[Info-vax] New OpenSSL update from HP

[Dirk Munk]

helbig at asclothestro.multivax.de (Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)) wrote:
> In article <1c9a0$557dc4b6$5ed4324a$10063 at news.ziggo.nl>, Dirk Munk
> <munk at home.nl> writes:
>
>> I suppose this shows the problem with open source software. In my view
>> there should be one single stable production version of OpenSSL, and
>> that version should be ported to VMS. There shouldn't be a HP version
>> and a WASD version for instance. Perhaps in future VSI will do a better
>> job in supplying us with the most recent version.
>
> I agree.  There was CSWB and also whatever the Apache port was called.
> To me, it is the functionality that matters.  If something built for VMS
> can do a better job on VMS, then I'm for that.  But if some application
> which exists elsewhere runs fine on VMS, one should make use of the
> synergy, i.e. (UN)ZIP, ghostscript, etc.  And it does really look bad if
> there is a VMS version of open-source software.

Well, WASD contains Apache code, (UN)ZIP has VMS specific functionality 
etc. So you can take open source code and use that to produce to build a 
VMS specific version, if that proofs to be  an advantage.


> While one of the
> advantages is that one can get the code and modify it, I think that most
> folks are interested in open-source software because of the large base
> of users and contributors, and this pretty much dries up for a
> VMS-specific version.
>

Not as long as the VMS specific version is compatible with the open 
source version. But with (UN)ZIP for instance we need VMS specific 
functionality for VMS files.