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

[David Froble]

Michael Moroney wrote:
> I am following this thread with interest because I put
> a bunch of effort getting DECnet V/DECnet Plus to build
> at VSI, what we got from HP was a bit of a mess.

I've read that statement way too many times.  Got to wonder, "what were they 
thinking", if indeed they (HP) was thinking at all.

>  Since
> then I wondered, how many customers actually use DECnet V
> (or DECnet IV), and for what.

Then you would know more than most how much effort it will be to keep DECnet 
around, perhaps without any new work.  Can you answer that question?  How much 
effort is required to keep DECnet on VMS?

> Of course the VMS builtin where you could access any
> file on your DECnet with almost any software just by
> using the file spec node::dev:[dir.sub]file.ext is
> really great, and is missed on TCP/IP.

It's really things like this that are valuable.  I really don't care about the 
communications link.  That said, I'm sure there are those still using it.

So, for many, the real questions are:

1) What capabilities of DECnet should be retained?

and

2) What effort would be required to implement those capabilities using TCP/IP?