[Info-vax] An alternative history of computing

[Robert A. Brooks]

On 7/25/2021 9:07 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 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.

That would be LAT, not DECnet, using a DECserver.  They did not
use DECnet.  The MOP protocol is used to remotely manage DECservers.

As the DECUS button said (regarding LAT on RSTS/E) -- "Better LAT/E than never"

-- 
                  -- Rob