[Info-vax] Rethinking DECNET ?

[David Froble]

JF Mezei wrote:
> On 14-09-04 08:03, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> 
>> My point and question was actualy, "do you realy need DECnet?" :-)
> 
> DECnet per say, no. But the embedded functionality yes. (for instance,
> edit node::file.name ). Also, SYSMAN makes use of DECNET when you
> specify a username/password for the remote nodes. Monitor uses DECNET
> (although I think this may have been updated to support IP).
> 
> That is why I suggested moving the DECnet objects such as FAL to become
> native to IP so that the VMS opertating system could still give the full
> functionality given by DECnet without using DECnet for the networking
> layers.
> 
> Removing DECnet as a networking layer would also reduce the workload for
> VSI to support.
> 
> Note that Apple has done the same, moving its own protocols such as
> Apple File Sharing from Appletalk to IP based. Appletalk is no longer
> available with the OS anymore.
> 
> However, Apple is now de-emphasizing AFS and going SMB. However if FAL
> still gives unique capabilities such as indexed file support which can't
> be done in SMB, then perhaps it might be worth moving it to IP so it
> survives.
> 
> 

Why?

Once the OS is up and running, and the compilers are up and running, I'm 
betting that things such as DECnet IV will just build.  Isn't that the 
goal for applications?

Now, trying to do new work to put some DECnet capabilities in TCP/IP 
will be a much bigger job.  And we all know that not everything will 
make the transition.  Sooner or later a user will be missing something 
they previously had.

Your idea(s) just propose more work, for less benefit, when VSI already 
has a full load of work to do.