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

[Dirk Munk]

Michael Moroney wrote:
> Dirk Munk <munk at home.nl> writes:
>
>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> David Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>
>>>>>  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?
>>>
>>> Now that it builds, essentially zero if there is no new work and no
>>> bugs reported.  But we had to be able to build it in case someone
>>> does report a bug, and we are to create a version with the fix.
>>>
>>> Of course, once x86 comes along, we would have to build it (and
>>> everything else) for x86.
>>>
>>> There is always a chance some big VMS project breaks something in
>>> DECnet that would require fixing ( = $$$) Perhaps the new file system?
>>> I don't know.
>
>> I see no reason why the new file system should break DECnet. I suppose
>> it would require making changes to FAL.
>
> When I said "DECnet" I meant the whole ball of wax which gets built
> along with base DECnet Plus.  DECnet base, FAL, all the other objects
> nobody uses, and so forth.  I was thinking of FAL when I mentioned
> the new file system.
>

I have no idea what kind of DECnet functionality is used by VMS 
customers, so you may be quite wrong with "all the other objects nobody 
is using".

RdB two-phase commit databases for instance use DECnet.