OpenVMS vs. Tru64? - DEC

This is a discussion on OpenVMS vs. Tru64? - DEC ; "Steven Underwood" writes: > I have a problem getting any *nix OS onto my Alpha's because I do not > run it on Intel hardware as well... I have yet to find a bootable > install for Alpha of NetBSD, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 78

Thread: OpenVMS vs. Tru64?

  1. Re: OpenVMS vs. Tru64?

    "Steven Underwood" writes:

    > I have a problem getting any *nix OS onto my Alpha's because I do not
    > run it on Intel hardware as well... I have yet to find a bootable
    > install for Alpha of NetBSD, Linux, etc.


    If you can handle building everything from source as part of the
    install process, Gentoo Linux most certainly provides a bootable CD.
    Go to the "Get Gentoo" page on gentoo.org, and the first link under
    the first "InstallCD" heading should do the job. (It was a couple
    years ago that I used this method to initally set up the box from
    which I'm posting.)

    NetBSD appears to also have a bootable CD available for Alpha.


    Of course, this presumes that you have some tool available to burn an
    ISO onto a CD blank; OSes that will let you install by direct net boot
    across the Intarwebs may be thinner on the ground.

    mlp

  2. Re: OpenVMS vs. Tru64?

    Howard S Shubs schrieb:

    > Have you tried it?


    I did. I have three Alpha workstations I intended to use
    in dual boot configuration 1). So far they only run
    Tru64, much less hassle than VMS.
    (that was what the OP asked for).
    One had the "wrong" gfx card, the other one a "wrong" CD-ROM.
    The third one, an ancient Turbochannel box, might be more VMS-friendly,
    but I'm not that desperately craving for VMS-on-alpha.

    > If VMS comes on CD, you only need a serial terminal
    > to load it.


    Serial is OK as a last resort, but that's not what
    I expect from a workstation equipped with keyboard,
    mouse and an expensive (at its time) video card.

    What I (and B.G.) am wondering about, are the various
    recommendations that one should use a PC to be able
    to conveniently (!) load an alpha workstation with its
    regular software. This from a crowd who constantly
    preaches the superiority of VMS.

    1)
    With which one can have some additional fun since the two OSs
    apparently mutually mangle their TOY entries.


  3. Re: OpenVMS vs. Tru64?

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > In article <6jjrg0F3l6g9U1@mid.individual.net>,
    > Michael Unger writes:
    >> On 2008-09-20 01:40, "Michael Kraemer" wrote:
    >>
    >>> H Vlems schrieb:
    >>>
    >>>> Michael, your reasoning is quite sound, but really depends on
    >>>> experience.
    >>>> Installing VMS is dead simple, can do it in my sleep and installing
    >>>> licenses
    >>>> is no trouble at all because the Montagar licenses install themselves
    >>>> since they come
    >>>> in the form of a DCL script.
    >>> Yes, but to get it onto the machine, you need sth like ftp.
    >>> Which is secured by a PAK, at least until version 7.x.
    >>> Kind of a hen-and-egg situation.

    >> Not really ...
    >>
    >> Establish a PuTTY terminal session from a PC to the console port, invoke
    >> an editor, and cut'n'paste Montagar's license procedure into the
    >> editor's window. (At least for the base and UCX/TCP-IP-Services licenses.)

    >
    > Blasphemy!! He shouldn't have a PC connected to the console. It should
    > be an LA or VT Terminal.


    Pfui... real (wo)men would use cut-and-paste on the VT510 with
    2 sessions ;-)

  4. Re: OpenVMS vs. Tru64?

    On 20 sep, 19:30, Michael Kraemer wrote:
    > Bill Gunshannon schrieb:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Blasphemy!! *He shouldn't have a PC connected to the console. *It should
    > > be an LA or VT Terminal. *

    >
    > > Of course, it is interesting that people here talk about how easy VMSX is
    > > to install and that Windows is such a piece of crap and then tell someone
    > > they need a box running Windows in order to get their VMS system running!!

    >
    > This is exactly my point.
    > People keep telling me how superior VMS is over everything
    > else, but I'd need a lame PC to get it up and running.
    > Basically this means that VMS can't even stand on its own feet
    > anymore.
    > I could remotely understand this for a server,
    > but for a workstation like the XP1000, which is sort
    > of the alpha desktops last hooray, it is indeed sheer blasphemy.
    > One should take a look at other platforms: AIX, HP-UX, Solaris,
    > even Tru64 and Ultrix: no need for steenking PC to install
    > the respective workstations. It's only the machine, the CD set
    > and me to get them up and running. On a scale which measures
    > ease of installation until GUI and networking is running,
    > VMS takes the absolute bottom notch, IMHO.


    Michael, not sure what caused that reaction but it is not true.
    Ease of installation of an OS depends on skills and experience.
    Installing Windows can be a pain if you forget to manually modify the
    network settings.
    Not everybody wants/needs DHCP. Installing Linux requires some
    knowledge about
    hardware. I don't think VMS stands out here neither as better nor as
    worse in terms of
    installation quality.
    Every Alpha with a graphics adapter, keyboard, mouse and display will
    install the base-OS, network
    products and the GUI, provided you hit the enter button a few times.
    The hardware requirements are
    not different from any other type of computer that I know of.
    You need to enter a name at some point but that's not different from
    most other OS-es.
    It won't install the licenses for you and it will go for DECnet plus
    instead of DECnet phase IV.
    The same applies for Tru64. Or AIX for that matter.
    So, what actually is your problem (besides obviously not being in a
    good mood)?
    Hans

  5. Re: OpenVMS vs. Tru64?

    In article ,
    Michael Kraemer wrote:

    > What I (and B.G.) am wondering about, are the various
    > recommendations that one should use a PC to be able
    > to conveniently (!) load an alpha workstation with its
    > regular software. This from a crowd who constantly
    > preaches the superiority of VMS.


    I think the reason for that is that they expect a person to already have
    a Windows box with a terminal emulator on it, making it VERY cheap.
    Personally, I have a VT420 connected to my VAX server (with dead disks),
    and an Alphastation which is currently missing a keyboard adapter
    (USB-to-PS/2), so I *could* run it just fine.

    --
    Don't bother with piddly crap like "gun control".
    Life is 100% fatal. Ban it.

  6. Re: OpenVMS vs. Tru64?

    On 2008-09-21 11:41, "Michael Kraemer" wrote:

    > [...]
    >
    > What I (and B.G.) am wondering about, are the various
    > recommendations that one should use a PC to be able
    > to conveniently (!) load an alpha workstation with its
    > regular software. This from a crowd who constantly
    > preaches the superiority of VMS.


    Assuming "hobbyist licenses" (commercial licenses are usually printed
    sheets of paper) sent via e-mail from Montagar you *definitely* need
    another *running* system (whatever HW and OS) to retrieve the e-mail.
    Then you can use that system -- running any terminal emulator -- to
    connect to the AlphaServer's console port. Cut'n'paste the licenses
    (base system, concurrent users, TCP/IP, DECnet perhaps) from the e-mail
    window to the terminal window and you are done.

    > 1)
    > With which one can have some additional fun since the two OSs
    > apparently mutually mangle their TOY entries.


    Isn't the hardware clock simply counting "ticks"?

    Michael

    --
    Real names enhance the probability of getting real answers.
    My e-mail account at DECUS Munich is no longer valid.

  7. Re: OpenVMS vs. Tru64?

    In article ,
    "Steven Underwood" writes:
    > "Bill Gunshannon" wrote in message
    > news:6jkqjoF3ode5U1@mid.individual.net...
    >>
    >> Anything but VMS? You do realize that no other OS requires you to
    >> have a second, different OS in order to reasonably install their product.
    >>

    >
    > You could of course have VMS connected as the console...


    Sounds like the same problem recursively applied. :-)

    >
    > I have a problem getting any *nix OS onto my Alpha's because I do not run it
    > on Intel hardware as well... I have yet to find a bootable install for Alpha
    > of NetBSD, Linux, etc. I would love to play with it but my 2 Alpha's are
    > the only hardware I have available to play with... my Windows boxes need to
    > stay Windows and working (one to support the office, it is their machine
    > after all and one for the kids and wife to play with).


    Google seasrches for "freebsd alpha iso" and "netbsd alpha iso" fouund
    bootable CD media for both. I am sure the same would be true for Linux
    but I didn't try because friends don't let friends run Linux. :-)

    >
    > Every install I have seen says to use an existing system and net boot from
    > it. The last time I looked into this was a year ago or so, but I don't
    > think much has changed on the Alpha side since then.


    I can't remember the last time I netbooted a Unix system. I think it was
    SunOS on diskless clients. :-) I have always CD booted everything I have
    ever used since BSD went public.

    > I have install media
    > (many copies, actually) for VMS for (one of) those Alpha's. I have install
    > media for Win2000RC2 for the other. Since I can play with VMS at work, I
    > would like to set one or both of these up at home with a *nix, but have not
    > been able to get there yet. None of the other hardware I have collected has
    > been able to get me there. My most recent attempt was Ubuntu on my parents
    > old Compaq machine, but the install never starts.


    I would recommend FreeBSD. I have run it on alphas in the past although
    I don't have one up at the moment. It worked quite well.

    bill


    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  8. Re: OpenVMS vs. Tru64?

    In article ,
    Howard S Shubs writes:
    > In article ,
    > Michael Kraemer wrote:
    >
    >> the respective workstations. It's only the machine, the CD set
    >> and me to get them up and running. On a scale which measures
    >> ease of installation until GUI and networking is running,
    >> VMS takes the absolute bottom notch, IMHO.

    >
    > Have you tried it? If VMS comes on CD, you only need a serial terminal
    > to load it.


    Yeah, as long as your willing to type in the very cryptic license by
    hand. Who was it that accused Unix of being too cryptic?

    bill


    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  9. Re: OpenVMS vs. Tru64?

    In article <6jnf9iF45kekU2@mid.individual.net>,
    billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:

    > Yeah, as long as your willing to type in the very cryptic license by
    > hand. Who was it that accused Unix of being too cryptic?


    Didn't someone say that the licenses were on the CD in a command
    procedure? Executing the command procedure isn't too bad.

    --
    Don't bother with piddly crap like "gun control".
    Life is 100% fatal. Ban it.

  10. Re: OpenVMS vs. Tru64?

    On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:56:19 UTC, Howard S Shubs
    wrote:

    > In article <6jnf9iF45kekU2@mid.individual.net>,
    > billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    >
    > > Yeah, as long as your willing to type in the very cryptic license by
    > > hand. Who was it that accused Unix of being too cryptic?

    >
    > Didn't someone say that the licenses were on the CD in a command
    > procedure? Executing the command procedure isn't too bad.


    Don't think so. I said that it would be trivial to make a CD containing
    the two licence DCL scripts. One must have received them by email on
    *some* system, and one could probably burn an ISO CD. That could be
    mounted /FOREIGN, and then the DCL scripts executed.

    (It's not 'cryptic like UNIX' anyway. It's a one-off, once a year, for
    VMS and each LP one is actually using.)


  11. Re: OpenVMS vs. Tru64?

    H Vlems schrieb:

    >
    > Michael, not sure what caused that reaction but it is not true.
    > Ease of installation of an OS depends on skills and experience.


    No. It does not have to do with skills.
    When I installed my alphas, I had zero experience
    with Tru64 and zero experience with VMS installation.
    Same hardware, same OS vendor.
    Tru64 went much more smoothly.
    Leaving lacking hardware support issues aside,
    which can be show-stoppers for VMS, but not for Tru64,
    the license key issue is really a PITA.
    VMS installation forces you to enter that stuff
    at the OPA0: level. Each typo requires retyping
    that crap. Can't use mouse and GUI because that
    requires a PAK. Can't just fetch it because ftp
    requires another PAK. Boy, that's weird, you must agree.
    All that not needed for Tru64, so it wins hands down.

    (snip)

    > Every Alpha with a graphics adapter,


    provided it is supported. Tru64 supports more adapters than VMS.

    > It won't install the licenses for you


    for most OSes you don't need license keys at all.
    Imagine that.
    Even Tru64 can be run without, provided one is satisfied
    with OSF-USR. It's VMS being the odd man out.

    > So, what actually is your problem


    Since so far I run Tru64 rather than VMS I don't have problems :-)
    But I might give it another try during the Xmas break.

    > (besides obviously not being in a
    > good mood)?


    You can't draw that conclusion just because I beg to differ
    from your opinion.


  12. Re: OpenVMS vs. Tru64?

    In article ,
    Howard S Shubs writes:
    > In article <6jnf9iF45kekU2@mid.individual.net>,
    > billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    >
    >> Yeah, as long as your willing to type in the very cryptic license by
    >> hand. Who was it that accused Unix of being too cryptic?

    >
    > Didn't someone say that the licenses were on the CD in a command
    > procedure? Executing the command procedure isn't too bad.
    >


    What CD are you talking about? I have never received a C D for a
    hobbyist system as I alreqady had a bunch of CD's at my disposal.
    And, even if I ordered a CD from Montagar somehow I doubt they
    burn personal CD's for every purchaser. Licenses come in an
    Email. You can either use a machine running another OS as your
    console and maybe be able to cut and paste (kinda depends on your
    console system and software) or you can type it in by hand.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  13. Re: OpenVMS vs. Tru64?

    In article <176uZD2KcidF-pn2-MF1Z8FqpOjTd@rikki.tavi.co.uk>,
    writes:
    > On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:56:19 UTC, Howard S Shubs
    > wrote:
    >
    >> In article <6jnf9iF45kekU2@mid.individual.net>,
    >> billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    >>
    >> > Yeah, as long as your willing to type in the very cryptic license by
    >> > hand. Who was it that accused Unix of being too cryptic?

    >>
    >> Didn't someone say that the licenses were on the CD in a command
    >> procedure? Executing the command procedure isn't too bad.

    >
    > Don't think so. I said that it would be trivial to make a CD containing
    > the two licence DCL scripts. One must have received them by email on
    > *some* system, and one could probably burn an ISO CD. That could be
    > mounted /FOREIGN, and then the DCL scripts executed.
    >
    > (It's not 'cryptic like UNIX' anyway. It's a one-off, once a year, for
    > VMS and each LP one is actually using.)


    "1-KPJN-PLCO-BMEA-BFGJ" isn't cryptic?

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  14. Re: OpenVMS vs. Tru64?

    In article <6jnf9iF45kekU2@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >In article ,
    > Howard S Shubs writes:
    >> In article ,
    >> Michael Kraemer wrote:
    >>
    >>> the respective workstations. It's only the machine, the CD set
    >>> and me to get them up and running. On a scale which measures
    >>> ease of installation until GUI and networking is running,
    >>> VMS takes the absolute bottom notch, IMHO.

    >>
    >> Have you tried it? If VMS comes on CD, you only need a serial terminal
    >> to load it.

    >
    >Yeah, as long as your willing to type in the very cryptic license by
    >hand. Who was it that accused Unix of being too cryptic?


    What is crypitic? The checksum? Well, I suppose they could have chosen
    something more english-like for the checksum like Throatwarbler Mangrove
    perhaps?

    It's not that difficult: #-ABCD-EFGH-IJKL-MNOP 1+4*4

    Have you ever seen the crypitc keys on Micro$hit products? Here's one:
    FG69P-J6H9M-VGYR9-X2C38-GTC4Q 5*5

    Yeah, Bill, billzebubs 666 code is SOOOO much easier.

    At least. I'm not require to stick advert stickers on my hardware like
    all of the idiots running Micro$hit products.

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    .... pejorative statements of opinion are entitled to constitutional protection
    no matter how extreme, vituperous, or vigorously expressed they may be. (NJSC)

    Copr. 2008 Brian Schenkenberger. Publication of _this_ usenet article outside
    of usenet _must_ include its contents in its entirety including this copyright
    notice, disclaimer and quotations.

  15. Re: OpenVMS vs. Tru64?

    Michael Unger schrieb:

    > Assuming "hobbyist licenses" (commercial licenses are usually printed
    > sheets of paper) sent via e-mail from Montagar you *definitely* need
    > another *running* system (whatever HW and OS) to retrieve the e-mail.


    That's definitely true, unfortunately. But is M$ really mandatory ?
    Usually I stored the stuff as a text file "somewhere",
    entered the UCX license manually (pfff !) and fetched the Montagar
    script via ftp. Stone age when compared with today's standards.

    >>1)
    >>With which one can have some additional fun since the two OSs
    >>apparently mutually mangle their TOY entries.

    >
    >
    > Isn't the hardware clock simply counting "ticks"?


    On AlphaStations (at least) both OSs somehow leave their traces
    in the clock chip. These are incompatible, so Tru64 complains
    about "invalid time" (or sth like that) whenever VMS was booted before,
    and probably vice versa. Not a big deal, though, but the respective
    messages look pretty frightening at first glance (initially I was
    looking for a bad battery to replace), and the whole thing
    speaks volumes, IMHO, about QA and intra-company communication
    within DEC in the mid-90s.


  16. Re: OpenVMS vs. Tru64?

    Michael Unger schrieb:

    > Assuming "hobbyist licenses" (commercial licenses are usually printed
    > sheets of paper) sent via e-mail from Montagar you *definitely* need
    > another *running* system (whatever HW and OS) to retrieve the e-mail.


    Aah, I forgot: is it any better for commercial licenses, i.e.
    would they come on floppy/CD so one would just have to run a
    script with lmf commands ?


  17. Re: OpenVMS vs. Tru64?

    VAXman- schrieb:

    > What is crypitic? The checksum? Well, I suppose they could have chosen
    > something more english-like for the checksum like Throatwarbler Mangrove
    > perhaps?
    >
    > It's not that difficult: #-ABCD-EFGH-IJKL-MNOP 1+4*4


    Except if you typed "0" for an "O" and you have no
    GUI to correct (because this would require another checksum)
    and you have to re-type the whole crap,
    not only the checksum but everything else as well.

    > Have you ever seen the crypitc keys on Micro$hit products?


    The original comparison was with a product (Tru64)
    from the very same vendor (DEC).


  18. Re: OpenVMS vs. Tru64?

    In article <00A7FFAA.43F9CC68@sendspamhere.org>,
    VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
    > In article <6jnf9iF45kekU2@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >>In article ,
    >> Howard S Shubs writes:
    >>> In article ,
    >>> Michael Kraemer wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> the respective workstations. It's only the machine, the CD set
    >>>> and me to get them up and running. On a scale which measures
    >>>> ease of installation until GUI and networking is running,
    >>>> VMS takes the absolute bottom notch, IMHO.
    >>>
    >>> Have you tried it? If VMS comes on CD, you only need a serial terminal
    >>> to load it.

    >>
    >>Yeah, as long as your willing to type in the very cryptic license by
    >>hand. Who was it that accused Unix of being too cryptic?

    >
    > What is crypitic? The checksum? Well, I suppose they could have chosen
    > something more english-like for the checksum like Throatwarbler Mangrove
    > perhaps?
    >
    > It's not that difficult: #-ABCD-EFGH-IJKL-MNOP 1+4*4
    >
    > Have you ever seen the crypitc keys on Micro$hit products? Here's one:
    > FG69P-J6H9M-VGYR9-X2C38-GTC4Q 5*5
    >
    > Yeah, Bill, billzebubs 666 code is SOOOO much easier.


    I didn't recommend Microsoft. I use FreeBSd and it has never asked me
    for a license. Linux doesn't either. And, I just did my first install
    of "Open Solaris" and it also didn't. As a matter of fact, it was one
    of the VMS faithful that recommended cut and paste from a Windows box.
    Go figure.

    >
    > At least. I'm not require to stick advert stickers on my hardware like
    > all of the idiots running Micro$hit products.


    I have installed a lot of OSes in my life. I have never had to "stick
    advert stickers on my hardware". It is making ridiculous claims like
    this that has made VMS and it's rabid advocates the laughing stock of
    the industry. And, yes, people here openly laugh at any mention of
    VMS.

    bill


    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  19. Re: OpenVMS vs. Tru64?

    On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:41:05 UTC, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
    wrote:

    > In article <176uZD2KcidF-pn2-MF1Z8FqpOjTd@rikki.tavi.co.uk>,
    > writes:
    > > On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:56:19 UTC, Howard S Shubs
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >> In article <6jnf9iF45kekU2@mid.individual.net>,
    > >> billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > Yeah, as long as your willing to type in the very cryptic license by
    > >> > hand. Who was it that accused Unix of being too cryptic?
    > >>
    > >> Didn't someone say that the licenses were on the CD in a command
    > >> procedure? Executing the command procedure isn't too bad.

    > >
    > > Don't think so. I said that it would be trivial to make a CD containing
    > > the two licence DCL scripts. One must have received them by email on
    > > *some* system, and one could probably burn an ISO CD. That could be
    > > mounted /FOREIGN, and then the DCL scripts executed.
    > >
    > > (It's not 'cryptic like UNIX' anyway. It's a one-off, once a year, for
    > > VMS and each LP one is actually using.)

    >
    > "1-KPJN-PLCO-BMEA-BFGJ" isn't cryptic?


    Not particularly....you have to type it just once, unlike UNIX commands
    which you have to type all the time - which was the point I was making.
    And it's shorter than the typical Windows licence key.


  20. Re: OpenVMS vs. Tru64?

    On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:30:07 UTC, Michael Kraemer
    wrote:

    > Michael Unger schrieb:
    >
    > > Assuming "hobbyist licenses" (commercial licenses are usually printed
    > > sheets of paper) sent via e-mail from Montagar you *definitely* need
    > > another *running* system (whatever HW and OS) to retrieve the e-mail.

    >
    > Aah, I forgot: is it any better for commercial licenses, i.e.
    > would they come on floppy/CD so one would just have to run a
    > script with lmf commands ?


    I always received them on paper. I never considered it a major problem,
    just a once-a-year very minor chore.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast