FC PERF [devicename] > > T4's Fibre Channel Monitor (FCM) data collector also collects response > time data for Fibre Channel disks, which is then easy to visualize using > TLviz. Remember CSVPNG, also. Runs on VMS and can be used in batch (hands-off, lights-out, unattended). D.J.D. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:45:17 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Message-ID: <00A822DD.954F2FE1@SendSpamHere.ORG> In article , johnwallace4@yahoo.co.uk writes: >On 5 Nov, 17:13, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote: >> In article , Len Whitwer writes: >> >> >> >> >On Nov 4, 5:35=A0pm, Jan-Erik S=F6derholm >> >wrote: >> >> Len Whitwer wrote: >> >> > Ordered HP Basic LTU for integrity BA347AC "concurrent license" at a >> >> > list price of $2400.00. Installed on rx2620 system and can only get >> >> > "ONE >> >> > USER" on system. >> >> >> > Get following error when second user tries to use basic. >> >> >> What does the *first* user do at that time ? >> >> >> Also post the SHOW LICENCE for the rellevant product. >> >> >> By "use" you meen running the compiler at the *same time*, right ? >> >> >> You can easaly "fix" this by running the compiles on a >> >> batch queue with a JOB_LIMIT=3D1. Or any other way that >> >> makes only one copy of the compiler been running at a time. >> >> >> Or wait 10 seconds and re-try the BAS command. >> >> >> This isn't a major problem. If you have many developers >> >> on your system, you could probably add 1 or 2 additional >> >> "users" and have 10-20 developers running without any >> >> particular problem. >> >> >> And $2400 isn't that much. You can't get a full copy >> >> of the Adobe "Master Collection" at that price, and that >> >> is for one single, single-user system... >> >> >> I do not see what your problem is... >> >> >> Jan-Erik. >> >> >> > $ BAS OE001A >> >> >> > %LICENSE-F-NOAUTH, DEC BASIC use is not authorized on this node >> >> >> > -LICENSE-F-NOLICENSE, no license is active for this software product >> >> >> > -LICENSE-I-SYSMGR, please see your system manager >> >> >> > %TRACE-F-TRACEBACK, symbolic stack dump follows >> >> >> > image =A0 =A0 module =A0 =A0routine =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 line = >> >=A0 =A0 =A0rel PC >> >> > abs PC >> >> >> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0= >> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A00 FFFFFFFF80BBEA10 >> >> > FFFFFFFF80BBEA10 >> >> >> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0= >> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A00 FFFFFFFF80BC3960 >> >> > FFFFFFFF80BC3960 >> >> >> > BASIC =A0BASICLICENSE =A0BASIC$LICENSE =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 250 000000000000= >> >0420 >> >> > 00000000002C1380 >> >> >> > BASIC =A0BASTARTUP =A0ENV_BASIC_INIT =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01185 0000000000= >> >000030 >> >> > 0000000000280650 >> >> >> > BASIC =A0DBASIC_DRIVER =A0GEM_XX_INIT =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0639 0000000000= >> >000140 >> >> > 0000000000280140 >> >> >> > BASIC =A0GEM_CP_VMS =A0GEM_CP_MAIN =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02505 00000000= >> >00002270 >> >> > 0000000000641F40 >> >> >> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0= >> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A00 FFFFFFFF80C03700 >> >> > FFFFFFFF80C03700 >> >> >> > DCL =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0= >> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A00 000000000006BA90 >> >> > 000000007AE27A90 >> >> >> > %TRACE-I-END, end of TRACE stack dump >> >> >> > Having hard time believing that cost for ONE USER basic license is >> >> > $2400.00. >> >> >> > Has anyone ever seen this??? Say it isn't so!!!! >> >> >> > -Len Whitwer >> >> > Puget Sound Data Systems, Inc. >> >> > 19501 144th Ave. NE Suite D-100 >> >> > Woodinville, WA =A098072 >> >> > e-mail =A0 =A0mailto:l...@psds.com >> >> > Internet:http://www.psds.com >> >> > Toll Free: (866)857-0710 >> >> > Tel: (425) 488-0710 >> >> > Fax: (425) 488-6414- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> - Show quoted text - >> >> >The first user of Basic works just fine. (No Problems) Show license >> >indicates the license is loaded with a units of "1". But then again >> >when you so a show license on OVMS "FOE" it also has a units >> >of "1". (Unlimited license) I'm still not convinced that this BASIC >> >license shouldn't be unlimited. >> >> >Any other ideas or should I just BUCK UP?? >> >> $ SHOW LICENSE/USAGE >> >> Some licenses have a unmber of UNITS associated with them and an ACTIVITY >> charge for using it (ie. CONSTANT=#). So, if you have a license with two >> units and an activity charge of CONSTANT=1, the licensed product can be >> used by, for example, two processes. What is the "ACTIVITY" on you VMS >> FOE license? >> >> In your case, the license has UNITS 1 and an ACTIVITY charge of 1; how- >> ever, I think it is bad form to have the compiler dump because of a lic- >> ence issue -- it should return a resonable error status and message in- >> dicating the problem. >> >> -- >> VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM >> >> ... pejorative statements of opinion are entitled to constitutional protection >> no matter how extreme, vituperous, or vigorously expressed they may be. (NJSC) >> >> Copr. 2008 Brian Schenkenberger. Publication of _this_ usenet article outside >> of usenet _must_ include its contents in its entirety including this copyright >> notice, disclaimer and quotations. > >It does indeed seem like very bad form to have a stack dump because of >a "simple" licensing issue. So, asking a perhaps dumb question, are >there any likely system configuration issues (y'know, along the lines >of "insufficient GBPAGES", etc) which could lead to the licensing >issue ending up in the unclean-exit symptoms we see here, issues which >might arise when someone new to this kind of thing (as Len appears to >be) has a go at installing and using the BASIC compiler? I didn't bother to look into the stack info you posted as it was all quoted-pukeable here. Let me go back to the original post and see if I can output it to my Mac or Linux box for readability. -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM ... pejorative statements of opinion are entitled to constitutional protection no matter how extreme, vituperous, or vigorously expressed they may be. (NJSC) Copr. 2008 Brian Schenkenberger. Publication of _this_ usenet article outside of usenet _must_ include its contents in its entirety including this copyright notice, disclaimer and quotations. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:56:13 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Message-ID: <00A822DF.1C6CC09B@SendSpamHere.ORG> In article , johnwallace4@yahoo.co.uk writes: >{...snip...} >It does indeed seem like very bad form to have a stack dump because of >a "simple" licensing issue. So, asking a perhaps dumb question, are >there any likely system configuration issues (y'know, along the lines >of "insufficient GBPAGES", etc) which could lead to the licensing >issue ending up in the unclean-exit symptoms we see here, issues which >might arise when someone new to this kind of thing (as Len appears to >be) has a go at installing and using the BASIC compiler? It looks like the license error was signalled and not returned, and that the BASIC compiler image was linked /TRACEBACK. I just pulled the BASIC compile .EXE off of the DVD and check it for /TRACEBACK. -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM ... pejorative statements of opinion are entitled to constitutional protection no matter how extreme, vituperous, or vigorously expressed they may be. (NJSC) Copr. 2008 Brian Schenkenberger. Publication of _this_ usenet article outside of usenet _must_ include its contents in its entirety including this copyright notice, disclaimer and quotations. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 2008 11:48:12 -0600 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Message-ID: <4$3O3UCCFH1y@eisner.encompasserve.org> In article <0003b648$0$26262$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes: > > The per-user licence is supposed to be much cheaper and not tied to any > type of machine and that is the one which limits concurrent users. > There were per-machine, per-user-count, and specific-user licenses available from DEC. I was really surprised at how cheap the specific-user licenses were for compilers when I got my first Alpha, compared to what I'd been paying for per-machine licenses for compilers on VAXen. Which was great, because I bought the system to replace a MV II Pathworks server and I was the only one even thinking about compiling stuff on it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:51:16 GMT From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= Subject: Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Message-ID: Len Whitwer wrote: > On Nov 5, 9:59 am, "Richard Brodie" wrote: >> "Len Whitwer" wrote in message >> >> news:dccc0c6d-516e-4c1c-96ae-2cbf83253aee@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com... >> >>> Was able to come up with this info which sounds "CLOSE" and might lead >>> me down the resolution path. What do you think????? >> This is probably better:http://licensing.hp.com/swl/view.slm?page=ltype > > Thanks Richard. I will pass on the sad news!!!! > > Len What is sad ? You've got what you bought, as far as I can tell. You have bought one (1) copy of a Concurrent Use License for HP BASIC (order number BA347AC). If you actualy need to have two active compiles at the same time (probably not if you do not have 5 or more developers, they spend most of their time in the editor and reading compiler listings anyway :-) ), you can simply get another copy and double the "compile throughput". The SPD (Software Product Description) for HP BASIC is reasonable clear on the licensing options. In IA64, the "Concurrent Use License" is the only option available, and you buy as many as you need *concurrent* compiles to run. The HP BASIC SPD: http://h71000.www7.hp.com/commercial/basic/BASIC017_SPD.pdf Jan-Erik. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:27:41 -0500 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Message-ID: <0003f5d9$0$26328$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote: > The SPD (Software Product Description) for HP BASIC is > reasonable clear on the licensing options. In IA64, the > "Concurrent Use License" is the only option available, Then $2400 for a single concurrent use is pretty expensive. I know that HP apologists will point to DSPP where compilers are dirt cheap. But for people who do development in-house, they don't qualify for DSPP and forcing them to pay those horrendous prices is not right. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:37:20 -0700 From: Glen Herrmannsfeldt Subject: Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Message-ID: Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote: (snip) > The SPD (Software Product Description) for HP BASIC is > reasonable clear on the licensing options. In IA64, the > "Concurrent Use License" is the only option available, > and you buy as many as you need *concurrent* compiles > to run. Except for the case when the license manager gets confused and thinks it is in use when it isn't. Maybe they have gotten better. I remember cases of programs that crash and don't release the license. -- glen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:48:20 GMT From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= Subject: Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Message-ID: JF Mezei wrote: > Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote: > >> The SPD (Software Product Description) for HP BASIC is >> reasonable clear on the licensing options. In IA64, the >> "Concurrent Use License" is the only option available, > > Then $2400 for a single concurrent use is pretty expensive. I took a quick look at prices for PC/Windows compilers (yes, some might include an IDE and so on, but anyway) at a large swedish distributor. And if you need "PRO" development tools, they are priced at similar levels. It would be interesting to see the difference on Alpha for "Personal Use" (I think it was called "Named User" at some time) vs. "Concurrent Use". "Personal Use" is more like what you get when you buy PC compilers, at least from a licensing point of view. Concurrent Use is actualy a wider license then standard PC-type licenses. No, I do not think it's particular expensive. And, as an hobbyist, you can use it will full functionality for free. > > I know that HP apologists will point to DSPP where compilers are dirt > cheap. But for people who do development in-house, they don't qualify > for DSPP and forcing them to pay those horrendous prices is not right. But then, what *is* "right" ?? Jan-Erik. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:19:25 -0600 From: David J Dachtera Subject: Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Message-ID: <4912542D.149C1710@spam.comcast.net> Len Whitwer wrote: > > On Nov 4, 5:45 pm, David J Dachtera > wrote: > > Len Whitwer wrote: > > > > > Ordered HP Basic LTU for integrity BA347AC "concurrent license" at a > > > list price of $2400.00. Installed on rx2620 system and can only get > > > "ONE > > > USER" on system. > > > > > Get following error when second user tries to use basic. > > > > > $ BAS OE001A > > > > > %LICENSE-F-NOAUTH, DEC BASIC use is not authorized on this node > > > > > -LICENSE-F-NOLICENSE, no license is active for this software product > > > > > -LICENSE-I-SYSMGR, please see your system manager > > > > > %TRACE-F-TRACEBACK, symbolic stack dump follows > > > > > image module routine line rel PC > > > abs PC > > > > > 0 FFFFFFFF80BBEA10 > > > FFFFFFFF80BBEA10 > > > > > 0 FFFFFFFF80BC3960 > > > FFFFFFFF80BC3960 > > > > > BASIC BASICLICENSE BASIC$LICENSE 250 0000000000000420 > > > 00000000002C1380 > > > > > BASIC BASTARTUP ENV_BASIC_INIT 1185 0000000000000030 > > > 0000000000280650 > > > > > BASIC DBASIC_DRIVER GEM_XX_INIT 639 0000000000000140 > > > 0000000000280140 > > > > > BASIC GEM_CP_VMS GEM_CP_MAIN 2505 0000000000002270 > > > 0000000000641F40 > > > > > 0 FFFFFFFF80C03700 > > > FFFFFFFF80C03700 > > > > > DCL 0 000000000006BA90 > > > 000000007AE27A90 > > > > > %TRACE-I-END, end of TRACE stack dump > > > > > Having hard time believing that cost for ONE USER basic license is > > > $2400.00. > > > > > Has anyone ever seen this??? Say it isn't so!!!! > > > > Hhmmm... Doesn't look right. I'd expect "attempted usage exceeds > > available license units" or some similar message. > > > > The message you got seems to indicate that the license is not even > > loaded. If you registered the PAK, did you then do a LICENSE LOAD to > > reload all the available PAKs? > > > > What does SHOW LICENSE say about the BASIC PAK? > > $ SHOW LICENSE BASIC > > > > What does the output of this command look like: > > $ SHOW LOGICAL/TABLE=LMF$* *BASIC* > > > > D.J.D.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > Results of commands: What do you think??? > > $ show license basic > > Active licenses on node I64VMS: > > ------- Product ID -------- ---- Rating ----- -- Version -- > > Product Producer Units PCL Activ Version Release > Termination > > BASIC HP 1 0 1 0.0 (none) > (none) O.k. That definitely looks like a 1-user license. As long as its not a personal use license, the single threaded approach should work. That said, do you have a support contract? Looks like the license check returned the wrong status. The license is definitely loaded and active; so, that's wrong. It should have returned "attempted usage exceeded license limit". Best to log a case with support. If the BASIC maintainer is lurking, you'll want to contact this user off-list and get the remaining details. The trace-back and stack dump are already here. D.J.D. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:10:03 -0500 From: jls Subject: Re: Synchronizing SYSUAF between independent machines Message-ID: On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 00:09:30 -0800 (PST), Ramon Jimenez wrote: > >> The best method to achieve this type of configuration is to create an >> OpenVMS cluster. > >Bob, > > I fully agree, the best method is a cluster, but someone has >decided not to use. So I must find an alternate way. > > So, without the cluster option. Is there another way than copying >sysuaf.dat and rights.dat files? > > If I need to switch over can I merge sysuaf files so I do not need >a reboot? or would it be better to reboot the machine and replace the >sysuaf file? > Any solution to copy online files may work, may not... and it may even work *most of the time*. The question to ask is: is "most of the time" good enough for your business? And if the resultant copy is a corrupted file, and you don't find out until too late, how disruptive to your business is it? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 11:14:11 -0800 From: "John Gemignani, Jr." Subject: Re: Synchronizing SYSUAF between independent machines Message-ID: "Ramon Jimenez" wrote in message news:cfa89e38-0e19-4083-8922-8732d661110e@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > Hello > > We have two HP Integrity boxes (OS Version V8.3-1H1) > > One of them must be keept as a failover, so we need to keep > information synchronized between both machines. > > The application and data has been confined into a Logical Disk, so we > just dismount the shadow and copy the files into the other machine. If > we need to switch over we just need to mount the volumes on the > failover server. > > We also need to keep synchronized the sysuaf.dat (and related files > rights.dat...). > > Which could be the best method to do it? > > Regards Ramon Some years ago I actually did something like this for an ISP in the Chicago area. When they made a change to their sysuaf or rightslist, they wanted the information replicated across all nodes out on their network. Any node could be used for authorization and authentication of their users, and the changes could originate from specific nodes (for security). What I did was to run servers on each VMS system and I audited sysuaf and rightslist changes. When this occurred, the server would send out the changes to the other systems out on the network. The data was encrypted. This worked very well. There was also a way to push the entire sysuaf/rightslist file set out periodically as part of a larger maintanence schedule. John ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:16:56 +0100 From: "Martin Vorlaender" Subject: Re: WPSPLUS on Layered Products? Message-ID: urbancamo wrote: > Bit of an arcane query I know, but was WPSPLUS included on the Alpha > Layered Products distributions at all? If so, does any one know > approx. what year or VMS version it was last seen on? According to my list at http://de.openvms.org/spl.php there never was a product "WPS-PLUS" on Alpha. It was part of the VAX ConDists at least from Sep-1992 (earliest list I have access to) until May-1994, in versions 4.0 and 4.1. cu, Martin BTW: if anyone has a ConDist earlier than Sep-1992, I'd love to have a copy of the CD_CONTENTS.DAT file to make that page more complete. -- One OS to rule them all | Martin Vorlaender | OpenVMS rules! One OS to find them | work: mv@pdv-systeme.de One OS to bring them all | http://vms.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/ And in the Darkness bind them.| home: martin.vorlaender@t-online.de ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:23:16 -0500 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: WPSPLUS on Layered Products? Message-ID: <0003f4cf$0$26328$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Martin Vorlaender wrote: > > According to my list at http://de.openvms.org/spl.php there never was a > product "WPS-PLUS" on Alpha. Note however, that WPSPLUS itself was ported to alpha as part of ALL-IN-1. It was never packaged separately. And towards the end of ALL-IN-1, WPSPLUS and MessageRouter were optional add-ons from a licensing point of view. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 14:32:51 -0800 (PST) From: urbancamo Subject: Re: WPSPLUS on Layered Products? Message-ID: <11d7cc0e-6faf-48db-93e1-5de7565faca2@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com> Thank you to everyone for the help. Am I right in thinking that Compaq Office Server for Alpha therefore doesn't include WPS-PLUS but ALLIN1 for Alpha does? Regards, Mark. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:47:30 -0500 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: WPSPLUS on Layered Products? Message-ID: <000416a7$0$27222$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> urbancamo wrote: > Am I right in thinking that Compaq Office Server for Alpha therefore > doesn't include WPS-PLUS but ALLIN1 for Alpha does? Office Server is All-In-1. It maintains the character cell interface, but was licensed more for the background server serving windows desktops. The CDs contain both the ALL-IN-1 version and the office server version. My guess is the WPSPLUS option is selected at the build time when the A1 image is being linked during installation. ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2008.600 ************************