Compaq Solutions Aliance - "Does" it still existing ?

Compaq Solutions Aliance - "Does" it still existing ?

Post by Fabio Cardos » Tue, 01 Jul 2003 06:09:12



Oh Jesus

In my lack of attention I wrote in bad english ! :-)

Regards

FC

> >-----Original Message-----

> >Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 12:38 PM

> >Subject: Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing ?


> >> If you think you can avoid using windows (or mac perhaps) in todays
> >> world you are swimming against a verey strong current.  My windows box
> >> has at least one window open (using Putty) to each cluster
> >member, one for
> >> for a router, one for the browser, and one for Outlook pop client to
> >> TCPIP5.1 smtp.

> >> What could easier?

> >Believe it or else, there are folks here who find WhineBloze rather a
> >puzzlement, since they are hard-core VMS hackers. Forcing them to learn
> >a new platform distracts them from their bread-and-butter work.

> There is nothing to learn, you don't have to do development on it, just use
> it.  I could care less what the OS is, as long as it works.

> >--
> >David J. Dachtera
> >dba DJE Systems
> >http://www.djesys.com/

> >Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
> >http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

> >---
> >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 6/10/2003

> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 6/10/2003

=====
==========================
Fbio dos Santos Cardoso
OpenVMS System Manager
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil

==========================

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

 
 
 

Compaq Solutions Aliance - "Does" it still existing ?

Post by Fabio Cardos » Tue, 01 Jul 2003 06:17:34


People

This is because I think OVMS should have an better graphic
interface. You cannot run away from th GUI. Of course command
line still important but we dont have a graphical terminal
development in the past 10 years. May be the future for
OVMS is a Citrix Server like product. Or may be porting some linux
graphic interface. Or may be Amiga Intuition ! :-)

What will be th next VT terminal ?  The OVMS engineering
should think about the clients too... an OS is not just kernel
and communication protocols.

Regards

FC




> >> If you think you can avoid using windows (or mac perhaps) in todays
> >> world you are swimming against a verey strong current.  My windows box
> >> has at least one window open (using Putty) to each cluster member, one for
> >> for a router, one for the browser, and one for Outlook pop client to
> >> TCPIP5.1 smtp.

> >> What could easier?

> And what could be better for a hacker. An internet connected PC with windows
> open into the vms cluster and into a router just waiting to be infected with
> a remote control trojan. You've just opened a route, and advertised it on
> usenet, around all your company's firewalls. The fact that the links are
> encrypted using ssh makes no difference if your pc is infected. :)

> Most places (at the moment) will probably live with this risk (even if they
> realise it exists) but i'm sure there are some who wouldn't.

> David Webb
> VMS and Unix team leader
> CCSS
> Middlesex University

> >Believe it or else, there are folks here who find WhineBloze rather a
> >puzzlement, since they are hard-core VMS hackers. Forcing them to learn
> >a new platform distracts them from their bread-and-butter work.

> >--
> >David J. Dachtera
> >dba DJE Systems
> >http://www.djesys.com/

> >Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
> >http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

=====
==========================
Fbio dos Santos Cardoso
OpenVMS System Manager
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil

==========================

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

 
 
 

Compaq Solutions Aliance - "Does" it still existing ?

Post by Michael Ric » Tue, 01 Jul 2003 06:49:51



Quote:> People

> This is because I think OVMS should have an better graphic
> interface. You cannot run away from th GUI. Of course command
> line still important but we dont have a graphical terminal
> development in the past 10 years. May be the future for
> OVMS is a Citrix Server like product. Or may be porting some linux
> graphic interface. Or may be Amiga Intuition ! :-)

> What will be th next VT terminal ?  The OVMS engineering
> should think about the clients too... an OS is not just kernel
> and communication protocols.

> Regards

> FC

[...]

What, you don't like DECwindows or CDE? ;)

 From a GUI toolkit perspective, there is a small effort underway to
port the Trolltech Qt toolkit (www.trolltech.com) to OpenVMS.  I'm
hoping to  contribute to that effort in the near future.  It would be
fantastic if HP folks could help out - much like they do in providing
the port/builds of Mozilla for OpenVMS.

If your not familiar with Qt, it is the best (IMHO) application
framework available.  It provides for developing cross-platform apps (we
use it for IRIX, Solaris, Linux, Windows, and soon OS X).  It has a
great set of classes that provide for GUIs, I/O (files, generic streams,
network, etc.), collections (arrays, lists, etc.), multi-threading, and
a lot more.

 
 
 

Compaq Solutions Aliance - "Does" it still existing ?

Post by GreyClou » Tue, 01 Jul 2003 10:08:46



> People

> This is because I think OVMS should have an better graphic
> interface. You cannot run away from th GUI. Of course command
> line still important but we dont have a graphical terminal
> development in the past 10 years. May be the future for
> OVMS is a Citrix Server like product. Or may be porting some linux
> graphic interface. Or may be Amiga Intuition ! :-)

> What will be th next VT terminal ?  The OVMS engineering
> should think about the clients too... an OS is not just kernel
> and communication protocols.

I think you hit a sore spot with many o/ses these days.
Presentation these days means everything.  Even my wife
won't leave the house without putting her makeup on.
 
 
 

Compaq Solutions Aliance - "Does" it still existing ?

Post by David J. Dachter » Tue, 01 Jul 2003 11:21:22



> People

> This is because I think OVMS should have an better graphic
> interface. You cannot run away from th GUI.

...but I should have it shoved down my throat, either. I can get by with
HELP and teh CLI very well, thank you, as I have for years and continue
to do today in large measure.

Quote:> Of course command
> line still important but we dont have a graphical terminal
> development in the past 10 years. May be the future for
> OVMS is a Citrix Server like product.

It may surprise you, but "Citrix" is nothing new. "X-windows" is the
parallel non-M$ paradigm.

Quote:> Or may be porting some linux
> graphic interface. Or may be Amiga Intuition ! :-)

> What will be th next VT terminal ?  The OVMS engineering
> should think about the clients too... an OS is not just kernel
> and communication protocols.

Well, actually, yes it is. In fact, an o.s. is nothing more than the
kernel. The operating environment is that which surrounds the kernel:
the filesystem, the file system, the user interface, the network layers,
etc. ...

--
David J. Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/

Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

 
 
 

Compaq Solutions Aliance - "Does" it still existing ?

Post by Fred Kleinsorg » Tue, 01 Jul 2003 23:27:53



Quote:> People

> This is because I think OVMS should have an better graphic
> interface. You cannot run away from th GUI. Of course command
> line still important but we dont have a graphical terminal
> development in the past 10 years. May be the future for
> OVMS is a Citrix Server like product. Or may be porting some linux
> graphic interface. Or may be Amiga Intuition ! :-)

I'm not quite sure what you mean here.  The graphics interface is X11/Motif.
Which is the standard interface on pretty much every UNIX.  But in many
ways, like UNIX - the typical *system* programmer/user tends to use the
command line interface and not the GUI interfaces.  From a user interface
programming perspective, tools like BX allow you to create Motif (and JAVA)
independent of the underlying OS.  A lot of user interface stuff these days
is browser/JAVA - of which VMS does provide both.

Quote:> What will be th next VT terminal ?  The OVMS engineering
> should think about the clients too... an OS is not just kernel
> and communication protocols.

The next "VT terminal"?  A thin client running an embedded Windows or Linux
OS, using a web browser & JAVA.  Citrix, VT525 emulation (for legacy
terminal applications), and an X11 emulator.  Pretty much what the Multia
wanted to be (but was way too early for).
 
 
 

Compaq Solutions Aliance - "Does" it still existing ?

Post by Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultanc » Tue, 01 Jul 2003 23:39:38





>>People

>>This is because I think OVMS should have an better graphic
>>interface. You cannot run away from th GUI. Of course command
>>line still important but we dont have a graphical terminal
>>development in the past 10 years. May be the future for
>>OVMS is a Citrix Server like product. Or may be porting some linux
>>graphic interface. Or may be Amiga Intuition ! :-)

> I'm not quite sure what you mean here.  The graphics interface is X11/Motif.
> Which is the standard interface on pretty much every UNIX.  But in many
> ways, like UNIX - the typical *system* programmer/user tends to use the
> command line interface and not the GUI interfaces.  From a user interface
> programming perspective, tools like BX allow you to create Motif (and JAVA)
> independent of the underlying OS.  A lot of user interface stuff these days
> is browser/JAVA - of which VMS does provide both.

>>What will be th next VT terminal ?  The OVMS engineering
>>should think about the clients too... an OS is not just kernel
>>and communication protocols.

The SunRay model would be a sensible choice for OpenVMS, it
would leverage its background as a server OS.

Regards
Andrew Harrison

 
 
 

Compaq Solutions Aliance - "Does" it still existing ?

Post by Fred Kleinsorg » Wed, 02 Jul 2003 01:45:10


"Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy" > >

Quote:

> The SunRay model would be a sensible choice for OpenVMS, it
> would leverage its background as a server OS.

SunRay's only attractive feature is the "smart card" access.

As far as I know, the server software for SunRay is Sun proprietary.  It is
sort-of a VNC-like virtual server connection, where the X11 Server itself
runs a dumb CFB in-memory on a host Solaris server system, and then does
compressed blits to a dedicated LAN for SunRays, and recieves packets
containing mouse/kb events from the SunRay.

This means that graphics performance is limited by:  the number of SunRays,
the additional processing load on the server, and the network connection.
It's probably "ok" for what it is designed for - simple menu & text
applications.   I imagine even some simple operations might be costly - say
an XOR *band line on a diagonal.  Either there is far too much data to
be sent, or the CPU cost on the server to do image differences, or other
latency effects if it decomposed to a series of small images.  The need for
it's own private LAN would seem to point to the fact that it is latency
sensitive and bandwidth hungry.  But I guess it would sell lots of big
backroom servers just to drive them.

No.  I think something like a EVO would be better suited for todays world:

http://www.veryComputer.com/

or

http://www.veryComputer.com/

Today's applications are all about using web browser and Java applets.  Use
Citrix to get to your remote Windows applications, an X11 server/emulator to
display your X11 applications, terminal emulators to get to your OS command
line prompts and legacy terminal based applications.

Yeah, most of these are Windows CE or XP based under the covers.  But hey,
most of the worlds desktops *are* Windows.  And most customers have a need
to run Windows applications even if they continue to use VMS or UNIX or
LINUX on their servers.

A VT320 didn't run an OS, it was just an appliance.  A thin client should be
viewed as just a desktop appliance like the terminal.  Just make sure it has
all the right connections, to get to all your server systems.  The think
clients above have no real moving parts.  Just turn them on.  They don't
require virtual servers on a host to operate, or a private LAN.  They are
flexible, and OS neutral.   They are *not* the perfect solution for someone
who really wants a VMS "workstation".

 
 
 

Compaq Solutions Aliance - "Does" it still existing ?

Post by Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultanc » Wed, 02 Jul 2003 02:14:19



> "Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy" > >

>>The SunRay model would be a sensible choice for OpenVMS, it
>>would leverage its background as a server OS.

> SunRay's only attractive feature is the "smart card" access.

> As far as I know, the server software for SunRay is Sun proprietary.  It is
> sort-of a VNC-like virtual server connection, where the X11 Server itself
> runs a dumb CFB in-memory on a host Solaris server system, and then does
> compressed blits to a dedicated LAN for SunRays, and recieves packets
> containing mouse/kb events from the SunRay.

> This means that graphics performance is limited by:  the number of SunRays,
> the additional processing load on the server, and the network connection.
> It's probably "ok" for what it is designed for - simple menu & text
> applications.   I imagine even some simple operations might be costly - say
> an XOR *band line on a diagonal.  Either there is far too much data to
> be sent, or the CPU cost on the server to do image differences, or other
> latency effects if it decomposed to a series of small images.  The need for
> it's own private LAN would seem to point to the fact that it is latency
> sensitive and bandwidth hungry.  But I guess it would sell lots of big
> backroom servers just to drive them.

> No.  I think something like a EVO would be better suited for todays world:

I am using a SunRay to post this mail, graphics performance is good,
MPEG videos work fine for example. It isn't a 3D device but then
the vast majority of desktops don't need high performance 3D and
X11 to a remote display was never that great at it anyway.

CPU cost is low, we run our desktop environment in this office
which is ~50 SunRays using a 6 CPU E4500 (400 Mhz) with 6 GB
of RAM. Performance is good, shared libs and shared code keep
the memory footprint down and we have competely silent desktops.

I have an Sunblade as well, I prefer the SunRay but our support
group won't give me root access to the SunRay server so I use
the SunRay for normal use and the Sunblade if I want to install
or test something.

The SunRays do have a separate network, however this isn't a
problem, we just have a network in the machine room for the
other servers and the SunRay server and then two desktop
LAN's. 1 small one for non SunRay clients and a larger
one for SunRays.

Quote:> http://www.veryComputer.com/

> or

> http://www.veryComputer.com/

> Today's applications are all about using web browser and Java applets.  Use
> Citrix to get to your remote Windows applications, an X11 server/emulator to
> display your X11 applications, terminal emulators to get to your OS command
> line prompts and legacy terminal based applications.

SunRays in this environment have the great advantage of no having to run
and X-Terminal emulation, that and having a native Tarantella client
means that they perform rather well for this kind of mixed mode
environment.

Quote:> Yeah, most of these are Windows CE or XP based under the covers.  But hey,
> most of the worlds desktops *are* Windows.  And most customers have a need
> to run Windows applications even if they continue to use VMS or UNIX or
> LINUX on their servers.

> A VT320 didn't run an OS, it was just an appliance.  A thin client should be
> viewed as just a desktop appliance like the terminal.  Just make sure it has
> all the right connections, to get to all your server systems.  The think
> clients above have no real moving parts.  Just turn them on.  They don't
> require virtual servers on a host to operate, or a private LAN.  They are
> flexible, and OS neutral.   They are *not* the perfect solution for someone
> who really wants a VMS "workstation".

Th SunRay doesn't run an OS, and like your VT320's which had their
dedicated Serial connection to the host each SunRay uses a 100BaseT
connection into a generally dedicated network.

We never have to upgrade the SunRay's and they leverage something we
have plenty of which is servers.

Regards
Andrew Harrison

- Show quoted text -

 
 
 

Compaq Solutions Aliance - "Does" it still existing ?

Post by Fred Kleinsorg » Wed, 02 Jul 2003 03:34:07


"Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy"

Quote:

> I am using a SunRay to post this mail, graphics performance is good,
> MPEG videos work fine for example.

I would expect things such as image output to be fine.  The real testers are
things where a small number of things are changed over a large area in a
single operation - like a 500 pixel long XOR line.  You can optimize this a
number of ways with tradeoffs on where you want to burn CPU, throughput, and
latency.  This isn't sophisticated graphics we're talking about.

None-the-less, I said "it's probably OK for simple stuff".  Images by their
nature are going to consume bandwidth regardless of where they end up.  The
only ugly part is the fact that a browser (for example) will take a JPEG,
decompress it and display it, only to have the server software recompress it
and transmit it to the SunRay to be uncompressed and displayed.  But as long
as you aren't trying to send 300 x 900x900 x 24 bit images a second... I
doubt most web browser users will notice.

Quote:> It isn't a 3D device but then
> the vast majority of desktops don't need high performance 3D and
> X11 to a remote display was never that great at it anyway.

I *deliberately* did not say anything about 3D.  Since I know of no "thin
client" that will do high performance 3D graphics well.

Quote:

> CPU cost is low, we run our desktop environment in this office
> which is ~50 SunRays using a 6 CPU E4500 (400 Mhz) with 6 GB
> of RAM. Performance is good, shared libs and shared code keep
> the memory footprint down and we have competely silent desktops.

I guess it depends on what you are doing.  Shared libs are not the resources
I'm talking about.  Each display needs (Z/8)*x*y bytes of memory for the
display, plus other state like colormaps.  Then each display is driving an
IP connection.  Plus it is doing the X11 operations in software and then
doing compression to send partial image updates to a LAN.  So it really
depends on just how much you guys really beat on things - and what your
expectations are.

Quote:

> The SunRays do have a separate network, however this isn't a
> problem, we just have a network in the machine room for the
> other servers and the SunRay server and then two desktop
> LAN's. 1 small one for non SunRay clients and a larger
> one for SunRays.

It may not be a problem for you, but it might be for some customers.

Quote:> SunRays in this environment have the great advantage of no having to run
> and X-Terminal emulation, that and having a native Tarantella client
> means that they perform rather well for this kind of mixed mode
> environment.

And it's disadvantage is that it is a complete emulation of everything.  The
SunRay doesn't run X11, it displays the results of X11 being done in
software and the results being send to it.  I've used VT525 emulators
running from my PC over Telnet/LAT/DECnet/Serial, and they are every bit as
fast as a DECterm.  The Multia implemented a "native" X11 server - direct
access to the HW (IIRC) so the performance was no worse than any remote X11
terminal (network bandwidth limited).  But these days, any random PC is fast
enough to be able to emulate X11 so quickly that the network will always be
the limit.

Quote:> > Yeah, most of these are Windows CE or XP based under the covers.  But
hey,
> > most of the worlds desktops *are* Windows.  And most customers have a
need
> > to run Windows applications even if they continue to use VMS or UNIX or
> > LINUX on their servers.

> > A VT320 didn't run an OS, it was just an appliance.  A thin client
should be
> > viewed as just a desktop appliance like the terminal.  Just make sure it
has
> > all the right connections, to get to all your server systems.  The think
> > clients above have no real moving parts.  Just turn them on.  They don't
> > require virtual servers on a host to operate, or a private LAN.  They
are
> > flexible, and OS neutral.   They are *not* the perfect solution for
someone
> > who really wants a VMS "workstation".

> Th SunRay doesn't run an OS, and like your VT320's which had their
> dedicated Serial connection to the host each SunRay uses a 100BaseT
> connection into a generally dedicated network.

Bzzzzt.  A SunRay cannot exist without a Sun backend server.   Unplug
everything except a serial port on it - can you turn it on and use it as a
VT550?  Nope - because all the intellegence exists as software on the Sun
server.  It is just the "glass tube" front end for the Sun server in the
backroom.  You *can* take an EVO (for example) and ignore it's network
capabilities and use it as a "terminal".  You *don't* have to have a
specific *dedicated* system someplace that serves it.  It could be one or
many systems.

This really is a matter of where to you do the distribution.  X11 was an
attempt to do it as low as possible.  SunRay takes that even lower (in a
proprietary way).  You can do the same thing in an "open" way with VNC - and
use any client.  What SunRay *doesn* let you do is to use the right level of
distribution for the job at hand.  You can't download a Java applet to it -
the Java applet runs on the Sun server - not the SunRay - for example.

Quote:> We never have to upgrade the SunRay's and they leverage something we
> have plenty of which is servers.

Yup.  SunRays exist to consume servers.
 
 
 

Compaq Solutions Aliance - "Does" it still existing ?

Post by Dave Gudewic » Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:13:10


There are some who say that CDE and DECwindows are a bit outdated.  Not much
going on in those 2 camps.

There are some who say that other X based GUI's have more development
activity going on.  Take a look at KDE  and GNONE, 2 other popular GUI's and
compare them w/ CDE and DECwindows.

Read recently that hp was leaning towards GNOME but reconsidered.  Don't
know the details.

Also read that Red Hat was the way then last week something about SUSE??

Hard to keep up.

Dave...



> > People

> > This is because I think OVMS should have an better graphic
> > interface. You cannot run away from th GUI. Of course command
> > line still important but we dont have a graphical terminal
> > development in the past 10 years. May be the future for
> > OVMS is a Citrix Server like product. Or may be porting some linux
> > graphic interface. Or may be Amiga Intuition ! :-)

> > What will be th next VT terminal ?  The OVMS engineering
> > should think about the clients too... an OS is not just kernel
> > and communication protocols.

> > Regards

> > FC
> [...]

> What, you don't like DECwindows or CDE? ;)

>  From a GUI toolkit perspective, there is a small effort underway to
> port the Trolltech Qt toolkit (www.trolltech.com) to OpenVMS.  I'm
> hoping to  contribute to that effort in the near future.  It would be
> fantastic if HP folks could help out - much like they do in providing
> the port/builds of Mozilla for OpenVMS.

> If your not familiar with Qt, it is the best (IMHO) application
> framework available.  It provides for developing cross-platform apps (we
> use it for IRIX, Solaris, Linux, Windows, and soon OS X).  It has a
> great set of classes that provide for GUIs, I/O (files, generic streams,
> network, etc.), collections (arrays, lists, etc.), multi-threading, and
> a lot more.

 
 
 

Compaq Solutions Aliance - "Does" it still existing ?

Post by Fred Kleinsorg » Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:33:18



Quote:> There are some who say that CDE and DECwindows are a bit outdated.  Not
much
> going on in those 2 camps.

> There are some who say that other X based GUI's have more development
> activity going on.  Take a look at KDE  and GNONE, 2 other popular GUI's
and
> compare them w/ CDE and DECwindows.

CDE is outdated.  No question about it.  But frankly, CDE is just the
desktop cruft.  I'd gladly not have lived through the gratuitous changes in
the Windows desktop since Windows 3.1.
 
 
 

1. interface (was: RE: Compaq Solutions Aliance - "Does" it still existing ?)

Just say "no".

I have DECwindows, DECterm and use many graphical applications.

Of course, I don't have an interface where I have to take one hand off
the keyboard to accomplish things.  But I don't want that.

You seem to post something like this every few months.  I don't think
anyone has ever understood your point.

2. Viruses, viruses!

3. interface (was: RE: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing ?)

4. HELP.Canon 4100

5. "DIGITAL" to become "Compaq"

6. Two Signatories to a letter

7. F$GETQUI("DISPLAY_JOB","LOG_SPECIFICATION",,"THIS_JOB")

8. Can Matlab Compiler Link Functions Defined by pathdef.m ?

9. """The Art of Debugging"" Was: Compiler Optimisation problems"

10. """Problems!"""

11. Anybody know if exist a free emulator of "VAX/VMS Operating System" for PCs?...

12. "Skey" for VMS? Does it exist?