🚀 go-pugleaf

To all who use VMS & ultrix every day (include me),

	Why hasn't DEC offered a fully-featureded DECnet for ultrix?

What I've heard: 
	(a) DEC: 'usually there is a VMS node around, so if you need
		full routing capability, you can use it.  If you need
		full routing from your ultrix host, you have tc/ip' - 
		customer support in Mass, OCT '86.
	
	(b) The VMS-only systems types say: 'unix can't pedal that fast,
		since its not written in assembler, like VMS; So unix
		*can't* support full routing DECnet'

My theories:
	(a) unix was designed to support networking of any sort, where
		VMS was not, so that the relative load of any given
		networking scheme (e.g. DECnet) would more burden VMS
		than unix.
	(b) DEC seems to be displaying a poor commitment to its unix/ultrix
		users by not offering full DECnet for ultrix - perhaps
		a marketing decision was made to discourage ultrix use
		by offering low-quality networking software, thus selling
		more VMS ... perhaps making support easier, since you have
		95% of resources (people) in one area, instead of two...
		DEC offers many operating systems, so why is ultrix not
		just another? (even RSX-11M+ has full DECnet (PDP-11), but
		not ultrix-11 or ultrix-32)...

Configuration: 8650 Ultrix-32 V1.2 on ethernet/DECnet to local 3-node
	VMS cluster, on CCnet (a DECnet with ~400 nodes).

	What's a good guess as to the real reason?
	How can I refute the opinion that 'unix can't pedal fast enough'
to support DECnet?
	References to the literature would be appreciated, and I will
summarize my work and users' responses to the net.

						-Dave
David P. Lithgow		Sr. Systems Analy./Pgmr., Univ. of Pittsburgh
USENET:  {allegra,bellcore,ihpn4!cadre,decvax!idis,psuvax1}!pitt!cisunx!dpl
CCnet(DECnet): CISVM{123}::DPL,CISVXO::DPL (I admit it: I'm a unix and VMS) 
Bitnet(Jnet):  psuvax1!dpl@pittvms.bitnet    ( systems programmer too)
ARPA: (via UUCP) pitt!cisunx!dpl@cadre.arpa
ARPA: (via Bitnet) DPL%PITTVMS.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
CSNET: dpl%pitt@csnet-relay