[Info-vax] What would you miss if DECnet got the chop? Was: "bad select 38" (OpenSSL on VMS)

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2016-10-07 07:08:26 +0000, Dirk Munk said:

> Stephen Hoffman wrote:

> It seeme you want to reduce VMS to some OS that has nothing more then 
> any other OS is also offering.

I want OpenVMS to be more competitive than it is.   Though it has some 
strengths, OpenVMS is presently not particularly competitive with what 
Linux, Unix, and Windows Server offer.   That in terms of price and 
features, or in terms of the installed base.

> But then why should we use VMS at all?

For many folks, the folks use OpenVMS because porting off of OpenVMS is 
more expensive than continuing.    I'd like to see that changed.

For other folks, because they're unfamiliar with what other platforms 
offer.   Which is a market for VSI — the installed base — but that's 
not something that will draw folks to OpenVMS, not until the installed 
base is much larger and much more active.

For unfortunately-too-few folks, because OpenVMS offers features and 
capabilities they can't get elsewhere.   There aren't enough of these 
folks (yet?), and I'd prefer more reasons for these folks to use 
OpenVMS.

Hence my comments.

> Apart from implementing RFC2127 for DECnet over IPv6, I'm not asking 
> for anything new in DECnet.

That's not getting rid of DECnet.

>> Sure.   Can't say I'd spend an iota of that time on DECnet, though.
> 
> No one is asking for that.

But you just did.

>> In short, if you can't do it via IP (somehow, whether ssh or netcat or 
>> otherwise, preferably encrypted), then either the OpenVMS 
>> implementation of IP needs help or updates, or find a different way to 
>> solve the issue.   And yes, maybe even use DECnet in the interim.
> 
> Yes, DECnet over IP, encrypted with IPsec. As long as we don't have a 
> kind of IP FAL, that is a good and secure solution.

Get rid of DECnet.



-- 
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC