1 INFO-VAX	Tue, 28 Feb 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 117       Contents: Re: AMD blew it big time! " cURL 7.15.2 available for download1 Re: Differences between RUN/PROC and SPAWN/NOWAIT  fax software open vms  Re: fax software open vms  Re: fax software open vms  RE: fax software open vms   IT security becoming outflanked!H Re: Need a little help moving from a Microvax3900 to VAXstation 4000-90.H Re: Need a little help moving from a Microvax3900 to VAXstation 4000-90.H Re: Need a little help moving from a Microvax3900 to VAXstation 4000-90.H Re: Need a little help moving from a Microvax3900 to VAXstation 4000-90.P Re: Protection Modes/Rings, and Security (was: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linuP Re: Protection Modes/Rings, and Security (was: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linu  Quantum DLT7000 with VMS V7.3-1?$ Re: Quantum DLT7000 with VMS V7.3-1?$ Re: Quantum DLT7000 with VMS V7.3-1?$ Re: Quantum DLT7000 with VMS V7.3-1?$ Re: Quantum DLT7000 with VMS V7.3-1?, Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-), Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-), Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-), Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-), Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-), Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-), Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-), Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-), Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-), Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-), Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-), Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-)( Re: Security holiday over for Mac users!( Re: Security holiday over for Mac users!( Re: Security holiday over for Mac users!( Re: Security holiday over for Mac users!( Re: Security holiday over for Mac users!( Re: Security holiday over for Mac users! Re: SWS 2.1 problem with SSL ? Re: VAXELN hobbyist license?* 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?* Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD?  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:04:01 -0500 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>" Subject: Re: AMD blew it big time!= Message-ID: <adKdnWIxFfAePJ7Z4p2dnA@metrocastcablevision.com>   
 Andrew wrote:  > Bill Todd wrote: >> Andrew wrote: >> >> ... >>J >>> In the circumstances your opening salvo looks more and more like folly >>> and bravado on your part. G >> That's only because you carefully snipped out the drivel of yours to ' >> which I was specifically responding.  >>) >> So let's refresh your memory:  it read  >>J >> "Exactly how much quicker do you think the EV8 would have been than the. >> current Alpha processor ? 1.5x 2x perhaps." >>J >> So when I went on to demonstrate that EV8 would not only have been overK >> 2x 'quicker' than the current EV7 running a single thread but would have J >> been over 5x 'quicker' than the current EV7 running multiple threads inH >> a typical server workload, it was not exactly 'folly and bravado' butB >> more like a successful refutation of your blatantly incompetent7 >> statement (quoted again above for your edification).  >> > D > You seem have combined apparent missunderstanding of my point with0 > clear overhype of EV8's projected performance.  = Given the relative simplicity of the sentence to which I was  H specifically responding, any 'misunderstanding of your point' seems far G more likely to be on your shoulders than on mine.  Perhaps you need to  I read it yet again (still right up there above) to refresh yourself as to   what you said.  I As for EV8's projected performance, your typical incompetence is showing  D - more below.  But you indeed have managed to suck me into one more B round with your drivel, so perhaps you consider that some form of  achievement.   > G > EV8 single threaded performance was projected to be 140-200 SPECint95 E > and 300-400 SPECfp95 assuming that EV8 met its intro-speed and then  > projected clock rate ramp.  ( Hold that thought (and those numbers)...   > I > The best case estime of speedup for SMT/TLP based workloads for EV8 put ( > integer speedup at 210% and fp at 150%  G And TPC-C was indeed that best case.  Though I've seen slightly higher  F estimates from EV8's developers for EV8's TPC-C SMT improvement, even H 210% is somewhat greater than a factor of 2x, so it's really not at all E clear what portion of my statement you are under the mistaken belief   that you are refuting.   > 8 > The 1.3Ghz EV7z does ~101 SPECint95 and ~255 SPECfp95.  I Gee, Andrew:  leaving aside exactly where you got the above information,  H what part of the difference between projections and reality has managed 
 to evade you?   I The *projected* performance of EV7 (that which one should compare to the  H *projected* performance of EV8) was stated in a (similarly early) 21364 I presentation as 70 SPECint95 and 120 SPECfp95 (for a 1 GHz part).  Funny  E how Alphas (in rather marked contrast to SPARCs...) tended to exceed  F expectations, isn't it?  Of course, delays and subsequent advances in F things like clock and memory speeds played some part as well, but the ? fact remains that the *projected* SPECint95 EV8 performance at  H introduction which you quote above is exactly twice the *projected* EV7 H performance which Pete Bannon stated in the presentation I just cited - I and EV8's ultimate projected SPECint95 performance of 200 in its 130 nm.  I process was nearly 3x EV7's projected performance (and *well* over twice  D what that projection would have been even had it been scaled up for  today's 1.3 GHz part).   > G > Its pretty clear that for your point to be correct and for mine to be I > incorrect EV8 would need to have hit its top end frequency goal of 2Ghz I > now, since this is a trifle unlikely your point hardly holds water does  > it.   I Rhetorical question, right?  I'll forgive your inadvertent omission of a  @ question mark (and for that matter a comma as well), since your D education appears to have skimped a bit where grammar was concerned.  G You really are something of an obstinate moron when you've been caught  I out, you know.  Not only would it have been eminently reasonable for EV8  G to have reached 2 GHz *two years after having shipped at 1.8 GHz*, but  H according to Paul DeMone at realworldtech EV8's cooling was designed to G dissipate up to 250W of power, and in his estimation that corresponded  I to an ultimate clock rate (in the 130 nm. process) of *at least* 2.5 GHz  I (which you will note is much more compatible with the range of projected  F SPECint95 performance numbers which you yourself provided above:  did F you *really* think that increasing EV8's clock rate from 1.8 GHz to 2 5 GHz would have bumped SPECint95 up from 140 to 200?).   G Furthermore, Paul's estimate of EV8's performance *at its introduction  I speed* was 2x that of EV7 single-threaded, 4x multi-threaded.  I may not  G agree with Paul about things Itanic-related, but when it came to Alpha  @ he seemed to have his head screwed on somewhere nearly straight.  D And finally (as I noted before, but you appear to have conveniently F overlooked) EV8 would likely now be shipping not in 130 nm. but in 90 L nm., at the start of a new frequency ramp rather than the end of an old one.  I So I suggest that you just take your lumps and shut up now:  you uttered  F some complete drivel regarding EV8's likely performance compared with G EV7, you were called on it fairly and squarely, and unless you want to  A look even more like an idiot you'd be well-advised to move on to  I something you actually understand and about which you might therefore be  $ able to contribute something useful.   - bill   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Feb 2006 16:50:38 -06004 From: kuhrt.nospammy@encompasserve.org (Marty Kuhrt)+ Subject: cURL 7.15.2 available for download 3 Message-ID: <H2hMwgX5iamu@eisner.encompasserve.org>   A The latest version of cURL, 7.15.2, has been released for OpenVMS  and is available for download.  5 The location is http://curl.haxx.se/download.html#VMS   > This is the binary and object library distribution of the cURL> 7.15.2 release.  See the readme.vms file in the zip for usage A information.  The zip files contain executables and objects built > with OpenSSL, hpSSL and without SSL support.  The files are in architecture specific zips.   A The OpenSSL and noSSL versions are self-contained in that you can A run these programs without any other software on the system.  For A the hp SSL version, you will need to have hp's SSL V1.1-B product @ installed.  This version doesn't support hp's SSL on IA64, since) the machine I compile on doesn't have it.   C  HW Type  VMS Version    Compiler Vers   SSL Library      Filenames E --------+---------------+---------------+----------------+----------- E  Alpha  | OpenVMS 7.3   | DEC C 6.5-001 | OpenSSL 0.9.7e | .*_openssl C  Alpha  | OpenVMS 7.3   | DEC C 6.5-001 | hpSSL 1.1-B    | .*_hpssl C  Alpha  | OpenVMS 7.3   | DEC C 6.5-001 | No SSL support | .*_nossl E  IA64   | OpenVMS 8.2-1 | HP C V7.2-001 | OpenSSL 0.9.7d | .*_openssl C  IA64   | OpenVMS 8.2-1 | HP C V7.2-001 | No SSL support | .*_nossl E  VAX    | OpenVMS 7.3   | DEC C 6.4-005 | OpenSSL 0.9.7e | .*_openssl C  VAX    | OpenVMS 7.3   | DEC C 6.4-005 | hpSSL 1.1-B    | .*_hpssl C  VAX    | OpenVMS 7.3   | DEC C 6.4-005 | No SSL support | .*_nossl   H For those who don't know what cURL is, here is the blurb from their main page...   ;     Curl is a command line tool for transferring files with :     URL syntax, supporting FTP, FTPS, HTTP, HTTPS, GOPHER,4     TELNET, DICT, FILE and LDAP. Curl supports HTTPS5     certificates, HTTP POST, HTTP PUT, FTP uploading, 7     kerberos, HTTP form based upload, proxies, cookies, <     user+password authentication, file transfer resume, http9     proxy tunneling and a busload of other useful tricks.   C I haven't tested all the features, since I only use the library for F HTTP(S) stuff via C programs.  It does compile and link cleanly on all the platforms outlined above.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:12:38 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> : Subject: Re: Differences between RUN/PROC and SPAWN/NOWAIT, Message-ID: <44037954.12C58872@teksavvy.com>   briggs@encompasserve.org wrote: K > /DETACH requires no privilege and permits any unprivileged user to create 1 > a detached process running under their own UIC.   E Thanks. Just tried it and it does create a process that is not in the L parent's tree. Unfortunatly, this is a true detached process without any CLI  E So when starting MOSAIC for instance, it doesn't inherit the logicals  defined in LOGIN.COM.   H So now I'll have to see if I can do this with loginout.exe with input of% a command procedure that runs mosaic.    ------------------------------    Date: 27 Feb 2006 11:27:38 -08007 From: "rexdale118@hotmail.com" <rexdale118@hotmail.com>  Subject: fax software open vmsB Message-ID: <1141068458.895587.22710@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>   fax software open vms E i would like to install fax software , using open vms 7.3 v on compaq  alphaserver ds 10  can anybody help me # thank you in advance for your input  neil   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:04:58 GMT ( From: Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net>" Subject: Re: fax software open vms= Message-ID: <eIKMf.86847$YJ4.45077@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>    rexdale118@hotmail.com wrote:    > fax software open vms G > i would like to install fax software , using open vms 7.3 v on compaq  > alphaserver ds 10  > can anybody help me % > thank you in advance for your input  > neil  3 Goldfax http://www.goldfax.com/products/openVMS.asp  is a good solution.    --  
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:56:53 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> " Subject: Re: fax software open vms, Message-ID: <440383B1.7D8F6BD8@teksavvy.com>   "rexdale118@hotmail.com" wrote: G > i would like to install fax software , using open vms 7.3 v on compaq   Q PMDF from process Software  has a FAX sofwtare addon to its email infrastructure.   * And there is/was Goldfax available on VMS.  D There may be others (I had something from Computers Unlimited in the arly 1990s).   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:40:58 -0500 ' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> " Subject: RE: fax software open vmsR Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB7D4028@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----9 > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com]=20 ! > Sent: February 27, 2006 4:57 PM  > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com $ > Subject: Re: fax software open vms >=20! > "rexdale118@hotmail.com" wrote: B > > i would like to install fax software , using open vms 7.3 v=20 > on compaq  >=20@ > PMDF from process Software  has a FAX sofwtare addon to its=20 > email infrastructure.  >=20, > And there is/was Goldfax available on VMS. >=20F > There may be others (I had something from Computers Unlimited in the > arly 1990s). >=20   Compufax. http://www.networkingdynamics.com/Compu.htm=20   Goldfax + http://www.goldfax.com/products/openVMS.asp    PMDF Fax, http://www.process.com/tcpip/pmdffax.html=20   Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax: 613-591-4477  kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  4 OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Feb 2006 11:36:34 -0800 From: bob@instantwhip.com ) Subject: IT security becoming outflanked! C Message-ID: <1141068994.189313.305320@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   G they also talk about how expensive security is?  Run OpenVMS people and  your security costs will dwindle ...     Q http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,109006,00.html    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:39:36 +0100 3 From: Michael Unger <spam.to.unger@spamgourmet.com> Q Subject: Re: Need a little help moving from a Microvax3900 to VAXstation 4000-90. + Message-ID: <46h30bFb64s2U1@individual.net>   ' On 2006-02-27 17:34, "Jim Agnew" wrote:    > [...]  > G > One kind person noted that the DKDRIVER probably is not loaded on the H > Microvax, but is needed for boot on the vaxstation...  On bumping intoM > something in the FAQ, a vaxstation 4000-90 needs vms 5.5-2HW to boot, but a >                                                        ^^^^^^^M > VAXstation 4000-90A only needs 5.5-2, which is what version of vms we have. &                                  ^^^^^L > Having 3 of these beasties, how can I tell if one of them is a 90A ?  I doI > have a 4000-60, but besides from having less ram, i'm back to having no  > disaster backup if it goes...    According to the listing at D <http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/os/openvms-release-history.html>,D 5.5-2HW is a limited hardware release _predating_ 5.5-2 (Sep 1992 vs Oct/Nov 1992).   > [...]    Michael    --  ; Real names enhance the probability of getting real answers. 5 My e-mail account at DECUS Munich is no longer valid.    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:40:27 GMT # From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) Q Subject: Re: Need a little help moving from a Microvax3900 to VAXstation 4000-90. 2 Message-ID: <%sJMf.3732$ua1.2379@news.cpqcorp.net>  y In article <a184d6630602270834v1ae7673es27d9b37e2cf7c90b@mail.gmail.com>, "Jim Agnew" <brainwavesurfer@gmail.com> writes:   K :We have several VAXstations and RZ disks, so the logical thing to do is to L :use standalone backup to copy the system disk to another RA90, then use the- :cluster to backup/image the RA90 to a RZ28..    :-DKA0 :VMB-F-ERR, PC =3D 00001334  :VMB-I-STS, R0 =3D 00000912    $ x=f$message(%x912) $ sho sym x *   X = "%SYSTEM-E-NOSUCHFILE, no such file" $   D   This is a common error when support isn't available in the OpenVMS/   release, or when a file is otherwise missing.   F :One kind person noted that the DKDRIVER probably is not loaded on the8 :Microvax, but is needed for boot on the vaxstation...    D   Many of the VAX, VAXserver, VAXstation and MicroVAX series systemsC   require SCSI bootstraps and drivers, and DKDRIVER is that driver. D   (DKDRIVER and SCSI devices first appeared back around V5.1B or so,   give or take a few releases.)   A   Unless somebody has been tailoring off and/or manually deleting A   various core files files, OpenVMS VAX should find and load the  A   driver and all associated support files.  If that deletion has  A   not happened here, then this case looks like this configuration ;   is not booting a sufficiently recent OpenVMS VAX version.   M :On bumping into something in the FAQ, a vaxstation 4000-90 needs vms 5.5-2HW K :to boot, but a VAXstation 4000-90A only needs 5.5-2, which is what version K :of vms we have.  Having 3 of these beasties, how can I tell if one of them L :is a 90A ?  I do have a 4000-60, but besides from having less ram, i'm back+ :to having no disaster backup if it goes...    E   V5.5-2HW is (confusingly) *older* than V5.5-2; it is a pre-release  F   version of V5.5-2.  I footnoted this version in the FAQ, as it is a D   long-standing oddity/confusion/bogosity within the OpenVMS release   numbering "sequence".   I :If anyone has any pointers, advice, or whatever, lemme know!   Jim Agnew   I   The FAQ has a decoder for the KA49 variants, among others -- from that, J   you can tell which VAXstation 4000 series box you are really looking at.H   Look for the particular KA49 variant displayed at the console during aE   power-up, or in response to a console SHOW command.  (SHOW CONFIG?)   C   Per <http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/hw_supportchart.html>, the C   VAXstation 4000 series systems can require V5.5-2 or -- for some  ;   variations of the platform -- V5.5-2H4, or V6.1 or later.   A   If you're stuck at a pre-V6.0 release -- and you also can't use E   "big" disks, too, you'll want to use V5.5-2H4.  As for "big" disks, D   prior to OpenVMS V6.0, the disk addressing limit was 8.38 GB -- orE   less, on certain platforms.  The RZ28 here is a 2.1 GB disk, so you F   are currently safe there -- the RZ40 is one of the oldest SCSI disksD   that will get you into trouble on the VAXstation 4000 series under    pre-V6.0 OpenVMS VAX releases.   	--   C   CHARON-VAX and/or translation and/or recompilation may or may not D   be feasible here -- staying on ancient versions is not without itsE   costs, though these costs can and often do tend to creep up on you. C   (More than a few folks are looking at moving from VAX directly to G   Integrity servers, which was initially somewhat of a surprise to me.)     N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faq N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------G        Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[\0100]hp.com    ------------------------------    Date: 27 Feb 2006 15:32:28 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Q Subject: Re: Need a little help moving from a Microvax3900 to VAXstation 4000-90. 3 Message-ID: <BTTL2fckji7H@eisner.encompasserve.org>   y In article <a184d6630602270834v1ae7673es27d9b37e2cf7c90b@mail.gmail.com>, "Jim Agnew" <brainwavesurfer@gmail.com> writes:   N > We've been running an ancient Microvax 3900 that's still running strong, bu= > t J > my paranoia says we have no spare parts for it and therefore no disaster > recovery..  E    We have older systems than that under contract with Mentech.  Shop 
    around.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:03:41 -0500 2 From: "Stanley F. Quayle" <squayle@insight.rr.com>Q Subject: Re: Need a little help moving from a Microvax3900 to VAXstation 4000-90. . Message-ID: <4403773D.3435.1F7DDC8B@localhost>   > VMB-I-STS, R0 = 00000912   The associated status message:  $   %SYSTEM-E-NOSUCHFILE, no such file  G > One kind person noted that the DKDRIVER probably is not loaded on the 8 > Microvax, but is needed for boot on the vaxstation...   D Someone must have whacked that file.  Odd, even the V7.3 version is  only 43 blocks.   	 > 5.5-2HW  > 5.5-2   D Others have pointed out that -2HW came before -2.  And 5.5-2H4 came D after -2.  Fortunately, I have the -2H4 update handy -- it's needed 6 to support the 3100 and 4000 emulations in CHARON-VAX.  
 --Stan Quayle  Quayle Consulting Inc.  
 ----------8 Stanley F. Quayle, P.E. N8SQ  Toll free: 1-888-I-LUV-VAX3 8572 North Spring Ct., Pickerington, OH  43147  USA < stan-at-stanq-dot-com   http://www.stanq.com/charon-vax.html) "OpenVMS, when downtime is not an option"    ------------------------------  + Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 01:46:08 +0000 (UTC) 7 From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Y Subject: Re: Protection Modes/Rings, and Security (was: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linu ( Message-ID: <du0a10$tn4$1@pcls4.std.com>  / JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:    >Hoff Hoffman wrote:J >>   but -- in terms of security -- there are only really two modes aroundI >>   that really matter.  If code is operating in supervisor mode or in a H >>   more privileged mode, then the code is inherently fully privileged.    G >Is this why there is no "change mode to supervisor" or "change mode to G >executive" and there is only "change mode to kernel" system services ?   J There is a "change mode to executive" system service, but no (documented) A "change mode to supervisor" service.  I did hack at the VAX CHMS  H instruction once to see what I could find.  The interface appears to be  truly bizarre.  I If you are in executive mode, it's trivial to get into kernel mode, since E the "change mode to kernel" system service always works regardless of F process privilege.  It's probably easy to get into exec or kernel mode@ from supervisor, which is probably why Hoff wrote what he wrote.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:51:32 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> Y Subject: Re: Protection Modes/Rings, and Security (was: Re: Plain truth is that unix/linu , Message-ID: <44038270.25E6F773@teksavvy.com>   Hoff Hoffman wrote: I >   but -- in terms of security -- there are only really two modes around H >   that really matter.  If code is operating in supervisor mode or in aG >   more privileged mode, then the code is inherently fully privileged.     F Is this why there is no "change mode to supervisor" or "change mode toF executive" and there is only "change mode to kernel" system services ?  G (aka: change mode to kernel, and then spefify a less privileged mode in  subsequent system calls.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:49:05 -0500 3 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> ) Subject: Quantum DLT7000 with VMS V7.3-1? : Message-ID: <75udncl8FuRvEp7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com>  E I have an Alphastation 600.  I bought a Quantum DLT7000 (in a Compaq  H case) and am attempting to use it with my Alphastation.  I've connected F it to one of the ports on a KZPCM that I installed because it has the 2 VHDCI connectors needed to match the cable I have.   The firmware sees the drive as: * MKA500.5.0.2000.0  MKA500  Quantum DLT7000  I When I boot VMS V7.3-1 with the drive connected and powered on, it fails  B to find any MK devices!  I thought this sort of nonsense had been F cleaned up years ago; that an otherwise unrecognized SCSI tape device 5 would show up as at least a "generic SCSI tape drive"   H Is there anything I can do to make it work or am I stuck with finding a  genuine "DEC" drive?   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:15:34 -0500 , From: "Richard Tomkins" <tomkinsr@istop.com>- Subject: Re: Quantum DLT7000 with VMS V7.3-1? = Message-ID: <4403a52a$0$22963$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com>   L The DLT 7000 comes in Single Ended and Differential variations, which one do	 you have?   J Is your bus terminated, did you set the jumper to provide termpower to the	 SCSI Bus?    rtt       > "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message4 news:75udncl8FuRvEp7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com...F > I have an Alphastation 600.  I bought a Quantum DLT7000 (in a CompaqI > case) and am attempting to use it with my Alphastation.  I've connected G > it to one of the ports on a KZPCM that I installed because it has the 4 > VHDCI connectors needed to match the cable I have. > ! > The firmware sees the drive as: , > MKA500.5.0.2000.0  MKA500  Quantum DLT7000 > J > When I boot VMS V7.3-1 with the drive connected and powered on, it failsC > to find any MK devices!  I thought this sort of nonsense had been G > cleaned up years ago; that an otherwise unrecognized SCSI tape device 7 > would show up as at least a "generic SCSI tape drive"  > I > Is there anything I can do to make it work or am I stuck with finding a  > genuine "DEC" drive?    . *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***X *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:16:42 -0800 ( From: Jeff Cameron <roktsci@comcast.net>- Subject: Re: Quantum DLT7000 with VMS V7.3-1? 0 Message-ID: <C028E47A.1C2EE%roktsci@comcast.net>  L On 2/27/06 3:49 PM, in article 75udncl8FuRvEp7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com,4 "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:  F > I have an Alphastation 600.  I bought a Quantum DLT7000 (in a CompaqI > case) and am attempting to use it with my Alphastation.  I've connected G > it to one of the ports on a KZPCM that I installed because it has the 4 > VHDCI connectors needed to match the cable I have. > ! > The firmware sees the drive as: , > MKA500.5.0.2000.0  MKA500  Quantum DLT7000 > J > When I boot VMS V7.3-1 with the drive connected and powered on, it failsC > to find any MK devices!  I thought this sort of nonsense had been G > cleaned up years ago; that an otherwise unrecognized SCSI tape device 7 > would show up as at least a "generic SCSI tape drive"  > I > Is there anything I can do to make it work or am I stuck with finding a  > genuine "DEC" drive?1 In your SYS$MANAGER:SYCONFIG.COM, insert the line   < $MCR SYSMAN IO CONNECT MKA500:/NOADAPTER/DRIVER=SYS$MKDRIVER  F In your INITIALIZE and MOUNT commands use /DENSITY=TK89 and optionally /MEDIA=COMPACTION    Jeff   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:21:20 -0500 3 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> - Subject: Re: Quantum DLT7000 with VMS V7.3-1? 0 Message-ID: <nKKdne3axcItXJ7ZRVn-iQ@comcast.com>   Richard Tomkins wrote:  N > The DLT 7000 comes in Single Ended and Differential variations, which one do > you have?  > L > Is your bus terminated, did you set the jumper to provide termpower to the > SCSI Bus?  >  > rtt   D I did not set any jumpers.  Is this a jumper on the drive or on the H KZPCM?  I did put a terminator on the second SCSI connector on the back  of the case.  F The drive case is not marked to indicate SE or Differential.  I would F expect differential SCSI to be marked with the doubled "diamond" SCSI : symbol.   If it's not marked how do I tell the difference?   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:10:16 -0800 ( From: Jeff Cameron <roktsci@comcast.net>- Subject: Re: Quantum DLT7000 with VMS V7.3-1? 0 Message-ID: <C0291B38.1C304%roktsci@comcast.net>  K On 2/27/06 7:21 PM, in article nKKdne3axcItXJ7ZRVn-iQ@comcast.com, "Richard + B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:    > Richard Tomkins wrote: > O >> The DLT 7000 comes in Single Ended and Differential variations, which one do  >> you have? >>  M >> Is your bus terminated, did you set the jumper to provide termpower to the  >> SCSI Bus? >>   >> rtt > E > I did not set any jumpers.  Is this a jumper on the drive or on the I > KZPCM?  I did put a terminator on the second SCSI connector on the back  > of the case. > G > The drive case is not marked to indicate SE or Differential.  I would G > expect differential SCSI to be marked with the doubled "diamond" SCSI < > symbol.   If it's not marked how do I tell the difference?  L If you find the manufacturer's part number you can send it to me, and we can5 look it up. I work for an authorized Quantum partner.    Jeff Cameron   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:02:55 GMT ( From: Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net>5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) ; Message-ID: <3OJMf.69756$DM.8211@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:   > G > Of course, your right.  But, what's your (and JF's) point?  HP is not F > marketing it.  HP is not going to market it.  Allt he screaming hereF > over the past decade (it did start before HP even got involved!) hasG > not had any effect on it.  And, it is not going to.  So, I ask again,  > what's your point?  :-)   I For a brief period in the Compaq era someone was listening and even some  D real marketing took place and, low and behold, VMS sales started to & grow. Then the campaign stopped and...   --  
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------   Date: 27 Feb 2006 21:14:22 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) + Message-ID: <46h8ddFavbp3U1@individual.net>   ; In article <3OJMf.69756$DM.8211@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, + 	Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net> writes:  >  >  > Bill Gunshannon wrote: >  >>  H >> Of course, your right.  But, what's your (and JF's) point?  HP is notG >> marketing it.  HP is not going to market it.  Allt he screaming here G >> over the past decade (it did start before HP even got involved!) has H >> not had any effect on it.  And, it is not going to.  So, I ask again, >> what's your point?  :-) > K > For a brief period in the Compaq era someone was listening and even some  F > real marketing took place and, low and behold, VMS sales started to ( > grow. Then the campaign stopped and...  1 And that shold tell everyone here something, too.    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: 27 Feb 2006 22:21:11 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) + Message-ID: <46hcanFaitvoU1@individual.net>   < In article <9QKMf.69776$DM.26538@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,+ 	Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net> writes:  >  >  > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > 4 >> And that shold tell everyone here something, too. > J > Yes but at least part of the reason was that HP did not want to promote J > a terminated Alpha and the two were obviously intertwined. Why we don't G > see a similar or larger campaign restarted for VMS/Itanium is a more  H > interesting question given the billions of dollars, were are told, is , > being used to jump start Itanium products.     J Right now, in the very bowels of HP HQ there is a team that has been givenK a  kings ransom in marketing funds for VMS.  Of course, it's not to promote H VMS.  It is being paid to a bunch of psychologists to try and figure outH why, after all the abuse they heaped on VMS users they still are hangingH on.  Remember, they burned their boats.  That in itself should have beenJ enough of signal to drive the remaining VMS users away, but no, they stillJ hang on.  Why?  This is intolerable.  When a company the size of HP steersG the ship the sheep^H^H^H^H^H customers are supposed to go along for the I ride.  They are determined to find out what went wrong and see to it that  it never happens again.    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: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:05:31 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) , Message-ID: <440377AA.12590808@teksavvy.com>   Bill Gunshannon wrote:E > I might have asked JF the same question.  My point is just that his D > desire to continuously act like HP is going to change its strategyB > regardin VMS is just a waste of time.  And continuing to push itD > here is, well, preaching to the choir.  But you already knew that.    G Anytime HP releases new hints/information such as the Marcello comment, E it is important to review what HP is up to. Why ? because there is no F trust or confidence that HP intends to make VMS succesful. HP's recordB stands. Lots of broken promises and no attempts to fix that image.  1 Lets consider the following theoretical scenario:   E In a week or two. Hurd and Ottelini are to hold a live web cast. This D would therefore be fairly high level high impact stuff.  Lets assumeE *FOR A MINUTE* that they are to announce the end of line for IA64 and E shift to 8086 over the next 4 years and that Hurd mentions that HP-UX 9 and NSK are to be migrated to 8086 but no mention of VMS.    How would you react then ?      @ There has been writing on the wall for a long time based on HP'sH behaviour. It may not be "HP is killing VMS", but it is "HP doesn't careD about VMS".  When you read between the lines, it means that HP won'tH lift a finger to help VMS, they'll just keep on getting the revenus from+ loyal customers who are still stuck on VMS.   B HP management are aware that VMS customers lack confidence in HP'sH desire to make VMS succeed/continue. It wouldn' t take much to fix this.? But HP has not taken any steps to kill this lack of confidence.     F > No, his point is that somehow HP should be doing all this stuff likeG > growing VMS engineering.  It ain't gonna happen.  And he can continue G > to call for it till the cows come home.  It still ain't gonna happen.     = Can a shrunken VMS engineering really keep VMS up to date and G competitive with the rest of the industry ? Look at Apple, they can not H only afford to improve their OS, improve existing applications that come9 with the OS, but also add to them with every new release.   H The VMS engineers who do participate here have mentioned many times thatB the priority is to serve the needs of existing customers, with theG implied subtext that customers who pay the big bucks have priority when 5 the time comes to decide what engineers will work on.   F When you have limited resources, the above is a reasonable logic.  ButH it also means that some large customer with legacy applications who justH needs new ways to connect VMS boxes together will force VMS engineers toF concentrate on cluster interconnects and not bother with the rest. AndF the "not bother with the rest" means that VMS lags further and furtherE behind the industry in applications that could give VMS a competitive " edge and regain some market share.  E In fact, while Marcello says that VMS hasn't much growth potential, I B say the total opposite. It is exactly because VMS was articifially? restrxcited into small niche markets that a rejuvenation of the G applications might give VMS a hige growth potential by being allowed to > compete in areas that it hasn't been in since the palmer era.   H Will it take large chunk of market share from Windows ? No.  But for VMSH to get a few thousand new customers a years would represent huge growth.  D And this is why the Marcello statement is very worrysome. Of all theH people, he knows how easy it is to make VMS grow. With a very modest andB short lived marketing budget, he was able to get VMS from negative, growth in 2000 to roughly 10% within months.  F Of all the people at HP, his statement that VMS doesn't represent muchB growth potential is very worrysome because if the most optyimisticH person at HP now says that of VMS, what does it say of the people aroujdE him who will make the big decision on whether to continue to spend on  R&D to improve VMS ?  G And if Marcello tells upper management that the remaining VMS installed E base is all HP can hope for in terms of VMS (aka no growth), and that D the remaining installed base is made of of customers with old legacyG applicatiosn that they don't want to change, then guess what ? When the D time comes to make staff cuts at HP to help pay for the money losingH PCs, they will go after VMS engineers since improving VMS is not seen as9 important since customers aren't asking for improvements.     D Remember that decisions are taken at the high end by people detachedC from reality. Folks like Hurd get their information from folks like H Marcello , Stallard and the Winkler types. These people have agendas andH they will push them as much as they can and this distorts the reality as presented to Hurd.   ------------------------------   Date: 27 Feb 2006 22:56:54 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) + Message-ID: <46hedlFba2jfU1@individual.net>   , In article <440377AA.12590808@teksavvy.com>,0 	JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote:F >> I might have asked JF the same question.  My point is just that hisE >> desire to continuously act like HP is going to change its strategy C >> regardin VMS is just a waste of time.  And continuing to push it E >> here is, well, preaching to the choir.  But you already knew that.  >  >  > Anytime HP releases new hints   C Hints??  There announcements are about as subtle as a hand-grenade.   I >                              /information such as the Marcello comment, G > it is important to review what HP is up to. Why ? because there is no H > trust or confidence that HP intends to make VMS succesful. HP's recordD > stands. Lots of broken promises and no attempts to fix that image.  H No, wait.  It is the image you want HP to project that needs fixing, notG their real image.  They are a PC company. Period. (OK, printers and ink  too)   > 3 > Lets consider the following theoretical scenario:  > G > In a week or two. Hurd and Ottelini are to hold a live web cast. This F > would therefore be fairly high level high impact stuff.  Lets assumeG > *FOR A MINUTE* that they are to announce the end of line for IA64 and G > shift to 8086 over the next 4 years and that Hurd mentions that HP-UX ; > and NSK are to be migrated to 8086 but no mention of VMS.  >  > How would you react then ?    J How do you think they would want you to react?  That is the real question.J They want you to move off of VMS and onto Windows.   How much more do they- have to do (and not do!) to make that clear?     >  > B > There has been writing on the wall for a long time based on HP'sJ > behaviour. It may not be "HP is killing VMS", but it is "HP doesn't careF > about VMS".  When you read between the lines, it means that HP won'tJ > lift a finger to help VMS, they'll just keep on getting the revenus from- > loyal customers who are still stuck on VMS.   G Very good, you can actually read the writting on the wall.  So how come 9 you haven't moved in the direction they want you to move?    > D > HP management are aware that VMS customers lack confidence in HP'sJ > desire to make VMS succeed/continue. It wouldn' t take much to fix this.A > But HP has not taken any steps to kill this lack of confidence.   G HP has taken all the steps it needs or wants to fix this.  But you just G aren't litening.  Move to Windows and HP will be perfectly happy.  They C will provide you with all the sales and support you need to move to A Windows.  That is their plan of action. You just aren't litening.    >  > G >> No, his point is that somehow HP should be doing all this stuff like H >> growing VMS engineering.  It ain't gonna happen.  And he can continueH >> to call for it till the cows come home.  It still ain't gonna happen. >  > ? > Can a shrunken VMS engineering really keep VMS up to date and I > competitive with the rest of the industry ? Look at Apple, they can not J > only afford to improve their OS, improve existing applications that come; > with the OS, but also add to them with every new release.   H So what?  HP doesn't need a growing VMS Engineering to move people on to5 Windows.  That's the plan of action.  Like it or not.    > J > The VMS engineers who do participate here have mentioned many times thatD > the priority is to serve the needs of existing customers, with theI > implied subtext that customers who pay the big bucks have priority when 7 > the time comes to decide what engineers will work on.   K Yeah, and as the number of customers declines so does the need for staffing 6 at VMS Engineering, so why would they want to grow it?   > H > When you have limited resources, the above is a reasonable logic.  ButJ > it also means that some large customer with legacy applications who justJ > needs new ways to connect VMS boxes together will force VMS engineers toH > concentrate on cluster interconnects and not bother with the rest. AndH > the "not bother with the rest" means that VMS lags further and furtherG > behind the industry in applications that could give VMS a competitive $ > edge and regain some market share.  F Read my lips.  HP doesn't care.  HP doesn't plan (or even want) to see VMS grow.  It's a cash cow.    > G > In fact, while Marcello says that VMS hasn't much growth potential, I  > say the total opposite.   D BUt it isn't what you say that counts.  why do you find that so hardI to grasp?  It has no growth potential because HP doesn't want it to grow. G It has nothing to do with the technical merit of VMS or it's ability to D compete in afree market.  It has to do with the wishes of its owner.  D >                         It is exactly because VMS was articifiallyA > restrxcited into small niche markets that a rejuvenation of the I > applications might give VMS a hige growth potential by being allowed to @ > compete in areas that it hasn't been in since the palmer era.   F But HP doesn't want that.  HP has VMS right where it wants it and thatF is where it is going to stay.  What part of "burning our boats" didn't you understand?    > J > Will it take large chunk of market share from Windows ? No.  But for VMSJ > to get a few thousand new customers a years would represent huge growth.  % HP doesn't want it.  It won't happen.    > < > And this is why the Marcello statement is very worrysome.   G Worrysome for who?  Certainly not for him.  He knew what he was saying.   F >                                                           Of all theJ > people, he knows how easy it is to make VMS grow. With a very modest andD > short lived marketing budget, he was able to get VMS from negative. > growth in 2000 to roughly 10% within months.   But that is not HP's target.   > H > Of all the people at HP, his statement that VMS doesn't represent muchD > growth potential is very worrysome because if the most optyimisticJ > person at HP now says that of VMS, what does it say of the people aroujdG > him who will make the big decision on whether to continue to spend on  > R&D to improve VMS ?  F That they have made their decision and he is now parroting the company line just like everyone else.    > I > And if Marcello tells upper management that the remaining VMS installed G > base is all HP can hope for in terms of VMS (aka no growth), and that F > the remaining installed base is made of of customers with old legacyI > applicatiosn that they don't want to change, then guess what ? When the F > time comes to make staff cuts at HP to help pay for the money losingJ > PCs, they will go after VMS engineers since improving VMS is not seen as; > important since customers aren't asking for improvements.   F Marcello doesn't "tell upper management" anything.  They tell him whatG the companies direction is and he move in that direction.  or looks for  another job.   >  > F > Remember that decisions are taken at the high end by people detached > from reality.   F Detached from you reality, maybe.  Not necessarily from their reality.  D >              Folks like Hurd get their information from folks likeJ > Marcello , Stallard and the Winkler types. These people have agendas andJ > they will push them as much as they can and this distorts the reality as > presented to Hurd.  K You don't give the man much credit, do you.  I think it is much more likely G that he is totally aware of everything and sees no reason to change the I course the company was placed on when HP bought Compaq.  You may not like G it, and I may not like it, but it is time to accept reality for what it J is and make your plans for the future.  If you business is tied so tightlyK to VMS that it would be fatal to move, then you need to stock up on spares, H or move to an emulator now while it can be done without panic before theG hardware you need disappears completely.  And you need to settle on the H version of VMS that best supports your operation and work at making yourD whole system as stable as possible because future changes can not be
 relied on.   That's reality.    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: 27 Feb 2006 15:23:15 -0800$ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) C Message-ID: <1141082595.559315.241030@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:= > In article <3OJMf.69756$DM.8211@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, - > 	Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net> writes:  > >  > >  > > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > >  > >>J > >> Of course, your right.  But, what's your (and JF's) point?  HP is notI > >> marketing it.  HP is not going to market it.  Allt he screaming here I > >> over the past decade (it did start before HP even got involved!) has J > >> not had any effect on it.  And, it is not going to.  So, I ask again, > >> what's your point?  :-) > > L > > For a brief period in the Compaq era someone was listening and even someG > > real marketing took place and, low and behold, VMS sales started to * > > grow. Then the campaign stopped and... > 3 > And that shold tell everyone here something, too.  >  > bill    E Well, I for one would simply like to understand *why* HP doesn't want C to market what is supposedly a high-margin product. What great harm D would come if they marketed VMS a little? Even a small gain in salesE would pay for it. And you say that despite all that they're still not C going to do it. OK. But WHY? And it would help their Itanium sales, 
 would it not?   E Bill, I understand your point: HP is simply not going to do any major D marketing for VMS. Fine. But given the big margin, and the fact thatC the brief Renaissance of VMS in 2000 increased sales, all I ask is:  WHY?   AEF    >  >  > --L > Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesF > bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > University of Scranton   |@ > Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   ------------------------------   Date: 27 Feb 2006 23:49:13 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) + Message-ID: <46hhfpFb1keqU1@individual.net>   C In article <1141082595.559315.241030@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, ' 	"AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:  >  > Bill Gunshannon wrote:> >> In article <3OJMf.69756$DM.8211@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,. >> 	Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net> writes: >> > >> > >> > Bill Gunshannon wrote:  >> > >> >> K >> >> Of course, your right.  But, what's your (and JF's) point?  HP is not J >> >> marketing it.  HP is not going to market it.  Allt he screaming hereJ >> >> over the past decade (it did start before HP even got involved!) hasK >> >> not had any effect on it.  And, it is not going to.  So, I ask again,  >> >> what's your point?  :-)  >> >M >> > For a brief period in the Compaq era someone was listening and even some H >> > real marketing took place and, low and behold, VMS sales started to+ >> > grow. Then the campaign stopped and...  >>4 >> And that shold tell everyone here something, too. >> >> bill  >  > G > Well, I for one would simply like to understand *why* HP doesn't want E > to market what is supposedly a high-margin product. What great harm F > would come if they marketed VMS a little? Even a small gain in salesG > would pay for it. And you say that despite all that they're still not E > going to do it. OK. But WHY? And it would help their Itanium sales,  > would it not?  > G > Bill, I understand your point: HP is simply not going to do any major F > marketing for VMS. Fine. But given the big margin, and the fact thatE > the brief Renaissance of VMS in 2000 increased sales, all I ask is:  > WHY?  G Because VMS is obviously not the direction they want the company to go.  Ray Charles could see that!!     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: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:34:33 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) , Message-ID: <44039A8E.8CD91D7D@teksavvy.com>   Bill Gunshannon wrote:I > Very good, you can actually read the writting on the wall.  So how come ; > you haven't moved in the direction they want you to move?   E Becasue I believe that VMS could be succesfull, grow and be even more C profitable for HP. And I believe HP shareholders shoudl pressure HP C management into focusing on improving HP's opwn products instead of O helping Microsoft and Intel provide dividende to their respective shareholders.     H > Read my lips.  HP doesn't care.  HP doesn't plan (or even want) to see > VMS grow.  It's a cash cow.   F Why aren't there forces internally that try to tell high HP management' that VMS does in fact have potential ?    G If the HP employees who participate here *really* believe what they say H (as opposed to just toeing the company line to save their job), then can< there be any hope that anyone within HP will fight for VMS ?  I > It has nothing to do with the technical merit of VMS or it's ability to F > compete in afree market.  It has to do with the wishes of its owner.  G The challenge is to change those wishes and awaken HP management of the " advantages of letting VMS succeed.    H > Marcello doesn't "tell upper management" anything.  They tell him whatI > the companies direction is and he move in that direction.  or looks for  > another job.    F Marcello is high enough to have influence. If he chose to be the quietG type and not defend VMS and just like others who know nothing about VMS F set VMS policy, then someone else must step it and do the job marcello is incapable/unwilling to do.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:43:53 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) + Message-ID: <4403AAD8.FFAD849D@comcast.net>    Bill Gunshannon wrote: > = > In article <3OJMf.69756$DM.8211@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, 4 >         Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net> writes: > >  > >  > > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > >  > >>J > >> Of course, your right.  But, what's your (and JF's) point?  HP is notI > >> marketing it.  HP is not going to market it.  Allt he screaming here I > >> over the past decade (it did start before HP even got involved!) has J > >> not had any effect on it.  And, it is not going to.  So, I ask again, > >> what's your point?  :-) > > L > > For a brief period in the Compaq era someone was listening and even someG > > real marketing took place and, low and behold, VMS sales started to * > > grow. Then the campaign stopped and... > 3 > And that shold tell everyone here something, too.   / Tells me that we're right and "they" are wrong.     ...or did I miss something here?   --   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: 28 Feb 2006 02:17:22 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) + Message-ID: <46hq5iFba2fpU1@individual.net>   + In article <4403AAD8.FFAD849D@comcast.net>, 5 	David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> writes:  > Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>  > >> In article <3OJMf.69756$DM.8211@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,5 >>         Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net> writes:  >> > >> > >> > Bill Gunshannon wrote:  >> > >> >> K >> >> Of course, your right.  But, what's your (and JF's) point?  HP is not J >> >> marketing it.  HP is not going to market it.  Allt he screaming hereJ >> >> over the past decade (it did start before HP even got involved!) hasK >> >> not had any effect on it.  And, it is not going to.  So, I ask again,  >> >> what's your point?  :-)  >> >M >> > For a brief period in the Compaq era someone was listening and even some H >> > real marketing took place and, low and behold, VMS sales started to+ >> > grow. Then the campaign stopped and...  >>  4 >> And that shold tell everyone here something, too. > 1 > Tells me that we're right and "they" are wrong.  > " > ...or did I miss something here?  E Except that in this case, "they" get to decide what is right and what 	 is wrong.    bill      --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------    Date: 27 Feb 2006 18:40:18 -0800$ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) C Message-ID: <1141094418.585679.265050@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:E > In article <1141082595.559315.241030@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, ) > 	"AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:  > >  > > Bill Gunshannon wrote:@ > >> In article <3OJMf.69756$DM.8211@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,0 > >> 	Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net> writes: > >> > > >> > > >> > Bill Gunshannon wrote:  > >> > > >> >> M > >> >> Of course, your right.  But, what's your (and JF's) point?  HP is not L > >> >> marketing it.  HP is not going to market it.  Allt he screaming hereL > >> >> over the past decade (it did start before HP even got involved!) hasM > >> >> not had any effect on it.  And, it is not going to.  So, I ask again,  > >> >> what's your point?  :-)  > >> >O > >> > For a brief period in the Compaq era someone was listening and even some J > >> > real marketing took place and, low and behold, VMS sales started to- > >> > grow. Then the campaign stopped and...  > >>6 > >> And that shold tell everyone here something, too. > >>	 > >> bill  > >  > > I > > Well, I for one would simply like to understand *why* HP doesn't want G > > to market what is supposedly a high-margin product. What great harm H > > would come if they marketed VMS a little? Even a small gain in salesI > > would pay for it. And you say that despite all that they're still not G > > going to do it. OK. But WHY? And it would help their Itanium sales,  > > would it not?  > > I > > Bill, I understand your point: HP is simply not going to do any major H > > marketing for VMS. Fine. But given the big margin, and the fact thatG > > the brief Renaissance of VMS in 2000 increased sales, all I ask is:  > > WHY? > I > Because VMS is obviously not the direction they want the company to go.  > Ray Charles could see that!!  B I acknowledged that. So they won't push VMS because that's not theA direction they want the company to go. So why don't they want the G company to go that way? (Which is what I thought I asked in my previous  post.)   >  >  > bill >  > --L > Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesF > bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > University of Scranton   |@ > Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Feb 2006 19:05:58 -0800$ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) C Message-ID: <1141095958.539174.265660@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    Alan Greig wrote:  > AEF wrote: >  > > I > > Bill, I understand your point: HP is simply not going to do any major H > > marketing for VMS. Fine. But given the big margin, and the fact thatG > > the brief Renaissance of VMS in 2000 increased sales, all I ask is:  > > WHY? > G > Management school. The fewer things you manage the fewer variables to F > control. "Downsize, rightsize, capsize" as a DEC engineer once said. >  > -- > Alan Greig  C So why favor less profitable products? Volume? Is it really enough?    AEF    ------------------------------    Date: 27 Feb 2006 15:34:39 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 1 Subject: Re: Security holiday over for Mac users! 3 Message-ID: <9FuK818mAZTR@eisner.encompasserve.org>   k In article <4403429e$0$78280$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk>, Karsten Nyblad <nospam@nospam.nospam> writes:  > G > Be sure there are security bugs in VMS.  Current technology does not  M > allow for writing so much code without including at least one security bug.   H    The first statement I won't argue with, neither will I go looking for    them.  2    The second statement is bull, or at least hype.   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Feb 2006 15:37:04 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 1 Subject: Re: Security holiday over for Mac users! 3 Message-ID: <lxQ$eOen6$pS@eisner.encompasserve.org>   k In article <4403429e$0$78280$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk>, Karsten Nyblad <nospam@nospam.nospam> writes:  > I > No doubt VMS is a very secure OS, but some of that security comes from  I > having less capable applications, and very few bothering to attack VMS  K > machines.  Only so many VMS people surf sites were you can hope to place   > malicious code.   @    Back when VMS was The OS Of Choice, it had the most powerfullC    applications, the best global network connectivity, and the most     resource sites.      It was secure, even then.  G    Don't confuse poor implementation, like MS products habbit of acting F    on the contents of your email, with power.  Everything MS does this    way can be done securely.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:45:29 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 1 Subject: Re: Security holiday over for Mac users! , Message-ID: <44038105.73C4542C@teksavvy.com>   Bob Koehler wrote:B >    Back when VMS was The OS Of Choice, it had the most powerfullE >    applications, the best global network connectivity, and the most  >    resource sites. >  >    It was secure, even then.     Kevin Mitnick.C What was the name of that famous virus to make it to VMS ?  WANK ?      E I think that the correct statement is that VMS is much easier to make = secure than other operating systems because the management of P applications and interconnects is not hidden behind a GUI that restricts access.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:54:35 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 1 Subject: Re: Security holiday over for Mac users! , Message-ID: <44038326.D50163BD@teksavvy.com>   bob@instantwhip.com wrote: > F > security bugs can't run on vms if you don't have privileges ... that. > includes browsers, web servers, anything ...  G You don't need privileges for a vuris to do damage to a user's account, H email a user,s files to some foreign destination, delete a user's files.  H And if the user has ACLs to access some serious appliocation files, thatJ virus can then go and fetch those files and send them to some remote site.  E While most Windows viri are just annoyances, you need to consider the M possibility of targetted virus designed especially to steal data from a site.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:13:43 -0700 + From: Mark Berryman <mark@theberrymans.com> 1 Subject: Re: Security holiday over for Mac users! % Message-ID: <44031727$1@mvb.saic.com>    JF Mezei wrote:  > Bob Koehler wrote: > B >>   Back when VMS was The OS Of Choice, it had the most powerfullE >>   applications, the best global network connectivity, and the most  >>   resource sites. >> >>   It was secure, even then. >  >  >  > Kevin Mitnick.  H Kevin Mitnick never successfully hacked VMS.  The closest he came to it * used social engineering, not a bug in VMS.  E > What was the name of that famous virus to make it to VMS ?  WANK ?    G WANK was not a virus.  It was a worm and no properly configured system  F was impacted by it (all of my systems successfully rebuffed WANK, for 	 example).   H The only thing that has changed since then is that the *DEFAULT* values H have been made more secure so that people who didn't bother to read the G manuals and just hit return all the way through setup and installation  F could still have reasonably secure systems.  If you actually read the F manuals, and set your systems up accordingly, you were already secure. >  > G > I think that the correct statement is that VMS is much easier to make ? > secure than other operating systems because the management of R > applications and interconnects is not hidden behind a GUI that restricts access.  A Nope.  I do a lot of work at the command line level in MAC OS X,  F Windows, Unix, and VMS.  Being able to get past the GUI does not make ! any of these systems more secure.   
 Mark Berryman    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:53:57 GMT L From: winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing)1 Subject: Re: Security holiday over for Mac users! 6 Message-ID: <00A51F3E.7B9FB62A@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>  \ In article <44038105.73C4542C@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: >Bob Koehler wrote: C >>    Back when VMS was The OS Of Choice, it had the most powerfull F >>    applications, the best global network connectivity, and the most >>    resource sites.  >>   >>    It was secure, even then.  >  >  >Kevin Mitnick. D >What was the name of that famous virus to make it to VMS ?  WANK ?   L Technically a worm rather than a virus (as the very name acknowledged).  And it didn't accomplish much.   -- Alan    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:29:02 -0500 ) From: "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> ' Subject: Re: SWS 2.1 problem with SSL ? 9 Message-ID: <bqIMf.1823$RM2.173605@news20.bellglobal.com>   5 "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> wrote in message  2 news:YmoMf.2491$972.25133@news20.bellglobal.com...I > We are currently using SWS-2.1 (Apache) and SSL-1.2 with OpenVMS-7.3-2   > (allL > available patches are installed). All web pages look OK when served up viaI > port 80 (http) but contain some corruption when served up over port 443 
 > (https). > M > Doing a little hacking revealed that junk is visible on both text and html  L > files when either the first character of the file is blank, or contains a E > blank line. Converting the file in question to STREAM-LF fixes the  
 > problem. >  > Has anyone else seen this? >  > Neil Rieck > Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,  > Ontario, Canada.: > http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html >   I Problem fixed. I needed to add the following line to both HTTPD.CONF and   SSL.CONF EnableMMAP OFF  
 Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,  Ontario, Canada.8 http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:02:02 -0000 E From: "John Wallace" <johnwallace4 at yahoo dot nospam dot co dot uk> % Subject: Re: VAXELN hobbyist license? B Message-ID: <44034cac$0$49686$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>  = "Timothy Stark" <fsword7_nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message * news:5bGdnW9bA5vnPZ3ZRVn-vA@comcast.com... > Hello folks, > K > I looked through OpenVMS hobbyist web site and noticed that a few layered H > products are not listed in hobbyist license like BASEstar, VAXELN, etcI > compared with SPL master index docs?  Does anyone know that plan to add  themH > to hobbyist license yet?  I searched through Google and found only oneH > article on this newsgroup that mentions VAXELN hobbyist license (a few years  > ago).  > 	 > Thanks!  > Tim  >  >   " In the absence of other replies...  J Afaik VAXELN isn't owned by HP these days. It was sold off  (by Compaq) inD summer 1999 to Smart Modular Technologies along with the rest of theI OEM/Embedded+Realtime group. Smart were then bought by Force Computer (?) L and iirc the OEM product range ended up (at least for a while) being part of) Motorola (because Motorola bought Force).   J Anyway, HP can't make VAXELN part of the hobbyist program because it isn'tI HP's to do so. Maybe someone in HP hobbyist land could talk to someone in  the current owner?  J BASEstar does still seem to be part of HP, and indeed late last year stillI had visible activity. A search for BASEstar over at openvms.org will even I reveal a contact name [1]. Some caution is required though, there are are I two very very different flavours of BASEstar around - the original one is E BASEstar for VMS (aka BASEstar Classic), which was a very VMS-centric F product (e.g. programming model supporting ASTs and using descriptors, familiar VMS kind of thing).  I In the days when being "open" was budgetarily momentarily trendy, lots of L time and effort was spent by DEC in developing BASEstar Open, in a differentI development group from BASEstar Classic. BASEstar Open addresses the same I basic application area as BASEstar Classic but targeted the "open" market L and ended up being a very very different product from BASEstar Classic (e.g.L very different programming model, due to lack of ASTs and other differences) .   E BASEstar Open was intended to run on VMS, Unix (Tru64 and HP-UX), and K Windoze. I'm pretty sure VMS, Tru64, and HP-UX versions reached the market, J not so sure about Windoze (it's been years since I looked in depth at this stuff).   L There is about as much similarity between BASEstar Classic and BASEstar Open7 as there is between DECnet Phase IV and DECnet Phase V.   L I'm not sure what kind of hobbyist would want VAXELN or BASEstar at home butJ the same can be said for much of the hobbyist stuff. Were you hoping to do! anything in particular with them?    Hope this helps a bit, John  = [1] http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=05/12/15/7260821    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:30:17 -0500 / From: "William Webb" <william.w.webb@gmail.com> 3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? I Message-ID: <8660a3a10602271130i12d02a60g24999c6285fdd233@mail.gmail.com>   B On 26 Feb 2006 15:20:29 -0800, as400 <vin42and99@yahoo.com> wrote:G > So was it ture that OpenVMS is unkackable claim by many hackers?? Or,  > is it just a "bluff" story?? > B > Im my true opinion, I think the MacOS-X is much much secure thanF > OpenVMS....Now I dont want to start a falme war here, but I I AM NOT= > and repeat.....NOT a MAC-OS fan nor user and will not be...  > @ > The "unhackable" stories told by hackers at the Vegas DEFCON 9F > Convention, was the original OpenVMS, or the Trusted version of VMS? >  >   , If you're referring to SEVMS, no, it wasn't.   WWWebb   --C NOTE: This email address is only used for noncommerical VMS-related  correspondence. C All unsolicited commercial email will be deemed to be a request for 8 services pursuant to the terms and conditions located at# http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/e/webbww/    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:19:26 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? , Message-ID: <44037AEB.ED450907@teksavvy.com>   Bob Koehler wrote:5 >    The unhackable attribution from DEFCON9 is real.     H if I had submitted my PSION-3 at that same conference, I also contend itF would have been un-hackable, simply because the odds of having someoneC with the proprietary sofwtare to access it would have been low, and 2 noody would have had the epertise to hack into it.  E So yeah, VMS is unhackable by windows weenies or unix hackers. But if E Hoff or FredK or other VMS engineers have been there, would they have G been truly unable to hack themselves in ? (include some TCPIP engineers P if there are any left, and the odds of penetration would have been much higher).   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:21:21 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? , Message-ID: <44037B5F.428A69F0@teksavvy.com>   Martin Vorlaender wrote:( > TCP/IP Services comes with a BIND 9.x.  E Correction:. TCPIP Services on Alpha (and that IA64 thing) comes with 1 Bind 9. The same version on VAX came with Bind 8.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:30:01 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? , Message-ID: <44037D66.555D330B@teksavvy.com>   bob@instantwhip.com wrote: > 1 > and trying them on OpenVMS would just result in  >  > "ACCESS VIOLATION ERROR"  ? Bob, be careful with this. Many applications require heavy duty F privileges. Consider a POP server. It needs SYSPRIV in order to accessG any user's files. In fact, there was a vulnerability for the POP server D a few years ago because any user on VMS could run the POP server andF giving it some log file name and the SYSPRIV embedded in the installed@ image would succeed in creating any file anywhere on the system.  ? VMS is so low key that this vilnerability didn't quite make it.   H And when they find vulnerabilities for BIND 8 or BIND 9 and issue urgent/ patches, where are the urgent patches for VMS ?    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:35:03 GMT L From: winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing)3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? 6 Message-ID: <00A51F33.75638F36@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>  \ In article <44037D66.555D330B@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: >bob@instantwhip.com wrote:  >>  2 >> and trying them on OpenVMS would just result in >>   >> "ACCESS VIOLATION ERROR"   " Almost an authentic error message. > @ >Bob, be careful with this. Many applications require heavy dutyG >privileges. Consider a POP server. It needs SYSPRIV in order to access H >any user's files. In fact, there was a vulnerability for the POP serverE >a few years ago because any user on VMS could run the POP server and G >giving it some log file name and the SYSPRIV embedded in the installed A >image would succeed in creating any file anywhere on the system.  > @ >VMS is so low key that this vilnerability didn't quite make it. >   O I can almost make sense of Bob's claim by reading it as saying that this is the , result of attempted buffer overflow attacks.  I >And when they find vulnerabilities for BIND 8 or BIND 9 and issue urgent 0 >patches, where are the urgent patches for VMS ?  J Can't speak to UCX/ TCP/IP services, but what Multinet customers got was aK pretty quick note from the Multinet engineers that they'd examined the BIND 9 code for the vulnerability and it wasn't an issue on VMS.    -- Alan    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:02:43 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? , Message-ID: <4403850E.2D8BE8DF@teksavvy.com>  , Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing wrote:L > Can't speak to UCX/ TCP/IP services, but what Multinet customers got was aM > pretty quick note from the Multinet engineers that they'd examined the BIND ; > code for the vulnerability and it wasn't an issue on VMS.     F Ahhh... But then you're not talking about VMS anymore. You are talking! about VMS with 3rd party add-ons.   B A bit similar to MVS that came with no security and you had to buy( security packages separately (RACF etc).  E If VMS management do not have the resources to advise customers about H whether a new advisory about Bind affects them or not, then what sort ofF "comfort" factor exists for customers who really wonder if that public advisory will affect them ?   H Hopefully Process will inherit all of VMS and its engineers once HP getsD rid of it, and Process can then make a success of it and have better communications with customers.   ------------------------------   Date: 28 Feb 2006 06:18:05 GMT2 From: "Dave Weatherall" <djw-nothere@nospam.nohow>3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? ? Message-ID: <DTiotGxQ0bj6-pn2-fkWUBgd7sVzv@dave2_os2.home.ours>   A On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 23:39:52 UTC, "as400" <vin42and99@yahoo.com>   wrote:  H > And no one seemed to answered this question...What make OpenVMS soooooG > secure?? Does it have most services disabled by defualt like OpenBSD? C > Or, does it have full grade military type encryption schematics??  >  > Please explain.... > H > I searched the docs but theres quite alot of them..I want to read upon$ > the security aspects of this OS...  < Actually, instant Bob, in one of his more cogent posts, did.   --   Cheers - Dave W.   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.117 ************************