The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect - VMS

This is a discussion on The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect - VMS ; > -----Original Message----- > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca] > Sent: August 31, 2007 11:51 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect > > If you ask IT people, they will know that VMS ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect

  1. RE: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca]
    > Sent: August 31, 2007 11:51 AM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect
    >
    > If you ask IT people, they will know that VMS is a good quality
    > operating system, that it has good documentation and great clustering
    > capabilities.
    >
    > BUT: They will say they can't get VMS because it doesn't run their
    > apps,
    > it doesn't run on viable industry standard platform, and because there
    > is no commitiment to VMS from the vendor.
    >


    Your views.

    Many other Customers disagree:
    http://h71000.www7.hp.com/announce/cust_statements.html

    > Porting VMS to the 8086 will solve the server image issue as well as
    > the
    > commitment issue. It won't magically bring all apps to VMS. But without
    > this port, it ensures that VMS will not get new apps and continue to
    > reduce the number of apps it has left.
    >
    > As long as HP makes public statements about just wanting to be able to
    > convert the VMS installed based to HP-UX customers,


    Are you still harping on the Scott statement from 5 years ago?

    Geeze, you sure know how to keep bringing up old news.

    The IBM VP of Software stated publicly that he thought AIX users would eventually
    be migrated to Linux and he was fine with that. Reference:
    http://news.com.com/2100-1001-982512...g=fd_lede2_hed
    "NEW YORK--The day is approaching when Linux will likely replace IBM's version of Unix,
    the company's top software executive said, an indication that the upstart operating
    system's stature is rising within Big Blue."

    Now, do I believe this? Of course not.

    Big companies are made up of many smaller "companies" or BU's and their public
    statements often reflect their own personal OS preferences and do not necessarily
    reflect the official views of the company.

    > it will send a
    > strong signal that HP has no interest in growing VMS and as a result,
    > ISVs will stay away from it and in doing so, will help HP downsize VMS
    > out of existance.
    >
    > And whenever some HP employee supports their employer's bid to downsize
    > VMS out of existance, it makes those customers loyal to VMS feel even
    > more alone because they don't even see VMS staff trying to fight for
    > VMS's success/survival within HP.


    Know anyone from HP on this newsgroup that does not want OpenVMS to grow tothe clouds?

    Hey, I am not saying marketing could not be improved. Heck, I am sure the HP-UX and
    NSK groups would say the same thing. I suspect the AIX groups at IBM also wish they had
    better marketing as well - especially in view of the recent Solaris to Power6 porting
    announcement.

    Some things are out of our control.

    JF - with all due respect, I know you have the best interests of OpenVMS atheart, but
    simply stating something out of the blue for shock value (as if it were fact) only does
    discredit to yourself.

    Regards


    Kerry Main
    Senior Consultant
    HP Services Canada
    Voice: 613-592-4660
    Fax: 613-591-4477
    kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom
    (remove the DOT's and AT)

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




  2. RE: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect



    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca]
    > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:44 PM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect
    >
    > Main, Kerry wrote:
    > > What is the proportion of Windows/Linux servers on x86 servers vs.

    > other OS
    > > Platforms on X86?

    >
    > > How do you propose to solve the "One App, One OS" culture associated

    > with Windows
    > > and Linux?

    >
    >
    > Like it or not, 8086 is the industry standard, and its future is NOT in
    > question. IA64's future is in question, and with CSI, its future will
    > continue to be in question, especially since the 8086 will scale even
    > higher into IA64's market niche.


    I hate to point this out, but the 8086 has not had a future since around
    1985 or so. The current set of
    X86 and X64 chips bear as much resemblance to the 8086 as does an Alpha to a
    PDP-8.

    The IA64 does seem to have a future, if not the "take over the world" future
    Intel might once have envisoned.
    It is not really any less secure than Power or other alternative arch's.


    -Paul



  3. Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect

    On 08/31/07 20:42, Main, Kerry wrote:
    [snip]
    >
    > The IBM VP of Software stated publicly that he thought AIX users would eventually
    > be migrated to Linux and he was fine with that. Reference:
    > http://news.com.com/2100-1001-982512...g=fd_lede2_hed
    > "NEW YORK--The day is approaching when Linux will likely replace IBM's version of Unix,
    > the company's top software executive said, an indication that the upstart operating
    > system's stature is rising within Big Blue."
    >
    > Now, do I believe this? Of course not.


    Sure I do.

    Three years ago, our development group (which encompasses everyone
    except the people who work in the data center) decided that all
    *will* be moved off of Rdb/VMS/Forte and onto Oracle/Unix/Java.

    Since they thought that Linux was a toy, and the "Unix" (because the
    CIO had a beef with Sun) was to be HP-UX, no matter how small the
    project.

    Then an extended research project project demonstrated that Linux is
    not, in fact, a toy. So, the small-mid sized systems (up to 10
    million bridge tolls per month) are being ported to Linux.

    If Linux (Red Hate on 64-bit Xeon ProLiants) and Oracle prove up to
    the task, I have no doubt that the big systems (60 million tolls per
    month) will also go Linux instead of HP-UX.

    --
    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!

  4. Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect

    On 08/31/07 21:38, Paul Raulerson wrote:
    >
    >> -----Original Message-----
    >> From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca]
    >> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:44 PM
    >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    >> Subject: Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect

    [snip]
    >>
    >> Like it or not, 8086 is the industry standard, and its future is NOT in
    >> question. IA64's future is in question, and with CSI, its future will
    >> continue to be in question, especially since the 8086 will scale even
    >> higher into IA64's market niche.

    >
    > I hate to point this out, but the 8086 has not had a future since around
    > 1985 or so.


    Convincing JF to use the proper terminology is as likely as
    convincing Tom Cruise that Xenu did *not*, in fact, "[bring]
    billions of frozen people to Earth 75 million years ago, [stack]
    them around volcanoes and [blow] them up with hydrogen bombs,
    creating swarms of disembodied alien souls known as Body Thetans"

    Quoted from:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_o...ology_doctrine

    > The current set of X86 and X64 chips bear as much resemblance
    > to the 8086 as does an Alpha to a PDP-8.


    The *chips* bear little resemblance, but the *binaries* will still
    run perfectly well.

    Most all (non-SIMD) usermode x86-64 instructions are just 64-bit
    extensions of the original 8086 instructions.

    > The IA64 does seem to have a future, if not the "take over the world" future
    > Intel might once have envisoned.
    > It is not really any less secure than Power or other alternative arch's.


    You, of all people, should know better.

    POWER 6 current *ships* at a peak of 4.7GHz, and prototypes have hit
    6GHz.

    I'll be very surprised if Tukwila beats 3GHz.

    --
    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!

  5. Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect

    Ron Johnson wrote:

    > On 08/30/07 22:44, JF Mezei wrote:
    > [snip]
    > >
    > >
    > > CSI will give the 8086 capabilities once reserved to high end
    > > chips. And porting VMS to it would give VMS access to a far greater
    > > market.

    >
    > QuickPath (new name of Common System Interface) offers nothing
    > that Athlon64 and Opteron using HyperTransport haven't had for 4
    > years.


    Ah but this Intel QuickPath for Intel 64-bit extended machines :-)


    --
    Cheers - Dave

  6. Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect

    On 09/01/07 02:10, dave weatherall wrote:
    > Ron Johnson wrote:
    >
    >> On 08/30/07 22:44, JF Mezei wrote:
    >> [snip]
    >>>
    >>> CSI will give the 8086 capabilities once reserved to high end
    >>> chips. And porting VMS to it would give VMS access to a far greater
    >>> market.

    >> QuickPath (new name of Common System Interface) offers nothing
    >> that Athlon64 and Opteron using HyperTransport haven't had for 4
    >> years.

    >
    > Ah but this Intel QuickPath for Intel 64-bit extended machines :-)


    And em64t opcodes soooooo much better than AMD64 opcodes. How could
    I have ever forgotten?

    --
    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: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect

    Main, Kerry wrote:
    > Are you still harping on the Scott statement from 5 years ago?



    Not only did HP NOT counter Stallard's statement from 5 years ago, but
    Livermore confirmed it again a few weeks ago in a Computer World
    interview. When HP says so little about VMS, every little bit they say
    becomes very important.


    > The IBM VP of Software stated publicly that he thought AIX users would eventually
    > be migrated to Linux and he was fine with that. Reference:


    Replacing one version of unix with another is not quite the same as
    wanting customers to drop VMS in favour of Unix.


    > Big companies are made up of many smaller "companies" or BU's and their public
    > statements often reflect their own personal OS preferences and do not necessarily
    > reflect the official views of the company.


    Ahh, but here is the catch: Stallard and Livermore represent Official
    *HP* policy. Sue's statements represent VMS policy. And in the end, HP
    is the one that makes the big decisions on whether to allow VMS to
    thrive or to restrict it only to the installed base.


    > Know anyone from HP on this newsgroup that does not want OpenVMS to grow to the clouds?


    This newsgroup does not have HP participants. It only has VMS
    participants. And no matter how hard Sue tries, if she is not allowed by
    HP to send out a real press release, then that press release doesn't go
    out and stays limited to the VMS web site.

    > JF - with all due respect, I know you have the best interests of OpenVMS at heart, but
    > simply stating something out of the blue for shock value (as if it were fact) only does
    > discredit to yourself.


    If you are not happy with it, then you should complain to stallard and
    livermore and tell them that their statements are hurting HP's
    enterprise business and not helping build any trust between VMS
    customers and HP.

  8. Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect

    Ron Johnson wrote:
    > On 08/31/07 20:42, Main, Kerry wrote:
    > [snip]
    >>
    >> The IBM VP of Software stated publicly that he thought AIX users
    >> would eventually
    >> be migrated to Linux and he was fine with that. Reference:
    >> http://news.com.com/2100-1001-982512...g=fd_lede2_hed
    >> "NEW YORK--The day is approaching when Linux will likely replace
    >> IBM's version of Unix, the company's top software executive said, an
    >> indication that the upstart operating system's stature is rising
    >> within Big Blue."
    >>
    >> Now, do I believe this? Of course not.

    >
    > Sure I do.
    >
    > Three years ago, our development group (which encompasses everyone
    > except the people who work in the data center) decided that all
    > *will* be moved off of Rdb/VMS/Forte and onto Oracle/Unix/Java.
    >


    Aha, another Rdb site bites the dust.
    Is that the NY state toll system?

    Dr. Dweeb

    > Since they thought that Linux was a toy, and the "Unix" (because the
    > CIO had a beef with Sun) was to be HP-UX, no matter how small the
    > project.
    >
    > Then an extended research project project demonstrated that Linux is
    > not, in fact, a toy. So, the small-mid sized systems (up to 10
    > million bridge tolls per month) are being ported to Linux.
    >
    > If Linux (Red Hate on 64-bit Xeon ProLiants) and Oracle prove up to
    > the task, I have no doubt that the big systems (60 million tolls per
    > month) will also go Linux instead of HP-UX.




  9. Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect

    On 09/01/07 18:02, Dr. Dweeb wrote:
    > Ron Johnson wrote:
    >> On 08/31/07 20:42, Main, Kerry wrote:
    >> [snip]
    >>> The IBM VP of Software stated publicly that he thought AIX users
    >>> would eventually
    >>> be migrated to Linux and he was fine with that. Reference:
    >>> http://news.com.com/2100-1001-982512...g=fd_lede2_hed
    >>> "NEW YORK--The day is approaching when Linux will likely replace
    >>> IBM's version of Unix, the company's top software executive said, an
    >>> indication that the upstart operating system's stature is rising
    >>> within Big Blue."
    >>>
    >>> Now, do I believe this? Of course not.

    >> Sure I do.
    >>
    >> Three years ago, our development group (which encompasses everyone
    >> except the people who work in the data center) decided that all
    >> *will* be moved off of Rdb/VMS/Forte and onto Oracle/Unix/Java.
    >>

    >
    > Aha, another Rdb site bites the dust.
    > Is that the NY state toll system?


    Among others.

    > Dr. Dweeb
    >
    >> Since they thought that Linux was a toy, and the "Unix" (because the
    >> CIO had a beef with Sun) was to be HP-UX, no matter how small the
    >> project.
    >>
    >> Then an extended research project project demonstrated that Linux is
    >> not, in fact, a toy. So, the small-mid sized systems (up to 10
    >> million bridge tolls per month) are being ported to Linux.
    >>
    >> If Linux (Red Hate on 64-bit Xeon ProLiants) and Oracle prove up to
    >> the task, I have no doubt that the big systems (60 million tolls per
    >> month) will also go Linux instead of HP-UX.


    --
    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!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2