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

[already5chosen at yahoo.com]

On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 6:52:10 PM UTC+2, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> 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.
> 

OP ask specifically about availability "of Pathworks or its descendants" on OpenVMS x86". So, he appears to think that Pathworks could still be useful.

> 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

Even if somebody revives old Pathworks, I don't think that he will find many networks to talk to. Since last year's NHS fiasco SMBv1 considered harmful.