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

[Dirk Munk]

Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> 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.

No, not now, of course not. Or did you make your FAL over IP + SMB etc. 
these last few days?

But IP is changing, remember? we're going from IPv4 to IPv6. So we have 
to adapt existing functionality to new circumstances, support for both 
IPv4 and IPv6.

>
>>> 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.

No, I did not. The design seems to be there, it has to be implemented. 
It is not new functionality on the DECnet side, it is adapting DECnet to 
IPv6.

>
>>> 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.

I'm sure you will publish your FAL over IP the next week or so on your 
web site, and then we can all pay tribute to you for finally designing 
the IP functionality that made DECnet redundant.