Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
current status for hobbyist licenses and patch access
104 views
Skip to first unread message
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Jul 1, 2012, 5:30:27 AM7/1/12
to
My licenses expire in about 4 months. I understand there is some sort
of new hobbyist programme, not via Montagar but via HP directly.
To what extent is it a replacement for the old hobbyist licenses?
To what extent is it a replacement for the old patch access (which was
independent of the hobbyist programme)?
How much time does one need to get everything set up?
Is it possible to do everything necessary via a browser running on VMS?
Is it expected to change in the next 4 months?
What are the relevant URLs?
of new hobbyist programme, not via Montagar but via HP directly.
To what extent is it a replacement for the old hobbyist licenses?
To what extent is it a replacement for the old patch access (which was
independent of the hobbyist programme)?
How much time does one need to get everything set up?
Is it possible to do everything necessary via a browser running on VMS?
Is it expected to change in the next 4 months?
What are the relevant URLs?
Jan-Erik Soderholm
Jul 1, 2012, 5:41:59 AM7/1/12
to
Jan-Erik Soderholm
Jul 1, 2012, 5:45:23 AM7/1/12
to
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote 2012-07-01 11:30:
MG
Jul 1, 2012, 6:26:26 AM7/1/12
to
[Not just a response to the poster below, but hopefully
this will be of informational value to all others who are
apparently 'in doubt' about the newly HP-insourced OpenVMS
Hobbyist Program.]
On 1-7-2012 11:30, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> My licenses expire in about 4 months. I understand there is some
> sort of new hobbyist programme, not via Montagar but via HP directly.
Unlike some of the horror stories you may have heard, as permeated
into this otherwise resourceful and vibrant Usenet group --- through
the gossip and rabble-rousing of the usual suspects --- the recent
insourcing of the Hobbyist Program by HP has generally been great
news for us Hobbyist Program partakers, if you ask me.
For one thing, the software --- and not merely the operating
system media, but also the Layered Products --- is actually
distributed now. The I64 version is a 'remastered' version of
V8.4, to include several patches (including Update V5). Unlike
with Montagar, you can simply download free of charge, instead
of having to order a CD with rather ancient software. I also
read of complaints, on the Montagar forum, of people who didn't
receive their 'Hobbyist kits' for months. That should be over
now and I hope those people, in their possible disappointment,
didn't scrap the idea of running VMS ever again.
The issuing of licenses is also much faster, which I believe is
usually done by the very kind John Egolf. He even takes the
time to issue licenses outside of business hours! This hasn't
merely been my own experience, but also that of others.
> To what extent is it a replacement for the old hobbyist licenses?
Personally I'd say it's not merely a replacement but a great
improvement as well.
> To what extent is it a replacement for the old patch access (which
> was independent of the hobbyist programme)?
As I mentioned above, there are some patches included now (at
least, with the I64 version). This would appear to me as
something that HP, from the position and organizational level
of the Hobbyist Program, can't change at the moment. I
naturally and needless to say hope that it will, in the nearby
future.
> How much time does one need to get everything set up?
It's a matter of filling out roughly the same form, as you were
expected on the Montagar VMS Hobbyist Program site. Unlike before,
you don't need to register for Layered Products separately, nor for
VAX and Alpha PAKs (those are combined now).
> Is it possible to do everything necessary via a browser running on
> VMS?
It ought to, if the OpenVMS.org site works for you in a CLI-based,
character cell, browswer (like Lynx, for example). In my case, it
seems to work in Lynx. I just tried it with Lynx V2.8.6-d7 (from
17-Oct-2004, as built on 3-Nov-2004, on VMS VAX V7.2.
> Is it expected to change in the next 4 months?
I don't recall reading about changes for the near future. Why,
what lead you to suspect that there will be change in the near
future and specifically in a time span of four months?
> What are the relevant URLs?
- OpenVMS.org
<http://www.openvms.org>
- OpenVMS.org Hobbyist Program registration
<http://www.openvms.org/pages.php?page=Hobbyist>
(Also as emboldened in the menu on the left-hand side
of the web site).
- MG
this will be of informational value to all others who are
apparently 'in doubt' about the newly HP-insourced OpenVMS
Hobbyist Program.]
On 1-7-2012 11:30, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> My licenses expire in about 4 months. I understand there is some
> sort of new hobbyist programme, not via Montagar but via HP directly.
into this otherwise resourceful and vibrant Usenet group --- through
the gossip and rabble-rousing of the usual suspects --- the recent
insourcing of the Hobbyist Program by HP has generally been great
news for us Hobbyist Program partakers, if you ask me.
For one thing, the software --- and not merely the operating
system media, but also the Layered Products --- is actually
distributed now. The I64 version is a 'remastered' version of
V8.4, to include several patches (including Update V5). Unlike
with Montagar, you can simply download free of charge, instead
of having to order a CD with rather ancient software. I also
read of complaints, on the Montagar forum, of people who didn't
receive their 'Hobbyist kits' for months. That should be over
now and I hope those people, in their possible disappointment,
didn't scrap the idea of running VMS ever again.
The issuing of licenses is also much faster, which I believe is
usually done by the very kind John Egolf. He even takes the
time to issue licenses outside of business hours! This hasn't
merely been my own experience, but also that of others.
> To what extent is it a replacement for the old hobbyist licenses?
improvement as well.
> To what extent is it a replacement for the old patch access (which
> was independent of the hobbyist programme)?
least, with the I64 version). This would appear to me as
something that HP, from the position and organizational level
of the Hobbyist Program, can't change at the moment. I
naturally and needless to say hope that it will, in the nearby
future.
> How much time does one need to get everything set up?
expected on the Montagar VMS Hobbyist Program site. Unlike before,
you don't need to register for Layered Products separately, nor for
VAX and Alpha PAKs (those are combined now).
> Is it possible to do everything necessary via a browser running on
> VMS?
character cell, browswer (like Lynx, for example). In my case, it
seems to work in Lynx. I just tried it with Lynx V2.8.6-d7 (from
17-Oct-2004, as built on 3-Nov-2004, on VMS VAX V7.2.
> Is it expected to change in the next 4 months?
what lead you to suspect that there will be change in the near
future and specifically in a time span of four months?
> What are the relevant URLs?
<http://www.openvms.org>
- OpenVMS.org Hobbyist Program registration
<http://www.openvms.org/pages.php?page=Hobbyist>
(Also as emboldened in the menu on the left-hand side
of the web site).
- MG
BillPedersen
Jul 1, 2012, 6:42:13 AM7/1/12
to
On Sunday, July 1, 2012 5:30:27 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> My licenses expire in about 4 months. I understand there is some sort
> of new hobbyist programme, not via Montagar but via HP directly.
>
> To what extent is it a replacement for the old hobbyist licenses?
One for one or better.
> My licenses expire in about 4 months. I understand there is some sort
> of new hobbyist programme, not via Montagar but via HP directly.
>
> To what extent is it a replacement for the old hobbyist licenses?
> To what extent is it a replacement for the old patch access (which was
> independent of the hobbyist programme)?
> How much time does one need to get everything set up?
> Is it possible to do everything necessary via a browser running on VMS?
> Is it expected to change in the next 4 months?
> What are the relevant URLs?
Happy computing!!!!
Bill.
Jan-Erik Soderholm
Jul 1, 2012, 6:46:10 AM7/1/12
to
how frequently you can request PAKs." ?
Jan-Erik.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Jul 1, 2012, 7:43:53 AM7/1/12
to
In article <4ff025d2$0$6974$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>, MG
<marc...@SPAMxs4all.nl> writes:
First, I asked out of ignorance, not to confirm or deny any prejudice
(since I didn't have any).
> Unlike some of the horror stories you may have heard, as permeated
> into this otherwise resourceful and vibrant Usenet group --- through
> the gossip and rabble-rousing of the usual suspects --- the recent
> insourcing of the Hobbyist Program by HP has generally been great
> news for us Hobbyist Program partakers, if you ask me.
Considering that there was no patch access at all for hobbyists after it
was cut off, the bar wasn't that high.
> For one thing, the software --- and not merely the operating
> system media, but also the Layered Products --- is actually
> distributed now. The I64 version is a 'remastered' version of
> V8.4, to include several patches (including Update V5). Unlike
> with Montagar, you can simply download free of charge, instead
> of having to order a CD with rather ancient software. I also
> read of complaints, on the Montagar forum, of people who didn't
> receive their 'Hobbyist kits' for months. That should be over
> now and I hope those people, in their possible disappointment,
> didn't scrap the idea of running VMS ever again.
OK, nice improvement for those with a fast internet connection. You
mention IA64. Presumably ALPHA is available as well. (And VAX?)
This wasn't a big issue for me, at least in the past, since I could
(legally) borrow the media. Including patches in a distribution is
nice, but normally the idea of patches is that one applies the patch to
solve the problem and not re-install the entire OS. So, is there any
sort of access to individual patches, or at least the "update" patches?
> The issuing of licenses is also much faster, which I believe is
> usually done by the very kind John Egolf. He even takes the
> time to issue licenses outside of business hours! This hasn't
> merely been my own experience, but also that of others.
OK, but I've always got mine within a few seconds.
> > To what extent is it a replacement for the old hobbyist licenses?
>
> Personally I'd say it's not merely a replacement but a great
> improvement as well.
Presumably you refer to the downloadable installation kits (which
include some patches). Any other improvements (apart from speed, which
was never an issue for me)?
> > To what extent is it a replacement for the old patch access (which
> > was independent of the hobbyist programme)?
>
> As I mentioned above, there are some patches included now (at
> least, with the I64 version).
What about ALPHA? There aren't that many IA64 hobbyists.
> This would appear to me as
> something that HP, from the position and organizational level
> of the Hobbyist Program, can't change at the moment. I
> naturally and needless to say hope that it will, in the nearby
> future.
I really fail to see the point here. If one can download the OS for
free (which is something we should be grateful for), what point is there
in limiting patch access? It doesn't have to be anonymous FTP; it could
be some sort of restricted access for those with licenses.
> It ought to, if the OpenVMS.org site works for you in a CLI-based,
> character cell, browswer (like Lynx, for example). In my case, it
> seems to work in Lynx. I just tried it with Lynx V2.8.6-d7 (from
> 17-Oct-2004, as built on 3-Nov-2004, on VMS VAX V7.2.
I have used LYNX in the past, but Mozilla is also an option (as is
Mosaic).
> I don't recall reading about changes for the near future. Why,
> what lead you to suspect that there will be change in the near
> future and specifically in a time span of four months?
Since my licenses expire in four months, if there are any planned
changes it might make sense to wait (or not, depending on what they
would be).
<marc...@SPAMxs4all.nl> writes:
First, I asked out of ignorance, not to confirm or deny any prejudice
(since I didn't have any).
> Unlike some of the horror stories you may have heard, as permeated
> into this otherwise resourceful and vibrant Usenet group --- through
> the gossip and rabble-rousing of the usual suspects --- the recent
> insourcing of the Hobbyist Program by HP has generally been great
> news for us Hobbyist Program partakers, if you ask me.
was cut off, the bar wasn't that high.
> For one thing, the software --- and not merely the operating
> system media, but also the Layered Products --- is actually
> distributed now. The I64 version is a 'remastered' version of
> V8.4, to include several patches (including Update V5). Unlike
> with Montagar, you can simply download free of charge, instead
> of having to order a CD with rather ancient software. I also
> read of complaints, on the Montagar forum, of people who didn't
> receive their 'Hobbyist kits' for months. That should be over
> now and I hope those people, in their possible disappointment,
> didn't scrap the idea of running VMS ever again.
mention IA64. Presumably ALPHA is available as well. (And VAX?)
This wasn't a big issue for me, at least in the past, since I could
(legally) borrow the media. Including patches in a distribution is
nice, but normally the idea of patches is that one applies the patch to
solve the problem and not re-install the entire OS. So, is there any
sort of access to individual patches, or at least the "update" patches?
> The issuing of licenses is also much faster, which I believe is
> usually done by the very kind John Egolf. He even takes the
> time to issue licenses outside of business hours! This hasn't
> merely been my own experience, but also that of others.
> > To what extent is it a replacement for the old hobbyist licenses?
>
> Personally I'd say it's not merely a replacement but a great
> improvement as well.
include some patches). Any other improvements (apart from speed, which
was never an issue for me)?
> > To what extent is it a replacement for the old patch access (which
> > was independent of the hobbyist programme)?
>
> As I mentioned above, there are some patches included now (at
> least, with the I64 version).
> This would appear to me as
> something that HP, from the position and organizational level
> of the Hobbyist Program, can't change at the moment. I
> naturally and needless to say hope that it will, in the nearby
> future.
free (which is something we should be grateful for), what point is there
in limiting patch access? It doesn't have to be anonymous FTP; it could
be some sort of restricted access for those with licenses.
> It ought to, if the OpenVMS.org site works for you in a CLI-based,
> character cell, browswer (like Lynx, for example). In my case, it
> seems to work in Lynx. I just tried it with Lynx V2.8.6-d7 (from
> 17-Oct-2004, as built on 3-Nov-2004, on VMS VAX V7.2.
Mosaic).
> I don't recall reading about changes for the near future. Why,
> what lead you to suspect that there will be change in the near
> future and specifically in a time span of four months?
changes it might make sense to wait (or not, depending on what they
would be).
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Jul 1, 2012, 7:45:27 AM7/1/12
to
In article <3bc237e1-5a83-47ec...@googlegroups.com>,
> is the most recent version of the VMS and compilers. The access to the
> download site is time limited so do not wait forever.
Limited to a period after getting the license or limited in general?
BillPedersen <pede...@ccsscorp.com> writes:
> Most recent cumulative patches are available when you get your licenses as
Included in the distribution or as a separate (bundled) patch?
> Most recent cumulative patches are available when you get your licenses as
> is the most recent version of the VMS and compilers. The access to the
> download site is time limited so do not wait forever.
BillPedersen
Jul 1, 2012, 8:06:43 AM7/1/12
to
Bill.
BillPedersen
Jul 1, 2012, 8:10:55 AM7/1/12
to
On Sunday, July 1, 2012 7:45:27 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> In article <3bc237e1-5a83-47ec...@googlegroups.com>,
> BillPedersen
> In article <3bc237e1-5a83-47ec...@googlegroups.com>,
> BillPedersen
> writes:
>
> > Most recent cumulative patches are available when you get your licenses as
>
> Included in the distribution or as a separate (bundled) patch?
It depends. With IA64 they have been bundled on the "media" I believe. For Alpha and VAX they are separate download files.
>
> > Most recent cumulative patches are available when you get your licenses as
>
> Included in the distribution or as a separate (bundled) patch?
> > is the most recent version of the VMS and compilers. The access to the
> > download site is time limited so do not wait forever.
>
> Limited to a period after getting the license or limited in general?
Jan-Erik Soderholm
Jul 1, 2012, 8:24:40 AM7/1/12
to
But my point was that I think that there was a "not"
missing från your original sentence, not ? :-)
Jan-Erik.
MG
Jul 1, 2012, 8:25:09 AM7/1/12
to
On 1-7-2012 13:43, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> First, I asked out of ignorance, not to confirm or deny any prejudice
> (since I didn't have any).
Your tone gave me a different impression, albeit mistakenly.
> First, I asked out of ignorance, not to confirm or deny any prejudice
> (since I didn't have any).
> Considering that there was no patch access at all for hobbyists after
> it was cut off, the bar wasn't that high.
same during the period before HP insourced the VMS Hobbyist Program.
> OK, nice improvement for those with a fast internet connection.
> You mention IA64. Presumably ALPHA is available as well. (And
> VAX?)
would speak for itself. I'll attempt to break it down:
- Licenses and software (operating system and Layered
Products) for VAX.
- Licenses and software (operating system and Layered
Products) for Alpha.
- Licenses and software (operating system and Layered
Products) for I64.
> This wasn't a big issue for me, at least in the past, since I could
> (legally) borrow the media.
nice that people can independently acquire it without having to
borrow anything. In my personal opinion of course.
> Including patches in a distribution is nice, but normally the idea
> of patches is that one applies the patch to solve the problem and
> not re-install the entire OS.
patches.
> So, is there any sort of access toindividual patches, or at least
> the "update" patches?
Not that I know of. Also, why are you asking me? Kindly direct
your e-mail to HP.
> OK, but I've always got mine within a few seconds.
> Presumably you refer to the downloadable installation kits (which
> include some patches). Any other improvements (apart from speed,
> which was never an issue for me)?
without having experienced it?
> What about ALPHA? There aren't that many IA64 hobbyists.
had for less money occasionally. Have you seen the asking prices
for even smaller, underpowered, Alphas? (EV56 and earlier.)
Recently on eBay in Germany there were rx2620s offered, with
mildly good specifications, for under € 200,- each. That's
hard to beat.
> I really fail to see the point here.
- MG
Jan-Erik Soderholm
Jul 1, 2012, 8:31:49 AM7/1/12
to
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote 2012-07-01 13:43:
> OK, nice improvement for those with a fast internet connection. You
> mention IA64. Presumably ALPHA is available as well. (And VAX?)
>
Alpha yes, don't know (and don't need/want to know :-) ) about VAX.
> OK, nice improvement for those with a fast internet connection. You
> mention IA64. Presumably ALPHA is available as well. (And VAX?)
>
> This wasn't a big issue for me, at least in the past, since I could
> (legally) borrow the media. Including patches in a distribution is
> nice, but normally the idea of patches is that one applies the patch to
> solve the problem and not re-install the entire OS. So, is there any
> sort of access to individual patches, or at least the "update" patches?
>
usual UPDATE file). This was in feb-2012. Maybe they'll change the UPDATE
version as they are released...
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Jul 1, 2012, 8:54:52 AM7/1/12
to
In article <969b69d0-0f9c-4dc7...@googlegroups.com>,
anonymous FTP?
> To a period after the PAKs are sent to you from what I can figure out. The
> y create a temporary FTP account and when it expires then,
OK. However, does this mean that one needs to re-register every time
there is a new patch?
> if you have not
> downloaded the files you want you need to contact HP - just reply to the
> email with the download information...
OK, I'll give it a try, but "contact HP" has not worked much for me in
the past in a hobbyist context.
BillPedersen <pede...@ccsscorp.com> writes:
> It depends. With IA64 they have been bundled on the "media" I believe.
> For Alpha and VAX they are separate download files.
This looks interesting. Are they the normal patches which used to be on
> It depends. With IA64 they have been bundled on the "media" I believe.
> For Alpha and VAX they are separate download files.
anonymous FTP?
> To a period after the PAKs are sent to you from what I can figure out. The
> y create a temporary FTP account and when it expires then,
there is a new patch?
> if you have not
> downloaded the files you want you need to contact HP - just reply to the
> email with the download information...
the past in a hobbyist context.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Jul 1, 2012, 9:00:39 AM7/1/12
to
In article <4ff041a5$0$6935$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>, MG
actual speed is actually a bit better, since the next DSL connection
point is on the plot of land next to the one my house is on, about 30
meters away).
> You aren't the only partaker of the VMS Hobbyist Program, so it's
> nice that people can independently acquire it without having to
> borrow anything. In my personal opinion of course.
Agreed.
> You don't need to reinstall the entire OS to apply the included
> patches.
OK, so this means they are available separately.
> > So, is there any sort of access toindividual patches, or at least
> > the "update" patches?
>
> Not that I know of.
But that contradicts what you say above. Or can one download only the
complete set, and if the OS has not changed but there are new patches,
install only the new patches?
> Also, why are you asking me? Kindly direct
> your e-mail to HP.
I will after I sign up. Now, I'm trying to figure out if it is worth
it.
> What I'm wondering about: How can you judge the new Hobbyist Program
> without having experienced it?
Again (and this applies to everything in life), I want to first see if
it is worth a try before investing time in it.
> There are more and more people with I64 systems and they can be
> had for less money occasionally. Have you seen the asking prices
> for even smaller, underpowered, Alphas? (EV56 and earlier.)
Yes, there are inflated prices out there. Considering that I have
collected several ALPHAs (of almost all generations) for free, people
paying money are doing something wrong (unless a maintenance contract is
included).
> Recently on eBay in Germany there were rx2620s offered, with
> mildly good specifications, for under EUR 200,- each. That's
> hard to beat.
A good price. Not sure if they are available for free. How does the
noise, heat and electricity consumption compare to an XP1000?
<marc...@SPAMxs4all.nl> writes:
> > OK, nice improvement for those with a fast internet connection.
>
> Are you on dial-up, ISDN or so?
I have 16 Mb/s download speed over DSL (according to the contract; the
> > OK, nice improvement for those with a fast internet connection.
>
> Are you on dial-up, ISDN or so?
actual speed is actually a bit better, since the next DSL connection
point is on the plot of land next to the one my house is on, about 30
meters away).
> You aren't the only partaker of the VMS Hobbyist Program, so it's
> nice that people can independently acquire it without having to
> borrow anything. In my personal opinion of course.
> You don't need to reinstall the entire OS to apply the included
> patches.
> > So, is there any sort of access toindividual patches, or at least
> > the "update" patches?
>
> Not that I know of.
complete set, and if the OS has not changed but there are new patches,
install only the new patches?
> Also, why are you asking me? Kindly direct
> your e-mail to HP.
it.
> What I'm wondering about: How can you judge the new Hobbyist Program
> without having experienced it?
it is worth a try before investing time in it.
> There are more and more people with I64 systems and they can be
> had for less money occasionally. Have you seen the asking prices
> for even smaller, underpowered, Alphas? (EV56 and earlier.)
collected several ALPHAs (of almost all generations) for free, people
paying money are doing something wrong (unless a maintenance contract is
included).
> Recently on eBay in Germany there were rx2620s offered, with
> hard to beat.
A good price. Not sure if they are available for free. How does the
noise, heat and electricity consumption compare to an XP1000?
MG
Jul 1, 2012, 9:12:51 AM7/1/12
to
On 1-7-2012 15:00, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
>> You don't need to reinstall the entire OS to apply the included
>> patches.
>
> OK, so this means they are available separately.
No, it doesn't mean that.
>> You don't need to reinstall the entire OS to apply the included
>> patches.
>
> OK, so this means they are available separately.
>>> So, is there any sort of access toindividual patches, or at least
>>> the "update" patches?
>>
>> Not that I know of.
>
> But that contradicts what you say above.
load it separately (just like the installation process would).
> Or can one download only the complete set, and if the OS has not
> changed but there are new patches, install only the new patches?
> Yes, there are inflated prices out there. Considering that I
> have collected several ALPHAs (of almost all generations) for
> free, people paying money are doing something wrong (unless a
> maintenance contract is included).
often/always and absolutely for free? Who's to say. I personally
wouldn't be so fast to judge people in terms of doing the "wrong"
thing.
> A good price. Not sure if they are available for free.
anyway.) Between five to ten years, maybe. Definitely not
now.
The rx2620 is still a pretty useful system, able to run off
the Intel Itanium 2 9000-series "Montecito" processors,
providing VT-i, hyperthreading and so forth, particularly
for things like HPVM. Needless to say, the majority of
rx2620s out there have "Madison" or "Madison-9M" processors
installed.
- MG
Jan-Erik Soderholm
Jul 1, 2012, 9:14:19 AM7/1/12
to
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote 2012-07-01 15:00:
> In article <4ff041a5$0$6935$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>, MG
> <marc...@SPAMxs4all.nl> writes:
>
>>> OK, nice improvement for those with a fast internet connection.
>>
>> Are you on dial-up, ISDN or so?
>
> I have 16 Mb/s download speed over DSL (according to the contract; the
> actual speed is actually a bit better, since the next DSL connection
> point is on the plot of land next to the one my house is on, about 30
> meters away).
>
This is the complete list of files I downloaded. Ca 1.7 GB total.
> In article <4ff041a5$0$6935$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>, MG
> <marc...@SPAMxs4all.nl> writes:
>
>>> OK, nice improvement for those with a fast internet connection.
>>
>> Are you on dial-up, ISDN or so?
>
> I have 16 Mb/s download speed over DSL (according to the contract; the
> actual speed is actually a bit better, since the next DSL connection
> point is on the plot of land next to the one my house is on, about 30
> meters away).
>
You can make you own calculations for dowwload times and so on :
2012-02-19 22:48 <KAT> .
2012-02-19 22:48 <KAT> ..
2012-02-18 13:46 690 690 048 ALPHA084.ISO
2012-02-18 13:40 427 669 504 ALPHA084LP1.ISO
2012-02-18 13:40 397 893 632 ALPHA084LP2.ISO
2012-02-18 13:31 17 190 022 BASIC_Compiler_17.zip
2012-02-18 13:31 41 181 056 Browser_1112zip.zip
2012-02-18 13:30 4 612 682 COBOL_Compiler_29.zip
2012-02-18 13:32 20 408 564 CXX_Compiler_73.zip
2012-02-18 13:31 15 038 184 C_Compiler_73.zip
2012-02-18 13:32 34 700 488 DECSETECO1128.zip
2012-02-18 13:32 34 163 129 Fortran_Compiler_82.zip
2012-02-18 13:34 65 022 444 openvms_alpha_8_4_Update500.zip
2012-02-18 13:32 5 228 802 Pascal_Compiler_61.zip
12 fil(er) 1 753 798 555 byte
2 katalog(er) 207 493 398 528 byte ledigt
>
>>> So, is there any sort of access toindividual patches, or at least
>>> the "update" patches?
>>
>> Not that I know of.
>
> But that contradicts what you say above. Or can one download only the
> complete set, and if the OS has not changed but there are new patches,
> install only the new patches?
latest UPDATE patch. Not the usual long list of patches including
older UPDATE versions. In my case it was UPDATE 5. You'll see what
patch version you get access to... :-)
MG is correct in that you don't get access to patches (plural!)
which was what you asked about. :-)
Jan-Erik.
Jan-Erik Soderholm
Jul 1, 2012, 9:17:54 AM7/1/12
to
MG wrote 2012-07-01 15:12:
>
> Incorrect. The patch is on the DVD image, you ought to be able to
> load it separately (just like the installation process would).
>
Hm, in my case the UPDATE 5 was a separate ZIP file (not on the ISO
>
> Incorrect. The patch is on the DVD image, you ought to be able to
> load it separately (just like the installation process would).
>
image). It might *also* have been on the ISO, I don't know.
>
>> Or can one download only the complete set, and if the OS has not
>> changed but there are new patches, install only the new patches?
>
> Yes.
>
Thing might have changed since Feb-2012 when I downloaded... :-)
Jan-Erik.
BillPedersen
Jul 1, 2012, 12:08:23 PM7/1/12
to
On Sunday, July 1, 2012 8:54:52 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> In article <969b69d0-0f9c-4dc7...@googlegroups.com>,
> BillPedersen
> In article <969b69d0-0f9c-4dc7...@googlegroups.com>,
> BillPedersen
> writes:
>
> > It depends. With IA64 they have been bundled on the "media" I believe.
> > For Alpha and VAX they are separate download files.
>
> This looks interesting. Are they the normal patches which used to be on
> anonymous FTP?
They are the consolidated patch sets - so the same that you would download if you pulled a specific consolidated patch off ITRC or the new HPSC environment.
>
> > It depends. With IA64 they have been bundled on the "media" I believe.
> > For Alpha and VAX they are separate download files.
>
> This looks interesting. Are they the normal patches which used to be on
> anonymous FTP?
> > To a period after the PAKs are sent to you from what I can figure out. The
> > y create a temporary FTP account and when it expires then,
>
> OK. However, does this mean that one needs to re-register every time
> there is a new patch?
>
> > if you have not
> > downloaded the files you want you need to contact HP - just reply to the
> > email with the download information...
>
> OK, I'll give it a try, but "contact HP" has not worked much for me in
> the past in a hobbyist context.
Bill.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Jul 1, 2012, 1:00:25 PM7/1/12
to
In article <b329c438-3ab6-4792...@googlegroups.com>,
BillPedersen <pede...@ccsscorp.com> writes:
> They are the consolidated patch sets - so the same that you would
> download if you pulled a specific consolidated patch off ITRC or the new
> HPSC environment.
The "UPDATE" patches, then, right?
> They are the consolidated patch sets - so the same that you would
> download if you pulled a specific consolidated patch off ITRC or the new
> HPSC environment.
BillPedersen
Jul 1, 2012, 1:42:30 PM7/1/12
to
On Sunday, July 1, 2012 1:00:25 PM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> In article <b329c438-3ab6-4792...@googlegroups.com>,
> BillPedersen
> In article <b329c438-3ab6-4792...@googlegroups.com>,
> BillPedersen
> writes:
>
> > They are the consolidated patch sets - so the same that you would
> > download if you pulled a specific consolidated patch off ITRC or the new
> > HPSC environment.
>
> The "UPDATE" patches, then, right?
Yes, Update Patch Kits. The most recent for OpenVMS IA64 V8.4 is VMS84I_UPDATE-V0700 and it was released last Tuesday, 26 June. I can not say that it has already been moved into the Hobbyist download environment but it should be shortly, I suspect.
>
> > They are the consolidated patch sets - so the same that you would
> > download if you pulled a specific consolidated patch off ITRC or the new
> > HPSC environment.
>
> The "UPDATE" patches, then, right?
Bill,
MG
Jul 1, 2012, 4:08:00 PM7/1/12
to
That would be great, needless to say.
The impression I got of the 'remastered' I64 V8.4 installation medium
is that they released it so people with, for example, a Blade BL8x0c
i2 or rx2800 i2 system could run the software, correct? (At least,
that's what I remember reading in a note somewhere, about the reason
for the 'remastered' version.)
- MG
BillPedersen
Jul 1, 2012, 4:39:19 PM7/1/12
to
On Sunday, July 1, 2012 4:08:00 PM UTC-4, MG wrote:
> On 1-7-2012 19:42, BillPedersen wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 1, 2012 1:00:25 PM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> >> In article<b329c438-3ab6-4792...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> BillPedersen
> On 1-7-2012 19:42, BillPedersen wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 1, 2012 1:00:25 PM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> >> In article<b329c438-3ab6-4792...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> BillPedersen
> Are you sure it will become available to Hobbyist Program partakers?
> That would be great, needless to say.
In my discussions with HP the intent is to update the available patches as they become published in UPDATES. They do not intend to make all patches available as they are published so as to keep their management of the files controllable. But making the Update Patch Kits available, published approximately quarterly, was deemed workable.
> That would be great, needless to say.
On the other hand if there is a SPECIFIC patch which someone needs they are happy to discuss that.
> The impression I got of the 'remastered' I64 V8.4 installation medium
> is that they released it so people with, for example, a Blade BL8x0c
> i2 or rx2800 i2 system could run the software, correct? (At least,
> that's what I remember reading in a note somewhere, about the reason
> for the 'remastered' version.)
It is my understanding that the 8.4 kit on the site is the remastered kit with a copy of the Update Patch Kit 500 on the media so it is a single down load for IA64.
Now this is not the case for Alpha and VAX where the patches are in separate downloads. It also does not mean that this will stay this way in the future. Since the patch kits are published more frequently than the OS and so I could envision the procedure and packaging to become similar across the board.
Bill.
glen herrmannsfeldt
Jul 1, 2012, 6:46:34 PM7/1/12
to
MG <marc...@spamxs4all.nl> wrote:
(snip)
>> Yes, there are inflated prices out there. Considering that I
>> have collected several ALPHAs (of almost all generations) for
>> free, people paying money are doing something wrong (unless a
>> maintenance contract is included).
> Maybe some people don't feel equally comfortable getting things
> often/always and absolutely for free? Who's to say. I personally
> wouldn't be so fast to judge people in terms of doing the "wrong"
> thing.
My MicroVAX 3100-30 was $19, many years ago. Didn't seem too
unreasonably for a hobby machine. (I don't remember the
shipping charge, though.)
>> A good price. Not sure if they are available for free.
> Well, I'm pretty sure they aren't! (In working condition,
> anyway.) Between five to ten years, maybe. Definitely not
> now.
> The rx2620 is still a pretty useful system, able to run off
> the Intel Itanium 2 9000-series "Montecito" processors,
> providing VT-i, hyperthreading and so forth, particularly
> for things like HPVM. Needless to say, the majority of
> rx2620s out there have "Madison" or "Madison-9M" processors
> installed.
My RX2600 was $100 plus shipping. I still don't have an Alpha.
Others may have a different price range for hobby machines,
but probably not so far from those.
-- glen
(snip)
>> Yes, there are inflated prices out there. Considering that I
>> have collected several ALPHAs (of almost all generations) for
>> free, people paying money are doing something wrong (unless a
>> maintenance contract is included).
> Maybe some people don't feel equally comfortable getting things
> often/always and absolutely for free? Who's to say. I personally
> wouldn't be so fast to judge people in terms of doing the "wrong"
> thing.
unreasonably for a hobby machine. (I don't remember the
shipping charge, though.)
>> A good price. Not sure if they are available for free.
> Well, I'm pretty sure they aren't! (In working condition,
> anyway.) Between five to ten years, maybe. Definitely not
> now.
> The rx2620 is still a pretty useful system, able to run off
> the Intel Itanium 2 9000-series "Montecito" processors,
> providing VT-i, hyperthreading and so forth, particularly
> for things like HPVM. Needless to say, the majority of
> rx2620s out there have "Madison" or "Madison-9M" processors
> installed.
Others may have a different price range for hobby machines,
but probably not so far from those.
-- glen
glen herrmannsfeldt
Jul 1, 2012, 6:50:05 PM7/1/12
to
BillPedersen <pede...@ccsscorp.com> wrote:
(snip)
transition. It was done through human interaction, unlike the
previous system.
I might expect that they automate it after a while, but maybe not.
If you request too often, someone might notice.
-- glen
(snip)
> No. But you can request PAKS before then. The site has no
> history of you from the prior system - no data was transferred
> back to HP. And they are, to the best of my knowledge,
> doing any restrictions of how frequently you can request PAKs.
> Not that this process might change in the future but that is
> the state as of when I most recently talked with them.
When I got mine, it was close to the beginning after the
> history of you from the prior system - no data was transferred
> back to HP. And they are, to the best of my knowledge,
> doing any restrictions of how frequently you can request PAKs.
> Not that this process might change in the future but that is
> the state as of when I most recently talked with them.
transition. It was done through human interaction, unlike the
previous system.
I might expect that they automate it after a while, but maybe not.
If you request too often, someone might notice.
-- glen
MG
Jul 1, 2012, 7:32:56 PM7/1/12
to
On 2-7-2012 0:46, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> My MicroVAX 3100-30 was $19, many years ago. Didn't seem too
> unreasonably for a hobby machine. (I don't remember the
> shipping charge, though.)
If you're more concerned about what you paid for a used system
> My MicroVAX 3100-30 was $19, many years ago. Didn't seem too
> unreasonably for a hobby machine. (I don't remember the
> shipping charge, though.)
than what you intend to do with it, then we have fundamentally
differing attitudes towards computing. That's all I can say
about that. To be completely honest, I'm also not terribly
interested in what you paid for system A or B.
>> The rx2620 is still a pretty useful system, able to run off
>> the Intel Itanium 2 9000-series "Montecito" processors,
>> providing VT-i, hyperthreading and so forth, particularly
>> for things like HPVM. Needless to say, the majority of
>> rx2620s out there have "Madison" or "Madison-9M" processors
>> installed.
>
You have said that before (and more than once, too). Again,
it was rare a rare opportunity and mostly for those in America.
I hope you're also aware that the rx2600 and rx2620 are two
rather different systems, right? (Including and namely for
the aforementioned reasons.)
> Others may have a different price range for hobby machines,
> but probably not so far from those.
If it's purely and strictly a 'hobby,' literally, then I
could see why.
I, for one, wouldn't pay over US$ ~300 for a x86/x86-64
laptop or desktop PC. Especially not if it were for myself
(not for use with a study or employment, for instance), while
for that money one could buy a more than decent VMS system,
either Alpha or I64.
In fact, whatever 'extra' I might have to pay for a system
would still make up for the fact that I can run the best
operating system in the world --- that I have ever had the
pleasure of using, in my opinion of course --- on my very
own hardware and 'at home.' It's not like you can run VMS,
without emulation, on an [x86/x86-64] PC, is how I see it.
I apply the same rationale for other operating systems I
enjoy, like IRIX (which I happily run on a Tezro and an
Indigo²).
- MG
Richard B. Gilbert
Jul 1, 2012, 7:44:47 PM7/1/12
to
glen herrmannsfeldt
Jul 1, 2012, 8:03:50 PM7/1/12
to
MG <marc...@spamxs4all.nl> wrote:
> On 2-7-2012 0:46, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>> My MicroVAX 3100-30 was $19, many years ago. Didn't seem too
>> unreasonably for a hobby machine. (I don't remember the
>> shipping charge, though.)
> If you're more concerned about what you paid for a used system
> than what you intend to do with it, then we have fundamentally
> differing attitudes towards computing. That's all I can say
> about that. To be completely honest, I'm also not terribly
> interested in what you paid for system A or B.
Well, for hobby computing price tends to matter.
> On 2-7-2012 0:46, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>> My MicroVAX 3100-30 was $19, many years ago. Didn't seem too
>> unreasonably for a hobby machine. (I don't remember the
>> shipping charge, though.)
> If you're more concerned about what you paid for a used system
> than what you intend to do with it, then we have fundamentally
> differing attitudes towards computing. That's all I can say
> about that. To be completely honest, I'm also not terribly
> interested in what you paid for system A or B.
If you are using it for paid work, then you can balance the
cost against the value of the work that you do with it.
(snip on RX2620)
> You have said that before (and more than once, too). Again,
> it was rare a rare opportunity and mostly for those in America.
> I hope you're also aware that the rx2600 and rx2620 are two
> rather different systems, right? (Including and namely for
> the aforementioned reasons.)
thread, wondering about the hobby market for IA64.
>> Others may have a different price range for hobby machines,
>> but probably not so far from those.
> It entirely depends on how much you care for VMS, I guess?
> If it's purely and strictly a 'hobby,' literally, then I
> could see why.
the VAX before VMS. I have thought about running Linux
on the RX2600, and even have another disk for it, but
haven't done it yet.
I was using VMS pretty far back, maybe the 1.x days.
(September 1979 if that helps.) I had fun with it in those
days, and still do today. I don't mind using other systems.
> I, for one, wouldn't pay over US$ ~300 for a x86/x86-64
> laptop or desktop PC. Especially not if it were for myself
> (not for use with a study or employment, for instance), while
> for that money one could buy a more than decent VMS system,
> either Alpha or I64.
> In fact, whatever 'extra' I might have to pay for a system
> would still make up for the fact that I can run the best
> operating system in the world --- that I have ever had the
> pleasure of using, in my opinion of course --- on my very
> own hardware and 'at home.' It's not like you can run VMS,
> without emulation, on an [x86/x86-64] PC, is how I see it.
> I apply the same rationale for other operating systems I
> enjoy, like IRIX (which I happily run on a Tezro and an
> Indigo²).
Johnny Billquist
Jul 1, 2012, 8:09:58 PM7/1/12
to
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Jan-Erik Soderholm
Jul 2, 2012, 5:51:25 AM7/2/12
to
MG
Jul 2, 2012, 8:52:16 AM7/2/12
to
On 2-7-2012 2:03, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> Well, for hobby computing price tends to matter.
Maybe I forgot to mention this (I don't recall), but despite
> Well, for hobby computing price tends to matter.
the fact that I'm a VMS "Hobbyist" Program partaker, I tend to
be as productive --- whilst non-commercially --- as possible
and use my VMS systems very productively. For one thing, I
use my systems to train myself and increase my VMS knowledge
and skills.
- MG
Michael Unger
Jul 2, 2012, 11:16:17 AM7/2/12
to
On 2012-07-01 19:42, "BillPedersen" wrote:
> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 1:00:25 PM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
>>
>> [...]
> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 1:00:25 PM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
>>
>>
>> The "UPDATE" patches, then, right?
>
> Yes, Update Patch Kits. The most recent for OpenVMS IA64 V8.4 is
> VMS84I_UPDATE-V0700 and it was released last Tuesday, 26 June. I can not say
> that it has already been moved into the Hobbyist download environment but it
> should be shortly, I suspect.
Hasn't there been a "MUP" recently? I don't remember if Alpha or Itanium
>> The "UPDATE" patches, then, right?
>
> Yes, Update Patch Kits. The most recent for OpenVMS IA64 V8.4 is
> VMS84I_UPDATE-V0700 and it was released last Tuesday, 26 June. I can not say
> that it has already been moved into the Hobbyist download environment but it
> should be shortly, I suspect.
though.
Michael
--
Real names enhance the probability of getting real answers.
My e-mail account at DECUS Munich is no longer valid.
BillPedersen
Jul 2, 2012, 4:29:18 PM7/2/12
to 2012Q3.usenet...@spamgourmet.org
On Monday, July 2, 2012 11:16:17 AM UTC-4, Michael Unger wrote:
> On 2012-07-01 19:42, "BillPedersen" wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, July 1, 2012 1:00:25 PM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> The "UPDATE" patches, then, right?
> >
> > Yes, Update Patch Kits. The most recent for OpenVMS IA64 V8.4 is
> > VMS84I_UPDATE-V0700 and it was released last Tuesday, 26 June. I can not say
> > that it has already been moved into the Hobbyist download environment but it
> > should be shortly, I suspect.
>
> Hasn't there been a "MUP" recently? I don't remember if Alpha or Itanium
> though.
>
There was a MUP at the end of March. It is included in the Update Patch Kit as well, according to the documentation.
> On 2012-07-01 19:42, "BillPedersen" wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, July 1, 2012 1:00:25 PM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> The "UPDATE" patches, then, right?
> >
> > Yes, Update Patch Kits. The most recent for OpenVMS IA64 V8.4 is
> > VMS84I_UPDATE-V0700 and it was released last Tuesday, 26 June. I can not say
> > that it has already been moved into the Hobbyist download environment but it
> > should be shortly, I suspect.
>
> Hasn't there been a "MUP" recently? I don't remember if Alpha or Itanium
> though.
>
Fritz Wuehler
Jul 2, 2012, 6:13:01 PM7/2/12
to
hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---undress to reply) wrote:
> I really fail to see the point here. If one can download the OS for
> free (which is something we should be grateful for), what point is there
> in limiting patch access?
Ask Oracle? I think the point is if you want maintenance you have to pay for
it like commercial customers. But I am often wrong.
> I really fail to see the point here. If one can download the OS for
> free (which is something we should be grateful for), what point is there
> in limiting patch access?
Ask Oracle? I think the point is if you want maintenance you have to pay for
it like commercial customers. But I am often wrong.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Jul 3, 2012, 1:23:34 AM7/3/12
to
In article
<fba043c1ac150d4a...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>, Fritz
I'm not sure what Oracle has to do with it, unless it is just an example
of a company with the corresponding policy. (However, IIRC Oracle has a
"developer's kit" which one can download for free.) Yes, it's fine to
pay for something, but one could also say if one wants a good OS one
should pay for it like commercial customers. But since the OS is
available to hobbyists, why not the patches? (In the past, many
hobbyists installed the latest patches before commercial customers did,
and sometimes found and reported bugs.)
<fba043c1ac150d4a...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>, Fritz
of a company with the corresponding policy. (However, IIRC Oracle has a
"developer's kit" which one can download for free.) Yes, it's fine to
pay for something, but one could also say if one wants a good OS one
should pay for it like commercial customers. But since the OS is
available to hobbyists, why not the patches? (In the past, many
hobbyists installed the latest patches before commercial customers did,
and sometimes found and reported bugs.)
Paul Sture
Jul 3, 2012, 6:11:47 AM7/3/12
to
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 05:23:34 +0000, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
wrote:
> But since the OS is available to hobbyists, why not the patches? (In
> the past, many hobbyists installed the latest patches before commercial
> customers did, and sometimes found and reported bugs.)
Yes I have applied patches on my Hobbyist kit before doing it on work
systems in the past. Had patches still been available to Hobbyists I
would have been quite happy to spend some time trying to reproduce early
V8.4 problems reported here.
--
Paul Sture
wrote:
> But since the OS is available to hobbyists, why not the patches? (In
> the past, many hobbyists installed the latest patches before commercial
> customers did, and sometimes found and reported bugs.)
systems in the past. Had patches still been available to Hobbyists I
would have been quite happy to spend some time trying to reproduce early
V8.4 problems reported here.
--
Paul Sture
Nomen Nescio
Jul 3, 2012, 8:30:46 AM7/3/12
to
hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---undress to reply) wrote:
> In article
> <fba043c1ac150d4a...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>, Fritz
> Wuehler <fr...@spamexpire-201207.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> writes:
>
> > hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---undress to reply) wrote:
> >
> > > I really fail to see the point here. If one can download the OS for
> > > free (which is something we should be grateful for), what point is there
> > > in limiting patch access?
> >
> > Ask Oracle? I think the point is if you want maintenance you have to pay for
> > it like commercial customers. But I am often wrong.
>
> I'm not sure what Oracle has to do with it, unless it is just an example
> of a company with the corresponding policy.
Right that was my point.
> In article
> <fba043c1ac150d4a...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>, Fritz
> Wuehler <fr...@spamexpire-201207.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> writes:
>
> > hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---undress to reply) wrote:
> >
> > > I really fail to see the point here. If one can download the OS for
> > > free (which is something we should be grateful for), what point is there
> > > in limiting patch access?
> >
> > Ask Oracle? I think the point is if you want maintenance you have to pay for
> > it like commercial customers. But I am often wrong.
>
> I'm not sure what Oracle has to do with it, unless it is just an example
> of a company with the corresponding policy.
> (However, IIRC Oracle has a "developer's kit" which one can download for
> free.)
anything but testing, without paying them. Not for your own internal use,
either.
> Yes, it's fine to pay for something, but one could also say if one wants a
> good OS one should pay for it like commercial customers.
restrictive it's unusable. It's seems cruel ;-)
> But since the OS is available to hobbyists, why not the patches?
patches. Everybody else is only allowed to /download/ it. It's their baby
and they can do what they want but I didn't read anywhere Sun went broke
from giving away developer licenses. Then again maybe that's why they had to
sell out to Larry.
> (In the past, many hobbyists installed the latest patches before
> commercial customers did, and sometimes found and reported bugs.)
individual non-commercial use are making a mistake in my opinion. Much brand
loyalty from sysadmins comes from being able to work with the same stuff at
home as they do in the data center. And many people looking for new things
to do like to learn other OS and apps etc. I see no downside at all and much
upside to giving non-commercial or developer licenses. But I don't own any
shares in HP or Oracle so my opinion is not relevant.
0 new messages