Anyone else see this at the ITRC main page? :

Important note: As of September 18 (or shortly thereafter), HP will institute a change in the way that Patch services are accessed. Beginning at that time, Patch access will be through the ITRC support portal. You need to have a valid ITRC user ID and password and ***** will now also need an active HP support agreement that includes Software Updates linked to your ITRC profile to access Patch content and services. *****

"No patches for you!  Next!" (Patch Nazi)

And while you're at ITRC staring in disbelief, can you stop in at the VMS Forum and help me with my DCPS problem?

Cheers,
Art
-- 
"Cheer up ... things could get worse"
So he did ... and they did!

On Aug 18, 11:09=A0am, Art Wiens <awi...@canwest.com> wrote:
> Anyone else see this at the ITRC main page? :
>
> Important note: As of September 18 (or shortly thereafter), HP will insti=
tute a change in the way that Patch services are accessed. Beginning at tha=
t time, Patch access will be through the ITRC support portal. You need to h=
ave a valid ITRC user ID and password and ***** will now also need an activ=
e HP support agreement that includes Software Updates linked to your ITRC p=
rofile to access Patch content and services. *****
>
> "No patches for you! =A0Next!" (Patch Nazi)
>
> And while you're at ITRC staring in disbelief, can you stop in at the VMS=
 Forum and help me with my DCPS problem?
>
> Cheers,
> Art
> --
> "Cheer up ... things could get worse"
> So he did ... and they did!

>>> "This change brings HP in alignment with accepted industry practices fo=
r software patch delivery and ensures entitled customers and partners are p=
rovided with the most current software patches for their IT environment."

They couldn't even come up with new buzzwords... same old 'other
companies screw their customers so we're going to also'.  This also
may severely cripple the Hobbyist program...

I'd send a message to the company CEO but I understand he's not taking
calls right now.

In article <a62c931b-b2bc-47cc-86fd-957f73b12143@w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>, Rich Jordan <jordan@ccs4vms.com> writes:
>On Aug 18, 11:09=A0am, Art Wiens <awi...@canwest.com> wrote:
>> Anyone else see this at the ITRC main page? :
>>
>> Important note: As of September 18 (or shortly thereafter), HP will insti=
>tute a change in the way that Patch services are accessed. Beginning at tha=
>t time, Patch access will be through the ITRC support portal. You need to h=
>ave a valid ITRC user ID and password and ***** will now also need an activ=
>e HP support agreement that includes Software Updates linked to your ITRC p=
>rofile to access Patch content and services. *****
>>
>> "No patches for you! =A0Next!" (Patch Nazi)
>>
>> And while you're at ITRC staring in disbelief, can you stop in at the VMS=
> Forum and help me with my DCPS problem?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Art
>> --
>> "Cheer up ... things could get worse"
>> So he did ... and they did!
>
>>>> "This change brings HP in alignment with accepted industry practices fo=
>r software patch delivery and ensures entitled customers and partners are p=
>rovided with the most current software patches for their IT environment."
>
>They couldn't even come up with new buzzwords... same old 'other
>companies screw their customers so we're going to also'.  This also
>may severely cripple the Hobbyist program...
>
>I'd send a message to the company CEO but I understand he's not taking
>calls right now.

I hurd that if you're a woman and the CEO can get away with pinching your
ass behind the coffee machine without you making a sound that can be hurd,
you can get through. :D
-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker    VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

On Aug 18, 11:09=A0am, Art Wiens <awi...@canwest.com> wrote:
> Anyone else see this at the ITRC main page? :
>
> Important note: As of September 18 (or shortly thereafter), HP will insti=
tute a change in the way that Patch services are accessed. Beginning at tha=
t time, Patch access will be through the ITRC support portal. You need to h=
ave a valid ITRC user ID and password and ***** will now also need an activ=
e HP support agreement that includes Software Updates linked to your ITRC p=
rofile to access Patch content and services. *****
>
> "No patches for you! =A0Next!" (Patch Nazi)
>
> And while you're at ITRC staring in disbelief, can you stop in at the VMS=
 Forum and help me with my DCPS problem?
>
> Cheers,
> Art
> --
> "Cheer up ... things could get worse"
> So he did ... and they did!

Who at HP is worth writing to to vent about this stupidity, not that
it will do much good.  Customer AND shareholder access suggestions
would be appreciated.  No point writing to the 'CEO' at this time or I
would have already.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:09:06 -0500, Art Wiens <awiens@canwest.com> wrote:
> Anyone else see this at the ITRC main page? :

> Important note: As of September 18 (or shortly thereafter), HP will institute a change in the way that Patch services are accessed. Beginning at that time, Patch access will be through the ITRC support portal. You need to have a valid ITRC user ID and password and ***** will now also need an active HP support agreement that includes Software Updates linked to your ITRC profile to access Patch content and services. *****

> "No patches for you!  Next!" (Patch Nazi)

> And while you're at ITRC staring in disbelief, can you stop in at the VMS Forum and help me with my DCPS problem?

Have you tried to use LPD instead of RawTCP?  I've got one
printer (a Samsung SCX-6555N) that only works with LPD:

$ def/sys/exec dcps$os$wrprd_spool 1    ! Needed for Samsung SCX-6555N
$ @sys$startup:dcps$execution_queue -   ! Samsung SCX-6555N
        OS$WRPRD -                      ! P1 - Execution queue name
        "IP_LPD/WRPRD" -                ! P2 - Interconnect protocol/device name
        DCPS_LIB -                      ! P3 - Logical name for library(ies)
        ""-                             ! P4 - Default queue parameters
        "/SCHEDULE=NOSIZE/NOSEPARATE" - ! P5 - Default queue qualifiers
        ""-                             ! P6 - Communication speed(serial 
          -                             !      devices only)
        "/SPOOLED=(OS$WRPRD,SYS$SYSDEVICE:)" -
          -                             ! P7 - Device characteristics
        ""                              ! P8 - Verify on/off

-- 
Dale Dellutri <ddelQQQlutr@panQQQix.com> (lose the Q's)

"Art Wiens" <awiens@canwest.com> wrote in message 
news:i4h0j6$gb2$1@posting2.glorb.com...
> Anyone else see this at the ITRC main page? :
>
> Important note: As of September 18 (or shortly thereafter), HP will 
> institute a change in the way that Patch services are accessed. Beginning 
> at that time, Patch access will be through the ITRC support portal. You 
> need to have a valid ITRC user ID and password and ***** will now also 
> need an active HP support agreement that includes Software Updates linked 
> to your ITRC profile to access Patch content and services. *****
....
> Cheers,
> Art

This has been a long time coming.  We recently went through a long process 
to quote our HP support out to other companies.  The main selling point of 
hardware only companies was that HP patches are free, so we really don't 
need software technical support.  We knew otherwise, but I suspect many fall 
for it.

No other major software vendor that we deal with distributes patches on the 
honor system.

-Jeff

In article <RpVao.220470$5K1.218080@unlimited.newshosting.com>, "Jeff Goodwin" <jgoodwin@maine.rrr-r.com> writes:
> 
> No other major software vendor that we deal with distributes patches on the 
> honor system.

   I never have to supply an account or password to get patches from
   Apple or MicroSlop.  And in the latter case, I don't think I could
   type fast enough to keep up if I did.

In article <Zc74GNpyW0nN@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>In article <RpVao.220470$5K1.218080@unlimited.newshosting.com>, "Jeff Goodwin" <jgoodwin@maine.rrr-r.com> writes:
>> 
>> No other major software vendor that we deal with distributes patches on the 
>> honor system.
>
>   I never have to supply an account or password to get patches from
>   Apple or MicroSlop.  And in the latter case, I don't think I could
>   type fast enough to keep up if I did.

Dunno about Micro$hit but both Linux and Mac OS X let me know there's
an update/patch and I just click to install it after reviewing what is
being updated/patched.  No passwords.  It doesn't even query keychains
for this.

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

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

In article <i4h0j6$gb2$1@posting2.glorb.com>, Art Wiens
<awiens@canwest.com> writes: 

> Anyone else see this at the ITRC main page? :
> 
> Important note: As of September 18 (or shortly thereafter), HP will institute a change in the way that Patch services are accessed. Beginning at that time, Patch access will be through the ITRC support portal. You need to have a valid ITRC user ID and p

Does this mean no more patches for hobbyists?

On 2010-08-18, Art Wiens <awiens@canwest.com> wrote:
> Anyone else see this at the ITRC main page? :
>
> Important note: As of September 18 (or shortly thereafter), HP will
> institute a change in the way that Patch services are accessed. Beginning
> at that time, Patch access will be through the ITRC support portal. You
> need to have a valid ITRC user ID and password and ***** will now also
> need an active HP support agreement that includes Software Updates linked
> to your ITRC profile to access Patch content and services. *****
>
> "No patches for you!  Next!" (Patch Nazi)
>

HP sent me a email overnight confirming this.

My main concern is easily finding out when there is a new patch available.

I don't know if HP have implemented better options over the last couple of
years, but for several years, I have been using the patch notifications
posted to Notes on Eisner to track new VMS patches.

This was possible because a command procedure running on Eisner scans the
FTP patch directory tree for new and changed patches and posts any changes
to Notes.

I assume this procedure will now stop working so I really hope HP have a
automated notification procedure which causes a email to be sent as soon as
a new patch is issued. It would be a major pain to have to login to a system
daily and manually pull up a list of patches and work out what has changed
from yesterday.

(HP have had notification procedures in the past, but when I looked at them,
they didn't send what I expected.)

BTW, Solaris has recently gone down this route as well. I wonder if that
is where HP got this idea from.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980's technology to a 21st century world

In article <i4iqkn$hu8$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>On 2010-08-18, Art Wiens <awiens@canwest.com> wrote:
>> Anyone else see this at the ITRC main page? :
>>
>> Important note: As of September 18 (or shortly thereafter), HP will
>> institute a change in the way that Patch services are accessed. Beginning
>> at that time, Patch access will be through the ITRC support portal. You
>> need to have a valid ITRC user ID and password and ***** will now also
>> need an active HP support agreement that includes Software Updates linked
>> to your ITRC profile to access Patch content and services. *****
>>
>> "No patches for you!  Next!" (Patch Nazi)
>>
>
>HP sent me a email overnight confirming this.

Yikes...



>My main concern is easily finding out when there is a new patch available.

Maybe this is their way of avoid patches altogether! :)



>I don't know if HP have implemented better options over the last couple of
>years, but for several years, I have been using the patch notifications
>posted to Notes on Eisner to track new VMS patches.
>
>This was possible because a command procedure running on Eisner scans the
>FTP patch directory tree for new and changed patches and posts any changes
>to Notes.
>
>I assume this procedure will now stop working so I really hope HP have a
>automated notification procedure which causes a email to be sent as soon as
>a new patch is issued. It would be a major pain to have to login to a system
>daily and manually pull up a list of patches and work out what has changed
>from yesterday.
>
>(HP have had notification procedures in the past, but when I looked at them,
>they didn't send what I expected.)

HP is Hopeless and Pathetic.  I've yet to get any email message from HP
that isn't pure HTML.  If you wanted to automate your own patch handler
from email they send, you're going to have to parse out all of the HTML.
I "parse" most HP email directly into the WASTEBASKET folder. ;)  Good
luck with what becomes of this mess.  I'm wondering how they're planning
to handle the DPSS program folks?  Especially, since this DPSS program 
programmer is still awaiting patches for the bugs I've reported in V8.4.
As I see it, HP may finally address the issues I've reported but I won't
have a way of seeing, downloading and applying the solutions.



>BTW, Solaris has recently gone down this route as well. I wonder if that
>is where HP got this idea from.

Keeping pace with the other industry failures!  Kudos for HP! :roll:

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

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

>
> BTW, Solaris has recently gone down this route as well. I wonder if that
> is where HP got this idea from.
>
> Simon.
>

It is funny you mentioned this because my employer owns hundreds of
Solaris boxes which need patches and/or upgrades. Many managers are
grumbling because Solaris used to be free but now the support fees
will come out of their own local budgets. What is really odd is why
people working for a large corporation would ever expect another large
corporation to continue doing something for free. We all knew that SUN
offered free software only to keep their hardware business alive (just
as IBM has a line of free software for the same reason although they
also have a line of not-free software) but free can only take you so
far. Perhaps SUN should have given away free 12-month Solaris support
with each new machine but then require a support contract after that.

On a related note, I wonder if recent actions taken by Oracle (owners
of SUN/Solaris) and HP will stimulate the next big wave of open-source
operating system software. Linux anyone?

Neil Rieck
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

In article <00AA228D.239F3090@SendSpamHere.ORG>,   VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
> 
> Dunno about Micro$hit but both Linux and Mac OS X let me know there's
> an update/patch and I just click to install it after reviewing what is
> being updated/patched.  No passwords.  It doesn't even query keychains
> for this.

   That probably depends on who you get your Linux from.  For RedHat,
   I had to have an account and password.  Support is how RedHat makes
   it's money.

On Aug 19, 7:57=A0am, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > BTW, Solaris has recently gone down this route as well. I wonder if tha=
t
> > is where HP got this idea from.
>
> > Simon.
>
> It is funny you mentioned this because my employer owns hundreds of
> Solaris boxes which need patches and/or upgrades. Many managers are
> grumbling because Solaris used to be free but now the support fees
> will come out of their own local budgets. What is really odd is why
> people working for a large corporation would ever expect another large
> corporation to continue doing something for free. We all knew that SUN
> offered free software only to keep their hardware business alive (just
> as IBM has a line of free software for the same reason although they
> also have a line of not-free software) but free can only take you so
> far. Perhaps SUN should have given away free 12-month Solaris support
> with each new machine but then require a support contract after that.
>
> On a related note, I wonder if recent actions taken by Oracle (owners
> of SUN/Solaris) and HP will stimulate the next big wave of open-source
> operating system software. Linux anyone?
>
> Neil Rieck
> Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

You'd have a totally valid point if VMS itself was free, but it isn't;
in fact its one of the most expensive OS's out there, especially if
you start tacking on nice features like more user licenses or
clustering/rms journaling, etc.  The hobbyist program really doesn't
figure into this either since the license is restricted to non-
commercial use (I believe the free Solaris and IBM software were less,
or even unrestricted), and HP certainly doesn't make it easy to get
the media for current versions.

This is HP trying to squeeze blood from a turnip... those who can
afford software service contracts already have them.  A couple of our
customers still do, but mostly they are hardware support only, running
the most recent VMS version they had when they let software support
lapse.  Especially now, there is NO way in hell they could afford to
re-up support just in case HP ever releases an important ECO for their
VMS version.  Hobbyist users (I saw no mention of the program in the
FAQ) are screwed for any network-facing usage (firewall or not) if
they can't be sure that there aren't major problems with their base
unpatched releases.

And now with V8.4 coming out with numerous issues that make it feel a
bit more like a .0 release than it should have been, plus a few recent
patches also coming out with flaws and problems... an "interesting"
time to make such a change.

The net result of this decision, I think, will be one more 'pressure'
to move off of VMS, especially for the much despised and ignored small
customers still hanging on to it.  Not an immediate drop dead issue,
(unless some really nasty glaring exploitable issue is found), just
one more thing that HP is throwing at customers to make VMS less
desirable.  It is already damned hard to sell now and HP just made it
harder.

I sent my message about this to the interim CEO.

On Aug 19, 11:46=A0am, Rich Jordan <jor...@ccs4vms.com> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 7:57=A0am, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > BTW, Solaris has recently gone down this route as well. I wonder if t=
hat
> > > is where HP got this idea from.
>
> > > Simon.
>
> > It is funny you mentioned this because my employer owns hundreds of
> > Solaris boxes which need patches and/or upgrades. Many managers are
> > grumbling because Solaris used to be free but now the support fees
> > will come out of their own local budgets. What is really odd is why
> > people working for a large corporation would ever expect another large
> > corporation to continue doing something for free. We all knew that SUN
> > offered free software only to keep their hardware business alive (just
> > as IBM has a line of free software for the same reason although they
> > also have a line of not-free software) but free can only take you so
> > far. Perhaps SUN should have given away free 12-month Solaris support
> > with each new machine but then require a support contract after that.
>
> > On a related note, I wonder if recent actions taken by Oracle (owners
> > of SUN/Solaris) and HP will stimulate the next big wave of open-source
> > operating system software. Linux anyone?
>
> > Neil Rieck
> > Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
>
> You'd have a totally valid point if VMS itself was free, but it isn't;
> in fact its one of the most expensive OS's out there, especially if
> you start tacking on nice features like more user licenses or
> clustering/rms journaling, etc. =A0The hobbyist program really doesn't
> figure into this either since the license is restricted to non-
> commercial use (I believe the free Solaris and IBM software were less,
> or even unrestricted), and HP certainly doesn't make it easy to get
> the media for current versions.
>
> This is HP trying to squeeze blood from a turnip... those who can
> afford software service contracts already have them. =A0A couple of our
> customers still do, but mostly they are hardware support only, running
> the most recent VMS version they had when they let software support
> lapse. =A0Especially now, there is NO way in hell they could afford to
> re-up support just in case HP ever releases an important ECO for their
> VMS version. =A0Hobbyist users (I saw no mention of the program in the
> FAQ) are screwed for any network-facing usage (firewall or not) if
> they can't be sure that there aren't major problems with their base
> unpatched releases.
>
> And now with V8.4 coming out with numerous issues that make it feel a
> bit more like a .0 release than it should have been, plus a few recent
> patches also coming out with flaws and problems... an "interesting"
> time to make such a change.
>
> The net result of this decision, I think, will be one more 'pressure'
> to move off of VMS, especially for the much despised and ignored small
> customers still hanging on to it. =A0Not an immediate drop dead issue,
> (unless some really nasty glaring exploitable issue is found), just
> one more thing that HP is throwing at customers to make VMS less
> desirable. =A0It is already damned hard to sell now and HP just made it
> harder.
>
> I sent my message about this to the interim CEO.

You are correct about that. OpenVMS is so expensive that HP should
provide perpetual no-charge support. Since they (HP) apparently feel
no sense of guilt (see my previous posts on uber-capitalism) then I
guess this decision is more like "hey, let's copy Oracle". The only
problem with the Oracle decision is that they are so rich that they
can afford to walk away from Solaris if customers aren't prepared to
support it. Is HP prepared to do the same thing with OpenVMS? (just
food for thought)

Neil Rieck
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

In article <i4iqkn$hu8$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Simon Clubley
<clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes: 

> HP sent me a email overnight confirming this.

Looks like bad news for hobbyists, or is there a provision?

Presumably, assuming it is still OK for a hobbyist to borrow media, a 
hobbyist could borrow patches from someone with a support contract.  But 
it is more hassle.

Or does this mean the end of the hobbyist programme?

> I assume this procedure will now stop working so I really hope HP have a
> automated notification procedure which causes a email to be sent as soon as
> a new patch is issued. It would be a major pain to have to login to a system
> daily and manually pull up a list of patches and work out what has changed
> from yesterday.

WGET?  Runs fine on VMS.

On Aug 19, 7:57=A0am, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> It is funny you mentioned this because my employer owns hundreds of
> Solaris boxes which need patches and/or upgrades. Many managers are
> grumbling because Solaris used to be free but now the support fees
> will come out of their own local budgets. What is really odd is why
> people working for a large corporation would ever expect another large
> corporation to continue doing something for free. We all knew that SUN
> offered free software only to keep their hardware business alive (just
> as IBM has a line of free software for the same reason although they
> also have a line of not-free software) but free can only take you so
> far. Perhaps SUN should have given away free 12-month Solaris support
> with each new machine but then require a support contract after that.
>

I guess this means that Hobbyists will no longer get patches.  Most
likely the program won't even exist much longer.

Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:

> WGET?  Runs fine on VMS.

   Wget may not help much if there's a fancy new Web interface
which includes some complex JavaScript-laden authorization
scheme.

   Speaking of which, I can't help but wonder who'll be doing
the VMS port of the next version of Wget.

On Aug 19, 1:08=A0pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 11:46=A0am, Rich Jordan <jor...@ccs4vms.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 19, 7:57=A0am, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > BTW, Solaris has recently gone down this route as well. I wonder if=
 that
> > > > is where HP got this idea from.
>
> > > > Simon.
>
> > > It is funny you mentioned this because my employer owns hundreds of
> > > Solaris boxes which need patches and/or upgrades. Many managers are
> > > grumbling because Solaris used to be free but now the support fees
> > > will come out of their own local budgets. What is really odd is why
> > > people working for a large corporation would ever expect another larg=
e
> > > corporation to continue doing something for free. We all knew that SU=
N
> > > offered free software only to keep their hardware business alive (jus=
t
> > > as IBM has a line of free software for the same reason although they
> > > also have a line of not-free software) but free can only take you so
> > > far. Perhaps SUN should have given away free 12-month Solaris support
> > > with each new machine but then require a support contract after that.
>
> > > On a related note, I wonder if recent actions taken by Oracle (owners
> > > of SUN/Solaris) and HP will stimulate the next big wave of open-sourc=
e
> > > operating system software. Linux anyone?
>
> > > Neil Rieck
> > > Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
>
> > You'd have a totally valid point if VMS itself was free, but it isn't;
> > in fact its one of the most expensive OS's out there, especially if
> > you start tacking on nice features like more user licenses or
> > clustering/rms journaling, etc. =A0The hobbyist program really doesn't
> > figure into this either since the license is restricted to non-
> > commercial use (I believe the free Solaris and IBM software were less,
> > or even unrestricted), and HP certainly doesn't make it easy to get
> > the media for current versions.
>
> > This is HP trying to squeeze blood from a turnip... those who can
> > afford software service contracts already have them. =A0A couple of our
> > customers still do, but mostly they are hardware support only, running
> > the most recent VMS version they had when they let software support
> > lapse. =A0Especially now, there is NO way in hell they could afford to
> > re-up support just in case HP ever releases an important ECO for their
> > VMS version. =A0Hobbyist users (I saw no mention of the program in the
> > FAQ) are screwed for any network-facing usage (firewall or not) if
> > they can't be sure that there aren't major problems with their base
> > unpatched releases.
>
> > And now with V8.4 coming out with numerous issues that make it feel a
> > bit more like a .0 release than it should have been, plus a few recent
> > patches also coming out with flaws and problems... an "interesting"
> > time to make such a change.
>
> > The net result of this decision, I think, will be one more 'pressure'
> > to move off of VMS, especially for the much despised and ignored small
> > customers still hanging on to it. =A0Not an immediate drop dead issue,
> > (unless some really nasty glaring exploitable issue is found), just
> > one more thing that HP is throwing at customers to make VMS less
> > desirable. =A0It is already damned hard to sell now and HP just made it
> > harder.
>
> > I sent my message about this to the interim CEO.
>
> You are correct about that. OpenVMS is so expensive that HP should
> provide perpetual no-charge support. Since they (HP) apparently feel
> no sense of guilt (see my previous posts on uber-capitalism) then I
> guess this decision is more like "hey, let's copy Oracle". The only
> problem with the Oracle decision is that they are so rich that they
> can afford to walk away from Solaris if customers aren't prepared to
> support it. Is HP prepared to do the same thing with OpenVMS? (just
> food for thought)
>
> Neil Rieck
> Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

I'm not implying they should provide perpetual support, though
something better than 90 days (I think thats still current) given the
premium pricing would certainly be reasonoable.  Call in, handholding,
engineering access, specific problems, programming and configuration
questions, are completely understandable as being a pay-for benefit.
Same with software version upgrades; I don't expect to get v8.4 for
free if I stopped paying for upgrades last year.  I'd go so far as
saying ECOs whose sole purpose is to support newer/different hardware
could be reserved without causing any real grief here or for our
customers.

But the ECOs that fix bugs, problems, make systems work the way they
are supposed to, and especially correct security issues... HP pulling
those is an extremely hostile action.  Especially to the smaller
customers (like ours) who may only upgrade when they actually upgrade
their box (or make an architecture jump; our last VAX customer is
probably moving to Alpha soon, and we've had three sites do the Alpha
to Itanium).  None of them paid software support on their current
boxes prior to purchasing the new one (proper fees were paid on the
new architecture...) yet they could still maintain their systems in a
secure and workable state, with reasonable reassurance that any
significant problems could be dealt with.

That assurance has just been revoked by HP.  And so they take that
additional step to conforming to industry mediocre norms... and less
like the storied HP (and Digital) of old.  (yeah that sounds like rose
colored lenses looking back, but support, as well as concern for their
products, and the perception of those products, really was better in
many ways...)

Still need to put on my shareholder hat and write to the board...

Of course I have no doubt they'd trip all over themselves helping us
sell proliants with win2008, exchange, and sql server into any and all
of those small customer sites.

On Aug 19, 11:35=A0pm, Rich Jordan <jor...@ccs4vms.com> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 1:08=A0pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 19, 11:46=A0am, Rich Jordan <jor...@ccs4vms.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 19, 7:57=A0am, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > BTW, Solaris has recently gone down this route as well. I wonder =
if that
> > > > > is where HP got this idea from.
>
> > > > > Simon.
>
> > > > It is funny you mentioned this because my employer owns hundreds of
> > > > Solaris boxes which need patches and/or upgrades. Many managers are
> > > > grumbling because Solaris used to be free but now the support fees
> > > > will come out of their own local budgets. What is really odd is why
> > > > people working for a large corporation would ever expect another la=
rge
> > > > corporation to continue doing something for free. We all knew that =
SUN
> > > > offered free software only to keep their hardware business alive (j=
ust
> > > > as IBM has a line of free software for the same reason although the=
y
> > > > also have a line of not-free software) but free can only take you s=
o
> > > > far. Perhaps SUN should have given away free 12-month Solaris suppo=
rt
> > > > with each new machine but then require a support contract after tha=
t.
>
> > > > On a related note, I wonder if recent actions taken by Oracle (owne=
rs
> > > > of SUN/Solaris) and HP will stimulate the next big wave of open-sou=
rce
> > > > operating system software. Linux anyone?
>
> > > > Neil Rieck
> > > > Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
>
> > > You'd have a totally valid point if VMS itself was free, but it isn't=
;
> > > in fact its one of the most expensive OS's out there, especially if
> > > you start tacking on nice features like more user licenses or
> > > clustering/rms journaling, etc. =A0The hobbyist program really doesn'=
t
> > > figure into this either since the license is restricted to non-
> > > commercial use (I believe the free Solaris and IBM software were less=
,
> > > or even unrestricted), and HP certainly doesn't make it easy to get
> > > the media for current versions.
>
> > > This is HP trying to squeeze blood from a turnip... those who can
> > > afford software service contracts already have them. =A0A couple of o=
ur
> > > customers still do, but mostly they are hardware support only, runnin=
g
> > > the most recent VMS version they had when they let software support
> > > lapse. =A0Especially now, there is NO way in hell they could afford t=
o
> > > re-up support just in case HP ever releases an important ECO for thei=
r
> > > VMS version. =A0Hobbyist users (I saw no mention of the program in th=
e
> > > FAQ) are screwed for any network-facing usage (firewall or not) if
> > > they can't be sure that there aren't major problems with their base
> > > unpatched releases.
>
> > > And now with V8.4 coming out with numerous issues that make it feel a
> > > bit more like a .0 release than it should have been, plus a few recen=
t
> > > patches also coming out with flaws and problems... an "interesting"
> > > time to make such a change.
>
> > > The net result of this decision, I think, will be one more 'pressure'
> > > to move off of VMS, especially for the much despised and ignored smal=
l
> > > customers still hanging on to it. =A0Not an immediate drop dead issue=
,
> > > (unless some really nasty glaring exploitable issue is found), just
> > > one more thing that HP is throwing at customers to make VMS less
> > > desirable. =A0It is already damned hard to sell now and HP just made =
it
> > > harder.
>
> > > I sent my message about this to the interim CEO.
>
> > You are correct about that. OpenVMS is so expensive that HP should
> > provide perpetual no-charge support. Since they (HP) apparently feel
> > no sense of guilt (see my previous posts on uber-capitalism) then I
> > guess this decision is more like "hey, let's copy Oracle". The only
> > problem with the Oracle decision is that they are so rich that they
> > can afford to walk away from Solaris if customers aren't prepared to
> > support it. Is HP prepared to do the same thing with OpenVMS? (just
> > food for thought)
>
> > Neil Rieck
> > Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
>
> I'm not implying they should provide perpetual support, though
> something better than 90 days (I think thats still current) given the
> premium pricing would certainly be reasonoable. =A0Call in, handholding,
> engineering access, specific problems, programming and configuration
> questions, are completely understandable as being a pay-for benefit.
> Same with software version upgrades; I don't expect to get v8.4 for
> free if I stopped paying for upgrades last year. =A0I'd go so far as
> saying ECOs whose sole purpose is to support newer/different hardware
> could be reserved without causing any real grief here or for our
> customers.
>
> But the ECOs that fix bugs, problems, make systems work the way they
> are supposed to, and especially correct security issues... HP pulling
> those is an extremely hostile action. =A0Especially to the smaller
> customers (like ours) who may only upgrade when they actually upgrade
> their box (or make an architecture jump; our last VAX customer is
> probably moving to Alpha soon, and we've had three sites do the Alpha
> to Itanium). =A0None of them paid software support on their current
> boxes prior to purchasing the new one (proper fees were paid on the
> new architecture...) yet they could still maintain their systems in a
> secure and workable state, with reasonable reassurance that any
> significant problems could be dealt with.
>
> That assurance has just been revoked by HP. =A0And so they take that
> additional step to conforming to industry mediocre norms... and less
> like the storied HP (and Digital) of old. =A0(yeah that sounds like rose
> colored lenses looking back, but support, as well as concern for their
> products, and the perception of those products, really was better in
> many ways...)
>
> Still need to put on my shareholder hat and write to the board...
>
> Of course I have no doubt they'd trip all over themselves helping us
> sell proliants with win2008, exchange, and sql server into any and all
> of those small customer sites.

Is there much wrong with Proliants that couldn't be fixed by the
installation of a decent OS and the blanking out of the HP logo? After
all, now that Xeon and IA64 are both based around similar Quickpath
infrastructure, inspired by AMD's Hypertransport (which in turn was
inspired by... oh I forget, something called Alpha?) how much
distinction can there be at the hardware level, and how long can HP
afford to run two duplicate hardware engineering+support teams when
they seem to think they need insane penny-pinching like this patch
download thing?

Back to patches: what's the legal situation here? Under what licence
are the patches made available, is that licence enforceable, what
stops someone other than HP redistributing the patches? Software used
to be warranted to conform to the SPD at a minimum; is that still the
case? If so, and if patches are need to provide fixes to ensure that
conformance to SPD happens, how can providing "conformance to SPD" be
a chargeable service? IANAL etc.

Perhaps an alternative direction would be to ask HP to give "free"
access to patches to an organisation who could then distribute them to
hobbyists users. Some form of authentication would be required to ensure
that they are not distributed to commercial users.

From HP's point of view: a VAX/Alpha customer not buying support from HP
doesn't generate any revenue for HP.

And consider the fact that anyone still on VAX or Alpha is not so likely
to upgrade hardware, the odds of making money from them are low. So
cutting off access to patches may not cost HP any current or future
customers.

On the other hand, cutting off access to patches isn't going to generate
any new revenues. Those currently not paying support contracts from HP
is not likely to start paying them to get patches. This is likely just
to try to make the value of buying support LOOK better.

A bit like Qantas decided to stop allowing coach passengers to
pre-select seats, so that it would make the value of business and first
class tickets look better since they now had an additional thing that
coach pax didn't have.

Neil Rieck wrote:

> problem with the Oracle decision is that they are so rich that they
> can afford to walk away from Solaris if customers aren't prepared to
> support it. Is HP prepared to do the same thing with OpenVMS? (just
> food for thought)


Is it correct to assume that this decision applies equally to HP-UX and
Tandem-NSK ?

Will HP have a separate support place for its wintel business, with the
various HP drivers for printers, keyboards, its specific hardware etc ?

In article <729f9dfa-1dd3-4c68-a164-ce285ce8d3cc@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
 seasoned_geek wrote:
>On Aug 19, 7:57�am, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]
>> Perhaps SUN should have given away free 12-month Solaris support
>> with each new machine but then require a support contract after that.
>>
>
>I guess this means that Hobbyists will no longer get patches.  Most
>likely the program won't even exist much longer.

FWIW, I sent an email last night to openvmsprograms@hp.com, outlining my views
as a Hobbyist.  No reply (yet).

Hi,

I too received the email announcing that access to OpenVMS patches would be 
restricted by ITRC userID and no more anonymous FTP.  Fortunately it doesn't 
affect me too much because I have OpenVMS support on my critical systems and
so do my customers.  But it's sure going to be annoying.  Particularly when 
a customer wants me to apply some patch updates which aren't covered by my 
own support agreement.  (It's not yet clear to me how tightly the new rules 
are going to be applied.)

I suggest everyone who is attending the OpenVMS Bootcamp next month make 
your concerns felt.  The Hobbyist program is a joint effort of Connect and 
HP, as is the new Bootcamp, so it shouldn't be too hard to get the relevant 
people in the same room at the same time.  (And before someone goes pedantic 
on me, yes I know that Connect is responsible for both -- but neither would 
happen without the willing co-operation of HP.)

As to remarks about OpenVMS being expensive, in my recent experience the 
base OpenVMS operating system licence is not unreasonable compared to other 
commercial products.  What makes it expensive is the hardware to run it on 
and the VMScluster licence (which is about 2.5 times the price of the base 
licence).

Regards,

	Jeremy Begg

In article <4c6dc0c2$0$9311$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes: 

> Perhaps an alternative direction would be to ask HP to give "free"
> access to patches to an organisation who could then distribute them to
> hobbyists users. Some form of authentication would be required to ensure
> that they are not distributed to commercial users.

This is definitely the way to go.  Perhaps the fine folks at Montagar 
can check this out.  I'm happy to provide any sort of infrastructure 
needed (web server, email redirection etc).  Just ask.  :-)

This might even be a good thing: let the paying customers check out the 
packages and then, say, every three months Montagar will update their 
patch site with stuff which has been shown to work.  :-)

> From HP's point of view: a VAX/Alpha customer not buying support from HP
> doesn't generate any revenue for HP.

True, unless they regularly upgrade compilers etc.

> And consider the fact that anyone still on VAX or Alpha is not so likely
> to upgrade hardware, the odds of making money from them are low. So
> cutting off access to patches may not cost HP any current or future
> customers.

I think that there are probably several folks who don't upgrade hardware 
or software (often) but like to stay reasonably current with regard to 
patches.

On Aug 18, 5:09=A0pm, Art Wiens <awi...@canwest.com> wrote:
> Anyone else see this at the ITRC main page? :
>
> Important note: As of September 18 (or shortly thereafter), HP will insti=
tute a change in the way that Patch services are accessed. Beginning at tha=
t time, Patch access will be through the ITRC support portal. You need to h=
ave a valid ITRC user ID and password and ***** will now also need an activ=
e HP support agreement that includes Software Updates linked to your ITRC p=
rofile to access Patch content and services. *****
>
> "No patches for you! =A0Next!" (Patch Nazi)
>
> And while you're at ITRC staring in disbelief, can you stop in at the VMS=
 Forum and help me with my DCPS problem?
>
> Cheers,
> Art
> --
> "Cheer up ... things could get worse"
> So he did ... and they did!


Note this change is not just for OpenVMS but applies to HPUX and other
HP OS too.

On 2010-08-18 18:09, Art Wiens wrote:
> Anyone else see this at the ITRC main page? :
>
> Important note: As of September 18 (or shortly thereafter),

I guess we are still in "shortly thereafter" since
ftp://ftp.itrc.hp.com/openvms_patches/
still seems to work just fine.

Maybe best to fetch whatever is the currently latest
kits, just to be safe... :-)


Jan-Erik.





  HP will
> institute a change in the way that Patch services are accessed. Beginning
> at that time, Patch access will be through the ITRC support portal. You
> need to have a valid ITRC user ID and password and ***** will now also need
> an active HP support agreement that includes Software Updates linked to
> your ITRC profile to access Patch content and services. *****
>
> "No patches for you! Next!" (Patch Nazi)
>
> And while you're at ITRC staring in disbelief, can you stop in at the VMS
> Forum and help me with my DCPS problem?
>
> Cheers,
> Art

In article <i4m479$ins$1@news.albasani.net>, Jan-Erik Soderholm
<jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> writes:
> On 2010-08-18 18:09, Art Wiens wrote:
> > Anyone else see this at the ITRC main page? :
> >
> > Important note: As of September 18 (or shortly thereafter),
> 
> I guess we are still in "shortly thereafter" since
> ftp://ftp.itrc.hp.com/openvms_patches/
> still seems to work just fine.

we are "shortly before" since this is August, not September.
 
> Maybe best to fetch whatever is the currently latest
> kits, just to be safe... :-)

I'm wondering that site is still responding,
the HP-UX crowd are cleaning their disks and polishing wget ... 

On 2010-08-20 16:47, Michael Kraemer wrote:
> In article<i4m479$ins$1@news.albasani.net>, Jan-Erik Soderholm
> <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com>  writes:
>> On 2010-08-18 18:09, Art Wiens wrote:
>>> Anyone else see this at the ITRC main page? :
>>>
>>> Important note: As of September 18 (or shortly thereafter),
>>
>> I guess we are still in "shortly thereafter" since
>> ftp://ftp.itrc.hp.com/openvms_patches/
>> still seems to work just fine.
>
> we are "shortly before" since this is August, not September.
>

Are we? ...[checking my calendar]... Yes we are ! :-) :-)

Not *that* surpricing then....

Jan-Erik.





>> Maybe best to fetch whatever is the currently latest
>> kits, just to be safe... :-)
>
> I'm wondering that site is still responding,
> the HP-UX crowd are cleaning their disks and polishing wget ...

On Aug 19, 6:02=A0pm, John Wallace <johnwalla...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 11:35=A0pm, Rich Jordan <jor...@ccs4vms.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 19, 1:08=A0pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 19, 11:46=A0am, Rich Jordan <jor...@ccs4vms.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 19, 7:57=A0am, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > BTW, Solaris has recently gone down this route as well. I wonde=
r if that
> > > > > > is where HP got this idea from.
>
> > > > > > Simon.
>
> > > > > It is funny you mentioned this because my employer owns hundreds =
of
> > > > > Solaris boxes which need patches and/or upgrades. Many managers a=
re
> > > > > grumbling because Solaris used to be free but now the support fee=
s
> > > > > will come out of their own local budgets. What is really odd is w=
hy
> > > > > people working for a large corporation would ever expect another =
large
> > > > > corporation to continue doing something for free. We all knew tha=
t SUN
> > > > > offered free software only to keep their hardware business alive =
(just
> > > > > as IBM has a line of free software for the same reason although t=
hey
> > > > > also have a line of not-free software) but free can only take you=
 so
> > > > > far. Perhaps SUN should have given away free 12-month Solaris sup=
port
> > > > > with each new machine but then require a support contract after t=
hat.
>
> > > > > On a related note, I wonder if recent actions taken by Oracle (ow=
ners
> > > > > of SUN/Solaris) and HP will stimulate the next big wave of open-s=
ource
> > > > > operating system software. Linux anyone?
>
> > > > > Neil Rieck
> > > > > Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
>
> > > > You'd have a totally valid point if VMS itself was free, but it isn=
't;
> > > > in fact its one of the most expensive OS's out there, especially if
> > > > you start tacking on nice features like more user licenses or
> > > > clustering/rms journaling, etc. =A0The hobbyist program really does=
n't
> > > > figure into this either since the license is restricted to non-
> > > > commercial use (I believe the free Solaris and IBM software were le=
ss,
> > > > or even unrestricted), and HP certainly doesn't make it easy to get
> > > > the media for current versions.
>
> > > > This is HP trying to squeeze blood from a turnip... those who can
> > > > afford software service contracts already have them. =A0A couple of=
 our
> > > > customers still do, but mostly they are hardware support only, runn=
ing
> > > > the most recent VMS version they had when they let software support
> > > > lapse. =A0Especially now, there is NO way in hell they could afford=
 to
> > > > re-up support just in case HP ever releases an important ECO for th=
eir
> > > > VMS version. =A0Hobbyist users (I saw no mention of the program in =
the
> > > > FAQ) are screwed for any network-facing usage (firewall or not) if
> > > > they can't be sure that there aren't major problems with their base
> > > > unpatched releases.
>
> > > > And now with V8.4 coming out with numerous issues that make it feel=
 a
> > > > bit more like a .0 release than it should have been, plus a few rec=
ent
> > > > patches also coming out with flaws and problems... an "interesting"
> > > > time to make such a change.
>
> > > > The net result of this decision, I think, will be one more 'pressur=
e'
> > > > to move off of VMS, especially for the much despised and ignored sm=
all
> > > > customers still hanging on to it. =A0Not an immediate drop dead iss=
ue,
> > > > (unless some really nasty glaring exploitable issue is found), just
> > > > one more thing that HP is throwing at customers to make VMS less
> > > > desirable. =A0It is already damned hard to sell now and HP just mad=
e it
> > > > harder.
>
> > > > I sent my message about this to the interim CEO.
>
> > > You are correct about that. OpenVMS is so expensive that HP should
> > > provide perpetual no-charge support. Since they (HP) apparently feel
> > > no sense of guilt (see my previous posts on uber-capitalism) then I
> > > guess this decision is more like "hey, let's copy Oracle". The only
> > > problem with the Oracle decision is that they are so rich that they
> > > can afford to walk away from Solaris if customers aren't prepared to
> > > support it. Is HP prepared to do the same thing with OpenVMS? (just
> > > food for thought)
>
> > > Neil Rieck
> > > Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
>
> > I'm not implying they should provide perpetual support, though
> > something better than 90 days (I think thats still current) given the
> > premium pricing would certainly be reasonoable. =A0Call in, handholding=
,
> > engineering access, specific problems, programming and configuration
> > questions, are completely understandable as being a pay-for benefit.
> > Same with software version upgrades; I don't expect to get v8.4 for
> > free if I stopped paying for upgrades last year. =A0I'd go so far as
> > saying ECOs whose sole purpose is to support newer/different hardware
> > could be reserved without causing any real grief here or for our
> > customers.
>
> > But the ECOs that fix bugs, problems, make systems work the way they
> > are supposed to, and especially correct security issues... HP pulling
> > those is an extremely hostile action. =A0Especially to the smaller
> > customers (like ours) who may only upgrade when they actually upgrade
> > their box (or make an architecture jump; our last VAX customer is
> > probably moving to Alpha soon, and we've had three sites do the Alpha
> > to Itanium). =A0None of them paid software support on their current
> > boxes prior to purchasing the new one (proper fees were paid on the
> > new architecture...) yet they could still maintain their systems in a
> > secure and workable state, with reasonable reassurance that any
> > significant problems could be dealt with.
>
> > That assurance has just been revoked by HP. =A0And so they take that
> > additional step to conforming to industry mediocre norms... and less
> > like the storied HP (and Digital) of old. =A0(yeah that sounds like ros=
e
> > colored lenses looking back, but support, as well as concern for their
> > products, and the perception of those products, really was better in
> > many ways...)
>
> > Still need to put on my shareholder hat and write to the board...
>
> > Of course I have no doubt they'd trip all over themselves helping us
> > sell proliants with win2008, exchange, and sql server into any and all
> > of those small customer sites.
>
> Is there much wrong with Proliants that couldn't be fixed by the
> installation of a decent OS and the blanking out of the HP logo? After
> all, now that Xeon and IA64 are both based around similar Quickpath
> infrastructure, inspired by AMD's Hypertransport (which in turn was
> inspired by... oh I forget, something called Alpha?) how much
> distinction can there be at the hardware level, and how long can HP
> afford to run two duplicate hardware engineering+support teams when
> they seem to think they need insane penny-pinching like this patch
> download thing?
>
> Back to patches: what's the legal situation here? Under what licence
> are the patches made available, is that licence enforceable, what
> stops someone other than HP redistributing the patches? Software used
> to be warranted to conform to the SPD at a minimum; is that still the
> case? If so, and if patches are need to provide fixes to ensure that
> conformance to SPD happens, how can providing "conformance to SPD" be
> a chargeable service? IANAL etc.


The legal and ethical way would be for HP to spilt the patches into
two data bases:

a) Updates - patches for new features and new hardware support:
require a support agreement.

b) Fixes - patches to correct non-specification conformance and
security problems: publicly available.

As I commented over in ITRC,


"...given two competing software support models to choose from:

1) The model used by the most successful software company to ever
exist and those successfully competing with that company.

2) The model used by organizations who have failed to compete with
those following model #1.

HP chooses the model proven by history to be unsuccessful."

Dumb. Really dumb.

In article <3b7faa0c-9fb7-44ea-9538-3deb62080fbc@k10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Doug Phillips <dphill46@netscape.net> writes:
>On Aug 19, 6:02=A0pm, John Wallace <johnwalla...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Aug 19, 11:35=A0pm, Rich Jordan <jor...@ccs4vms.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 19, 1:08=A0pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Aug 19, 11:46=A0am, Rich Jordan <jor...@ccs4vms.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Aug 19, 7:57=A0am, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > BTW, Solaris has recently gone down this route as well. I wonde=
>r if that
>> > > > > > is where HP got this idea from.
>>
>> > > > > > Simon.
>>
>> > > > > It is funny you mentioned this because my employer owns hundreds =
>of
>> > > > > Solaris boxes which need patches and/or upgrades. Many managers a=
>re
>> > > > > grumbling because Solaris used to be free but now the support fee=
>s
>> > > > > will come out of their own local budgets. What is really odd is w=
>hy
>> > > > > people working for a large corporation would ever expect another =
>large
>> > > > > corporation to continue doing something for free. We all knew tha=
>t SUN
>> > > > > offered free software only to keep their hardware business alive =
>(just
>> > > > > as IBM has a line of free software for the same reason although t=
>hey
>> > > > > also have a line of not-free software) but free can only take you=
> so
>> > > > > far. Perhaps SUN should have given away free 12-month Solaris sup=
>port
>> > > > > with each new machine but then require a support contract after t=
>hat.
>>
>> > > > > On a related note, I wonder if recent actions taken by Oracle (ow=
>ners
>> > > > > of SUN/Solaris) and HP will stimulate the next big wave of open-s=
>ource
>> > > > > operating system software. Linux anyone?
>>
>> > > > > Neil Rieck
>> > > > > Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
>>
>> > > > You'd have a totally valid point if VMS itself was free, but it isn=
>'t;
>> > > > in fact its one of the most expensive OS's out there, especially if
>> > > > you start tacking on nice features like more user licenses or
>> > > > clustering/rms journaling, etc. =A0The hobbyist program really does=
>n't
>> > > > figure into this either since the license is restricted to non-
>> > > > commercial use (I believe the free Solaris and IBM software were le=
>ss,
>> > > > or even unrestricted), and HP certainly doesn't make it easy to get
>> > > > the media for current versions.
>>
>> > > > This is HP trying to squeeze blood from a turnip... those who can
>> > > > afford software service contracts already have them. =A0A couple of=
> our
>> > > > customers still do, but mostly they are hardware support only, runn=
>ing
>> > > > the most recent VMS version they had when they let software support
>> > > > lapse. =A0Especially now, there is NO way in hell they could afford=
> to
>> > > > re-up support just in case HP ever releases an important ECO for th=
>eir
>> > > > VMS version. =A0Hobbyist users (I saw no mention of the program in =
>the
>> > > > FAQ) are screwed for any network-facing usage (firewall or not) if
>> > > > they can't be sure that there aren't major problems with their base
>> > > > unpatched releases.
>>
>> > > > And now with V8.4 coming out with numerous issues that make it feel=
> a
>> > > > bit more like a .0 release than it should have been, plus a few rec=
>ent
>> > > > patches also coming out with flaws and problems... an "interesting"
>> > > > time to make such a change.
>>
>> > > > The net result of this decision, I think, will be one more 'pressur=
>e'
>> > > > to move off of VMS, especially for the much despised and ignored sm=
>all
>> > > > customers still hanging on to it. =A0Not an immediate drop dead iss=
>ue,
>> > > > (unless some really nasty glaring exploitable issue is found), just
>> > > > one more thing that HP is throwing at customers to make VMS less
>> > > > desirable. =A0It is already damned hard to sell now and HP just mad=
>e it
>> > > > harder.
>>
>> > > > I sent my message about this to the interim CEO.
>>
>> > > You are correct about that. OpenVMS is so expensive that HP should
>> > > provide perpetual no-charge support. Since they (HP) apparently feel
>> > > no sense of guilt (see my previous posts on uber-capitalism) then I
>> > > guess this decision is more like "hey, let's copy Oracle". The only
>> > > problem with the Oracle decision is that they are so rich that they
>> > > can afford to walk away from Solaris if customers aren't prepared to
>> > > support it. Is HP prepared to do the same thing with OpenVMS? (just
>> > > food for thought)
>>
>> > > Neil Rieck
>> > > Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
>>
>> > I'm not implying they should provide perpetual support, though
>> > something better than 90 days (I think thats still current) given the
>> > premium pricing would certainly be reasonoable. =A0Call in, handholding=
>,
>> > engineering access, specific problems, programming and configuration
>> > questions, are completely understandable as being a pay-for benefit.
>> > Same with software version upgrades; I don't expect to get v8.4 for
>> > free if I stopped paying for upgrades last year. =A0I'd go so far as
>> > saying ECOs whose sole purpose is to support newer/different hardware
>> > could be reserved without causing any real grief here or for our
>> > customers.
>>
>> > But the ECOs that fix bugs, problems, make systems work the way they
>> > are supposed to, and especially correct security issues... HP pulling
>> > those is an extremely hostile action. =A0Especially to the smaller
>> > customers (like ours) who may only upgrade when they actually upgrade
>> > their box (or make an architecture jump; our last VAX customer is
>> > probably moving to Alpha soon, and we've had three sites do the Alpha
>> > to Itanium). =A0None of them paid software support on their current
>> > boxes prior to purchasing the new one (proper fees were paid on the
>> > new architecture...) yet they could still maintain their systems in a
>> > secure and workable state, with reasonable reassurance that any
>> > significant problems could be dealt with.
>>
>> > That assurance has just been revoked by HP. =A0And so they take that
>> > additional step to conforming to industry mediocre norms... and less
>> > like the storied HP (and Digital) of old. =A0(yeah that sounds like ros=
>e
>> > colored lenses looking back, but support, as well as concern for their
>> > products, and the perception of those products, really was better in
>> > many ways...)
>>
>> > Still need to put on my shareholder hat and write to the board...
>>
>> > Of course I have no doubt they'd trip all over themselves helping us
>> > sell proliants with win2008, exchange, and sql server into any and all
>> > of those small customer sites.
>>
>> Is there much wrong with Proliants that couldn't be fixed by the
>> installation of a decent OS and the blanking out of the HP logo? After
>> all, now that Xeon and IA64 are both based around similar Quickpath
>> infrastructure, inspired by AMD's Hypertransport (which in turn was
>> inspired by... oh I forget, something called Alpha?) how much
>> distinction can there be at the hardware level, and how long can HP
>> afford to run two duplicate hardware engineering+support teams when
>> they seem to think they need insane penny-pinching like this patch
>> download thing?
>>
>> Back to patches: what's the legal situation here? Under what licence
>> are the patches made available, is that licence enforceable, what
>> stops someone other than HP redistributing the patches? Software used
>> to be warranted to conform to the SPD at a minimum; is that still the
>> case? If so, and if patches are need to provide fixes to ensure that
>> conformance to SPD happens, how can providing "conformance to SPD" be
>> a chargeable service? IANAL etc.
>
>
>The legal and ethical way would be for HP to spilt the patches into
>two data bases:
>
>a) Updates - patches for new features and new hardware support:
>require a support agreement.
>
>b) Fixes - patches to correct non-specification conformance and
>security problems: publicly available.
>
>As I commented over in ITRC,
>
>
>"...given two competing software support models to choose from:
>
>1) The model used by the most successful software company to ever
>exist and those successfully competing with that company.
>
>2) The model used by organizations who have failed to compete with
>those following model #1.
>
>HP chooses the model proven by history to be unsuccessful."
>
>Dumb. Really dumb.

HP -- Hopeless and Pathetic. ;)

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

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

In article <i4m479$ins$1@news.albasani.net>, Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> writes:
>On 2010-08-18 18:09, Art Wiens wrote:
>> Anyone else see this at the ITRC main page? :
>>
>> Important note: As of September 18 (or shortly thereafter),
>
>I guess we are still in "shortly thereafter" since
>ftp://ftp.itrc.hp.com/openvms_patches/
>still seems to work just fine.
>
>Maybe best to fetch whatever is the currently latest
>kits, just to be safe... :-)

Anyone have suggestions for "wget" switches to get all of this?

I keep getting a hangup.  I'm thinking the server seem too much
being sucked down from my address and quits.  I've tried using a

--wait=10 --waitretry=10

but no luck.

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

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

In article
<3b7faa0c-9fb7-44ea-9538-3deb62080fbc@k10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Doug Phillips <dphill46@netscape.net> writes: 

> a) Updates - patches for new features and new hardware support:
> require a support agreement.
> 
> b) Fixes - patches to correct non-specification conformance and
> security problems: publicly available.

Makes sense.

Another question: Presumably, when people bought licenses, they knew 
(whether or not it is in the contract I don't know) that patches were 
available for free and perhaps factored that into their price 
calculation.  The new policy changes this retroactively.

In article <00AA23F4.8F8AC301@SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
> In article <i4m479$ins$1@news.albasani.net>, Jan-Erik Soderholm
> <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> writes:
> >On 2010-08-18 18:09, Art Wiens wrote:
> >> Anyone else see this at the ITRC main page? :
> >>
> >> Important note: As of September 18 (or shortly thereafter),
> >
> >I guess we are still in "shortly thereafter" since
> >ftp://ftp.itrc.hp.com/openvms_patches/
> >still seems to work just fine.
> >
> >Maybe best to fetch whatever is the currently latest
> >kits, just to be safe... :-)
> 
> Anyone have suggestions for "wget" switches to get all of this?

a simple wget -r works.

In article <i4mfg9$dvr$1@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>, m.kraemer@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) writes:
>In article <00AA23F4.8F8AC301@SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
>> In article <i4m479$ins$1@news.albasani.net>, Jan-Erik Soderholm
>> <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> writes:
>> >On 2010-08-18 18:09, Art Wiens wrote:
>> >> Anyone else see this at the ITRC main page? :
>> >>
>> >> Important note: As of September 18 (or shortly thereafter),
>> >
>> >I guess we are still in "shortly thereafter" since
>> >ftp://ftp.itrc.hp.com/openvms_patches/
>> >still seems to work just fine.
>> >
>> >Maybe best to fetch whatever is the currently latest
>> >kits, just to be safe... :-)
>> 
>> Anyone have suggestions for "wget" switches to get all of this?
>
>a simple wget -r works.

No here.  I finally go through all of Alpha V6.2 but I'm hung here:


--14:04:21--  ftp://ftp.itrc.hp.com/openvms_patches/alpha/V7.2/VMS72_ACRTL-V0100.PCSI-DCX_AXPEXE
           => `ftp.itrc.hp.com/openvms_patches/alpha/V7.2/VMS72_ACRTL-V0100.PCSI-DCX_AXPEXE'
==> CWD (1) /openvms_patches/alpha/V7.2 ... done.
==> PASV ... done.    ==> RETR VMS72_ACRTL-V0100.PCSI-DCX_AXPEXE ... 
Error in server response, closing control connection.
Retrying.

--14:04:23--  ftp://ftp.itrc.hp.com/openvms_patches/alpha/V7.2/VMS72_ACRTL-V0100.PCSI-DCX_AXPEXE
  (try: 2) => `ftp.itrc.hp.com/openvms_patches/alpha/V7.2/VMS72_ACRTL-V0100.PCSI-DCX_AXPEXE'
Connecting to ftp.itrc.hp.com|15.217.32.52|:21... connected.
Logging in as anonymous ... 

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

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

On 20/08/10 21:15, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article<i4mfg9$dvr$1@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>, m.kraemer@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) writes:
>> In article<00AA23F4.8F8AC301@SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
>>> In article<i4m479$ins$1@news.albasani.net>, Jan-Erik Soderholm
>>> <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com>  writes:
>>>> On 2010-08-18 18:09, Art Wiens wrote:
>>>>> Anyone else see this at the ITRC main page? :
>>>>>
>>>>> Important note: As of September 18 (or shortly thereafter),
>>>>
>>>> I guess we are still in "shortly thereafter" since
>>>> ftp://ftp.itrc.hp.com/openvms_patches/
>>>> still seems to work just fine.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe best to fetch whatever is the currently latest
>>>> kits, just to be safe... :-)
>>>
>>> Anyone have suggestions for "wget" switches to get all of this?
>>
>> a simple wget -r works.
>
> No here.  I finally go through all of Alpha V6.2 but I'm hung here:
>
>
> --14:04:21--  ftp://ftp.itrc.hp.com/openvms_patches/alpha/V7.2/VMS72_ACRTL-V0100.PCSI-DCX_AXPEXE
>             =>  `ftp.itrc.hp.com/openvms_patches/alpha/V7.2/VMS72_ACRTL-V0100.PCSI-DCX_AXPEXE'
> ==>  CWD (1) /openvms_patches/alpha/V7.2 ... done.
> ==>  PASV ... done.    ==>  RETR VMS72_ACRTL-V0100.PCSI-DCX_AXPEXE ...
> Error in server response, closing control connection.
> Retrying.
>
> --14:04:23--  ftp://ftp.itrc.hp.com/openvms_patches/alpha/V7.2/VMS72_ACRTL-V0100.PCSI-DCX_AXPEXE
>    (try: 2) =>  `ftp.itrc.hp.com/openvms_patches/alpha/V7.2/VMS72_ACRTL-V0100.PCSI-DCX_AXPEXE'
> Connecting to ftp.itrc.hp.com|15.217.32.52|:21... connected.
> Logging in as anonymous ...
>
Sometimes PASSIVE mode helps.

-- 
Mike R.
Home: http://alpha.mike-r.com/
QOTD: http://alpha.mike-r.com/php/qotd.php
No Micro$oft products were used in the URLs above, or in preparing this message.
Recommended reading: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#before

VAXman- @Sen
>>HP chooses the model proven by history to be unsuccessful."
>>
>>Dumb. Really dumb.
> 
> HP -- Hopeless and Pathetic. ;)
> 


I ask this honestly:

Is it general consensus that this is truly hopeless and that once HP
announces a decision, it cannot be changed, or is Mr VAXman wrong when
he says it is hopeless ?

In other words, is it worth fighting this, or it is pointless because
the steamroller has too much momentum ?

Are people in HP-UX and NSK side also fighting for this or are they
resigned to accept this ?

In article <ff13k7-kid.ln1@Ubuntu.mike-r.com>, Mike Rechtman <mike@rechtman.com> writes:
>On 20/08/10 21:15, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> In article<i4mfg9$dvr$1@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>, m.kraemer@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) writes:
>>> In article<00AA23F4.8F8AC301@SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
>>>> In article<i4m479$ins$1@news.albasani.net>, Jan-Erik Soderholm
>>>> <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com>  writes:
>>>>> On 2010-08-18 18:09, Art Wiens wrote:
>>>>>> Anyone else see this at the ITRC main page? :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Important note: As of September 18 (or shortly thereafter),
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess we are still in "shortly thereafter" since
>>>>> ftp://ftp.itrc.hp.com/openvms_patches/
>>>>> still seems to work just fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe best to fetch whatever is the currently latest
>>>>> kits, just to be safe... :-)
>>>>
>>>> Anyone have suggestions for "wget" switches to get all of this?
>>>
>>> a simple wget -r works.
>>
>> No here.  I finally go through all of Alpha V6.2 but I'm hung here:
>>
>>
>> --14:04:21--  ftp://ftp.itrc.hp.com/openvms_patches/alpha/V7.2/VMS72_ACRTL-V0100.PCSI-DCX_AXPEXE
>>             =>  `ftp.itrc.hp.com/openvms_patches/alpha/V7.2/VMS72_ACRTL-V0100.PCSI-DCX_AXPEXE'
>> ==>  CWD (1) /openvms_patches/alpha/V7.2 ... done.
>> ==>  PASV ... done.    ==>  RETR VMS72_ACRTL-V0100.PCSI-DCX_AXPEXE ...
>> Error in server response, closing control connection.
>> Retrying.
>>
>> --14:04:23--  ftp://ftp.itrc.hp.com/openvms_patches/alpha/V7.2/VMS72_ACRTL-V0100.PCSI-DCX_AXPEXE
>>    (try: 2) =>  `ftp.itrc.hp.com/openvms_patches/alpha/V7.2/VMS72_ACRTL-V0100.PCSI-DCX_AXPEXE'
>> Connecting to ftp.itrc.hp.com|15.217.32.52|:21... connected.
>> Logging in as anonymous ...
>>
>Sometimes PASSIVE mode helps.

--retry-connrefused did it.

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

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

JF Mezei wrote:
> VAXman- @Sen
>>> HP chooses the model proven by history to be unsuccessful."
>>>
>>> Dumb. Really dumb.
>> HP -- Hopeless and Pathetic. ;)
>>
> 
> 
> I ask this honestly:
> 
> Is it general consensus that this is truly hopeless and that once HP
> announces a decision, it cannot be changed, or is Mr VAXman wrong when
> he says it is hopeless ?
> 
> In other words, is it worth fighting this, or it is pointless because
> the steamroller has too much momentum ?
> 
> Are people in HP-UX and NSK side also fighting for this or are they
> resigned to accept this ?

If VMS is worthless to HP, perhaps they could be persuaded to put the 
code in the Public Domain.

If they really want to play "Dog in the manger", there's really very 
little that we can do about it!

On 2010-08-20 22:14, JF Mezei wrote:
> VAXman- @Sen
>>> HP chooses the model proven by history to be unsuccessful."
>>>
>>> Dumb. Really dumb.
>>
>> HP -- Hopeless and Pathetic. ;)
>>
>
>
> I ask this honestly:
>
> Is it general consensus that this is truly hopeless and that once HP
> announces a decision, it cannot be changed, or is Mr VAXman wrong when
> he says it is hopeless ?
>
> In other words, is it worth fighting this, or it is pointless because
> the steamroller has too much momentum ?
>
> Are people in HP-UX and NSK side also fighting for this or are they
> resigned to accept this ?

"Hopeless" and "Pathetic" are just two alternative interpretations
of "H" and "P" in "HP" used by VAXman long before this issue
with the patches was posted.

Just as much value in that as any child plaing around with words...

Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:

> "Hopeless" and "Pathetic" are just two alternative interpretations
> of "H" and "P" in "HP" used by VAXman long before this issue
> with the patches was posted.


The community is faced with a specific issue of patch availability.

My question stands: it is hopeless to try to fight this move, or is
there a feeling that HP might be responsive and change its mind ?


I find it ironic that as soon as the CEO is replaced by an accountant,
they announce such a bonehead move. I guess the accountant thinks this
will gnerate new revenues.

If this is the shape of things to come at HP, I wouldn't be surprised to
see its stock return to LaCarly levels.

Not trying to defend HP's decision in anyway......

Oracle has the same policy. Any major Oracle release is available
for download from the Oracle web site requiring nothing other than an
email address.

All of the patches and updates are protected inside Metalink and
require username/password
and ofcourse expensive support contract.

So HP is not the first company adopting this policy.

fwiw,

Guy Peleg
Maklee Engineering
www.maklee.com

In article <4c6f0868$0$17811$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei wrote:
>Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>
>> "Hopeless" and "Pathetic" are just two alternative interpretations
>> of "H" and "P" in "HP" used by VAXman long before this issue
>> with the patches was posted.
>
>
>The community is faced with a specific issue of patch availability.
>
>My question stands: it is hopeless to try to fight this move, or is
>there a feeling that HP might be responsive and change its mind ?

I sent an email to openvmsprograms@hp.com, but have yet to receive a reply. 
Folks who feel strongly about this issue should probably do the same.  Even if
the decision stands, someone at HP will know how some of us feel.
[...]

JF Mezei wrote:

> My question stands: it is hopeless to try to fight this move, or is
> there a feeling that HP might be responsive and change its mind ?

   Why ask people who have no control over the decisions, and,
most likely, no relevant knowledge?  Or do you think that the
_feelings_ of anyone here might affect HP?

   I assume that people who think that they know what they're
doing have thought this through about as thoroughly as they're
ever likely to, and we can see the result.  I don't expect
them to make an exception for me (or for others like me), but
I'm open to a pleasant surprise.  Blocking access to my server
from 15.0.0.0/8 should be pretty easy, too, should it come to
that.

JF Mezei schrieb:

> I find it ironic that as soon as the CEO is replaced by an accountant,

did they actually find one? I think not.

> they announce such a bonehead move. I guess the accountant thinks this
> will gnerate new revenues.

BCS (=VMS+HPUX+NSK) is so insignificant within HP,
with 3% of revenue and less than average profits
(unless things have changed over the last 12 months),
that he/she would hardly take notice.
But maybe the managers of BCS took the opportunity
to show the new CEO that they are serious about improving
the revenue of their underperforming division.

> If this is the shape of things to come at HP, I wouldn't be surprised to
> see its stock return to LaCarly levels.

Michael Kraemer wrote:

> did they actually find one? I think not.

When they fired Hurd, they put the account as interim CEO until the
committee finds a permanent one. Lesjack (sp?) is her last name.


> BCS (=VMS+HPUX+NSK) is so insignificant within HP,
> with 3% of revenue and less than average profits
> (unless things have changed over the last 12 months),
> that he/she would hardly take notice.

I am not sure how things are strutured anymore. I am not even sure that
VMS development is part of BCS anymore. BCS may be just hardware now.
The indian division reports to some different dude within HP's hiearchy.

More importantly, in the pissing contest against IBM, HP needs
enterprise service revenues to make claims that it has a bigger
<whatever> than IBM.

While BCS revenues may not be significant, if they end up driving
service revenues, then they are still an strategic part of HP. But if,
in the end, the service side gets more business supporting non-HP
systems, then BCS may not be important at all. We don't know what is true.

The thing is that this move isn't going to generate increase revenues.
If at all, a bad web site to access patches may push customers to get
service from some other outfit which may get better patch distribution
service.

It is one thing to start charging for patches, but remember trhat they
are also moving them to some web based stuff likely to be complex and
breaking many automated procedures setup by customers over the years.

On Aug 21, 2:58=A0am, Michael Kraemer <M.Krae...@gsi.de> wrote:
> JF Mezei schrieb:
>
> > I find it ironic that as soon as the CEO is replaced by an accountant,
>
> did they actually find one? I think not.
>
> > they announce such a bonehead move. I guess the accountant thinks this
> > will gnerate new revenues.
>
> BCS (=3DVMS+HPUX+NSK) is so insignificant within HP,
> with 3% of revenue and less than average profits
> (unless things have changed over the last 12 months),


BCS also includes select x86 based servers

> that he/she would hardly take notice.
> But maybe the managers of BCS took the opportunity
> to show the new CEO that they are serious about improving
> the revenue of their underperforming division.
>
>
>
> > If this is the shape of things to come at HP, I wouldn't be surprised t=
o
> > see its stock return to LaCarly levels.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm looking at this decision from the viewpoint of a software developer and
or third-party software provider.  

Suppose my product exaccerbates a flaw in OpenVMS or is rendered inoperable 
because of a flaw (case in point, the V8.4 VMSINSTAL) and my customer needs
a patch to use the software.  Under the present scheme, said customer would
have purchased OpenVMS and could then download the patch(es) for the OS, if
needed, to use my software.  With this proposed new patch access scheme, if
there is(are) a patch(es) to use my software, the customers must engage HP
to purchase some pricey support contract that gives them access to patch(es)
to use my software.  This will affect me because the customer will see it as
an additional expense to use my software.  Fewer options to run onon the OS
translates to fewer users of the OS.  Another quatraine of the Nostradamus
prophesies for the demise of OpenVMS has been decyphered.

  Oh, the more it changes, the more it stays the same,
  And the hand just re-arranges the players in the game.

  Oh, I had a dream.
  It seemed I stood alone.
  And the veil of all the years,
  Goes sinking from my eyes like a stone.

      -- Al Stewart, Nostradamus

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

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

On Aug 21, 12:18=A0pm, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> I'm looking at this decision from the viewpoint of a software developer a=
nd
> or third-party software provider. =A0
>
> Suppose my product exaccerbates a flaw in OpenVMS or is rendered inoperab=
le
> because of a flaw (case in point, the V8.4 VMSINSTAL) and my customer nee=
ds
> a patch to use the software. =A0Under the present scheme, said customer w=
ould
> have purchased OpenVMS and could then download the patch(es) for the OS, =
if
> needed, to use my software. =A0With this proposed new patch access scheme=
, if
> there is(are) a patch(es) to use my software, the customers must engage H=
P
> to purchase some pricey support contract that gives them access to patch(=
es)
> to use my software. =A0This will affect me because the customer will see =
it as
> an additional expense to use my software. =A0Fewer options to run onon th=
e OS
> translates to fewer users of the OS.


In the ITRC Forum here-> http://preview.tinyurl.com/23gwcs9

Dennis Handly posted:

"Patches for security will still be available."

Still no official publication of that fact that I can find. HP needs
to precisely define their new policy. What they've published so far
has been fraught with confusion, misstatements and buzzword-itis.


> =A0Another quatraine of the Nostradamus
> prophesies for the demise of OpenVMS has been decyphered.
>
> =A0 Oh, the more it changes, the more it stays the same,
> =A0 And the hand just re-arranges the players in the game.
>
> =A0 Oh, I had a dream.
> =A0 It seemed I stood alone.
> =A0 And the veil of all the years,
> =A0 Goes sinking from my eyes like a stone.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 -- Al Stewart, Nostradamus
>

Good one.

We only have to suffer for a couple of more years, anyway.

"The ancient Mayans developed a "Long Count" round calendar that ends
ominously on December 21, 2012. This date is the inspiration for the
name of this Ale."

  -- From the 'Point 2012 Black Ale' bottle label, Stevens Point
Brewery, Wis < www.pointbeer.com >.

Life's short. Drink more good beer. ;-)

In article
<598161ae-8788-4c16-af39-ce55c37a29e2@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Doug Phillips <dphill46@netscape.net> writes: 

> "The ancient Mayans developed a "Long Count" round calendar that ends
> ominously on December 21, 2012. This date is the inspiration for the
> name of this Ale."
> 
>   -- From the 'Point 2012 Black Ale' bottle label, Stevens Point
> Brewery, Wis < www.pointbeer.com >.

Reminds me of the story I heard from a waitress in Melbourne (Australia, 
in case there is another one somewhere) concerning the origin of the 
beer brand "Two Dogs".  Anyone else know it?

Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> In article
> <598161ae-8788-4c16-af39-ce55c37a29e2@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> Doug Phillips<dphill46@netscape.net>  writes:
>
>> "The ancient Mayans developed a "Long Count" round calendar that ends
>> ominously on December 21, 2012. This date is the inspiration for the
>> name of this Ale."
>>
>>    -- From the 'Point 2012 Black Ale' bottle label, Stevens Point
>> Brewery, Wis<  www.pointbeer.com>.
>
> Reminds me of the story I heard from a waitress in Melbourne (Australia,
> in case there is another one somewhere) concerning the origin of the
> beer brand "Two Dogs".  Anyone else know it?

Yes.

And it was (alcoholic) lemonade.

"But tell me, why do you ask such a question, Phillip?"

Guy Peleg schrieb:
> On Aug 21, 2:58 am, Michael Kraemer <M.Krae...@gsi.de> wrote:
> 

>>
>>BCS (=VMS+HPUX+NSK) is so insignificant within HP,
>>with 3% of revenue and less than average profits
>>(unless things have changed over the last 12 months),
> 
> 
> 
> BCS also includes select x86 based servers

would make matters worse, wouldn't it?
(Fraction of non-Wintux even smaller than expected)

On 22/08/2010 5:32 AM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> In article
> <598161ae-8788-4c16-af39-ce55c37a29e2@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> Doug Phillips <dphill46@netscape.net> writes: 
> 
>> "The ancient Mayans developed a "Long Count" round calendar that ends
>> ominously on December 21, 2012. This date is the inspiration for the
>> name of this Ale."
>>
>>   -- From the 'Point 2012 Black Ale' bottle label, Stevens Point
>> Brewery, Wis < www.pointbeer.com >.
> 
> Reminds me of the story I heard from a waitress in Melbourne (Australia, 
> in case there is another one somewhere) concerning the origin of the 
> beer brand "Two Dogs".  Anyone else know it?
> 

Yep, I have fond memories of the TV ads for Two Dogs.  Very, very funny.

"A six legged dog?" ;-)

P.S. If this patch insanity comes to pass, I'm hoping that HP can at
least keep patch cover letters available for free.  If they don't,
people without support contracts won't even know that potential problems
exist on their systems.  That's a place I'd not what to be as a customer.

Jim.
-- 
www.eight-cubed.com

In article <598161ae-8788-4c16-af39-ce55c37a29e2@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Doug Phillips <dphill46@netscape.net> writes:
>On Aug 21, 12:18=A0pm, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> I'm looking at this decision from the viewpoint of a software developer a=
>nd
>> or third-party software provider. =A0
>>
>> Suppose my product exaccerbates a flaw in OpenVMS or is rendered inoperab=
>le
>> because of a flaw (case in point, the V8.4 VMSINSTAL) and my customer nee=
>ds
>> a patch to use the software. =A0Under the present scheme, said customer w=
>ould
>> have purchased OpenVMS and could then download the patch(es) for the OS, =
>if
>> needed, to use my software. =A0With this proposed new patch access scheme=
>, if
>> there is(are) a patch(es) to use my software, the customers must engage H=
>P
>> to purchase some pricey support contract that gives them access to patch(=
>es)
>> to use my software. =A0This will affect me because the customer will see =
>it as
>> an additional expense to use my software. =A0Fewer options to run onon th=
>e OS
>> translates to fewer users of the OS.
>
>
>In the ITRC Forum here-> http://preview.tinyurl.com/23gwcs9
>
>Dennis Handly posted:
>
>"Patches for security will still be available."
>
>Still no official publication of that fact that I can find. HP needs
>to precisely define their new policy. What they've published so far
>has been fraught with confusion, misstatements and buzzword-itis.
>
>
>> =A0Another quatraine of the Nostradamus
>> prophesies for the demise of OpenVMS has been decyphered.
>>
>> =A0 Oh, the more it changes, the more it stays the same,
>> =A0 And the hand just re-arranges the players in the game.
>>
>> =A0 Oh, I had a dream.
>> =A0 It seemed I stood alone.
>> =A0 And the veil of all the years,
>> =A0 Goes sinking from my eyes like a stone.
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 -- Al Stewart, Nostradamus
>>
>
>Good one.
>
>We only have to suffer for a couple of more years, anyway.
>
>"The ancient Mayans developed a "Long Count" round calendar that ends
>ominously on December 21, 2012. This date is the inspiration for the
>name of this Ale."
>
>  -- From the 'Point 2012 Black Ale' bottle label, Stevens Point
>Brewery, Wis < www.pointbeer.com >.
>
>Life's short. Drink more good beer. ;-)

Trust me when I say I won't drink any less.
-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker    VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:

>>Life's short. Drink more good beer. ;-)
> 
> Trust me when I say I won't drink any less.


I have visions of Mr Vaxman having a pipeline built between Ireland and
his New Jersey home to supply his Beer Tap ! (routed via north atlantic
to ensure it stays cold :-)


I have to say however that his argument about his own customers being
negatively affected by this change and stuck without fixes to restore
documented functionality are very very valid.

In the end, 8.3 may become the next 5.5-2 with a lot of people stopping
upgrades because patches for bugs in 8.4 will not be available.

Also:

Considering that 8.4 is the first release under the new engineering
team, that this team has not had the opportunity to prove itself yet, it
is not wise for HP to cut off access to patches.

This should wait at least 1 year just in case 8.4 proves to be buggy and
requiring a number of patches.

On the other hand, the recerse argument could be made. With an unproven
engineering team, HP probably wants to force all VMS customers to get
support contracts to ensure that their problems get resolved.

The signal here is quite clear: don't upgrade unless you have support
contracts.

Corrolary:

If people stop upgrading, then HP can use the same excuse as it used to
justify breaking its promise to produce an 8.* version of VAX VMS:  VAX
customers are not interested in upgrades. (which I have been told
informally was a bogus excuse that was not true at all)


You know what "customers are not interested in upgrades" means...

On Aug 21, 8:29=A0pm, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Corrolary:
>
> If people stop upgrading, then HP can use the same excuse as it used to
> justify breaking its promise to produce an 8.* version of VAX VMS: =A0VAX
> customers are not interested in upgrades. (which I have been told
> informally was a bogus excuse that was not true at all)
>
> You know what "customers are not interested in upgrades" means...

We've limped on for many years with our VAXen falling behind (here and
at customer sites; the last customer may tumble soon to an Alpha, two
abandoned VMS, the rest did architecture upgrades).  The true killer
was the lack of updates for the TCPIP services product... there are SO
many bugs and flaws in V5.3 and HP  was still taking software support
money for quite a while, but never upgraded or fixed the problems.

In article <4c7031a4$0$28663$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Mark Daniel
<mark.daniel@wasd.vsm.com.au> writes: 

> > Reminds me of the story I heard from a waitress in Melbourne (Australia,
> > in case there is another one somewhere) concerning the origin of the
> > beer brand "Two Dogs".  Anyone else know it?
> 
> Yes.

The beer, or the story?

> And it was (alcoholic) lemonade.
> 
> "But tell me, why do you ask such a question, Phillip?"

No particular reason, just general thread-drift.  :-)

In article <4c707bac$0$32445$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes: 

> In the end, 8.3 may become the next 5.5-2 with a lot of people stopping
> upgrades because patches for bugs in 8.4 will not be available.

Does the change apply just to 8.4 and higher?

In article
<3bbb1855-9ec9-4199-ae4c-30e71c9cca1a@v41g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
Rich Jordan <jordan@ccs4vms.com> writes: 

> We've limped on for many years with our VAXen falling behind (here and
> at customer sites; the last customer may tumble soon to an Alpha, two
> abandoned VMS, the rest did architecture upgrades).  The true killer
> was the lack of updates for the TCPIP services product... 

Indeed.  Even if one is happy with current hardware and software for 
one's own application (as many VAX customers are), one has to take the 
outside world into account.  The anti-spam features have improved since 
the last TCPIP available for VAX.

Just saw this note:


HP trumps Dell's 3Par bid with US$1.6 billion offer
http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/cdn/News.asp?id=58880

So on one hand (re: no free OpenVMS patches) HP is transmitting a
message of poverty but on the other hand (re: 3Par bid) HP has got
enough wealth to go shopping, WTF?

NSR

On Aug 18, 11:09=A0am, Art Wiens <awi...@canwest.com> wrote:
> Anyone else see this at the ITRC main page? :
>
> Important note: As of September 18 (or shortly thereafter), HP will insti=
tute a change in the way that Patch services are accessed. Beginning at tha=
t time, Patch access will be through the ITRC support portal. You need to h=
ave a valid ITRC user ID and password and ***** will now also need an activ=
e HP support agreement that includes Software Updates linked to your ITRC p=
rofile to access Patch content and services. *****
>
> "No patches for you! =A0Next!" (Patch Nazi)
>
> And while you're at ITRC staring in disbelief, can you stop in at the VMS=
 Forum and help me with my DCPS problem?
>
> Cheers,
> Art
> --
> "Cheer up ... things could get worse"
> So he did ... and they did!

Has anyone received any usable response from attempts to contact HP
about this?  So far all I've gotten are the automatic acknowledgements
of receipt.  Apparently they're not any more interested in discussing
this matter than most others lately...

In article <6a6c6646-1e5d-431b-82d9-654bccb5e6ee@h19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
 Rich Jordan wrote:
>On Aug 18, 11:09�am, Art Wiens <awi...@canwest.com> wrote:
>> Anyone else see this at the ITRC main page? :
>>
>> Important note: As of September 18 (or shortly thereafter), HP will institute a change in the way that Patch services are accessed. Beginning at that time, Patch access will be through the ITRC support portal. You need to have a valid ITRC user ID and password and ***** will now also need an active HP support agreement that includes Software Updates linked to your ITRC profile to access Patch content and services. *****
[...]
>Has anyone received any usable response from attempts to contact HP
>about this?  So far all I've gotten are the automatic acknowledgements
>of receipt.  Apparently they're not any more interested in discussing
>this matter than most others lately...

I've not even recieved the "courtesy" response to my email.  I've pretty much
given up hope of receiving any response.

BRAD@rabbit.turquoisewitch.com wrote:

> I've not even recieved the "courtesy" response to my email.  I've pretty much
> given up hope of receiving any response.

I don't think the people manning those mailboxes have the authority to
respond. But if they get a substantial number of complaints, they may
pass that on to their bosses who would pass it on to their bosses and so
and and so on until Livermore is told that there is a big customer
backlash about that decision. If Livermore decides to alter the
decision, then some boilerplate message to send to people who had
complained about it.

In article <4c7db37b$0$5055$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> BRAD@rabbit.turquoisewitch.com wrote:
> 
>> I've not even recieved the "courtesy" response to my email.  I've pretty much
>> given up hope of receiving any response.
> 
> I don't think the people manning those mailboxes have the authority to
> respond.

   You think HP actually pays people to read those mailboxes?

On Sep 1, 3:32=A0pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
Koehler) wrote:
> In article <4c7db37b$0$5055$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei=
..spam...@vaxination.ca> writes:
>
> > B...@rabbit.turquoisewitch.com wrote:
>
> >> I've not even recieved the "courtesy" response to my email. =A0I've pr=
etty much
> >> given up hope of receiving any response.
>
> > I don't think the people manning those mailboxes have the authority to
> > respond.
>
> =A0 =A0You think HP actually pays people to read those mailboxes?

Even if no one actually reads these mailboxes, HP probably pay a legal
department, as do many corporates. Now might be time to see if these
good people are actually worth anything - if a suitably worded letter
from a corporate legal department to the relevant HP country manager
(or whoever Legal advise) doesn't get at least a polite response then
at least we have confirmed what many people may already have suspected
about legal departments.

On Sep 1, 11:15=A0am, John Wallace <johnwalla...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sep 1, 3:32=A0pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
>
> Koehler) wrote:
> > In article <4c7db37b$0$5055$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmez=
ei.spam...@vaxination.ca> writes:
>
> > > B...@rabbit.turquoisewitch.com wrote:
>
> > >> I've not even recieved the "courtesy" response to my email. =A0I've =
pretty much
> > >> given up hope of receiving any response.
>
> > > I don't think the people manning those mailboxes have the authority t=
o
> > > respond.
>
> > =A0 =A0You think HP actually pays people to read those mailboxes?
>
> Even if no one actually reads these mailboxes, HP probably pay a legal
> department, as do many corporates. Now might be time to see if these
> good people are actually worth anything - if a suitably worded letter
> from a corporate legal department to the relevant HP country manager
> (or whoever Legal advise) doesn't get at least a polite response then
> at least we have confirmed what many people may already have suspected
> about legal departments.

Well today I received unsolicited HP 'Back to School' email with info
on cool locker clings, and a "Handy and Helpful HP Newsgram" which
appears to have no info about the volumes of preferences I already
made for info at HP in other areas and wants me to start from scratch.

I suppose someone read my letter to the interim CEO and put the (work)
address to use, anyway.  Guess I should be flattered.

On Aug 23, 11:10=A0am, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Just saw this note:
>
> HP trumps Dell's 3Par bid with US$1.6 billion offerhttp://www.itbusiness.=
ca/it/client/en/cdn/News.asp?id=3D58880
>
> So on one hand (re: no free OpenVMS patches) HP is transmitting a
> message of poverty but on the other hand (re: 3Par bid) HP has got
> enough wealth to go shopping, WTF?
>
> NSR

3PAR accepts HP's US$2.4B offer, Dell bows out
http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/Home/News.asp?id=3D59044

Now we know why HP needs another revenue source. You can't go on a
shopping spree or engage in a bidding war without access to lots of
cash.

NSR

Neil Rieck wrote:

> 3PAR accepts HP's US$2.4B offer, Dell bows out
> http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/Home/News.asp?id=59044
> 
> Now we know why HP needs another revenue source. You can't go on a
> shopping spree or engage in a bidding war without access to lots of
> cash.

I find it interesting that despite the lack of a permanent CEO, HP would
pursue major policy changes and major transactions with the accountant
tempoerarily at the helm.

Makes you wonder if Hurd had prevented such moves in the past, and the
board is taking advantage of a void to perform many activities they
couldn't do in the past.

Or perhaps those things had been planned a long time ago and it is just
normal process for them to surface now and are not related to the fact
that HP is without a leader.

On Sep 3, 5:15=A0pm, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Neil Rieck wrote:
> > 3PAR accepts HP's US$2.4B offer, Dell bows out
> >http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/Home/News.asp?id=3D59044
>
> > Now we know why HP needs another revenue source. You can't go on a
> > shopping spree or engage in a bidding war without access to lots of
> > cash.
>
> I find it interesting that despite the lack of a permanent CEO, HP would
> pursue major policy changes and major transactions with the accountant
> tempoerarily at the helm.
>
> Makes you wonder if Hurd had prevented such moves in the past, and the
> board is taking advantage of a void to perform many activities they
> couldn't do in the past.
>
> Or perhaps those things had been planned a long time ago and it is just
> normal process for them to surface now and are not related to the fact
> that HP is without a leader.

Like I said previously, it makes you wonder if his secretary was
cleaning up his desk, found a proposal for buying 3Par, didn't know if
it was treasure or trash so she sent it in :-)

NSR

In article <4c81658e$0$2097$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> 
> Makes you wonder if Hurd had prevented such moves in the past, and the
> board is taking advantage of a void to perform many activities they
> couldn't do in the past.

   Hurd is showing up at Oracle.  So now maybe he can play with Sun like
   he did with HP.

On Sep 7, 10:18=A0am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
Koehler) wrote:
> In article <4c81658e$0$2097$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei=
..spam...@vaxination.ca> writes:
>
>
>
> > Makes you wonder if Hurd had prevented such moves in the past, and the
> > board is taking advantage of a void to perform many activities they
> > couldn't do in the past.
>
> =A0 =A0Hurd is showing up at Oracle. =A0So now maybe he can play with Sun=
 like
> =A0 =A0he did with HP.

I guess Oracle didn't think the accusations of impropriety against
Hurd at HP were that big a deal.

I'm not a market watcher, but HP's stock went down on the news of them
getting rid of Hurd while Oracle's went up on the news of Oracle
acquiring Hurd. I wonder if the HP board made a mistake?

NSR

Neil Rieck wrote:
> On Sep 7, 10:18 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
> Koehler) wrote:
>> In article <4c81658e$0$2097$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Makes you wonder if Hurd had prevented such moves in the past, and the
>>> board is taking advantage of a void to perform many activities they
>>> couldn't do in the past.
>>    Hurd is showing up at Oracle.  So now maybe he can play with Sun like
>>    he did with HP.
> 
> I guess Oracle didn't think the accusations of impropriety against
> Hurd at HP were that big a deal.
> 
> I'm not a market watcher, but HP's stock went down on the news of them
> getting rid of Hurd while Oracle's went up on the news of Oracle
> acquiring Hurd. I wonder if the HP board made a mistake?
> 

The available evidence suggests that the stock holders think so!

Neil Rieck wrote:

> I'm not a market watcher, but HP's stock went down on the news of them
> getting rid of Hurd while Oracle's went up on the news of Oracle
> acquiring Hurd. I wonder if the HP board made a mistake?


In fairness to HP. If they had agreed to hide his wrongdoing under the
carpet, his mistress^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H contract worker might have spilled
the beans, and made HP look bad for hiding this.

Considering how Hurd has done very little to shore up its own enterprise
platforms during his tenure, I am not sure what he will do to
Sun/Oracle. Hurd grew enterprise through acquisition of EDS.

JF Mezei schrieb:

> Considering how Hurd has done very little to shore up its own enterprise
> platforms during his tenure, I am not sure what he will do to
> Sun/Oracle. Hurd grew enterprise through acquisition of EDS.

At HP, Hurd had to follow the party line
set out by the likes of Belluzzo and Fiorina,
i.e. focus on "commodity", with "enterprise"
relegated to some insignificant sideline.
Oracle/Sun otoh is focussed on "enterprise".

On Sep 7, 11:32=A0pm, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Neil Rieck wrote:
> > I'm not a market watcher, but HP's stock went down on the news of them
> > getting rid of Hurd while Oracle's went up on the news of Oracle
> > acquiring Hurd. I wonder if the HP board made a mistake?
>
> In fairness to HP. If they had agreed to hide his wrongdoing under the
> carpet, his mistress^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H contract worker might have spilled
> the beans, and made HP look bad for hiding this.
>
> Considering how Hurd has done very little to shore up its own enterprise
> platforms during his tenure, I am not sure what he will do to
> Sun/Oracle. Hurd grew enterprise through acquisition of EDS.

My ONLY reason for questioning the track record of HP's recent board
(post merger with Compaq) was because of the wire-tapping stuff
instigated by Patty which came to light after the departure of Tom
Perkins. I was shocked by this behavior and wondered if anyone was
making technical decisions there when many seemed to be obsessed with
X-files activities. No wonder OpenVMS wasn't being promoted. They
thought they were secret agents more than an IS/IT company.

On a related note, I just saw this item on the web:

"Hewlett-Packard Co. is suing former CEO Mark Hurd to stop him from
taking a job at rival Oracle Corp."

They claim Hurd is taking HP secrets to Oracle so will be violating
NDAs as well as non-comp agreements. How much do you want to bet that
these agreements can't be enforced in a California court? Hurd could
just claim that he didn't leak HP data at Oracle.

NSR

NSR

On Aug 18, 11:09=A0am, Art Wiens <awi...@canwest.com> wrote:
> Anyone else see this at the ITRC main page? :
>
> Important note: As of September 18 (or shortly thereafter), HP will insti=
tute a change in the way that Patch services are accessed. Beginning at tha=
t time, Patch access will be through the ITRC support portal. You need to h=
ave a valid ITRC user ID and password and ***** will now also need an activ=
e HP support agreement that includes Software Updates linked to your ITRC p=
rofile to access Patch content and services. *****
>
> "No patches for you! =A0Next!" (Patch Nazi)
>
> And while you're at ITRC staring in disbelief, can you stop in at the VMS=
 Forum and help me with my DCPS problem?
>
> Cheers,
> Art
> --
> "Cheer up ... things could get worse"
> So he did ... and they did!

Per a post on the HPUX boards on ITRC implementation has been delayed,
probably for at least a week.  If any new ECOs come out this week,
make sure you grab them (and hope they aren't buggy).

I hope this is an indication that the decision is being reconsidered,
but I suspect they just ran into some bugs and need to fix them.

Still no response at all to any query sent (other than autoresponders)
except for getting added to HP's stupid consumer mailing lists.  I
guess a customer/reseller/VAR/shareholder doesn't even rate a
boilerplate response anymore.

On Aug 18, 11:09=A0am, Art Wiens <awi...@canwest.com> wrote:
> Anyone else see this at the ITRC main page? :
>
> Important note: As of September 18 (or shortly thereafter), HP will insti=
tute a change in the way that Patch services are accessed. Beginning at tha=
t time, Patch access will be through the ITRC support portal. You need to h=
ave a valid ITRC user ID and password and ***** will now also need an activ=
e HP support agreement that includes Software Updates linked to your ITRC p=
rofile to access Patch content and services. *****
>
> "No patches for you! =A0Next!" (Patch Nazi)
>
> And while you're at ITRC staring in disbelief, can you stop in at the VMS=
 Forum and help me with my DCPS problem?
>
> Cheers,
> Art
> --
> "Cheer up ... things could get worse"
> So he did ... and they did!

Ian Miller posted an update to the ITRC thread a few hours ago; I
didn't see it here so I'm just re-posting it as is.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
The latest official news

"All HP customers & partners can currently continue to access the
required patches either way, through the usual and current FTP process
or through new ITRC-SAID process, and this will be available until Oct
5th. HP has not triggered a hard stop on the 18th as communicated but
have both solutions active for a couple extra weeks to ease the
transition of our millions of users worldwide."

So 5th October is the date to remember.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

In article
<3a32db4d-b0be-41b9-a614-b5c9ebbe15b1@30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Rich
Jordan <jordan@ccs4vms.com> writes: 

> So 5th October is the date to remember.

Should it be remembered as the date after which no hobbyists could 
obtain patches?

In article <i7tms8$7qe$3@online.de>, helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---undress to reply) writes:
> In article
> <3a32db4d-b0be-41b9-a614-b5c9ebbe15b1@30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Rich
> Jordan <jordan@ccs4vms.com> writes: 
> 
>> So 5th October is the date to remember.
> 
> Should it be remembered as the date after which no hobbyists could 
> obtain patches?

   5th.  25th.  Anyone else get toickled by this reminder?

Question:

In the current HP business practices and product numbering environment,

it is possible to purchase the rights to 8.4 and not get any support as
part of that purchase ?

For isntance, a customer has no support contract and buys the right to
upgrade to 8.4. Would such automatically include support contract for 6
or 12 months ? Or would it include only the right to upgrade and no
right to support ?


If it is possible to purchase 8.4 without any support attached to it,
then, because of the serious bugs (sur as DIRECTORY command) in the
product, this product in non compliant and HP should be providing
patches to those custoemrs who have purhcased 8.4 even if without support.

When serious bugs are discovered in a car, the manufacturers are forced
to provide patches for free to all car owners, even those past
warrantee/support. In the car industry, it is called a "recall".

In the case of 8.4, we're not talking about improvements, we are talking
about fixing significant bugs that were not present in previous versions.

There are costs to replacing an experienced VMS engineering team with a
commodity workforce. Realistically, you have to expect lower quality
until the new team ramps up its experience level. And you have to accept
that due to lower quality, you will need to make patches available to
all customers, whether on contract or not during this period.

Because of the changes to VMS engineering, HP needs to make an exception
to its "only support customers get patches" policy at least for the next
couple of years until the new VMS team has proven itself.

On 2010-09-30 22:56, JF Mezei wrote:
> Question:
>
> In the current HP business practices and product numbering environment,
>
> it is possible to purchase the rights to 8.4 and not get any support as
> part of that purchase ?
>
> For isntance, a customer has no support contract and buys the right to
> upgrade to 8.4. Would such automatically include support contract for 6
> or 12 months ? Or would it include only the right to upgrade and no
> right to support ?
>
>
> If it is possible to purchase 8.4 without any support attached to it,
> then, because of the serious bugs (sur as DIRECTORY command) in the
> product, this product in non compliant and HP should be providing
> patches to those custoemrs who have purhcased 8.4 even if without support.
>
> When serious bugs are discovered in a car, the manufacturers are forced
> to provide patches for free to all car owners, even those past
> warrantee/support. In the car industry, it is called a "recall".
>
> In the case of 8.4, we're not talking about improvements, we are talking
> about fixing significant bugs that were not present in previous versions.
>
> There are costs to replacing an experienced VMS engineering team with a
> commodity workforce. Realistically, you have to expect lower quality
> until the new team ramps up its experience level. And you have to accept
> that due to lower quality, you will need to make patches available to
> all customers, whether on contract or not during this period.
>
> Because of the changes to VMS engineering, HP needs to make an exception
> to its "only support customers get patches" policy at least for the next
> couple of years until the new VMS team has proven itself.

It will be interesting to see/hear if this will be on the agenda
on the VMS TUD days (14-15 Oct) in Stockholm I will attend.
At least in the Q/A session...

In article <4ca4f973$0$19553$c3e8da3$c0979eb3@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes: 

> Question:
> 
> In the current HP business practices and product numbering environment,

Does such a uniform business policy exist?

> it is possible to purchase the rights to 8.4 and not get any support as
> part of that purchase ?

My guess is that you can buy anything you want.

> For isntance, a customer has no support contract and buys the right to
> upgrade to 8.4. Would such automatically include support contract for 6
> or 12 months ? Or would it include only the right to upgrade and no
> right to support ?

Read the fine print.

> If it is possible to purchase 8.4 without any support attached to it,
> then, because of the serious bugs (sur as DIRECTORY command) in the
> product, this product in non compliant and HP should be providing
> patches to those custoemrs who have purhcased 8.4 even if without support.

Unless the fine print (or even the big print) says "AS IS", "NO
WARRANTY" etc.

> In the case of 8.4, we're not talking about improvements, we are talking
> about fixing significant bugs that were not present in previous versions.

I agree.  However, I don't think you can legally force HP into providing 
free patches.

> Because of the changes to VMS engineering, HP needs to make an exception
> to its "only support customers get patches" policy at least for the next
> couple of years until the new VMS team has proven itself.

Couldn't agree more, but I don't think you can leverage it legally.

In article <i832fj$198$1@news.albasani.net>, Jan-Erik Soderholm
<jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> writes: 

> It will be interesting to see/hear if this will be on the agenda
> on the VMS TUD days (14-15 Oct) in Stockholm I will attend.
> At least in the Q/A session...

There are lots of TUDs coming up soon in various places.  Everyone 
interested in this should raise the issue.

On 9/30/2010 4:56 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> it is possible to purchase the rights to 8.4 and not get any support as
> part of that purchase ?
>
> For isntance, a customer has no support contract and buys the right to
> upgrade to 8.4. Would such automatically include support contract for 6
> or 12 months ? Or would it include only the right to upgrade and no
> right to support ?
>
>
> If it is possible to purchase 8.4 without any support attached to it,
> then, because of the serious bugs (sur as DIRECTORY command) in the
> product, this product in non compliant and HP should be providing
> patches to those custoemrs who have purhcased 8.4 even if without support.
>
> When serious bugs are discovered in a car, the manufacturers are forced
> to provide patches for free to all car owners, even those past
> warrantee/support. In the car industry, it is called a "recall".
>
> In the case of 8.4, we're not talking about improvements, we are talking
> about fixing significant bugs that were not present in previous versions.
>
> There are costs to replacing an experienced VMS engineering team with a
> commodity workforce. Realistically, you have to expect lower quality
> until the new team ramps up its experience level. And you have to accept
> that due to lower quality, you will need to make patches available to
> all customers, whether on contract or not during this period.
>
> Because of the changes to VMS engineering, HP needs to make an exception
> to its "only support customers get patches" policy at least for the next
> couple of years until the new VMS team has proven itself.

I'm not going to hold my breath while waiting!

In article <Zc74GNpyW0nN@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
 koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote:

> In article <RpVao.220470$5K1.218080@unlimited.newshosting.com>, "Jeff 
> Goodwin" <jgoodwin@maine.rrr-r.com> writes:
> > 
> > No other major software vendor that we deal with distributes patches on the 
> > honor system.
> 
>    I never have to supply an account or password to get patches from
>    Apple or MicroSlop.  And in the latter case, I don't think I could
>    type fast enough to keep up if I did.

Chuckle. On Friday I made the mistake of installing a Windows system and 
letting it download patches. Any other day would have been fine but we 
had been advised to disconnect all delicate kit for Saturday morning 
electrical work.

"Processing update 1 out of 70
Please do not switch off"

 wasn't what I wanted to see when I had a train to catch. Needless to 
say I missed that, and the next one too.

-- 
Paul Sture

On Sep 28, 5:31=A0pm, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
undress to reply) wrote:
> In article
> <3a32db4d-b0be-41b9-a614-b5c9ebbe1...@30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Rich
>
> Jordan <jor...@ccs4vms.com> writes:
> > So 5th October is the date to remember.
>
> Should it be remembered as the date after which no hobbyists could
> obtain patches?

Well, I'm a hobbyist, and as of this morning, I still had access.
Shall I try again tomorrow?

In article <d1794750-462d-411c-ab5b-2e3347157761@28g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Brad Hamilton <bradford.hamilton@gmail.com> writes:
>On Sep 28, 5:31=A0pm, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
>undress to reply) wrote:
>> In article
>> <3a32db4d-b0be-41b9-a614-b5c9ebbe1...@30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Rich
>>
>> Jordan <jor...@ccs4vms.com> writes:
>> > So 5th October is the date to remember.
>>
>> Should it be remembered as the date after which no hobbyists could
>> obtain patches?
>
>Well, I'm a hobbyist, and as of this morning, I still had access.
>Shall I try again tomorrow?

Sure.  But since there are still no patches at all for all of the bugs in
V8.4, whether this FTP patch access is closed down or not is moot AFAIAC.

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

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

On 2010-10-05 15:51, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article<d1794750-462d-411c-ab5b-2e3347157761@28g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Brad Hamilton<bradford.hamilton@gmail.com>  writes:
>> On Sep 28, 5:31=A0pm, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
>> undress to reply) wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <3a32db4d-b0be-41b9-a614-b5c9ebbe1...@30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Rich
>>>
>>> Jordan<jor...@ccs4vms.com>  writes:
>>>> So 5th October is the date to remember.
>>>
>>> Should it be remembered as the date after which no hobbyists could
>>> obtain patches?
>>
>> Well, I'm a hobbyist, and as of this morning, I still had access.
>> Shall I try again tomorrow?
>
> Sure.  But since there are still no patches at all for all of the bugs in
> V8.4, whether this FTP patch access is closed down or not is moot AFAIAC.
>

The VMS84A_UPDATE-V0100 kit has 8 fixes listed
under "Problems addressed in this kit".

In article <i8fc74$ndm$1@news.albasani.net>, Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> writes:
>On 2010-10-05 15:51, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> In article<d1794750-462d-411c-ab5b-2e3347157761@28g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Brad Hamilton<bradford.hamilton@gmail.com>  writes:
>>> On Sep 28, 5:31=A0pm, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
>>> undress to reply) wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <3a32db4d-b0be-41b9-a614-b5c9ebbe1...@30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Rich
>>>>
>>>> Jordan<jor...@ccs4vms.com>  writes:
>>>>> So 5th October is the date to remember.
>>>>
>>>> Should it be remembered as the date after which no hobbyists could
>>>> obtain patches?
>>>
>>> Well, I'm a hobbyist, and as of this morning, I still had access.
>>> Shall I try again tomorrow?
>>
>> Sure.  But since there are still no patches at all for all of the bugs in
>> V8.4, whether this FTP patch access is closed down or not is moot AFAIAC.
>>
>
>The VMS84A_UPDATE-V0100 kit has 8 fixes listed
>under "Problems addressed in this kit".

Too late to check.  The ftp site contents are gone.

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

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

On Oct 5, 8:50=A0am, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
[...]

> Too late to check. =A0The ftp site contents are gone.

And with that, "VMS is dead, long live VMS!"  :-(

   -Ken

On Oct 5, 10:50=A0am, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <i8fc74$nd...@news.albasani.net>, Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik=
..soderh...@telia.com> writes:
> >On 2010-10-05 15:51, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> >> In article<d1794750-462d-411c-ab5b-2e3347157...@28g2000yqm.googlegroup=
s.com>, Brad Hamilton<bradford.hamil...@gmail.com> =A0writes:
> >>> On Sep 28, 5:31=3DA0pm, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helb=
ig---
> >>> undress to reply) wrote:
> >>>> In article
> >>>> <3a32db4d-b0be-41b9-a614-b5c9ebbe1...@30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, =
Rich
>
> >>>> Jordan<jor...@ccs4vms.com> =A0writes:
> >>>>> So 5th October is the date to remember.
>
> >>>> Should it be remembered as the date after which no hobbyists could
> >>>> obtain patches?
>
> >>> Well, I'm a hobbyist, and as of this morning, I still had access.
> >>> Shall I try again tomorrow?
>
> >> Sure. =A0But since there are still no patches at all for all of the bu=
gs in
> >> V8.4, whether this FTP patch access is closed down or not is moot AFAI=
AC.
>
> >The VMS84A_UPDATE-V0100 kit has 8 fixes listed
> >under "Problems addressed in this kit".
>
> Too late to check. =A0The ftp site contents are gone.
>
> --
> VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker =A0 =A0VAXman(at)TMESIS(=
dot)ORG
>
> All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
> All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

Yesterday there was a SYS V1 for Alpha VMS V8.4 at the site, so there
was one last patch beyond UPDATE V1.  I didn't see anything beyond
UPDATE V3 for the itanium.

I did send one more note to the new CEO, since the old CEO thought I
just wanted to be on the HP consumer toy list.  Maybe he'll send me a
coupon for 10% off ink or flashy bling for a toy laptop.

In article <00AA480C.02095549@SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman- 
@SendSpamHere.ORG writes: 

> Too late to check.  The ftp site contents are gone.


                                    Welcome
  __________________________________________________________________________


Welcome to the IT Resource Center ftp server
------------------------------------------------------

You are user 26, and there is a limit of 2000 simultaneous accesses.

Log in as user "anonymous" (using your e-mail address as your password).

Note that as of Sept 17, 2010, HP-UX, OpenVMS, True64, and other
platform patches are no longer available via anonymous ftp but
now require support entitlement.  Please read the file
"CRITICAL.README.Patch.access.update.txt" for more information
on accessing Patch services.

Oct  5 19:14  text/plain       CRITICAL.README.Patch.access.update.txt  1Kb

As of October 5, HP has changed the way patch services and content are accessed
..
The changes implemented include:

*  Patch access is now thru the ITRC portal at www.itrc.hp.com. You need to
   register for a valid ITRC user ID and password and will now also need an
   active HP support agreement that includes Software Updates linked to your
   ITRC profile to access Patch content and services. Please review the article

   "What's New on the ITRC" located on the ITRC homepage for more information.

*  With the exception of the hardware enablement (HWE) patch bundles, patches will
   no longer be available through the ITRC FTP servers.  These servers include:

   ftp.itrc.hp.com, us-ffs.external.hp.com, europe-ffs.external.hp.com, g1u1296.austin.hp.com
   and g2u0723.austin.hp.com.

*  Customers running Software Assistant (SWA) must download a new (no-charge) version
   of SWA, version C.02.75.  This new version of SWA is available as of October 6, and
   can be accessed at www.hp.com/go/swa.

*  If you need to obtain support coverage, please contact your local HP officeor
   representative or visit www.hp.com/go/contacthp

*  For more information, please read the FAQs at
   www.itrc.hp.com/service/cki/docDisplay.do?docLocale=en&docId=emr_na-c02476621


Thank you

He's dead, Jim.

Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:

> Note that as of Sept 17, 2010, HP-UX, OpenVMS, True64, and other
> platform patches are no longer available via anonymous ftp but
> now require support entitlement.  Please read the file
> "CRITICAL.README.Patch.access.update.txt" for more information
> on accessing Patch services.


I think I have figured out why they have done this. They know that the
few remaining paying customers for VMS don't talk. They know that the
many enthousiasts that remain do talk. By blocking tyhem from access to
patches, there won't be any public discussions on the quality of the
patches !!!

So HP is doing this to prevent public discussion on the qualitty of the
work done in India.

In article <4cabb3da$0$1554$c3e8da3$e408f015@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
>Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
>
>> Note that as of Sept 17, 2010, HP-UX, OpenVMS, True64, and other
>> platform patches are no longer available via anonymous ftp but
>> now require support entitlement.  Please read the file
>> "CRITICAL.README.Patch.access.update.txt" for more information
>> on accessing Patch services.
>
>
>I think I have figured out why they have done this. They know that the
>few remaining paying customers for VMS don't talk. They know that the
>many enthousiasts that remain do talk. By blocking tyhem from access to
>patches, there won't be any public discussions on the quality of the
>patches !!!

There won't be any impetus to produce the patches for the *many* known
bugs in V8.4 either now that those wheels that squeak the loudest about
these many known bugs can't get them!  This is only another of the many
ways HP is trying to hurry sundown on VMS.



>So HP is doing this to prevent public discussion on the qualitty of the
>work done in India.

In Nov. it will be 1 year since I accepted a job to modify a VMSINSTAL
procedure of several thousands of lines fo DCL.  The payday was to be
when the kit was compete and viable for V8.4.  As we all know by now,
VMSINSTAL was fucked up in V8.4 and I was promised a patch for it.  I
doubt now that I'll ever see a dime for all the effort that I put into 
the project and I doubt I will ever see the VMSINSTAL fix too.

Maybe I can recoup my monies pushing a vegan hot-dog cart at the next
Bootcamp?

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

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>  This is only another of the many
> ways HP is trying to hurry sundown on VMS.

While I have been known to concuct one or two conspiracy theories, I
don't think this bonehead move was directed at VMS since HP-UX and
True-64 (and I assume NSK) are also in the same boat.

On Apple's server product, patches are not only free, but there is
software that automatically warns you of their availability if they
apply to your system.


What is needed now is to find a vulnerability in VMS and/or HP-UX and
get the community to become victims of some virus/trojan/prank and make
thsi very public and make sure the media knows that because HP has
widthdrawn patch distribution, a large part of the user base will
forever remain vulnerable to such nasties.


> Maybe I can recoup my monies pushing a vegan hot-dog cart at the next
> Bootcamp?

Couldn't you change your kitinstal.com procedure(s) to use BACKUP to
restore savesets instead of the callable vmsinstall.com subroutines that
call backup and  now include the check for the HP signature ?

Yeah, you'd still get that prompt when the .A saveset is extracted, but
afterwards, you would't be bothered by that "HP signature" stuff anymore.

On 6/10/2010 7:54 AM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> In article <00AA480C.02095549@SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman- 
> @SendSpamHere.ORG writes: 
> 
>> Too late to check.  The ftp site contents are gone.
> 
> 
>                                     Welcome
>   __________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Welcome to the IT Resource Center ftp server
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 
> You are user 26, and there is a limit of 2000 simultaneous accesses.
> 
> Log in as user "anonymous" (using your e-mail address as your password).
> 
> Note that as of Sept 17, 2010, HP-UX, OpenVMS, True64, and other
> platform patches are no longer available via anonymous ftp but
> now require support entitlement.  Please read the file
> "CRITICAL.README.Patch.access.update.txt" for more information
> on accessing Patch services.
> 
> Oct  5 19:14  text/plain       CRITICAL.README.Patch.access.update.txt  1Kb
> 
> As of October 5, HP has changed the way patch services and content are accessed
> .
> The changes implemented include:
> 
> *  Patch access is now thru the ITRC portal at www.itrc.hp.com. You need to
>    register for a valid ITRC user ID and password and will now also need an
>    active HP support agreement that includes Software Updates linked to your
>    ITRC profile to access Patch content and services. Please review the article
> 
>    "What's New on the ITRC" located on the ITRC homepage for more information.
> 
> *  With the exception of the hardware enablement (HWE) patch bundles, patches will
>    no longer be available through the ITRC FTP servers.  These servers include:
> 
>    ftp.itrc.hp.com, us-ffs.external.hp.com, europe-ffs.external.hp.com, g1u1296.austin.hp.com
>    and g2u0723.austin.hp.com.
> 
> *  Customers running Software Assistant (SWA) must download a new (no-charge) version
>    of SWA, version C.02.75.  This new version of SWA is available as of October 6, and
>    can be accessed at www.hp.com/go/swa.
> 
> *  If you need to obtain support coverage, please contact your local HP officeor
>    representative or visit www.hp.com/go/contacthp
> 
> *  For more information, please read the FAQs at
>    www.itrc.hp.com/service/cki/docDisplay.do?docLocale=en&docId=emr_na-c02476621
> 
> 
> Thank you
> 
> He's dead, Jim.
> 

I'm wondering why this hasn't been reported and held up to ridicule in
the wider press.  We're seeing comments on it here, but I'm yet to see
an industry commentator deride it.  Do they even know (or care)?
Considering this is HP operating system wide, and not just OpenVMS,
you'd think that a lot of people would be annoyed.

For the record, my patch syndication page is officially dead unless HP
reverses themselves on this.  I think I'll add a "call to arms" post to
the feeds every couple of weeks...

Jim.
-- 
www.eight-cubed.com

Jim Duff wrote:

> For the record, my patch syndication page is officially dead unless HP
> reverses themselves on this.  I think I'll add a "call to arms" post to
> the feeds every couple of weeks...

One would have to contact the HP-UX user group and see what they have to
say about it. If most HP=UX customers have support contracts, perhaps it
isn't an issue to them.


Perhaps VMS is unique because:
	-hobbysist programme

	-large number of "ex" customers who still run VMS but no longer
	 buy support contracts.

In article <4cabc85c$0$30090$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
>VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>>  This is only another of the many
>> ways HP is trying to hurry sundown on VMS.
>
>While I have been known to concuct one or two conspiracy theories, I
>don't think this bonehead move was directed at VMS since HP-UX and
>True-64 (and I assume NSK) are also in the same boat.
>
>On Apple's server product, patches are not only free, but there is
>software that automatically warns you of their availability if they
>apply to your system.
>
>
>What is needed now is to find a vulnerability in VMS and/or HP-UX and
>get the community to become victims of some virus/trojan/prank and make
>thsi very public and make sure the media knows that because HP has
>widthdrawn patch distribution, a large part of the user base will
>forever remain vulnerable to such nasties.

Good luck with that.  I'm wanting to know how they will support the DSPP
community with this lockdown.  I'd *thought* that the whole DSPP program
was to get products on their platforms.  If the development systems used
by DSPP product providers are crippled, there won't be any DSPP enabled
products.  I'm not one to install a great many patches but presently I'm
crippled with V8.4 bugs that mean I simply will not provide product for
V8.4. 



>> Maybe I can recoup my monies pushing a vegan hot-dog cart at the next
>> Bootcamp?
>
>Couldn't you change your kitinstal.com procedure(s) to use BACKUP to
>restore savesets instead of the callable vmsinstall.com subroutines that
>call backup and  now include the check for the HP signature ?
>
>Yeah, you'd still get that prompt when the .A saveset is extracted, but
>afterwards, you would't be bothered by that "HP signature" stuff anymore.

Yeah, I could just install a new SYS$SYSTEM:HPBINARYCHECKER.EXE!  What a
shortsighted boondoggle this kit signing nonsense.

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

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

In article <4cac4971$0$756$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> Jim Duff wrote:
> 
> > For the record, my patch syndication page is officially dead unless HP
> > reverses themselves on this.  I think I'll add a "call to arms" post to
> > the feeds every couple of weeks...
> 
> One would have to contact the HP-UX user group and see what they have to
> say about it. If most HP=UX customers have support contracts, perhaps it
> isn't an issue to them.

Just as on VMS, those whose business depends on the affected platforms
would (should !) have a support contract, so no change here.
And every HP-UX hobbyist knows somebody who knows somebody who
will have access to the future patches.
So the bottom line will be no measurable increase in revenue,
but a lot of annoyance for users, even the paying ones.
I wonder when/if IBM will follow that craze.

> 
> Perhaps VMS is unique because:
> 	-hobbysist programme
> 
> 	-large number of "ex" customers who still run VMS but no longer
> 	 buy support contracts.
> 

On Oct 6, 4:30=A0am, m.krae...@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) wrote:
[...]
> Just as on VMS, those whose business depends on the affected platforms
> would (should !) have a support contract, so no change here.
> And every HP-UX hobbyist knows somebody who knows somebody who
> will have access to the future patches.

I'm wondering if this (sharing patches) is considered
legitimate given HP's new patch access policy.  I'd
expect anyone attempting to do this ad hoc with
VMS patches might well expect a letter from HP's
legal department.

OTOH, I wonder if David Cathay could manage to
strike an agreement with the powers that be to
make these available from the OpenVMS Hobbiest
site?  Is anyone here in contact with David?  Bill
Pedersen?

I'll also throw out the idea that I would (or might)
be willing to pay a modest right-to-copy fee to HP,
say US$50/year, to get access to the patches.
What I don't understand is how *any* small user,
whether a mom & pop business or a hobbiest,
can possibly be expected to pay the $$$ for an
HP software support contract!

      -Ken

In article <69ec6fb1-68e8-4c4a-a191-07443a467790@e34g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
	Ken Fairfield <ken.fairfield@gmail.com> writes:
> On Oct 6, 4:30�am, m.krae...@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) wrote:
> [...]
>> Just as on VMS, those whose business depends on the affected platforms
>> would (should !) have a support contract, so no change here.
>> And every HP-UX hobbyist knows somebody who knows somebody who
>> will have access to the future patches.
> I'm wondering if this (sharing patches) is considered
> legitimate given HP's new patch access policy.  I'd

New policy or not, I would expect it was illegal.  HP may have turned
a blind eye towards it, but that may not continue.

> expect anyone attempting to do this ad hoc with
> VMS patches might well expect a letter from HP's
> legal department.
> OTOH, I wonder if David Cathay could manage to
> strike an agreement with the powers that be to
> make these available from the OpenVMS Hobbiest
> site?  Is anyone here in contact with David?  Bill
> Pedersen?
> I'll also throw out the idea that I would (or might)
> be willing to pay a modest right-to-copy fee to HP,
> say US$50/year, to get access to the patches.

What would be their incentive?  They already make them available for
a fee.  ;-)  I always think back to the response I got when asking
for permission to use Ultrix-32 (even after it was well known that
people had been doing it for years).  The answer was a quick and
unequivocal "No".  

> What I don't understand is how *any* small user,
> whether a mom & pop business or a hobbiest,
> can possibly be expected to pay the $$$ for an
> HP software support contract!

They are not HP's interest.  Unless they are using PC's and Inkjet
Printers.

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 <std.disclaimer.h>   

In article <8h3mmhFgc1U9@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill
Gunshannon) writes:
> 
> They are not HP's interest.  Unless they are using PC's and Inkjet
> Printers.

Maybe they could bundle a quarterly patch CD/DVD with each
ink/toner cartridge?

"Bill Gunshannon" <billg999@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message 
news:8h3mmhFgc1U9@mid.individual.net...
> In article 
> <69ec6fb1-68e8-4c4a-a191-07443a467790@e34g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> Ken Fairfield <ken.fairfield@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Oct 6, 4:30 am, m.krae...@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Just as on VMS, those whose business depends on the affected platforms
>>> would (should !) have a support contract, so no change here.
>>> And every HP-UX hobbyist knows somebody who knows somebody who
>>> will have access to the future patches.
>> I'm wondering if this (sharing patches) is considered
>> legitimate given HP's new patch access policy.  I'd
>
> New policy or not, I would expect it was illegal.  HP may have turned
> a blind eye towards it, but that may not continue.
>

I am not in a position to comment on this issue, other than to say this was 
not a VMS driven decision - and from what I understand a support contract 
was always required for patches - but not enforced by the website.  I would 
suggest that someone involved in the Hobbiest community directly contact 
someone like John Egolf to determine what if any solution can be arrived 
at - rather than simply complaining here to each other.  There was no 
conspiracy aimed at the VMS hobbiest community.

In article <i8i9lh$o4e$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>,
	"FredK" <fred.nospam@dec.com> writes:
> 
> "Bill Gunshannon" <billg999@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message 
> news:8h3mmhFgc1U9@mid.individual.net...
>> In article 
>> <69ec6fb1-68e8-4c4a-a191-07443a467790@e34g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>> Ken Fairfield <ken.fairfield@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Oct 6, 4:30 am, m.krae...@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Just as on VMS, those whose business depends on the affected platforms
>>>> would (should !) have a support contract, so no change here.
>>>> And every HP-UX hobbyist knows somebody who knows somebody who
>>>> will have access to the future patches.
>>> I'm wondering if this (sharing patches) is considered
>>> legitimate given HP's new patch access policy.  I'd
>>
>> New policy or not, I would expect it was illegal.  HP may have turned
>> a blind eye towards it, but that may not continue.
>>
> 
> I am not in a position to comment on this issue, other than to say this was 
> not a VMS driven decision - and from what I understand a support contract 
> was always required for patches - but not enforced by the website.  I would 
> suggest that someone involved in the Hobbiest community directly contact 
> someone like John Egolf to determine what if any solution can be arrived 
> at - rather than simply complaining here to each other.  There was no 
> conspiracy aimed at the VMS hobbiest community.

Fred,
  I have never seen a conspiracy in anything related to VMS.  Apathy
maybe, but not conspiracy.  As you said it is likely that a support
contract was always required but someone was willing to ignore that.
Wether it was the neew management stretching out their reach or the
old management trying to make it look like they did do "'due diligence"
before they walk out the door, the fact is things have changed and
because the people affected aren't contributing tot he bottom line,
I would not expect a resolution that will make people here happy.
 
But then, I'm a cynic and have been pleasantly surprised before (but
never by HP!!)

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 <std.disclaimer.h>   

In article <i8i9lh$o4e$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>, "FredK" <fred.nospam@dec.com> writes:
>
>"Bill Gunshannon" <billg999@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message 
>news:8h3mmhFgc1U9@mid.individual.net...
>> In article 
>> <69ec6fb1-68e8-4c4a-a191-07443a467790@e34g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>> Ken Fairfield <ken.fairfield@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Oct 6, 4:30 am, m.krae...@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Just as on VMS, those whose business depends on the affected platforms
>>>> would (should !) have a support contract, so no change here.
>>>> And every HP-UX hobbyist knows somebody who knows somebody who
>>>> will have access to the future patches.
>>> I'm wondering if this (sharing patches) is considered
>>> legitimate given HP's new patch access policy.  I'd
>>
>> New policy or not, I would expect it was illegal.  HP may have turned
>> a blind eye towards it, but that may not continue.
>>
>
>I am not in a position to comment on this issue, other than to say this was 
>not a VMS driven decision - and from what I understand a support contract 
>was always required for patches - but not enforced by the website.  I would 
>suggest that someone involved in the Hobbiest community directly contact 
>someone like John Egolf to determine what if any solution can be arrived 
>at - rather than simply complaining here to each other.  There was no 
>conspiracy aimed at the VMS hobbiest community.

The issue was discussed with and complained to the current OpenVMS hegemony
ad nauseum and with volume infinitum at the recent OpenVMS Bootcamp.  There
were numerous responses that this issue would be reviewed.  IMHO, that was 
only a pacifier for those in attendance.  I doubt that little will be done
to rectify the current concerns people have with the decision.  However, as
a DSPP, I am concerned that patches I will need to fix V8.4 functionality,
*BROKEN* after field test, will keep me from being able to continue to put
OpenVMS products on current and future releases of OpenVMS.  

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

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

<VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote in message 
news:00AA48E5.D2C1B3D1@SendSpamHere.ORG...
> In article <i8i9lh$o4e$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>, "FredK" 
> <fred.nospam@dec.com> writes:
>>
>>"Bill Gunshannon" <billg999@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
>>news:8h3mmhFgc1U9@mid.individual.net...
>>> In article
>>> <69ec6fb1-68e8-4c4a-a191-07443a467790@e34g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Ken Fairfield <ken.fairfield@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On Oct 6, 4:30 am, m.krae...@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Just as on VMS, those whose business depends on the affected platforms
>>>>> would (should !) have a support contract, so no change here.
>>>>> And every HP-UX hobbyist knows somebody who knows somebody who
>>>>> will have access to the future patches.
>>>> I'm wondering if this (sharing patches) is considered
>>>> legitimate given HP's new patch access policy.  I'd
>>>
>>> New policy or not, I would expect it was illegal.  HP may have turned
>>> a blind eye towards it, but that may not continue.
>>>
>>
>>I am not in a position to comment on this issue, other than to say this 
>>was
>>not a VMS driven decision - and from what I understand a support contract
>>was always required for patches - but not enforced by the website.  I 
>>would
>>suggest that someone involved in the Hobbiest community directly contact
>>someone like John Egolf to determine what if any solution can be arrived
>>at - rather than simply complaining here to each other.  There was no
>>conspiracy aimed at the VMS hobbiest community.
>
> The issue was discussed with and complained to the current OpenVMS 
> hegemony
> ad nauseum and with volume infinitum at the recent OpenVMS Bootcamp. 
> There
> were numerous responses that this issue would be reviewed.  IMHO, that was
> only a pacifier for those in attendance.  I doubt that little will be done
> to rectify the current concerns people have with the decision.  However, 
> as
> a DSPP, I am concerned that patches I will need to fix V8.4 functionality,
> *BROKEN* after field test, will keep me from being able to continue to put
> OpenVMS products on current and future releases of OpenVMS.
>

Not to put too fine a point on it, given that you are not using VMS as a 
hobby but as a commercial interest - the question is why do you feel that 
something that others pay for by having a support contract should be made 
available to you for free?  Mind you, I can certainly back a stand that says 
that perhaps some special deal might be a good idea for a registered 
software developer (DSPP).  From a business standpoint, if I was a 
developer - I would want to be able to officially report bugs and get them 
officially fixed - rather than depend on ad-hoc complaints to get filtered 
in and responded to.

I think (not an official stance) the genesis for this is that other OS's get 
patches either by paying for software support, or by pulling the latest 
unsupported release.

But in any case, complaining in c.o.v. isn't going to change things, nor are 
the various conspiracy theories helpful to anyone.  Nor do I think that the 
complaints were ignored.   IMHO everyone wants to find a fair solution.

In article <43stn7-ipc.ln1@SendSpamHere.ORG>, Jim Duff
<spam.this@127.0.0.1> writes: 

> I'm wondering why this hasn't been reported and held up to ridicule in
> the wider press.  We're seeing comments on it here, but I'm yet to see
> an industry commentator deride it.  Do they even know (or care)?
> Considering this is HP operating system wide, and not just OpenVMS,
> you'd think that a lot of people would be annoyed.

Maybe because it is par for the course for most companies?  Do other OSs 
have publicly available patches for people not on support?

In article
<69ec6fb1-68e8-4c4a-a191-07443a467790@e34g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Ken
Fairfield <ken.fairfield@gmail.com> writes: 

> > Just as on VMS, those whose business depends on the affected platforms
> > would (should !) have a support contract, so no change here.
> > And every HP-UX hobbyist knows somebody who knows somebody who
> > will have access to the future patches.
> 
> I'm wondering if this (sharing patches) is considered
> legitimate given HP's new patch access policy.  

Certainly not.

> I'd
> expect anyone attempting to do this ad hoc with
> VMS patches might well expect a letter from HP's
> legal department.

Indeed.

> OTOH, I wonder if David Cathay could manage to
> strike an agreement with the powers that be to
> make these available from the OpenVMS Hobbiest
> site?  Is anyone here in contact with David?  Bill
> Pedersen?

Yes, with the hobbyist license one should get a secret password for the 
patch site.

> I'll also throw out the idea that I would (or might)
> be willing to pay a modest right-to-copy fee to HP,
> say US$50/year, to get access to the patches.

Same here.

> What I don't understand is how *any* small user,
> whether a mom & pop business or a hobbiest,
> can possibly be expected to pay the $$$ for an
> HP software support contract!

Indeed.

FredK <fred.nospam@dec.com> wrote:

(snip) 
>> There
>> were numerous responses that this issue would be reviewed.  IMHO, that was
>> only a pacifier for those in attendance.  I doubt that little will be done
>> to rectify the current concerns people have with the decision.  However, 
>> as
>> a DSPP, I am concerned that patches I will need to fix V8.4 functionality,
>> *BROKEN* after field test, will keep me from being able to continue to put
>> OpenVMS products on current and future releases of OpenVMS.
 
> Not to put too fine a point on it, given that you are not using VMS as a 
> hobby but as a commercial interest - the question is why do you feel that 
> something that others pay for by having a support contract should be made 
> available to you for free?  Mind you, I can certainly back a stand that says 
> that perhaps some special deal might be a good idea for a registered 
> software developer (DSPP).  From a business standpoint, if I was a 
> developer - I would want to be able to officially report bugs and get them 
> officially fixed - rather than depend on ad-hoc complaints to get filtered 
> in and responded to.

I haven't been following this all that close, and I do use VMS as
a hobby, and not for commercial use.  

It seems to me that goofs in the original should be fixed for free,
while one should be expected to pay for upgrades.

Consider warranty repairs on a car, or, even more, recalls.

If it was designed or built wrong, then it is the responibility
of the seller to fix it.  If I want some new feature that didn't
exist when it was built, then I should expect to pay for that.

-- glen

Ken Fairfield wrote:

> What I don't understand is how *any* small user,
> whether a mom & pop business or a hobbiest,
> can possibly be expected to pay the $$$ for an
> HP software support contract!

This goes back to 25-jun-2001. Compaq announced that it would personally
contact key customers to provide them with information on the transition
to that IA64 thing and negotiate deals under the Alphacide programme. (I
think Compaq called it Alphatrust or something). In fact, even under
Palmer's era, the "large customers only" was quite evident, especially
when he decided to sack the sales force.

It has been quite apparent that HP only cares about large customers for
VMS. It is, after all, considered an OS suited only for big iron, with a
token small IA64 provided for developpers.

Bill Gunshannon wrote:

>   I have never seen a conspiracy in anything related to VMS.  Apathy
> maybe, but not conspiracy.  As you said it is likely that a support
> contract was always required but someone was willing to ignore that.


In the good old days of TK50 distribution, yes, contracts were required
to receive the TK50s.

However, when the owner of VMS decided to make patches available
"freely" on the net, I would suspect that the policy would have changed
with a thinking that making security patches available to all VMS users
had value. Lower cost of distribution was more than compensated for the
small loss of service contracts because some customers would stop buying
the support contract since they could get patches for free.

Note that the Digital/Compaq/HP sites did not provide access to VMS
upgrades. Just patches.



While Mr FredK may be correct in stating that HP did not focus this on
VMS, any company should ensure that a policy decision doesn't have
nefarious impacts on an individual product. The timing of this
implementation is very bad considering how bad 8.4 appears to be.

having said this, the locking down of the ftp site may open the door to
on-line software distribution to those on software contracts.

FredK wrote:
> Not to put too fine a point on it, given that you are not using VMS as a 
> hobby but as a commercial interest - the question is why do you feel that 
> something that others pay for by having a support contract should be made 
> available to you for free? 


Depends on how one defines "support contract".  Apple provides free
patches, but that doesn't grant you free access to a support person to
help you with problems or guide you on how to use a feature.

And without a support contract, you can't expect quick resolution, nor
some sort of SLA.

patches are issued to fix problems/bugs introduced (or not removed by)
the engineers. Or they may be introduced to make a product compliant
with an evolving standard.

"glen herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message 
news:i8inn7$vv8$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> FredK <fred.nospam@dec.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>>> There
>>> were numerous responses that this issue would be reviewed.  IMHO, that 
>>> was
>>> only a pacifier for those in attendance.  I doubt that little will be 
>>> done
>>> to rectify the current concerns people have with the decision.  However,
>>> as
>>> a DSPP, I am concerned that patches I will need to fix V8.4 
>>> functionality,
>>> *BROKEN* after field test, will keep me from being able to continue to 
>>> put
>>> OpenVMS products on current and future releases of OpenVMS.
>
>> Not to put too fine a point on it, given that you are not using VMS as a
>> hobby but as a commercial interest - the question is why do you feel that
>> something that others pay for by having a support contract should be made
>> available to you for free?  Mind you, I can certainly back a stand that 
>> says
>> that perhaps some special deal might be a good idea for a registered
>> software developer (DSPP).  From a business standpoint, if I was a
>> developer - I would want to be able to officially report bugs and get 
>> them
>> officially fixed - rather than depend on ad-hoc complaints to get 
>> filtered
>> in and responded to.
>
> I haven't been following this all that close, and I do use VMS as
> a hobby, and not for commercial use.
>
> It seems to me that goofs in the original should be fixed for free,
> while one should be expected to pay for upgrades.
>
> Consider warranty repairs on a car, or, even more, recalls.
>
> If it was designed or built wrong, then it is the responibility
> of the seller to fix it.  If I want some new feature that didn't
> exist when it was built, then I should expect to pay for that.
>

Don't get me wrong, I hope that there is some "fair" solution that is 
arrived at that makes sense to everyone...

A car is a pretty bad example.  But if I gave you a 15-year old Ford - what 
expectations would you have with FMC?  There is no warrantee to honor in 
this case - I'd have to look into what warranty the OS provides when you buy 
a new version - I honestly don't know.  I would equate a recall (which is a 
safety issue) to a security MUP - which I think aren't part of the change to 
the web patches.

In this case, you have a system that you likely bought used, an OS that HP 
provided free, but you want to be given bugfixes as if there is a business 
relationship between you and HP?  You can use V8.3-1H1, or V7.2-1H1.  If you 
stay on V8.3-1H1 - all the patches that go into V8.4 will eventually be in 
V8.5.  So you will eventually get the bugfixes for previous versions - just 
not as quickly.  And note that many times our "patch" kits contain 
functionality enhancements and not just bug fixes (and sometimes bugs - to 
our embarrassment - and don't pretend this didn't happen in the "good old 
days" as well).

How about this model:  The OS is free, but to get the stable/supported 
version and bugfixes requires a support contract.  If you want the fixes for 
free, you simply have to live with the unsupported/free baselevel.  Or you 
have to be an OS expert, watch the checkins, and rebuild the OS (or parts of 
it).

How about this model:  Some/many fixes are provided free - sometimes it 
seems daily - actual support takes a credit card - but there is no free 
version of the OS (and they sell millions of copies and layered software).

Not knowing all the models out there, how about someone listing them for 
OS's out there.  Especially commercial server OSes.

I guess I'm looking for the model where someone can take used hardware, get 
an OS maker to give away new versions of their OS that they normally sell, 
and then provide free patches as well.

Yeah, it was a great deal.  But I'm also not completely sure it was fair to 
customers who pay for support.  Yeah, I think the hobbiest program is 
mutually beneficial, and it would be good to find a way to provide some 
compromise for the Hobbiest and DSPP programs.

Is it possible that what drove HP to do this is to prevent 3rd party
support stealing business from HP ?

A VMS user choosing a 3rd party support organisation would not have
access to VMS patches.

FredK <fred.nospam@dec.com> wrote:
(snip, I wrote)

>> I haven't been following this all that close, and I do use VMS as
>> a hobby, and not for commercial use.

>> It seems to me that goofs in the original should be fixed for free,
>> while one should be expected to pay for upgrades.

>> Consider warranty repairs on a car, or, even more, recalls.

>> If it was designed or built wrong, then it is the responibility
>> of the seller to fix it.  If I want some new feature that didn't
>> exist when it was built, then I should expect to pay for that.
 
> Don't get me wrong, I hope that there is some "fair" solution that is 
> arrived at that makes sense to everyone...
 
> A car is a pretty bad example.  But if I gave you a 15-year old Ford - what 
> expectations would you have with FMC?  There is no warrantee to honor in 
> this case - I'd have to look into what warranty the OS provides when you buy 
> a new version - I honestly don't know.  I would equate a recall (which is a 
> safety issue) to a security MUP - which I think aren't part of the change to 
> the web patches.

Things that naturally wear aren't usually included in car warrantees,
and 15 years is pretty long for a car, but even longer for an OS
version.

But yes, security issues are one that I have wondered about.
So, patches for security problems are free?  I hadn't heard that.
 
> In this case, you have a system that you likely bought used, an OS that HP 
> provided free, but you want to be given bugfixes as if there is a business 
> relationship between you and HP?  You can use V8.3-1H1, or V7.2-1H1.  If you 
> stay on V8.3-1H1 - all the patches that go into V8.4 will eventually be in 
> V8.5.  So you will eventually get the bugfixes for previous versions - just 
> not as quickly.  And note that many times our "patch" kits contain 
> functionality enhancements and not just bug fixes (and sometimes bugs - to 
> our embarrassment - and don't pretend this didn't happen in the "good old 
> days" as well).

(snip)

For hobby use, I usually don't expect the latest version.  For IBM,
we have MVS 3.8, which dates to about 1980, before they put a
copyright on the software.  It does make a fine hobby system, though.

Sun used to have Solaris free for non-commercial use, allowing for
research use.  As most of what I was doing at the time was research,
that was fine with me.

-- glen

In article <i8ifiv$g6e$1@online.de>, helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip
Helbig---undress to reply) writes:

> 
> Maybe because it is par for the course for most companies?  Do other OSs 
> have publicly available patches for people not on support?

IBM, at least, but maybe HP will give them ideas.
So far you could wget ftp.software.ibm.com,
provided you have several TB of free disk spce.

In article <i8i9lh$o4e$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>, "FredK"
<fred.nospam@dec.com> writes: 

> I am not in a position to comment on this issue, other than to say this was 
> not a VMS driven decision - and from what I understand a support contract 
> was always required for patches - but not enforced by the website.  

Right.

> I would 
> suggest that someone involved in the Hobbiest community directly contact 
> someone like John Egolf to determine what if any solution can be arrived 
> at - rather than simply complaining here to each other.  There was no 
> conspiracy aimed at the VMS hobbiest community.

Call it "collateral damage".

I have contacted Connect in Germany but have not yet received an answer 
(but this wasn't long ago, so I need to allow more time).

How can one best contact Mr Egolf?

In article <i8idgp$qfq$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>, "FredK"
<fred.nospam@dec.com> writes: 

> Not to put too fine a point on it, given that you are not using VMS as a 
> hobby but as a commercial interest - the question is why do you feel that 
> something that others pay for by having a support contract should be made 
> available to you for free?  

I think one has to differentiate between patches to fix things which are 
broken in a product which one has paid for (it is possible to buy a 
license and media but no support) and patches which add additional 
functionality.

If I buy a car, I have the option of buying support (i.e. pay a flat fee
and in return get reduced or free maintenance for things which break
unexpectedly (say, a generator---not stuff like brake pads and tires
where replacing them is more like replacing fuel in the tank)). 
However, if there is a problem due to some goof in the manufacturing
process, then normally such problems are fixed FOR FREE. 

> Mind you, I can certainly back a stand that says 
> that perhaps some special deal might be a good idea for a registered 
> software developer (DSPP).  From a business standpoint, if I was a 
> developer - I would want to be able to officially report bugs and get them 
> officially fixed - rather than depend on ad-hoc complaints to get filtered 
> in and responded to.

I agree, as long as the support costs are capable of being paid by the 
developer.  I have no idea what they are.

Personally, even as a hobbyist I would be willing to pay a reasonable 
fee for patch access.  I'll have a look around the HP website today and 
see if I can get some pricing for support contracts.  There really needs 
to be a hobbyist patch programme just like there is a hobbyist license 
programme.  If I can't find anything, I'll contact some HP people I know 
and see what kind of quote I can get.  Obviously, I could buy a 
commercial support contract, but that will probably be too expensive (I 
don't know what the pricing structure is).

On 2010-10-06, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
>
> Do other OSs have publicly available patches for people not on support?

Yes. Microsoft.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980's technology to a 21st century world

"glen herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message 
news:i8jjpk$sg4$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> FredK <fred.nospam@dec.com> wrote:

[...]

>
>> A car is a pretty bad example.  But if I gave you a 15-year old Ford - 
>> what
>> expectations would you have with FMC?  There is no warrantee to honor in
>> this case - I'd have to look into what warranty the OS provides when you 
>> buy
>> a new version - I honestly don't know.  I would equate a recall (which is 
>> a
>> safety issue) to a security MUP - which I think aren't part of the change 
>> to
>> the web patches.
>
> Things that naturally wear aren't usually included in car warrantees,
> and 15 years is pretty long for a car, but even longer for an OS
> version.
>

A warranty also runs for a specific amount of time from the point of 
*purchase*.  So figure out how long that should be for an OS.  Only the 
first year of patches from the point of release?

> But yes, security issues are one that I have wondered about.
> So, patches for security problems are free?  I hadn't heard that.
>

I think I heard that and hardware enablement patches.

In article <rZ0KWhGayDFn@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
	koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
> In article <i8jjpk$sg4$1@speranza.aioe.org>, glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
>> 
>> Things that naturally wear aren't usually included in car warrantees,
>> and 15 years is pretty long for a car, but even longer for an OS
>> version.
>> 
>> But yes, security issues are one that I have wondered about.
>> So, patches for security problems are free?  I hadn't heard that.
> 
>    So have there been any security patches for the MS software Ford
>    now puts in dashboards?  Will there be if the bug shows up 15 years
>    later?
> 

Aactually, there have been updates for the MS Ssoftwre in Fords.  Much
to the consternation of the owners of the cars.  Sseems there is no way
to backup all of your Sync data like phonebooks and the updates invariably
wipe it all out.  :-)  Thought that was hillarious when I saw the news
story.

>    MS has never supported 15 year old versions of its OS.  What will the
>    antique car owners of the future face?

My antique car has no problem.  Back when there was still a serious threat
of nuclear attack I used to tell people all the time that I would drive by
their dead cars with my little MG.  :-)  (Yes, I even removed the electronic
ignition module and went back to an honest-to-goodness points ignition.  The
only thing I will loose is the radio.  :-)
 
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 <std.disclaimer.h>   

In article <i8jjpk$sg4$1@speranza.aioe.org>, glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
> 
> Things that naturally wear aren't usually included in car warrantees,
> and 15 years is pretty long for a car, but even longer for an OS
> version.
> 
> But yes, security issues are one that I have wondered about.
> So, patches for security problems are free?  I hadn't heard that.

   So have there been any security patches for the MS software Ford
   now puts in dashboards?  Will there be if the bug shows up 15 years
   later?

   MS has never supported 15 year old versions of its OS.  What will the
   antique car owners of the future face?

In article <i8k0gs$56d$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
> On 2010-10-06, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
>>
>> Do other OSs have publicly available patches for people not on support?
> 
> Yes. Microsoft.

   Yes, but those are in large part limited to cover security holes.
   Other fixes are shipped at cost as the next OS release.

had a scary nightmare:

If patches become locked down, is documentation next to be pulled from
public access and require a support contract ?

After all, in the past, you needed a support contract to get
documentation, didn't you ?

"JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote in message 
news:4cae2e8a$0$2155$c3e8da3$9deca2c3@news.astraweb.com...
> had a scary nightmare:
>
> If patches become locked down, is documentation next to be pulled from
> public access and require a support contract ?
>
> After all, in the past, you needed a support contract to get
> documentation, didn't you ?

No.  Hardcopy documentation was purchased.

I have not heard anything about online documentation changing.

Second try (Google problems?):

FredK wrote:

> Yeah, it was a great deal.  But I'm also not completely sure it was fair to
> customers who pay for support.  Yeah, I think the hobbiest program is
> mutually beneficial, and it would be good to find a way to provide some
> compromise for the Hobbiest and DSPP programs.

1.  It's "hobbyist", unless you mean the superlative part of
this set: { hobby, hobbier, hobbiest }.

2.  _I_'ll say it's "mutually beneficial".  There aren't many
commercial VMS users doing development on products/programs
like, say, Zip and UnZip, wget, cdrtools, mtools, GnuPG, and a
few others, and my log files are littered with downloads from
15.0.0.0/8.  If I get annoyed enough, I may change my free
server access policy, too.  It would be no trouble at all to
change the ways I spend my free time.

Hi,

Ken Fairfield wrote:

> What I don't understand is how *any* small user,
> whether a mom & pop business or a hobbiest,
> can possibly be expected to pay the $$$ for an
> HP software support contract!

As someone else already said on this thread, and I don't disagree, HP is not 
interested in VMS for the small business.  So I doubt that the ability of a 
"mom & pop" business to pay for updates came into consideration.

That said ... I renewed my OpenVMS support agreements just last week.  A 
DS-series machine is around $70/month for the right to install patches and 
new versions of VMS, DECnet, TCP/IP and Motif.  About the same as a mobile 
phone contract.

Regards,

	Jeremy Begg

VAXman- wrote:
> Good luck with that.  I'm wanting to know how they will support the DSPP
> community with this lockdown.  I'd *thought* that the whole DSPP program
> was to get products on their platforms.  If the development systems used
> by DSPP product providers are crippled, there won't be any DSPP enabled
> products.  I'm not one to install a great many patches but presently I'm
> crippled with V8.4 bugs that mean I simply will not provide product for
> V8.4. 

There are arrangements in place for DSPP members who don't have support 
agreements.  I'll send you the details privately.

Regards,

	Jeremy Begg

Jeremy Begg wrote:
 A
> DS-series machine is around $70/month for the right to install patches and 
> new versions of VMS, DECnet, TCP/IP and Motif.  About the same as a mobile 
> phone contract.


Could someone pay $70 a year for access to patches during 1 month per year ?

Lets face it, you can't expect a new version of TCP/IP, DECNET,
VMS/Motif for probably 3 or 4 years. What's the point of paying a
monthly fee that gives you nothing of value ? (for a small business).

In article <4caea0be$0$11124$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Jeremy Begg <jeremy.removethis@vsm.com.au> writes:
>
>
>VAXman- wrote:
>> Good luck with that.  I'm wanting to know how they will support the DSPP
>> community with this lockdown.  I'd *thought* that the whole DSPP program
>> was to get products on their platforms.  If the development systems used
>> by DSPP product providers are crippled, there won't be any DSPP enabled
>> products.  I'm not one to install a great many patches but presently I'm
>> crippled with V8.4 bugs that mean I simply will not provide product for
>> V8.4. 
>
>There are arrangements in place for DSPP members who don't have support 
>agreements.  I'll send you the details privately.

Thanks Jeremy and I have already applied.

Like I said in my email reply to you, when signing up for things on HP's
web pages, I'm offered an option for "plain text" email.  Somehow, in the
distorted world of HP, "plain text" has eroded to "Micro$uck Word" which
is useless to me and forwarded to a bit bucket for appropriate handling.

I'll be waiting for my non-readable "plain text" instructions on how to
access the patches which likely means, regardless of my signing up with
that link you provided, I will not have access to patches.

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

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

In article <4cae2e8a$0$2155$c3e8da3$9deca2c3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:

> After all, in the past, you needed a support contract to get
> documentation, didn't you ?

   No.  Anybody could buy documentation.  DEC said it was expensive to
   make and they sold it at a very low profit.

On Oct 7, 9:39=A0pm, Jeremy Begg <jeremy.removet...@vsm.com.au> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ken Fairfield wrote:
> > What I don't understand is how *any* small user,
> > whether a mom & pop business or a hobbiest,
> > can possibly be expected to pay the $$$ for an
> > HP software support contract!
>
> As someone else already said on this thread, and I don't disagree, HP is =
not
> interested in VMS for the small business. =A0So I doubt that the ability =
of a
> "mom & pop" business to pay for updates came into consideration.
>
> That said ... I renewed my OpenVMS support agreements just last week. =A0=
A
> DS-series machine is around $70/month for the right to install patches an=
d
> new versions of VMS, DECnet, TCP/IP and Motif. =A0About the same as a mob=
ile
> phone contract.

OK, for a going business, $70/mo is not *too* excessive.
It is more than I pay for my ISP access, and as a hobbiest
who boots my system only rarely, difficult to justify in my
household budget. :-(

I'll drop a note to David Cathay (anyone else I should contact?)
and see if there's anything that can be done on that front.

And I'd still be willing to pay a one-time fee for, say, a
DVD of the latest patches.

OTOH, $840/yr won't fly for a hobbiest (which I understand
HP isn't so interested in...)

    Thanks, Ken

On Oct 7, 6:13=A0am, "FredK" <fred.nos...@dec.com> wrote:
> "glen herrmannsfeldt" <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:i8jjpk$sg4$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> > FredK <fred.nos...@dec.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >> A car is a pretty bad example. =A0But if I gave you a 15-year old Ford=
 -
> >> what
> >> expectations would you have with FMC? =A0There is no warrantee to hono=
r in
> >> this case - I'd have to look into what warranty the OS provides when y=
ou
> >> buy
> >> a new version - I honestly don't know. =A0I would equate a recall (whi=
ch is
> >> a
> >> safety issue) to a security MUP - which I think aren't part of the cha=
nge
> >> to
> >> the web patches.
>
> > Things that naturally wear aren't usually included in car warrantees,
> > and 15 years is pretty long for a car, but even longer for an OS
> > version.
>
> A warranty also runs for a specific amount of time from the point of
> *purchase*. =A0So figure out how long that should be for an OS. =A0Only t=
he
> first year of patches from the point of release?
>

A vehicle safety recall can go back many model years, and many known
problems are addressed by service bulletins (only to be performed when
a vehicle comes in for service).

An OS doesn't wear out but a bug can be exposed at any time. Any OS
bug is a potential safety problem if something doesn't work the way
it's supposed to work. An ancient widely used OS will likely have
chewed on every combination of bits and major bugs will have been
fixed or workarounds will have been implemented in a user's
applications. If a hidden problem crawls out it's probably because
something new has been introduced into the environment, and new things
would need upgrades/updates ($).

> > But yes, security issues are one that I have wondered about.
> > So, patches for security problems are free? =A0I hadn't heard that.
>
> I think I heard that and hardware enablement patches.

I still can't find an official statement anyplace. Do you have a link?
If access to the patch site requires linkage to a support contract,
how will we peons get those bug fixes? If what you think you've heard
is true, wouldn't it have been simpler to leave the public-site alone
and move the contract-required patches to a locked location?

On Oct 7, 10:06=A0am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
Koehler) wrote:
> In article <i8k0gs$56...@news.eternal-september.org>, Simon Clubley <club=
ley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
> > On 2010-10-06, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <hel...@astro.multiCLO=
THESvax.de> wrote:
>
> >> Do other OSs have publicly available patches for people not on support=
?
>
> > Yes. Microsoft.
>
> =A0 =A0Yes, but those are in large part limited to cover security holes.
> =A0 =A0Other fixes are shipped at cost as the next OS release.


Huh? Where did you get that idea?

On 10/6/2010 11:51 AM, Ken Fairfield wrote:
> On Oct 6, 4:30 am, m.krae...@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) wrote:
> [...]
>> Just as on VMS, those whose business depends on the affected platforms
>> would (should !) have a support contract, so no change here.
>> And every HP-UX hobbyist knows somebody who knows somebody who
>> will have access to the future patches.
>
> I'm wondering if this (sharing patches) is considered
> legitimate given HP's new patch access policy.  I'd
> expect anyone attempting to do this ad hoc with
> VMS patches might well expect a letter from HP's
> legal department.
>
> OTOH, I wonder if David Cathay could manage to
> strike an agreement with the powers that be to
> make these available from the OpenVMS Hobbiest
> site?  Is anyone here in contact with David?  Bill
> Pedersen?
>
> I'll also throw out the idea that I would (or might)
> be willing to pay a modest right-to-copy fee to HP,
> say US$50/year, to get access to the patches.
> What I don't understand is how *any* small user,
> whether a mom&  pop business or a hobbiest,
> can possibly be expected to pay the $$$ for an
> HP software support contract!
>

Some of us don't NEED software support.  Particularly those of us 
running an ancient release for which we got the patches years ago.

Is it perfect?  No, but it works and meets my modest needs for an 
occasional VMS prompt.

Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:

> Personally, even as a hobbyist I would be willing to pay a reasonable
> fee for patch access.  [...]

   Something like a per annum charge of up to 20% of the
original license fee would be ok with me.

On 10/10/10 03:51, Steven Schweda wrote:
> Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
>
>> Personally, even as a hobbyist I would be willing to pay a reasonable
>> fee for patch access.  [...]
>
>     Something like a per annum charge of up to 20% of the
> original license fee would be ok with me.

I would appear that registering at  http://www.hp.com/go/allianceonepatchaccess 
might offer a solution.
I know nothing about the terms and conditions.

-- 
Mike R.
Home: http://alpha.mike-r.com/
QOTD: http://alpha.mike-r.com/php/qotd.php
No Micro$oft products were used in the URLs above, or in preparing this message.
Recommended reading: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#before

On 2010-10-10 06:25, Mike Rechtman wrote:
> On 10/10/10 03:51, Steven Schweda wrote:
>> Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, even as a hobbyist I would be willing to pay a reasonable
>>> fee for patch access. [...]
>>
>> Something like a per annum charge of up to 20% of the
>> original license fee would be ok with me.
>
> I would appear that registering at
> http://www.hp.com/go/allianceonepatchaccess might offer a solution.
> I know nothing about the terms and conditions.
>

I did come a bit through the pages, but was stoped becuse of :
"You do not have any support contracts in your HP Passport profile."


Jan-Erik.

In article <i8jtq9$rrj$1@online.de>, helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---undress to reply) writes:
>
>How can one best contact Mr Egolf?
>

Email at HP is typically given-name.surname@HP.com

John was present at many of the "gripe" sessions of the past Bootcamp.
He's heard all the complaints arguments WRT the patch lockdown.  It's
not his decision nor one of the VMS folks.  This lockdown affects all
of the HP OSs.

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

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

In article <i8jtq9$rrj$1@online.de>, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
>In article <i8i9lh$o4e$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>, "FredK"
[...]
>> I would 
>> suggest that someone involved in the Hobbiest community directly contact 
>> someone like John Egolf to determine what if any solution can be arrived 
>> at - rather than simply complaining here to each other.  There was no 
>> conspiracy aimed at the VMS hobbiest community.
>
>Call it "collateral damage".
>
>I have contacted Connect in Germany but have not yet received an answer 
>(but this wasn't long ago, so I need to allow more time).
>
>How can one best contact Mr Egolf?
>

I still have not heard back from Sujatha (presumably at openvmsprograms AT hp
DOT com) since I emailed her in September on this issue.  I don't know who 
else to contact, but I will try John Egolf, if a valid email address is
available.

On Oct 7, 3:45=A0am, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <i8i9lh$o4...@usenet01.boi.hp.com>, "FredK"
>
> <fred.nos...@dec.com> writes:
> > I am not in a position to comment on this issue, other than to say this=
 was
> > not a VMS driven decision - and from what I understand a support contra=
ct
> > was always required for patches - but not enforced by the website. =A0
>
> Right.
>
> > I would
> > suggest that someone involved in the Hobbiest community directly contac=
t
> > someone like John Egolf to determine what if any solution can be arrive=
d
> > at - rather than simply complaining here to each other. =A0There was no
> > conspiracy aimed at the VMS hobbiest community.
>
> Call it "collateral damage".
>
> I have contacted Connect in Germany but have not yet received an answer
> (but this wasn't long ago, so I need to allow more time).
>
> How can one best contact Mr Egolf?

As Brian notes, John Egolf is very much aware of the issue.
Additionally this was discussed with Jennifer Millier the VP of BCS,
under which OpenVMS and HP-UX are both developed and maintained.  It
was not her decision.  She is trying work to get some resolution for
Hobbyists and AllianceONE partners as well - which now appears to have
been set up.

The link mentioned earlier for "allianceonepatchaccess" goes to a page
with the following information:

"If you are an AllianceONE member you can request access to patches
for use on your demonstration, development, and test systems. You will
be provided with a Support Agreement ID which you can use to access
patches via the IT Resource Center (ITRC). Free membership in ITRC is
required.

    * After you agree to the Terms and Conditions you will be taken to
a form to request access to patches.
    * You must supply the serial number of one system which you use
for demonstration, development, or testing purposes.
    * Patches obtained in this manner are only for systems used for
demonstration, development, or testing purposes =97 not for production.

The lead time to set up a Support Agreement ID is two weeks. If your
request is urgent please contact your Partner Business Manager or the
AllianceONE Program Office."

So you see there has been progress in fixing things Services seems to
have not considered when they decided to go down this path.  The
AllianceONE partners have been out in the cold until now as well.  I
would hope that the Hobbyist program gets a similar resolution soon.

Bill.

In article <0b0b934d-b8b2-40e6-a6ca-b4c6218ada3a@q18g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
 BillPedersen wrote:
[...]
>    * After you agree to the Terms and Conditions you will be taken to
>a form to request access to patches.
>    * You must supply the serial number of one system which you use
>for demonstration, development, or testing purposes.
>    * Patches obtained in this manner are only for systems used for
>demonstration, development, or testing purposes =97 not for production.
>
>The lead time to set up a Support Agreement ID is two weeks. If your
>request is urgent please contact your Partner Business Manager or the
>AllianceONE Program Office."
>
>So you see there has been progress in fixing things Services seems to
>have not considered when they decided to go down this path.  The
>AllianceONE partners have been out in the cold until now as well.  I
>would hope that the Hobbyist program gets a similar resolution soon.

Bill,

Thanks for the information.  I do hope that hobbyists will see a resolution in
the future.
[...]

VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:

> John was present at many of the "gripe" sessions of the past Bootcamp.
> He's heard all the complaints arguments WRT the patch lockdown.  It's
> not his decision nor one of the VMS folks.  This lockdown affects all
> of the HP OSs.

Can't wait to see how HP will handle PalmOS. (This is now an HP OS).
Will it require $70/month support contracts for cellphone users to get
patches ?

BRAD@rabbit.turquoisewitch.com wrote:

> I still have not heard back from Sujatha (presumably at openvmsprograms AT hp
> DOT com) since I emailed her in September on this issue.  I don't know who 
> else to contact, but I will try John Egolf, if a valid email address is
> available.

The only question that should be asked of him is if he feels that user
comments have any chance of making changes to the policy, or whether HP
is very adament that this be the policy and that it won't be changed.

There is no point expanding energy against a company that doesn't want
you to be loyal to them unless you spend $10 million of more per year.

On 2010-10-10 23:45, JF Mezei wrote:
> BRAD@rabbit.turquoisewitch.com wrote:
>
>> I still have not heard back from Sujatha (presumably at openvmsprograms AT hp
>> DOT com) since I emailed her in September on this issue.  I don't know who
>> else to contact, but I will try John Egolf, if a valid email address is
>> available.
>
> The only question that should be asked of him is if he feels that user
> comments have any chance of making changes to the policy, or whether HP
> is very adament that this be the policy and that it won't be changed.
>
> There is no point expanding energy against a company that doesn't want
> you to be loyal to them unless you spend $10 million of more per year.

Where comes "$10 million" from ?
Or did you just make that up ?

BillPedersen wrote:

> As Brian notes, John Egolf is very much aware of the issue.
> Additionally this was discussed with Jennifer Millier the VP of BCS,
> under which OpenVMS and HP-UX are both developed and maintained. 


Does anyone have a current org chart that shows who the head of VMS
development (Shuba Benakatti) reports to all the way to the CEO ?

In the past, Sue reported to the head of VMS who reported to BCS who
reported to Stallard who had Storage Servers and Software if recall
properly. "Software" was replaced with "Networking" about the same time
as VMS was shifted to India.

The web provided very little insight on whom the HP India subsidiary
reports to back at HP in Kalifornia. Bit it seemed to report to some guy
with english name. But could not find a link between him and Livermore.
(I assume HP India still ends up under her umbrella).


Is this a case of a "stub" of BCS remaining under the
Servers/Storage/Networks organisation with minimal product management,
and that stub then negotiates budgets and tasks to be performed by HP
India (at which point the guy in charge of HP India accepts the
tasks/money and gets his organisation to deliver ?

It seems very confusing to try to understand who/how VMS (and HP-UX,
NSK() decisions and made and executed now.



With regards to DSPP (or whatever its name is this week). Last I
checked, it required on to produce VMS software for IA64. If you
produced for Alpha or VAX only, you were not eligible for it. Is that
still the case ?

On Oct 10, 6:26=A0pm, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> BillPedersen wrote:
> > As Brian notes, John Egolf is very much aware of the issue.
> > Additionally this was discussed with Jennifer Millier the VP of BCS,
> > under which OpenVMS and HP-UX are both developed and maintained.
>
> Does anyone have a current org chart that shows who the head of VMS
> development (Shuba Benakatti) reports to all the way to the CEO ?
>
> In the past, Sue reported to the head of VMS who reported to BCS who
> reported to Stallard who had Storage Servers and Software if recall
> properly. "Software" was replaced with "Networking" about the same time
> as VMS was shifted to India.
>
> The web provided very little insight on whom the HP India subsidiary
> reports to back at HP in Kalifornia. Bit it seemed to report to some guy
> with english name. But could not find a link between him and Livermore.
> (I assume HP India still ends up under her umbrella).
>
> Is this a case of a "stub" of BCS remaining under the
> Servers/Storage/Networks organisation with minimal product management,
> and that stub then negotiates budgets and tasks to be performed by HP
> India (at which point the guy in charge of HP India accepts the
> tasks/money and gets his organisation to deliver ?
>
> It seems very confusing to try to understand who/how VMS (and HP-UX,
> NSK() decisions and made and executed now.
>
> With regards to DSPP (or whatever its name is this week). Last I
> checked, it required on to produce VMS software for IA64. If you
> produced for Alpha or VAX only, you were not eligible for it. Is that
> still the case ?

JF:

I do not know the chain of command from the engineer to the CEO.  Nor
do I know the business process of how their budgets are set.

My company provides services for the entire range of OpenVMS and that
is our current qualifications to AllianceONE (formerly DSPP, formerly
the Compaq partners program, formerly the DEC partners program).  I
really do not know the current requirements.  I would suggest you go
to the AllianceONE web pages and investigate.

Bill.

In article <a2e00d3e-5fd8-4e49-889d-753167645da6@a30g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>, BillPedersen <pedersen@ccsscorp.com> writes:
>On Oct 10, 6:26=A0pm, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> BillPedersen wrote:
>> > As Brian notes, John Egolf is very much aware of the issue.
>> > Additionally this was discussed with Jennifer Millier the VP of BCS,
>> > under which OpenVMS and HP-UX are both developed and maintained.
>>
>> Does anyone have a current org chart that shows who the head of VMS
>> development (Shuba Benakatti) reports to all the way to the CEO ?
>>
>> In the past, Sue reported to the head of VMS who reported to BCS who
>> reported to Stallard who had Storage Servers and Software if recall
>> properly. "Software" was replaced with "Networking" about the same time
>> as VMS was shifted to India.
>>
>> The web provided very little insight on whom the HP India subsidiary
>> reports to back at HP in Kalifornia. Bit it seemed to report to some guy
>> with english name. But could not find a link between him and Livermore.
>> (I assume HP India still ends up under her umbrella).
>>
>> Is this a case of a "stub" of BCS remaining under the
>> Servers/Storage/Networks organisation with minimal product management,
>> and that stub then negotiates budgets and tasks to be performed by HP
>> India (at which point the guy in charge of HP India accepts the
>> tasks/money and gets his organisation to deliver ?
>>
>> It seems very confusing to try to understand who/how VMS (and HP-UX,
>> NSK() decisions and made and executed now.
>>
>> With regards to DSPP (or whatever its name is this week). Last I
>> checked, it required on to produce VMS software for IA64. If you
>> produced for Alpha or VAX only, you were not eligible for it. Is that
>> still the case ?
>
>JF:
>
>I do not know the chain of command from the engineer to the CEO.  Nor
>do I know the business process of how their budgets are set.
>
>My company provides services for the entire range of OpenVMS and that
>is our current qualifications to AllianceONE (formerly DSPP, formerly
>the Compaq partners program, formerly the DEC partners program).  I
>really do not know the current requirements.  I would suggest you go
>to the AllianceONE web pages and investigate.
>
>Bill.

DEC (ASAP) => Compaq (CSA) => HP (DSPP)

I wasn't aware that the name had changed from DSPP to AllianceOne until I
received an email from Jeremy pointing me to the URL to sign up for patch
access.

Does anybody have information on this change to AllianceOne?  It seems HP
may be its own best kept secret.



As for Bill's prior comment, let me just add that John Egolf is one of THE
good guys.  On more occasions than I can recall, John has stepped up when 
I was at a point of tossing my hands in the air and giving up when trying
to navigate through the maze that is HP for one thing or another.

Also, I'd forgot to mention that Millier got a good earful about this patch
issue too.  

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

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:

> Also, I'd forgot to mention that Millier got a good earful about this patch
> issue too.  

Who is currently between Millier and Livermore ?

aka: who replaced Stallard as head of what is now
Storage/Servers/Networking ?

On Oct 10, 8:36=A0pm, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <a2e00d3e-5fd8-4e49-889d-753167645...@a30g2000vbt.googlegroups=
..com>, BillPedersen <peder...@ccsscorp.com> writes:
>
>
>
> >On Oct 10, 6:26=3DA0pm, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> >> BillPedersen wrote:
> >> > As Brian notes, John Egolf is very much aware of the issue.
> >> > Additionally this was discussed with Jennifer Millier the VP of BCS,
> >> > under which OpenVMS and HP-UX are both developed and maintained.
>
> >> Does anyone have a current org chart that shows who the head of VMS
> >> development (Shuba Benakatti) reports to all the way to the CEO ?
>
> >> In the past, Sue reported to the head of VMS who reported to BCS who
> >> reported to Stallard who had Storage Servers and Software if recall
> >> properly. "Software" was replaced with "Networking" about the same tim=
e
> >> as VMS was shifted to India.
>
> >> The web provided very little insight on whom the HP India subsidiary
> >> reports to back at HP in Kalifornia. Bit it seemed to report to some g=
uy
> >> with english name. But could not find a link between him and Livermore=
..
> >> (I assume HP India still ends up under her umbrella).
>
> >> Is this a case of a "stub" of BCS remaining under the
> >> Servers/Storage/Networks organisation with minimal product management,
> >> and that stub then negotiates budgets and tasks to be performed by HP
> >> India (at which point the guy in charge of HP India accepts the
> >> tasks/money and gets his organisation to deliver ?
>
>
> DEC (ASAP) =3D> Compaq (CSA) =3D> HP (DSPP)
>
> I wasn't aware that the name had changed from DSPP to AllianceOne until I
> received an email from Jeremy pointing me to the URL to sign up for patch
> access.
>
> Does anybody have information on this change to AllianceOne? =A0It seems =
HP
> may be its own best kept secret.
>

I was sent a notice on 28 April 2010. It was an introduction of the
program and appeared to come to me as being a DSPP member company.

> As for Bill's prior comment, let me just add that John Egolf is one of TH=
E
> good guys. =A0On more occasions than I can recall, John has stepped up wh=
en
> I was at a point of tossing my hands in the air and giving up when trying
> to navigate through the maze that is HP for one thing or another.

Yes, John is one of the good guys and very much interested in helping
the User Community.

> Also, I'd forgot to mention that Millier got a good earful about this pat=
ch
> issue too. =A0

It was evident that the imposition of the new process to access
patches was not something that was seen as helpful by Ms. Millier.
Her keynote talk, which was totally unscripted due to some issues with
her laptop was a good and useful hour for the User Community and
OpenVMS from what I saw and heard. She took questions and discussed
issues with attendees at the Boot Camp.  She also took notes so she
could followup on items.

In article <i8jav1$a6n$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>, "FredK"
<fred.nospam@dec.com> writes: 

> I guess I'm looking for the model where someone can take used hardware, get 
> an OS maker to give away new versions of their OS that they normally sell, 
> and then provide free patches as well.
> 
> Yeah, it was a great deal.  But I'm also not completely sure it was fair to 
> customers who pay for support.  Yeah, I think the hobbiest program is 
> mutually beneficial, and it would be good to find a way to provide some 
> compromise for the Hobbiest and DSPP programs.

I think the interesting point is that HP would not normally sell VMS 
licenses to hobbyists---at least not at the going commercial rate.  So 
providing the hobbyist license does not result in any lost revenue, but 
can result in publicity, and some hobbyists go on to jobs where they buy 
VMS and where VMS might not be bought anymore if there weren't enough 
people with VMS experience coming in.  In the past, VMS experience could 
be had in academia, but that is rather rare these days.

A few days ago, according to the official web pages, the campus-license 
scheme was alive and well.  It seems strange to allow essentially free 
access for education but not to hobbyists.

Unfair to other customers?  Support is a lot more than just FTP access 
to patches.  First, hobbyists want just FTP access.  Second, if one 
earns money with VMS then it is only fair to pay for it, according to 
whatever business model.  If not, then it is the company's decision 
whether non-profit folks, hobbyists, whatever get free access.  But I 
doubt the hobbyist programme resulted in any lost revenue for HP.

In article <4cad49a1$0$5795$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes: 

> Is it possible that what drove HP to do this is to prevent 3rd party
> support stealing business from HP ?

Maybe.  Haven't some ex-HP employees set up support businesses?

In article <4caea062$0$11124$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Jeremy Begg
<jeremy.removethis@vsm.com.au> writes: 

> That said ... I renewed my OpenVMS support agreements just last week.  A 
> DS-series machine is around $70/month for the right to install patches and 
> new versions of VMS, DECnet, TCP/IP and Motif.  About the same as a mobile 
> phone contract.

I don't have any problem with paying for stuff.  (I have also never 
downloaded any music from the internet---neither legally nor illegally.)
I have no problem at all with paying for something I use, even if I 
don't make money using it.  I just wish that a sensible solution for 
hobbyists would continue.  As far as I am concerned, a reasonable fee is 
not a problem.  Most (all?) hobbyists pay for Connect membership, many 
pay for the hobbyist CD, and then there is the power bill for running 
the hardware.  A reasonable fee would increase this by a few per cent.

Is there any way to get quotes on support from a web page?  Yes, one can 
contact some HP representative directly, but it's probably a waste of 
time if we are talking about something cheap.  Are there official prices 
or are they subject to negotiation?

One could, as a hobbyist, as the local HP representative to return a 
call, but can we really expect him to set up a contract for something 
like $70 per month?

In article <4caeb2ce$0$1577$c3e8da3$e408f015@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes: 

> Jeremy Begg wrote:
>  A
> > DS-series machine is around $70/month for the right to install patches and 
> > new versions of VMS, DECnet, TCP/IP and Motif.  About the same as a mobile 
> > phone contract.
> 
> Could someone pay $70 a year for access to patches during 1 month per year ?
> 
> Lets face it, you can't expect a new version of TCP/IP, DECNET,
> VMS/Motif for probably 3 or 4 years. What's the point of paying a
> monthly fee that gives you nothing of value ? (for a small business).

Err, installing the latest patches can be of value.

In article <e709934a-1dbd-4be9-bf8b-6bf58e673cf3@o2g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, BillPedersen <pedersen@ccsscorp.com> writes:
>On Oct 10, 8:36=A0pm, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> In article <a2e00d3e-5fd8-4e49-889d-753167645...@a30g2000vbt.googlegroups=
>..com>, BillPedersen <peder...@ccsscorp.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 10, 6:26=3DA0pm, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> >> BillPedersen wrote:
>> >> > As Brian notes, John Egolf is very much aware of the issue.
>> >> > Additionally this was discussed with Jennifer Millier the VP of BCS,
>> >> > under which OpenVMS and HP-UX are both developed and maintained.
>>
>> >> Does anyone have a current org chart that shows who the head of VMS
>> >> development (Shuba Benakatti) reports to all the way to the CEO ?
>>
>> >> In the past, Sue reported to the head of VMS who reported to BCS who
>> >> reported to Stallard who had Storage Servers and Software if recall
>> >> properly. "Software" was replaced with "Networking" about the same tim=
>e
>> >> as VMS was shifted to India.
>>
>> >> The web provided very little insight on whom the HP India subsidiary
>> >> reports to back at HP in Kalifornia. Bit it seemed to report to some g=
>uy
>> >> with english name. But could not find a link between him and Livermore=
>..
>> >> (I assume HP India still ends up under her umbrella).
>>
>> >> Is this a case of a "stub" of BCS remaining under the
>> >> Servers/Storage/Networks organisation with minimal product management,
>> >> and that stub then negotiates budgets and tasks to be performed by HP
>> >> India (at which point the guy in charge of HP India accepts the
>> >> tasks/money and gets his organisation to deliver ?
>>
>>
>> DEC (ASAP) =3D> Compaq (CSA) =3D> HP (DSPP)
>>
>> I wasn't aware that the name had changed from DSPP to AllianceOne until I
>> received an email from Jeremy pointing me to the URL to sign up for patch
>> access.
>>
>> Does anybody have information on this change to AllianceOne? =A0It seems =
>HP
>> may be its own best kept secret.
>>
>
>I was sent a notice on 28 April 2010. It was an introduction of the
>program and appeared to come to me as being a DSPP member company.

I just did a mail search...

MAIL> DIRECTORY/FROM=hp.com/SINCE=1-APR/BEFORE=1-JUN

Only two messages from HP about my DSPP renewal.  There's nothing about
any announcement of any program change or program name change.  Most of 
the other messages were from John Egolf about the V8.4 FT and V8.4 EAK.

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

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

In article <i8td28$jf2$2@news.albasani.net>,
	Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> writes:
> On 2010-10-10 23:45, JF Mezei wrote:
>> BRAD@rabbit.turquoisewitch.com wrote:
>>
>>> I still have not heard back from Sujatha (presumably at openvmsprograms AT hp
>>> DOT com) since I emailed her in September on this issue.  I don't know who
>>> else to contact, but I will try John Egolf, if a valid email address is
>>> available.
>>
>> The only question that should be asked of him is if he feels that user
>> comments have any chance of making changes to the policy, or whether HP
>> is very adament that this be the policy and that it won't be changed.
>>
>> There is no point expanding energy against a company that doesn't want
>> you to be loyal to them unless you spend $10 million of more per year.
> 
> Where comes "$10 million" from ?
> Or did you just make that up ?

He makes up most of what he says.  I find this whole debate rather bizarre.
HP is in business for one reason and one reason only.  To make money.  Just
how do they make money by giving away their product?  It was real nice that
they had the Hobbyist Program.  Know any one else who had a similar program?
I know totally dead OSes that still don't let you use their product without
paying the full price.  

To be honest, I would not be surprised if the resolution of this debate isn't
the end of the Hobbyist Program.  I don't want to see it, but I also fail to
see where it is in any way advantageous to HP.

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 <std.disclaimer.h>   

In article <4cb231b9$0$19539$c3e8da3$c0979eb3@news.astraweb.com>,
	JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> 
>> John was present at many of the "gripe" sessions of the past Bootcamp.
>> He's heard all the complaints arguments WRT the patch lockdown.  It's
>> not his decision nor one of the VMS folks.  This lockdown affects all
>> of the HP OSs.
> 
> Can't wait to see how HP will handle PalmOS. (This is now an HP OS).
> Will it require $70/month support contracts for cellphone users to get
> patches ?

It's not PalmOS but as a cellphone user I can tell you that I have never
received any patch for any of my cellphones.  They don't notify me that
any are available and there is nowhere that I am aware of where I can
check on it (if I even cared!)

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 <std.disclaimer.h>   

In article <i8up7i$ej0$5@online.de>,
	helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---undress to reply) writes:
> In article <4caeb2ce$0$1577$c3e8da3$e408f015@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes: 
> 
>> Jeremy Begg wrote:
>>  A
>> > DS-series machine is around $70/month for the right to install patches and 
>> > new versions of VMS, DECnet, TCP/IP and Motif.  About the same as a mobile 
>> > phone contract.
>> 
>> Could someone pay $70 a year for access to patches during 1 month per year ?
>> 
>> Lets face it, you can't expect a new version of TCP/IP, DECNET,
>> VMS/Motif for probably 3 or 4 years. What's the point of paying a
>> monthly fee that gives you nothing of value ? (for a small business).
> 
> Err, installing the latest patches can be of value.

Only if they fix something that actually affects your business.  I know
a local pizza joint that, for years, ran a VMS POS system with HDS VT
clones with keyboard overlays.  Any bets that all the TCP\IP patches
would have been of any value to them at all? 

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 <std.disclaimer.h>   

On 2010-10-11 16:51, Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article<4cb231b9$0$19539$c3e8da3$c0979eb3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca>  writes:
>>
>> Can't wait to see how HP will handle PalmOS. (This is now an HP OS).
>> Will it require $70/month support contracts for cellphone users to get
>> patches ?
>
>     Cell phones and patches in the same sentence?
>
>     Although all of my cell phones have had a software upgrade facility,
>     never once have I seen a patch release.
>

Isn't that mainly semantics ?
Most phones users doen't know the difference anyway.
And it doen't matter either.

In article <54c0835e-6399-4714-a1fe-77a6a511ebf3@i21g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, Doug Phillips <dphill46@netscape.net> writes:
> 
> Huh? Where did you get that idea?

    26 years of working with MS products.

In article <4cb231b9$0$19539$c3e8da3$c0979eb3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> 
> Can't wait to see how HP will handle PalmOS. (This is now an HP OS).
> Will it require $70/month support contracts for cellphone users to get
> patches ?

   Cell phones and patches in the same sentence?

   Although all of my cell phones have had a software upgrade facility,
   never once have I seen a patch release.

Bill Gunshannon wrote:

> To be honest, I would not be surprised if the resolution of this debate isn't
> the end of the Hobbyist Program.  I don't want to see it, but I also fail to
> see where it is in any way advantageous to HP.

   Evidence may be sparse, but it's possible that some VMS
users at HP might use (and benefit from) some version of the
Info-ZIP Zip and UnZip programs newer than 2003, development
of which (for VMS) was done almost entirely on Hobbyist VMS
systems.  Or Non-Commercial Tru64 for Tru64.  (I dare not
mention HP-UX.)  Or on the now-dead TestDrive systems, of
course, before I got an IA64 system.

   It's not very difficult to find in my log files records of
downloads from 15.0.0.0/8 of some of the material from:
      http://antinode.info/dec/index.html#Software
(or even some of the hardware info near by).  Having heard few
complaints, I assume that some benefit was derived therefrom.

   Perhaps I flatter myself, but I like to believe that the
VMS Hobbyist program (including my participation in it) has
been "advantageous to HP" in a variety of ways, even though
they may not involve vast transfers of cash.

   I've liked using VMS since the days of the VAX-11/785, but
even I can be discouraged from using it.  "Short-sighted" is a
word which comes to mind, but I'm sure that the people at HP
who set these policies have considered all their implications,
so who am I to argue?

On 11/10/10 12:26, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> In article<4cad49a1$0$5795$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> Mezei<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca>  writes:
>
>> Is it possible that what drove HP to do this is to prevent 3rd party
>> support stealing business from HP ?
>
> Maybe.  Haven't some ex-HP employees set up support businesses?
>
If they haven't, they should.
I have worked at VMS support since the Digital days, when there was a team of 8 
to 10 support personnel. I have managed to stay in OpenVMS support at HP, but 
there are now only two of us, and I am being WFRed in a few weeks, and the 
solitary survivor will probably quit in the near future. There are less 
customers, to be sure, and less support calls (There are no newbie VMSers any 
more, and the old ones are evaporating...)
I asked my manager what would happen to VMS support calls.... no definitive 
answer...

-- 
Mike R.
Home: http://alpha.mike-r.com/
QOTD: http://alpha.mike-r.com/php/qotd.php
No Micro$oft products were used in the URLs above, or in preparing this message.
Recommended reading: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#before

On 2010-10-11 21:52, Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article<i8v4vi$tav$1@news.albasani.net>, Jan-Erik Soderholm<jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com>  writes:
>>
>> Isn't that mainly semantics ?
>> Most phones users doen't know the difference anyway.
>> And it doen't matter either.
>
>     If I never need to download a software update for a phone, then
>     I never got a patch.  The initial load was all I downloaded for
>     the phones' OS.
>

Most new advanced phones has software updates now and then.
It's more or less handled automaticly.

But my point was that you seems to make a distinction
between an "update" and a "patch". 99.99% uf the phone
users would not know the difference (if there is any).

As I said, it's mainly semantics.

In article <i8v4vi$tav$1@news.albasani.net>, Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> writes:
> 
> Isn't that mainly semantics ?
> Most phones users doen't know the difference anyway.
> And it doen't matter either.

   If I never need to download a software update for a phone, then
   I never got a patch.  The initial load was all I downloaded for
   the phones' OS.
 

Bob Koehler wrote:

>    Although all of my cell phones have had a software upgrade facility,
>    never once have I seen a patch release.


iPhone has had patches issued a number of times. (notably the one to
close a PDF bug that had been used to jailbreak the phones).

In article <i8vpt4$se9$1@news.albasani.net>, Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> writes:
> 
> But my point was that you seems to make a distinction
> between an "update" and a "patch".

   Pelase re-read my post.  I was carefully and specifically NOT making
   a distinction.

Steven Schweda wrote:
>    It's not very difficult to find in my log files records of
> downloads from 15.0.0.0/8 of some of the material from:

Employees at HP may not have a say in those decisions. Just because they
benefit from your work doesn't mean that they have the clout to go talk
to Livermore/Lesjack or whoever is in charge and tell them they made a
bonehead decision.

The Hobbyist programme has been on "autopilot" for years as far as HP is
concerned. Rocking the boat may not be to the community's advantage. If
left alone, Mr Cathay will likely continue to issue licences forever,
even after HP has been purchased by some Chinese or Indian firm.

If YOU sent a nice letter to Livermore explaining the situation with
regards to you using the hobbyist programme and ftp to access patches to
produce a valuable utility for VMS, she might reply with an invitation
to join the DSPP programme, or perhaps get someone to issue you an
account with access to patches.

But I doubt it would cause her to change the policy as a whole.

At a time when HP is cutting expenses on VMS, it should in fact enhance
the Hobbysist programme to cause more open source software to be ported
to VMS to compensate for reduced development budgets.

On 10/11/2010 6:26 AM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> In article<4cad49a1$0$5795$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> Mezei<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca>  writes:
>
>> Is it possible that what drove HP to do this is to prevent 3rd party
>> support stealing business from HP ?
>
> Maybe.  Haven't some ex-HP employees set up support businesses?
>

At least one has done so.

In article
<38373470-6ac8-4ebe-a84b-fe5dc17fd836@j5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
Steven Schweda <sms.antinode@gmail.com> writes: 

>    Evidence may be sparse, but it's possible that some VMS
> users at HP might use (and benefit from) some version of the
> Info-ZIP Zip and UnZip programs newer than 2003, development
> of which (for VMS) was done almost entirely on Hobbyist VMS
> systems.  

Or VMS users somewhere else who pay big money to HP for whom ZIP etc are 
very useful tools.  There are a few programs like this which are very 
handy for exchange with non-VMS systems and which also are very useful 
in a pure VMS environment, offering functionality that no native VMS 
stuff (as far as I know) can offer.  Yes, there are non-HP "native VMS" 
alternatives, but they are expensive, even for people who pay big money 
to HP.

On 10/11/2010 6:33 AM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> In article<4caea062$0$11124$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Jeremy Begg
> <jeremy.removethis@vsm.com.au>  writes:
>
>> That said ... I renewed my OpenVMS support agreements just last week.  A
>> DS-series machine is around $70/month for the right to install patches and
>> new versions of VMS, DECnet, TCP/IP and Motif.  About the same as a mobile
>> phone contract.
>
> I don't have any problem with paying for stuff.  (I have also never
> downloaded any music from the internet---neither legally nor illegally.)
> I have no problem at all with paying for something I use, even if I
> don't make money using it.  I just wish that a sensible solution for
> hobbyists would continue.  As far as I am concerned, a reasonable fee is
> not a problem.  Most (all?) hobbyists pay for Connect membership, many
> pay for the hobbyist CD, and then there is the power bill for running
> the hardware.  A reasonable fee would increase this by a few per cent.
>
> Is there any way to get quotes on support from a web page?  Yes, one can
> contact some HP representative directly, but it's probably a waste of
> time if we are talking about something cheap.  Are there official prices
> or are they subject to negotiation?

IFF you are a big enough customer, you have some leverage.  Imagine, a 
company with 100 field offices; each one with its very own VMS Cluster.
When you call HP, they KNOW who you are. You can definitely negotiate 
for some price breaks.  For your home cluster, you either pay through 
the nose or do your own maintenance.

<snip>

On 10/11/2010 8:53 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article<i8td28$jf2$2@news.albasani.net>,
> 	Jan-Erik Soderholm<jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com>  writes:
>> On 2010-10-10 23:45, JF Mezei wrote:
>>> BRAD@rabbit.turquoisewitch.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I still have not heard back from Sujatha (presumably at openvmsprograms AT hp
>>>> DOT com) since I emailed her in September on this issue.  I don't know who
>>>> else to contact, but I will try John Egolf, if a valid email address is
>>>> available.
>>>
>>> The only question that should be asked of him is if he feels that user
>>> comments have any chance of making changes to the policy, or whether HP
>>> is very adament that this be the policy and that it won't be changed.
>>>
>>> There is no point expanding energy against a company that doesn't want
>>> you to be loyal to them unless you spend $10 million of more per year.
>>
>> Where comes "$10 million" from ?
>> Or did you just make that up ?
>
> He makes up most of what he says.  I find this whole debate rather bizarre.
> HP is in business for one reason and one reason only.  To make money.  Just
> how do they make money by giving away their product?  It was real nice that
> they had the Hobbyist Program.  Know any one else who had a similar program?

I'm not certain how "similar" this is but Sun decided several years ago 
that software licenses were "free".  You could download Solaris and run 
it on as many machines as you could afford.  If you wanted any sort of 
support, "N" levels were available for moderately outrageous fees!  The 
cheapest support plan provided provided support via E-Mail.  For more 
money you could get telephone support.  For a lot more money you could 
get someone to come to your  site. . . .

As I'm a hobbyist these days I don't get support.

On 10/11/2010 9:00 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article<i8up7i$ej0$5@online.de>,
> 	helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---undress to reply) writes:
>> In article<4caeb2ce$0$1577$c3e8da3$e408f015@news.astraweb.com>, JF
>> Mezei<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca>  writes:
>>
>>> Jeremy Begg wrote:
>>>   A
>>>> DS-series machine is around $70/month for the right to install patches and
>>>> new versions of VMS, DECnet, TCP/IP and Motif.  About the same as a mobile
>>>> phone contract.
>>>
>>> Could someone pay $70 a year for access to patches during 1 month per year ?
>>>
>>> Lets face it, you can't expect a new version of TCP/IP, DECNET,
>>> VMS/Motif for probably 3 or 4 years. What's the point of paying a
>>> monthly fee that gives you nothing of value ? (for a small business).
>>
>> Err, installing the latest patches can be of value.
>
> Only if they fix something that actually affects your business.  I know
> a local pizza joint that, for years, ran a VMS POS system with HDS VT
> clones with keyboard overlays.  Any bets that all the TCP\IP patches
> would have been of any value to them at all?
>
> bill

No bet!  Now if you could order your pizza via a VMS run web site. . . .

If somebody hasn't already done it, somebody will.

On 10/11/2010 1:07 PM, Mike Rechtman wrote:
> On 11/10/10 12:26, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
>> In article<4cad49a1$0$5795$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>, JF
>> Mezei<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
>>
>>> Is it possible that what drove HP to do this is to prevent 3rd party
>>> support stealing business from HP ?
>>
>> Maybe. Haven't some ex-HP employees set up support businesses?
>>
> If they haven't, they should.

Hoff did.  There may have been others but Hoff for sure!

In article <hZ-dnXGNUIQ3My7RnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Richard B.
Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes: 

> IFF you are a big enough customer, you have some leverage.  Imagine, a 
> company with 100 field offices; each one with its very own VMS Cluster.
> When you call HP, they KNOW who you are. You can definitely negotiate 
> for some price breaks.  

Sure.

> For your home cluster, you either pay through 
> the nose or do your own maintenance.

No problem with that; that's the fun part.  However, the new development 
is that for the home cluster, one must now pay (as far as I know) to get 
patches.

Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:

> No problem with that; that's the fun part.  However, the new development 
> is that for the home cluster, one must now pay (as far as I know) to get 
> patches.

Until HP gives Montagar the permission to distribute 8.4 media to
hobbyists, HP is under no "obligation" to let you get patches for 8.4.

If you pbtain your 8.4 media from another location, then you're on your
own and you can't expect access to patches.

And since 8.3 has been stable for many years, you don't really need
patches for it.

In article <8pSdnaG5MMcVKi7RnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
	"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes:
> On 10/11/2010 9:00 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> In article<i8up7i$ej0$5@online.de>,
>> 	helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---undress to reply) writes:
>>> In article<4caeb2ce$0$1577$c3e8da3$e408f015@news.astraweb.com>, JF
>>> Mezei<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca>  writes:
>>>
>>>> Jeremy Begg wrote:
>>>>   A
>>>>> DS-series machine is around $70/month for the right to install patches and
>>>>> new versions of VMS, DECnet, TCP/IP and Motif.  About the same as a mobile
>>>>> phone contract.
>>>>
>>>> Could someone pay $70 a year for access to patches during 1 month per year ?
>>>>
>>>> Lets face it, you can't expect a new version of TCP/IP, DECNET,
>>>> VMS/Motif for probably 3 or 4 years. What's the point of paying a
>>>> monthly fee that gives you nothing of value ? (for a small business).
>>>
>>> Err, installing the latest patches can be of value.
>>
>> Only if they fix something that actually affects your business.  I know
>> a local pizza joint that, for years, ran a VMS POS system with HDS VT
>> clones with keyboard overlays.  Any bets that all the TCP\IP patches
>> would have been of any value to them at all?
>>
>> bill
> 
> No bet!  Now if you could order your pizza via a VMS run web site. . . .

Sorry, one MicroVAX int he basement and three HDS VT-Clones.  Not sure
if the program was commercial or home-grown, but I suspect home-grown.

> 
> If somebody hasn't already done it, somebody will.

Did a long time ago, but not on 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 <std.disclaimer.h>   

On Oct 11, 9:49=A0am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
Koehler) wrote:
> In article <54c0835e-6399-4714-a1fe-77a6a511e...@i21g2000yqg.googlegroups=
..com>, Doug Phillips <dphil...@netscape.net> writes:
>
>
>
> > Huh? Where did you get that idea?
>
> =A0 =A0 26 years of working with MS products.

Then you should know that what you wrote is a misstatement of facts;
full quote below:

++
On Oct 7, 10:06 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
Koehler) wrote:
>>>In article <i8k0gs$56...@news.eternal-september.org>, Simon Clubley <clu=
bley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>> On 2010-10-06, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <hel...@astro.multiCLOT=
HESvax.de> wrote:

>>>> Do other OSs have publicly available patches for people not on support=
?

>>> Yes. Microsoft.

>   Yes, but those are in large part limited to cover security holes.
>   Other fixes are shipped at cost as the next OS release.
++

All updates and fixes for each edition of Windows (and M$ layered
products) are publicly available to valid license holders at no
additional cost.

If you've used Windows at all you should have heard of Service Packs.
These are major updates which include all updates and fixes to date
*plus* many feature enhancements. That's far beyond just covering
security holes. If you've used Windows at all, you should have noticed
that the majority of the security patches are associated with some
layered product; not Windows itself.

I, too, have worked with M$ products since M$ was born. Windows might
suck in many ways, I've never been a fan and I curse it as much as
anyone, but please don't spread FUD.

In article <4cb418b1$0$5801$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes: 

> > No problem with that; that's the fun part.  However, the new development 
> > is that for the home cluster, one must now pay (as far as I know) to get 
> > patches.
> 
> Until HP gives Montagar the permission to distribute 8.4 media to
> hobbyists, HP is under no "obligation" to let you get patches for 8.4.

I don't see the connection.  The hobbyist license is independent of the 
Montagar hobbyist media, so I can have patches without media.  
Presumably, I could have media without patches if they allow one to get 
the OS but not the patches.

In the past, one could borrow the media for installation if one had a 
hobbyist license.  So perhaps one could borrow patches.  Maybe the whole 
discussion is moot in a legal sense with regard to hobbyists.  On the 
other hand, from a practical point of view, one needs quick and easy 
access to patches.

> If you pbtain your 8.4 media from another location, then you're on your
> own and you can't expect access to patches.

I don't see any connection between media and patches.  They are two 
different things.

> And since 8.3 has been stable for many years, you don't really need
> patches for it.

There are new patches from time to time.

On Oct 11, 6:30=A0am, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <e709934a-1dbd-4be9-bf8b-6bf58e673...@o2g2000vbh.googlegroups.=
com>, BillPedersen <peder...@ccsscorp.com> writes:
>
>
>
> >On Oct 10, 8:36=3DA0pm, VAXman- =A0@SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> >> In article <a2e00d3e-5fd8-4e49-889d-753167645...@a30g2000vbt.googlegro=
ups=3D
> >..com>, BillPedersen <peder...@ccsscorp.com> writes:
>
> >> >On Oct 10, 6:26=3D3DA0pm, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wr=
ote:
> >> >> BillPedersen wrote:
> >> >> > As Brian notes, John Egolf is very much aware of the issue.
> >> >> > Additionally this was discussed with Jennifer Millier the VP of B=
CS,
> >> >> > under which OpenVMS and HP-UX are both developed and maintained.
>
> >> >> Does anyone have a current org chart that shows who the head of VMS
> >> >> development (Shuba Benakatti) reports to all the way to the CEO ?
>
> >> >> In the past, Sue reported to the head of VMS who reported to BCS wh=
o
> >> >> reported to Stallard who had Storage Servers and Software if recall
> >> >> properly. "Software" was replaced with "Networking" about the same =
tim=3D
> >e
> >> >> as VMS was shifted to India.
>
> >> >> The web provided very little insight on whom the HP India subsidiar=
y
> >> >> reports to back at HP in Kalifornia. Bit it seemed to report to som=
e g=3D
> >uy
> >> >> with english name. But could not find a link between him and Liverm=
ore=3D
> >..
> >> >> (I assume HP India still ends up under her umbrella).
>
> >> >> Is this a case of a "stub" of BCS remaining under the
> >> >> Servers/Storage/Networks organisation with minimal product manageme=
nt,
> >> >> and that stub then negotiates budgets and tasks to be performed by =
HP
> >> >> India (at which point the guy in charge of HP India accepts the
> >> >> tasks/money and gets his organisation to deliver ?
>
> >> DEC (ASAP) =3D3D> Compaq (CSA) =3D3D> HP (DSPP)
>
> >> I wasn't aware that the name had changed from DSPP to AllianceOne unti=
l I
> >> received an email from Jeremy pointing me to the URL to sign up for pa=
tch
> >> access.
>
> >> Does anybody have information on this change to AllianceOne? =3DA0It s=
eems =3D
> >HP
> >> may be its own best kept secret.
>
> >I was sent a notice on 28 April 2010. It was an introduction of the
> >program and appeared to come to me as being a DSPP member company.
>
> I just did a mail search...
>
> MAIL> DIRECTORY/FROM=3Dhp.com/SINCE=3D1-APR/BEFORE=3D1-JUN
>
> Only two messages from HP about my DSPP renewal. =A0There's nothing about
> any announcement of any program change or program name change. =A0Most of
> the other messages were from John Egolf about the V8.4 FT and V8.4 EAK.
>
> --
> VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker =A0 =A0VAXman(at)TMESIS(=
dot)ORG
>
> All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
> All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

Received the following April 27th, 2010.  I think the name-change
stuff started in May; at least that's when the 'from' address on the
newsletters changed.

Text quoted from the mail:

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D

Hello, I am Paul Miller, the Vice President of Worldwide Solutions &
Strategic Alliances (SSA), Enterprise Servers, Storage and Networking.
In this new role, the team will be focused on identifying and growing
key partner relationships and building unique solutions with our
partners to deliver the Converged Infrastructure strategy from the
infrastructure to applications to solutions for our joint clients.

As you know, Converged Infrastructure is the core of HP=92s strategy of
providing a shared services model to deliver secure, best-in-class
applications and solutions across servers, storage, management
software, networking, power & cooling, security and services. With
today=92s announcement of the first mission critical Converged
Infrastructure the HP portfolio is more compelling than ever to our
joint clients.

To offer our joint clients an unparalleled choice of solutions
supporting the Converged Infrastructure strategy, today we announced
HP AllianceONE (built on the foundation of DSPP). This unique alliance
partner program allows you to take full advantage of the Converged
Infrastructure architecture and deliver industry-leading solutions.

Please see below for more details on both announcements.

We are excited about HP=92s latest steps along the Converged
Infrastructure continuum. We look forward to a long and successful
partnership selling together.

Kindest regards,

Paul Miller
Vice President
ESSN Solutions & Strategic Alliances

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

There was, of course, additional ad-speak about all the wondrous
benefits to come.  Now we know 'benefits for _who_'...

Rich Jordan wrote:

> As you know, Converged Infrastructure is the core of HP�s strategy of

New buzzword-du-jour. So HP is still using the LaCarly tactic of
steering a large multinational based on the buzzword-du-jour.


> To offer our joint clients an unparalleled choice of solutions
> supporting the Converged Infrastructure strategy, today we announced
> HP AllianceONE (built on the foundation of DSPP)

In essence, the buzzword-du-jour strategy required name changes to use
new buzzword-du-jour to be in line with this week's buzzword-du-jour.

I guess a buzzword driven corporation couldn't use somethinga s simple
as "HP developper programme".

> We are excited about HP�s latest steps along the Converged
> Infrastructure continuum. We look forward to a long and successful
> partnership selling together.

You can tell the staff were given a bible of standards in how to find
ways to incorporate the buzzword-du-jour expressions in every paragraph
of every letter they send out.


If Hurd didn't initiate that buzzword-du-jour change, he should have
fired the person who did. If he did initiate it, then it is good he was
fired.

> New buzzword-du-jour. 

Mommy, what's a Converged Infrastructure?

On 10/12/2010 5:19 PM, smithfarm wrote:
>> New buzzword-du-jour.
>
> Mommy, what's a Converged Infrastructure?

Why do I suspect that we will be happier not knowing!

In article <4cb4cb8b$0$12897$c3e8da3$10694f1e@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
>Rich Jordan wrote:
>
>> As you know, Converged Infrastructure is the core of HP�s strategy of
>
>New buzzword-du-jour. So HP is still using the LaCarly tactic of
>steering a large multinational based on the buzzword-du-jour.

OK.  I read this days ago when Jeremy sent me the email.  I still haven't
a clue what it means.

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

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

In article <fca44b96-9af6-465b-9d0f-2108ae4720de@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Doug Phillips <dphill46@netscape.net> writes:
> 
> All updates and fixes for each edition of Windows (and M$ layered
> products) are publicly available to valid license holders at no
> additional cost.

   Which is why we loaded them all on our W95 systems instead of paying
   for W98.  But MS sold W98 anyhow.

   And lots of bugs in MS products never get patched.  They don't
   get fixed until you buy the next release.

On Oct 13, 10:30 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
Koehler) wrote:
> In article <fca44b96-9af6-465b-9d0f-2108ae472...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Doug Phillips <dphil...@netscape.net> writes:
>
>
>
> > All updates and fixes for each edition of Windows (and M$ layered
> > products) are publicly available to valid license holders at no
> > additional cost.
>
>    Which is why we loaded them all on our W95 systems instead of paying
>    for W98.  But MS sold W98 anyhow.
>

I was there, too. Fully updated Win95 was not as stable as Win98, but
Win98 was not just a patched-up version of Win95 and a lot has
happened since then. A lot has happened in the non-M$ world since
then, too.

>    And lots of bugs in MS products never get patched.  They don't
>    get fixed until you buy the next release.

If you're still living in the Windows 95/98 era you need to phrase
your statements in the past tense and disclaim knowledge of the
present. If you have kept up with current Windows editions and
updates, then I don't know why you are making these statements.

As much as we hate M$, we can't deny that they have been a wee bit
successful. As much as we hate Windows, it doesn't appear to be a
passing fad. Any person who cares about this industry but hasn't been
paying attention to current Windows capabilities and update policy
needs to do some homework.

>...
> There are arrangements in place for DSPP members who don't have support
> agreements. =A0I'll send you the details privately.
>...

Did I miss an announcement to the DSPP members or is this secret only
available to people who know the correct handshake? Anyone feel like
letting this DSPP member in on what is going on?

Peter

In article <1e60f8ba-d015-419d-8b35-1e2d00fbc6cf@y31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>, Peter Weaver <info-vax@weaverconsulting.ca> writes:
>>...
>> There are arrangements in place for DSPP members who don't have support
>> agreements. =A0I'll send you the details privately.
>>...
>
>Did I miss an announcement to the DSPP members or is this secret only
>available to people who know the correct handshake? Anyone feel like
>letting this DSPP member in on what is going on?

Peter, 

Look back in comp.os.vms about one week for a posting from Jeremy Begg.
He posted here the email he received and forwarded to me which contains
the URL for signing up for the patch access.

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

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

Has anyone received any sort of official response---other than just a 
receipt acknowledgement---regarding complaints about the loss of patch 
access for hobbyists?

Has anyone contacted the Montagar folks about this or know what they 
might be doing behind the scenes?

Are there any publicly available support prices?

Is there, or will there be, a possibility to pay (less) for patches 
without any other support?

In article <bd5f1f2a-1d68-4c9a-8706-97f018feab2e@k13g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>, Doug Phillips <dphill46@netscape.net> writes:
> 
> If you're still living in the Windows 95/98 era you need to phrase
> your statements in the past tense and disclaim knowledge of the
> present.

   No.  I work with Windows 7, and the latest versions of Office
   on both Windows 7 and Mac.  And I know of bugs in WXP that never got
   fixed.  We skipped Vista so I don't know if you had to buy Vista
   or wait for 7 to get those fixes.

   And I know of bugs in Office 2003 that weren't fixed until Office
   2007, and still aren't fixed in the latest Office for Mac.

>...
> Look back in comp.os.vms about one week for a posting from Jeremy Begg.
> He posted here the email he received and forwarded to me which contains
> the URL for signing up for the patch access.
>...

I must be as blind as my wife claims I am whenever she hides things
around the house. I don't see any URL posted by Jeremy. But I did see
talk about the AllianceOne (what was DSPP) so I went there (after
resetting my password like I have to do everytime I go there). So it
looks like the deal is that we get 22% off the list price of the
support contract. I guess that if I ever hit a problem that I need a
patch for then I might sign up, or maybe I'll consider taking the Unix
job one of my clients keep trying to get me to take and finally give
up on VMS.

Peter

In article <08bb364e-e087-4f32-b62a-609739e3c892@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Peter Weaver <info-vax@weaverconsulting.ca> writes:
>>...
>> Look back in comp.os.vms about one week for a posting from Jeremy Begg.
>> He posted here the email he received and forwarded to me which contains
>> the URL for signing up for the patch access.
>>...
>
>I must be as blind as my wife claims I am whenever she hides things
>around the house. I don't see any URL posted by Jeremy. But I did see
>talk about the AllianceOne (what was DSPP) so I went there (after
>resetting my password like I have to do everytime I go there). So it
>looks like the deal is that we get 22% off the list price of the
>support contract. I guess that if I ever hit a problem that I need a
>patch for then I might sign up, or maybe I'll consider taking the Unix
>job one of my clients keep trying to get me to take and finally give
>up on VMS.

I wasn't aware of that.  I signed up and had a few email exchanges with
the person handling the AllianceOne (formerly DSPP) patch access.  I was
not made aware this would cost me anything.  We'll see how this pans out
as I was told it would take about 2 weeks to get everything setup.


FWIW, I prefer the new name AllianceOne over that DSPP.  Every time I'd
type DSPP, I had to think about it before typing it because, as a laser
buff, I was more familiar with DPSS.  
-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker    VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

On Oct 13, 1:57 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
Koehler) wrote:
> In article <bd5f1f2a-1d68-4c9a-8706-97f018fea...@k13g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>, Doug Phillips <dphil...@netscape.net> writes:
>
>
>
> > If you're still living in the Windows 95/98 era you need to phrase
> > your statements in the past tense and disclaim knowledge of the
> > present.
>
>    No.  I work with Windows 7, and the latest versions of Office
>    on both Windows 7 and Mac.  And I know of bugs in WXP that never got
>    fixed.  We skipped Vista so I don't know if you had to buy Vista
>    or wait for 7 to get those fixes.
>
>    And I know of bugs in Office 2003 that weren't fixed until Office
>    2007, and still aren't fixed in the latest Office for Mac.

Ok. Have you reported them or looked for KB articles? I guess we need
to be more specific about the definition of "bugs." Just like HP needs
to clarify their definition of "patches."

Without knowing the specific "bugs" you're talking about, most (like
the ones I think you're talking about) that I've found involved
problems with some setting or a problem in the registry. The real
problems that I would consider bugs were eventually fixed with a free
update (assuming I was running a legal license).

I have seen design weaknesses or flaws that were only addressed by an
upgrade, but even many of those were eventually addressed by an
update. Many problems uncovered during Win7 & W2K8 development/testing
have been back-ported to Vista & W2K3 (some to XP) just as many
problems uncovered during VMS development (esp. VAX->Alpha & Alpha-
>Itanium) generated patches to prior versions.

I recall one VMS release where edit/fdl/nointer/anal=... would
completely cobble up the primary key. That was a bug and it was fixed
by a patch and I remember it well because it bit me hard. If I took
enough time I could remember a few others, too. From what I
understand, even those types of fixes will now only be available via $
$subscription. HP has yet to officially state the distinction between
publicly available and subscription only patches - unless it was
posted while I've been typing this.

The discussion was:

>>> Do other OSs have publicly available patches for people not on support?

>> Yes. Microsoft.

I took issue with your reply:

>  Yes, but those are in large part limited to cover security holes.
>  Other fixes are shipped at cost as the next OS release.

That does not match my experience, but I don't know which bugs you are
talking about. If you look carefully, you'll see that sometimes
foundational or limited function code for new features in future
Windows releases is first issued in updates and service packs. We can
bitch about that code being buggy and not fixed until the new Windows,
but most of those updates come with caveats and the new feature was
not bought with the original version anyway. If M$ have one good thing
going for them it's their update service - which has always been
provided to license holders at no additional cost.

In article <i94tnn$ucr$1@online.de>, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
>Has anyone received any sort of official response---other than just a 
>receipt acknowledgement---regarding complaints about the loss of patch 
>access for hobbyists?

I've not received a response from my August email.  I _will_ point out however,
that the original mid-September implementation date was pushed back until
5-Oct.

I'll take whatever credit I can get.

:-)

>Has anyone contacted the Montagar folks about this or know what they 
>might be doing behind the scenes?

I started a thread at openvmshobbyist.org, but the response was rather tepid,
and I really saw nothing "official" from the good folks running the site.  It
is certainly possible that things are happening behind the scenes, but I have
no knowledge of such.

>Are there any publicly available support prices?
>
>Is there, or will there be, a possibility to pay (less) for patches 
>without any other support?

Perhaps others will comment...

On Oct 13, 8:45=A0pm, Peter Weaver <info-...@weaverconsulting.ca> wrote:
> >...
> > Look back in comp.os.vms about one week for a posting from Jeremy Begg.
> > He posted here the email he received and forwarded to me which contains
> > the URL for signing up for the patch access.
> >...
>
> I must be as blind as my wife claims I am whenever she hides things
> around the house. I don't see any URL posted by Jeremy. But I did see
> talk about the AllianceOne (what was DSPP) so I went there (after
> resetting my password like I have to do everytime I go there). So it
> looks like the deal is that we get 22% off the list price of the
> support contract. I guess that if I ever hit a problem that I need a
> patch for then I might sign up, or maybe I'll consider taking the Unix
> job one of my clients keep trying to get me to take and finally give
> up on VMS.
>
> Peter


AllianceOne Members can login and see http://www.hp.com/go/allianceonepatch=
access

On 2010-10-14 11:43, IanMiller wrote:
> On Oct 13, 8:45 pm, Peter Weaver<info-...@weaverconsulting.ca>  wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Look back in comp.os.vms about one week for a posting from Jeremy Begg.
>>> He posted here the email he received and forwarded to me which contains
>>> the URL for signing up for the patch access.
>>> ...
>>
>> I must be as blind as my wife claims I am whenever she hides things
>> around the house. I don't see any URL posted by Jeremy. But I did see
>> talk about the AllianceOne (what was DSPP) so I went there (after
>> resetting my password like I have to do everytime I go there). So it
>> looks like the deal is that we get 22% off the list price of the
>> support contract. I guess that if I ever hit a problem that I need a
>> patch for then I might sign up, or maybe I'll consider taking the Unix
>> job one of my clients keep trying to get me to take and finally give
>> up on VMS.
>>
>> Peter
>
>
> AllianceOne Members can login and see http://www.hp.com/go/allianceonepatchaccess


Yes, but you need an "Contract identifier (SAID)" in your profile.

On Oct 14, 11:07=A0am, Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderh...@telia.com>
wrote:
> On 2010-10-14 11:43, IanMiller wrote:
> > On Oct 13, 8:45 pm, Peter Weaver<info-...@weaverconsulting.ca> =A0wrote=
:
:
> >>  So it looks like the deal is that we get 22% off the list price of th=
e
> >> support contract.
:
> >> Peter
>
> > AllianceOne Members can login and seehttp://www.hp.com/go/allianceonepa=
tchaccess
>
> Yes, but you need an "Contract identifier (SAID)" in your profile.

No to Jan-Erik and no to Peter.

You need to click through the non-obvious "Review the Terms and
Conditions" at the bottom of the patch access page, after logging in
and making the various profile thingies be up to date.

hth,
Hein

On 2010-10-14 17:16, Hein RMS van den Heuvel wrote:
> On Oct 14, 11:07 am, Jan-Erik Soderholm<jan-erik.soderh...@telia.com>
> wrote:
>> On 2010-10-14 11:43, IanMiller wrote:
>>> On Oct 13, 8:45 pm, Peter Weaver<info-...@weaverconsulting.ca>    wrote:
> :
>>>>   So it looks like the deal is that we get 22% off the list price of the
>>>> support contract.
> :
>>>> Peter
>>
>>> AllianceOne Members can login and seehttp://www.hp.com/go/allianceonepatchaccess
>>
>> Yes, but you need an "Contract identifier (SAID)" in your profile.
>
> No to Jan-Erik and no to Peter.
>
> You need to click through the non-obvious "Review the Terms and
> Conditions" at the bottom of the patch access page, after logging in
> and making the various profile thingies be up to date.
>
> hth,
> Hein

Which is the "patch access page" ?

I login to DSPP.
Then I click "Software downloads" i the menu to the left.
Then at "software type" I select "Software:Patches".
That gets me to a page titled "Software: Patches".
There I click on "HP software patches" under "Other".

Now I get a page called "Unable to access the page you requested"
and a box to fill in a "Contract identifier (SAID)"

On which of these (or some other) page should I click trought
the "Review the Terms and Conditions" at the bottom ?

Jan-Erik.

On Oct 14, 11:28=A0am, Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderh...@telia.com>
wrote:
:
> On which of these (or some other) page should I click trought
> the "Review the Terms and Conditions" at the bottom ?
>
> Jan-Erik.

1) try go to : http://www.hp.com/go/allianceonepatchaccess
2) login

3) get up, walk around your chair 3 times to the left, and once to the
right
4) sit back down

5) go again to : http://www.hp.com/go/allianceonepatchaccess

Now do you see a page headed by "AllianceONE member access to patches"
the last line on the main frame there reads (for me!) :

Review the Terms and Conditions.
(Terms and Conditions) is 'hot'
6) follow the link.

For me it links to :

http://h21007.www2.hp.com/portal/site/dspp/menuitem.863c3e4cbcdc3f3515b49c1=
08973a801?ciid=3D91d1d2fea77fa210VgnVCM100000a360ea10RCRD

I suspect that link is only valid in the context of my session, so
you'll have to do that yourself.

Hein

Hein RMS van den Heuvel wrote:

> 
> 1) try go to : http://www.hp.com/go/allianceonepatchaccess

When I do that I get:

"You do not have the proper permissions to view this content. Please see 
the Membership benefits page for more information on AllianceONE 
membership."

This regardless of whether or not I am logged in with my (individual, 
not company) AllianceONE account.  So it seems that, as with DSPP, the 
individual membership doesn't actually do anything except tell you what 
you can't have.

On Oct 14, 6:50=A0pm, "Craig A. Berry" <craigbe...@nospam.mac.com>
wrote:
> Hein RMS van den Heuvel wrote:
>
>
>
> > 1) try go to :http://www.hp.com/go/allianceonepatchaccess
>
> When I do that I get:
>
> "You do not have the proper permissions to view this content. Please see
> the Membership benefits page for more information on AllianceONE
> membership."
:
> seems that, as with DSPP, the  individual membership doesn't actually
> do anything except tell you what  you can't have.

Yeah, looks that way.

Jan-Erik has the same, or a much similar issue.
We exchanged some Email. There is something with his profile.
While he is registered as a company (as I am) when he hits 'Membership
information' he does not see ' Edit your company profile' where I do.

Maybe he just needs to do the annual renewal, but there was no obvious
indication for that.
I just happened to do mine (I left HP to become independent 5 years
ago to the day :-)
Now Craig, you might need to register as/with a company to get this to
work, or escalate.

fwiw,
Hein.

On 10/14/2010 11:28 AM, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> On 2010-10-14 17:16, Hein RMS van den Heuvel wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 11:07 am, Jan-Erik Soderholm<jan-erik.soderh...@telia.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 2010-10-14 11:43, IanMiller wrote:
>>>> On Oct 13, 8:45 pm, Peter Weaver<info-...@weaverconsulting.ca> wrote:
>> :
>>>>> So it looks like the deal is that we get 22% off the list price of the
>>>>> support contract.
>> :
>>>>> Peter
>>>
>>>> AllianceOne Members can login and
>>>> seehttp://www.hp.com/go/allianceonepatchaccess
>>>
>>> Yes, but you need an "Contract identifier (SAID)" in your profile.
>>
>> No to Jan-Erik and no to Peter.
>>
>> You need to click through the non-obvious "Review the Terms and
>> Conditions" at the bottom of the patch access page, after logging in
>> and making the various profile thingies be up to date.
>>
>> hth,
>> Hein
>
> Which is the "patch access page" ?
>
> I login to DSPP.
> Then I click "Software downloads" i the menu to the left.
> Then at "software type" I select "Software:Patches".
> That gets me to a page titled "Software: Patches".
> There I click on "HP software patches" under "Other".
>
> Now I get a page called "Unable to access the page you requested"
> and a box to fill in a "Contract identifier (SAID)"
>
> On which of these (or some other) page should I click trought
                                                         ^^^^^^^?????????
<snip>

A spelling checker is a good thing to have!  Failing that, a good proof 
reader. . . .  For mind reading, I charge extra!!!!!

Rich Jordan <jordan@ccs4vms.com> wrote:

<snip>
> Received the following April 27th, 2010.  I think the name-change
> stuff started in May; at least that's when the 'from' address on the
> newsletters changed.
> 
> Text quoted from the mail:
> 
>=========================
> Hello, I am Paul Miller, the Vice President of Worldwide Solutions &
> Strategic Alliances (SSA), Enterprise Servers, Storage and Networking.
<snip>

I received the same mail on April 28th (in the morning, when it still was 
27th in parts of the U.S.). The subject was:

"New: HP AllianceONE Program and Mission Critical Servers"

Hans.

   It took a while, but at last I got what looks like an
authoritative and definitive reply on the question of patch
access for VMS hobbyists:

      Mon, 18 Oct 2010 04:04:10 -0500 (CDT)

      From: Office of OpenVMS Programs <OpenVMS.Programs@hp.com>

      All hobbyists are also required to buy the support pack to
      ensure getting patches.

      Thanks and Warm Regards
      Sujatha
      Global Lead- Customer & Partner Technical programs-Open VMS

I'd like to think that it's not also the final answer, but it
appears now that the value of the VMS Hobbyist program has
officially plummeted.

In article <b5c73427-2b5f-4079-a845-36ad6a2dd91a@28g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Steven Schweda <sms.antinode@gmail.com> writes:
>   It took a while, but at last I got what looks like an
>authoritative and definitive reply on the question of patch
>access for VMS hobbyists:
>
>      Mon, 18 Oct 2010 04:04:10 -0500 (CDT)
>
>      From: Office of OpenVMS Programs <OpenVMS.Programs@hp.com>
>
>      All hobbyists are also required to buy the support pack to
>      ensure getting patches.
>
>      Thanks and Warm Regards
>      Sujatha
>      Global Lead- Customer & Partner Technical programs-Open VMS
>
>I'd like to think that it's not also the final answer, but it
>appears now that the value of the VMS Hobbyist program has
>officially plummeted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z29STlNh1w

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

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

In article <+T4t6OwIHzar@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
	koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
> In article <b5c73427-2b5f-4079-a845-36ad6a2dd91a@28g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Steven Schweda <sms.antinode@gmail.com> writes:
>>    It took a while, but at last I got what looks like an
>> authoritative and definitive reply on the question of patch
>> access for VMS hobbyists:
>> 
>>       Mon, 18 Oct 2010 04:04:10 -0500 (CDT)
>> 
>>       From: Office of OpenVMS Programs <OpenVMS.Programs@hp.com>
>> 
>>       All hobbyists are also required to buy the support pack to
>>       ensure getting patches.
>> 
>>       Thanks and Warm Regards
>>       Sujatha
>>       Global Lead- Customer & Partner Technical programs-Open VMS
>> 
>> I'd like to think that it's not also the final answer, but it
>> appears now that the value of the VMS Hobbyist program has
>> officially plummeted.
> 
>     That's going to depend on the price.

Well, maybe it's the old language barrier thing but based on the
statement:
          "All hobbyists are also required to buy the support pack to
           ensure getting patches."

I would tend to think this person knows nothing about the "Hobbyist
Program" and thinks that members are actually paying for participation.
Thus the "also" in the statement.

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 <std.disclaimer.h>   

In article
<b5c73427-2b5f-4079-a845-36ad6a2dd91a@28g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Steven Schweda <sms.antinode@gmail.com> writes: 

>       All hobbyists are also required to buy the support pack to
>       ensure getting patches.

Do you know what "the" support pack costs?

In article <b5c73427-2b5f-4079-a845-36ad6a2dd91a@28g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Steven Schweda <sms.antinode@gmail.com> writes:
>    It took a while, but at last I got what looks like an
> authoritative and definitive reply on the question of patch
> access for VMS hobbyists:
> 
>       Mon, 18 Oct 2010 04:04:10 -0500 (CDT)
> 
>       From: Office of OpenVMS Programs <OpenVMS.Programs@hp.com>
> 
>       All hobbyists are also required to buy the support pack to
>       ensure getting patches.
> 
>       Thanks and Warm Regards
>       Sujatha
>       Global Lead- Customer & Partner Technical programs-Open VMS
> 
> I'd like to think that it's not also the final answer, but it
> appears now that the value of the VMS Hobbyist program has
> officially plummeted.

    That's going to depend on the price.

Bill Gunshannon wrote:

> >>       All hobbyists are also required to buy the support pack to
> >>       ensure getting patches.

> Well, maybe it's the old language barrier thing but based on the
> statement:
>           "All hobbyists are also required to buy the support pack to
>            ensure getting patches."
>
> I would tend to think this person knows nothing about the "Hobbyist
> Program" and thinks that members are actually paying for participation.
> Thus the "also" in the statement.

   I read that "also" as saying that hobbyists, like
commercial users, are "required to buy".  I expect the "Office
of OpenVMS Programs" to be aware of the VMS Hobbyist program.
This was a response to an inquiry I made back around
24-AUG-2010 01:52:18.81 (-0500 (CDT)).  That would seem to
have been enough time for almost anyone to become aware, if
any increase in awareness had been needed.


Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:

> Do you know what "the" support pack costs?

   I have no idea.  I've already given one price which I'd be
willing to pay.  I assume that the actual price would be well
above what it's worth to me.

   The trickle of "where can I download <some patch>" postings
has begun on the ITRC forums, mostly from people with old,
out-of-support systems.  I suppose that we'll never be able to
determine the cash-to-ill-will ratio which this policy change
will generate.  Or whether it exceeds the original estimates.

In article <8i3dkfFj85U1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill
Gunshannon) writes: 

> Well, maybe it's the old language barrier thing but based on the
> statement:
>           "All hobbyists are also required to buy the support pack to
>            ensure getting patches."
> 
> I would tend to think this person knows nothing about the "Hobbyist
> Program" and thinks that members are actually paying for participation.
> Thus the "also" in the statement.

In other words:

Does the "also" go with "hobbyists" or does it go with "buy"?

A: Hobbyists as well are required to buy the support pack.

B: Hobbyists are required to buy the support pack as well.

A is very clear.  B could be read otherwise, but the intent should be 
clear.

My impression is that she meant "A", independent of whether she knows 
that hobbyists don't pay for the hobbyist license.

We shouldn't create an unnatural barrier.  Mosts hobbyists pay for 
membership in DECUS or Connect or whatever, many (most?) buy the 
Montagar CD and of course the electricity to run hobbyist machines is 
not free either.  So I don't see any reasonable hobbyist refusing to pay 
a reasonable fee.

In article <e32a13a1-d8bc-4090-b721-10dd10cb53c7@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
	Steven Schweda <sms.antinode@gmail.com> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 
>> >>       All hobbyists are also required to buy the support pack to
>> >>       ensure getting patches.
> 
>> Well, maybe it's the old language barrier thing but based on the
>> statement:
>>           "All hobbyists are also required to buy the support pack to
>>            ensure getting patches."
>>
>> I would tend to think this person knows nothing about the "Hobbyist
>> Program" and thinks that members are actually paying for participation.
>> Thus the "also" in the statement.
> 
>    I read that "also" as saying that hobbyists, like
> commercial users, are "required to buy".  

Like I said, language thing.  Eenglish a language of ambiguities.

I can see it as saying: "the hobbyist are also irequired to buy the support
pack in addition to his hobbyist pak."


>                                           I expect the "Office
> of OpenVMS Programs" to be aware of the VMS Hobbyist program.
> This was a response to an inquiry I made back around
> 24-AUG-2010 01:52:18.81 (-0500 (CDT)).  That would seem to
> have been enough time for almost anyone to become aware, if
> any increase in awareness had been needed.

Maybe it's just the cynic in me but I would say that assumes they care.


> 
> 
> Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> 
>> Do you know what "the" support pack costs?
> 
>    I have no idea.  I've already given one price which I'd be
> willing to pay.  I assume that the actual price would be well
> above what it's worth to me.

The idea that a bunch of people playing with this in their basements
running it on systems acquired thru dumpster-diving are likely to be
willing to pay anything for patches jsut seems, well, silly.

> 
>    The trickle of "where can I download <some patch>" postings
> has begun on the ITRC forums, mostly from people with old,
> out-of-support systems.  I suppose that we'll never be able to
> determine the cash-to-ill-will ratio which this policy change
> will generate.  Or whether it exceeds the original estimates.

I wonder if they have finally decided that too many of the "Hobbyist"
systems are actually being used commercially.

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 <std.disclaimer.h>   

In article <8i3mvuF5spU1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill
Gunshannon) writes: 

> The idea that a bunch of people playing with this in their basements
> running it on systems acquired thru dumpster-diving are likely to be
> willing to pay anything for patches jsut seems, well, silly.

Why?  As I have pointed out here a few times, the typical hobbyist 
already spends, say, a few hundred dollars each year.  Many would 
probably be able to accept paying for support (perhaps some light 
version with just patch access) for a similar fee.

> I wonder if they have finally decided that too many of the "Hobbyist"
> systems are actually being used commercially.

I think it is pretty clear, based on evidence supported here, that this 
was not the reason for the change.

Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:

> I think it is pretty clear, based on evidence supported here, that this 
> was not the reason for the change.


The Hobbyist programme is just an unimportant and unintended casualty of
some large policy decision.

VMS management might not be opposed to allowing access, but doing so
would require a budget to develop some system that authorized hobbyists
to access the restricted patch site.

And it is pretty hard to justify a budget to develop teh systems needed
to grant hobbysists access to the patch site.

On 10/18/2010 1:58 PM, Steven Schweda wrote:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
>>>>        All hobbyists are also required to buy the support pack to
>>>>        ensure getting patches.
>
>> Well, maybe it's the old language barrier thing but based on the
>> statement:
>>            "All hobbyists are also required to buy the support pack to
>>             ensure getting patches."
>>
>> I would tend to think this person knows nothing about the "Hobbyist
>> Program" and thinks that members are actually paying for participation.
>> Thus the "also" in the statement.
>
>     I read that "also" as saying that hobbyists, like
> commercial users, are "required to buy".  I expect the "Office
> of OpenVMS Programs" to be aware of the VMS Hobbyist program.
> This was a response to an inquiry I made back around
> 24-AUG-2010 01:52:18.81 (-0500 (CDT)).  That would seem to
> have been enough time for almost anyone to become aware, if
> any increase in awareness had been needed.
>
>
> Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
>
>> Do you know what "the" support pack costs?
>
>     I have no idea.  I've already given one price which I'd be
> willing to pay.  I assume that the actual price would be well
> above what it's worth to me.
>
>     The trickle of "where can I download<some patch>" postings
> has begun on the ITRC forums, mostly from people with old,
> out-of-support systems.  I suppose that we'll never be able to
> determine the cash-to-ill-will ratio which this policy change
> will generate.  Or whether it exceeds the original estimates.

It looks to me as if you believe that HP has some duty to not only 
provide hobbyist licensing but also to provide patches for free.

If HP did not have contractual commitments to DOD to support VMS through 
the year 2020 (or something like that) you wouldn't have *any* support 
for VMS.

Face it!  VMS has been on life support for several years now.  One of 
these days HP will pull the plug!

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

> Face it!  VMS has been on life support for several years now.  One of 
> these days HP will pull the plug!

It will be more than a few days before it happens... they'll let that
new guy from SAP start his new job at HP.

On the other hand, they may get the accountant Lesjack to kill off VMS
before the new guy from SAP takes over, just like LaCarly got the
accountant LeCurly to murder alpha so she wouldn't have to.

Seriously thought, HP will continue to collect VMS support revenues for
many years to come.

The big question is whether the new team is permenently under
experienced and/or understaffed, or whether the quality of 8.4 is just a
glitch, and within 2 years, the newbies will have gained enough
experience to stop making silly mistakes like that of the DIRECTORY command.

And with a bunch of nameless people in VMS engineering, the VMS
community won't know/notice when some leave and whether they are
replaced or not. So we have no idea of what VMS engineering changes are
planned.

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

> It looks to me as if you believe that HP has some duty to not only
> provide hobbyist licensing but also to provide patches for free.

   What gave you that impression?  I claim simply that my
participation in the Hobbyist program has provided some
benefit, first to Compaq, then to HP, both directly and
indirectly (by benefiting its (paying) VMS customers), and
that my interest in continuing to provide such benefits may
largely dry up when I'm driven away from VMS to some other OS.
I don't recall making any demands, or expressing any belief in
my right to free access to anything.  I do believe that HP's
new policy restricting patch access will not induce me to pay
any more to HP than I have been paying, and that it will
discourage me from using VMS in the future.  Superhuman
insight is not required to forecast whether my interest in
maintaining VMS freeware will increase or decrease in that
event.

> Face it!  VMS has been on life support for several years now.  One of
> these days HP will pull the plug!

   HP is not the only one with a plug.

Steven Schweda wrote:

>    What gave you that impression?  I claim simply that my
> participation in the Hobbyist program has provided some
> benefit, first to Compaq, then to HP, both directly and
> indirectly (by benefiting its (paying) VMS customers),

When HP took over Compaq, it re-iterated all the commitments made during
the Alphacide, including that of at least one 8.* release for VAX-VMS.

But then someone came up with the false rethoric that VAX-VMS customers
were not interested in upgrades and that it couldn't justify the costs
of an upgrade if people didn't buy it. So the 8.* release for VAX-VMS
was unceremoniously cancelled  without an announcement. It wasn't until
years later when it became blatantly obvious that there wouldn't be any
more VAX-VMS releases.


Hobbysists should not be offended because HP is not recognizing their
contribution to the VMS ecosystem.

If HP already considers VMS to be a mature ecosystem , it will only
allocate token development budgets and not care if hobbysists no longer
contribute new versions of important utilities. Upper management will be
told that the remaining VMS installed base don't care for new versions,
justifying further cutbacks in VMS engineering budgets.

If lots of customers decide to skip 8.4 because of quality control
issues, this will help HP justify its argument that VMS customers are
not interested in upgrading.


Back when there was DECUS, each chapter worked hard to justify itself to
Digital to get operating funding and presence during symposium etc. And
Digital, eacept at the end, did see much value in DECUS.

With VMS engineering now isolated and detached from the community, they
don't know what we need, and they are forced to accept orders from their
one customer: HP in California.

Phillip Helbig---undress to reply schrieb:

> 
> Why?  As I have pointed out here a few times, the typical hobbyist 
> already spends, say, a few hundred dollars each year. 

but not into HP's pockets.

> Many would 
> probably be able to accept paying for support (perhaps some light 
> version with just patch access) for a similar fee.

a few hundred dollars for HP
just to fix damage caused by HP themselves?

Richard B. Gilbert schrieb:

> 
> If HP did not have contractual commitments to DOD to support VMS through 
> the year 2020 (or something like that) you wouldn't have *any* support 
> for VMS.

Where is this "year 2020" documented? Another Maya calendar?
Has anybody here actually read that contract?
And how does a single contract between HP/Compaq affect VMS at large?
Most probably HP just guarantees the functionality of a particular
setup, which may or may not include VMS.
And even if does, HP could support VMS for DOD and drop it
for the rest of the world.

Michael Kraemer wrote:

> And how does a single contract between HP/Compaq affect VMS at large?

At the time of the DII-COE (is that right?) initiative, it was seen as a
10 year commitment to continue to support/develop VMS.  However, the
commitment was only to those who purchased/signed a DII-COE contract.

However, such contracts would have made it costlier for Compaq/HP to
stop its development. (continued development was part of the
commitment), so this would have benefitted the VMS community at large.

As I recall, the DII-COE discussions happened prior to Alphacide. So the
10 year commitment is about over.

> And even if does, HP could support VMS for DOD and drop it
> for the rest of the world.

As long as some VAX-VMS customer on 5.5-2 is still willing to pay for
support of a system that is no longer mainteined/developped, HP will
continue to accept the money. And apparently, there are still lots of
VAX customer paying for support.

And same for Alpha.

There is a HUGE difference between slowing VMS' development to a crawl
and declaring EOL for VMS.

I suspect that we are experiencing slowed VMS development while waiting
for the final decision on the fate of IA64 to be announced.

If erosion of the VMS business accelerates as a result of the poor
quality of 8.4, this will help HP justify not porting VMS post IA64.

JF Mezei schrieb:

> At the time of the DII-COE (is that right?) initiative, it was seen as a
> 10 year commitment to continue to support/develop VMS.  However, the
> commitment was only to those who purchased/signed a DII-COE contract.

Strange arrangement, it seems.
Essentially it means a few customers subsidized general VMS
development whereas other, non-paying customers would have the benefit.
Did that actually work? Did anybody *signed* such contracts?


> 
> As long as some VAX-VMS customer on 5.5-2 is still willing to pay for
> support of a system that is no longer mainteined/developped, HP will
> continue to accept the money. And apparently, there are still lots of
> VAX customer paying for support.

Support == Maintenance != Development

HP may take VMS off the market for new purchases but
still support it as-is for a couple of legacy customers,
including DOD.
Would be an easy business for HP since one would not expect
too many new problems surfacing for 5.5-2.
But this would have no positive effect for VMS at large.
Thus I don't understand why people believe(d) that
"this DOD contract" would come to VMS' rescue.
It's just clutching at straws, probably not even that.

> 
> If erosion of the VMS business accelerates as a result of the poor
> quality of 8.4, this will help HP justify not porting VMS post IA64.

This hypothetical port firstly would have no effect on VMS' future
viability (as more competent people already have explained here)
and secondly would not be possible with the indian greenhorns.
They would first have to learn what regression tests are good for.

Michael Kraemer wrote:

> Strange arrangement, it seems.
> Essentially it means a few customers subsidized general VMS
> development whereas other, non-paying customers would have the benefit.
> Did that actually work? Did anybody *signed* such contracts?

Yes.  the US DOD did. And there may have been a couple others.


> Support == Maintenance != Development

It doesn't take much to claim that VMS is being developped. All it needs
is to assign a few man hours per year to "development" tasks. Producing
a new version of VMS solely to support a new server model is all that is
needed to claim VMS is still being developped.


> HP may take VMS off the market for new purchases but
> still support it as-is for a couple of legacy customers,
> including DOD.

Ending sales of VMS licences will come years after the last IA64 system
capable of running VMS has has its last sale. Since there is no VMS
markleting anyways, leaving the product codes in a price list doesn't
cost much.

Can someone today still buy a Tru64 licence ?

> Thus I don't understand why people believe(d) that
> "this DOD contract" would come to VMS' rescue.
> It's just clutching at straws, probably not even that.

The DOD contract *DID* come to VMS' rescue. That was 10 years ago.

Today, I'd say that HP keeps VMs alive more for OMX than for the
military. I suspect the military isn't building new VMS based systems,
but keeps some existing ones running (like those J-STARS radar aircraft).


> This hypothetical port firstly would have no effect on VMS' future
> viability (as more competent people already have explained here)

A port to industry standard servers, desktops, laptops would do a lot to
help VMS. It would be a credible sign that HP intends to keep VMS not
only alive, but also actively developped and marketed for growth.


The port alone wouldn't bring VMS back to life. It would have to be
followed by marketing and more development to rejuvenate it. But it
would be a foundation for a VMS renaissance.

But this is all water under the bridge now. HP did not initiate a VMS
renaissance once VMS was available on its then new IA64 platform.  So it
is unlikely to do so when IA64 reaches EOL and HP focuses only on 8086
architecture.


> and secondly would not be possible with the indian greenhorns.
> They would first have to learn what regression tests are good for.

The amount of interaction between the real VMS engineers and the newbies
in india was insufficient to allow for proper transfer of
knowledge/experience. I don't think anyone is surprised of the apparent
low quality of 8.4.  But the possibility remains that they will ramp up
their experience and knowledge and future releases will be far better.
Only time will tell.  But I am not holding my breath.

JF Mezei schrieb:
> Michael Kraemer wrote:
> 
> 
>>Strange arrangement, it seems.
>>Essentially it means a few customers subsidized general VMS
>>development whereas other, non-paying customers would have the benefit.
>>Did that actually work? Did anybody *signed* such contracts?
> 
> 
> Yes.  the US DOD did. And there may have been a couple others.

So you're telling me the US taxpayer enabled further
development of VMS to the benefit of the rest of the world,
including Russians, Chinese etc.?

>>HP may take VMS off the market for new purchases but
>>still support it as-is for a couple of legacy customers,
>>including DOD.
> 
> 
> Ending sales of VMS licences will come years after the last IA64 system
> capable of running VMS has has its last sale. Since there is no VMS
> markleting anyways, leaving the product codes in a price list doesn't
> cost much.
> 
> Can someone today still buy a Tru64 licence ?

Did I miss the official withdrawal statement?
Like e.g. IBM did for their OS/2?

> 
>>Thus I don't understand why people believe(d) that
>>"this DOD contract" would come to VMS' rescue.
>>It's just clutching at straws, probably not even that.
> 
> 
> The DOD contract *DID* come to VMS' rescue. That was 10 years ago.

What exactly did it bring to the table for the rest of us?
Would V7.2 or 7.3 have been impossible without DOD?

In article <3d2dnSOCZJ8SYiHRnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
	"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes:
> On 10/18/2010 1:58 PM, Steven Schweda wrote:
>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>
>>>>>        All hobbyists are also required to buy the support pack to
>>>>>        ensure getting patches.
>>
>>> Well, maybe it's the old language barrier thing but based on the
>>> statement:
>>>            "All hobbyists are also required to buy the support pack to
>>>             ensure getting patches."
>>>
>>> I would tend to think this person knows nothing about the "Hobbyist
>>> Program" and thinks that members are actually paying for participation.
>>> Thus the "also" in the statement.
>>
>>     I read that "also" as saying that hobbyists, like
>> commercial users, are "required to buy".  I expect the "Office
>> of OpenVMS Programs" to be aware of the VMS Hobbyist program.
>> This was a response to an inquiry I made back around
>> 24-AUG-2010 01:52:18.81 (-0500 (CDT)).  That would seem to
>> have been enough time for almost anyone to become aware, if
>> any increase in awareness had been needed.
>>
>>
>> Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
>>
>>> Do you know what "the" support pack costs?
>>
>>     I have no idea.  I've already given one price which I'd be
>> willing to pay.  I assume that the actual price would be well
>> above what it's worth to me.
>>
>>     The trickle of "where can I download<some patch>" postings
>> has begun on the ITRC forums, mostly from people with old,
>> out-of-support systems.  I suppose that we'll never be able to
>> determine the cash-to-ill-will ratio which this policy change
>> will generate.  Or whether it exceeds the original estimates.
> 
> It looks to me as if you believe that HP has some duty to not only 
> provide hobbyist licensing but also to provide patches for free.
> 
> If HP did not have contractual commitments to DOD to support VMS through 
> the year 2020 (or something like that) you wouldn't have *any* support 
> for VMS.

Yet another myth that really needs to be put to rest (like the VMS
constant!)

The DOD has no interest in VMS beyond a few legacy systems that are way
too old to be worth investing in maintenance contracts.  Contract or not
HP is not going to be providing any new patches for the VAX.  Based on
the current requirements to get a new IS approved, it would be all but
impossible to install a new VMS system.


> 
> Face it!  VMS has been on life support for several years now.  One of 
> these days HP will pull the plug!

Probably just let it fade into the mists of time.....

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 <std.disclaimer.h>   

In article <i9jdlr$9u3$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
	Michael Kraemer <M.Kraemer@gsi.de> writes:
> Richard B. Gilbert schrieb:
> 
>> 
>> If HP did not have contractual commitments to DOD to support VMS through 
>> the year 2020 (or something like that) you wouldn't have *any* support 
>> for VMS.
> 
> Where is this "year 2020" documented? Another Maya calendar?
> Has anybody here actually read that contract?
> And how does a single contract between HP/Compaq affect VMS at large?
> Most probably HP just guarantees the functionality of a particular
> setup, which may or may not include VMS.
> And even if does, HP could support VMS for DOD and drop it
> for the rest of the world.
 
While I still hold (based on personal experience) that there really is
no big, demanding DOD VMS presence, I had forgotten about the above
option.  Isn't that what happened to IAS in the PDP-11 world?

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 <std.disclaimer.h>   

Bill Gunshannon wrote:

> The DOD has no interest in VMS beyond a few legacy systems that are way
> too old to be worth investing in maintenance contracts.

I am not in DOD, but there was much publicity made by Sue and others
aboutr VMS being used on the JSTARS system (think AWACS radar planes).
Such systems last a long long time once installed and tested.

The military may no longer choose VMS for new platforms, but there are
still a number of VMS systems in operation. NORAD is another place where
VMS is used.

VMS may be gone from mainstream military operations, but what is left is
probably big enough to be important to HP. (Just like the small numebr
of Tandem/NSK customers are important to HP because they are high profile)



> HP is not going to be providing any new patches for the VAX.  Based on
> the current requirements to get a new IS approved, it would be all but
> impossible to install a new VMS system.

I would agree with the above. It is pretty clear, even outside of the
military, that ecept for some isolated cases, new deployments of VMS
systems is going to be rarer and rarer.


It is a shame because the core is still good, it just needs updated
middleware to support modern applications. But every month that  goes by
makes it harder for VMS to ever catch up.

In article <3d2dnSOCZJ8SYiHRnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes:

> If HP did not have contractual commitments to DOD to support VMS through 
> the year 2020 (or something like that) you wouldn't have *any* support 
> for VMS.

   FUD.

   I think the DoD commitment is about up.  And I think DEC/Compaq/HP 
   never had to bother with a port to Itanium, clusters over IP,
   and many other expenses they've undertaken to meet a DoD commitment
   on systems that shipped before that work was done.

In article <4cbd6222$0$29192$c3e8da3$88b277c5@news.astraweb.com>,
	JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> Michael Kraemer wrote:
> 
>> Strange arrangement, it seems.
>> Essentially it means a few customers subsidized general VMS
>> development whereas other, non-paying customers would have the benefit.
>> Did that actually work? Did anybody *signed* such contracts?
> 
> Yes.  the US DOD did. And there may have been a couple others.

OK, let's get as few things straight.  DII-COE is not any kind of
contract.  It is a standard that needed to be met inorder to bid
for DOD contracts.  No one signed a "DII-COE Contract".

Now, let's look at HP's DII-COE web page.

First question:  Yes, VMS is present in DOD and Contractor sights.  I
know of a couple of VAX systems still being used.  :-)  Probably a
much better presence in contractors but as DOD's interest wanes so
will theirs.

Second Question: Note the mention of AlphaServer Technology.  What does
that say about the currentcy or relevancy of their commitment to DII-COE?

Third Question:  Explanation of what DII-COE is.  Note, it specifically
says "standards and guidelines" not binding contracts.  Note also the
role DISA plays in this and weigh that against what I have already said,
based on several years of Reserve Duty with DISA and spending last year
working there full time.  DISA, who is responsible for establishing the
standards and confirming compliance does  not test and is not interested
in VMS.  Sorry guys.  That's the facts.  And, just like I tried at my
day-job I also tried to revive interst in VMS there but the response was
the same in both places.

Do we really need to go on?  Note the latedrmention that DII-COE includes
POSIX.  What happened to the OpenVMS POSIX add-on?  Can you still get it?
If it is a dead product, what does that tell you about DII-COE and HP's
commitment?  And, to top it all off, it all dates back to 2002.  DOD
interest in VMS other than a few existing legacy systems pretty much died
in 2005 when DISA released what would be the last set of standards for
the OpenVMS Operating System.

> 
> 
>> Support == Maintenance != Development
> 
> It doesn't take much to claim that VMS is being developped. All it needs
> is to assign a few man hours per year to "development" tasks. Producing
> a new version of VMS solely to support a new server model is all that is
> needed to claim VMS is still being developped.
> 
> 
>> HP may take VMS off the market for new purchases but
>> still support it as-is for a couple of legacy customers,
>> including DOD.
> 
> Ending sales of VMS licences will come years after the last IA64 system
> capable of running VMS has has its last sale. Since there is no VMS
> markleting anyways, leaving the product codes in a price list doesn't
> cost much.
> 
> Can someone today still buy a Tru64 licence ?
> 
>> Thus I don't understand why people believe(d) that
>> "this DOD contract" would come to VMS' rescue.
>> It's just clutching at straws, probably not even that.
> 
> The DOD contract *DID* come to VMS' rescue. That was 10 years ago.
> 
> Today, I'd say that HP keeps VMs alive more for OMX than for the
> military. I suspect the military isn't building new VMS based systems,
> but keeps some existing ones running (like those J-STARS radar aircraft).

Looked at the J-Stars webpage lately?  
The last "VMS" upgrade was in 2002 with the last one hitting the field
in 2005.  That's a long time ago.

       "Operators workstations are Raytheon-militarised versions of the
        DEC Alpha system and use Windows to make their tasks easier and
        faster."

And, based on the systems they now have to integrate with, like FBCB2 the
liklihood of a continued VMS presence just seems rather unlikely.

I will leave the rest to others.  But you can take it from someone who
has a considerable amount of experience working with DOD (both military
and civilian) that it is defintely not some mythical DOD contracts that
are proping up VMS.  There may be some existing VMS instalations left,
but it is extremely unlikely that they are running any version new enough
to actually need an OS maintenance contract.

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 <std.disclaimer.h>   

In article <4cbda483$0$1880$c3e8da3$9f400e27@news.astraweb.com>,
	JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 
>> The DOD has no interest in VMS beyond a few legacy systems that are way
>> too old to be worth investing in maintenance contracts.
> 
> I am not in DOD, but there was much publicity made by Sue and others
> aboutr VMS being used on the JSTARS system (think AWACS radar planes).
> Such systems last a long long time once installed and tested.

See my other post.

The last J-Stars update was developed in 2002 and completed rollout in
2005.  It was Alpha based.  The current J-Stars webpage prominently
displays the following paragraph:
      "Operators workstations are Raytheon-militarised versions of the
       DEC Alpha system and use Windows to make their tasks easier and
       faster."

At it's peak it was a toital of 17 systems.  Hardly enough to keep VMS
alive.  Oh, and HP doesn't maintain them, Northrup-Grumman does.  There
is no reason whatsoever to think that HP gets any continued revenue from
nor has any long term contractual commitment to this program.

> 
> The military may no longer choose VMS for new platforms, but there are
> still a number of VMS systems in operation. NORAD is another place where
> VMS is used.

Care to substantiate that claim?  NORAD comes under DISA's purview and
has to meet the same standards as everyone else and DISA no longer
certifies, tests or approves VMS systems.

> 
> VMS may be gone from mainstream military operations, 

I have been associated with the military since 1968.  I have been doing
military IT since 1979.  VMS was never in "mainstream military operations".

>                                                      but what is left is
> probably big enough to be important to HP. (Just like the small numebr
> of Tandem/NSK customers are important to HP because they are high profile)

I would imagine that most of what is left (and I only know of two major
systems) are based on legacy hardware, legacy software and can not be
upgraded.  They are also maintained by contractors other than HP and so
HP actually gets nothing fromt he deal nor do they have any committment
requiring them to maintain VMS into the future.

It is most likely a few large corporate VMS users that are holding it
up and that is hardly the basket I would want to place my eggs in.

> 
> 
> 
>> HP is not going to be providing any new patches for the VAX.  Based on
>> the current requirements to get a new IS approved, it would be all but
>> impossible to install a new VMS system.
> 
> I would agree with the above. It is pretty clear, even outside of the
> military, that ecept for some isolated cases, new deployments of VMS
> systems is going to be rarer and rarer.
> 
> 
> It is a shame because the core is still good, it just needs updated
> middleware to support modern applications. But every month that  goes by
> makes it harder for VMS to ever catch up.

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 <std.disclaimer.h>   

In article <8i5rnjFtlbU2@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill
Gunshannon) writes:
> 
> At it's peak it was a toital of 17 systems.  Hardly enough to keep VMS
> alive.  Oh, and HP doesn't maintain them, Northrup-Grumman does.  There
> is no reason whatsoever to think that HP gets any continued revenue from
> nor has any long term contractual commitment to this program.
> 

Another question comes to mind:
I don't know how these things are handled in US [military],
but over here you can spend tax payers money,
especially consumptive expenses, only on annual basis.
I.e. the budget has to be confirmed each year,
and thus support contracts are negotiated each year anew.
Which means those multi-year "support contracts" 
the VMS community is dreaming of would simply be impossible.

> 
> I have been associated with the military since 1968.  I have been doing
> military IT since 1979.  VMS was never in "mainstream military operations".
> 

Thank you for trying to put that myth to rest,
although I bet tomorrow (or even today) another idiot
will come up again with the 
"VMS is safe because of DOD committment" 
rubbish.

Bill Gunshannon wrote:

> OK, let's get as few things straight.  DII-COE is not any kind of
> contract.  It is a standard that needed to be met inorder to bid
> for DOD contracts.  No one signed a "DII-COE Contract".

I mentioned contract because I remember reading a blurb from either
Digital/Compaq/HP stating that commitments would apply to those who
signed contracts for DII-COE.

So while the standard may not require contracts, it is possible thatthe
owner of VMS required the customer to sign commitments to get the vendor
to garantee contractually that support/development and I assume hardware
availability would continue for the duration of the contract.

This may have been a one sided contract in favour of the customer. But
it also means that the obligations of the owner of VMS would be limited
to those signing those contracts.

For instance, if you deploy some systems on an aircraft which may be in
use for 15 years, you would want some sort of commitment for support and
availability of spare parts for the expected lifetime of the system.
(even if the software is stable with few updates, you still need to
ensure the hardware works. And if you use some sort of backup medium,
you may need to update this during the lifetime of the system (when
TK50s are not longer made, you need to update your TK50 drive to a DLT
drive and expect VMS to support it).



> Second Question: Note the mention of AlphaServer Technology.  What does
> that say about the currentcy or relevancy of their commitment to DII-COE?

Remmeber that HP still sells Alphas to those who already have Alphas,
and I suspect HP has a large enough inventory or parts to honour support
contrats for DOD.

> Do we really need to go on?  Note the latedrmention that DII-COE includes
> POSIX.  What happened to the OpenVMS POSIX add-on? 

Didn't VMS implement most of POSIX within the OS itself ? Wasn't VMS
declared Unix compliant at one point ? Or was that only during that
short lived POSIX product ?


> And, based on the systems they now have to integrate with, like FBCB2 the
> liklihood of a continued VMS presence just seems rather unlikely.

It depends on how difficult it is to change a system already in
production. If it cost a gazillion dollars to recertify a system when it
is changed, then they tend to want to keep the old systems running as
long as possible.

Another possibility is that the military originally intended for VMS to
be a long term platform, hence requiring long term support, but they
have since decided that VMS was no longer part of their long term plans
and authorized replacement of VMS system with another platform whenever
convenient.

Your experience seems to indicate that VMS is not, today, prevalent in
the military. But would you say that it used to be much more present
than it is now ?

In article <4cbda483$0$1880$c3e8da3$9f400e27@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 
>> The DOD has no interest in VMS beyond a few legacy systems that are way
>> too old to be worth investing in maintenance contracts.
> 
> I am not in DOD, but there was much publicity made by Sue and others
> aboutr VMS being used on the JSTARS system (think AWACS radar planes).
> Such systems last a long long time once installed and tested.

   There is a very good chance the JSTARS system is running on the same
   hardware and OS version it was delivered on.  All I recall DoD
   requiring was support, not new features.

In article <i9kgk4$i42$1@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>, m.kraemer@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) writes:

> I.e. the budget has to be confirmed each year,
> and thus support contracts are negotiated each year anew.
> Which means those multi-year "support contracts" 
> the VMS community is dreaming of would simply be impossible.

   Just because you don't have a budget to buy support wont stop 
   you from contractulayy obligating the supplier to provide that
   support if you do buy it.

In article <4cbdd582$0$18569$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 
> Didn't VMS implement most of POSIX within the OS itself ? Wasn't VMS
> declared Unix compliant at one point ? Or was that only during that
> short lived POSIX product ?

   Installing the POSIX product added kernel code to implement POSIX
   APIs.  (They didn't translate to VMS APIs.)  If you didn't install
   the product, you didn't have that code in your kernel.

In article <4cbdd582$0$18569$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraweb.com>,
	JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 
>> OK, let's get as few things straight.  DII-COE is not any kind of
>> contract.  It is a standard that needed to be met inorder to bid
>> for DOD contracts.  No one signed a "DII-COE Contract".
> 
> I mentioned contract because I remember reading a blurb from either
> Digital/Compaq/HP stating that commitments would apply to those who
> signed contracts for DII-COE.

Except that there are no such contractsd and DII-COE is not binding
on the DOD side at all.  DII-COE was a set of standards that the DOD
required of anyone bidding a contract for an IS.  All responsibility
was on the vendor's side of the coin.  DOD was still free to (and
frequently did) buy non-compliant systems to meet certain needs.
And, of course, you still had all the COTS stuff that was in the GSA
Catalog and didn't require an RFP or bids.

> 
> So while the standard may not require contracts, it is possible thatthe
> owner of VMS required the customer to sign commitments to get the vendor
> to garantee contractually that support/development and I assume hardware
> availability would continue for the duration of the contract.

You obviously know nothing about government contracting.  The government
makes the requirements.  the vendors bid based on that reequirememt. The
vendor can try to add stuff but the result will be that they will loose
the bid to someone who doesn't.

> 
> This may have been a one sided contract in favour of the

There are no government contracts that are "one sided in favour of the
customer".  It would never get past the contracting office.  Also, realize,
that  nothing in the RFP can be seen as giving any particular vendor any
form of advantage.  That would also be illegal.  The government puts out
an RFP and that is what the potential contractors bid on.

>                                                                    But
> it also means that the obligations of the owner of VMS would be limited
> to those signing those contracts.

Afraid this doesn't make any sense to me at all.  The obligations would
have been all spelt out long before the there even was a contract.  That's
why the bidding process takes as long as it does (and is rapidly falling
into disfavor with more and more procurements being for COTS.  Care to
guess who in the IT industry this favors?)

> 
> For instance, if you deploy some systems on an aircraft which may be in
> use for 15 years, you would want some sort of commitment for support and
> availability of spare parts for the expected lifetime of the system.

Yes, but the vendor can not rely on the contract lasting more than one
year, thus the reason why we have $10,000 hammers.  All potential costs
have to be made up in the first year because you have no guarantee there
will even be a second year.  

> (even if the software is stable with few updates, you still need to
> ensure the hardware works. And if you use some sort of backup medium,
> you may need to update this during the lifetime of the system (when
> TK50s are not longer made, you need to update your TK50 drive to a DLT
> drive and expect VMS to support it).

Exept that in most cases the prime contractor isn't HP and they are
not getting the lion's share of the profits (if they get any at all).
If a company that already has VMS support wins the contract HP gets
zilch other than maybe selling a few machines a couple licenses.  All
one time fees.

> 
> 
> 
>> Second Question: Note the mention of AlphaServer Technology.  What does
>> that say about the currentcy or relevancy of their commitment to DII-COE?
> 
> Remmeber that HP still sells Alphas to those who already have Alphas,
> and I suspect HP has a large enough inventory or parts to honour support
> contrats for DOD.

HP has no contract with the J-Stars folks.  Northrup-Grumman has that
contract.  I have done maintenance on systems while working for Martin
Marietta.  We did not pass the money back to the manyfacturer of the
systems.

> 
>> Do we really need to go on?  Note the latedrmention that DII-COE includes
>> POSIX.  What happened to the OpenVMS POSIX add-on? 
> 
> Didn't VMS implement most of POSIX within the OS itself ? 

Where do I find the POSIX compliant user shell on current VMS?

>                                                            Wasn't VMS
> declared Unix compliant at one point ? 

People lie about a lot of things.

>                                          Or was that only during that
> short lived POSIX product ?

Where was fork() even then?

> 
> 
>> And, based on the systems they now have to integrate with, like FBCB2 the
>> liklihood of a continued VMS presence just seems rather unlikely.
> 
> It depends on how difficult it is to change a system already in
> production. If it cost a gazillion dollars to recertify a system when it
> is changed, then they tend to want to keep the old systems running as
> long as possible.

And when the old system can not integrate with the newer systems which do
you think will see the door?

There is a project goingon now for a fully integrated Battle Command
System that will be used by all of the major branches and most of our
allies as well.  It is being developed under the ever watchful eye and
guidance of DISA.  Now, what was I said about DISA and VMS?

> 
> Another possibility is that the military originally intended for VMS to
> be a long term platform, hence requiring long term support, 

Read my lips.  The government can not commit funds beyond the end of the
fiscal year.  There are no "guaranteed" multi-year contracts.  The very
best you can have is a contract with multiple options to renew.  But those
renewal options in no way encumber the government.

>                                                             but they
> have since decided that VMS was no longer part of their long term plans
> and authorized replacement of VMS system with another platform whenever
> convenient.
> 
> Your experience seems to indicate that VMS is not, today, prevalent in
> the military. But would you say that it used to be much more present
> than it is now ?

Not particularly.  There were VMS systems used where they were a good fit.
How they got into J-Stars is a question for the Prime Contractor.  I have
seen the same kinds of systems developed for other services by other
contractors on other platforms.  Sadly, it is not necesarily superior
technology that drives some of these bids it is primarily cost.  The
contractor is not an altruist.  He is in it to make money and nothing more.

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 <std.disclaimer.h>   

On Oct 14, 10:15 pm, Hein RMS van den Heuvel
<heinvandenheu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 6:50 pm, "Craig A. Berry" <craigbe...@nospam.mac.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hein RMS van den Heuvel wrote:
>
> > > 1) try go to :http://www.hp.com/go/allianceonepatchaccess
>
> > When I do that I get:
>
> > "You do not have the proper permissions to view this content. Please see
> > the Membership benefits page for more information on AllianceONE
> > membership."
> :
> > seems that, as with DSPP, the  individual membership doesn't actually
> > do anything except tell you what  you can't have.
>
> Yeah, looks that way.
>
> Jan-Erik has the same, or a much similar issue.
> We exchanged some Email. There is something with his profile.
> While he is registered as a company (as I am) when he hits 'Membership
> information' he does not see ' Edit your company profile' where I do.
>
> Maybe he just needs to do the annual renewal, but there was no obvious
> indication for that.
> I just happened to do mine (I left HP to become independent 5 years
> ago to the day :-)
> Now Craig, you might need to register as/with a company to get this to
> work, or escalate.
>
> fwiw,
> Hein.

The sad part is that those organizations that pay annually for
membership in the HP AllianceONE program (formerly DSPP) are not
necessarily guaranteed access to the patches for OpenVMS even if they
petition for free access according to the exception permitted for
AllianceONE members! The HP Patch Access FAQ document sent to me by
John Egolf says (in part):

Q: What steps do I need to take to ensure I continue to get free
access to patches from HP [through AllianceONE membership]?

A: Complete the online request form located here:
http://www.hp.com/go/allianceonepatchaccess and submit it to HP. Once
received by the AllianceONE team, your request will be reviewed and
those meeting the criteria will be issued a no charge SAID.  An HP
AllianceONE program team member may contact you for more information
if required.



The same document does NOT go on to describe the "criteria" that a
candidate AllianceONE member must satisfy in order to be granted the
free patch access exception. This seems rather ridiculous because the
AllianceONE Program was developed especially for vendors who develop
solutions using HP operating system products (as well as other
software products from HP). Why would HP ever NOT want those
organizations (that have already payed for the privilege of becoming
an AllianceONE partner and that support HP's Business by producing
software that NEEDS their products) to continue to have access to
patches??!!

On Oct 8, 11:21=A0am, Ken Fairfield <ken.fairfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 9:39=A0pm, Jeremy Begg <jeremy.removet...@vsm.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > Ken Fairfield wrote:
> > > What I don't understand is how *any* small user,
> > > whether a mom & pop business or a hobbiest,
> > > can possibly be expected to pay the $$$ for an
> > > HP software support contract!
>
> > As someone else already said on this thread, and I don't disagree, HP i=
s not
> > interested in VMS for the small business. =A0So I doubt that the abilit=
y of a
> > "mom & pop" business to pay for updates came into consideration.
>
> > That said ... I renewed my OpenVMS support agreements just last week. =
=A0A
> > DS-series machine is around $70/month for the right to install patches =
and
> > new versions of VMS, DECnet, TCP/IP and Motif. =A0About the same as a m=
obile
> > phone contract.
>
> OK, for a going business, $70/mo is not *too* excessive.
> It is more than I pay for my ISP access, and as a hobbiest
> who boots my system only rarely, difficult to justify in my
> household budget. :-(
>
> I'll drop a note to David Cathay (anyone else I should contact?)
> and see if there's anything that can be done on that front.
>
> And I'd still be willing to pay a one-time fee for, say, a
> DVD of the latest patches.
>
> OTOH, $840/yr won't fly for a hobbiest (which I understand
> HP isn't so interested in...)
>
> =A0 =A0 Thanks, Ken


$840 is more than many spent putting their machines together.

On Oct 19, 9:32=A0am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
Koehler) wrote:
> In article <3d2dnSOCZJ8SYiHRnZ2dnUVZ_iydn...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. G=
ilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > If HP did not have contractual commitments to DOD to support VMS throug=
h
> > the year 2020 (or something like that) you wouldn't have *any* support
> > for VMS.
>
> =A0 =A0FUD.
>
> =A0 =A0I think the DoD commitment is about up. =A0And I think DEC/Compaq/=
HP
> =A0 =A0never had to bother with a port to Itanium, clusters over IP,
> =A0 =A0and many other expenses they've undertaken to meet a DoD commitmen=
t
> =A0 =A0on systems that shipped before that work was done.

HP had to port VMS to the Titanic because that was the only customer
base which could be forced to purchase such a worthless and bug ridden
chip.  As long as there were economy critical companies using OpenVMS
and Alpha, they could not kill off the Alpha until they had some place
for those companies to go.  HP-UX isn't a real enough operating system
to handle paper/steel mills or explosives factories.

On Oct 19, 9:00=A0am, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> > The DOD has no interest in VMS beyond a few legacy systems that are way
> > too old to be worth investing in maintenance contracts.
>
> I am not in DOD, but there was much publicity made by Sue and others
> aboutr VMS being used on the JSTARS system (think AWACS radar planes).
> Such systems last a long long time once installed and tested.
>
> The military may no longer choose VMS for new platforms, but there are
> still a number of VMS systems in operation. NORAD is another place where
> VMS is used.
>
> VMS may be gone from mainstream military operations, but what is left is
> probably big enough to be important to HP. (Just like the small numebr
> of Tandem/NSK customers are important to HP because they are high profile=
)
>
> > HP is not going to be providing any new patches for the VAX. =A0Based o=
n
> > the current requirements to get a new IS approved, it would be all but
> > impossible to install a new VMS system.
>
> I would agree with the above. It is pretty clear, even outside of the
> military, that ecept for some isolated cases, new deployments of VMS
> systems is going to be rarer and rarer.
>
> It is a shame because the core is still good, it just needs updated
> middleware to support modern applications. But every month that =A0goes b=
y
> makes it harder for VMS to ever catch up.

Don't forget the Patriot missile systems.

While very few who've ever been inside any of the operations can
comment, OpenVMS is in heavy use by the NSA according to those who
actually mention it.

On Oct 19, 10:27=A0am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>
> > VMS may be gone from mainstream military operations,
>
> I have been associated with the military since 1968. =A0I have been doing
> military IT since 1979. =A0VMS was never in "mainstream military operatio=
ns".
>

Actually, it was, and still is about as mainstream as it gets.

http://www.devbistro.com/jobs/120716

At least if you ever want to get paid in the Navy.

On Oct 19, 11:22=A0am, m.krae...@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) wrote:
> Thank you for trying to put that myth to rest,
> although I bet tomorrow (or even today) another idiot
> will come up again with the
> "VMS is safe because of DOD committment"
> rubbish.


What you call rubbish actually came from here:

http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=3D02/12/04/2234371

----
Mark Gorham, the VP in charge of OpenVMS also presented a keynote on
policy and strategy for OpenVMS long term. He noted that while legal
restrictions prevent the publication of plans beyond a rolling five
year horizon, there is a positive commitment to OpenVMS in the form
the of the DII COE commitment (columnist's note: DII COE requires a
long term binding commitment to the platform of approximately 20
years, it is inconceivable to this columnist that HP would choose to
limit sales and support of OpenVMS to the large, albeit finite defense
sector, rather than amortize the expenses of the product line over the
entire commercial space). Sales are reported to be healthy among
existing and new customers. ISVs are joining the community, including
recent announcments from Legato and Veritas. In short, OpenVMS will
actively be around long after we retire.
----

On Oct 19, 2:06=A0pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>
> There are no government contracts that are "one sided in favour of the
> customer". =A0It would never get past the contracting office. =A0Also, re=
alize,
> that =A0nothing in the RFP can be seen as giving any particular vendor an=
y
> form of advantage. =A0That would also be illegal. =A0The government puts =
out
> an RFP and that is what the potential contractors bid on.
>

Hmmmm  $800 toilet seats   $12 wooden pencils  $250 plastic caps for
the ends of chair legs.

On Sat, 2010-10-23 at 07:03 -0700, seasoned_geek wrote:
> While very few who've ever been inside any of the operations can
> comment, OpenVMS is in heavy use by the NSA according to those who
> actually mention it.=20

I shall be sure to mention that an OpenVMS x86 port may make those
spooks ultra happy.=20
--=20
Tactical Nuclear Kittens

On 10/23/2010 10:19 AM, seasoned_geek wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2:06 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>>
>> There are no government contracts that are "one sided in favour of the
>> customer".  It would never get past the contracting office.  Also, realize,
>> that  nothing in the RFP can be seen as giving any particular vendor any
>> form of advantage.  That would also be illegal.  The government puts out
>> an RFP and that is what the potential contractors bid on.
>>
>
> Hmmmm  $800 toilet seats   $12 wooden pencils  $250 plastic caps for
> the ends of chair legs.


Well, the $800 toilet seats are quite understandable.  They are used 
ONLY on certain military aircraft.  They first came to my attention many 
years ago when DOD ordered *six* toilet seats as replacement parts.  The 
first one cost $4,800!  The rest were something like $50 each.  Tooling 
up for a very short run like that is fiendishly expensive!  My numbers 
may not be exactly correct but they should serve to illustrate the problem.

If the designers had used the same parts as, say, a Boeing 707 for 
American Airlines, the story wouldn't be worth telling!


-- 
draco vulgaris

On 10/23/2010 11:23 AM, Captain Pugwash wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-10-23 at 07:03 -0700, seasoned_geek wrote:
>> While very few who've ever been inside any of the operations can
>> comment, OpenVMS is in heavy use by the NSA according to those who
>> actually mention it.
>
> I shall be sure to mention that an OpenVMS x86 port may make those
> spooks ultra happy.

The OpenVMS X86 port will NEVER happen.  The X86 processor simply does 
not provide the necessary facilities!  Things like number of general 
purpose registers, interrupt levels, etc, etc.

Recall that the VAX designers and the VMS developers worked together on 
issues like the number of general purpose registers, the number of 
interrupt levels, processor modes, etc, etc.

The Alpha processor was designed to be able to run VMS.

The Alpha can run Windows.  That, also, was by design.  I don't think 
that many people cared to run Windows on Alpha but the capability was there!

In article <nsydnTwbEpOstV7RnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Richard B.
Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes: 

> The X86 processor simply does 
> not provide the necessary facilities!  Things like number of general 
> purpose registers, interrupt levels, etc, etc.

This was true in the past, but is it true today?  

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:22:32 +0000, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
wrote:

> In article <nsydnTwbEpOstV7RnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Richard B.
> Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes:
> 
>> The X86 processor simply does
>> not provide the necessary facilities!  Things like number of general
>> purpose registers, interrupt levels, etc, etc.
> 
> This was true in the past, but is it true today?

The CPU doesn't really have the concept of IPL at all. The external 
interrupt controller originally had 8, then 15, levels, and more 
now...but they are *external*.

Not really any more registers either!



-- 
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

seasoned_geek schrieb:
> On Oct 19, 11:22 am, m.krae...@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) wrote:
> 
>>Thank you for trying to put that myth to rest,
>>although I bet tomorrow (or even today) another idiot
>>will come up again with the
>>"VMS is safe because of DOD committment"
>>rubbish.
> 
> What you call rubbish actually came from here:
> 
> http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=02/12/04/2234371
> 

and it's still rubbish.
That reference says nothing about long term
contractual committments, neither from DOD
nor from HP/Compaq,
apart from the columnists speculations.
The VP merely states HP will follow DII COE,
but what else should he say, if that's
the requirement to do business with DOD.
And we all know what "committments" are worth
at the end of the day.

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

> Well, the $800 toilet seats are quite understandable. 


This was explained very well in the documentary "Independance Day".  The
toilet seats is your $1.00 stuff from Wallmart, and they use the $799
for covert operations, such that huge underground complex used to study
the aliens and their ships they captured in Roswell back in the 1950s.

:-)

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

> The OpenVMS X86 port will NEVER happen.  The X86 processor simply does 
> not provide the necessary facilities! 


Today's 8086s are nothing like your grandfather's 8086s. The
architecture has evolved greatly since those days. And the 8086 now gets
performance and RAS features such as the CSI/Quickpath memory
interconnect years ahead of that IA64 thing.

And you can bet that if there are features missing from the 8086 which
are needed by enterprise OS, Intel will make sure they are added before
IA64 is put out of its misery.

The first sentence may be correct. But it is not because of limitations
of the 806, it is because of management decisions to not lift a finger
to bring VMS back to life.

seasoned_geek schrieb:
> On Oct 19, 10:27 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> 
>>>VMS may be gone from mainstream military operations,
>>
>>I have been associated with the military since 1968.  I have been doing
>>military IT since 1979.  VMS was never in "mainstream military operations".
>>
> 
> 
> Actually, it was, and still is about as mainstream as it gets.
> 
> http://www.devbistro.com/jobs/120716

VAX/VMS and VAX basic being "mainstream"?
I think not even JF would agree here.

On 2010-10-23 22:33, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:22:32 +0000, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
> wrote:
>
>> In article<nsydnTwbEpOstV7RnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Richard B.
>> Gilbert"<rgilbert88@comcast.net>  writes:
>>
>>> The X86 processor simply does
>>> not provide the necessary facilities!  Things like number of general
>>> purpose registers, interrupt levels, etc, etc.
>>
>> This was true in the past, but is it true today?
>
> The CPU doesn't really have the concept of IPL at all. The external
> interrupt controller originally had 8, then 15, levels, and more
> now...but they are *external*.
>
> Not really any more registers either!

All that is true, but is it relevant?
After all, VMS have already been ported over to Alpha, and then Itanium, 
which are quite a leap. I very much doubt that the kernel itself 
requires a bunch of registers specifically. That's all handled by the 
compiler anyway (I don't think almost anything is written in assembler 
anymore, and the small parts that are can be adopted to different 
architectures).

IPL levels in the CPU architecture is hardly a requirement either. You 
just have to possibly rewrite some small part of the interrupt handler 
framework, but after that it's all happy go lucky anyway, and VMS is 
already running on PCI based machines, so it more or less share the same 
bus infrastructure as any x86 based machine anyway.

In short - once the port from VAX to Alpha was done, most requirements 
on hardware dropped pretty low. With the movement from Alpha to Itanium 
they dropped even more (Alpha still had some VAX traces around, such as 
MMU some MMU concepts as well as using four different access modes for 
the PTE). With the Itanium I'd guess we're already at x86 levels...

	Johnny

-- 
Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                   ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt@softjar.se             ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol

In article <611da2a0-c8ae-448b-aa8d-00a786ad2e2b@l17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
	seasoned_geek <roland@logikalsolutions.com> writes:
> On Oct 19, 2:06�pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>>
>> There are no government contracts that are "one sided in favour of the
>> customer". �It would never get past the contracting office. �Also, realize,
>> that �nothing in the RFP can be seen as giving any particular vendor any
>> form of advantage. �That would also be illegal. �The government puts out
>> an RFP and that is what the potential contractors bid on.
>>
> Hmmmm  $800 toilet seats   $12 wooden pencils  $250 plastic caps for
> the ends of chair legs.

I was waiting for someone to bring that up.  Sadly, it shows how little
people actually understand not only government contracting, but also
simple business.

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 <std.disclaimer.h>   

seasoned_geek schrieb:

> Hmmmm  $800 toilet seats  

turning sh*t into gold.
(that's how they call it in German)

> $12 wooden pencils  $250 plastic caps for
> the ends of chair legs.

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
(snip)

> This was explained very well in the documentary "Independance Day".  The
> toilet seats is your $1.00 stuff from Wallmart, and they use the $799
> for covert operations, such that huge underground complex used to study
> the aliens and their ships they captured in Roswell back in the 1950s.

I was just reading in the new Scientific American, among others,
the problems of toilets in space.  I don't know about the seat,
but zero-G toilets are likely pretty expensive.

-- glen

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

> I was just reading in the new Scientific American, among others,
> the problems of toilets in space.  I don't know about the seat,
> but zero-G toilets are likely pretty expensive.

That is totally different story. They are expensive enough that the
americans decided to buy the "off the shelf" russians model instead of
develop their own toilets. So there is a russian toilet on the US side
of the space station today. (as well as the roughly same model on the
russian side).


They are basically 2 toilets in one. Urine is collected differntly and
stored seperately (for recyling). Solid waste, once expelled from the
body doesn't fall down to the bottom of the toilet bowl, so they need to
coax it down through ventilation to the holding area (glorified plastic
bags). Those bags are then put in the Progress vehicle which acts as a
trash can for its return trip to earth and it is set to burn off over
the pacific as it re-enters the atmosphere.

This is definitely a low production model.

But for aircraft, there are aircraft toilet systems available for
commercial aviation and which can be installed in military trabsport
aircraft. If they choose to develop a different system, it is their
decision, and is likely because it is more profitable for them to come
up with some reason for teh need to develiop a new model and charge
"military" rates for it, compared to using standard systems.

last I heard, military personnel were still of the human species. And
when you consider the size/weight of many civilians travelling in
aircraft (such as those requiring 2 seats), I'd think that civilian
toilet seats would be strong enough to handle military personnel.

On 10/23/2010 4:22 PM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> In article<nsydnTwbEpOstV7RnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Richard B.
> Gilbert"<rgilbert88@comcast.net>  writes:
>
>> The X86 processor simply does
>> not provide the necessary facilities!  Things like number of general
>> purpose registers, interrupt levels, etc, etc.
>
> This was true in the past, but is it true today?
>

I have not tried it myself but I have not seen any claims that VMS has 
been successfully ported to the X86 platform!

Years ago, there was a software package called PCVMS that had a pretty 
good DCL emulation but I don't think it went much further than that.

I have a couple of Alpha workstations that I can use to scratch my VMS 
itch.  I have no interest in X86 emulations.

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

> I have not tried it myself but I have not seen any claims that VMS has 
> been successfully ported to the X86 platform!

It would not surprise me one bit if Hoff had managed a "proof of
concept" port of VMS to a 64 bit 8086 with EFI. Just enough to show
upper management that it is technically possible.

A proof of concept is nowhere near enough to let you claim you've ported
VMS to the 8086. So it is quite understandable that you wouldn't have
heard such claims.

First announcement is when they manage to boot an instance far enough to
issue a "DIR" command. And to get there, they need a large number of
resources (aka: project is officially funded). This is quite different
from a "this is secret: can you look into what would be involved in
porting VMS to the 8086 ?".




in terms of technical cababilities of current 8086s:  perhaps Intel
stole so much of Alpha that ever since the Pentium III, the 8086 had
enough "Alpha inside" to run VMS ;-) If only my Mac had a TK50 drive,
perhaps I could try to load VMS on it :-)

In article <Wpydnbc1wf637F7RnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Richard B.
Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes: 

> On 10/23/2010 4:22 PM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> > In article<nsydnTwbEpOstV7RnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Richard B.
> > Gilbert"<rgilbert88@comcast.net>  writes:
> >
> >> The X86 processor simply does
> >> not provide the necessary facilities!  Things like number of general
> >> purpose registers, interrupt levels, etc, etc.
> >
> > This was true in the past, but is it true today?
> 
> I have not tried it myself but I have not seen any claims that VMS has 
> been successfully ported to the X86 platform!

That is not the question.  The question is whether it is technically 
possible.

> Years ago, there was a software package called PCVMS that had a pretty 
> good DCL emulation but I don't think it went much further than that.

There were several such packages.  There are also emulators of various 
VAX and ALPHA chips.  But that is not what we are talking about here.

> I have a couple of Alpha workstations that I can use to scratch my VMS 
> itch.  I have no interest in X86 emulations.

Same here.  However, the argument (whether you agree or not) is that a 
high-volume chip which could run VMS would make VMS more viable.

Phillip Helbig---undress to reply schrieb:

> 
> Same here.  However, the argument (whether you agree or not) is that a 
> high-volume chip which could run VMS would make VMS more viable.
> 

Does the "high-volume chip" they run on make
OS/2, BeOS, DG-UX etc
more viable?

Michael Kraemer wrote:

> Does the "high-volume chip" they run on make
> OS/2, BeOS, DG-UX etc
> more viable?


Does DG-UX still exist ? Is is still developped ?

had OS-2 not been on industry standard hardware, it would have never
grown to what it was. It was a "stand in" until Microsoft's kid
programmers learned from Cutler about stuff like multi tasking operating
systems.

From that point on, OS-2 didn't bring many unique features to the market.


Despite having been in a state of limbo for the last 15 years, VMS still
brings unique features such as clustering and better security.

The fact that HP chose to not port those features to HP-UX is perhaps a
good omen for VMS. If HP=UX had gained all the unique features that VMS
brings, then there would have been no reason to keep VMS around.

In article <ia0ugr$dcg$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Michael Kraemer
<M.Kraemer@gsi.de> writes: 

> > Same here.  However, the argument (whether you agree or not) is that a 
> > high-volume chip which could run VMS would make VMS more viable.
> 
> Does the "high-volume chip" they run on make
> OS/2, BeOS, DG-UX etc
> more viable?

I'm not saying this is my position, just pointing out what the argument 
is.

JF Mezei schrieb:

> Does DG-UX still exist ? Is is still developped ?

No. It once ran on cool m88k hardware,
but DG management decided to go "industry standard"
and so -UX went under.

Similarly, BeOS ran on its own cool PPC based hardware,
and went under as soon as it went x86.


> had OS-2 not been on industry standard hardware, it would have never
> grown to what it was. It was a "stand in" until Microsoft's kid
> programmers learned from Cutler about stuff like multi tasking operating
> systems.
> 
> From that point on, OS-2 didn't bring many unique features to the market.

I don't see what that Cutler should have do with it,
the serious OS/2 product I'm referring to is Warp 3 [Connect] and 
follow-ups,
developed and maintained by IBM some time around 1993+.
Of course it had unique features
(desktop, stability, preemptive multitasking etc),
it ran on x86 right from the start and had smart marketing.
Nevertheless it failed.
Which means that running on x86 is not key to success,
and marketing isn't either, if the market wants something different.

If the product by itself isn't attractive to the potential customers,
no hardware platform change nor that mythical "marketing" will save it.

Michael Kraemer wrote:

> No. It once ran on cool m88k hardware,
> but DG management decided to go "industry standard"
> and so -UX went under.

Data Genaral had its own proprietary AOS-VS on its own proprietary
systems with insufficient software to survive on its own the rush to
"open systems".

As a last ditch attempt to survive, Data General tried a Unix system.
Too little too late. They were purchased by some disk storage company.



> Similarly, BeOS ran on its own cool PPC based hardware,
> and went under as soon as it went x86.

Not familiar with this story. But consider the possibility that it went
under because it was on PPC and by the time the company realised the
problem and switched to the 8086m it was too late.


And perhaps for VMS the same fate awaits it. Switching to the 8086
without a energetic marketing effort and suffciuent engineering
resources to bring the OS up to date, it would not survive any longer
than if it stayed on VAX and Alpha despite those no longer sold.



> I don't see what that Cutler should have do with it,
> the serious OS/2 product I'm referring to is Warp 3 [Connect] and 
> follow-ups,

Cutler tought the weenies at Microsoft about multitasking. Once
Microsoft came out with Windows95, the superiority of OS-2 was severely
eroded and IBM didn't want to put in the resources to fight Microsoft.
Remember that IBM had only a couple years ago escaped from severe
financial difficulties and Gerstner was already starting to look at
ditching the PC business.



> Which means that running on x86 is not key to success,

It is not THE key. it is one of the many keys needed to success today.

Moving to industry staandard alone won't save VMS. But it is one of the
many required steps needed should HP desire to ressurect VMS.

On 2010-10-23, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> last I heard, military personnel were still of the human species.

After what's come out from the various Wikileaks releases that's debatable.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world