[Info-vax] An alternative history of computing

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 7/24/21 10:27 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 7/24/2021 8:26 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 7/24/2021 10:43 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2021-07-24, Andrew Commons <andrew.commons at bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 23 July 2021 at 3:22:30 am UTC+9:30, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>> DECnet is not an open specification.
>>>>>
>>>>> Parts of it are fully open (the lower-level NSP and related stuff) but
>>>>> most of the higher-level application protocols are fully closed.
>>>>>
>>>> So, DECnet is/was an open specification.
>>>>
>>>> Some of it can be found here:
>>>>
>>>> ftp://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/dec/decnet/
>>>>
>>>> The fact that the layered applications were not open does not change 
>>>> the
>>>> validity of that statement.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, a protocol which only opens its lower layers and only
>>> 1 or 2 of its upper layer protocols is not open in any way that could
>>> accurately be described as open.
>>>
>>> It would be like saying that TCP/IP is open if only everything at TCP
>>> level and below was fully open along with FTP and a partial Telnet
>>> specification while everything else in the TCP/IP stack was fully 
>>> closed.
>>>
>>> The point of an open protocol is that you can fully implement another
>>> full version of it just by reading the specifications. You can do that
>>> with TCP/IP but you most certainly cannot do that with the subset of
>>> DECnet specifications that are available.
>>>
>>> Not even the MAIL protocol is documented in public. That would be like
>>> calling TCP/IP open while keeping the SMTP specification closed.
>>
>> A protocol is open if it itself is documented.
>>
>> Other protocols on top of it can be open or closed without
>> impacting that.
>>
>> There are also closed protocols on top of TCP/IP - that
>> does not make TCP/IP closed.
>>
>> Arne
>>
> 
> When this started, I just knew that some would come up with that "open" 
> word.  Ya know, that word can be used in various contexts.  "Open the 
> door."  "The book is open."  And such.
> 
> Regardless, the claim was "(the DECnet specification was freely 
> available)"  The claim was never "open", and definitely not "open 
> software".  I don't know how "freely" it was, but I do know there was 
> DECnet implementations on other than VMS.
> 

I have DECnet on my Linux box.  Used to connect to it using my
DECServer200.  And connect to both VAX and RSTS from it.

Speaking of "Open", there is always OpenVMS.  :-)

bill