The lastest DFU and information about it are on http://www.digiater.nl/dfu.html

It was not removed, but never put there. Don't count on the freeware
to be maintained anymore.

You can get it from my site:

http://www.digiater.nl/dfu.html


Jur.

Ron Johnson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> DFU was removed from F/W 8.0. Was there any specific reason?
>

Does that mean no F/W 9.0?

On 09/10/07 08:38, Jur van der Burg wrote:
> It was not removed, but never put there. Don't count on the freeware
> to be maintained anymore.
>
> You can get it from my site:
>
> http://www.digiater.nl/dfu.html
>
>
> Jur.
>
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> DFU was removed from F/W 8.0. Was there any specific reason?
>>


--
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!

Jur van der Burg wrote:
>
> It was not removed, but never put there. Don't count on the freeware
> to be maintained anymore.

Maybe Hoff has a suitable relationship with his former employer that if he gave
them a freeware collection master set, they'd be inclined to dup it and send it
out with the Alpha kits.

Of course, I64 is another matter. Maybe someone with enough storage and
bandwidth could host it on the web.

'Know what? Let me talk to my Bro.-in-law about that...

--
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/

"Jur van der Burg" <"lddriver at digiater dot nl"> wrote in message
news:46e548bc$0$232$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

> It was not removed, but never put there. Don't count on the freeware
> to be maintained anymore.
>
> You can get it from my site:
>
> http://www.digiater.nl/dfu.html

No OpenVMS VAX. Is it really that hard to write portable code?
--
Brian Tillman

On Oct 2, 1:40 pm, "Brian Tillman" wrote:
> "Jur van der Burg" <"lddriver at digiater dot nl"> wrote in messagenews:46e548bc$0$232$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl ...
>
> > It was not removed, but never put there. Don't count on the freeware
> > to be maintained anymore.
>
> > You can get it from my site:
>
> > http://www.digiater.nl/dfu.html
>
> No OpenVMS VAX. Is it really that hard to write portable code?
> --
> Brian Tillman


I don't think the VAX version has been updated since V2.7A
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/freeware/freeware50/dfu027a/
which was released a couple of years ago. VMS on VAX has not been
updated for a while either.

Is there some feature of the current DFU that you wish to use?

On Sep 10, 9:38 am, Jur van der Burg <"lddriver at digiater dot nl">
wrote:
> It was not removed, but never put there. Don't count on the freeware
> to be maintained anymore.
>
> You can get it from my site:
>
> http://www.digiater.nl/dfu.html
>
> Jur.
>
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > DFU was removed from F/W 8.0. Was there any specific reason?

It's been policy (perhaps since V5.0) that each new edition of the
Freeware CD would only contain updates and new packages to save space.
I'm not aware of any changes in that policy. So if you want the most
recent version of a package, start with the most recent CD and work
back. In this case, of course, someone posted an external site for the
most current version.

AEF

On 10/02/07 08:24, AEF wrote:
> On Sep 10, 9:38 am, Jur van der Burg <"lddriver at digiater dot nl">
> wrote:
>> It was not removed, but never put there. Don't count on the freeware
>> to be maintained anymore.
>>
>> You can get it from my site:
>>
>> http://www.digiater.nl/dfu.html
>>
>> Jur.
>>
>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> DFU was removed from F/W 8.0. Was there any specific reason?
>
> It's been policy (perhaps since V5.0) that each new edition of the
> Freeware CD would only contain updates and new packages to save space.
> I'm not aware of any changes in that policy. So if you want the most
> recent version of a package, start with the most recent CD and work
> back. In this case, of course, someone posted an external site for the
> most current version.

Thanks for that info.

--
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!

> No OpenVMS VAX. Is it really that hard to write portable code?

Not at all, it's called progress. Support for 64-bit things on
Vax is tricky and not worth the effort, to name one thing.

Jur.


Brian Tillman wrote, On 2-10-2007 14:40:
> "Jur van der Burg" <"lddriver at digiater dot nl"> wrote in message
> news:46e548bc$0$232$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
>> It was not removed, but never put there. Don't count on the freeware
>> to be maintained anymore.
>>
>> You can get it from my site:
>>
>> http://www.digiater.nl/dfu.html
>
> No OpenVMS VAX. Is it really that hard to write portable code?

Jur van der Burg wrote:
> > No OpenVMS VAX. Is it really that hard to write portable code?
>
> Not at all, it's called progress. Support for 64-bit things on
> Vax is tricky and not worth the effort, to name one thing.


Senior HP execs have been on record (including a recent statement from
Ann Livermore) that they are focusing on the installed base for VMS,
hoping they will stay with HP when they migrate from VMS. So not many
new customers are to be expected, and many alpha customers will be
moving to other computer suppliers when their current software package
is no longer available on VMS (many examples have been pointed to in
recent months right here, including Cerner). Those still on VAX are
still on VAX because they can't migrate.

Based on what I have been told, the VAX installed base is between 25%
and 33% of the total VMS installed base. Not something to sneer at.

Since nobody is focusing on attracting new customers or new markets, one
would presume that the focus would be on the installed base, and since
VAX represents a very sizeable chunk of the installed base, ignoring it
might be dangerous. Then again, with the downsizing of VMS engineering
probably happening faster than the downsizing of the installed base, it
may not be an issue for very long.

On Oct 4, 8:00 am, JF Mezei wrote:
> Jur van der Burg wrote:
>
> > > No OpenVMS VAX. Is it really that hard to write portable code?
>
> > Not at all, it's called progress. Support for 64-bit things on
> > Vax is tricky and not worth the effort, to name one thing.
>
> Senior HP execs have been on record (including a recent statement from
> Ann Livermore) that they are focusing on the installed base for VMS,
> hoping they will stay with HP when they migrate from VMS. So not many
> new customers are to be expected, and many alpha customers will be
> moving to other computer suppliers when their current software package
> is no longer available on VMS (many examples have been pointed to in
> recent months right here, including Cerner). Those still on VAX are
> still on VAX because they can't migrate.
>
> Based on what I have been told, the VAX installed base is between 25%
> and 33% of the total VMS installed base. Not something to sneer at.
>
> Since nobody is focusing on attracting new customers or new markets, one
> would presume that the focus would be on the installed base, and since
> VAX represents a very sizeable chunk of the installed base, ignoring it
> might be dangerous. Then again, with the downsizing of VMS engineering
> probably happening faster than the downsizing of the installed base, it
> may not be an issue for very long.


DFU was created by someone in their own time. It is up to them how
they choose to direct their effort not HP.

I'm not ignoring the Vax base, DFU runs perfectly fine on Vax although
it's not the latest version. Spending loads of time keeping a Vax version
on par with Alpha or Ia64 is not high on my list of things, and it would
prevent using new things that are possible on Alpha/Ia64 and not on Vax.

Fwiw,

Jur.

JF Mezei wrote, On 4-10-2007 9:00:
> Jur van der Burg wrote:
>> > No OpenVMS VAX. Is it really that hard to write portable code?
>>
>> Not at all, it's called progress. Support for 64-bit things on
>> Vax is tricky and not worth the effort, to name one thing.
>
>
> Senior HP execs have been on record (including a recent statement from
> Ann Livermore) that they are focusing on the installed base for VMS,
> hoping they will stay with HP when they migrate from VMS. So not many
> new customers are to be expected, and many alpha customers will be
> moving to other computer suppliers when their current software package
> is no longer available on VMS (many examples have been pointed to in
> recent months right here, including Cerner). Those still on VAX are
> still on VAX because they can't migrate.
>
> Based on what I have been told, the VAX installed base is between 25%
> and 33% of the total VMS installed base. Not something to sneer at.
>
> Since nobody is focusing on attracting new customers or new markets, one
> would presume that the focus would be on the installed base, and since
> VAX represents a very sizeable chunk of the installed base, ignoring it
> might be dangerous. Then again, with the downsizing of VMS engineering
> probably happening faster than the downsizing of the installed base, it
> may not be an issue for very long.

"IanMiller" wrote in message
news:1191330497.463328.30050@n39g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com...

> I don't think the VAX version has been updated since V2.7A

At the moment, I'm running V2.7-1. How is the -A version different, if you
know?
--
Brian Tillman

"Jur van der Burg" <"vdburg at hotmail dot com"> wrote in message
news:4704b9fa$0$234$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

> I'm not ignoring the Vax base, DFU runs perfectly fine on Vax although
> it's not the latest version. Spending loads of time keeping a Vax version
> on par with Alpha or Ia64 is not high on my list of things, and it would
> prevent using new things that are possible on Alpha/Ia64 and not on Vax.

My point is that if you do add new functionality AND it's possible to do on
a VAX, then you SHOULD include the VAX, rather that orphaning it.
--
Brian Tillman.

Brian Tillman wrote:
> "Jur van der Burg" <"vdburg at hotmail dot com"> wrote in message
> news:4704b9fa$0$234$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
>> I'm not ignoring the Vax base, DFU runs perfectly fine on Vax although
>> it's not the latest version. Spending loads of time keeping a Vax version
>> on par with Alpha or Ia64 is not high on my list of things, and it would
>> prevent using new things that are possible on Alpha/Ia64 and not on Vax.
>
> My point is that if you do add new functionality AND it's possible to do
> on a VAX, then you SHOULD include the VAX, rather that orphaning it.

If there is a justifying ROI, yes.
That it is "possible" isn't enough, of course...

As Jur is doing this in his spare time and no one is paying him to do
this then I expect he will concentrate on new things.

If you pay him to make a new VAX version that would be different.

Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> If there is a justifying ROI, yes.
> That it is "possible" isn't enough, of course...

I do not know if the writer of DFU is employed by this week's owner of
VMS or not, whether his decisions on what to do with DFU are influenced
by VMS management or not.

If this is truly freeware, then there would be no real return on
investment other than goodwill and image of someone contributing to the
VMS community. In that case, providing VAX updated provides more ROI
than providing IA64 version since the VAX version will benefit more users.


Consider DCPS. It seems to the "odd" product out there that is truly out
to serve customers and still provide updates to VAX versions because it
knows that people need it. Other products tend to fall under a policy
that seems to be penalising old platforms in order to try to nudge
people into buying those IA64 contraptions.

The ROI depends on what Jur gets out of maintaining DFU. If he does it
for intellectual challenge then it does not matter how many people use
the program,

(Hopefully Jur himself will find a minute to comment here. Then again
perhaps he has better things to do.)