JSOTTILE%LOYVAX.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (03/02/88)
Root Boy Jim (rbj@icst-cmr.arpa) writes: >> Is VMS as horrible as I suspect or am I alone an thinking this? > >You are not alone. >> >> Please help shed the light for us! Please tell us what you think would be >> reasons why you wouldn't buy VMS! (or why you would). We need the help >> of all you wizards out there. Any examples you can think of will help! >> >Tell him to spend some time recruiting CS students. Tell him that if >they run VMS, no one will come to your school. Tell him about the lack >of *real* vendor support, regardless of what they promise. There will >be nothing for the hordes of wizards to do without source code. And >finally, mention the lack of real, modern, compatible networking. I am somewhat miffed here. As you can see from my address, I use VMS. I hear all of you out there complaining and I just want to clear the air. VMS is not as bad as you folks are making it seem. I use both UNIX and VMS and each has their advantages. VMS is nice for an academic atmosphere or a site where most of your users don't want to know the details about how something works or how to do something. As far as support, our site has had *no* problems with getting help from DEC. In fact, I can call in at 1pm (usually the "busiest" times) and if the department that I have my question for is unavailable, i can expect a call from them within a hour or two. The folks of DEC are very helpful and they know what to tell you to do and they DO explain as they go. In fact, I was having problems calling some system services and I bothered a guy from DEC about it and he spent about an hour on it (I mailed my program to him). He called me back and told me what the problem was and why it was acting that way. The fault was all mine and not DEC's. Sometimes, RTFM doesn't quite go far enough. The operating system itself is sound and is somewhat secure depending on how far you really want to go. The hardware gives us little problems (we have 2 clustered 11/785's with an HSC50 and 4 RA81s and various other carry-overs form the old PDP 11 we had). As far as application programming or any programming, for that matter, there are a WHOLE lot of products and, here on bitnet, a lot of very sound public domain code. As a programmer, UNIX intrigues me because I have more control over devices (as a normal user). A few students share my interest but a lot feel that UNIX is confusing and VMS is a little more straightforward. There are a lot of pluses on the VMS side and a lot of UNIX folks like to throw sharp objects at it, but most bounce off of VMS. > >Of course, after you go thru all this, then you'll have to convince >him to run BSD over System V. > >At the very least, have him stage a test, in which some VMS and some >UNIX systems are supported. See which one is preferred. At least you'll >be able to salvage the hardware. > I won't take that as in insult to VMS, but it all depends on your application. If you need a system for programmers and "tech-ies" then UNIX would probably be your best bet. But, if you have a lot of users who don't care about the nitty-gritties then a good systems manager and a few systems programmers will work out rather nicely. >> Thanks for your cooperation and knowledge. Is VMS that bad?? > >Not if you enjoy banging your head against the wall. I still have a round-ish head, no flat spots here. > > National Bureau of Standards > Flamer's Hotline: (301) 975-5688 >FOOLED you! Absorb EGO SHATTERING impulse rays, polyester poltroon!! - John Sottile (jsottile@loyvax.bitnet) Student Systems Manager Student Systems Programmer Loyola College in Maryland Constuctive Criticism Welcomed.
eric@hdr.UUCP (Eric J. Johnson) (03/07/88)
In article <12067@brl-adm.ARPA> JSOTTILE%LOYVAX.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu writes: > As far as support, our site has had *no* problems with getting >help from DEC. In fact, I can call in at 1pm (usually the "busiest" times) >and if the department that I have my question for is unavailable, i can >expect a call from them within a hour or two. We, too have had VERY good luck with DEC support, that is, as long as it is one of our VMS VAXen that has problems... Not too long ago, one of our Ultrix 1.2 730's lost its R80 drive. True to form, their field service person arrived here within a few hours. Diagnostics showed the drive bad, so a new one was shipped here over-nite. The next day, the new drive was installed, diagnostics run on it (a-ok) and we tried loading Ultrix. No luck, once bootstrapped from tape, Ultrix rejected the new drive as bad. (I can't recall the exact message now) While the local tech re-ran diagnostics, we got on the phone with the Ultrix support people who (after some digging around: "now, where is that IDC manual") were able to tell me that, yes indeed, the drive was bad. Since the 'diagnostics' had told the tech that there was nothing wrong with the drive, he was not, however inclined to believe the problem could be there... Just to prove it, we boot VMS, it works just fine. Well, after another few days of swapping boards in the new drive itself, the local people brought out a drive they were using in their local office. We boot Ultrix, *a miracle occurs*, the new drive works. Amazing, one week to replace a disk drive. What does this have to do with choosing VMS over Ultrix? Well, at least in our area, one would probably receive better *local* support for VMS than Ultrix. KEEP IN MIND I am referring to LOCAL support! Both VMS and Ultrix 'OS' (long distance call) level support for us has been excellent. -- Eric J. Johnson UUCP: eric@hdr.UUCP || ...!{ihnp4, codas}!hdr!eric Amperif Corporation. CIS: 72460,11 BIX: ericj My Previous Pontiac was a *Four-door* Tempest 326 Big Block V-8 (SO THERE!) Crusher... Crusher? We don't need no Wesley Crusher!
davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr) (03/08/88)
In article <707@hdr.UUCP> eric@hdr.UUCP (Eric J. Johnson) writes: >[...] >What does this have to do with choosing VMS over Ultrix? Well, at least >in our area, one would probably receive better *local* support for VMS >than Ultrix. KEEP IN MIND I am referring to LOCAL support! Both VMS >and Ultrix 'OS' (long distance call) level support for us has been excellent. I think the quality of support has to do with the question asked. If they know the answer you get good service. If they don't you may spend some time convincing them that the problem is real. We spent a month waiting to get Message Router v1.x talking to v2.x. I'm told that this is true of other vendors ;-< -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (03/09/88)
>What does this have to do with choosing VMS over Ultrix? Well, at least >in our area, one would probably receive better *local* support for VMS >than Ultrix. KEEP IN MIND I am referring to LOCAL support! Both VMS >and Ultrix 'OS' (long distance call) level support for us has been excellent. > >-- >Eric J. Johnson UUCP: eric@hdr.UUCP || ...!{ihnp4, codas}!hdr!eric DEC's pathological resistance to providing hardware service on Vaxes running Ultrix or Unix is a good reason not to buy Vaxes, it's no reason not to buy Unix which can be had from responsible vendors. This has been known for years as the "We can't fix it because it runs Unix(Ultrix)" DEC field service standard excuse #1. There are few people who have tried to run Unix on vaxes who haven't run into this, often in serious ways (like yours, down for a week to replace a disk drive and the vendor resisting the solution.) I had a tty mux down for weeks while they did this finger pointing (on a 780), the final resolution was that there was no +5 volts on the backplane segment (it had burned out, was actually charred when they took it apart.) Right, musta been Unix's fault...it's just a good excuse that unfortunately is accepted by their field service management. -Barry Shein, Boston University
rob@philabs.Philips.Com (Rob Robertson) (03/09/88)
In article <20469@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: >DEC's pathological resistance to providing hardware service on Vaxes >running Ultrix or Unix is a good reason not to buy Vaxes, it's no >reason not to buy Unix which can be had from responsible vendors. > >This has been known for years as the "We can't fix it because it runs >Unix(Ultrix)" DEC field service standard excuse #1. i hate to start defending dec, but...... my experience with their hardware field service personnel has been excellent. we run 4.3 and when ever we had a problem they have been out here and have fixed the problem, no complaining, no comments. occasionally i've been told "under vms we could run disk resident diags, 'cause your running unix we're going to have to boot the standalone diagnostics." which is entirely reasonable. now Systems Industries... the first question our SI FE asks on any service call is, "did you change the software recently?" if yes is the answer our drives can be smoking, and he'll blame the software. our problems with their inability to deal with unix (such as a complete set of standalone diags) are endless. pardon my bitching. rob william robertson rob@philabs.philips.com
avolio@decuac.dec.com (Frederick M. Avolio) (03/10/88)
In article <20469@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: > >>...in our area, one would probably receive better *local* support for VMS >>than Ultrix. KEEP IN MIND I am referring to LOCAL support! Both VMS >>and Ultrix 'OS' (long distance call) level support for us has been excellent. >>Eric J. Johnson UUCP: eric@hdr.UUCP || ...!{ihnp4, codas}!hdr!eric >DEC's pathological resistance to providing hardware service on Vaxes >running Ultrix or Unix is a good reason not to buy Vaxes, ... >This has been known for years as the "We can't fix it because it runs >Unix(Ultrix)" DEC field service standard excuse #1. ... >...it's just a good excuse that unfortunately >is accepted by their field service management. Not any more. Ken Olsen has made it clear that we support UNIX and VMS equally, we fund them equally, and with the same level of committment. (This in a *very* recent clarification statement on Digital's UNIX commitment.) If you are still getting that kind of garbage from field engineers, yell good and hard about it! (Drop *me* a note... I can't do anything, but I promise to yell also.) VAX diagnostics run under Ultrix as well as under VMS. And the support structure for field service is in place up north -- has been for quite some time -- to support them when/if they get into a jam that requires talking to an operating system engineer. Will Ken Olsen making such a statement as mentioned fix everything overnight? Certainly not. Will it happen just because he wants it to? Probably... Fred
dave@micropen (David F. Carlson) (03/10/88)
In article <20469@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: > > >What does this have to do with choosing VMS over Ultrix? Well, at least > > DEC's pathological resistance to providing hardware service on Vaxes > > This has been known for years as the "We can't fix it because it runs > Unix(Ultrix)" DEC field service standard excuse #1. There are few > -Barry Shein, Boston University We had a VAX 750 that worked wonderfully with its ra81 (380Meg disk). Suddenly (over a period of a week) several very strange hard errors occurred on the drive. DEC says "can't fix it: it runs UNIX" but they charge us for the service call anyway! For several months we used fsck, ncheck, and low level formatters: but the problem would reoccur elsewhere on the volume. Some sixth months later DEC sends a notice to all sites with ra81's that the *glue* they used to afix the head assemblies was defective and would cause all sorts of messes. After replacing the entire HDA (head/disk assembly), which was the only fix, the drive hasn't had a problem since. But VMS diags the tech service people had ran with no problems! So VMS must be better. :-) -- David F. Carlson, Micropen, Inc. ...!{ames|harvard|rutgers|topaz|...}!rochester!ur-valhalla!micropen!dave "The faster I go, the behinder I get." --Lewis Carroll
louis@auvax.UUCP (Louis Schmittroth) (03/10/88)
In article <20469@bu-cs.BU.EDU|, bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: | | >What does this have to do with choosing VMS over Ultrix? Well, at least | >in our area, one would probably receive better *local* support for VMS | >than Ultrix. KEEP IN MIND I am referring to LOCAL support! Both VMS | >and Ultrix 'OS' (long distance call) level support for us has been excellent. | > | >-- | >Eric J. Johnson UUCP: eric@hdr.UUCP || ...!{ihnp4, codas}!hdr!eric | | DEC's pathological resistance to providing hardware service on Vaxes | running Ultrix or Unix is a good reason not to buy Vaxes, it's no | reason not to buy Unix which can be had from responsible vendors. There is not only no reason to go with VMS, there is no reason to go with DEC, unless you have already locked yourself into VMS. I have seen vendors come and go since before DEC was incorporated, and welcomed UNIX as the best thing that ever happened to the computer field for two reasons: a superior development system, and a vendor-independent platform for applications. The only thing wrong with going with UNIX is the large number of choices. You really have to do some decision making to find your way around the vendors. If you want ultimate answers in religion and computers, then of course go with IBM ... Otherwise, try Sun, Sequent, NCR, Unisys, AT&T, ... Louis Schmittroth My employer has no opinions. Computer Science Athabasca University ...{ubc-vision, ihnp4}!alberta!auvax!louis -- Louis Schmittroth My employer has no opinions. Computer Science Athabasca University ...{ubc-vision, ihnp4}!alberta!auvax!louis
peralta@encore.UUCP (Rick Peralta) (03/10/88)
In article <554@auvax.UUCP> louis@auvax.UUCP (Louis Schmittroth) writes: >... >I have seen >vendors come and go since before DEC ... > Score DEC! -- Rick Peralta, Encore Computer Corp, Marlboro MA (617) 460-0500 arpa: peralta@multimax.arpa (192.5.63.14) uucp: {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,linus,necntc,talcott}!encore!peralta "Once you've got all the questions; the answers should be easy."
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (03/11/88)
Fred Avolio replying to me... >>This has been known for years as the "We can't fix it because it runs >>Unix(Ultrix)" DEC field service standard excuse #1. ... >>...it's just a good excuse that unfortunately >>is accepted by their field service management. > >Not any more. Ken Olsen has made it clear that we support UNIX and >VMS equally, we fund them equally, and with the same level of >committment. (This in a *very* recent clarification statement on >Digital's UNIX commitment.) I will say in all fairness that all we as customerss can report is historical experience and people like Fred and Ray Lanza (and Armando Stettner) have long expressed their frustration/displeasure when they hear stories like these and always were interested in trying to see what can be done. Whatever changes are occurring it's certainly not for lack of the Ultrix people trying, perhaps it's finally sinking in (nothing like losing a couple of billion dollar contracts to focus the mind I always say...) Now, if they can only convince the sales people that inviting them down to bid a Vax for running Unix is *not* an invitation to run around trying to convince ignorant administrators that what they *really* want is VMS, using standard FUD [Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt] tactics [like, we won't be able to fix it...], all these things make us hesitate to ring DEC's phone like you wouldn't believe, a simple bid turns into a war zone when these losers start that crap (I won't even mention some of the pitiful attempts to push DECNOT, um, DNA, and the infamous "Grab the Network!" internal sales memos.) We've really got to cut this issue into parts, in my experience there are huge differences between the Ultrix folks and the *DEC/VMS HEGEMONY*. I like the Ultrix folks, I even let them buy me dinner occasionally :-) -Barry Shein, Boston University
abs@nbc1.UUCP (Andrew Siegel) (03/11/88)
In article <20469@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: >DEC's pathological resistance to providing hardware service on Vaxes >running Ultrix or Unix is a good reason not to buy Vaxes, it's no >reason not to buy Unix which can be had from responsible vendors. Correction (partial): DEC *does* support VAXes running ULTRIX. We've had ULTRIX since June '85, and have had hardware support all along. They may not know what to *do* with ULTRIX, but at least they'll service the machines. -- Andrew Siegel, N2CN NBC Computer Imaging, New York, NY {philabs,steinmetz,ge-dab}!nbc1!abs (212)664-5776
fuat@cunixc.columbia.edu (Fuat C. Baran) (03/12/88)
In article <2504@decuac.DEC.COM> avolio@decuac.dec.com (Frederick M. Avolio) writes: >Not any more. Ken Olsen has made it clear that we support UNIX and >VMS equally, we fund them equally, and with the same level of >committment. (This in a *very* recent clarification statement on >Digital's UNIX commitment.) > Does this mean Ultrix is now getting as much funding as VMS is currently getting? Doesn't VMS have a head start, and things aren't equal yet... >VAX diagnostics run under Ultrix as well as under VMS. DEC Local recently brought in a VMS RA60 pack to be able to run diagnostics on our 8700. Are you sure ALL VAX diagnostics exist under Ultrix? i.e. can an Ultrix site run without ever hearing anything about VMS? --Fuat -- ARPANET: fuat@columbia.edu U.S. MAIL: Columbia University BITNET: fuat@cunixc.columbia.edu Center for Computing Activities USENET: ...!rutgers!columbia!cunixc!fuat 712 Watson Labs, 612 W115th St. PHONE: (212) 280-5128 New York, NY 10025
det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer) (03/14/88)
In article <3352@briar.Philips.Com>, rob@philabs.Philips.Com (Rob Robertson) writes: > In article <20469@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: > >This has been known for years as the "We can't fix it because it runs > >Unix(Ultrix)" DEC field service standard excuse #1. > > my experience with their hardware field service personnel has been > excellent. [..] I have to agree with rob. I run 6 unix systems, two of them 11/780s with a DEC maintenance contract, and i can always count on dec field service, in spite of the fact that we run at&t unix; not even ultrix. The other vendors have given me much less than satisfactory performance in a number of cases. This doesn't mean that i like VMS, quite the contrary, i much prefer unix, but the DEC field service *WE* have around here doesn't offer "DEC field service standard excuse #1". They break their collective butts keeping my hardware up and running and I really appreciate it! -- Derek Terveer det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG uunet!rosevax!elric!hawkmoon!det
shan@mcf.UUCP (Sharan Kalwani) (03/15/88)
In article <2504@decuac.DEC.COM> avolio@decuac.dec.com (Frederick M. Avolio) writes: >In article <20469@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: >>DEC's pathological resistance to providing hardware service on Vaxes >>running Ultrix or Unix is a good reason not to buy Vaxes, ... > >>This has been known for years as the "We can't fix it because it runs >>Unix(Ultrix)" DEC field service standard excuse #1. ... >>...it's just a good excuse that unfortunately >>is accepted by their field service management. > >Not any more. Ken Olsen has made it clear that we support UNIX and >VMS equally, we fund them equally, and with the same level of >committment. (This in a *very* recent clarification statement on >Digital's UNIX commitment.) Maybe so, but Ken Olsen isn't going to come to my site and fix things and I *still* have to deal with Field Circus Engineers who love to bash UNIX to a point where even VMS-lovers would cringe and tend to agree that UNIX just doesn't deserve such a bad rap. >If you are still getting that kind of garbage from field engineers, >yell good and hard about it! (Drop *me* a note... I can't do >anything, but I promise to yell also.) VAX diagnostics run under >Ultrix as well as under VMS. I've been yelling long and hard and finally my throat gave up. I've been asking for *exactly* that kind of help but what do I get - zilch!. All it got me was their Field man all dressed up nattily (it does seem DEC is beginning to look more and more like IBM these days) come over and try to give me this BS about why VMS should been used in the first place, etc., etc.... and the hardware was fine and dandy the whole fault was that of software (namely UNIX). My advice to the person who originally asked the question: Help save us from VMS - was that if you feel like being royally scr**ed, sure go ahead and get DEC/VMS all the way thru. Sorry for the vitriolic burst, but I had to get it off my chest. Usual disclaimers apply. -- sharan kalwani. mcf, 110 east warren detroit mi 48201. (313) 833-0710 x411 USENET: ..!{ihnp4!mibte, uunet!umix, philabs!fmsrl7, ucbvax!mtxinu}!mcf!shan INTERNET: shan%mcf.uucp@umix.cc.umich.edu DEC's EASYNET: DECWRL::"umix.cc.umich.edu!mcf!shan"
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (03/15/88)
In article <418@nbc1.UUCP> abs@nbc1.UUCP (Andrew Siegel) writes: >In article <20469@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: >>DEC's pathological resistance to providing hardware service on Vaxes >>running Ultrix or Unix is a good reason not to buy Vaxes, it's no >>reason not to buy Unix which can be had from responsible vendors. > >Correction (partial): DEC *does* support VAXes running ULTRIX. >We've had ULTRIX since June '85, and have had hardware support all >along. Well when I was with Bellcore our lab utilized Ultrix 1.0 on some VAX 780's. I really don't remember how the hardware support was, but I never heard any complaints. The complaints were on the software front. In order for the system administrator to perform diagnostic tests, s/he would first have to boot VMS!!! Another problem we had was that we were sold a machine with 16 Mg of main memory. Ultrix only could address 8 Mg! Now, of course all that has changed and it was their first attempt at UNIX, but VMS was king and the Ultrix customers were well aware of it. That led us to drop DEC and go with Pyramid and CCI for our development machines. The experiences with DEC left a bad taste in people's mouths. Those kinds of experiences are rather difficult to overcome, even if DEC has allegedly changed their tune on Ultrix. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation {gatech,rutgers,attmail}!codas!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL 34649-2826
matt@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (Stop calling me Fred) (03/16/88)
) >Barry Shein: ) >>DEC's pathological resistance to providing hardware service on Vaxes ) >>running Ultrix or Unix is a good reason not to buy Vaxes, ... ) Frederick M. Avolio: ) >Not any more. Ken Olsen has made it clear that we support UNIX and ) >VMS equally, ... Sharan Kalwani: ) Maybe so, but Ken Olsen isn't going to come to my site and fix ) things and I *still* have to deal with Field Circus Engineers who ) love to bash UNIX ... Maybe it all depends on your local field service office. We had a vax from '83 to early '87 and our local field service office never weasled us about the fact that we ran (BSD) unix. They even spent days tracking down an obscure hardware problem that is invisible under VMS! ________________________________________________________ Matt University matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu Crawford of Chicago {astrovax,ihnp4}!oddjob!matt
jk@Apple.COM (John Kullmann) (03/16/88)
No, VMS *IS* the evil empire. -- John Kullmann Apple Computer Inc. Voice: 408-973-2939 Fax: 408-973-6489
rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) (03/17/88)
If you are unhappy with the way DEC maintenance jerks you around because you run UNIX, you might consider having Control Data maintain your DEC equipment (yes CDC does do DEC maintenance). We switched to CDC a few years ago and have no regrets. The service is better, they don't bitch about unix (although they occasionally ask for help in interpreting some of the more obscure unix error messages. I find that quite acceptable), and they ended up saving us quite a bit of money over DEC maintenance. (Money was not the major issue. Response time and ineptness of service once they actually responded was a big factor) I don't know if DEC maintenance has improved locally in the past few years, but we have no reason to try them and see. (We are running "real" 4.3bsd as opposed to Ultrix, etc) ---rick
dkc@hotlr.ATT (Dave Cornutt) (03/17/88)
In article <2528@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: > Another problem we had was that we were > sold a machine with 16 Mg of main memory. Ultrix only could address 8 Mg! Sounds like the old MS780E memory interleaving trick. Back in 1983, the company that I worked for at the time bought a 780 with one of the first E controllers (and only 2M of memory!). When we put Interactive IS/3 (a SysIII-based system) up on it, we noticed the same problem...only half of the memory was visible. After a couple of hours of probing around in our (fortunately new) VAX Hardware Handbook, we discovered how to enable the memory interleving on the controller and make all of the memory visible. I don't remember the details now, but all it took was a couple of register pokes. We put the necessary commands in the console boot file and it worked fine. The amusing thing was that, when we booted up VMS (I think the current version at the time was 2.3), it didn't do it right either! And whenever the FS people ran the micro diags, they were always stunned with micro #2 told them that it couldn't find the memory controller. I then had to show them the secret, mysterious micro #3 disk. (I once spent 20 minutes on the phone with someone from Remote Diag trying to convince them that there was such a thing. I eventually gave up, hung up the phone, and called back in the hopes that I wouldn't get the same person. Fortunately, I didn't.) This was all five years ago. Fortunately, things appear to have changed for the better since then. -- Dave Cornutt, AT&T Bell Labs (rm 4A406), Holmdel, NJ (Note new address!) UUCP:{ihnp4,allegra,cbosgd}!hotly!dkc (path stolen from Shelley) "The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily my employer's, not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary"
shan@mcf.UUCP (Sharan Kalwani) (03/18/88)
In article <7693@apple.Apple.Com> jk@apple.UUCP (John Kullmann) writes: >No, VMS *IS* the evil empire. >-- >John Kullmann >Apple Computer Inc. >Voice: 408-973-2939 >Fax: 408-973-6489 Now that is a very very interesting statement, I seem to recall recently seeing in YAITRs pictures of Apple and DEC big shots smiling and shaking hands. John, would you care to share your thoughts why (publicly or privately) ? -- sharan "alf" kalwani. 110 east warren detroit mi 48201. (313) 833-0710 x411 USENET: ...!{ihnp4!mibte, uunet!umix, philabs!fmsrl7, ucbvax!mtxinu}!mcf!shan INTERNET: shan%mcf.uucp@umix.cc.umich.edu BITNET: mcf!shan@psuvax1.BITNET DEC's EASYNET: DECWRL::"umix.cc.umich.edu!mcf!shan"
avolio@decuac.dec.com (Frederick M. Avolio) (03/18/88)
In article <493@cunixc.columbia.edu> fuat@cunixc.columbia.edu (Fuat C. Baran) writes: >Does this mean Ultrix is now getting as much funding as VMS is >currently getting? Doesn't VMS have a head start, and things aren't >equal yet... Yes, they get equal funding. Well, very nearly. And yes, VMS has a head start. The issue is support. Is it all *there* yet? No. When Lincoln declared all the slaves free did they all start living like they were free right off? No. The apostle Paul says that all who are born of the Spirit are new creation and the "old man is dead." Do all such people change the way they live over night? No. (Wonderful analogies, eh?) The question isn't "Ultrix vs. VMS" as much as "is Unix(tm) important to Digital as a whole and in particular in the executive suite of the Mill?" The answer is yes. >>VAX diagnostics run under Ultrix as well as under VMS. > >DEC Local recently brought in a VMS RA60 pack to be able to run >diagnostics on our 8700. Are you sure ALL VAX diagnostics exist under >Ultrix? i.e. can an Ultrix site run without ever hearing anything >about VMS? VAX Level 3 diagnostics can be installed and will boot from an ULTRIX or VMS machine. Fred
stpeters@dawn.steinmetz (Dick St.Peters) (03/19/88)
In article <2528@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: > Well when I was with Bellcore our lab utilized Ultrix 1.0 on some >VAX 780's. ... > > Now, of course all that has changed and it was their first attempt at >UNIX, ... It was more like their zero'th attempt. When we got Ultrix 1.0, we bought source - and paid a bundle for it. It looked a bit familiar - in fact, it was essentially identical to the BSD 4.2 source we already had. After dozens of diffs, the only difference I ever found was in the kernel source: DEC had replaced one BSD macro with a procedure. Management bought installation, but when the FE showed up to do the install, we already had Ultrix running. Good thing too, 'cuz the FE had never installed it. However, DEC has come a long way since then, and instead of bashing them for taking so long to get on the UNIX bandwagon, shouldn't we be welcoming them aboard? -- Dick St.Peters GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY stpeters@ge-crd.arpa uunet!steinmetz!stpeters
shan@mcf.UUCP (Sharan Kalwani) (03/19/88)
In article <210@hotlr.ATT> dkc@hotlr.UUCP (Dave Cornutt) writes: > ..some material deleted... >(I once spent 20 >minutes on the phone with someone from Remote Diag trying to convince >them that there was such a thing. I eventually gave up, hung up the >phone, and called back in the hopes that I wouldn't get the same person. >Fortunately, I didn't.) A very amusing story of how the FS folks got surprised by a micro diag failing and later some problem with Remote Diag folks (which got resolved also in an amusing manner)] While I did not have the same memory problem, on my 750 the VMS diags would routinely fail and the FS folks would dutifully take the printout and promise to check and let me know. This went on for months before I discovered that there was a bug in that version of the diag (called ECKAM or something, they sure pick odd names :-)! The reason it failed was because the diag needed a minimum of 6 meg to run correctly :-) and we had 4 meg. Well then once RDC called in and ran the same usual tests - they told me I had failing memory and it should be replaced. I then had to try to convince that that was not the problem and finally ended up asking for their senior most engineer there. He listened and took my reference about the bug, dug it up and agreeded that it was indeed the case. I have since upgraded it to 8 Meg and yes the diag now works correctly :-) >This was all five years ago. Fortunately, things appear to have changed >for the better since then. Well this happened roughly two years ago, but recently I got a call from someone at DEC telling me things are now improving. Let's hope he is right and we can expect more understanding support persons. >Dave Cornutt, AT&T Bell Labs (rm 4A406), Holmdel, NJ (Note new address!) >UUCP:{ihnp4,allegra,cbosgd}!hotly!dkc (path stolen from Shelley) -- sharan "alf" kalwani. 110 east warren detroit mi 48201. (313) 833-0710 x411 USENET: ...!{ihnp4!mibte, uunet!umix, philabs!fmsrl7, ucbvax!mtxinu}!mcf!shan INTERNET: shan%mcf.uucp@umix.cc.umich.edu BITNET: mcf!shan@psuvax1.BITNET DEC's EASYNET: DECWRL::"umix.cc.umich.edu!mcf!shan"
shan@mcf.UUCP (Sharan Kalwani) (03/19/88)
In article <2510@decuac.DEC.COM> avolio@decuac.UUCP writes: >The question isn't "Ultrix vs. VMS" as much as "is >Unix(tm) important to Digital as a whole and in particular in the >executive suite of the Mill?" The answer is yes. Fred, I hope you are right about that. I would like to see that reflected with the people I have to deal with and not some one in distant DEC-land. And if they do, how will they handle the diagnostics that are necessary? (and *NO* I am not talking about Ultrix here). -- sharan "alf" kalwani. 110 east warren detroit mi 48201. (313) 833-0710 x411 USENET: ...!{ihnp4!mibte, uunet!umix, philabs!fmsrl7, ucbvax!mtxinu}!mcf!shan INTERNET: shan%mcf.uucp@umix.cc.umich.edu BITNET: mcf!shan@psuvax1.BITNET DEC's EASYNET: DECWRL::"umix.cc.umich.edu!mcf!shan"
rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (03/20/88)
Dick St.Peters <stpeters@ge-crd.arpa> writes:
However, DEC has come a long way since then, and instead of bashing
them for taking so long to get on the UNIX bandwagon, shouldn't we be
welcoming them aboard?
Excellent point!
They're obviously still lacking in some areas (no nameserver -- hell, when
one of their own engineers wrote BIND! -- makes Ultrix all but unuseable
on the Internet), but by all their statements, and from DEC presentations
I've been to, they know they're lagging (I heard someone admit it :-), and
they seem real sincere in their catch-up efforts.
Complaints about specific field offices posted to a world-wide network
are probably less effective at causing change than a sharp well-worded
letter sent to the regional office.
/r$
--
Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.
aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP (03/20/88)
>>No, VMS *IS* the evil empire. >> >>John Kullmann >>Apple Computer Inc. > >Now that is a very very interesting statement, I seem to recall recently >seeing in YAITRs pictures of Apple and DEC big shots smiling and shaking >hands. John, would you care to share your thoughts why (publicly or >privately) ? > >sharan "alf" kalwani. 110 east warren detroit mi 48201. (313) 833-0710 x411 Give the guy a break. Don't get his opinions mixed up with his company's, unless he says so explicitly - and then check. As somebody who has gotten into trouble for things said on the net, I can avow that life would be easier if people did not read every statement by joe@widget.com as an official statement by Wiget, Inc. Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana. 1101 E. University, Urbana, IL 61801 aglew@gould.com - preferred, if you have MX records aglew@xenurus.gould.com - if you don't ...!ihnp4!uiucuxc!ccvaxa!aglew - paths may still be the only way My opinions are my own, and are not the opinions of my employer, or any other organisation. I indicate my company only so that the reader may account for any possible bias I may have towards our products.
shan@mcf.UUCP (Sharan Kalwani) (03/21/88)
In article <533@fig.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >Complaints about specific field offices posted to a world-wide network >are probably less effective at causing change than a sharp well-worded >letter sent to the regional office. On the contrary, it makes folks in parts of DEC that matter, aware if something is wrong and gets them involved in the action bringing some heat (and light) to bear on any problem. -- sharan "alf" kalwani. 110 east warren detroit mi 48201. (313) 833-0710 x411 USENET: ...!{ihnp4!mibte, uunet!umix, philabs!fmsrl7, ucbvax!mtxinu}!mcf!shan INTERNET: shan%mcf.uucp@umix.cc.umich.edu BITNET: mcf!shan@psuvax1.BITNET DEC's EASYNET: DECWRL::"umix.cc.umich.edu!mcf!shan"
ronk%shadows@Sun.COM (Ron Kleinman) (03/23/88)
In article <10009@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> dawn!stpeters@steinmetz.UUCP (Dick St.Peters) writes: >In article <2528@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: >> Well when I was with Bellcore our lab utilized Ultrix 1.0 on some >>VAX 780's. ... >> >> Now, of course all that has changed and it was their first attempt at >>UNIX, ... >It was more like their zero'th attempt. When we got Ultrix 1.0, we >bought source - and paid a bundle for it. It looked a bit familiar - >in fact, it was essentially identical to the BSD 4.2 source we already >had. After dozens of diffs, the only difference I ever found was in >the kernel source: DEC had replaced one BSD macro with a procedure. > Seconded. When we got that version of Ultrix, I tried out the "finger" command, and was informed by this DEC operating system that the location I was giving was illegal, as it wasn't in Evans or Colby Hall (I think I've got that right .. this was awhile ago) which were apparently located on the Berkeley campus. I reported the problem and it went away with the next release. >Management bought installation, but when the FE showed up to do the >install, we already had Ultrix running. Good thing too, 'cuz the FE >had never installed it. > Worse .. they had to reboot VMS to run any diagnostics that first release. We had a disk problem which didn't show under VMS. The big difference was in attitude ... when BSD4.2 did it, the DEC people yawned, when Ultrix showed the problem they at least sounded concerned. >However, DEC has come a long way since then, and instead of bashing >them for taking so long to get on the UNIX bandwagon, shouldn't we be >welcoming them aboard? > Seconded. They've added some nice features to Unix, DECnet being one of them. >-- >Dick St.Peters >GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY >stpeters@ge-crd.arpa >uunet!steinmetz!stpeters