2 Aug
2022
2 Aug
'22
3:39 a.m.
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-DECnet-2022-Removal
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220731190646.97039-1-stephen@networkplumber.…
--
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
UK: (+44) 7939-087884 ~ Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053
2 Aug
2 Aug
8:22 a.m.
Multinet
On Tue, Aug 2, 2022, 6:46 AM Liam Proven via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-DECnet-2022-Removal
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220731190646.97039-1-stephen@networkplumber.…
--
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
UK: (+44) 7939-087884 ~ Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420)
702-829-053
11:38 a.m.
On 8/2/22 11:52 AM, Robert Armstrong via cctalk wrote:
Umm... The problem is that there are a lot more
DECnet systems than
just VMS.
Please elaborate.
I naively assumed that anything that was running DECnet was doing so to
be able to communicate with a DEC system / OS.
It sounds like you are aware of places where DECnet is being used that
doesn't involve DEC system(s) / OS(s).
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
11:42 a.m.
On Aug 2, 2022, at 2:38 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 8/2/22 11:52 AM, Robert Armstrong via cctalk wrote:
I think the context was TCP as an alternative transport, given the fading DECnet support
in Linux. And yes, that's an option for Unix and VMS, but not for a number of other
DEC operating systems that have no TCP option.
Hm, I'm reminded that someone did a TCP add-on to RSTS, that would be interesting to
examine. A tricky piece of work, given that RSTS was not at all designed to be
customer-extensible (unlike RSX and RT-11). Not even customer device drivers, let alone
anything much harder, like a whole network stack.
paul
Umm... The problem is that there are a lot more
DECnet systems than just VMS.
Please elaborate.
I naively assumed that anything that was running DECnet was doing so to be able to
communicate with a DEC system / OS.
It sounds like you are aware of places where DECnet is being used that doesn't
involve DEC system(s) / OS(s).
12:12 p.m.
On 8/2/22 12:42 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
I think the context was TCP as an alternative
transport, given the
fading DECnet support in Linux. And yes, that's an option for Unix
and VMS, but not for a number of other DEC operating systems that
have no TCP option.
Okay. I hadn't considered other DEC OSs that don't support TCP/IP.
How prevalent is the use of DEC OSs that don't support TCP/IP?
Could such use cases suffice with a non-current Linux kernel that still
includes support for DECnet?
I'm trying to understand how many installations are actually using
DECnet in Linux / how big the potential problem is / will be.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
12:56 p.m.
Grant Taylor <ctalk(a)gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net>
Okay. I hadn't considered other DEC OSs that don't support TCP/IP.
AFAIK, VMS was the only DEC operating system (well, excepting the Un*x derivatives) that
supported TCP/IP. There were several third party TCP/IP implementations for VMS (e.g.
Wollongong, CMU, Process Software, ...) and eventually DEC came out with their own
official implementation.
Johnny Bilquist has a TCP suite for RSX, but that's a recent development and was
never a DEC product.
I'm trying to understand how many installations are
actually using
DECnet in Linux / how big the potential problem is / will be.
You mean now, today, for actual real work? I have no idea, but I doubt it's very
many if any at all. There are some of us hobbyists out there though, that still use
DECnet. We even have a worldwide DECnet network tunneled over the Internet, and it's
useful for some of us to have DECnet on Linux. I have such a machine here, with Ubuntu
16.04.7LTS and ESM, kernel 4.4.0-148. I would have upgraded it, but getting some of the
user mode DECnet programs to run on later releases is problematic. Not impossible, but
tricky.
Are you part of the kernel team? I'm not really suggesting that DECnet support be
kept, although there are a few of us who would appreciate it.
Bob
1:10 p.m.
On 8/2/22 1:56 PM, Robert Armstrong via cctalk wrote:
AFAIK, VMS was the only DEC operating system (well,
excepting the
Un*x derivatives) that supported TCP/IP. There were several third
party TCP/IP implementations for VMS (e.g. Wollongong, CMU, Process
Software, ...) and eventually DEC came out with their own official
implementation.
Isn't Tru64 a DEC product? Doesn't it support TCP/IP? I assume that it
also supports DECnet.
I naively assume similar about Ultrix.
Johnny Bilquist has a TCP suite for RSX, but
that's a recent
development and was never a DEC product.
:-)
You mean now, today, for actual real work? I have no
idea, but I
doubt it's very many if any at all.
Ya, that's what I was trying to figure out.
There are some of us hobbyists out there though, that
still use DECnet.
We even have a worldwide DECnet network tunneled over the Internet,
and it's useful for some of us to have DECnet on Linux.
Understood and agreed.
I have such a machine here, with Ubuntu 16.04.7LTS and
ESM, kernel
4.4.0-148. I would have upgraded it, but getting some of the
user mode DECnet programs to run on later releases is problematic.
Not impossible, but tricky.
Please expound on what impact you would have if DECnet was removed from
the /current/ mainline kernel?
Would you stop using DECnet b/c it was removed from the kernel? Or
would you continue to use DECnet on an older kernel that still includes
support for it?
I've recently run into this with some old Token Ring hardware that I was
messing with. I did a recent install of a distro that was 15 years old
and it worked perfectly for what I needed.
Are you part of the kernel team?
Nope. I'm just some random person on the Internet that has opinions and
/ or questions that are hopefully on topic.
I'm not really suggesting that DECnet support be
kept, although there
are a few of us who would appreciate it.
I have oft wondered about using DECnet for a few different things.
Likewise with OSI and IPX. But I do think that I would be perfectly
content running things in UML w/ L2 network access and / or VMs running
old versions that still support hardware.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
2:04 p.m.
Grant Taylor <cctalk(a)gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net>
wrote:
Isn't Tru64 a DEC product?
I did say, "Excepting the Un*x derivatives"...
Would you stop using DECnet b/c it was removed from the
kernel?
Well, I wouldn't be able to upgrade that machine anymore. That wouldn’t be the end
of the world, but eventually one of two things will happen - either I'll want to run
some software thing that doesn't work with an older distro, or I'll need to
upgrade the hardware and driver support for some piece of hardware won't be available
in the older distro. Then I'll just have to quit using DECnet on Linux.
I won't quit using DECnet, of course, as I have other systems which speak only that.
I just won't be able to talk to them from Linux anymore.
Bob
12:56 p.m.
Does dropping Decnet mean the the commercial versions like Redhat and any others that you
pay support for will also lose Decnet?
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 2, 2022, at 12:12, Grant Taylor via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 8/2/22 12:42 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
I think the context was TCP as an alternative
transport, given the fading DECnet support in Linux. And yes, that's an option for
Unix and VMS, but not for a number of other DEC operating systems that have no TCP
option.
Okay. I hadn't considered other DEC OSs that don't support TCP/IP.
How prevalent is the use of DEC OSs that don't support TCP/IP?
Could such use cases suffice with a non-current Linux kernel that still includes support
for DECnet?
I'm trying to understand how many installations are actually using DECnet in Linux /
how big the potential problem is / will be.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
1:12 p.m.
On 8/2/22 1:56 PM, Wayne S via cctalk wrote:
Does dropping Decnet mean the the commercial versions
like Redhat
and any others that you pay support for will also lose Decnet?
I imagine that even commercially supported distributions will eventually
loose DECnet support. -- I don't see how they can realistically avoid it.
Red Hat is notorious for avoiding the bleeding edge and porting things
across kernel versions. So I suspect that they would have support
longer than something like Debian et al.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
1:37 p.m.
I naively assume that since Decnet is a mature product supporting it just means testing it
with new versions of Linux so not too much work is needed. If a linux distro keeps it it
adds value to that distro. So, in the future, Redhat, for example, might be the only
distro left supporting it so if you need Decnet you’ll want Redhat. This Creates a niche
market by default.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 2, 2022, at 13:12, Grant Taylor via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 8/2/22 1:56 PM, Wayne S via cctalk wrote:
Does dropping Decnet mean the the commercial
versions like Redhat and any others that you pay support for will also lose Decnet?
I imagine that even commercially supported distributions will eventually loose DECnet
support. -- I don't see how they can realistically avoid it.
Red Hat is notorious for avoiding the bleeding edge and porting things across kernel
versions. So I suspect that they would have support longer than something like Debian et
al.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
1:46 p.m.
On 8/2/22 2:37 PM, Wayne S via cctalk wrote:
I naively assume that since Decnet is a mature product
supporting
it just means testing it with new versions of Linux so not too
much work is needed. If a linux distro keeps it it adds value to
that distro.
Fair enough.
I think the problem is going to manifest itself if ~> when the kernel
changes so that it's no longer compatible with the old DECnet code and /
or there is a security problem.
The kernel is constantly moving. At some point the distance between the
contemporary kernel and the DECnet code is too great and things fail.
So, in the future, Redhat, for example, might be the
only distro
left supporting it so if you need Decnet you’ll want Redhat. This
Creates a niche market by default.
I question if there is enough demand for it to be worth Red Hat's /
etc's time and effort to do so.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
2:05 p.m.
It might not be worth it to redhat.
I wonder how many govt entities are still using DEC machines and can’t replace them
easily.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 2, 2022, at 13:47, Grant Taylor via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 8/2/22 2:37 PM, Wayne S via cctalk wrote:
I naively assume that since Decnet is a mature
product supporting it just means testing it with new versions of Linux so not too much
work is needed. If a linux distro keeps it it adds value to that distro.
Fair enough.
I think the problem is going to manifest itself if ~> when the kernel changes so that
it's no longer compatible with the old DECnet code and / or there is a security
problem.
The kernel is constantly moving. At some point the distance between the contemporary
kernel and the DECnet code is too great and things fail.
So, in the future, Redhat, for example, might be
the only distro left supporting it so if you need Decnet you’ll want Redhat. This Creates
a niche market by default.
I question if there is enough demand for it to be worth Red Hat's / etc's time
and effort to do so.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
2:43 p.m.
On Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Wayne S via cctalk wrote:
I naively assume that since Decnet is a mature product
supporting it
just means testing it with new versions of Linux so not too much work is
needed.
Someone has to do that, it doesn't happen automagically. And if not for:
It has been Orphaned in kernel since 2010.
And the documentation link on Sourceforge says it is abandoned there.
I am sure this code would be kept. We have older stuff there in the Linux
kernel (in terms of first appearance; I remember DECnet support being
contributed and it was pretty late in the game).
Step in as a maintainer and the decision might be revisited.
If a linux distro keeps it it adds value to that
distro. So, in
the future, Redhat, for example, might be the only distro left
supporting it so if you need Decnet you’ll want Redhat. This Creates a
niche market by default.
Again, someone has to be paid to maintain it. If a company sees business
justification for that, it will.
Maciej
3 Aug
3 Aug
8:04 a.m.
On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 at 21:56, Wayne S via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Does dropping Decnet mean the the commercial versions like Redhat and any others that you
pay support for will also lose Decnet?
When they eventually upgrade to that or later versions of the kernel: yes.
--
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
UK: (+44) 7939-087884 ~ Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053
4 Aug
4 Aug
1:12 p.m.
On 8/2/2022 2:12 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
I'm trying to understand how many installations are actually using
DECnet in Linux / how big the potential problem is / will be.
This becomes an actual showstopper when the most recent hardware
platform that will run the most recent Linux kernel to support DECNet
becomes impossible to maintain.
In other words you'll probably want to put your DECNet bridge system
behind a more current firewall fairly soon, but DECNet in current Linux
distributions will not stop working then it's dropped from future versions.
No offense, people, but the sky is not falling.
Doc
2:07 p.m.
On 8/4/22 2:12 PM, Doc Shipley via cctalk wrote:
This becomes an actual showstopper when the most
recent hardware
platform that will run the most recent Linux kernel to support DECNet
becomes impossible to maintain.
I'm not convinced that the inability to boot the newest kernel that
supports DECnet will be in and of itself a show stopper.
I believe it will be possible to run said kernel as a user space process
a la. User Mode Linux (arch=um) with a virtual NIC that is bridged to
the external Ethernet NIC.
There's still the possibility of running the older kernel in a VM even
when it won't run native on the hardware.
In other words you'll probably want to put your
DECNet bridge system
behind a more current firewall fairly soon, but DECNet in current
Linux distributions will not stop working then it's dropped from
future versions.
I suspect that is and has been the case for a good while. ;-)
No offense, people, but the sky is not falling.
Agreed.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
2:17 p.m.
Since dropping DECNET is just a proposal and needs to be voted on, what’s the chance the
vote will pass?
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 4, 2022, at 14:08, Grant Taylor via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 8/4/22 2:12 PM, Doc Shipley via cctalk wrote:
This becomes an actual showstopper when the most
recent hardware platform that will run the most recent Linux kernel to support DECNet
becomes impossible to maintain.
I'm not convinced that the inability to boot the newest kernel that supports DECnet
will be in and of itself a show stopper.
I believe it will be possible to run said kernel as a user space process a la. User Mode
Linux (arch=um) with a virtual NIC that is bridged to the external Ethernet NIC.
There's still the possibility of running the older kernel in a VM even when it
won't run native on the hardware.
In other words you'll probably want to put
your DECNet bridge system behind a more current firewall fairly soon, but DECNet in
current Linux distributions will not stop working then it's dropped from future
versions.
I suspect that is and has been the case for a good while. ;-)
No offense, people, but the sky is not falling.
Agreed.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
3:54 p.m.
On 8/4/22 3:17 PM, Wayne S via cctalk wrote:
Since dropping DECNET is just a proposal and needs to
be voted on,
what’s the chance the vote will pass?
I have no idea.
Though if it's being considered now, it will be considered again at some
point in the future if it's unmaintained.
If it ever becomes a blocker for other parts of the kernel, it's removal
will be expedited. Much -- as I understand it -- how Token Ring was
removed in the 4.x kernels.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
4:25 p.m.
On 04/08/2022 22:17, Wayne S via cctalk wrote:
Since dropping DECNET is just a proposal and needs to
be voted on, what’s the chance the vote will pass?
If DECnet support gets removed then it's not a big deal, in fact it may
actually be a good thing.
The last time I tried the DECnet support in the latest 4.x kernel about
a year ago it didn't work anyway. I developed a number of patches to fix
it which I never got round to submitting. I don't know if anyone else
fixed these problems in the mean time. I suspect not.
It probably wouldn't take much effort to rework this as an out-of-tree
module which could then continue to be maintained separately from the
kernel. It could also be combined with dnprogs into a single repository.
I did something similar with the long dead Linux SNA support:
https://github.com/9track/linux-sna/tree/next
This was originally a set of patches for 2.2.x kernels and I have
reworked it as an out-of-tree module for 4.x kernels. It's not currently
usable as there's still lots to do but you get the idea. It does build
and load and it was a good learning exercise.
Matt
11:31 p.m.
On 8/4/2022 4:07 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
On 8/4/22 2:12 PM, Doc Shipley via cctalk wrote:
All very true. I was just whacking at the low hanging fruit...
;-)
Doc
This becomes an actual showstopper when the most
recent hardware
platform that will run the most recent Linux kernel to support DECNet
becomes impossible to maintain.
I'm not convinced that the inability to boot the newest kernel that
supports DECnet will be in and of itself a show stopper.
I believe it will be possible to run said kernel as a user space process
a la. User Mode Linux (arch=um) with a virtual NIC that is bridged to
the external Ethernet NIC.
There's still the possibility of running the older kernel in a VM even
when it won't run native on the hardware.
5 Aug
5 Aug
7:42 a.m.
On 8/5/22 12:31 AM, Doc Shipley via cctalk wrote:
All very true. I was just whacking at the low hanging
fruit...
Whack away.
We're supposed to enjoy hobbies. Sometimes that means making fun of them.
While you're at it, will you whack some of the fruit flies in my kitchen
and moles in my yard? :-D
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
7:48 a.m.
For fruit flies in kitchen put some apple vinegar in a cup, cover it
with saran wrap, make a few small holes in it with a knife and push the
wrap into the cup (not touching the vinegar) to make a dimple.
Works perfectly.
On 8/5/2022 10:42 AM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
On 8/5/22 12:31 AM, Doc Shipley via cctalk wrote:
All very true. I was just whacking at the low
hanging fruit...
Whack away.
We're supposed to enjoy hobbies. Sometimes that means making fun of them.
While you're at it, will you whack some of the fruit flies in my kitchen
and moles in my yard? :-D
6 Aug
6 Aug
2:26 p.m.
On 8/5/2022 9:48 AM, Chris Zach via cctalk wrote:
For fruit flies in kitchen put some apple vinegar in a
cup, cover it
with saran wrap, make a few small holes in it with a knife and push the
wrap into the cup (not touching the vinegar) to make a dimple.
Works perfectly.
We use 2 parts molasses to one part apple vinegar. You don't even
need the saran wrap!
Doc
3:02 p.m.
For fruit
flies in kitchen put some apple vinegar in a cup, cover it with
saran wrap, make a few small holes in it with a knife and push the wrap
into the cup (not touching the vinegar) to make a dimple.
Works perfectly.
We use 2 parts molasses to one part apple vinegar. You
don't even need the
saran wrap!
8:43 p.m.
On 8/6/2022 5:02 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
People who have never actually tried doing it constantly claim that you
can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Yeah... You need the vinegar. Even a fly won't trust anything that's
too perfectly sweet.
Doc
For fruit flies in kitchen put some apple vinegar in a
cup, cover it
with saran wrap, make a few small holes in it with a knife and push
the wrap into the cup (not touching the vinegar) to make a dimple.
Works perfectly.
We use 2 parts molasses to one part apple vinegar. You
don't even
need the saran wrap!
7 Aug
7 Aug
2:39 a.m.
On Sun, 7 Aug 2022 at 00:02, Fred Cisin via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
People who have never actually tried doing it constantly claim that you
can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
:-D I see what you did there.
Depends on the flies, of course. I discovered it by accident. I'm a
Brit (and Irish now). We're not all that big on pickled cucumbers --
gherkins -- in the UK. A lot of people pick the slices out of their
burgers and throw them out. (We pickle lots of other vegetables,
especially onions and hard-boiled eggs, so "pickles" in British
English is a generic term for anything pickled, and we very rarely use
it because it's too vague. "The pickles aisle in the supermarket"
maybe.)
I love gherkins. Now I live in central Europe where they're big on
gherkins and they eat loads of the things. So I do, with pleasure. You
can buy *really big* jars of gherkins in ordinary supermarkets. I am
hazy on US liquid units, as I never really knew the Imperial ones and
yours are different anyway. So US ones make no sense to me, but maybe
a gallon jar, or even 2 gallon jars? 8 pints is a UK gallon but I
think 4 pints is a US gallon?
Yeah well. I bought a ?2? ?gallon? jar of gherkins. It was too big to
fit into the refrigerator. But they're pickled, right, so preserved,
so I left them out. Mistake. You *do* attract fruit flies with
vinegar. *Lots* of them. And their maggots can live in vinegar if they
are at the surface and can breathe air.
What happened to my gherkins was very _very_ nasty and I never bought
such a big jar again.
I might be able to keep a goldfish in the jar, though...
Britain's a bit cold for fruit flies. Until I moved here they were
_Drosophila melanogaster_ to me, a lab animal. The maggots' salivary
glands have some of the biggest chromosomes in nature: you can see and
count genes down an optical microscope. And a student can be taught
how to anaesthetise and sort the sexes of fruit flies using an
easy-to-use binocular microscope.
https://teachersinstitute.yale.edu/curriculum/units/1996/5/96.05.01.x.html
--
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
UK: (+44) 7939-087884 ~ Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053
10 Aug
10 Aug
5:51 p.m.
On 8/7/22 3:39 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
:-D I see what you did there.
Do you /really/? ;-)
Depends on the flies, of course. I discovered it by
accident. I'm a
Brit (and Irish now). We're not all that big on pickled cucumbers --
gherkins -- in the UK. A lot of people pick the slices out of their
burgers and throw them out. (We pickle lots of other vegetables,
especially onions and hard-boiled eggs, so "pickles" in British English
is a generic term for anything pickled, and we very rarely use it
because it's too vague. "The pickles aisle in the supermarket" maybe.)
I see / hear people use the word "pickled" as in the phrase "pickled
eggs" or whatever else has been pickled. Usually just the word
"pickles" is analogous to "pickled cucumber". But people pickle all
sort of things.
I love gherkins. Now I live in central Europe where
they're big on
gherkins and they eat loads of the things. So I do, with pleasure. You
can buy *really big* jars of gherkins in ordinary supermarkets. I
am hazy on US liquid units, as I never really knew the Imperial ones
and yours are different anyway. So US ones make no sense to me, but
maybe a gallon jar, or even 2 gallon jars? 8 pints is a UK gallon
but I think 4 pints is a US gallon?
I see things sold by Imperial liquid units and metric liquid units. We
can't forget fractions thereof either. Then there are people that sell
things by weight.
Yeah well. I bought a ?2? ?gallon? jar of gherkins. It
was too big to
fit into the refrigerator. But they're pickled, right, so preserved,
so I left them out. Mistake. You *do* attract fruit flies with
vinegar. *Lots* of them. And their maggots can live in vinegar if
they are at the surface and can breathe air.
Interesting.
What happened to my gherkins was very _very_ nasty and
I never bought
such a big jar again.
And disgusting. Though there are probably people that are into that
sort of thing. I obviously am not. They can have my share.
You /might/ have been okay, for at least a little while, if the
container had been sealed and unrefrigerated.
I might be able to keep a goldfish in the jar,
though...
Picked or not? }:-)
Britain's a bit cold for fruit flies. Until I
moved here they were
_Drosophila melanogaster_ to me, a lab animal. The maggots' salivary
glands have some of the biggest chromosomes in nature: you can see
and count genes down an optical microscope. And a student can be
taught how to anaesthetise and sort the sexes of fruit flies using
an easy-to-use binocular microscope.
To each their own. I'll be messing with old computers / networks / phones.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
2 Aug
2 Aug
1:04 p.m.
On 8/2/22 14:42, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
I know there is a (not generally available) TCP/IP for RSX but I never
saw or even heard of one for RSTS.
bill
On Aug 2, 2022, at 2:38 PM, Grant Taylor via
cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 8/2/22 11:52 AM, Robert Armstrong via cctalk wrote:
I think the context was TCP as an alternative transport, given the fading DECnet support
in Linux. And yes, that's an option for Unix and VMS, but not for a number of other
DEC operating systems that have no TCP option.
Hm, I'm reminded that someone did a TCP add-on to RSTS, that would be interesting to
examine. A tricky piece of work, given that RSTS was not at all designed to be
customer-extensible (unlike RSX and RT-11). Not even customer device drivers, let alone
anything much harder, like a whole network stack. Umm... The problem is that there are a lot more
DECnet systems than just VMS.
Please elaborate.
I naively assumed that anything that was running DECnet was doing so to be able to
communicate with a DEC system / OS.
It sounds like you are aware of places where DECnet is being used that doesn't
involve DEC system(s) / OS(s).
1:02 p.m.
On 8/2/22 14:38, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
On 8/2/22 11:52 AM, Robert Armstrong via cctalk
wrote:
As previously stated, I run DECNET on Linux in order to talk
to my DEC systems.
bill
Umm... The problem is that there are a lot more
DECnet systems than
just VMS.
Please elaborate.
I naively assumed that anything that was running DECnet was doing so to
be able to communicate with a DEC system / OS.
It sounds like you are aware of places where DECnet is being used that
doesn't involve DEC system(s) / OS(s). 
2:17 p.m.
It just sounds to me like the implementation should move to userspace. Why does it need to
be in the kernel?
-- Chris
625
days inactive
634
days old
31 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
Bill Degnan -
Bill Gunshannon -
Chris Hanson -
Chris Zach -
Doc Shipley -
Fred Cisin -
Grant Taylor -
Liam Proven -
Maciej W. Rozycki -
Matt Burke -
Paul Koning -
Robert Armstrong -
Wayne S