[Info-vax] Pathworks or one of its descendants on x86

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

Den 2018-02-21 kl. 17:52, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
> On 2/21/2018 11:35 AM, already5chosen at yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 5:45:21 PM UTC+2, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2018 10:29 AM, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>>>> Den 2018-02-21 kl. 15:46, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
>>>>> On 2/21/2018 8:57 AM, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>>>>>> Den 2018-02-21 kl. 05:40, skrev terry-groups at glaver.org:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 7:40:05 AM UTC-5, Kerry Main wrote:
>>>>>>>> New OpenVMS file system notes:
>>>>>>>> <http://www.hp-connect.se/SIG/New_File_System_VMS_Boot%20Camp_2016.pdf> 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those slides say "Fully compatible API − 99% of applications run
>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>> modification" which I interpret as meaning RMS or RMS emulation. If
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> is the case, any file-serving to PC clients is going to need to do the
>>>>>>> same "if it isn't fixed-512, read the file a record at a time and munge
>>>>>>> the record attributes" that PATHWORKS did before sending it to a PC
>>>>>>> client. I think I'll stick with my "an inefficient choice for anything
>>>>>>> other than accessing files that must reside on the VMS system" comment
>>>>>>> until convinced otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have never seen file serving from VMS as anything but a convienient
>>>>>> way of sharing files that was either created on VMS, or was needed
>>>>>> by something on the VMS system. For a general "file server", there
>>>>>> was easier solutions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was using VMS for file sharing/serving since PCSA 1.2 or 2.0 (I think).
>>>>>
>>>>> Same here. PathWorks was pretty cool late 80's early 90's. Long time ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ability to move files between VMS and PC's in a transparent
>>>>> way is very convenient and I do think such a feature has some
>>>>> users.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I think that the fraction of these users where performance
>>>>> is important would be very small.
>>>>
>>>> And today, for files created on VMS that has PC users (by far the
>>>> most common direction), it is easier to run a web server and just
>>>> present the directory for download.
>>>>
>>>> I have a hard time seeing VMS as a general file server today...
>>>
>>> That was what I was trying to agree to.
>>>
>>> This is not production for the large number of users, but convenience
>>> for the system manager.
>>>
>>> Which is why performance should not matter.
>>
>> Which still does not answer in which scenario Pathworks would be more 
>> convenient than Samba.
> 
> I am not quite sure that I understand that question.
> 
> For the usage described nobody cares what it is.
> 
> PathWorks was available before Samba became available. PathWorks
> has been dead for many years. Samba has replaced PathWorks. Considering
> them alternatives may have been relevant back in the early 00's.
> 
> Arne
> 
> 

I used Pathworks at work and Samba at home around the same timeframe.
As I remember, Pathworks was "DEC-style" with a proper CLI with
VMS-like commands and so on, but at a cost. Samba was free but a
hacketyhack to setup.