[Info-vax] Unexpected DECnet Phase IV functionality with possible captive account implications

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2021-05-12 17:59:20 +0000, Simon Clubley said:

> On 2021-05-12, Stephen Hoffman <seaohveh at hoffmanlabs.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> I do see ample room for vastly better IP integration, and a better path 
>> away from DECnet.  Maybe that turns into scp/sftp-integrated FAL-ish 
>> support, too. But I'd doubt that. That's unlikely to ever make a VSI 
>> schedule. SMB client integration would be far easier to market, and 
>> more useful.
>> 
> 
> The filesystem over SSH work that is showing up elsewhere would be nice 
> on VMS as well. I don't know what changes would be needed to VMS to 
> make that possible however.

Having networking from this millennium would be nice, yes.

> Done properly, and with VMS specific support for non-sequential files 
> if needed, that could be the way forward. It would ideally have the 
> kind of tight integration into VMS that FAL currently has however.

It'd be entertaining to see FAL upgraded to support keyed access into 
SQLite and other databases, too.

IIRC, FAL over IP was looked at back around Y2K, and the DECnet-related 
FAL-client bits within RMS were well contained. This'd mean 
establishing an IP FAL server, as well.

Fix the DECnet security and authentication messes, fix the lack of 
networking integration within DCL, and drag the integrated database 
support forward, file share client support, and maybe this whole area 
gets somewhat more interesting.

To bring OpenVMS out of its current embedded-server status, the sheer 
scale of the work ahead for VSI—past the port—cannot be underestimated.

But again, I just don't see FAL-presenting RMS files directly as being 
viable, as compared with existing and widespread ODBC and similar 
presentations. Though this is OpenVMS, so change can be an anathema.


-- 
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC