Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young - VMS

This is a discussion on Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young - VMS ; On Nov 1, 11:08 pm, JF Mezei wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: > > All of the current versions of the "big" Server software (Windows, > > Exchange & SQL Server) are all released for ia64. And ia64 is a ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 141

Thread: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

  1. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    On Nov 1, 11:08 pm, JF Mezei wrote:
    > Ron Johnson wrote:
    > > All of the current versions of the "big" Server software (Windows,
    > > Exchange & SQL Server) are all released for ia64. And ia64 is a VC
    > > builds target, so in-house development obviously goes on.

    >
    > Unless Microsoft has reversed its previous decision, its support of IA64
    > is still very limited with only a few "server" packages available, and
    > nothing like Office or others popular software. And if I remember
    > correctly, Ia64 versions were to come later than for the industry high
    > volume stuff.
    >


    I have a ZX2000 which I bought on Ebay. It came with Windows XP and
    Windows Sever 2003 installed on separate 250GB disks. Each runs quite
    well and each has a full install of Office 2003 Professional. It
    appears that the IA64 versions of Windows have some sort of
    compatibility mode built in. It can run 32-bit x86 native
    applications as well as IA64 native applications. I can't tell if
    there is any speed penalty ( there must be some but it might be
    slight). The Office applications seem to run as fast on the ZX2000
    with the single 1.4GHz Itanium 2 as they do on my Windows XP HP Laptop
    with a T2300 Core Duo CPU.

    John H. Reinhardt

    P.S.
    It even runs iTunes.


  2. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    In article <1194278076.487174.130400@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>, "johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com" writes:
    >
    > I have a ZX2000 which I bought on Ebay. It came with Windows XP and
    > Windows Sever 2003 installed on separate 250GB disks. Each runs quite
    > well and each has a full install of Office 2003 Professional. It
    > appears that the IA64 versions of Windows have some sort of
    > compatibility mode built in. It can run 32-bit x86 native
    > applications as well as IA64 native applications.


    IIRC Intel puts IA-32 "compatability mode" into there current IA-64
    processors. No knowing when they might get out of that habbit.

    This is similar to early VAXen having PDP-11 compatability mode, and
    later VAXen depending on an instruction emulator built into the AME.


  3. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 09:29:35 -0800, Bob Koehler
    wrote:

    > IIRC Intel puts IA-32 "compatability mode" into there current IA-64
    > processors. No knowing when they might get out of that habbit.


    The line between emulated and native can be a bit fuzzy, these days.

    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  4. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young


    "Main, Kerry" wrote in message
    news:C72D63EB292C9E49AED23F705C61957BDEBA1F095F@G1 W0487.americas.hpqcorp.net...



    Another essay follows, the executive summary is in the last line, you may
    have seen it before somewhere.

    >Ummm, since when did Office become a server application?
    >How many people install Office on Xeon based x86 servers?
    >Did I miss something?


    Does "thin client" mean anything to you. Of course it does. How does that
    work with an IA64 as a server and traditional corporate desktop apps? It's a
    piece of cake with AMD64 in the server, together with VMware, etc. Seen the
    VMware share price in the last few months? Looks safe for now, regardless of
    whether "thin client" really is the next big thing. Anyway, thin client with
    IA64 servers isn't happening in any IT department's future my crystal ball
    knows about. The ability to run Win32 apps on Windows 64 is described by MS
    as a "personal productivity feature"; in other words, "use at your own
    risk". On AMD64, that's relatively low risk. On Win64 on IA64? That's purely
    for the brave. How many round here remember needing to be brave with FX!32
    on NT/Alpha?

    >> And frankly, do you serously believe that someone with pure business
    >> goals would choose to run windows on some IA64 box ?

    >As Keith stated, the answer is yes.


    With the greatest of respect Kerry, your belief, Keith's belief, even Sue's
    belief and JF's belief, is irrelevant to the bigger IA64 picture, as I'm
    sure you and many others must realise. The people whose beliefs matter in
    the bigger IA64 picture generally don't take part in this discussion, not
    here anyway; they are the big-cheque-signers and spreadsheet-jockeys in HQ
    at HP and Intel, and MS and Oracle, and SAP and... And to a lesser extent,
    the beliefs of similar beancounters at end users, consultants, outsourcers,
    etc are important too.

    In any given strategic sales opportunity, *all* of those people have to be
    on the side of IA64 for IA64 to succeed. In the particular case of IA64 VMS,
    they must speak up in favour of VMS too. If any one of these folks in a
    sales cycle can demonstrate plausibly that IA64/VMS is not a commercially
    sensible strategic option, the sensible customer must look elsewhere, just
    as they frequently did when Alpha/NT and Alpha/OSF were the new kids on the
    block. You remember those days, right? They weren't easy even when DEC had a
    pedigree, and Alpha had a performance advantage, and OSF/Tru64 allegedly had
    a technology/standards advantage (at least vs Slowaris), and VMS was, well,
    VMS, same as it ever was. What benefits does IA64 bring to this discussion?
    For anyone with open eyes, the biggest thing IA64 brings is uncertainty,
    which is hardly a benefit.

    Today's potential IA64 customers who see through the IA64 Emperor's clothes
    and are lucky enough to have a choice may perhaps look to products with a
    demonstrable track record and a visible vendor commitment. Power and SPARC
    arguably still have those, x86-64 demonstrably has and will continue to
    have, so there's no shortage of choices for most buyers. Once that factor
    comes into the discussion, IA64 has lost the sale *unless* the customer is
    one of the tiny proportion who have no other option (eg they're a
    price-no-object NonStop diehard, in which case this discussion is largely
    irrelevant anyway, or they're an HPTC buyer, maybe with Intel marketing
    sweeteners to help the decision).

    So, in order to succeed, IA64 needs to bring something very very special to
    the table. Maybe VMS or HPUX are that something today, certainly VMS is
    still very special. Maybe IA64 servers are that something special today, I
    don't know. Or maybe they're not - I'd be quite surprised if there was much
    difference in technology between a low-end IA64 box and a comparably
    priced/configured Proliant (I've seen both and from what I've seen they're
    both decent well-engineered products, and on a good day hopefully they're
    both well supported). A blade server from HP probably doesn't change all
    that much whether it's IA64 or x86-64, so IA64's technical superiority will
    eventually be reflected in the relative sales figures (including the ones
    for VMS blades), all other things being equal, right ?

    At the high end, Proliant still has some way to go, but Proliant-class kit
    keeps a lot of the IT world surprisingly happy, even if running Windows on
    them does rather spoil the picture. Wouldn't it be nice if there was another
    Proliant OS choice too ?

    It's hard for outsiders to see any logical basis for how IA64 is *helpful*
    to the VMS market, but lots of sensible folk find it easy to see how it's
    generally a hindrance; it's a great shame that's not a comfortable message
    for the few HP folk that are willing to raise their heads over the parapet
    round here (ie, to those of you that do, THANK YOU for your continued
    support). Are there really enough potential customers in the middle that
    simply don't care either way wrt IA64 vs AMD64, folks that just want VMS
    regardless of any perceived challenges associated with the underlying
    platform choice?

    "I'm not anti-IA64, I'm anti-stupid"



  5. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    FredK wrote:
    > To be honest I seldom reply or pay attention to COV anymore because of a
    > couple posters (JF being high among them) who have made it their mission to
    > turn every positive into a negative,


    Well thank you. I apologize for not being able to spin positively the
    fact that HP hasn't even bothered to issue an HP press release to
    celebrate VMS' 30th anniversary.

    The people in COV know the efforts made by the VMS people, but in the
    end, if you try to pitch a VMS solution to someone, that someone will
    want to see something from HP, not some VMS group employee whose
    promised can be overturned anyday by HP corporate, as was shown on June
    25 2001.

    There is a big difference between promising continued support for your
    current applications and promising continued development at market pace
    to bring whatever new technology pops up to VMS within reasonable time.

    In the end, to be competitive, you need to be able to implement new
    technologies rapidly.

  6. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 11:50:13 -0800, John Wallace
    wrote:

    > Are there really enough potential customers in the middle that
    > simply don't care either way wrt IA64 vs AMD64, folks that just want VMS
    > regardless of any perceived challenges associated with the underlying
    > platform choice?


    My experience suggests that the underlying hardware is secondary

    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  7. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young


    "JF Mezei" wrote in message
    news:c77d6$472f946b$cef8887a$15212@TEKSAVVY.COM...
    > FredK wrote:
    >> To be honest I seldom reply or pay attention to COV anymore because of a
    >> couple posters (JF being high among them) who have made it their mission
    >> to turn every positive into a negative,

    >
    > Well thank you.



    I think I'll stop reading right about there.





  8. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    FredK wrote:
    > "JF Mezei" wrote in message
    > news:c77d6$472f946b$cef8887a$15212@TEKSAVVY.COM...
    >
    >>FredK wrote:
    >>
    >>>To be honest I seldom reply or pay attention to COV anymore because of a
    >>>couple posters (JF being high among them) who have made it their mission
    >>>to turn every positive into a negative,

    >>
    >>Well thank you.

    >
    >
    >
    > I think I'll stop reading right about there.
    >


    Please don't go away! JF is something we all have to live with. ;-)





  9. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young


    "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message
    news:4730D085.1040701@comcast.net...
    > FredK wrote:
    >> "JF Mezei" wrote in message
    >> news:c77d6$472f946b$cef8887a$15212@TEKSAVVY.COM...
    >>
    >>>FredK wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>To be honest I seldom reply or pay attention to COV anymore because of a
    >>>>couple posters (JF being high among them) who have made it their mission
    >>>>to turn every positive into a negative,
    >>>
    >>>Well thank you.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I think I'll stop reading right about there.
    >>

    >
    > Please don't go away! JF is something we all have to live with. ;-)
    >


    Is there a Valtrex like drug for JF?




  10. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    FredK wrote:
    > "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message
    > news:4730D085.1040701@comcast.net...
    >
    >>FredK wrote:
    >>
    >>>"JF Mezei" wrote in message
    >>>news:c77d6$472f946b$cef8887a$15212@TEKSAVVY.COM...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>FredK wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>To be honest I seldom reply or pay attention to COV anymore because of a
    >>>>>couple posters (JF being high among them) who have made it their mission
    >>>>>to turn every positive into a negative,
    >>>>
    >>>>Well thank you.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>I think I'll stop reading right about there.
    >>>

    >>
    >>Please don't go away! JF is something we all have to live with. ;-)
    >>

    >
    >
    > Is there a Valtrex like drug for JF?
    >
    >
    >


    I just researched Valtrex on Google and it does not appear to be an anti
    psychotic. . . . ;-) Isn't JF on enough drugs already?





  11. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    On Oct 31, 4:13 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
    > The genesis of RISC was the observations that most compiler writers
    > didn't use every exotic opcode, but just strung together sets of the
    > simple, fast ones.


    RISC = Relegate the Important Stuff to Compilers.

    .../Ed


  12. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    On 11/06/07 15:42, Ed Wilts wrote:
    > On Oct 31, 4:13 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
    >> The genesis of RISC was the observations that most compiler writers
    >> didn't use every exotic opcode, but just strung together sets of the
    >> simple, fast ones.

    >
    > RISC = Relegate the Important Stuff to Compilers.


    EPIC tried that too. Didn't work as well.

    Besides, a regularized opcode format let the chips be simplified and
    the MHz cranked. And that overcame compiler deficiencies until
    compiler writers figured out how to write better compilers.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  13. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    In article <4730D085.1040701@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    > FredK wrote:
    >> "JF Mezei" wrote in message
    >> news:c77d6$472f946b$cef8887a$15212@TEKSAVVY.COM...
    >>
    >>>FredK wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>To be honest I seldom reply or pay attention to COV anymore because of a
    >>>>couple posters (JF being high among them) who have made it their mission
    >>>>to turn every positive into a negative,
    >>>
    >>>Well thank you.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I think I'll stop reading right about there.
    >>

    >
    > Please don't go away! JF is something we all have to live with. ;-)


    Not those of us with killfiles.
    We just have to deal with those who respond to JF.

  14. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    Ed Wilts wrote:
    > RISC = Relegate the Important Stuff to Compilers.


    With almost 20 years of RISC experience out there, are there debates on
    whether RISC is really that much better than CISC ?

    When you look at the 8086 that implements CISC instructions that
    translate to multiple RISC instructions behind the scenes, isn't that
    faster in the end than having those multiple instructions in the
    executable image resulting in a larger executable image and thus more
    fetches from main memory to get the code to the CPU ?

    And if a CISC architecture had instructions that were all the same
    length, wouldn't that give it basically all the advantages of a RISC
    platform in terms of prefetching, branch prediction etc ?


    And one question:
    ##
    Alpha Architecture Handbook,
    Special Announcement Edition,
    February 1992. Page 1-1

    The instructions are very simple. All instructions are 32 bits in length.
    ##

    If the actual instruction is only 32 bits, how can a 64 bit value for an
    address ever be specified ? At some point in time, even when you work
    with base address register and a displacement register, you will need to
    load actual values into those registers. How is that done ?

    Or does every process have a reserved spot in the first 4 gigs of ram to
    allow it to specify a 32 bit address in a load operation, which would
    allow it to load a 64 bit value to be used as base address for the rest
    of the program ?


  15. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

    > I just researched Valtrex on Google and it does not appear to be an anti
    > psychotic. . . . ;-) Isn't JF on enough drugs already?


    It isn't drugs. Remember that I live in a different universe. The
    Gartner Group has been predicting for years that the spacial rift that
    opened a singularity between my universe and your universe should be
    closing soon, but no matter how hard the COV members try, it doesn't
    seem to want to close.

    It appears that HP is unwilling to emit the graviton particles that
    would be necessary to close that rift and allow your universe to never
    hear those complaints about lack of marketing for VMS again. As a
    result, the OpenVMS nebula is still moving towards the Nekrit expanse
    where it is expected it will get stuck into obscurity for the rest of time.

    The HP ship is already equipped with all the marketing generators,
    conduits and relays that would enable the marketing energy to be focused
    on the OpenVMS nebula and stop its course towards eternal obscurity, but
    the crews on the deck responsible for OpenVMS have been unable to
    convince the bridge to give them authority to use small amounts of
    marketing energy. It appears that other departments on the HP ship are
    determined to study what will happen when the OpenVMS nebula enters the
    Nekrit expanse, hoping this will release positively charged customer
    particles that will be attracted to the negatively charged HP ship.


    It isn't those who are trying to fight for the success of VMS who are
    negative. It is those who accept HP's lack of marketing for VMS who, in
    the end, will contribute to VMS' demise.

  16. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    FredK wrote:
    >
    > "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message
    > news:4730D085.1040701@comcast.net...
    > > FredK wrote:
    > >> "JF Mezei" wrote in message
    > >> news:c77d6$472f946b$cef8887a$15212@TEKSAVVY.COM...
    > >>
    > >>>FredK wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>>To be honest I seldom reply or pay attention to COV anymore because of a
    > >>>>couple posters (JF being high among them) who have made it their mission
    > >>>>to turn every positive into a negative,
    > >>>
    > >>>Well thank you.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> I think I'll stop reading right about there.
    > >>

    > >
    > > Please don't go away! JF is something we all have to live with. ;-)
    > >

    >
    > Is there a Valtrex like drug for JF?


    Yes! It's called, "OpenVMS Marketing"!

    --
    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/

  17. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote:
    >
    > FredK wrote:
    > > "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message
    > > news:4730D085.1040701@comcast.net...
    > >
    > >>FredK wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>"JF Mezei" wrote in message
    > >>>news:c77d6$472f946b$cef8887a$15212@TEKSAVVY.COM...
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>FredK wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>To be honest I seldom reply or pay attention to COV anymore because of a
    > >>>>>couple posters (JF being high among them) who have made it their mission
    > >>>>>to turn every positive into a negative,
    > >>>>
    > >>>>Well thank you.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>I think I'll stop reading right about there.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>Please don't go away! JF is something we all have to live with. ;-)
    > >>

    > >
    > >
    > > Is there a Valtrex like drug for JF?
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
    > I just researched Valtrex on Google and it does not appear to be an anti
    > psychotic. . . . ;-) Isn't JF on enough drugs already?


    I think you're confusing JF with Boob.

    --
    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/

  18. Re: Walk a mile in their thongs

    Richard Maher wrote:

    a lot of fun reading, as always, but...

    > intend to sneak gSOAP through the
    > back door via stealth!


    Now, say that :

    1. There is a server having an SOAP API/interface
    out there on the net somewere. It's not your
    server and you have no control over it att all.
    The only thing you have is the WSDL definition.

    2. You'd like your VMS server to act as a client
    against that API.

    Now tell me, is Tier3 usable here ?

    And if not, is there any easier tool the gSOAP
    to use to run against those API's ?

    I'm currently using gSOAP to read from a SOAP
    based API (an online auction site), and it works
    just fine.

    I've no idea why you're mixing up gSOAP with the old
    tools Rally, Forté, Bridgeworks and other, besides
    of that you don't know what you're talking about.

    I do agree on one point, it would have been better
    if gSOAP would have been part of the official
    "WEB Services" offerings from HP for OpenVMS.

    Jan-Erik.

  19. Walk a mile in their thongs

    Hi,

    "FredK" wrote:
    > I can't imagine why Robert would be anxious to insult or be
    > insulted by such a swell guy like yourself. You are a model
    > of civilized discourse.


    I tell you what Fred, you land me one of those lovely $200K HP/VMS salaries
    with the "Whatever tickles your fancy" job-descriptions, and just watch the
    dramatic improvement in my general demeanour. Why, come morning, I'd be
    surprised if I'm not an absolute ****ing paragon of etiquette and decorum.
    :-)

    Alternatively, and by way of mitigation, let me give you a brief timeline of
    my experiences with Digital/Compaq/HP-VMS apparatchiks over the last *ten*
    or so years. (We moved house recently and I stumbled across some old
    hard-copy correspondence and I had one of those "See things as they could've
    been and ask 'Why not?'" moments.)

    July 1996, (Still in Munich and a lovely time was being had by all)
    I write to Bill Mathews the then Director of NT Connectivity regarding Tier3
    (a then DECnet/VAX-only client/server middleware package I had developed) to
    see if he could find a place for it in DEC's burgeoning middlware stable.
    You may recall that this was the "Digital is a software company!" era.

    To be fair to someone as busy and senior as Bill, he put me onto the
    "appropriate businees person". So I now make my pitch to Leslie Klein.
    Unfortunately Leslie's goals were "to provide the legacy OpenVMS customer
    with vehicles to extend and/or scale his application. . . moving towards
    industry-standard middleware." - and - "I'd prefer not to trap the OpenVMS
    customer in a niche solution."

    "Fair enough" I said, I understand that Digital is not a charity and I'll
    just have to do it myself. So off I go developing the Alpha and TCP/IP
    versions of Tier3.

    In the meantime Digital is afraid to compete with anyone in the software
    market and gives Rdb to Oracle, DECmessageQ to BEA, Pulls out of All-in-1
    and implements Microsoft Exchange, and puts an end to DECdtm and ACMSxp. I
    guess you do what you think you have to do to get ISVs to continue to
    support VMS?

    (Oh, and you also outsource your internal administration and hardware to
    EDS!)

    [A few years later. . .]

    With much fanfare, DEC announces BridgeWorks! (Presumably the much vaunted
    multivendor, industry-standard solution for legacy OpenVMS customers of
    which Leslie spoke?) It was still-born and no one wanted it! It was/is an
    expensive white-elephant, piece 'o **** whose price tag my mind can only
    boggle at. And then you guys smugly announce that it's not even going to be
    ported to Itanium! (Paid-off all three users then?) You're a class act
    alright.

    But wait! It's not like VMS is a wooden-spooning football team; nobody gets
    sacked here (certainly not the coach) just get the playbook out and come up
    with Plan B (or WSIT) Yes, just leave all the same players in all the same
    positions and see what happens; who cares that not one of your strikers has
    managed to put a ball in the back of the net in the last *ten* seasons.
    (Own-goals excepted!) It's not like were in Columbia; we don't sack players,
    let alone shoot them. (Shame really)

    [Meanwhile, since about the turn of the century. . .]

    I've been in contact with John Apps, Mick Keyes and C.J.Coppersmith;
    primarily looking for native VMS support for the Transaction Internet
    Protocol (TIP) but again seeking VMS financial support for Tier3.

    So I go ahead and implement my own MS/DTC TIP<->DECdtm transaction
    capability for VMS. Digital puts the breaks on COM and COM+ never
    eventuates. ACMS's latent support for TIP is never acknowledged and *to this
    day!* no one here even discusses what WS-AT and WS-Coordination is really
    all about :-(

    Also the following products have come and gone: - Rally, DECAdmire,
    Forte, ACMSxp, DCE/RPC, ONC/RPC, Bridgeworks, COM and *still* the
    longsuffering, yet loyal, VMS customer base screams out for a simple
    solution.

    All they want to do is put a Web-Facing browser GUI onto their trusted VMS
    server applications. They want (and for the last decade have wanted) Tier3!

    What further saddens me here, is that this newgroup is not full of
    discussion of the latest GUI implementation of the Rdb SHOW STATISTICS
    screens or VMS MONITOR screens being incorporated into Flex Charting; and
    that the WEB-Application ground is still being surrendered to *NIX and
    Windows :-(

    But what *really angers* me and something I will just not stand for (again)
    is when it appears that the same bunch of useless wankers that gave us
    BridgeWorks and WSIT now intend to sneak gSOAP through the
    back door via stealth!

    Now, maybe I've just been talking to the wrong HP people all theses years?
    Maybe they're no longer with the company, or have been moved to more
    "appropriate" duties? Who knows who, if anyone, is in charge at HP/VMS
    middle-management these days? But one thing's for sure, I'm not going to sit
    back idly and watch HP subsidise some surplus-to-requirements B-team to cut
    my lunch because they've finally realised they've got it wrong yet again!

    As for Me these days, when I'm not out talking to lawyers and accountants
    about setting up License Agreements and Company Structures, I'm cutting code
    on Linux in order to fund our development team. (And try to diversify our
    income streams. Hey, maybe HP/VMS would be more interested in Tier3 if it
    was poorly-performing generic crap being ported back from Linux rather the
    the VMS specific middleware powerhouse it is today?) I'd much rather be
    working on the Itanium version of Tier3 and coming up with those Flash and
    Flex Chart examples but hey, life's tough for everyone and no one's here to
    listen to me cry into my beer.

    I gave up long ago looking for HP support for our VMS-centric "niche
    solution" and believe enough in Tier3 to know that its quality and
    technical superiority will shine through, but I'll tell ya something;
    whenever some pointless knob with a HP badge decides to stand up in a public
    forum and launch an unsubstantiated attack against Tier3 then I'm going to
    slap him/her down *everytime* as sure as night follows day. Bring it on! I
    don't need your help but I will not suffer your ignorance! On the other
    hand, constructive criticism and bug-spotting is always welcomed.

    Anyway, let me stop here before my bitterness consumes me. I'll go back to
    my Linux Perl and MySQL and Software Licensing 101, and you can go back to
    bed-bathing a comatose DECWindows. In the meantime your buddies can continue
    to do whatever they damned well like: WSIT, gSOAP, Glass Fish, Mono .NET.
    JSON, JBOSS, JBollocks, As long as the VMS customer's getting what they
    want - that's the main thing. The good news is you're disappointing less and
    less of them each year :-(

    Funny old world really.

    Regards Richard Maher

    PS. Not being a big George Michael fan, I still can't help sitting here a
    tad sun-burnt humming along to: -

    "Club VMS the drinks are free. . .fun and sunshine, there's enough for all
    of you . . .".

    "FredK" wrote in message
    news:fgnba4$umu$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
    >
    > "Richard Maher" wrote in message
    > news:fg1f6f$pdf$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
    > > Hi Paul,
    > >
    > > In my opinion there is rarely a call, or justification, for the use of
    > > such
    > > intemperate language in civilized society; not that that has anything to
    > > do
    > > with COV (or the world at large :-)
    > >
    > > But I'm just curious as to why Robert Whininger hasn't come out in
    > > sympathy
    > > with you. I'd certainly hate to think that I was being stalked or that

    it
    > > was only my Web Pages that he felt compelled to critique publicly!
    > >

    >
    > I can't imagine why Robert would be anxious to insult or be insulted by

    such
    > a swell guy like yourself. You are a model of civilized discourse.
    >
    > But more than likely - the fires in San Diego caused a shutdown of the
    > facility that housed the news server where the feeds come in/out of HP. A
    > number of us stopped checking after a few days and only now are tuning

    back
    > in at all.
    >
    >
    >




























  20. Re: Walk a mile in their thongs

    Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
    > Richard Maher wrote:
    >
    > a lot of fun reading, as always, but...
    >
    >> intend to sneak gSOAP through the
    >> back door via stealth!

    >
    > Now, say that :
    >
    > 1. There is a server having an SOAP API/interface
    > out there on the net somewere. It's not your
    > server and you have no control over it att all.
    > The only thing you have is the WSDL definition.
    >
    > 2. You'd like your VMS server to act as a client
    > against that API.
    >
    > Now tell me, is Tier3 usable here ?
    >
    > And if not, is there any easier tool the gSOAP
    > to use to run against those API's ?
    >
    > I'm currently using gSOAP to read from a SOAP
    > based API (an online auction site), and it works
    > just fine.
    >
    > I've no idea why you're mixing up gSOAP with the old
    > tools Rally, Forté, Bridgeworks and other, besides
    > of that you don't know what you're talking about.
    >


    You are missing the point. Rich is pointing out that the DEC/CPQ/HP suits
    are batting 0 and 11 (or worse) and he is pointing at the strikes. ie. The
    products represent choices and decisions that failed.

    Or to use football terminology, they are 0-11 down and the coach hasn't been
    fired, and the team is still playing, hoping to luck a consolation time in
    the referees extra time, before the game is put out of its misery.


    Dweeb

    > I do agree on one point, it would have been better
    > if gSOAP would have been part of the official
    > "WEB Services" offerings from HP for OpenVMS.
    >
    > Jan-Erik.




+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 LastLast