VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall - VMS

This is a discussion on VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall - VMS ; Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article , > "Richard B. Gilbert" writes: > >>Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> >>>In article , >>> koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: >>> >>> >>>>In article , Doug Phillips writes: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Many of which run *nix, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 34 of 34

Thread: VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall

  1. Re: VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > In article <46B3275C.70509@comcast.net>,
    > "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    >
    >>Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article ,
    >>> koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>In article <1186097570.039629.170140@m37g2000prh.googlegroups. com>, Doug Phillips writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Many of which run *nix, but are single-purpose appliances and who
    >>>>>cares what they run as long as they do the job.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes, but you can get those which aren't. (I know an entire
    >>>> infrastructure protected by firewalls running on Solaris, I sure
    >>>> hope they keep up the OS patch level.)
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Why? There is no access to raw Solaris for outsiders to attack (unless
    >>>you are talking about homegrown firewalls rather than commercial offerings).

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>Not true! Unpatched Solaris 8, 8, & 10 with Telnet enabled has a bug
    >>which will allow an attacker to log in as "bin".

    >
    >
    > And you are assuming that the vendor would not gtell them to turn off
    > telnet. I have had telnet turned off on every server box of any kind
    > for years. I doubt any commercial firewall relies on telnet for access.
    >
    >
    >>Solaris isn't as easy as Windows but it does have vulnerabilities!
    >>There are a lot of things you can do to "lock it down" but it is by no
    >>means "secure"!

    >
    >
    > You guys keep telling yourselves that. Meanwhile, Unix is still
    > growing market share and VMS is shrinking. Seems the rest of the
    > industry just doesn't seem to have as many problems with it as
    > the VMS community.
    >
    > bill
    >


    Do you suppose that the reason Unix is growing and VMS is shrinking
    might happen to have more to do with marketing than with technical merit?

    Both get the job done, both have their strengths and both have
    weaknesses. I run VMS, Solaris, RHEL, and Windows XP at home. Windows
    gets the most usage because that's where the applications are: Quicken,
    TurboTax, FamilyTreeMaker, etc, etc. VMS and Solaris each do things I
    can't do with Windows or do them better or more easily than Windows.


  2. Re: VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall

    On 08/03/07 16:10, Doug Phillips wrote:
    [snip]
    >
    > B) Flexibility: You can make it small enough to embed in a toaster or
    > large enough to run a data center. Much of its often-discussed
    > "weakness" is the due to its flexibility.


    Or a pack of gum. http://www.gumstix.com/

    Or a wrist watch. But that was 7 years ago, so I'm sure it would be
    thinner and more powerful now.
    http://www.research.ibm.com/trl/projects/ngm/wp10_e.htm
    http://www.freeos.com/articles/3800
    http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT9330943155.html

    --
    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!

  3. RE: VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall

    In article <008e01c7d56f$47991790$d6cb46b0$@com>, "Paul Raulerson" writes:
    >
    > TCP is the common denominator of network communications these days, and
    > systems need really up to date IP stacks and applications. This is perhaps,
    > one of only two areas where VMS appears weak to me.


    Perhaps you're looking at the wrong stack. HP's stack has been weak
    all the way back to when DEC called it UCX.


  4. Re: VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall

    Paul Raulerson wrote:
    > [snip]
    > TCP is the common denominator of network communications these days, and
    > systems need really up to date IP stacks and applications. This is perhaps,
    > one of only two areas where VMS appears weak to me.


    Well, unlike UN*X, you have a choice of a third-party IP stack instead. See
    http://www.process.com/

    BTW, what's the other area?

    --
    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/

  5. RE: VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall

    That process stuff looks pretty good, are you using it? I'll probably stick
    with the UCX stuff to avoid licensing costs, and I have to say, the 8.3 TCP
    stuff is significantly better than the 7.x versions.

    The other area ix VM; VMS is really still a one virtual machine beastie,
    which kind of surprises me. Galaxy is perhaps a good start, but nothing like
    the systems I am used to using.

    There is a third area, but the call is still out on that; it would be
    Virtual Terminal Services. There are all sorts of ways to make VMS drive
    different kinds of terminals, but all of them are complex and the terminals
    or terminal emulators are rather - shall we say - eclectic? Good as word as
    any I suppose. I can see why most VMS people are driving towards GUI and Web
    interfaces - even the web seems pretty standardized compared to getting a
    terminal emulator to work well with everything. And you apparently need
    relatively expensive third party software to connect a terminal up under
    DecNet; so I don't know if that makes the NVT more consistent or not.

    Of course, that could just be my ignorance speaking, but for heaven's
    sake - applications are not very screen driven under VMS. The ALL-In-One
    stuff looks pretty nice, but expensive and apparently not available under
    Itanium.


    -Paul

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: David J Dachtera [mailto:djesys.no@spam.comcast.net]
    > Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 7:37 PM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: Re: VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall
    >
    > Paul Raulerson wrote:
    > > [snip]
    > > TCP is the common denominator of network communications these days,

    > and
    > > systems need really up to date IP stacks and applications. This is

    > perhaps,
    > > one of only two areas where VMS appears weak to me.

    >
    > Well, unlike UN*X, you have a choice of a third-party IP stack instead.
    > See
    > http://www.process.com/
    >
    > BTW, what's the other area?
    >
    > --
    > 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/



  6. Re: VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall

    On 08/06/07 20:16, Paul Raulerson wrote:
    [snip]
    >
    > There is a third area, but the call is still out on that; it would be
    > Virtual Terminal Services. There are all sorts of ways to make VMS drive
    > different kinds of terminals, but all of them are complex and the terminals
    > or terminal emulators are rather - shall we say - eclectic? Good as word as
    > any I suppose. I can see why most VMS people are driving towards GUI and Web
    > interfaces - even the web seems pretty standardized compared to getting a
    > terminal emulator to work well with everything. And you apparently need
    > relatively expensive third party software to connect a terminal up under
    > DecNet; so I don't know if that makes the NVT more consistent or not.
    >
    > Of course, that could just be my ignorance speaking, but for heaven's
    > sake - applications are not very screen driven under VMS. The ALL-In-One
    > stuff looks pretty nice, but expensive and apparently not available under
    > Itanium.


    What do you mean "screen-driven"?

    Full screen?

    --
    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!

  7. Re: VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall

    Paul Raulerson wrote:
    >
    > That process stuff looks pretty good, are you using it?


    (Still) Using it in production for some applications. Cerner stopped
    certifying it to cut costs on heir end - raises costs on the customer
    end due to PSC features which are lacking in UCX.

    > I'll probably stick
    > with the UCX stuff to avoid licensing costs, and I have to say, the 8.3 TCP
    > stuff is significantly better than the 7.x versions.


    I believe the current UCX version is V5.6 + ECOs. Certain newer UCX
    versions require VMS V8 or better, however.

    > The other area ix VM; VMS is really still a one virtual machine beastie,
    > which kind of surprises me. Galaxy is perhaps a good start, but nothing like
    > the systems I am used to using.


    Virtual machines are meant to host o.s.-es, not the other way around.
    VAX and Alpha emulators under Windows and Linux have distorted this
    because those o.s.-es are used to provide the hardware asbraction
    layers that the CPU emulation environments still lack.

    Ideally, the VAX/Alpha on x86 scenario would look like this:

    Applications
    Operating System (VMS)
    CPU Emulation layer
    VMware
    x86 platform

    >From the CPU Emulation layer on up could be multiple instances

    ("Cluster in a box"). Native x86 environments would not need the CPU
    Emulation layer, of course.

    > There is a third area, but the call is still out on that; it would be
    > Virtual Terminal Services.


    That exists, and has for decades. However, I see some confusion in
    terminology here.

    When we talk about "Virtual Terminal Services" in VMSland, we think of
    having a logical/physical terminal (TNA or LTA device, or a Txcu
    device) "connected" to a virtual terminal (VTA) device such that if
    the network layer causes a disconnect the process stays alive and can
    be reconnected simply by attempting to log back in. The system will
    detect that you have disconnected virtual terminal(s) and ask if you
    want to reconnect or start a new session.

    What you appear to be asking about is roughly akin to the UN*X
    "termcap" facility which drives various software layers (sometimes
    referred to as "curses" routines) to enable forms-driven applications
    on character-cell screens.

    > There are all sorts of ways to make VMS drive
    > different kinds of terminals,


    You'll want to look into SMG. See the following...

    > but all of them are complex


    Not much worse than "termcap" and "curses", really...

    > and the terminals
    > or terminal emulators are rather - shall we say - eclectic? Good as word as
    > any I suppose. I can see why most VMS people are driving towards GUI and Web
    > interfaces - even the web seems pretty standardized compared to getting a
    > terminal emulator to work well with everything. And you apparently need
    > relatively expensive third party software to connect a terminal up under
    > DecNet;


    Not really. The SET HOST command defaults to using a DEC-proprietary
    protocol known as CTERM. The enabling pieces ship with DECnet. SET
    HOST/LAT uses the LAT protocol which now ships with the base o.s., was
    previous shipped with DECnet. SET HOST/TELNET is enabled by the IP
    stack (UCX, Multinet, TCPware, ...).

    > so I don't know if that makes the NVT more consistent or not.
    >
    > Of course, that could just be my ignorance speaking, but for heaven's
    > sake - applications are not very screen driven under VMS. The ALL-In-One
    > stuff looks pretty nice, but expensive and apparently not available under
    > Itanium.


    Well, the under-pinnings have been there for decades. See the
    documentation on "Screen Managemenat Guidelines", the SMG$ routines.

    The "screen" engine used by All-in-1 is called FMS. To my knowledge,
    that is being carried forward in at least one of two possible forms:
    either FMS itself or what came to be known at one time as "DECforms".
    I believe DECforms (or its successor) may have had a web-enablement
    layer added at one time. Perhaps someone will pipe up about that.

    (This was originally sent to Paul privately via Google Groups. Paul responded
    privately, but I'm unable to quote his response properly. Paul, please repost
    your reply to the group, and I'll post my response to that later.)

    --
    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/

  8. Re: VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall

    David J Dachtera wrote:
    > You'll want to look into SMG. See the following...


    >> but all of them are complex


    > Not much worse than "termcap" and "curses", really...


    ....but certainly far more limiting. If the terminal supports features
    not explicitly in one of DEC's terminals, SMG doesn't support it.
    For the things it was designed to do in 1985, SMG is adequate.
    (On the other hand, if all one knows of curses is what SMG supports,
    then sure - they look the same ;-)

    --
    Thomas E. Dickey
    http://invisible-island.net
    ftp://invisible-island.net

  9. Re: VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall

    Thomas Dickey wrote:
    > David J Dachtera wrote:
    >> You'll want to look into SMG. See the following...


    >>> but all of them are complex


    >> Not much worse than "termcap" and "curses", really...


    > ...but certainly far more limiting. If the terminal supports features
    > not explicitly in one of DEC's terminals, SMG doesn't support it.
    > For the things it was designed to do in 1985, SMG is adequate.
    > (On the other hand, if all one knows of curses is what SMG supports,
    > then sure - they look the same ;-)


    to refresh your memory - and perhaps motivate you into learning more
    about the topic:

    http://unix.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups...5-05/0051.html'
    or
    http://mvb.saic.com/freeware/info-vax/2005_273.txt

    --
    Thomas E. Dickey
    http://invisible-island.net
    ftp://invisible-island.net

  10. Re: VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall

    Thomas Dickey wrote:
    >
    > David J Dachtera wrote:
    > > You'll want to look into SMG. See the following...

    >
    > >> but all of them are complex

    >
    > > Not much worse than "termcap" and "curses", really...

    >
    > ...but certainly far more limiting. If the terminal supports features
    > not explicitly in one of DEC's terminals, SMG doesn't support it.


    D'y'ever look at SYS$SYSTEM:SMGTERMS.TXT?

    Need support for a terminal not in there?

    Add what you need where you need it.

    ....just be aware that not everything you might expect use SMG actually does!

    --
    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/

  11. Re: VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall

    David J Dachtera wrote:
    > Thomas Dickey wrote:
    >>
    >> David J Dachtera wrote:
    >> > You'll want to look into SMG. See the following...

    >>
    >> >> but all of them are complex

    >>
    >> > Not much worse than "termcap" and "curses", really...

    >>
    >> ...but certainly far more limiting. If the terminal supports features
    >> not explicitly in one of DEC's terminals, SMG doesn't support it.


    > D'y'ever look at SYS$SYSTEM:SMGTERMS.TXT?


    certainly (I mentioned that a few years ago).

    > Need support for a terminal not in there?


    ditto - it can't do what I want.
    (google is your friend)

    --
    Thomas E. Dickey
    http://invisible-island.net
    ftp://invisible-island.net

  12. Re: VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall

    Thomas Dickey wrote:
    >
    > David J Dachtera wrote:
    > > Thomas Dickey wrote:
    > >>
    > >> David J Dachtera wrote:
    > >> > You'll want to look into SMG. See the following...
    > >>
    > >> >> but all of them are complex
    > >>
    > >> > Not much worse than "termcap" and "curses", really...
    > >>
    > >> ...but certainly far more limiting. If the terminal supports features
    > >> not explicitly in one of DEC's terminals, SMG doesn't support it.

    >
    > > D'y'ever look at SYS$SYSTEM:SMGTERMS.TXT?

    >
    > certainly (I mentioned that a few years ago).
    >
    > > Need support for a terminal not in there?

    >
    > ditto - it can't do what I want.
    > (google is your friend)


    Perhaps, but I've no clue here what to search for.

    What do you want to do that SMG doesn't accomodate?

    --
    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/

  13. Re: VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall

    David J Dachtera wrote:
    > Thomas Dickey wrote:
    >>
    >> David J Dachtera wrote:
    >> > Thomas Dickey wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> David J Dachtera wrote:
    >> >> > You'll want to look into SMG. See the following...
    >> >>
    >> >> >> but all of them are complex
    >> >>
    >> >> > Not much worse than "termcap" and "curses", really...
    >> >>
    >> >> ...but certainly far more limiting. If the terminal supports features
    >> >> not explicitly in one of DEC's terminals, SMG doesn't support it.

    >>
    >> > D'y'ever look at SYS$SYSTEM:SMGTERMS.TXT?

    >>
    >> certainly (I mentioned that a few years ago).
    >>
    >> > Need support for a terminal not in there?

    >>
    >> ditto - it can't do what I want.
    >> (google is your friend)


    > Perhaps, but I've no clue here what to search for.


    hmm - here's the problem: SMG only covers about 70-80% of the features
    in termcap (and even less of terminfo). If you (I don't have the time)
    sit down and do a side-by-side comparison of the two, you'll see that.

    For data - see

    ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/terminfo.src.gz
    ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/termcap.src.gz

    --
    Thomas E. Dickey
    http://invisible-island.net
    ftp://invisible-island.net

  14. Re: VMS cluster behind a *NIX firewall

    Thomas Dickey wrote:
    >
    > David J Dachtera wrote:
    > > Thomas Dickey wrote:
    > >> [snip]
    > >> ditto - it can't do what I want.
    > >> (google is your friend)

    >
    > > Perhaps, but I've no clue here what to search for.

    >
    > hmm - here's the problem: SMG only covers about 70-80% of the features
    > in termcap (and even less of terminfo). If you (I don't have the time)
    > sit down and do a side-by-side comparison of the two, you'll see that.
    >
    > For data - see
    >
    > ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/terminfo.src.gz
    > ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/termcap.src.gz


    I guess it comes down to: what do you want to do that SMG doesn't accomodate?

    --
    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/

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2