Slashdot Mirror
DECnet Isn't Dead
Ronald Dumsfeld writes "The odds of folks under the age of 25 on Slashdot having heard of DECnet are pretty slim. This article over at Datamation gives some insight into people who've not given up on it. Poke around and find the documentation for the OSI-compliant version, or download the Linux version of the older DECnet IV and bask in the Security Through Obscurity."
The OpenVMS implementation of TCP/IP and DECnet must be licensed seperately from the operating system. That is what they mean. The OpenVMS TCP/IP implementation costs less than the OpenVMS DECnet implementation.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
The specification, yes... The implementation, no. Last I worked on VMS, there was no "built in" TCP/IP stack. This had to be added on after the fact, usually in the form of a closed-source, proprietary implementation. (i.e. MultiNet).
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer." -Adolf Hitler
"We are one Nation, we are one People." -The One 'leader'
The coming of OSI and it's asinine 7-layer model stiltified DECnet in the 90's. I'm sure that being OSI-compliant was a big deal at the time, but nobody cares anymore. And other than crossing the t's and dotting the i's to meet some government spec at the time, nobody really wanted it.
Before OSI, DECnet was sleek, widespread, easy, and portable across many platforms.
After OSI compliance, it was sluggish, cantankerous, difficult, and verbose.
Stumbled onto a VMS/DECNet machine and want to explore a little? First try "show known nodes", and then... our friends at Phrack have a HOWTO guide, including a copy of the all-important "TELL.COM".
-Mark: (remembers VMS) && (age > 25)
Those who wished to mock VMS would say "VMS Only has two commands, SET and LOGOUT"
Sadly, SET was terribly overloaded ... SET DEFAULT was how you changed (among other things) your current working directory; logging into another host across the network was SET HOST; disabling traps in a .com file was SET NOON;
I loved VMS, not because it was a speedy lightweight OS (it was absolutely the opposite in every way) ; but it was the friendliest OS out there for the hard-core assembly language programmer, and the VAX has an architecture that makes programming in assembly a joy.
How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
I worked support for a large telecom. I started a bug report and after a couple of days of working on it to no avail, I asked how urgent this was. They said it happened about once a day and each time a few thousand calls were dropped. But no big deal, it wasn't TOO urgent, and I could get to it when I wanted. I was stunned.
As a user of the linux decnet stack, I would say the Linux decnet stack works pretty well for talking to old VAXen. There are still places with old VAX computer embedded in equipment that would take millions to replace. The Navy is using Charon VAX http://www.softresint.com/charon-vax/ in some places to keep from having to replace the attached hardware. SIMH http://simh.trailing-edge.com/ works very well for emulating a vax, but is software only. A vax emulation running on SIMH on linux can talk decnet, and so can the linux machine it runs on. However, because DECNET sets the mac address as the decnet address, the Linux's decnet can't talk to the SIMH running on it. So, I had to put tcp/ip on the simulator to get them to talk. It would be nice if Linux's emulator could set it's mac address at runtime, and have several, so it could to the routing, and talk to the SIMH emulator, but it isn't possible now.
Ol' Rick Dawson had a farm EIEIO
It's the story of the invention of the then-modern VAX system in the late 1970s. Guess what, they used emulation technology, just like VMWare et al.
No, it's the story of Data General's first 32-bit minicomputer that competed with the VAX. There's a part in it where the project manager sneaks into a customer's machine room to open the VAX and note how many of each chip it uses, so they could figure out if they could still compete on price using the new PAL chips. And after the Eagle is released, the benchmarks show it to be close to VAX (I think faster on integer but slightly slower on floating point), and they are elated that they made it on such a brand-new design.
Great book.
The point of that was that new hardware is so much faster than anything made in the '70s that you can get massive redundancy and a huge performance increase - there's not really a tradeoff. Suppose that one current server (I never said anything about desktops) can outperform a whole VAX cluster, which is very likely to be true. Put 10 of them in a redundant parallel system and I'm sure you can get the same reliability as the VAX setup.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
It was the story of Data General's response to the VAX. DG saw the VAX as a 32 machine with 16 bit support (PDP-11 support) hanging off the side. DG wanted to extend their existing 16 bit technology naturally to 32 bits. They did it too.
DG was better technology, but the VAX was beautiful. VMS was a joy.
Very entertaining book, if a bit dramatized. It's the story of the invention of the then-modern VAX system in the late 1970s. Guess what, they used emulation technology, just like VMWare et al. Required reading in my college 15 years ago.
Heh, then you were high in college. The company was Data General and they were making a VAX competitor...
toresbe
In an attempt to satisfy the federal government, DEC actually implemented the OSI reference model. The whole bloody thing, as documented by the model itself, which is how the world found out it is a bad idea.
I've installed it. I've used it. I remember the whole GOSIP debacle. I remember ripping it out by the roots and reinstalling DECnet Phase IV - which was excellent, although a bit bursty on low bandwidth links.
Excellent question! Piddling little things like performance
and does-my-router-know-it aside, the DECNet wasn't
just a protocol, it was an enhanced user experience.
Instead of just transferring files, you could refer to a
file on a foreign computer by name (a facility similar
to our DNS (domain name system)). The network access
was transparent.
So, every file open of "file" opened the file in your
current default directory.
Open "directory/file" and you can get the file in a subdirectory
Open "disk:directory/file" and you get the file on a specific
rooted filesystem (other disk drive, usually)
And, open "outofstate::disk:directory/file" and you have
access to any known node (other computer) whose disk
and directory are readable (permitted) through the network.
The beauty of it is, there's no need to recompile the program,
just to feed it the string (filename and other info all go into
the same OPEN command).
Everyone using the internet with named URLs (universal
resource locators) and DNS (domain name service) has
similar capabilities nowadays, but DECNet users had it
two decades ago. And they had it in ALL cases of file
access. You could tell the help utility to read
helpfiles from Stanford's SSRL physics lab, or tell the
print output to go to a teletype in Maine.
And DECNet used (originally) mainly LAT networking protocols,
not TCP/IP, because it predates the internet; I have a short
stack of LAT network boxes that don't know TCP/IP, but
they'd be hard to replace this week (and they're all 10base2 or
somesuch, which is another issue...). There's nothing
intrinsically LAT-based about the DECNET, it's just the
historically original pairing; I presume DECNet and TCP/IP
are mainly cooperative these days.
And with "proxy" access defined on the remote node, you didn't even have to supply a username and password (to access a file on a remote system). The remote system would recognize the DECnet node you were coming from and your account, and then grant you access.
Logical names. Migawd, Logical Names! I would crawl through broken glass to have logical names implemented on a Windows or *Nix machine today. Symbol subtitution isn't. Shortcuts aren't. But to be able to specify a path with a logical name, then completely forget about it until you need to swap locations with a single tiny change, ahh.... nirvana. Define Disk1 decnetnode::somediskunit:[somepath.or.other.] and refer to disk1 from then on. Rich option set. Massive changes via tiny leetle edits.
But I digress...(nap...)
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
>"Christian" doesn't mean following the rules you like, and ignoring the ones you don't. Many people like to call themselves Christians and ignore the rules, but that's completely different.
Try telling that to the Protestant sects, or the Greek Orthodox, or the Coptics.. "The rules" differ based on what translations of the bible, and which theological interpretations you accept. There are still disagreements about which ones you have to follow. This is why you have Modern Pharisees (a.k.a. fundies) always trying to reintroduce one or two laws from the Torah that they like, mostly ones that can be used as a cudgel, while they casually violate dozens of laws they don't find useful. Yet they claim the whole bible to be absolute and immutable!
The Old Testament Law says things like "homosexuals should be killed" and "people who eat lobster should be killed" and "people who wear blended fabrics should be killed". These laws do not apply to Christians, however. (Extra credit: Ask your local sects' priests for explanations as to why, and count how many answers you get. There are several correct answers. If, however, he says they do apply and starts talking about the evils of gaiety, you've spotted your local Pharisee.)
The truth is no one can get into heaven by trying to follow the whole of the Law. Humans are too frail and the law too strict! So what to do, who to listen to? Priests? Philosophers? Theologians? Well, it just so happens Jesus "picks and chooses" for you: Matthew 19:17-19
I have no problem with creimer's view, because he is doing what he wants to do. You, however, have insulted me as well as the intelligence and dedication of many people.
Get you unfounded dogma off of public places. Or, put your money where your mouth is, and prove what you just said.
I'll bet you $100 (no kidding) that you can't defend your position with passages (not just quotes) from the Bible. And, for an even easier bet for you, I'll bet you $1 and let you defend your statement with any Christian references you want to use, even modern works. Bear in mind, I'll use my own references to rebut. You won't even win $1, my Christian friend, because you can't.
And while we're on the way offtopic subject of ignoring rules, at what point did you decide that the rules in the Old Testament didn't apply to Christians? Did you read it between the lines?
Or maybe you should spend your time thinking for yourself, instead of blindly following rules set down by people almost a thousand years ago. You're certainly not following the path of the original Christian church, but instead agreeing with the statements made during the Middle Ages, for two reasons.
First of all, you're not going to find anything about a prophet or Christ demanding virginity. Virginity was not an issue so much until the Middle Ages, for various reasons. Why don't you read some history? It could help your outlook on life.
Second of all, what you will find, if you check the original Hebrew and Greek, is that Jesus, an unmarried man, had sex, as did at least one of his disciples. Was it okay for them, but not you? Were times different then?
Playing pornographics games during the day is evil! Play at night!