INFO-VAX Sun, 03 Jun 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 302 Contents: Re: HP wasting millions of dollars on itanium! Re: HP wasting millions of dollars on itanium! Re: HP wasting millions of dollars on itanium! Re: HP wasting millions of dollars on itanium! Re: HP wasting millions of dollars on itanium! Re: HP wasting millions of dollars on itanium! Re: HP wasting millions of dollars on itanium! Re: HP wasting millions of dollars on itanium! Mail Problem Re: OpenVMS Support for C-class Blades OT: Re: Whom administers openvmshobbyist.org forums? Re: OT: Re: Whom administers openvmshobbyist.org forums? Re: OT: Re: Whom administers openvmshobbyist.org forums? Re: OT: Re: Whom administers openvmshobbyist.org forums? Re: PCSI, disk space, UNDO, unseen dangers etc Whom administers openvmshobbyist.org forums? Re: Whom administers openvmshobbyist.org forums? Re: Whom administers openvmshobbyist.org forums? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 01:49:46 -0400 From: Bill Todd Subject: Re: HP wasting millions of dollars on itanium! Message-ID: <9pidnaPpV6nmy__bnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com> Arne Vajhøj wrote: > Bill Todd wrote: >> Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> I would say that EV7 is so far behind today that it is not that >>> interesting for anyone except those strongly tied to Alpha. >> >> While I agree that the chances of seeing Alpha resurrected are >> indistinguishable from zero (and have been since HP bought Compaq - >> before that, there was at least *some* hope that Curly could either be >> forced to see reason or given the boot, and Alpha restarted), you >> really shouldn't confuse being behind in technology (which EV7 is not) >> with just being behind in implementation (which EV7 certainly is: >> most of the competition is three full process generations beyond 180 >> nm. now, and Intel is about to make that four full generations with >> Penryn). >> >> EV7's multi-chip interconnect technology has yet to be matched (Intel >> *may* do so in late 2008/early 2009 when CSI finally appears; POWER >> has gotten a lot closer with the release of POWER6, but my impression >> is still doesn't have the raw aggregate large-system bandwidth that >> EV7 has). EV7's on-chip memory control is at least on a par with the >> best current offerings (those that have on-chip memory support at >> all). And even EV7's raw core performance is no slouch, given the >> handicap of being those three process generations behind now: if you >> don't want to wait for it to be upgraded at least to EV8 standards, >> just introduce the new model in 45 nm. with 16 cores as a stop-gap for >> throughput-intensive applications (I suspect that would give Rock a >> good run for its money). >> >> Nah, it'll never happen, but not because Alpha couldn't compete - even >> now. As for where it could be if development had continued, well... > > A 16 core 45 nm EV7 would not be an EV7. Even a single-core 45 nm. EV7 might not technically be an EV7: so what? The point under discussion in the post to which you responded was the feasibility of resurrecting Alpha. You suggested that such a resurrected Alpha would not be competitive because "EV7 is so far behind" - clearly implying that the *improved* EV7 explicitly described in the post to which you were responding could not be competitive. You were wrong. - bill ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 08:22:58 +0200 From: "Dr. Dweeb" Subject: Re: HP wasting millions of dollars on itanium! Message-ID: <46625e9b$0$7603$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk> Bill Todd wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: >> On 05/31/07 22:41, Bill Todd wrote: >>> Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> >>> ... >>> >>>> I would say that EV7 is so far behind today that it is not that >>>> interesting for anyone except those strongly tied to Alpha. >>> >>> While I agree that the chances of seeing Alpha resurrected are >>> indistinguishable from zero (and have been since HP bought Compaq - >>> before that, there was at least *some* hope that Curly could either >>> be forced to see reason or given the boot, and Alpha restarted), you >>> really shouldn't confuse being behind in technology (which EV7 is >>> not) with just being behind in implementation (which EV7 certainly >>> is: most of the competition is three full process generations >>> beyond 180 nm. now, and Intel is about to make that four full >>> generations with Penryn). >>> >>> EV7's multi-chip interconnect technology has yet to be matched >>> (Intel *may* do so in late 2008/early 2009 when CSI finally >>> appears; POWER has gotten a lot closer with the release of POWER6, >>> but my impression is still doesn't have the raw aggregate >>> large-system bandwidth that EV7 has). EV7's on-chip memory control >>> is at least on a par with the best current offerings (those that >>> have on-chip memory support at all). And even EV7's raw core >>> performance is no slouch, given the handicap of being those three >>> process generations behind now: if you don't want to wait for it >>> to be upgraded at least to EV8 standards, just introduce the new >>> model in 45 nm. with 16 cores as a stop-gap for >>> throughput-intensive applications (I suspect that would give Rock a >>> good run for its money). >> >> How is this better/different than AMD's Direct Connect Architecture >> and HORUS Interconnect? > > 1. AMD's on-chip memory controller does not IIRC support as much > memory per chip, as much memory bandwidth per chip (though I'd have > to check to see where their recent migration to DDR-2 changed this), > or (mirrored or parity) redundant memory. > > 2. Opterons have at most 3 Hypertransport links per chip, at least > some chips have to use one of theirs to talk with something > equivalent to Northbridge/Southbridge components (i.e., to talk with > something besides other Opterons so that real-world work can be > performed), and inter-chip cache coherence uses broadcast > invalidation for its operation (which scales poorly beyond 4 sockets > in this configuration). The result is that Opteron systems don't > scale at all linearly beyond 4 sockets. EV7 has four inter-chip > links (each with significantly greater bandwidth than a HT 1 link > IIRC) per chip, plus an additional per-chip path to talk with > peripherals, and use a directory-based cache-coherence protocol > (which scales *far* better). The result is that EV7s scale > effectively (almost linearly) to 64 (nominally, perhaps in fact 128) > sockets. > 3. Horus uses some ingenuity to add something resembling a > directory-based cache-coherence protocol to connect quad-socket > Opteron boards together, allowing a system to scale up to 32 sockets > at least somewhat effectively (though still hardly linearly and with > far less aggregate system internal bandwidth than and EV7 system). Horus, > however, AFAICT never actually had a real commercial release > (i.e., it does not exist as a competitive product, merely as a very > interesting prototype). > > 4. Within a year Opteron is supposed to get HT 3.0, with four HT > links (or optionally eight HT half-links) per chip (the latter > allowing 8-socket systems with direct single-hop paths between all > sockets). Even with its hard-to-scale broadcast-invalidate > cache-coherence protocol this should support effective 8-socket > Opteron systems (unlike the situation at present), though still > somewhat bandwidth-constrained (half of even a significantly faster > HT 3.0 link may not equal EV7's facilities, and in any event won't > scale nearly at high). > 5. Significant portions of the Horus team now work for AMD - but I > have no idea what that may or may not imply for the more distant > future. > The bottom line is that Opteron's approach at present (and even as > touted for the near future) may well make economic sense for its > target market (small multi-socket systems now, perhaps solid mid-range > multi-socket systems next year), but in no way compares with EV7's. > > - bill Good coverage. Sad that the EV7 is so advanced in this area and products 6 years later from x86 camp still do not approach it Dweeb ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 08:24:18 +0200 From: "Dr. Dweeb" Subject: Re: HP wasting millions of dollars on itanium! Message-ID: <46625e9d$0$7603$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk> Ron Johnson wrote: > On 06/02/07 14:10, JF Mezei wrote: > [snip] >> 8086 is also starting to get to market with features IA64 doesn't yet > > Why do you insist on referring to x86-64 chips as 8086? > > If it's an attempt at a back-handed insult, then it's spectacularly > outdated and lame. Oh no?!?! The ultumate nerd insult! Can this be accepted in a family forum? Dweeb ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 11:55:01 GMT From: "John Wallace" Subject: Re: HP wasting millions of dollars on itanium! Message-ID: "Arne Vajhøj" wrote in message news:46621101$0$90267$14726298@news.sunsite.dk... > JF Mezei wrote: > > Arne Vajhøj wrote: > >>> "I would say that today's Itanium is so far behind today that it is > >>> not that > >>> interesting for anyone except those strongly tied to Itanium." > >> > >> No. If you go an look at SPEC benchmarks then you see that it is not so. > > > > While it is true that IA64 has closed the gap since the days of Merced, > > I would not say it is a "market leading" technology. > > Nobody said so. > > I just said that a brandnew Itanium is not behind todays CPU's > as a 2001 Alpha is. > > Arne OK, let me try it another way, and as others have kindly covered the technology stuff, I'll focus on some economic parallels between the end of the Alpha story, and the Itanium story right now. It's reasonably clear that Itanium has little to distinguish its technology from the rest of the market, either in price, performance, or price-performance. And there's no particular reason to expect that situation to change dramatically in the foreseeable future. Other competing technologies generally have an edge in performance or in price or both in almost every sector of the market, at least for now. Consequently the only customers really involved in Itanium are a tiny part of the market, those who do not yet have any alternative (specifically, VMS and HP-UX customers). Some of those other competing technologies are genuine "industry standard" products from the Itanium vendors - from Intel and from HP. There are no serious vendors who have "bet their business" on Itanium, but serious VMS customers have been asked to trust their vendor, and bet their business on Itanium. (Just like in the Alpha story, when they were asked to believe in Alpha?). The number of customers who need more than the true "industry standard" x86-64 and/or Proliant-class technology is a tiny proportion of the market, and afaict so is their spend. If Itanium is financially almost invisible in the market, what effect does that have on Itanium-related investment plans, affordability, sustainability, etc? (Just like in the Alpha story, the economics of "niche" processors are not attractive?) Given that, and the relatively limited Itanium installed base, and the relatively limited availability of Itanium software (despite the trumpeting of huge porting funds), and the inevitably relatively high ongoing costs of separate Itanium chip, system, and software development - factors which were the primary publically stated reasons for the end of the Alpha story - why should potential customers expect the outcome for a niche and struggling Itanium to be any different to the outcome for a niche and struggling Alpha? How long should the market expect to wait until, regardless of what Intel HQ *say* in public to protect certain egos and Intel's past investment in Itanium, Intel HQ's *spending* starts reflecting the reality that future money spent on Itanium is money which could be more profitably invested elsewhere in the company? When that happens, if the Itanium-dependent bits of HP still want to continue down the Itanium road, they will have to fully fund ongoing Itanium developments (chips, systems, OS, etc) from their own revenues, and what will *that* do to their costs, prices, timescales, profitability etc? Surely at that point the economic reality will be just like it was in the Alpha story, except that with the benefit of hindsight we know that the promised "industry standard" Alpha replacement chip which was going to allow its customers to benefit from the economics of the volume market, actually turned out to be and do nothing of the sort. In contrast, the "industry standard" replacement architecture for Itanium is already here and its various implementations from chips to systems are selling quite nicely thank you. For the purposes of comp.os.vms there's just the small matter of re-porting an OS, its layered products, and the necessary applications - but this is a port where the customers, application suppliers, etc can already see why it makes business sense. It's not quite a trivial port because doing it properly it will involve qualifying the OS on specific hardware. Allegedly that may need to be new hardware in order to add any required-but-currently-missing RAS features. Or it may require design changes to meet other parts of the undeniably high standards of the folks building the current Itanium systems. Put another way, this needn't be an Itanium-based Proliant (been tried, didn't sell, unlikely to be repeated), but if it helps keep people happy surely it could be an x86-64-based rx-style box or whatever - from what I've seen these systems do look quite neat inside and people who have them like them, but as far as I can tell, much of that niceness isn't necessarily Itanium-specific (how architecture-specific are tool-free chassis, redundant fans, redundant power, diagnostic LEDs, etc?) It might need more work for Superdome-class systems but that's what proper design engineers are for, and in between HP desktop/deskside and HP Superdome is the world of HP blades, which should be nice and easy as a porting/qual target, and nice and easy to sell, right? The next generation of Itanium chips and systems would need new hardware design, some new OS work, and new system qualification work anyway... Surely a move to true "industry standard" is a whole lot more affordable and more sensible than funding a whole low-volume high-cost architecture-specific ecosystem, and to sensible customers it could look like a better long-term value proposition too. Ultimately it's probably not the readers of comp.os.vms who need convincing by any remaining Itanium supporters in Intel and HP - the people who need convincing are the people making the buying decisions in HP's prospective customers (and also the equivalent folks in the application vendors). In the VMS market, those customers will likely be the folks who saw the "trust us, your investment in Alpha is safe in our hands" letters. How easy will it be to convince them? Any clearer now? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 10:22:51 -0400 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= Subject: Re: HP wasting millions of dollars on itanium! Message-ID: <4662ceb4$0$90264$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Bill Todd wrote: > Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> A 16 core 45 nm EV7 would not be an EV7. > > Even a single-core 45 nm. EV7 might not technically be an EV7: so what? > > The point under discussion in the post to which you responded was the > feasibility of resurrecting Alpha. You suggested that such a > resurrected Alpha would not be competitive because "EV7 is so far > behind" - clearly implying that the *improved* EV7 explicitly described > in the post to which you were responding could not be competitive. Read the post again. The post talks about doing quick releases of EV7 until a new processor gets ready. Being an EV7 is not just the print on the chip. The point is that it is not possible to go from whatever nm (I think someone said 180) to 45 nm and from 1 core to 16 core is not something you just do. You start with a white piece of paper and X years later you have a CPU in production. Arne ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 10:26:05 -0400 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= Subject: Re: HP wasting millions of dollars on itanium! Message-ID: <4662cf74$0$90264$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> John Wallace wrote: > OK, let me try it another way, and as others have kindly covered the > technology stuff, I'll focus on some economic parallels between the end of > the Alpha story, and the Itanium story right now. > > It's reasonably clear that Itanium has little to distinguish its technology > from the rest of the market, either in price, performance, or > price-performance. And there's no particular reason to expect that situation > to change dramatically in the foreseeable future. Other competing > technologies generally have an edge in performance or in price or both in > almost every sector of the market, at least for now. Consequently the only > customers really involved in Itanium are a tiny part of the market, those > who do not yet have any alternative (specifically, VMS and HP-UX customers). > > Some of those other competing technologies are genuine "industry standard" > products from the Itanium vendors - from Intel and from HP. There are no > serious vendors who have "bet their business" on Itanium, but serious VMS > customers have been asked to trust their vendor, and bet their business on > Itanium. (Just like in the Alpha story, when they were asked to believe in > Alpha?). > > The number of customers who need more than the true "industry standard" > x86-64 and/or Proliant-class technology is a tiny proportion of the market, > and afaict so is their spend. If Itanium is financially almost invisible in > the market, what effect does that have on Itanium-related investment plans, > affordability, sustainability, etc? (Just like in the Alpha story, the > economics of "niche" processors are not attractive?) > > Given that, and the relatively limited Itanium installed base, and the > relatively limited availability of Itanium software (despite the trumpeting > of huge porting funds), and the inevitably relatively high ongoing costs of > separate Itanium chip, system, and software development - factors which were > the primary publically stated reasons for the end of the Alpha story - why > should potential customers expect the outcome for a niche and struggling > Itanium to be any different to the outcome for a niche and struggling Alpha? > > How long should the market expect to wait until, regardless of what Intel HQ > *say* in public to protect certain egos and Intel's past investment in > Itanium, Intel HQ's *spending* starts reflecting the reality that future > money spent on Itanium is money which could be more profitably invested > elsewhere in the company? > > When that happens, if the Itanium-dependent bits of HP still want to > continue down the Itanium road, they will have to fully fund ongoing Itanium > developments (chips, systems, OS, etc) from their own revenues, and what > will *that* do to their costs, prices, timescales, profitability etc? > Surely at that point the economic reality will be just like it was in the > Alpha story, except that with the benefit of hindsight we know that the > promised "industry standard" Alpha replacement chip which was going to allow > its customers to benefit from the economics of the volume market, actually > turned out to be and do nothing of the sort. > > In contrast, the "industry standard" replacement architecture for Itanium is > already here and its various implementations from chips to systems are > selling quite nicely thank you. For the purposes of comp.os.vms there's just > the small matter of re-porting an OS, its layered products, and the > necessary applications - but this is a port where the customers, application > suppliers, etc can already see why it makes business sense. It's not quite a > trivial port because doing it properly it will involve qualifying the OS on > specific hardware. Allegedly that may need to be new hardware in order to > add any required-but-currently-missing RAS features. Or it may require > design changes to meet other parts of the undeniably high standards of the > folks building the current Itanium systems. > > Put another way, this needn't be an Itanium-based Proliant (been tried, > didn't sell, unlikely to be repeated), but if it helps keep people happy > surely it could be an x86-64-based rx-style box or whatever - from what I've > seen these systems do look quite neat inside and people who have them like > them, but as far as I can tell, much of that niceness isn't necessarily > Itanium-specific (how architecture-specific are tool-free chassis, redundant > fans, redundant power, diagnostic LEDs, etc?) It might need more work for > Superdome-class systems but that's what proper design engineers are for, and > in between HP desktop/deskside and HP Superdome is the world of HP blades, > which should be nice and easy as a porting/qual target, and nice and easy to > sell, right? > > The next generation of Itanium chips and systems would need new hardware > design, some new OS work, and new system qualification work anyway... Surely > a move to true "industry standard" is a whole lot more affordable and more > sensible than funding a whole low-volume high-cost architecture-specific > ecosystem, and to sensible customers it could look like a better long-term > value proposition too. > > Ultimately it's probably not the readers of comp.os.vms who need convincing > by any remaining Itanium supporters in Intel and HP - the people who need > convincing are the people making the buying decisions in HP's prospective > customers (and also the equivalent folks in the application vendors). In the > VMS market, those customers will likely be the folks who saw the "trust us, > your investment in Alpha is safe in our hands" letters. How easy will it be > to convince them? I agree with most of that. I just doubt that HP or the ISV's are that interested in porting. Arne ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 10:52:25 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: HP wasting millions of dollars on itanium! Message-ID: On 06/03/07 01:22, Dr. Dweeb wrote: [snip] > > Good coverage. > Sad that the EV7 is so advanced in this area and products 6 years later from > x86 camp still do not approach it Could they, and are not, for economic reasons? -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 10:56:02 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: HP wasting millions of dollars on itanium! Message-ID: On 06/03/07 00:43, Bill Todd wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: [snip] >> >> How is this better/different than AMD's Direct Connect Architecture >> and HORUS Interconnect? > > 1. AMD's on-chip memory controller does not IIRC support as much memory > per chip, They *could* but there's no need yet in their target market. > as much memory bandwidth per chip (though I'd have to check to > see where their recent migration to DDR-2 changed this), or (mirrored or > parity) redundant memory. No parity RAM? I think that's wrong. One of the knocks against early x86-64 chips was that they *needed* parity RAM, which slowed adoption in the home & small-office markets. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 08:36:29 -0700 From: "Tom Linden" Subject: Mail Problem Message-ID: I am running MX5.4 under following. %SYSMAN-I-OUTPUT, command execution on node HAFNER HP TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS Alpha Version V5.4 - ECO 5 on a COMPAQ Professional Workstation XP1000 running OpenVMS V7.3-2 %SYSMAN-I-OUTPUT, command execution on node FREJA HP TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS Alpha Version V5.5 - ECO 1 on a COMPAQ Professional Workstation XP1000 running OpenVMS V8.2 %SYSMAN-I-OUTPUT, command execution on node NORNS HP TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS Alpha Version V5.4 - ECO 5 on a AlphaServer DS10 466 MHz running OpenVMS V7.3-1 %SYSMAN-I-OUTPUT, command execution on node ODIN HP TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS Alpha Version V5.6 on a COMPAQ Professional Workstation XP1000 running OpenVMS V8.3 all under TCPIP$LBROKER I use both routable and non-routable IPs, so that Windows and VMS can coexist on same lan thru cisco router with dual nics. So using Outlook as POP client and having configured MX to accept relays from the = non-routable IPs, i.e. Inside IP networks/hosts: 127.0.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.255 206.55.236.240 netmask 255.255.255.240 10.0.0.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 (Relay allowed) with following SMTP server settings: Allow VRFY commands: disabled Act as SMTP relay for any host: disabled [SHOW LOCAL_DOMAINS lists ho= sts] Validate sender's domain name: enabled Allow percent-hacked addresses: disabled CRAM-MD5 SMTP authentication: disabled PLAIN SMTP authentication: enabled Realtime Blackhole List check: enabled RBL domains to check: BL.SPAMCOP.NET CBL.ABUSEAT.ORG DNSBL.NJABL.ORG OPM.BLITZED.ORG OPM.BLITZED.ORG RELAYS.VISI.COM NOW, my laptop which also runs Outlook under XP has a builtin wireless Verizon card. My SMTP server refuses to talk to it when I try to send a message it times out because my SMTP server refuses to talk to it, so turning on debugging I see 3-JUN-2007 08:32:48.91 STM[2]: Client IP address: 75.211.76.202 3-JUN-2007 08:32:48.91 STM[2]: [client is on outside network - AUTH LO= GIN = PLAIN will be advertised] 3-JUN-2007 08:32:48.92 STM[2]: [outside count now 1, max 4] 3-JUN-2007 08:32:48.92 STM[2]: Send "220 norns.kednos.com (MX V5.4 An1= f) = ESMTP server ready at Sun, 3 Jun 2007 08:32:48 -0700" 3-JUN-2007 08:32:48.92 STM[2]: Error: status=3D20EC 3-JUN-2007 08:32:48.92 STM[2]: CLEANUP: outside count now 0, max 4 So my question is how can I connect from the wireless port of the laptop= without opening up the system to abuse? SOYmail, of course, works fine since it goes through the browser. Tom -- = PL/I for OpenVMS www.kednos.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 10:52:30 +0200 From: "Martin Vorlaender" Subject: Re: OpenVMS Support for C-class Blades Message-ID: JF Mezei wrote: > Does anyone know if they have added specific support for cluster > interconnect between IA64 cards in a c-class box ? Or is it still just > ethernet through the normal ethernet cards assigned to each slot in the > C box ? That specific question came up in one of the bootcamp's blade sessions. IIRC, there's no support for an in-box interconnect. cu, Martin -- One OS to rule them all | Martin Vorlaender | OpenVMS rules! One OS to find them | work: mv@pdv-systeme.de One OS to bring them all | http://www.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/ And in the Darkness bind them.| home: martin.vorlaender@t-online.de ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 06:35:30 -0500 From: Dan Foster Subject: OT: Re: Whom administers openvmshobbyist.org forums? Message-ID: In article , R.A.Omond wrote: > Dan, (this is intended to be in a teeny leettle very pale font ;-) :) That's ok, normal sized font is fine. > I've noticed several occurrences of the misuse of "whom" > for "who" recently in comp.os.vms. > > Why did you think to use "whom", just out of interest ? Short answer: English isn't my first language. Longer answer: much of my own knowledge of English has been a personal study on my own time, as schooling mainly provided me with up to between U.S. fourth to sixth grade education for English reading/writing. I think that's roughly end of primary schooling in other countries? I took additional coursework elsewhere to supplement that including some fairly challenging ones for even native English speakers, but mostly read a lot on my own time and picked up most of the nuances of the English language that way. And still learn new things even today. So... I'm sure you can see that my knowledge is rather incomplete at times -- no big secret as I tell anyone who notices. It does show in my writings from time to time. It's all on the public record, after all. To directly answer your question: No, I don't know the exact circumstances in which 'who' is linguistically correct as opposed to 'whom'. Result: I tend to pick 'whom', because I figure it's a 50-50 proposition. (Sometimes right, sometimes not.) As always, I welcome corrections if mistaken and edification, and do actively work on the finer points of language as I come across things. > (really, really not meant to be a grammar Nazi ...) That's all right. I'm a big boy. ;) Cheers, -Dan ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 10:00:12 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: OT: Re: Whom administers openvmshobbyist.org forums? Message-ID: <4662C96C.8090903@comcast.net> Dan Foster wrote: > In article , R.A.Omond wrote: > >>Dan, (this is intended to be in a teeny leettle very pale font ;-) > > > :) > > That's ok, normal sized font is fine. > > >>I've noticed several occurrences of the misuse of "whom" >>for "who" recently in comp.os.vms. >> >>Why did you think to use "whom", just out of interest ? > > > Short answer: English isn't my first language. > > Longer answer: much of my own knowledge of English has been a personal > study on my own time, as schooling mainly provided me with up to between > U.S. fourth to sixth grade education for English reading/writing. I > think that's roughly end of primary schooling in other countries? > > I took additional coursework elsewhere to supplement that including some > fairly challenging ones for even native English speakers, but mostly > read a lot on my own time and picked up most of the nuances of the > English language that way. And still learn new things even today. > > So... I'm sure you can see that my knowledge is rather incomplete at > times -- no big secret as I tell anyone who notices. It does show in my > writings from time to time. It's all on the public record, after all. > > To directly answer your question: No, I don't know the exact > circumstances in which 'who' is linguistically correct as opposed to > 'whom'. Result: I tend to pick 'whom', because I figure it's a 50-50 > proposition. (Sometimes right, sometimes not.) > > As always, I welcome corrections if mistaken and edification, and do > actively work on the finer points of language as I come across things. > > >>(really, really not meant to be a grammar Nazi ...) > > > That's all right. I'm a big boy. ;) > > Cheers, > > -Dan My own knowledge is a little shaky because even native speakers get it wrong! IIRC "whom" is the "objective case" and "who" is subjective. Grammarians rise up and smite me!! :-) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:13:30 +0100 From: Roy Omond Subject: Re: OT: Re: Whom administers openvmshobbyist.org forums? Message-ID: Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > Dan Foster wrote: > > [...snip...] >>> >>> Why did you think to use "whom", just out of interest ? >> >> >> >> Short answer: English isn't my first language. Gosh, Dan, I'd never have guessed (that's a compliment). Just out of curiosity, what is your first language ? > ...snip...] > My own knowledge is a little shaky because even native speakers get it > wrong! IIRC "whom" is the "objective case" and "who" is subjective. Yes, that's correct. Would you confuse "he" and "him" in the same way ? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 11:43:22 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: OT: Re: Whom administers openvmshobbyist.org forums? Message-ID: <4662E19A.8040505@comcast.net> Roy Omond wrote: > Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > >> Dan Foster wrote: >> >> [...snip...] >> >>>> >>>> Why did you think to use "whom", just out of interest ? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Short answer: English isn't my first language. >> > > Gosh, Dan, I'd never have guessed (that's a compliment). Just out > of curiosity, what is your first language ? > >> ...snip...] > > >> My own knowledge is a little shaky because even native speakers get it >> wrong! IIRC "whom" is the "objective case" and "who" is subjective. > > > Yes, that's correct. Would you confuse "he" and "him" in the same way ? No! But I've heard worse from presumably native speakers. . . . "Her and Bruce went . . . ." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 09:24:00 -0400 From: "William Webb" Subject: Re: PCSI, disk space, UNDO, unseen dangers etc Message-ID: <8660a3a10706010624t3642c090o6d152cb8e219bdde@mail.gmail.com> ------=_Part_4720_11031991.1180704240879 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 29 May 2007 02:11:48 -0700, IanMiller wrote: > > See > $ HELP PRODUCT DELETE RECOVERY_DATA > > Gee, Ian, the inverse of Hoff's Dictum: "Verbose questions beget terse replies". Great to have finally met you face-to-face at bootcamp. WWWebb ------=_Part_4720_11031991.1180704240879 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline

On 29 May 2007 02:11:48 -0700, IanMiller <gxys@uk2.net> wrote:
See
$ HELP PRODUCT DELETE RECOVERY_DATA

 
 
Gee, Ian, the inverse of Hoff's Dictum:
 
"Verbose questions beget terse replies".
 
Great to have finally met you face-to-face at bootcamp.

WWWebb
 
------=_Part_4720_11031991.1180704240879-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 04:06:28 -0500 From: Dan Foster Subject: Whom administers openvmshobbyist.org forums? Message-ID: I am in need of contacting a forum administrator for openvmshobbyist.org to resolve a minor technical issue, but there is no contact information listed anywhere on the forums, nor even a name, other than the omnipotent 'Board Administrator'. :-) If someone knows whom administers that site, please contact me privately or post here -- doesn't matter. Thanks! -Dan ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 11:32:38 +0100 From: "R.A.Omond" Subject: Re: Whom administers openvmshobbyist.org forums? Message-ID: Dan, (this is intended to be in a teeny leettle very pale font ;-) I've noticed several occurrences of the misuse of "whom" for "who" recently in comp.os.vms. Why did you think to use "whom", just out of interest ? (really, really not meant to be a grammar Nazi ...) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 07:28:12 -0700 From: "Tom Linden" Subject: Re: Whom administers openvmshobbyist.org forums? Message-ID: On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 02:06:28 -0700, Dan Foster wrote: > I am in need of contacting a forum administrator for openvmshobbyist.org > to resolve a minor technical issue, but there is no contact information > listed anywhere on the forums, nor even a name, other than the > omnipotent 'Board Administrator'. :-) > > If someone knows whom administers that site, please contact me privately > or post here -- doesn't matter. > > Thanks! > > -Dan who not whom, it is the subject not the object -- PL/I for OpenVMS www.kednos.com ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.302 ************************