Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 - VMS

This is a discussion on Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86 - VMS ; On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:14:13 -0700, Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article , > "Tom Linden" writes: >> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:17:53 -0700, Bill Gunshannon >> >> wrote: >> >>> Somebody tell me again how DOD is ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 92

Thread: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86

  1. Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86

    On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:14:13 -0700, Bill Gunshannon
    wrote:

    > In article ,
    > "Tom Linden" writes:
    >> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:17:53 -0700, Bill Gunshannon
    >>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Somebody tell me again how DOD is one of VMS's biggest customers!

    >>
    >> Well, they are my biggest!

    >
    > Well, you'll pardon me for saying this but if DOD VMS PL/I users make up
    > the majority of your business your a lot smaller than I thought.
    >
    > bill
    >

    I didn't say majority, I said biggest


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

  2. Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86

    In article <6718lhF2m4eapU2@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >
    > Somebody tell me again how DOD is one of VMS's biggest customers!


    I'm, sorry, we were unable to ascertain need to know.


  3. RE: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86


    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Bill Gunshannon [mailto:billg999@cs.uofs.edu]
    > Sent: April 20, 2008 7:07 PM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86
    >


    [snip...]

    > >
    > > Yeah, and let me guess - the people saying this are under 30 (maybe

    > 35)
    >
    > No, actually my peers alone range in age from their 20's to nearly 60.
    > The people making policy tend to be at the higher end of the spectrum.
    >
    > > and are promoting platforms like Windows and Linux that have 5-20

    > security
    > > patches released each and every month. And that does not include the
    > > fixes auctioned off privately at sites like this:
    > >
    > >

    > http://www.darkreading.com/document....T.svl=3Dnews1_
    > 1
    >
    > You really are a "one hit wonder". Can't get off this and can't seem
    > to
    > grasp the concept that there are perfectly secure Windows systems in
    > use
    > all over. And we all know the rate at which Linux is growing. Seems
    > the
    > only system conspicuous in its absence in the industry today is VMS.
    >


    What really blows me away is experienced IT types who do not understand
    that yes, any platform can be made more secure with the right amount of
    effort etc, but yet do not understand that when the OS vendor releases
    5-20 new security patches each and every month, how do they ensure that
    the platform "stays" secure?

    Especially when applications need to be re-tested before OS patches are
    released into production (as any self respecting mission critical shop
    does).

    What is so difficult to understand about this concept?

    If you had stated 15 years ago to any experienced IT person that you
    wanted to implement a new platform and the only down side was dealing
    with 5-20 new security patches each and every month, you would have
    been laughed out of the board room.

    So, why is this so different today?

    [snip...]

    Regards

    Kerry Main
    Senior Consultant
    HP Services Canada
    Voice: 613-254-8911
    Fax: 613-591-4477
    kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom
    (remove the DOT's and AT)

    OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.


  4. Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86

    on 21-4-2008 17:28 Main, Kerry wrote...

    [snip]

    > If you had stated 15 years ago to any experienced IT person that you
    > wanted to implement a new platform and the only down side was dealing
    > with 5-20 new security patches each and every month, you would have
    > been laughed out of the board room.


    Ah, the old Henry Ford adagium: had he walked into said board room,
    declaring that he found a new means of transportation, but the only
    downside was that it would kill a couple of hundreds of thousands of
    people each year, sure, he would have been laughed out of the room.
    Meanwhile, we all drive cars, some of us will be killed by a car, and
    noone really says we shouldn't use cars because of this.

    Windows is just there, patches and all. Get used to it.

    --
    Wilm Boerhout Zwolle, NL
    remove OLD PAINT from return address to reply

  5. Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86

    In article ,
    koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    > In article <6718lhF2m4eapU2@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >>
    >> Somebody tell me again how DOD is one of VMS's biggest customers!

    >
    > I'm, sorry, we were unable to ascertain need to know.


    This red herring is getting as tired as Kerry's "5-20 patches" mantra.
    How many times do I have to tell you, I am on the inside. I am an
    Information Systems Technician Warrant Officer. I and my peers are
    "the subject matter experts" when it comes to information systems. My
    unit is part of DISA who approves and certifies all AIS's in DOD.
    All that being said, I have yet to run into any of my peers who has
    ever seen a DOD VMS system. (Yes, I do ask them!) I deal with people
    at the top of the AIS policy ladder and have specifically offered my
    services if they had need for someone with VMS experience. To this
    point I have not been called upon for even one case of needed VMS
    assistance. I know there are still VMS systems in existance. But they
    appear to be the very best examples of legacy systems. They run one
    or two fixed programs. They see no new development and very limited
    maintenance (probably due to a fear that anything done may result in
    breaking the running application.) If this describes "VMS's biggest
    customer" then things are a lot worse off than people here realize.

    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

  6. Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86

    In article <673tb7F2lqjjfU2@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill
    Gunshannon) writes:
    >
    > This red herring is getting as tired as Kerry's "5-20 patches" mantra.
    > How many times do I have to tell you, I am on the inside. I am an
    > Information Systems Technician Warrant Officer. I and my peers are
    > "the subject matter experts" when it comes to information systems. My
    > unit is part of DISA who approves and certifies all AIS's in DOD.


    don't be too specific here,
    otherwise you might have to shoot us all.

  7. Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86

    Michael Kraemer wrote:
    > In article <673tb7F2lqjjfU2@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill
    > Gunshannon) writes:
    >> This red herring is getting as tired as Kerry's "5-20 patches" mantra.
    >> How many times do I have to tell you, I am on the inside. I am an
    >> Information Systems Technician Warrant Officer. I and my peers are
    >> "the subject matter experts" when it comes to information systems. My
    >> unit is part of DISA who approves and certifies all AIS's in DOD.

    >
    > don't be too specific here,
    > otherwise you might have to shoot us all.



    Too late! Goodbye!

  8. Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86

    In article <673tb7F2lqjjfU2@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >In article ,
    > koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    >> In article <6718lhF2m4eapU2@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >>>
    >>> Somebody tell me again how DOD is one of VMS's biggest customers!

    >>
    >> I'm, sorry, we were unable to ascertain need to know.

    >
    >This red herring is getting as tired as Kerry's "5-20 patches" mantra.
    >How many times do I have to tell you, I am on the inside. I am an
    >Information Systems Technician Warrant Officer. I and my peers are
    >"the subject matter experts" when it comes to information systems. My
    >unit is part of DISA who approves and certifies all AIS's in DOD.
    >All that being said, I have yet to run into any of my peers who has
    >ever seen a DOD VMS system. (Yes, I do ask them!) I deal with people
    >at the top of the AIS policy ladder and have specifically offered my
    >services if they had need for someone with VMS experience. To this
    >point I have not been called upon for even one case of needed VMS
    >assistance. I know there are still VMS systems in existance. But they
    >appear to be the very best examples of legacy systems. They run one
    >or two fixed programs. They see no new development and very limited
    >maintenance (probably due to a fear that anything done may result in
    >breaking the running application.) If this describes "VMS's biggest
    >customer" then things are a lot worse off than people here realize.


    OK:

    1) DOD can be one of VMS's biggest customers without VMS being one of
    DOD's biggest vendors. Tom Linden says they're one of _his_ biggest
    customers, but I'm pretty sure he's not one of their biggest vendors.


    2) Do you know anything about the JSTARS program? That was announced as a big
    program win with the Air Force a few years back, and was supposed to be
    ongoing. (I don't know anything about it other than that it was so announced.)

    3) It's not logically impossible that there are a bunch of service contracts
    in place for those legacy systems that result in a bunch of income.

    [I'm not making an argument about marketing, about the ultimate health of VMS,
    etc, etc, etc; I'm just saying that the proof you've offered doesn't prima
    facie make the case for "DOD is one of VMS's biggest customers" being untrue.]

    -- Alan


  9. Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86

    In article <673tb7F2lqjjfU2@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    > In article ,
    > koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    >> In article <6718lhF2m4eapU2@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >>>
    >>> Somebody tell me again how DOD is one of VMS's biggest customers!

    >>
    >> I'm, sorry, we were unable to ascertain need to know.

    >
    > This red herring is getting as tired as Kerry's "5-20 patches" mantra.
    > How many times do I have to tell you, I am on the inside.


    Tired of the facts becaudse you can't make them go away? Everyone
    one the inside knows about need to know. You job as a subject
    matter expert is limitted to those subjects they want to be able to
    ask you about.


  10. Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:

    > All that being said, I have yet to run into any of my peers who has
    > ever seen a DOD VMS system.


    You need to start wearing an aluminium foil hat to protect you from the
    special brainwashing waves around DOD facilities.

    What is really happening is that VMS is being used by black ops, super
    secret "doesn't exist, no we don't torture" type of operations. They
    chose VMS exactly because they knew that normal people wouldn't
    understand it, not know how to get in, and what to do if they ever got
    in. And because those are all black ops, the few VMS gurus involved will
    never talk on c.o.v. about those systems.

    I suspect all Tadpole laptops were rounded up to be installed in those
    black vans that go around and kidnap people from the streets to be
    rendered in syria and other places.

    It is no wonder HP doesn't want to market VMS is VMS is associated with
    the types of uses civilised societies do not tolerate.

  11. Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86

    JF Mezei wrote:
    [...]
    >
    > What is really happening is that VMS is being used by black ops, super
    > secret "doesn't exist, no we don't torture" type of operations. They
    > chose VMS exactly because they knew that normal people wouldn't
    > understand it, not know how to get in, and what to do if they ever got
    > in. And because those are all black ops, the few VMS gurus involved will
    > never talk on c.o.v. about those systems.
    >
    > I suspect all Tadpole laptops were rounded up to be installed in those
    > black vans that go around and kidnap people from the streets to be
    > rendered in syria and other places.
    >
    > It is no wonder HP doesn't want to market VMS is VMS is associated with
    > the types of uses civilised societies do not tolerate.


    Sorry, I don't buy it. No proof.

  12. Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86

    In article <673tb7F2lqjjfU2@mid.individual.net>,
    billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >
    > All that being said, I have yet to run into any of my peers who has
    > ever seen a DOD VMS system. (Yes, I do ask them!)


    Hold on to your hats!! Today I ran into one of my peers who has actually
    seen a DOD VMS system. He used to work at the Hoffman Building in VA
    which is the headquarters for all Army personnel systems and he actually
    remembers when they had VMS systems there. He thought they were pretty
    good. But they decommissioned it several years ago. Sorry guys. That's
    reality.

    The group I am with now makes up somewhere in the area of 600 man years
    of Army IT experience covering more than 30 calendar years of time and
    pretty much every theater of operations and out of all of this, one man
    has seen VMS in use by DA and that was years ago. If the cream of Army
    IT never work with these VMS systems, just who do you think does?
    I should be really honest, however. I, too, have seen VMS in use in DA.
    Of course, that was at the Military Academy in the Computing Science
    Department which is probably more academia than government and anyway,
    that was over 20 years ago and has probably been gone for more than 18
    years.

    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: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86

    In article <00A78733.51B1D540@ssrl.slac.stanford.edu>,
    winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing) writes:
    > In article <673tb7F2lqjjfU2@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >>In article ,
    >> koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    >>> In article <6718lhF2m4eapU2@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >>>>
    >>>> Somebody tell me again how DOD is one of VMS's biggest customers!
    >>>
    >>> I'm, sorry, we were unable to ascertain need to know.

    >>
    >>This red herring is getting as tired as Kerry's "5-20 patches" mantra.
    >>How many times do I have to tell you, I am on the inside. I am an
    >>Information Systems Technician Warrant Officer. I and my peers are
    >>"the subject matter experts" when it comes to information systems. My
    >>unit is part of DISA who approves and certifies all AIS's in DOD.
    >>All that being said, I have yet to run into any of my peers who has
    >>ever seen a DOD VMS system. (Yes, I do ask them!) I deal with people
    >>at the top of the AIS policy ladder and have specifically offered my
    >>services if they had need for someone with VMS experience. To this
    >>point I have not been called upon for even one case of needed VMS
    >>assistance. I know there are still VMS systems in existance. But they
    >>appear to be the very best examples of legacy systems. They run one
    >>or two fixed programs. They see no new development and very limited
    >>maintenance (probably due to a fear that anything done may result in
    >>breaking the running application.) If this describes "VMS's biggest
    >>customer" then things are a lot worse off than people here realize.

    >
    > OK:
    >
    > 1) DOD can be one of VMS's biggest customers without VMS being one of
    > DOD's biggest vendors. Tom Linden says they're one of _his_ biggest
    > customers, but I'm pretty sure he's not one of their biggest vendors.


    Your probably right, but if DOD accounts for only maybe a dozen systems,
    is it really something to keep bragging about?

    >
    >
    > 2) Do you know anything about the JSTARS program? That was announced as a big
    > program win with the Air Force a few years back, and was supposed to be
    > ongoing. (I don't know anything about it other than that it was so announced.)


    A few years ago is right. Fielded in 1991, approved for production in 1996,
    last system delivered in 2005. A total of 8 systems.
    There is much more information about the airframe than anything else and
    no mention of VMS at all. I wonder if it has been ported to Windows yet?

    >
    > 3) It's not logically impossible that there are a bunch of service contracts
    > in place for those legacy systems that result in a bunch of income.


    Not HP's contract, Northropp-Grumman. Somehow i doubt they are sharing the
    profits.

    >
    > [I'm not making an argument about marketing, about the ultimate health of VMS,
    > etc, etc, etc; I'm just saying that the proof you've offered doesn't prima
    > facie make the case for "DOD is one of VMS's biggest customers" being untrue.]


    I can't say wether or not DOD is one of the biggest VMS customers but if it
    really is, and the presence is as negligible as it appears, that speaks
    volumes about the state of affairs with VMS. Maybe it is just not something
    that people should spend so much effort bragging about.

    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: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86

    In article ,
    koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    > In article <673tb7F2lqjjfU2@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >> In article ,
    >> koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    >>> In article <6718lhF2m4eapU2@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >>>>
    >>>> Somebody tell me again how DOD is one of VMS's biggest customers!
    >>>
    >>> I'm, sorry, we were unable to ascertain need to know.

    >>
    >> This red herring is getting as tired as Kerry's "5-20 patches" mantra.
    >> How many times do I have to tell you, I am on the inside.

    >
    > Tired of the facts becaudse you can't make them go away? Everyone
    > one the inside knows about need to know. You job as a subject
    > matter expert is limitted to those subjects they want to be able to
    > ask you about.


    Bob, this is just getting funnier all the time. "Need to know"
    applies to classified information. VMS is not classified. If
    there was any chance at all that I or any of my peers might be
    put in a place where we would have to deal with a VMS systems we
    would have received at least familiarization with it. There is
    no such training. We receive training in Cisco, Linux, Windows,
    Solaris, Oracle, Web development as well as various forms of
    communication and things specific to military systems. Lots of
    stuff, much of which most of us will never work with. And there
    are even classes held outside normal signal channels for people
    who are going to work with things like logistics AIS's. But no
    VMS. None. Zilch. Zero. We are prepared for a lot of possible
    contingencies because we don't know until we get to an assignment
    just what we are going to need to be the sub ject matter experts
    for. We need to be able to deal with any and all possible IT
    situations. Are you getting the picture?

    Actually, I doubt it. I don't think some people here will accept
    the reality of the situation even after HP announces the end 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

  15. Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86

    bradhamilton wrote in
    news:480B98FB.4070906@comcast.net:

    > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > [...]
    >>
    >> On a side note, I am once again serving with DOD (til mid August
    >> this time) and we constantly hear the talk of "99.999% uptime
    >> required" and "critical systems with lives depending on them".
    >> And not a sign or mention of VMS anywhere, go figure. :-)
    >>
    >> Somebody tell me again how DOD is one of VMS's biggest customers!

    >
    > OK, but permit me to turn the question around a little bit:
    >
    > With the uptime and life-saving requirements listed above, how does
    > Windows accomplish these goals? I realize that you can't go into
    > detail without killing me :-) but there must be general
    > principles and rules that illustrate the stability of Windows in
    > these critical environments.
    >
    > The reason I ask is because of a similar situation that I see in the
    > healthcare field. Many of you are probably acquainted with GE
    > Healthcare systems. You may have seen their logo on MRI or CAT scan
    > equipment, and there are other devices that they manufacture, as
    > well. Since these are critical clinical systems, they have strict
    > uptime and reliability requirements as well, since people's lives
    > may depend on the information they render.


    This all reminds me of Microsoft's end-user license agreement. Here
    are a couple paragraphs:

    22. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. The Limited
    Warranty that appears above is the only
    express warranty made to you and is provided
    in lieu of any other express warranties or
    similar obligations (if any) created by any
    advertising, documentation, packaging, or
    other communications. Except for the Limited
    Warranty and to the maximum extent permitted
    by applicable law, Manufacturer and its
    suppliers (including MS, Microsoft
    Corporation (including its subsidiaries) and
    their respective suppliers) provide the
    SOFTWARE and support services (if any) AS IS
    AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all
    other warranties and conditions, whether
    express, implied or statutory, including, but
    not limited to, any (if any) implied
    warranties, duties or conditions of
    merchantability, of fitness for a particular
    purpose, of reliability or availability, of
    accuracy or completeness of responses, of
    results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of
    viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with
    regard to the SOFTWARE, and the provision of
    or failure to provide support or other
    services, information, software, and related
    content through the SOFTWARE or otherwise
    arising out of the use of the SOFTWARE. ALSO,
    THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE,
    QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION,
    CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-
    INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE.

    23. EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL
    AND CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM
    EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO
    EVENT SHALL MANUFACTURER OR ITS SUPPLIERS
    (INCLUDING MS, MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
    (INCLUDING ITS SUBSIDIARIES) AND THEIR
    RESPECTIVE SUPPLIERS) BE LIABLE FOR ANY
    SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, OR
    CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING,
    BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
    PROFITS OR CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER INFORMATION,
    FOR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, FOR PERSONAL
    INJURY, FOR LOSS OF PRIVACY, FOR FAILURE TO
    MEET ANY DUTY OF GOOD FAITH OR OF REASONABLE
    CARE, FOR NEGLIGENCE, AND FOR ANY OTHER
    PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER) ARISING
    OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF OR
    INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, THE PROVISION
    OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT OR OTHER
    SERVICES, INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED
    CONTENT THROUGH THE SOFTWARE, OR OTHERWISE
    ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE, OR
    OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY
    PROVISION OF THIS EULA, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF
    THE FAULT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE),
    MISREPRESENTATION, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH
    OF CONTRACT OR BREACH OF WARRANTY OF
    MANUFACTURER OR ANY SUPPLIER (INCLUDING MS,
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INCLUDING ITS
    SUBSIDIARIES) AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SUPPLIERS),
    AND EVEN IF MANUFACTURER OR ANY SUPPLIER
    (INCLUDING MS, MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    (INCLUDING ITS SUBSIDIARIES) AND THEIR
    RESPECTIVE SUPPLIERS) HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
    POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

  16. RE: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86

    In article <0A7046B0A95F2B41B3712F0C5FD1CDC303BCD2@ex-tg2-pr.corporate.transgrid.local>, "O'Brien Paddy" writes:
    >{...snip...}
    >I hope this comes over correctly --- I am forced onto this stupid microshaf=
    >t stuff. If not, I apologise, and is why I do not now write here much. An=
    >d I cannot use internal Outlook mail, I only have access from my VMS (genuf=
    >lection) box to the very frustrating Outlook Web Access.


    Too bad too. I'd like to see you back here participating.



    >In reply to Tad: -- since I never have and never will buy anything from mic=
    >roshaft, I have never read Herr (a quick goose-step) Ballmer's licence. Th=
    >anks for the enlightenment.


    Nice to know that I'm not the only one in this battle against total world
    domination by SPECTRE^H^H^H^H^H^H^HMicro$hit.



    >With this sort of licence agreement, why are large companies and government=
    >s agreeing to such restrictions or exceptions? Thankfully I have seen repo=
    >rts that several governments are dishing this most "crapfull" (not a word, =
    >I do know) OS. O.K., the home user is probably not too worried as he/she i=
    >s not usually doing too much other than reading email, playing solitaire an=
    >d letting themselves become a zombie. But companies and organisations ... =
    >??


    In the past 2 weeks I've made several PeeCees useful by installing Linux
    on them. One was one neighbor's dual CPU system with a motherboard that
    provided both IDE and SCSI. It was running Weendoze XP and was infected
    by a virus and the owner asked me if I wanted it. He was tossing it for
    a Mac because he'd had it with viruses! Last virus infected (destroyed)
    the BIOS firmware! I located a site that would reprogram any BIOS to a
    flash for a few bucks so that the box would recognize devices instead of
    just printing up the virus message. Save for a minor glitch in loading
    Ubuntu (due to the system being SCSI and, AFAICT, the x86 Ubuntu expects
    IDE), it loaded quite easily. It looks _much_ nicer than Weendoze too!
    I do not know why people continue to send their dollars, pounds, euros,
    krones, roubles, rupees, rands, yen, etc., off to that scumbag and his
    cult's compound in Redmond.

    I have also installed Ubuntu on an old d|i|g|i|t|a|l HiNote VP 700 I was
    given. It had Weendoze virus '98 on it and was a dog. I put Ubuntu on
    it as well after replacing the old 4GB drive with a 60GB drive. I had a
    few SIMMs laying about which fit so it also has 277MB now as well. This
    works remarkably well on this old 266MHz Pentium II. The only difficult
    part was making the sound card function. I finally fould the clue I was
    needing by reading some .INI file on the d|i|g|i|t|a|l restore CD that I
    found in the box with the HiNote. The control port address for the card
    is at 0x0ff0 if anyone is interested.

    I've also installed Linux (another Ubuntu distro) on a Compaq Evo N610c.
    A 2.4GHz Evo and it's very nice. The only problem with his unit is that
    its button battery cell holder is broken off the board. Thus, the unit
    complains about the clock when booted but once linux is running, I have
    it get the time from an NTP server.

    OpenOffice, Envision Mail, FireFox (FF 3 actually passes ACID2 as well),
    Opera, Pidgin Chat, numerous sound and video (I installed XMMS, Icecast2,
    Ices2, and numerous plugins easily too after the basic Ubuntu install),
    and I was even able to get an EVDO card functioning with this write up on
    Sprint's site:

    http://www4.sprint.com/pcsbusiness/d...etup_Guide.pdf

    and

    $ sudo lsusb

    to get the actual vendor and product IDs for the EVDO card I used.



    Thus, when it comes to Micro$hit and Weendoze... Just say, No!



    >Yes, Bill, I know, but how many of them do tie down their (not "there" -- a=
    >nd I haven't used "you're", so not "your" -- this is general, not specifica=
    >lly to you Mr. Gunshannon) systems? I know of several organisations that d=
    >o not.


    I hear the grammar police sirens wailing.


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

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

  17. Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86

    In article <674l9gF2n0ghcU1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >
    > The group I am with now makes up somewhere in the area of 600 man years
    > of Army IT experience covering more than 30 calendar years of time and
    > pretty much every theater of operations and out of all of this, one man
    > has seen VMS in use by DA and that was years ago. If the cream of Army
    > IT never work with these VMS systems, just who do you think does?
    > I should be really honest, however. I, too, have seen VMS in use in DA.
    > Of course, that was at the Military Academy in the Computing Science
    > Department which is probably more academia than government and anyway,
    > that was over 20 years ago and has probably been gone for more than 18
    > years.


    DoD != Army

    Take out your ego, pat it on the back, and put it away. Nobody in
    DoD knows everything, although I hope the Joint Chiefs have a good
    overview.


  18. Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86

    In article <674nahF2me5j8U1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:

    > Bob, this is just getting funnier all the time. "Need to know"
    > applies to classified information.


    Hey, I work on a governemnt contract. I can't tell you lots of
    things which aren't classified. I have passed training in UNIX
    system admin because it was either that or Windows system admin
    in order to be on record as a VMS and MacOS system admin. UNIX
    and Windows are the only two available for the required course.

    There are things which aren't classified which I can't tell you
    simply because you obviously don't have a need to know. There are
    things I can't say here because this is a public forum. Military
    secrets are not the only things our government controls.

    You have not convinced me that your position requires you to know
    everything about IT in DoD.


  19. Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:


    > A few years ago is right. Fielded in 1991, approved for production in 1996,
    > last system delivered in 2005. A total of 8 systems.
    > There is much more information about the airframe than anything else and
    > no mention of VMS at all. I wonder if it has been ported to Windows yet?
    >
    >


    A NG employee gave a keynote address at last year's OpenVMS Technical
    Bootcamp on JSTARS. The non-disclosure prevents me from giving details
    from the talk (which itself was very high level) plus I'd probably
    remember incorrectly anyway.


    --
    John Reagan
    OpenVMS Pascal/Macro-32/COBOL Project Leader
    Hewlett-Packard Company

  20. RE: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Bill Gunshannon [mailto:billg999@cs.uofs.edu]
    > Sent: April 21, 2008 7:12 PM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: Re: Intel Itanium RAS Comparison with X86
    >
    > In article <673tb7F2lqjjfU2@mid.individual.net>,
    > billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    > >
    > > All that being said, I have yet to run into any of my peers who has
    > > ever seen a DOD VMS system. (Yes, I do ask them!)

    >
    > Hold on to your hats!! Today I ran into one of my peers who has
    > actually
    > seen a DOD VMS system. He used to work at the Hoffman Building in VA
    > which is the headquarters for all Army personnel systems and he
    > actually
    > remembers when they had VMS systems there. He thought they were pretty
    > good. But they decommissioned it several years ago. Sorry guys.
    > That's
    > reality.
    >
    > The group I am with now makes up somewhere in the area of 600 man years
    > of Army IT experience covering more than 30 calendar years of time and
    > pretty much every theater of operations and out of all of this, one man
    > has seen VMS in use by DA and that was years ago. If the cream of Army
    > IT never work with these VMS systems, just who do you think does?
    > I should be really honest, however. I, too, have seen VMS in use in
    > DA.
    > Of course, that was at the Military Academy in the Computing Science
    > Department which is probably more academia than government and anyway,
    > that was over 20 years ago and has probably been gone for more than 18
    > years.
    >
    > 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


    Bill, give it a rest. You are not plugged in as well as you perhaps think
    you are.

    As an example, you mentioned VA hospitals in the above. Well, reference
    This url that is a bit dated, but check out the numbers ...

    http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/pr...4/040324a.html
    HP awarded $784 Million Services Contract by Department of Veteran Affairs

    Ten year deal to support and maintain VistA Health Information Systems
    builds on 20 year relationship between HP and the VA
    PALO ALTO, Calif., March 24, 2004 (10 year contract award)

    .. The VA's VistA solution is implemented at all VA medical centers. VistA
    provides automation and record keeping for almost every clinical and
    administrative office and function in the VA through the many custom
    integrated software modules running from a single integrated database at
    individual medical or regional computing centers. The VA continues to
    demand more access, speed, manageability, scalability, and high
    availability from the systems on which it implements VistA.

    .. HP has been an infrastructure, consulting and services provider to the
    VA since 1983 through its work on the Decentralized Hospital Computer
    Program (DHCP) and Enhanced Decentralized Hospital Computer Program (EDHCP)
    contracts. Over time, HP and the VA have collaborated closely to continually
    evolve the VA's IT environment and have successfully deployed HP's OpenVMS
    clusters on AlphaServer systems to build an adaptive environment that has
    increased performance, utilizes 64-bit architecture and has enhanced
    reliability and up-time. As part of this latest agreement, HP takes
    responsibility for maintenance and support for all hardware and software
    products that comprise the VistA solution."


    Regards

    Kerry Main
    Senior Consultant
    HP Services Canada
    Voice: 613-254-8911
    Fax: 613-591-4477
    kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom
    (remove the DOT's and AT)

    OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.





+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast