http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13787571

Wonder who'll win this?
--=20
Tactical Nuclear Kittens

Looks bold and aggressive; I like it!

I not a lawyer and don't understand the basis for the action, but it looks 
like HP has some contractual/civil leverage of Oracle so at worst I guess 
we'll find out the basis of Oracles claims about HP's commitment to Itanium.

Cheers Richard Maher 

On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 17:04 +0800, Richard Maher wrote:
> Looks bold and aggressive; I like it!
>=20
> I not a lawyer and don't understand the basis for the action, but it look=
s=20
> like HP has some contractual/civil leverage of Oracle so at worst I guess=
=20
> we'll find out the basis of Oracles claims about HP's commitment to Itani=
um.

More information here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/16/hp_sues_oracle_over_itanium/

--=20
Tactical Nuclear Kittens

In article <7c1pc8-tnv.ln1@nntp.local.net>,
 Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.org.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 17:04 +0800, Richard Maher wrote:
> > Looks bold and aggressive; I like it!
> > 
> > I not a lawyer and don't understand the basis for the action, but it looks 
> > like HP has some contractual/civil leverage of Oracle so at worst I guess 
> > we'll find out the basis of Oracles claims about HP's commitment to Itanium.
> 
> More information here:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/16/hp_sues_oracle_over_itanium/

Definitely worth a read. From Oracle's response:

--- quote ---
We believe that HP specifically asked Oracle to guarantee long-term 
support for Itanium in the September of 2010 agreement because HP 
already knew all about Intel's plans to discontinue Itanium, and HP was 
concerned about what would happen when Oracle found out about that plan.

What we know for certain is that Ray Lane and HP's current board members 
and Leo Apotheker and HP's current management team now know full well 
that Intel has plans in place to end-of-life of the Itanium 
microprocessor. Knowing this, HP issued numerous public statements in an 
attempt mislead and deceive their customers and shareholders into 
believing that these plans to end-of-life Itanium do not exist. But they 
do. Intel's plans to end-of-life Itanium will be revealed in court now 
that HP has filed this utterly malicious and meritless lawsuit against 
Oracle.
--- end quote ---

-- 
Paul Sture

Single Stage to Orbit wrote 2011-06-16 12:09:
> On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 17:04 +0800, Richard Maher wrote:
>> Looks bold and aggressive; I like it!
>>
>> I not a lawyer and don't understand the basis for the action, but it looks
>> like HP has some contractual/civil leverage of Oracle so at worst I guess
>> we'll find out the basis of Oracles claims about HP's commitment to Itanium.
>
> More information here:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/16/hp_sues_oracle_over_itanium/
>

And :

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/26/gabriel_oracle_itanium_survey/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/02/hp_tukwila_big_iron/

On Jun 16, 4:14=A0am, Single Stage to Orbit <alex.bu...@munted.org.uk>
wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13787571
>
> Wonder who'll win this?
> --
> Tactical Nuclear Kittens

Every day I talk to computer people who have never heard of Itanium. A
court case could remedy this situation.

:-)

Neil Rieck
Kitchener / Waterloo / Cambridge,
Ontario, Canada.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/OpenVMS.html

"Paul Sture" <paul.nospam@sture.ch> wrote in message 
news:paul.nospam-A1B626.12400716062011@pbook.sture.ch...
> In article <7c1pc8-tnv.ln1@nntp.local.net>,
> Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 17:04 +0800, Richard Maher wrote:
>> > Looks bold and aggressive; I like it!
>> >
>> > I not a lawyer and don't understand the basis for the action, but it 
>> > looks
>> > like HP has some contractual/civil leverage of Oracle so at worst I 
>> > guess
>> > we'll find out the basis of Oracles claims about HP's commitment to 
>> > Itanium.
>>
>> More information here:
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/16/hp_sues_oracle_over_itanium/
>
> Definitely worth a read. From Oracle's response:
>
> --- quote ---
> We believe that HP specifically asked Oracle to guarantee long-term
> support for Itanium in the September of 2010 agreement because HP
> already knew all about Intel's plans to discontinue Itanium, and HP was
> concerned about what would happen when Oracle found out about that plan.
>
> What we know for certain is that Ray Lane and HP's current board members
> and Leo Apotheker and HP's current management team now know full well
> that Intel has plans in place to end-of-life of the Itanium
> microprocessor. Knowing this, HP issued numerous public statements in an
> attempt mislead and deceive their customers and shareholders into
> believing that these plans to end-of-life Itanium do not exist. But they
> do. Intel's plans to end-of-life Itanium will be revealed in court now
> that HP has filed this utterly malicious and meritless lawsuit against
> Oracle.
> --- end quote ---
>

Don't know who Ray Lane is but you gotta love the up front "name & shame" 
strategy here!

Who the fuck is Ray Lane? Do any wankers here follow him/her on 
Twitter/Facebook and have "Liked" their disasterous leaking of Intels EOLing 
of Itanium?

This is all good stuff!
> -- 
> Paul Sture

Regards Richard Maher 

On 2011-06-16 11:04, Richard Maher wrote:
> Looks bold and aggressive; I like it!
>
> I not a lawyer and don't understand the basis for the action, but it looks
> like HP has some contractual/civil leverage of Oracle so at worst I guess
> we'll find out the basis of Oracles claims about HP's commitment to Itanium.
>
> Cheers Richard Maher

Bold and aggressive? I read it as: desperate, realizing this will 
seriously hurt them, and the only option they can come up with is "we'll 
sue them since they hired one of our top people, and so we can claim 
''inside knowledge''".

If that is true, then what is the ''inside knowledge''? That Intel plans 
to end-of-life Itanium?

	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 <itcqpq$387$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
 "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> wrote:

> "Paul Sture" <paul.nospam@sture.ch> wrote in message 
> news:paul.nospam-A1B626.12400716062011@pbook.sture.ch...
> > In article <7c1pc8-tnv.ln1@nntp.local.net>,
> > Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 17:04 +0800, Richard Maher wrote:
> >> > Looks bold and aggressive; I like it!
> >> >
> >> > I not a lawyer and don't understand the basis for the action, but it 
> >> > looks
> >> > like HP has some contractual/civil leverage of Oracle so at worst I 
> >> > guess
> >> > we'll find out the basis of Oracles claims about HP's commitment to 
> >> > Itanium.
> >>
> >> More information here:
> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/16/hp_sues_oracle_over_itanium/
> >
> > Definitely worth a read. From Oracle's response:
> >
> > --- quote ---
> > We believe that HP specifically asked Oracle to guarantee long-term
> > support for Itanium in the September of 2010 agreement because HP
> > already knew all about Intel's plans to discontinue Itanium, and HP was
> > concerned about what would happen when Oracle found out about that plan.
> >
> > What we know for certain is that Ray Lane and HP's current board members
> > and Leo Apotheker and HP's current management team now know full well
> > that Intel has plans in place to end-of-life of the Itanium
> > microprocessor. Knowing this, HP issued numerous public statements in an
> > attempt mislead and deceive their customers and shareholders into
> > believing that these plans to end-of-life Itanium do not exist. But they
> > do. Intel's plans to end-of-life Itanium will be revealed in court now
> > that HP has filed this utterly malicious and meritless lawsuit against
> > Oracle.
> > --- end quote ---
> >
> 
> Don't know who Ray Lane is but you gotta love the up front "name & shame" 
> strategy here!
> 

From October 2010:

http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2010/10/04/h-p-could-benefit-from-ray
-lanes-venture-capital-experience/

--- quote ---
In Ray Lane, Hewlett-Packard Co. gets a chairman with the right kind of 
connections.

Lane has a wealth of contacts in Silicon Valley built up through his 
tenure as a managing partner of venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins 
Caufield & Byers and a tour of duty through some of technology�s 
heaviest hitters. That experience and connections to the start-up 
community will prove crucial to H-P as the hardware giant slowly remakes 
itself into an IT services and software provider.

....

On Thursday, H-P named former SAP AG executive Leo Apotheker as its 
chief executive, and appointed Lane as the non-executive chairman. 
Lane�s Silicon Valley experience fills a notable gap in Apotheker�s 
resume. Both men, who take their positions on Nov. 1, replace former 
Chairman and CEO Mark Hurd, who resigned in the middle of an ethics 
scandal.
--- end quote ---

A spat has got out of hand IMHO.

-- 
Paul Sture

Johnny Billquist wrote:

> Bold and aggressive? I read it as: desperate, realizing this will 
> seriously hurt them, and the only option they can come up with is "we'll 
> sue them since they hired one of our top people, and so we can claim 
> ''inside knowledge''".


I think that HP had to take some action, otherwise it would be
tantamount to admitting Oracle was right. Why the dealy though ? Did HP
underestimate the impact at first and now sees customers telling it that
Oracle is key and HP starting to lose sales ?

Or did it take that long for HP to mount this lawsuit ? Sure didn't take
klong when a fired Hurd got a job at Oracle.


> If that is true, then what is the ''inside knowledge''? That Intel plans 
> to end-of-life Itanium?

I think HP has taken a real gamble on this. If Oracle truly has the
evidence, this will backfire big time on HP. Big time. Not just egg on
face, but rotten eggs mixed with decomposed spinnach on face.


If Oracle did not sign some long term contract, then why should it be
obligated to continue long term development of its products on some
platform ?  Oracle's support of existing software gives it opbligations
with its customers, not with HP.

Now, if HP had given money to Oracle to develop on IA64 and such
contract was not followed to the letter, then HP would have some valid
beef. But if Oracle was developping an IA64 version on its own, then
Oracle should be allowed to end such development at any time.

I suspect the devil will be in the details which we won't see.

But I would LOVE to see the Oracle evidence that IA64's funeral
pre-arrangements have already been made. June 25 2001 anyone ?

In article <paul.nospam-A1B626.12400716062011@pbook.sture.ch>, Paul
Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> writes: 

> We believe that HP specifically asked Oracle to guarantee long-term 
  ^^^^^^^^^^
Irrelevant.

> support for Itanium in the September of 2010 agreement because HP 
> already knew all about Intel's plans to discontinue Itanium, and HP was 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Unsubstantiated claim.

> concerned about what would happen when Oracle found out about that plan.
> 
> What we know for certain is that Ray Lane and HP's current board members 
> and Leo Apotheker and HP's current management team now know full well 
> that Intel has plans in place to end-of-life of the Itanium 
> microprocessor. 

Unsubstantiated claim.

> Knowing this, HP issued numerous public statements in an 
> attempt mislead and deceive their customers and shareholders into 
> believing that these plans to end-of-life Itanium do not exist. 

Unsubstantiated claim.

> But they 
> do. 

Unsubstantiated claim.

> Intel's plans to end-of-life Itanium will be revealed in court now 
> that HP has filed this utterly malicious and meritless lawsuit against 
> Oracle.

Oracle's credibility stands and falls with what is presented as evidence 
in court.  If Oracle is telling the truth, is it believable that HP 
would have sued?

At least in criminal court, the question of motive plays a role.  
Oracle's purchase of Sun comes to mind.

More here & wonder of wonders, even VMS gets mentioned.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/interviews/230800004?cid=nl_IW_daily_2011-06-16_html

"The issue isn't so much about having other viable hardware platforms; this 
and next-generation Xeon chips will perform on a par with Itanium. The issue 
is supporting customers that want to continue to use the HP-UX and VMS 
operating systems, which HP still supports on Itanium. Those customers now 
find themselves in a position to doubt HP and its stated plans for what is a 
shrinking market. In that sense, Oracle has done its damage, and probably 
done so in a way that HP can't rectify. Customers will simply look at this 
catfight and wisely decide to do anything they can to get out of the way of 
it."

Csquared (Curly & She Who Must Be Obeyed) managed to seed much doubt on June 
25, 2001. Robison & Livermore continued to do the same for the past decade. 
What isn't clear here?

Even if they agree to shake hands and drop the lawsuits, does anyone really 
expect Oracle (who is holding more of the cards in this than HP) to really 
have their heart in bug fixing and releasing new versions of Oracle and Rdb 
and any other helper software on PH-UX and VMS on any sort of timely basis?

What are VMS users going to do - beg SAP to port Sybase to VMS? Beg IBM to 
port DB2 or Informix?

Maybe the best HP could get out of this is to get Oracle to seel Rdb back to 
them and then port the thing to PH-UX. 

Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> Irrelevant.
> Unsubstantiated claim.
> Unsubstantiated claim.
> Unsubstantiated claim.


Unless we can see the contract between HP and Oracle, we can also say
that HP's claim that Oracle is obligated to continue to develop for IA64
is unsubstantiated.

So we are in a he says, she says situation here.

> Oracle's credibility stands and falls with what is presented as evidence 
> in court.  If Oracle is telling the truth, is it believable that HP 
> would have sued?

HP has done stupid things in the past, including firing Hurd, and then
suing the company that hired Hurd. It also spied in board members etc.

HP resalised that it couldn't let Oracle's decision go unchallenged.
Whether the "we'll sue you" route is the best , I don't know. But at
least they are now (finally) doing something.

For Oracle, the worse case scenario might be that Intel admits that it
has no interest in continuing IA64 by itself, but does not mind
continuing its development if HP is willing to pay for it.

If the $4b/year is correct, and HP only makes $2b/year on those systems,
the market and shareholders will decide how long HP has to kill off this
money sink.

With Hurd at Oracle, I have a suspicion that Oracle has the inside scoop.


> At least in criminal court, the question of motive plays a role.  
> Oracle's purchase of Sun comes to mind.

This would be contractual issue of whether Oracle has a contractual
obligation to continue to develop for IA64 and if so, what are the
cancellation costs and how long does the contract run for.

HP might be doing this as a publicity stunt to show customers that they
are fighting for Oracle on HP=UX, but have every intention to settle out
of court, perhaps getting Oracle to commit to porting its products to an
8086 version of HP-UX and possibly VMS.


IA64 bring no real advantage to HP. And Oracle is transforming IA64 into
a negative asset that may cost HP sales. And with Livermore mostly gone,
it may be easier now to just let go of IA64 and use their systems
building expertise to build great 80786 based enterprise systems/mainframes.

In fact, if I were HP, I would think this is to their advantage because
if they can move quickly to 8086 mainframes/enterprise servers, Oracle
would come to regret its move since they would now be more competitive
than Sun and lower priced than IBM. They would finally achieve what
LaCarly had set out to do: move to commodity components in large scale
systems.

John Smith (not the one @ HP) wrote:

> Maybe the best HP could get out of this is to get Oracle to seel Rdb back to 
> them and then port the thing to PH-UX. 


I would hope that Digital retained the right to repatriate RDB if Oracle
decioded to no longer persue it.

I would hope that HP would be able to take current source of RDB and
develop it on VMS/HP-UX. There may be some Oracle technologies that were
added to it, so this would imply HP paying some rylaties back to Oracle,
but this may be something that comes out of the lawsuit with HP getting
unrestricted rights to RDB.

On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 16:05 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

> HP might be doing this as a publicity stunt to show customers that
> they are fighting for Oracle on HP=3DUX, but have every intention to
> settle out of court, perhaps getting Oracle to commit to porting its
> products to an 8086 version of HP-UX and possibly VMS.

This is exactly what I hope they will do. It would be nice to run VMS on
my x86-64 laptop some day. I'd ditch Linux just like that if I could get
OpenVMS on x86.
--=20
Tactical Nuclear Kittens

Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 16:05 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:
> 
>> HP might be doing this as a publicity stunt to show customers that
>> they are fighting for Oracle on HP=UX, but have every intention to
>> settle out of court, perhaps getting Oracle to commit to porting its
>> products to an 8086 version of HP-UX and possibly VMS.
> 
> This is exactly what I hope they will do. It would be nice to run VMS on
> my x86-64 laptop some day. I'd ditch Linux just like that if I could get
> OpenVMS on x86.
I sometimes dream about this....
        Jouk

JF Mezei wrote:

> 
> HP might be doing this as a publicity stunt to show customers that they
> are fighting for Oracle on HP=UX, but have every intention to settle out
> of court, perhaps getting Oracle to commit to porting its products to an
> 8086 version of HP-UX and possibly VMS.

Pure fantasy, though at least Xeon is affordable and works as advertised.

> 
> 
> IA64 bring no real advantage to HP. And Oracle is transforming IA64 into
> a negative asset that may cost HP sales. And with Livermore mostly gone,
> it may be easier now to just let go of IA64 and use their systems
> building expertise to build great 80786 based enterprise systems/mainframes.

You mean something like what the Compaq name used to mean ?. They 
already have
that, so why me too with an hp label ?.

> 
> In fact, if I were HP, I would think this is to their advantage because
> if they can move quickly to 8086 mainframes/enterprise servers, Oracle
> would come to regret its move since they would now be more competitive
> than Sun and lower priced than IBM. They would finally achieve what
> LaCarly had set out to do: move to commodity components in large scale
> systems.

I find the whole sage of hp vs oracle not a little bittersweet ironic. 
First,
hp eol Alpha and shafted a load of their customers, now the same thing is
effectively happening to them.

Can't say that I feel any sympathy at all. What's that saying about revenge
being dish best served cold ?. Well, very cold in this instance...

Regards,

Chris

On Jun 16, 1:14=A0am, Single Stage to Orbit <alex.bu...@munted.org.uk>
wrote:
>
> Wonder who'll win this?

The lawyers, as usual.

The inevitable losers - the customers.  They have to pay the lawyers,
albeit indirectly, and since no lawsuit of this type has ever improved
a company's products or service, it is not money well spent.

Regards,

David Mathog

On 17-6-2011 8:22, JOUKJ wrote:
>> This is exactly what I hope they will do. It would be nice to run VMS on
>> my x86-64 laptop some day. I'd ditch Linux just like that if I could get
>> OpenVMS on x86.
>
> I sometimes dream about this....

What about running VMS in an Alpha emulated environment in the mean-
time?  (Or else VAX, if you don't mind running an older version.)
At least, that is what I'm doing on my own laptop; though nowadays I
mostly remotely log onto my own cluster via SSH.

The relatively new AlphaVM is also available for Linux and allows
for a rather nice virtual Alpha system with good specifications.

  - MG

On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 22:07 +0200, MG wrote:
> >> This is exactly what I hope they will do. It would be nice to run
> VMS on
> >> my x86-64 laptop some day. I'd ditch Linux just like that if I
> could get
> >> OpenVMS on x86.
> >
> > I sometimes dream about this....
>=20
> What about running VMS in an Alpha emulated environment in the mean-
> time?  (Or else VAX, if you don't mind running an older version.)
> At least, that is what I'm doing on my own laptop; though nowadays I
> mostly remotely log onto my own cluster via SSH.
>=20
> The relatively new AlphaVM is also available for Linux and allows
> for a rather nice virtual Alpha system with good specifications.=20

I'm already using simh-vax for VAX/VMS and ES42 for AXP/VMS. Both seems
to work quite well.=20

Thanks for the tip, I will have a look at AlphaVM when I have time.
--=20
Tactical Nuclear Kittens

In article <8jtKp.462$lv6.137@newsfe12.iad>,
 "John Smith \(not the one @ HP\)" <a@nonymous.com> wrote:

> More here & wonder of wonders, even VMS gets mentioned.
> 
> http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/interviews/230800004?cid=nl_IW_
> daily_2011-06-16_html
> 
> "The issue isn't so much about having other viable hardware platforms; this 
> and next-generation Xeon chips will perform on a par with Itanium. The issue 
> is supporting customers that want to continue to use the HP-UX and VMS 
> operating systems, which HP still supports on Itanium. Those customers now 
> find themselves in a position to doubt HP and its stated plans for what is a 
> shrinking market. In that sense, Oracle has done its damage, and probably 
> done so in a way that HP can't rectify. Customers will simply look at this 
> catfight and wisely decide to do anything they can to get out of the way of 
> it."
> 
> Csquared (Curly & She Who Must Be Obeyed) managed to seed much doubt on June 
> 25, 2001. Robison & Livermore continued to do the same for the past decade. 
> What isn't clear here?
> 
> Even if they agree to shake hands and drop the lawsuits, does anyone really 
> expect Oracle (who is holding more of the cards in this than HP) to really 
> have their heart in bug fixing and releasing new versions of Oracle and Rdb 
> and any other helper software on PH-UX and VMS on any sort of timely basis?
> 
> What are VMS users going to do - beg SAP to port Sybase to VMS? Beg IBM to 
> port DB2 or Informix?
> 
> Maybe the best HP could get out of this is to get Oracle to seel Rdb back to 
> them and then port the thing to PH-UX. 

The Register have published a couple of articles analyzing the 
non-redacted parts of HP's filing:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/16/hp_oracle_itanium_lawsuit_drilldo
wn/

"HP says that when customers that complained about critical bugs in 
existing Oracle software, it has refused to do so and demanded instead 
that companies upgrade to the next version of its software, which won't 
run on the Integrity machines. (This seems like a long time to wait for 
a critical bug.)"

and

'HP also alleges in the suit that in addition to telling customers to 
move to future versions of Oracle software, the software giant and now 
hardware vendor has "coupled this demand with below-cost offers to give 
away � free of charge � Sun servers that will run new versions of 
Oracle's software," which HP's lawyers argue are "Sun servers they do 
not want."'

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/19/hp_oracle_itanium_court_case_comm
ent/

"We don�t know exactly what HP is asking for; a good portion of the 
remedy section was blacked out. But I would assume that they�re looking 
for the court to rule that Oracle has to live up to contractual 
obligations � which includes porting their software to Itanium, I�m 
betting.

The non-redacted part shows HP asking for the court to tell Oracle to 
knock off the FUD and pay HP�s attorney fees along with damages (maybe 
triple damages). Oh, and they want a jury trial.

So let the drama begin. This could set up a tech court room battle like 
we haven�t seen since the days of the Microsoft antitrust litigation. We 
could see Larry Ellison and Mark Hurd on the witness stand, being 
grilled by hostile HP attorneys. "

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <paul.nospam-BAC7AA.17232920062011@pbook.sture.ch>,
 Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> wrote:

> The Register have published a couple of articles analyzing the 
> non-redacted parts of HP's filing:
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/16/hp_oracle_itanium_lawsuit_drilldown/

Forgot to mention. The PDF is here (in it redacted form):

http://regmedia.co.uk/2011/06/16/hp_oracle_itanium_lawsuit.pdf

-- 
Paul Sture

Paul Sture wrote 2011-06-20 17:23:
> In article<8jtKp.462$lv6.137@newsfe12.iad>,
>   "John Smith \(not the one @ HP\)"<a@nonymous.com>  wrote:
>
>> More here&  wonder of wonders, even VMS gets mentioned.
>>
>> http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/interviews/230800004?cid=nl_IW_
>> daily_2011-06-16_html
>>
>> "The issue isn't so much about having other viable hardware platforms; this
>> and next-generation Xeon chips will perform on a par with Itanium. The issue
>> is supporting customers that want to continue to use the HP-UX and VMS
>> operating systems, which HP still supports on Itanium. Those customers now
>> find themselves in a position to doubt HP and its stated plans for what is a
>> shrinking market. In that sense, Oracle has done its damage, and probably
>> done so in a way that HP can't rectify. Customers will simply look at this
>> catfight and wisely decide to do anything they can to get out of the way of
>> it."
>>
>> Csquared (Curly&  She Who Must Be Obeyed) managed to seed much doubt on June
>> 25, 2001. Robison&  Livermore continued to do the same for the past decade.
>> What isn't clear here?
>>
>> Even if they agree to shake hands and drop the lawsuits, does anyone really
>> expect Oracle (who is holding more of the cards in this than HP) to really
>> have their heart in bug fixing and releasing new versions of Oracle and Rdb
>> and any other helper software on PH-UX and VMS on any sort of timely basis?

Just gor the below copied message in my mail.
So *something* is still going on at Rdb eng.


     We are pleased to announce the release of Oracle Rdb Release
     7.2.5 (aka V7.2-50).  The kit is available on MyOracleSupport
     as patch set numbers 12665582 (Itanium kit), 12665586 (Alpha
     Optimized kit) and 12665577 (Alpha kit) and will be on OTN
     shortly.

     Software Errors Fixed in Oracle Rdb Release 7.2.5
     -------------------------------------------------

     Software Errors Fixed That Apply to All Interfaces
       - Server Process Name Format Changed
       - Drop Storage Area Cascade Failed With Lock On Unrelated
         Area
       - Temporary File Names
       - Incorrect Storage Area Selected In Cluster
       - Unexpected SYSTEM-F-VA_NOTPAGALGN Error With Global Buffers
         and Reserved Memory Registry
       - Unexpected Bugcheck at RDMS$$PARSE_INTCOM_BUFFER Which
         Reports "Obsolete Version of Database"
       - RDBPRE Precompiler RUNTIMSTK Informational Message From
         MACRO Compiler
       - Bugcheck At RUJUTL$ROLLBACK_LOOP
       - ALTER TABLE Fails With Constraint Violation
       - Increased Default for RDMS$BIND_WORK_VM and Relocation of
         Related VM Buffer to P2 Virtual Address Space
       - Full Outer Join Query Returns Wrong Column Values When
         Outer Table is Empty
       - Reduction in Use of Rdb Executive Sort P0 Address Space
       - Attaching to Rdb at Remote Site Stalls
       - Increased Default Use of "Quick Sort"
       - Bugcheck While In PSII2INSERTDUPBBC
       - Divide Operator Now Returns DOUBLE PRECISION Results
         Rather than REAL
       - Unexpected Results From IN Clause on a Subselect Containing
         FETCH FIRST or LIMIT TO
       - Translation From HEX Character Set is Incorrect
       - Nested Query With Left Outer Join and GROUP BY Bugchecks
         During Query Compilation
       - Query With Nested Left Outer Join Bugchecks With Floating
         Overflow
       - DBR Process Waiting for RMS Lock While Adding Process Rights
       - DBR Bugcheck at RUJUTL$ROLLBACK_LOOP + 00000760
       - Rdb Monitor Log File Write Rate Reduced
       - Memory Layout Change For Global Section
       - CONCAT on Operands of Same Datatype and Same Size Bugchecks
       - SQLSRV-E-PWDEXPIRED Error Restored
       - Query Returns Wrong Result and Bugchecks at Exit Using
         Bitmapped Scan
       - Query Runs Very Slow When Using Bitmapped Scan
       - Query With "NOT (conj1 OR conj2 OR conj3)" Predicate Bugchecks
       - Query Returns Wrong Results Using Bitmap Scan With Zigzag Match
       - Query With Over 26 Million Rows Slows Down
     SQL Errors Fixed
       - Unexpected Bugcheck When Using INSERT ... SELECT Into a View
       - Warning Now Issued for Unsupported Character Operations
       - Incorrect Results From LIKE ... IGNORE CASE
       - Unexpected ACCVIO When Using Dynamic DECLARE Cursor Statement
       - Incorrect Value Returned By RETURNING Clause of the INSERT
         Statement
       - Unexpected Failure When Adding IDENTITY Columns
       - Unexpected Bugcheck Dump Produced When UNION and GROUP BY
         Are Used
       - SET EXECUTE Now Implicitly Executed When ROLLBACK Question
         Is Asked
       - Unexpected Bugcheck When Accessing View Changed Using the
         ALTER VIEW Statement
       - Unexpected CAPTIVEACCT Error When Using Spawn Directive in
         Interactive SQL for RESTRICTED Accounts
       - Unexpected NOTRIGRTN Error When Trigger Calls a Procedure
         Using LOCK TABLE Statement
       - Unexpected Bugchecks When Some Undocumented Syntax Used
       - Unexpected Slow Performance for Query Using SQL Functions
     RDO and RDML Errors Fixed
       - Duplicate Values Generated For IDENTITY Column When RDO
         Interface Used For STORE
     RMU Errors Fixed
       - RMU/UNLOAD to XML Does Not Replace Special Characters
       - RMU/RESTORE Could Fail When /BLOCKS_PER_PAGE Was Specified
       - An Incremental Instead Of a Full Backup Could Corrupt a
         Database
       - RMU/BACKUP/AFTER Invalid Open Record With Emergency AIJ Files
       - RMU/COLLECT OPTIMIZER Invalid Cardinality With Vertical
         Record Partitioning
       - RMU /RECOVER /ORDER_AIJ May Remove Required Journal Files
       - RMU/CONVERT Fails to Convert Databases With Database-wide
         Collating Sequence
       - RMU/CONVERT/NOCOMMIT Did Not Call "Fix Up" Routine at End
         of Conversion
       - Problems Validating Files Specified in the "/AIJ_OPTIONS"
         File
       - RMU Online Backup May Store TSNs of Zero
       - RMU/SET AFTER/AIJ_OPTIONS RMU-F-VALLSMIN Error If "RESERVE 0"
       - RMU/BACKUP/PARALLEL/RESTORE_OPTIONS Was Not Fully Supported
     LogMiner Errors Fixed
       - RMU/UNLOAD/AFTER_JOURNAL /STATISTICS With /OUTPUT Information
         Display
     Row Cache Errors Fixed
       - Row Caching Remains Unexpectedly Disabled for a Newly Added
         Storage Area
     RMU Show Statistics Errors Fixed
       - Stall Statistics (Aggregate Count) In RMU/SHOW STATISTICS
         Inaccurate
       - Unexpected ACCVIO When Using RMU/SHOW STATISTICS

     Enhancements Provided in Oracle Rdb Release 7.2.5
     -------------------------------------------------

     Enhancements that Apply to all Interfaces
       - RMU /SHOW STATISTICS /ROWS= and /COLUMNS= Feature
       - New LIMIT Clauses Implemented for the CREATE and ALTER
         PROFILE Statement
       - Use of RMS MBC Larger Than 127
       - New Optimizations for the LIKE Predicate
       - Additional Database Storage Area Checks
       - New Optimizations for the STARTING WITH Predicate
       - New Optimizations for the CONTAINING Predicate
       - Monitor Memory Management Enhancements
       - Average Transaction Duration Display Precision Increased
       - Support for New CONCAT_WS Builtin Function
       - New SYSTIMESTAMP Function Added
       - New SET FLAGS Keyword to Control Optimizer Query Rewrite
       - New SYS_GUID Function Added
       - New COMPRESSION Clause for DECLARE LOCAL TEMPORARY TABLE
         Statement
       - New COMPRESSION Clause for CREATE TABLE Statement
       - Support for 2 TiB Storage Area Files
       - New RMU/ALTER Feature to Modify the Root and Area Header
         Unique Identifier
       - New MATCHING Predicate
       - New RMU/BACKUP-RESTORE Feature to Check Database Page
         Integrity
       - New RMU/DUMP/BACKUP /AREA, /START and /END Qualifiers
       - Reduced CPU Usage and Improved Performance
       - New Logical Name to Control Sizing of LIST OF BYTE VARYING
         Pointer Segments
       - RMU /BACKUP Performance Improvements
       - New RMU/BACKUP/ENCRYPT "%RMU-I-ENCRYPTUSED" Message Added
       - New DATABASE_HANDLE Option for the GET DIAGNOSTICS Statement
       - New SYS_GET_DIAGNOSTIC Function Supported for SQL
       - Improved Error Handling for Database Disk Backup File Sets

Ginger
Rdb Engineering


>>
>> What are VMS users going to do - beg SAP to port Sybase to VMS? Beg IBM to
>> port DB2 or Informix?
>>
>> Maybe the best HP could get out of this is to get Oracle to seel Rdb back to
>> them and then port the thing to PH-UX.
>
> The Register have published a couple of articles analyzing the
> non-redacted parts of HP's filing:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/16/hp_oracle_itanium_lawsuit_drilldo
> wn/
>
> "HP says that when customers that complained about critical bugs in
> existing Oracle software, it has refused to do so and demanded instead
> that companies upgrade to the next version of its software, which won't
> run on the Integrity machines. (This seems like a long time to wait for
> a critical bug.)"
>
> and
>
> 'HP also alleges in the suit that in addition to telling customers to
> move to future versions of Oracle software, the software giant and now
> hardware vendor has "coupled this demand with below-cost offers to give
> away � free of charge � Sun servers that will run new versions of
> Oracle's software," which HP's lawyers argue are "Sun servers they do
> not want."'
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/19/hp_oracle_itanium_court_case_comm
> ent/
>
> "We don�t know exactly what HP is asking for; a good portion of the
> remedy section was blacked out. But I would assume that they�re looking
> for the court to rule that Oracle has to live up to contractual
> obligations � which includes porting their software to Itanium, I�m
> betting.
>
> The non-redacted part shows HP asking for the court to tell Oracle to
> knock off the FUD and pay HP�s attorney fees along with damages (maybe
> triple damages). Oh, and they want a jury trial.
>
> So let the drama begin. This could set up a tech court room battle like
> we haven�t seen since the days of the Microsoft antitrust litigation. We
> could see Larry Ellison and Mark Hurd on the witness stand, being
> grilled by hostile HP attorneys. "
>

In article <paul.nospam-BAC7AA.17232920062011@pbook.sture.ch>, Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> writes:
> 
> "HP says that when customers that complained about critical bugs in 
> existing Oracle software, it has refused to do so and demanded instead 
> that companies upgrade to the next version of its software, which won't 
> run on the Integrity machines.

   Gee, I hope they hired some lawyers who can write a complete
   sentence.

In article <itnsd8$k2r$1@news.albasani.net>, Jan-Erik Soderholm
<jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> writes: 

> Just gor the below copied message in my mail.
> So *something* is still going on at Rdb eng.

Note that the Oracle announcement said that the NEXT VERSION won't be 
supported on Itanium (and for Rdb, that means that this version is the 
last version).  But what is the next version?  7.3?  If so, then we can 
have 7.2.x, where x approaches infinity, with more and more features.  
This way, Oracle can still collect money from customers and not go back 
on their announcement of "stopping all development".  It's not 
development, it's maintenance.  (There was a Dilbert cartoon with a 
similar theme where the PHB said "half of this job is figuring out what 
to call stuff".)

This actually has some history at Rdb, though for a different reason.
Rdb 8.0 was announced, and there was even a book with Rdb 8 in the
title.  However, it got renamed to 7.2 (IIRC---someone correct me if I 
am wrong) so that customers wouldn't have to install a .0 release.  :-)

In article <itnsd8$k2r$1@news.albasani.net>,
 Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> wrote:

> Just gor the below copied message in my mail.
> So *something* is still going on at Rdb eng.
> 
> 
>      We are pleased to announce the release of Oracle Rdb Release
>      7.2.5 (aka V7.2-50).  The kit is available on MyOracleSupport
>      as patch set numbers 12665582 (Itanium kit), 12665586 (Alpha
>      Optimized kit) and 12665577 (Alpha kit) and will be on OTN
>      shortly.
> 
>      Software Errors Fixed in Oracle Rdb Release 7.2.5
>      -------------------------------------------------
> 
>      Software Errors Fixed That Apply to All Interfaces
>        - Server Process Name Format Changed
>        - Drop Storage Area Cascade Failed With Lock On Unrelated
>          Area
>        - Temporary File Names
>        - Incorrect Storage Area Selected In Cluster
>        - Unexpected SYSTEM-F-VA_NOTPAGALGN Error With Global Buffers
>          and Reserved Memory Registry
>        - Unexpected Bugcheck at RDMS$$PARSE_INTCOM_BUFFER Which
>          Reports "Obsolete Version of Database"
>        - RDBPRE Precompiler RUNTIMSTK Informational Message From
>          MACRO Compiler
>        - Bugcheck At RUJUTL$ROLLBACK_LOOP
>        - ALTER TABLE Fails With Constraint Violation
>        - Increased Default for RDMS$BIND_WORK_VM and Relocation of
>          Related VM Buffer to P2 Virtual Address Space
>        - Full Outer Join Query Returns Wrong Column Values When
>          Outer Table is Empty
>        - Reduction in Use of Rdb Executive Sort P0 Address Space
>        - Attaching to Rdb at Remote Site Stalls
>        - Increased Default Use of "Quick Sort"
>        - Bugcheck While In PSII2INSERTDUPBBC
>        - Divide Operator Now Returns DOUBLE PRECISION Results
>          Rather than REAL
>        - Unexpected Results From IN Clause on a Subselect Containing
>          FETCH FIRST or LIMIT TO
>        - Translation From HEX Character Set is Incorrect
>        - Nested Query With Left Outer Join and GROUP BY Bugchecks
>          During Query Compilation
>        - Query With Nested Left Outer Join Bugchecks With Floating
>          Overflow
>        - DBR Process Waiting for RMS Lock While Adding Process Rights
>        - DBR Bugcheck at RUJUTL$ROLLBACK_LOOP + 00000760
>        - Rdb Monitor Log File Write Rate Reduced
>        - Memory Layout Change For Global Section
>        - CONCAT on Operands of Same Datatype and Same Size Bugchecks
>        - SQLSRV-E-PWDEXPIRED Error Restored
>        - Query Returns Wrong Result and Bugchecks at Exit Using
>          Bitmapped Scan
>        - Query Runs Very Slow When Using Bitmapped Scan
>        - Query With "NOT (conj1 OR conj2 OR conj3)" Predicate Bugchecks
>        - Query Returns Wrong Results Using Bitmap Scan With Zigzag Match
>        - Query With Over 26 Million Rows Slows Down
>      SQL Errors Fixed
>        - Unexpected Bugcheck When Using INSERT ... SELECT Into a View
>        - Warning Now Issued for Unsupported Character Operations
>        - Incorrect Results From LIKE ... IGNORE CASE
>        - Unexpected ACCVIO When Using Dynamic DECLARE Cursor Statement
>        - Incorrect Value Returned By RETURNING Clause of the INSERT
>          Statement
>        - Unexpected Failure When Adding IDENTITY Columns
>        - Unexpected Bugcheck Dump Produced When UNION and GROUP BY
>          Are Used
>        - SET EXECUTE Now Implicitly Executed When ROLLBACK Question
>          Is Asked
>        - Unexpected Bugcheck When Accessing View Changed Using the
>          ALTER VIEW Statement
>        - Unexpected CAPTIVEACCT Error When Using Spawn Directive in
>          Interactive SQL for RESTRICTED Accounts
>        - Unexpected NOTRIGRTN Error When Trigger Calls a Procedure
>          Using LOCK TABLE Statement
>        - Unexpected Bugchecks When Some Undocumented Syntax Used
>        - Unexpected Slow Performance for Query Using SQL Functions
>      RDO and RDML Errors Fixed
>        - Duplicate Values Generated For IDENTITY Column When RDO
>          Interface Used For STORE
>      RMU Errors Fixed
>        - RMU/UNLOAD to XML Does Not Replace Special Characters
>        - RMU/RESTORE Could Fail When /BLOCKS_PER_PAGE Was Specified
>        - An Incremental Instead Of a Full Backup Could Corrupt a
>          Database
>        - RMU/BACKUP/AFTER Invalid Open Record With Emergency AIJ Files
>        - RMU/COLLECT OPTIMIZER Invalid Cardinality With Vertical
>          Record Partitioning
>        - RMU /RECOVER /ORDER_AIJ May Remove Required Journal Files
>        - RMU/CONVERT Fails to Convert Databases With Database-wide
>          Collating Sequence
>        - RMU/CONVERT/NOCOMMIT Did Not Call "Fix Up" Routine at End
>          of Conversion
>        - Problems Validating Files Specified in the "/AIJ_OPTIONS"
>          File
>        - RMU Online Backup May Store TSNs of Zero
>        - RMU/SET AFTER/AIJ_OPTIONS RMU-F-VALLSMIN Error If "RESERVE 0"
>        - RMU/BACKUP/PARALLEL/RESTORE_OPTIONS Was Not Fully Supported
>      LogMiner Errors Fixed
>        - RMU/UNLOAD/AFTER_JOURNAL /STATISTICS With /OUTPUT Information
>          Display
>      Row Cache Errors Fixed
>        - Row Caching Remains Unexpectedly Disabled for a Newly Added
>          Storage Area
>      RMU Show Statistics Errors Fixed
>        - Stall Statistics (Aggregate Count) In RMU/SHOW STATISTICS
>          Inaccurate
>        - Unexpected ACCVIO When Using RMU/SHOW STATISTICS
> 
>      Enhancements Provided in Oracle Rdb Release 7.2.5
>      -------------------------------------------------
> 
>      Enhancements that Apply to all Interfaces
>        - RMU /SHOW STATISTICS /ROWS= and /COLUMNS= Feature
>        - New LIMIT Clauses Implemented for the CREATE and ALTER
>          PROFILE Statement
>        - Use of RMS MBC Larger Than 127
>        - New Optimizations for the LIKE Predicate
>        - Additional Database Storage Area Checks
>        - New Optimizations for the STARTING WITH Predicate
>        - New Optimizations for the CONTAINING Predicate
>        - Monitor Memory Management Enhancements
>        - Average Transaction Duration Display Precision Increased
>        - Support for New CONCAT_WS Builtin Function
>        - New SYSTIMESTAMP Function Added
>        - New SET FLAGS Keyword to Control Optimizer Query Rewrite
>        - New SYS_GUID Function Added
>        - New COMPRESSION Clause for DECLARE LOCAL TEMPORARY TABLE
>          Statement
>        - New COMPRESSION Clause for CREATE TABLE Statement
>        - Support for 2 TiB Storage Area Files
>        - New RMU/ALTER Feature to Modify the Root and Area Header
>          Unique Identifier
>        - New MATCHING Predicate
>        - New RMU/BACKUP-RESTORE Feature to Check Database Page
>          Integrity
>        - New RMU/DUMP/BACKUP /AREA, /START and /END Qualifiers
>        - Reduced CPU Usage and Improved Performance
>        - New Logical Name to Control Sizing of LIST OF BYTE VARYING
>          Pointer Segments
>        - RMU /BACKUP Performance Improvements
>        - New RMU/BACKUP/ENCRYPT "%RMU-I-ENCRYPTUSED" Message Added
>        - New DATABASE_HANDLE Option for the GET DIAGNOSTICS Statement
>        - New SYS_GET_DIAGNOSTIC Function Supported for SQL
>        - Improved Error Handling for Database Disk Backup File Sets
> 
> Ginger
> Rdb Engineering

Thanks for that Jan-Erik.  Maybe HP's filing is having some effect.

-- 
Paul Sture

Paul Sture wrote 2011-06-21 14:17:
> In article<itnsd8$k2r$1@news.albasani.net>,
>   Jan-Erik Soderholm<jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com>  wrote:
>
>> Just gor the below copied message in my mail.
>> So *something* is still going on at Rdb eng.
>>
>>
>>       We are pleased to announce the release of Oracle Rdb Release
>>       7.2.5 (aka V7.2-50).  The kit is available on MyOracleSupport
>>       as patch set numbers 12665582 (Itanium kit), 12665586 (Alpha
>>       Optimized kit) and 12665577 (Alpha kit) and will be on OTN
>>       shortly.
>> ...
>> ...
>>
>> Ginger
>> Rdb Engineering
>
> Thanks for that Jan-Erik.  Maybe HP's filing is having some effect.
>

Well, this isn't something new.
These messages about Rdb releases has always been comming with
2-3 messages/releases per year.

On Jun 21, 1:00=A0pm, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <itnsd8$k2...@news.albasani.net>, Jan-Erik Soderholm
>
> <jan-erik.soderh...@telia.com> writes:
> > Just gor the below copied message in my mail.
> > So *something* is still going on at Rdb eng.
>
> Note that the Oracle announcement said that the NEXT VERSION won't be
> supported on Itanium (and for Rdb, that means that this version is the
> last version). =A0But what is the next version? =A07.3? =A0If so, then we=
 can
> have 7.2.x, where x approaches infinity, with more and more features. =A0
> This way, Oracle can still collect money from customers and not go back
> on their announcement of "stopping all development". =A0It's not
> development, it's maintenance. =A0(There was a Dilbert cartoon with a
> similar theme where the PHB said "half of this job is figuring out what
> to call stuff".)
>
> This actually has some history at Rdb, though for a different reason.
> Rdb 8.0 was announced, and there was even a book with Rdb 8 in the
> title. =A0However, it got renamed to 7.2 (IIRC---someone correct me if I
> am wrong) so that customers wouldn't have to install a .0 release. =A0:-)

I have this a little different in memory. I have the book "Rdb, a
Comprehensive Guide -- 3rd ed." by Lilian Hobbs, Ian Smith, and Ken
England, c 1999. It was written when most of the new development for
Rdb was for the Windows NT version which was suppose to become the
first release of Rdb 8. The Rdb 8 release for OpenVMS Alpha would come
later once the enhancements from the NT version were ported to
OpenVMS.  In August of 1999, the latest version of Rdb was 7.0.3.

The NT Version of Rdb was being built using a BLISS compiler ported
from OpenVMS to NT. Unfortunately, at a rather advanced stage of
development having reached beta test, it was discovered that Compaq
refused to provide commercial support for the BLISS compiler on
Windows NT. Since the design focus of Rdb is as the premier mission-
critical enterprise database without peer, it was decided that this
circumstance was a show stopper for Rdb on Windows NT. Under the
concept mission-critical it is naturally understood that any customer
paying for support can expect that a DB error discovered in the field
can in principal be quickly and efficiently corrected by the service
provider, reducing any potential losses by the customer, and reducing
the potential liability of the service provider.

Consequently, the Rdb for NT was renamed to Rdb Workbench and released
as a non-supported freeware for non-commercial purposes. The OpenVMS
version however profited from the new functionality developed for the
the NT version. This back-port of functionality to OpenVMS was mostly
realized in Oracle Rdb 7.1.0 released in June of 2001 and in later Rdb
7.1 releases. In fact, Rdb Release 7.1 was even given the capability
to convert Rdb 8 databases to Rdb 7.1. The following is from the
release notes...

1.1.2 RMU Convert and RMU Restore Works With Oracle Rdb V8.0 to V7.1
Database
Conversion

This release of Oracle Rdb has been re-numbered from V8.0 to V7.1. All
pre-existing
Oracle Rdb beta databases have a root version number of 8.0 and cannot
be
accessed by Oracle Rdb V7.1. To solve this problem, RMU Convert and
RMU
Restore for Oracle Rdb V7.1 allows V8.0 beta databases to be converted
to V7.1.
Since this is a re-numbering of the Rdb database version for beta only
and not a
structural change, and the conversion is executed in Oracle Rdb V7.1,
a rollback of a
conversion back to V8.0 from V7.1 is not possible.

Cheers!

Keith Cayemberg
Consultant
Wipro Technologies
(The former German representative to the Oracle Rdb Customer Advisory
Council EMEA from 1997 to ca. 2000)

P.S. To those referencing the RDBMS originally developed and released
by the Digital Equipment Corporation in 1984 the currently registered
trademark is Oracle Rdb (not Oracle RDB, as I have often seen
written). Rdb in not a mnemonic for anything. It is just the name of
the database.  RDB is short for RDBMS which is a mnemonic meaning
Relational Database Management System. If you write Oracle RDBMS, then
the widely well-known original Oracle Database (which was first
developed on VAX/VMS before it was ported to Unix, and informally also
called Oracle Classic) is being indicated. Oracle DBMS is the Codasyl
network model database system which is based on the same COSI DB
engine as Oracle Rdb, and is also still supported and developed by
Oracle for OpenVMS on Alpha and Itanium.

"Keith Cayemberg" <keith.cayemberg@arcor.de> wrote in message 
news:569dbb41-2a94-4c82-882e-b58cffe0adbd@gc3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

The NT Version of Rdb was being built using a BLISS compiler ported
from OpenVMS to NT. Unfortunately, at a rather advanced stage of
development having reached beta test, it was discovered that Compaq
refused to provide commercial support for the BLISS compiler on
Windows NT. Since the design focus of Rdb is as the premier mission-
critical enterprise database without peer, it was decided that this
circumstance was a show stopper for Rdb on Windows NT.


Uh, since when has Digital/Compaq/HP provided commercial support for ANY 
BLISS compiler?  It didn't stop the OpenVMS Alpha and OpenVMS Itanium 
products.

John 

On Jun 21, 6:48=A0pm, Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderh...@telia.com>
wrote:
> Paul Sture wrote 2011-06-21 14:17:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article<itnsd8$k2...@news.albasani.net>,
> > =A0 Jan-Erik Soderholm<jan-erik.soderh...@telia.com> =A0wrote:
>
> >> Just gor the below copied message in my mail.
> >> So *something* is still going on at Rdb eng.
>
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 We are pleased to announce the release of Oracle Rdb Relea=
se
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 7.2.5 (aka V7.2-50). =A0The kit is available on MyOracleSu=
pport
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 as patch set numbers 12665582 (Itanium kit), 12665586 (Alp=
ha
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 Optimized kit) and 12665577 (Alpha kit) and will be on OTN
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 shortly.
> >> ...
> >> ...
>
> >> Ginger
> >> Rdb Engineering
>
> > Thanks for that Jan-Erik. =A0Maybe HP's filing is having some effect.
>
> Well, this isn't something new.
> These messages about Rdb releases has always been comming with
> 2-3 messages/releases per year.

Yes, till now Oracle Rdb continues to be intensively developed by
Oracle Rdb and usually has at 2 releases per major version per year.

From...
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/rdb/rdb-pmatrix-rdb-086351.html

Rdb 7.1 - Alpha
3 releases in 2007 (6 if you count the separately numbered variant
optimized for EV56 and above)

Rdb 7.2 - Alpha
5 releases in 2007 (10 if you count the separately numbered variant
optimized for EV56 and above)
4 releases in 2008 (8 if you count the separately numbered variant
optimized for EV56 and above)
4 releases in 2009 (8 if you count the separately numbered variant
optimized for EV56 and above)
2 releases in 2010 (4 if you count the separately numbered variant
optimized for EV56 and above)
2 releases so far in 2011 (4 if you count the separately numbered
variant optimized for EV56 and above)

Rdb 7.2 - Itanium
5 releases in 2007
4 releases in 2008
4 releases in 2009
2 releases in 2010
1 release so far in 2011

Contrary to the description of Oracle Rdb in Wikipedia, Oracle Rdb
version 7.3 has not yet been released. Version 7.3 of the "Rdb Product
Family" is slated to be the last Major Point Release(s) for OpenVMS on
Itanium. But those familiar with Rdb release history know that the
Minor releases of a Rdb version can continue up to 9 years or more,
and contain not only bug fixes but also almost always new
functionality (see release notes), and occasionally even original
technology not yet seen in a database.

------
As announced by Kevin Duffy here...
http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=3D11/04/13/0878724
and here...
http://www.jcc.com/search/rdblistserver/current/4d61ecd8.htm
Oracle Rdb 7.1 has had 9 years of major and minor releases; Oracle Rdb
7.2 has had 5 years of major and minor releases to date. Premier and
Extended Support provide 8 years of support after the initial release
of a major version. These are followed by unlimited Sustaining
Support. We are also investigating additional Extended Support
offerings for the Rdb products.
-------

Those wanting more current and future looking information concerning
Oracle Rdb family products should contact Oracle and probably also
attend the recently announced Rdb Technical Forums for 2011...
http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=3D11/06/17/9519740
They are free, and those who can't come can register to attend the
sessions remotely within a Web Conference.

Cheers!

Keith Cayemberg

On Jun 21, 9:16=A0pm, "John Reagan" <johnrrea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Keith Cayemberg" <keith.cayemb...@arcor.de> wrote in message
>
> news:569dbb41-2a94-4c82-882e-b58cffe0adbd@gc3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> The NT Version of Rdb was being built using a BLISS compiler ported
> from OpenVMS to NT. Unfortunately, at a rather advanced stage of
> development having reached beta test, it was discovered that Compaq
> refused to provide commercial support for the BLISS compiler on
> Windows NT. Since the design focus of Rdb is as the premier mission-
> critical enterprise database without peer, it was decided that this
> circumstance was a show stopper for Rdb on Windows NT.
>
> Uh, since when has Digital/Compaq/HP provided commercial support for ANY
> BLISS compiler? =A0It didn't stop the OpenVMS Alpha and OpenVMS Itanium
> products.
>
> John

Does this mean that those components of OpenVMS programmed using BLISS
were also never commercially supported? In the sense that if it caused
a mission-critical problem on OpenVMS for a paying DEC/CompaqHP
customer it would not be expediantly corrected? Perhaps this was also
a misunderstanding at the time within Oracle management making there
decisions? I do definitely remember that this Compaq non-support of
BLISS on NT was the reason I was given at the time.

Cheers!

Keith

Keith Cayemberg wrote 2011-06-21 22:10:
> On Jun 21, 9:16 pm, "John Reagan"<johnrrea...@earthlink.net>  wrote:
>> "Keith Cayemberg"<keith.cayemb...@arcor.de>  wrote in message
>>
>> news:569dbb41-2a94-4c82-882e-b58cffe0adbd@gc3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> The NT Version of Rdb was being built using a BLISS compiler ported
>> from OpenVMS to NT. Unfortunately, at a rather advanced stage of
>> development having reached beta test, it was discovered that Compaq
>> refused to provide commercial support for the BLISS compiler on
>> Windows NT. Since the design focus of Rdb is as the premier mission-
>> critical enterprise database without peer, it was decided that this
>> circumstance was a show stopper for Rdb on Windows NT.
>>
>> Uh, since when has Digital/Compaq/HP provided commercial support for ANY
>> BLISS compiler?  It didn't stop the OpenVMS Alpha and OpenVMS Itanium
>> products.
>>
>> John
>
> Does this mean that those components of OpenVMS programmed using BLISS
> were also never commercially supported? In the sense that if it caused
> a mission-critical problem on OpenVMS for a paying DEC/CompaqHP
> customer it would not be expediantly corrected? Perhaps this was also
> a misunderstanding at the time within Oracle management making there
> decisions? I do definitely remember that this Compaq non-support of
> BLISS on NT was the reason I was given at the time.
>

It was the reason everyone was given, not ? :-)


> Cheers!
>
> Keith

In article <8aOdnUdXefaVc53TnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@earthlink.com>, "John Reagan" <johnrreagan@earthlink.net> writes:
> 
> Uh, since when has Digital/Compaq/HP provided commercial support for ANY 
> BLISS compiler?  It didn't stop the OpenVMS Alpha and OpenVMS Itanium 
> products.

   At one time, you could buy the BLISS-32 (VAX), BLISS-16 (PDP-11), or 
   BLISS-36 (PDP-10) Common BLISS compilers as layered products through 
   normal channels (BLISS-16 being a cross compiler that ran on VMS or 
   TOPS-x0).  When VMS was ported to Alpha, BLISS was not announced as a 
   layered product.  This caused consternation for people like Larry 
   Kilgallen, who had taken DEC's advice to write his products in BLISS.

   DEC soon announced the availability of BLISS for VAX and Alpha as
   unsupported freebies, just as BLISS-10 had been for PDP-10.

   DEC always supported VMS and other products written in BLISS, even
   though they dropped support for customers using the BLISS compilers.

   Earlier DEC had supported Fortran compilers written in BLISS-10, even 
   though they didn't support customers using the free BLISS-10 compiler.
   I'm not sure if they ever did update the Fortran compiler source to
   BLISS-36.

"Bob Koehler" <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote in message 
news:cJsJk$bPWDST@eisner.encompasserve.org...
> In article <8aOdnUdXefaVc53TnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@earthlink.com>, "John Reagan" 
> <johnrreagan@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>> Uh, since when has Digital/Compaq/HP provided commercial support for ANY
>> BLISS compiler?  It didn't stop the OpenVMS Alpha and OpenVMS Itanium
>> products.
>
>   At one time, you could buy the BLISS-32 (VAX), BLISS-16 (PDP-11), or
>   BLISS-36 (PDP-10) Common BLISS compilers as layered products through
>   normal channels (BLISS-16 being a cross compiler that ran on VMS or
>   TOPS-x0).  When VMS was ported to Alpha, BLISS was not announced as a
>   layered product.  This caused consternation for people like Larry
>   Kilgallen, who had taken DEC's advice to write his products in BLISS.
>
>   DEC soon announced the availability of BLISS for VAX and Alpha as
>   unsupported freebies, just as BLISS-10 had been for PDP-10.
>
>   DEC always supported VMS and other products written in BLISS, even
>   though they dropped support for customers using the BLISS compilers.
>
>   Earlier DEC had supported Fortran compilers written in BLISS-10, even
>   though they didn't support customers using the free BLISS-10 compiler.
>   I'm not sure if they ever did update the Fortran compiler source to
>   BLISS-36.
>

Yes, I know all of this.   Should have been more detailed with this crowd.

My point was that Alpha and Itanium BLISS compilers have never been sold as 
real layered products and hence the possibility of paid support.  Support 
was/is on an informal basis.

That said, RDB has close contacts with the compiler team (then and now) and 
always had contact with the BLISS and GEM backend teams.

John 

Excuse me for replying to my own posting. I have a correction and a
proposal to make based on my own posting.

> Yes, till now Oracle Rdb continues to be intensively developed by
> Oracle Rdb and usually has at least 2 releases per major version per year.
>
> From...http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/rdb/rdb-pmatrix-rdb-086351...
>
> Rdb 7.1 - Alpha
> 3 releases in 2007 (6 if you count the separately numbered variant
> optimized for EV56 and above)
>
> Rdb 7.2 - Alpha
> 5 releases in 2007 (10 if you count the separately numbered variant
> optimized for EV56 and above)
> 4 releases in 2008 (8 if you count the separately numbered variant
> optimized for EV56 and above)
> 4 releases in 2009 (8 if you count the separately numbered variant
> optimized for EV56 and above)
> 2 releases in 2010 (4 if you count the separately numbered variant
> optimized for EV56 and above)
> 2 releases so far in 2011 (4 if you count the separately numbered
> variant optimized for EV56 and above)

Sorry, this should read...
 1 release so far in 2011 (2 if you count the separately numbered
 variant optimized for EV56 and above)

>
> Rdb 7.2 - Itanium
> 5 releases in 2007
> 4 releases in 2008
> 4 releases in 2009
> 2 releases in 2010
> 1 release so far in 2011
>
> Contrary to the description of Oracle Rdb in Wikipedia, Oracle Rdb
> version 7.3 has not yet been released. Version 7.3 of the "Rdb Product
> Family" is slated to be the last Major Point Release(s) for OpenVMS on
> Itanium. But those familiar with Rdb release history know that the
> Minor releases of a Rdb version can continue up to 9 years or more,
> and contain not only bug fixes but also almost always new
> functionality (see release notes), and occasionally even original
> technology not yet seen in a database.
>

Actually, if I was in charge of Rdb at Oracle, I would declare the
(for Integrity terminal release) Oracle Rdb 7.3 to be reserved for the
port and introduction of Rdb to the "next OpenVMS hardware platform"
following OpenVMS for Integrity, regardless of how long it takes
before it arrives. This policy has precedence in that Rdb. 7.2 was
also resulting from the Rdb port to the OpenVMS for Integrity
platform. Any current developments made for Rdb v7.3 would then be
folded into the currently developed Rdb v7.2 for Alpha and Integrity.
Minor versions with new features would also continue to be released in
Rdb v7.2 as has also been traditional Oracle Rdb policy.

In this way, Rdb on Integrity would be able to "technically" keep the
statements made by Oracle and so far explained by Kevin Duffy, while
giving the Rdb customers some comfort that their investment in Rdb as
an integral part of their mission-critical enterprise platform will be
preserved for the foreseeable future.

Cheers!

Keith Cayemberg

In article 
<569dbb41-2a94-4c82-882e-b58cffe0adbd@gc3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
 Keith Cayemberg <keith.cayemberg@arcor.de> wrote:

> The NT Version of Rdb was being built using a BLISS compiler ported
> from OpenVMS to NT. Unfortunately, at a rather advanced stage of
> development having reached beta test, it was discovered that Compaq
> refused to provide commercial support for the BLISS compiler on
> Windows NT. Since the design focus of Rdb is as the premier mission-
> critical enterprise database without peer, it was decided that this
> circumstance was a show stopper for Rdb on Windows NT. Under the
> concept mission-critical it is naturally understood that any customer
> paying for support can expect that a DB error discovered in the field
> can in principal be quickly and efficiently corrected by the service
> provider, reducing any potential losses by the customer, and reducing
> the potential liability of the service provider.

That reminds me of a bug our Rdb team encountered circa 1998/9.

Yes it was a VMS bug, but it was a piece of code only used by Rdb, or so 
we were told.  Fortunately this didn't lead to the finger pointing 
exercise that can happen between two software suppliers, and the 
situation was resolved promptly.

-- 
Paul Sture

In article 
<08c36d3f-59b0-49dc-a3b0-52cf9221fb52@e7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,
 Keith Cayemberg <keith.cayemberg@arcor.de> wrote:

> Does this mean that those components of OpenVMS programmed using BLISS
> were also never commercially supported? In the sense that if it caused
> a mission-critical problem on OpenVMS for a paying DEC/CompaqHP
> customer it would not be expediantly corrected? Perhaps this was also
> a misunderstanding at the time within Oracle management making there
> decisions? I do definitely remember that this Compaq non-support of
> BLISS on NT was the reason I was given at the time.

I remember that being the official excuse, but folks technically 
knowledgeable in that area commenting that it was more of a business 
decision.

Pure specualtion follows:

Someone with the foresight to anticipate the current spat might have 
realised that it handed the BLISS owners (now HP) a formidable 
bargaining tool against Oracle.

-- 
Paul Sture

"Keith Cayemberg" <keith.cayemberg@arcor.de> wrote in message 
news:7ea9215c-9b2c-4e14-8238-33968927aaf0@c26g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 21, 6:48 pm, Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderh...@telia.com>
wrote:
> Paul Sture wrote 2011-06-21 14:17:
>
>
> Yes, till now Oracle Rdb continues to be intensively developed by
> Oracle Rdb and usually has at 2 releases per major version per year.

Yeah that New Features list blows my socks off every time :-(

Regards Richard Maher

"Keith Cayemberg" <keith.cayemberg@arcor.de> wrote in message 
news:f3dc2550-1cfa-4264-ab29-80d3e1b51324@p6g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
> Excuse me for replying to my own posting. I have a correction and a
> proposal to make based on my own posting.
>
>>
>
> Actually, if I was in charge of Rdb at Oracle, I would declare the
> (for Integrity terminal release) Oracle Rdb 7.3 to be reserved for the
> port and introduction of Rdb to the "next OpenVMS hardware platform"
> following OpenVMS for Integrity, regardless of how long it takes
> before it arrives. This policy has precedence in that Rdb. 7.2 was
> also resulting from the Rdb port to the OpenVMS for Integrity
> platform. Any current developments made for Rdb v7.3 would then be
> folded into the currently developed Rdb v7.2 for Alpha and Integrity.
> Minor versions with new features would also continue to be released in
> Rdb v7.2 as has also been traditional Oracle Rdb policy.

That would be a great way of spinning the "Shit Larry's also canned Rdb7.3 
as well as Oracle11g!" story.

You should go into Real Estate if you can sell a "fixer-upper" like that.

> Cheers!
>
> Keith Cayemberg
>

Regards Richard Maher

PS. As far as Rdb8 goes I recall having a lovely "Rdb8" watermarked document 
for either Release_Notes or New Features. When it was decided to stick with 
a minor increment of Rdb 7 it was spun to me as "Customers don't like 
upgrading major releases" but I did wonder if it was because someone had 
decreed that "there will never be an Rdb8".