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

[Simon Clubley]

On 2021-05-19, Dave Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/2021 5:46 PM, ultr... at gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 2:55:15 PM UTC-4, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2021-05-17, Dave Froble <da... at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's a bit funny, and a lot sad, that even though people know what they
>>>> are advocating doesn't exist, they still promote it.
>>>>
>>> The point of the list was to give Brian some ideas that do work
>>> on VMS (NFS for example) and also list how this is done on other
>>> operating systems using some options that do not currently work
>>> on VMS.
>>>
>>> IOW, there are a number of ways to do what Brian is asking for.
>>>
>>> You just need to have the functionality in the operating system
>>> in question to do it in all of those ways.
>>
>> there are us actual OpenVMS users who actually like the VMS file and command implementation
>> and don't want to become linucized.
>>
>> If you love that crap OS so much use it but don't force those crap extensions on us.
>>
>
> Every 10-20 years Bob has a winner.
>
> +1
>

Not really. If you want VMS to exist tomorrow, then VMS needs to support
the protocols that other operating systems use.

By the reasoning of both of you, then you are saying that if something
didn't originate on VMS, then it should not be used on VMS.

That means no LLVM for x86-64 VMS, no ELF for executable formats,
none of the TCP/IP protocols, no GFS2 (assuming VSI has sorted out
the licencing issues) and that VMS should not run on x86-64.

Is that really what both of you are saying ?

BTW, before Bob comments about security (as he usually does), Linux
has mandatory access controls and other isolation options. What does
VMS have to match that ?

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.