1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 26 Feb 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 114       Contents:; Re: ds10l typical power consumption, and any other opinions # Re: question about VMS732_LMF-V0200 # Re: question about VMS732_LMF-V0200 # Re: question about VMS732_LMF-V0200 # Re: question about VMS732_LMF-V0200 # Re: question about VMS732_LMF-V0200 , Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-), Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-), Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-). Re: Spinning down DSSI disks when not in use ?. Re: Spinning down DSSI disks when not in use ?* Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD?* Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD?* Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD?* Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD?* Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD?* Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD?  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 26 Feb 2006 07:57:27 -0800 From: bob@instantwhip.com D Subject: Re: ds10l typical power consumption, and any other opinionsC Message-ID: <1140969447.925112.309580@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>   ) we run dual scsi drives internally in our % configurations and no heat problem at ) all ... use either 7200 rpm drives or the % 10000 rpms will work also ... as long $ as they are run in a basement or air& conditioned environment they are fine.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:10:58 +0200 7 From: "Guy Peleg" <guy.peleg@remove_this_header@hp.com> , Subject: Re: question about VMS732_LMF-V0200* Message-ID: <44015486@usenet01.boi.hp.com>  L "Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply" <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>/ wrote in message news:dtqh3h$ffo$1@online.de... 8 > In article <44007925@usenet01.boi.hp.com>, "Guy Peleg"/ > <guy.peleg@remove_this_header@hp.com> writes:  >  > > . > > "Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply"! <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> 3 > > wrote in message news:dtnitk$81c$2@online.de... 7 > > > A new patch has been announced: VMS732_LMF-V0200.  > > > % > > > In part, the announcement says:  > > >  > > J > ---------8<------------------------------------------------------------- > > > A > > >      INSTALL_2 : To be installed by all customers using the , > > >                  following feature(s): > > > % > > >       -  PCL license management  > > > G > > >      2.3  Version(s) of OpenVMS to which this kit may be applied:  > > >  > > >      OpenVMS ALPHA V7.3-2  > > > C > > >      2.4  New functionality or new hardware support provided:  > > >  > > >      Yes > > > L > > > 5  NEW FUNCTIONALITY AND/OR PROBLEMS ADDRESSED IN THE VMS732_LMF-V0200 > > >    KIT > > > 7 > > >      5.1  New functionality addressed in this kit  > > > ) > > >           5.1.1  Per-Core Licensing  > > > 8 > > >                5.1.1.1  Functionality Description: > > > I > > >                The next version of the OpenVMS Industry standard 64 L > > >                operating system will introduce support for new type ofJ > > >                licenses - Per-Core Licenses (PCL).  PCL licenses areI > > >                intended to support the next generation of Integrity  > > >                servers.  > > > L > > >                This change adds the ability to manage and generate PCLJ > > >                licenses from prior versions of the operating system.J > > >                More details on PCL licenses will be available in the New 8 > > >                Features manual of the new version. > > >  > > J > ---------8<------------------------------------------------------------- > > > - > > > Do PCL licenses exist already on ALPHA?  > > > J > > > I am certainly not using them.  I have not consciously installed anyE > > > software to do so.  CAN I install the patch?  (I prefer keeping  patches F > > > up to date so that I don't have to remember to install them if I decide? > > > to use a feature in the future which I am not using now.)  > > > J > > > It seems to be an Itanium-only feature; what's the point of an ALPHA > > > patch? > > > I > > > Since there was no equivalent VAX announcement, I conclude that the L > > > number of folks planning to migrate from VAX to Itanium, at least with$ > > > no ALPHA in-between, is small. > > > J > > > By the way, has it been decided yet whether 7.3 will remain the last > > > version of VMS for VAX?  > > >  > > D > > I considered posting a message here before we released the PATCH8 > > to clear things up....sorry for forgetting about it. > > < > > On IA64 we currently license by the number of CPUs, each< > > CPU requires 1 unit, this is known as PPL (Per Processor> > > License) license. PPL licenses are only supported on IA64,> > > however, in a mixed arch cluster, you may be interested in@ > > moving/copying/registering/deleting/generating PPL PAKs from, > > your alpha box, so the support is there. > > I > > With V8.3 (IA64 only) we are going to license by the number of cores. 7 > > Each processor core requires one unit. PCL licenses 6 > > are introduced to support Montecito processors and7 > > new pricing. The LMF kit adds the ability to manage ? > > PCL licenses from existing Alpha systems. LMF will continue ! > > to support existing PPL PAKs.  > G > Thanks for the info.  Back to my question, though: apparently I don't I > need this patch, at least as long as I have no Itanium boxes.  However, I > I would rather install it, to keep up-to-date, so I don't have to worry H > about it when I DO have an Itanium box in the cluster.  So, apart fromG > the usual caveats about never touching a running system, is there any  > reason NOT to install it?   J There is no reason not to install it, the V7.3-2 kit only adds PCL supportF and that's it, no additional fixes. The v8.2 kit will have PCL supportH and couple of bug fixes. I say go ahead, install it and forget about it.   > 8 > > And....AFAIK there is no change on our VAX decision,A > > which is TBD for now....I have not heard it was canclled, but 7 > > I'll check Monday morning and will get back to you.  > 	 > Thanks.  > J > Assuming 7.3 is to be the latest VAX version, could one then assume that- > it will cluster with any 8.X ALPHA version?  > # > Will there ever be 9.X for ALPHA?  > F > I know that VAX and Itanium in one cluster isn't supported, but alsoJ > that HP folks have demonstrated such a cluster.  I know that the clusterF > protocoll doesn't have to obey the transitive property, but if VAX XJ > clusters with ALPHA Y, and ALPHA Y clusters with Itanium Y (same versionI > of VMS on ALPHA and Itanium, to keep it simple), what, from a technical I > point of view, COULD cause problems between VAX and Itanium?  Or is the ? > lack of support purely due to "not enough demand to test it"?  >   K I talked to the OpenVMS product manager last night (yes we are not the only I crazy people working over the weekend).  Our official position on VAX has  not J changed (unlike what suggested in previous replies that HP canclled future VAX releases).L  - "The date of future VAX release is TBD. If there was a significant demand we would produceJ and ship a VAX release, but most VAX customers are content on the versions they are) running or looking to move to integrity".   I Please do not reply here saying you do not agreee with this statement, it 	 came from G product management and this is the wrong forum for attempting to change  it....  K As for cluster compatibility - VAX & IA64 are supported in the same cluster 
 for migration H purposes, there is nothing in the code to prevent you from running VAX & IA64. If youK experience a problem you may be asked to turn off one of the systems to see  if the problemL is still reproducible or try to reproduce it in an Alpha & IA64 cluster, but again for migration  purposes it is supported.....    Guy    ------------------------------    Date: 26 Feb 2006 10:41:51 +01006 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER), Subject: Re: question about VMS732_LMF-V0200, Message-ID: <440185ef$1@news.langstoeger.at>  w In article <dtqh3h$ffo$1@online.de>, helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) writes: G >Thanks for the info.  Back to my question, though: apparently I don't  I >need this patch, at least as long as I have no Itanium boxes.  However,  I >I would rather install it, to keep up-to-date, so I don't have to worry  H >about it when I DO have an Itanium box in the cluster.  So, apart from G >the usual caveats about never touching a running system, is there any   >reason NOT to install it?   (Planned) downtime.   K How about installing it (implicitely) by the next VMS732_UPDATE (Mar2006) ?    --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER % Network and OpenVMS system specialist  E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:02:12 +0200 7 From: "Guy Peleg" <guy.peleg@remove_this_header@hp.com> , Subject: Re: question about VMS732_LMF-V0200* Message-ID: <4401a6d8@usenet01.boi.hp.com>  C "Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER" <peter@langstoeger.at> wrote in message & news:440185ef$1@news.langstoeger.at...F > In article <dtqh3h$ffo$1@online.de>, helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de2 (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) writes:H > >Thanks for the info.  Back to my question, though: apparently I don'tJ > >need this patch, at least as long as I have no Itanium boxes.  However,J > >I would rather install it, to keep up-to-date, so I don't have to worryI > >about it when I DO have an Itanium box in the cluster.  So, apart from H > >the usual caveats about never touching a running system, is there any > >reason NOT to install it? >  > (Planned) downtime.  > K > How about installing it (implicitely) by the next VMS732_UPDATE (Mar2006)  ?   G The LMF kit does not require a reboot, no interruption to production is 	 expected. 1 and it will be included with the next update kit.      >  > --   > Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER ' > Network and OpenVMS system specialist  > E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atH > A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:21:27 GMT ( From: Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net>, Subject: Re: question about VMS732_LMF-V0200= Message-ID: <HPiMf.75659$YJ4.65134@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>    JF Mezei wrote:    > B > OK, let me rephrase the question. Say Hoff and FredK were reallyD > productive this weekend and ported VMS to the Arm platform.  Would  H Great then I could have VMS on my phone. Seriously though I reckon simh H   compiled for a Windows Mobile Smartphone (ARM) would get about 1 or 2 G Vups. Considering the number of functional emulators already ported to  I Windows Mobile (Spectrum/Nintendo/Apple etc) it's probably only a matter  
 of time...   --  
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  + Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:02:03 +0000 (UTC) P From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply), Subject: Re: question about VMS732_LMF-V0200$ Message-ID: <dtsmub$2q9$1@online.de>  6 In article <44015486@usenet01.boi.hp.com>, "Guy Peleg". <guy.peleg@remove_this_header@hp.com> writes:   M > I talked to the OpenVMS product manager last night (yes we are not the only K > crazy people working over the weekend).  Our official position on VAX has  > not L > changed (unlike what suggested in previous replies that HP canclled future > VAX releases).N >  - "The date of future VAX release is TBD. If there was a significant demand > we would produceL > and ship a VAX release, but most VAX customers are content on the versions
 > they are+ > running or looking to move to integrity".   H That's probably right.  Most people still on VAX are running even older F versions of VMS.  Those who need more processing power, more features E etc have a) either already moved to ALPHA or b) are getting ready to  H move to Itanium since it is now clear that VAX won't keep up (even if a 1 newer version of VMS for VAX comes out sometime).   G Personally, I like VAXes because they are cheap (free), good enough for F most stuff I do (occasionally I need more speed and/or modern Fortran,F so have to do that on ALPHA), easy to work (i.e. after opening the boxG up) on and long-lasting.  When used ALPHAs become cheap enough, I could C envisage replacing the VAXes in my cluster with ALPHAs.  However, I E doubt that any ALPHA small enough and power-economical enough has the E same hardware robustness as small and power-economical VAXes like the  VAXstation 4000 series.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 08:19:16 +0100 + From: Karsten Nyblad <nospam@nospam.nospam> 5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) = Message-ID: <4401566e$0$67258$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk>    JF Mezei wrote: H > You need to take a "big picture" look.  marcello's statement, combinedI > with its previous statement that he's the one who came up with the idea G > to restrict IA64's market to only high end sends quite an interesting - > view of what marcello really thinks of VMS.   G The fact is that VMS has been seen as a back end, high availability OS  B for a long time.  HP has given up on the desk top, and VMS cannot G compete on purchase price with PC servers, no matter which OS these PC  G servers are running.  Thus any manager would call VMS a high end OS in  . an interview like the one Marcello was giving.  H > The message I see is that he's given up on VMS and IA64.  Giving up onI > IA64 is understandable. But giving up on both VMS and IA64 is dangerous G > because it greatly diminishes the potential for VMS to be ported to a H > better platform at first to complement IA64's limited market potential; > and then to fully replace IA64 when the later is retired.  > J > And consider that Marcello used to be considered the saviour of VMS, theD > one who allegedly convinced Curly not to can VMS in 2000 and got aI > modest marketing budget that lead to the VMS reneaissance (albeit short G > lived and it is obvious why, since Curly was planning to kill Alpha a / > few months after the marketing of VMS ended).  > G > When he started to rise within HP, it was hoped that this VMS saviour I > would push for VMS to be given a fair chance to grow and get marketing. I > But now, instead of that, we get messages that he is proud to have been E > the one to restrict IA64's market and now, one who doesn't see much  > growth potential for VMS.  > H > Now, this is at a time when HP is bragging about exhorbitant growth in > IA64 sales.  > D > If the guy who used to be seen as a champion for VMS is now a mereE > "yeah' we'll continue to sell it to existing customers but we don't I > expect any growth" guy, who within HP is going to be fighting for VMS ?  > F > If the guy who used to be seen as the champion/saviour of VMS is nowH > only mild towards it, does this mean that the Stallards/Winklers of HPI > will now succeed to further marginalising VMS into some obscure product  > that is destined to fail ? > O > (ok, I know that Winkler is thankfully gone, but I am sure there are others).  > 0 > Does anyone know what Robison thinks of VMS ?  > E > In the end, unless customers reach Hurd directly, Hurd will rely on I > people like Stallard, Marcello, Robison for advise. And if thsoe people F > don't give Hurd good advise for VMS, we may awaken one day with some > very bad news. > D > And there isn't a Terry Shannon to tell us the bad news a few days > before they become public. > D > And remember that once a corporation makes a decision and makes it7 > public, it is nearly impossible to have it reversed.  + > (Sun with 8086 is one notable exception).   I You do not seem to get it.  HP has for a long time considered VMS a cash  F cow.  It is a product that they will are more than willing to sell to B anyone wanting to buy it, because they make a lot of money on it. H However, they do not think they can make VMS grow through marketing, or E rather grow enough to get such an investment back with a nice profit.   F HP seems to intend to use VMS as cash cow as long as they make a nice I profit from it.  However, the VMS market will most likely become smaller  I and smaller.  It is difficult to say what may happen once VMS becomes so  H small that HP will see it more as a distraction than a cash cow, but my H guess is that HP will try to sell it to anybody, who can see a business B in continuing supporting old VMS customers.  Do not expect such a E company to try to market VMS.  It will be too late, and that company  % will not have the resources for that.    ------------------------------   Date: 26 Feb 2006 15:01:16 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) + Message-ID: <46du5sFag6vcU1@individual.net>   = In article <4401566e$0$67258$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk>, . 	Karsten Nyblad <nospam@nospam.nospam> writes: > K >               It is difficult to say what may happen once VMS becomes so  J > small that HP will see it more as a distraction than a cash cow, but my J > guess is that HP will try to sell it to anybody, who can see a business D > in continuing supporting old VMS customers.  Do not expect such a G > company to try to market VMS.  It will be too late, and that company  ' > will not have the resources for that.   G Mentec's handling of the PDP-11 and it's associated OSes seems to offer G at least a little hope that this may not be the case.  How long ago did E DEC dump them on Mentec who has continued to make enough off of it to F keep them going even today.  All depends on who buys it and what their expectations are when they do.   bill   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------    Date: 26 Feb 2006 07:43:02 -0800 From: bob@instantwhip.com 5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) B Message-ID: <1140968582.268854.45170@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>  C why can't vms be in the small middle market?  We are not a big iron G company ... we run small server workgroup environments ... the majority G of pdp and vms users come from the mini environment, but DEC/Compaq/HPs F refusal to look at this small/medium base as valuable has been part of the D problem ... their are only so many so called big iron shops, and you are F competing againset IBM and others, where their is a huge volume in the small G and medium mini environment ... that is what made vax and that is being F mistakenly overlooked because a lot of small and medium sales (volume)4 adds up to equating large sales thus more profit ...  E itanium was promised to give us 1 to $2000 boxes we heard, and now HP D has set licensing to three tiers ... well if you are only selling to
 big iron, and B your chip manufacturer Intel has announced itanium is only for big	 iron, who + is going to buy those entry level licenses?   ? Brilliant HP, no wonder you can't grow OpenVMS ... everyone one 
 associated3 with this strategy at HP should be fired right now!   G Mark Hurd, if you are out there, I challenge you to hire me and I could  takeE vms sales out of orbit and to the top where it should be!  Or are you  paid off
 by Gates too?    ------------------------------    Date: 26 Feb 2006 08:03:05 -0800# From: "H Vlems" <hvlems@freenet.de> 7 Subject: Re: Spinning down DSSI disks when not in use ? A Message-ID: <1140969785.762909.9140@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>   G JF, it seems you answered your own question :-) Dismount the drives and E remount them when you need them. OTOH, what RF's are you using? Later E DSSI drives have similar power consumption specs as contemporary SCSI F drives. If you're really worried about power bills, well, a 36 GB SCSIE drive per system will cure that problem, though I think that reducing 4 memory might save more money on these old systems...   Hans* (it's mardigras here so bear that in mind)   ------------------------------  + Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:45:33 +0000 (UTC) 7 From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) 7 Subject: Re: Spinning down DSSI disks when not in use ? ( Message-ID: <dtslvd$418$1@pcls4.std.com>  / JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:   F >In order to save on power and heat generation, is it possible to spin' >down some DSSI disks when not in use ?   F >Ideally, some inactivity timer would automatically spin down the diskA >and re-spin it when needed (like on laptops), but I'd settle for ? >spinning them down and up manually (with dismounts if needed).   G $ DISMOUNT/UNLOAD is how to get a drive to spin down if it supports it. H I am not 100% sure DSSI (RF) disks spin down in response to this, but amH pretty sure they do.  If in a cluster, the disk doesn't spin down unless& the last mounter does this, of course.   ------------------------------  + Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 07:00:45 +0000 (UTC) < From: gartmann@nonsense.immunbio.mpg.de (Christoph Gartmann)3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? ) Message-ID: <dtrjmt$fhs$1@news.BelWue.DE>   i In article <1140931496.402770.53130@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, "as400" <vin42and99@yahoo.com> writes: G >What Governent agencies use this highly secure OS?? CIA? NSA? Homeland 8 >Security? Or, is it just used for Scientific Analysis??  G OpenVMS has almost disappeared from the latter but is found in banking, H healthcare, lottery, phone and other companies. Again, go to the OpenVMs( homepage and look for "Success Stories".   Regards,    Christoph Gartmann    --  E  Max-Planck-Institut fuer      Phone   : +49-761-5108-464   Fax: -452   ImmunbiologieI  Postfach 1169                 Internet: gartmann@immunbio dot mpg dot de   D-79011  Freiburg, Germany 9                http://www.immunbio.mpg.de/home/menue.html    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 08:48:28 +0100 + From: Karsten Nyblad <nospam@nospam.nospam> 3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? = Message-ID: <44015d45$0$78279$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk>    as400 wrote:H > What Governent agencies use this highly secure OS?? CIA? NSA? Homeland9 > Security? Or, is it just used for Scientific Analysis??   E VMS is used buy organizations that need high availability.  The main  H advantage is that its cluster technology makes it easy to build systems H where you rarely loose service for more than a few seconds.  That might ' be, e.g., stock exchanges or hospitals.   F VMS was a very popular OS in the eighties and early nineties, and you G can be sure that there are still systems around in various militaries.  H It is much cheaper to keep the old systems running than to replace them  with something newer.   E However, these organizations and CIA, NSA, and the like are normally  D very secretive about what systems they use.  It is very likely that < there are VMS systems somewhere in some US spy organization.  H VMS started as an OS used for engineering and science, but it lost that F market to SUN, Microsoft, and others.  The problem is that in science G and in engineering you do not need the high availability that is VMSes  G main advantage, and the competitors could deliver more computing power  
 for the buck.    ------------------------------    Date: 26 Feb 2006 07:18:01 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) 3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? 3 Message-ID: <yc7QY42LkF57@eisner.encompasserve.org>   h In article <dtrjmt$fhs$1@news.BelWue.DE>, gartmann@nonsense.immunbio.mpg.de (Christoph Gartmann) writes:k > In article <1140931496.402770.53130@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, "as400" <vin42and99@yahoo.com> writes: H >>What Governent agencies use this highly secure OS?? CIA? NSA? Homeland9 >>Security? Or, is it just used for Scientific Analysis??  > 0 > OpenVMS has almost disappeared from the latter  C Not exactly.  I know of a prominent scientific analysis group fully 1 dependent on VMS, entirely programmed in Fortran.   E The exact nature of which government agencies use VMS for what is not 1 published, but none of them use it for Solitaire.    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:26:14 GMT ( From: Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net>3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? = Message-ID: <aUiMf.75660$YJ4.35644@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>    Larry Kilgallen wrote:  G > The exact nature of which government agencies use VMS for what is not 3 > published, but none of them use it for Solitaire.   H Somewhere amongst the Galaxy documentation online there is a suggestion B of partitioning the system so that one instance handles "war game 6 simulations" - surely that's just hi-tec solitaire :-)     --  
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------   Date: 26 Feb 2006 16:27:52 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? + Message-ID: <46e388Fajd62U1@individual.net>   C In article <1140970055.406643.189070@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,  	davidc@montagar.com writes:H > Actually, OpenVMS can be considered a "UNIX" O/S in some respects.  ItD > passes many of the POSIX suites, and from an API point of view, isE > compliant with most of the common interfaces.  At one point, it was ' > classified by X/Open as a "UNIX" O/S.  > F > That being said, OpenVMS is definitely not one of your "traditional"F > UNIX systems, since it has many feaures and other API's that are notB > (and likely will never be) found in a typical UNIX/Linux system.  E Actually, it can not be considerd a "UNIX" O/S in even the loosest of E interpretations.  It lacks even the most basic concepts that are part H and parcel of the Unix paradigm (the the great glee of many people here)E like the concept that everything (ie. files, devices, etc.) is just a E stream of bytes. It can be said to have a Unix-like API compatability E but, as the people trying to port Unix software to VMS will tell you, D even that is tenuous at best.  It is no more unix than the OSes that ran the STVOS were.    bill   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------    Date: 26 Feb 2006 08:07:35 -0800 From: davidc@montagar.com 3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? C Message-ID: <1140970055.406643.189070@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>   F Actually, OpenVMS can be considered a "UNIX" O/S in some respects.  ItB passes many of the POSIX suites, and from an API point of view, isC compliant with most of the common interfaces.  At one point, it was % classified by X/Open as a "UNIX" O/S.   D That being said, OpenVMS is definitely not one of your "traditional"D UNIX systems, since it has many feaures and other API's that are not@ (and likely will never be) found in a typical UNIX/Linux system.   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.114 ************************