yamahasw40@latinmail.com (Schmuck) writes in article <24819cc3.0307171340.ffd452d@posting.google.c
om> dated 17 Jul 2003 14:40:49 -0700:
quote:

>There is a lot of FUD coming out of various vendors about the future
>of HPs "other OSs". Ie.. if its not HP-UX, it will die with the switch
>to Itanium.


VMS has already been ported to Itanium.  I don't know about Himalaya.
I think the plan for Tru64 is to "merge" it with HP-UX.
quote:

>What is the real deal? If I buy an Alphaserver today will I be dealing
>with HP Techs who can't even spell Tru64?


Considering that HP is still supporting VAX/VMS 9 years after the Alpha was
introduced, I don't think you have anything to worry about in your 5-7 year
timeframe.

FWIW, the port of our in-house software from VAX to Alpha was smooth.  You
never know, Itanium price/performance could get good enough that you'll want
to move.

--Keith Lewis              klewis$mitre.org
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

yamahasw40@latinmail.com (Schmuck) writes in article <24819cc3.0307171340.ffd452d@posting.google.c
om> dated 17 Jul 2003 14:40:49 -0700:
quote:

>There is a lot of FUD coming out of various vendors about the future
>of HPs "other OSs". Ie.. if its not HP-UX, it will die with the switch
>to Itanium.


VMS has already been ported to Itanium.  I don't know about Himalaya.
I think the plan for Tru64 is to "merge" it with HP-UX.
quote:

>What is the real deal? If I buy an Alphaserver today will I be dealing
>with HP Techs who can't even spell Tru64?


Considering that HP is still supporting VAX/VMS 9 years after the Alpha was
introduced, I don't think you have anything to worry about in your 5-7 year
timeframe.

FWIW, the port of our in-house software from VAX to Alpha was smooth.  You
never know, Itanium price/performance could get good enough that you'll want
to move.

--Keith Lewis              klewis$mitre.org
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <24819cc3.0307171340.ffd452d@posting.google.com>, yamahasw40@latinmail.com (Schmuck) wr
ites:
quote:

> Hi all,
>
> First up.. have to admit that I am not an Alpha guy, but I am dealing
> with a site that is. I will probably expose my ignorance over the
> wealth of OSs available from HP in the next couple of lines, so please
> be kind.
>
> There is a lot of FUD coming out of various vendors about the future
> of HPs "other OSs". Ie.. if its not HP-UX, it will die with the switch
> to Itanium.
>
> What is the real deal? If I buy an Alphaserver today will I be dealing
> with HP Techs who can't even spell Tru64?


HP has announced plans to migrate Tru64 features into HP-UX and
end Tru64.  These are publically available via HP's web site.
Tru64 will not be ported off Alpha.
quote:

> Essentially we need to consider the TCO of the shop before we
> recommend a platform. (I don't actually care that much.. Anybody but
> Microsoft). If these guys will have an uphill battle with support over
> the time-life of this sistem (predicted at 5 years with a possible
> stretch to 7), they are better off retraining their OSF and VMS guys
> upfront.


VMS is what you want.  HP is spending lots of money on VMS and
has shipped the first release VMS on IA64 to partners to start
porting thier products.  Take a look and see if the products you
need are already commited to ports.  Most of this info can be
found on the OpenVMS web site or contact a HP sales folk and demand
a sales rep who known what VMS is.

You will, of course, here much FUD about VMS dying.  Wasn't true
when Gartner was founded with it thier as their opening position
and even with all their clout they haven't been able to make it a
self fulfilling prophecy.  VMS just keeps on keeping on.  Security,
reliability, and low TCO are a hard to beat combination.

If VMS doesn't have what you want; then "anything but Microsoft"
drops you into "our UNIX is the same as all UNIX, but better".  Do
try to have fun while sorting that all out, it's the only attitude
that will keep you from rolling your eyes 'till they're stuck.

OBTW, in case you miss my .sig, this is personal opinion, not
company endorsement.  The company I work for will use any product
that fits.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <24819cc3.0307171340.ffd452d@posting.google.com>, yamahasw40@latinmail.com (Schmuck) wr
ites:
quote:

> Hi all,
>
> First up.. have to admit that I am not an Alpha guy, but I am dealing
> with a site that is. I will probably expose my ignorance over the
> wealth of OSs available from HP in the next couple of lines, so please
> be kind.
>
> There is a lot of FUD coming out of various vendors about the future
> of HPs "other OSs". Ie.. if its not HP-UX, it will die with the switch
> to Itanium.
>
> What is the real deal? If I buy an Alphaserver today will I be dealing
> with HP Techs who can't even spell Tru64?


HP has announced plans to migrate Tru64 features into HP-UX and
end Tru64.  These are publically available via HP's web site.
Tru64 will not be ported off Alpha.
quote:

> Essentially we need to consider the TCO of the shop before we
> recommend a platform. (I don't actually care that much.. Anybody but
> Microsoft). If these guys will have an uphill battle with support over
> the time-life of this sistem (predicted at 5 years with a possible
> stretch to 7), they are better off retraining their OSF and VMS guys
> upfront.


VMS is what you want.  HP is spending lots of money on VMS and
has shipped the first release VMS on IA64 to partners to start
porting thier products.  Take a look and see if the products you
need are already commited to ports.  Most of this info can be
found on the OpenVMS web site or contact a HP sales folk and demand
a sales rep who known what VMS is.

You will, of course, here much FUD about VMS dying.  Wasn't true
when Gartner was founded with it thier as their opening position
and even with all their clout they haven't been able to make it a
self fulfilling prophecy.  VMS just keeps on keeping on.  Security,
reliability, and low TCO are a hard to beat combination.

If VMS doesn't have what you want; then "anything but Microsoft"
drops you into "our UNIX is the same as all UNIX, but better".  Do
try to have fun while sorting that all out, it's the only attitude
that will keep you from rolling your eyes 'till they're stuck.

OBTW, in case you miss my .sig, this is personal opinion, not
company endorsement.  The company I work for will use any product
that fits.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message news:<EJ2cnXqAj_h094WiXTWJjQ@metrocast.net>.
.
quote:
 
>
> Possibly because there's reason for exactly that concern.  Take a close lo
ok
> at the current VMS roadmap (no committed core development after next year,
> and precious little 2005 development even for layered products) - and keep
> in mind that HP's roadmaps are supposedly 5-year projections...
>
> If all you'll need for the next 7 years is what VMS will provide next year
,
> and all the performance you'll require will be the modest increase schedul
ed
> for Alpha next year, and the ratcheting up of service and component prices
> that tends to occur when a platform (Alpha) becomes increasingly 'legacy' 
in
> nature is not a problem for you, you'll probably be happy with the choice.
>
> - bill


what in the heck do you want them to develop ... everything you need
is already there or will be on itanium ... xml is there, and that's
not even the so-called standard yet ... I don't know of too many
companies that develop 2 years out on software ... VMS already has
the best security and clustering out there ... most everyone now is
working on security for linux/windoze ... in other words, everyone
is still trying to play catch up to VMS ...

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message news:<EJ2cnXqAj_h094WiXTWJjQ@metrocast.net>.
.
quote:
 
>
> Possibly because there's reason for exactly that concern.  Take a close lo
ok
> at the current VMS roadmap (no committed core development after next year,
> and precious little 2005 development even for layered products) - and keep
> in mind that HP's roadmaps are supposedly 5-year projections...
>
> If all you'll need for the next 7 years is what VMS will provide next year
,
> and all the performance you'll require will be the modest increase schedul
ed
> for Alpha next year, and the ratcheting up of service and component prices
> that tends to occur when a platform (Alpha) becomes increasingly 'legacy' 
in
> nature is not a problem for you, you'll probably be happy with the choice.
>
> - bill


what in the heck do you want them to develop ... everything you need
is already there or will be on itanium ... xml is there, and that's
not even the so-called standard yet ... I don't know of too many
companies that develop 2 years out on software ... VMS already has
the best security and clustering out there ... most everyone now is
working on security for linux/windoze ... in other words, everyone
is still trying to play catch up to VMS ...

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

yamahasw40@latinmail.com (Schmuck) wrote in message news:<24819cc3.0307171340.ffd452d@posting.goog
le.com>...
quote:

> Hi all,
>
> First up.. have to admit that I am not an Alpha guy, but I am dealing
> with a site that is. I will probably expose my ignorance over the
> wealth of OSs available from HP in the next couple of lines, so please
> be kind.
>
> There is a lot of FUD coming out of various vendors about the future
> of HPs "other OSs". Ie.. if its not HP-UX, it will die with the switch
> to Itanium.
>
> What is the real deal? If I buy an Alphaserver today will I be dealing
> with HP Techs who can't even spell Tru64?
>
> Essentially we need to consider the TCO of the shop before we
> recommend a platform. (I don't actually care that much.. Anybody but
> Microsoft). If these guys will have an uphill battle with support over
> the time-life of this sistem (predicted at 5 years with a possible
> stretch to 7), they are better off retraining their OSF and VMS guys
> upfront.
>
> Any opinions appreciated.
>
> Matt


nobody beats OpenVMS for TCO ... its uptime is measured in years,
not in days ... its security means you don't have to join the
"patch of the day" club ... and it's features are years ahead of
anyting else ... training someone on VMS is easy ... you want tco,
just buy an alpha now, and you can always easily move to itanium
vms later, or if you run a cluster, just run an itanium alpha
mixed cluster ... webserver, apps server, database server, mail/
imap server, vms does it all, and it does it "CHEAPLY" ...
all vms shops have a big competitive/cost advantage over every
other non vms company out there ... I have 18 years under my
belt proving that ...

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 18 Jul 2003 19:50:28 -0700
bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote:
quote:

> ... most everyone now is
> working on security for linux/windoze ... in other words, everyone
> is still trying to play catch up to VMS ...


Isn't VMS a case of "security through obscurity"?

Just to make sure people get it: :-)

--
Stefaan
--
"What is stated clearly conceives easily."  -- Inspired sales droid

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Stefaan A Eeckels" <hoendech@ecc.lu> wrote in message
news:20030719104242.3e525210.hoendech@ecc.lu...
quote:

> On 18 Jul 2003 19:50:28 -0700
> bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote:
> 
>
> Isn't VMS a case of "security through obscurity"?


Hey - Bob may be an idiot, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Obscurity may help some, but even in an absolute sense VMS is almost
certainly more secure than most other systems out there, including Unix.
Its problems are with its owner, particularly with said owner's
disinclination to keep VMS current with market needs (or to make any effort
to market it - but why market a system that cHumPaq itself clearly considers
suitable only for its existing niches?).

- bill

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Stefaan A Eeckels" <hoendech@ecc.lu> wrote in message
news:20030719104242.3e525210.hoendech@ecc.lu...
quote:

> On 18 Jul 2003 19:50:28 -0700
> bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote:
> 
>
> Isn't VMS a case of "security through obscurity"?


Hey - Bob may be an idiot, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Obscurity may help some, but even in an absolute sense VMS is almost
certainly more secure than most other systems out there, including Unix.
Its problems are with its owner, particularly with said owner's
disinclination to keep VMS current with market needs (or to make any effort
to market it - but why market a system that cHumPaq itself clearly considers
suitable only for its existing niches?).

- bill

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]