Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!GRIN1.BITNET!MCGUIRE
From: MCGUIRE@GRIN1.BITNET ("The Sysco Kid ", McGuire,Ed)
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: Press Release
Message-ID: <8808022044.AA10894@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Date: 27 Jul 88 16:47:26 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 26

Digital's track record in multivendor networking is poor.  If Digital is
committed to being the hub of multivendor networking, why should I blame the
other vendors for this problem?  I simply don't believe Digital is committed to
multivendor networking except where it is forced into it by the presence of
IBM.  Standardization is the future solution, but Digital has no solutions for
us in the present.

At Grinnell, our most important multivendor application is electronic mail.
Digital's flagship electronic mail system for VMS (Message Router/MailBus) is
supported by none of the other vendors our equipment is connected to.

If Digital were committed to multivendor networking, it would say `we support
the industry standard protocols that you use.'  Instead it says `we support our
own nonstandard protocol but you can buy a development package from us and
write your own link to our nonstandard software.'

We're using TCP/IP and SMTP today.  We're using NJE and RSCS today.  OSI?  Oh,
Still Incomplete.  ISDN?  I Still Don't Know.

Marketing Wollongong's TCP/IP is not a solution.  It doesn't work well with
DECnet or Message Router.  It's no good to have all the pieces if none of them
work together.  It's not enough for Digital to market SNA Gateway.  How many
VMS nodes on BITNET are interconnected using SNA?  Why should I depend upon
Joiner Associates for Message Router support in Jnet/NJE?  The real problem is
that Digital doesn't have any product.

Ed