Text 141, 92 rader
Skriven 2004-09-27 10:32:00 av MICHEL SAMSON (1:10/345)
     Kommentar till en text av ANDY ALT
Ärende: BBBS UpLoad
===================
Hi Andy,

     About "BBBS upload" of September 25 and 26:

AA> ...ever been on a BBS running BBBS software?  Even though I'm well
AA> aware of your feelings about zmodem, I just wanted to follow up...
MK> I never tried that.  ...never could get zmodem working...  Have you
MK> tried kermit?  I am thinking that would be the best...
AA> Kermit runs too slow.  I still use the Wildcat! BBS...
MK> No it doesn't.  Not a Linux BBS, right?
AA> ...using ckermit...  It was painfully and significantly slower.  I
AA> can use zmodem...  And I can upload at the max speed...

     I've been able to evaluate the potential of `Kermit' for many years
and, when i hear of BBSers who are willing to do the same by themselves,
i feel the urge to save them some frustration.  In my opinion, Kim Heino
and Hector Santos (owners of `BBBS' and `WildCat!', respectively) simply
can't tell why such archaic code remains in their SoftWare!  MouHa!  Ha!

                                %-b,  ))

     I notice `ZMoDem' works for you so i suppose it doesn't matter much
if i must concur that `Kermit' should work great - if not better, euh...
but `BBBS-Kermit' and `WC-Kermit' are 3rd-party pre-1985 implementations
which happen to be obsolete enough to consider them PRACTICALLY USELESS!

                                  %-o

     Now, allow me to insert a side-note before we go any further...  As
you continue this reading, i'll seem to share opinions with your present
correspondant but don't get me wrong:  my intent isn't to take sides and
interfere just for the fun of it, nor will the following imply that your
statement about `Kermit' running "slow" was meant to mislead the rest of
us;  i'm sorry if i sound extra cautious, i only wish to avoid confusion
in this echo as users here may be tempted to question my contribution...

                                   :)

     Let me explain to the best of my abilities.  Some of us heard about
the real `Kermit' but the average BBSer only makes contact with `Kermit'
thru versions (implementations) which i'd call worthless...  The authors
stay quiet about this significant aspect, very few SysOps care to remind
the community that `Kermit's failures on `BBBS'/`WC!' are DECEIVING, and
the BBSers even less.  These days, ~WEB~ interfacing is what gets pushed
forward, after all...  So, under the circomstances, an adventurous BBSer
is bound to quickly conclude that `Kermit' isn't worth a 2nd thought but
that's a mistake - hence the urge to set things straight:  this negative
reinforcement (read SABOTAGE) keeps going on and it should be stopped!!!

      By chance, the anti-`Kermit' preconceptions from our BBS world did
spare a few minds...  It seems like no 3rd-party CrippleWare was able to
fool NASA's folks before they asked Joe R. Doupnik to release a build of
`MS-Kermit' for use in space.  8-)  Indeed, `Kermit' is that good but we
never get this sort of untold story about up-to-date transfer protocols.

                                  ;^)

     DOS is one OS where it seems particularily satisfying when `Kermit'
is an option (`ZMoDem' was never really made to work well via ~TelNet~);
under `Linux', evaluation of `C-Kermit' becomes a possibility, given the
user has access to suitable BILATERAL `Kermit' support...  Honestly, you
got to visit juge.com and/or guest.sailor.lib.md.us if, in some way, the
facts revealed here could make you want to acquire additional experience
of `Kermit'!!!  `ZMoDem' is speed-optimized for DialUp connections while
Columbia's genuine `Kermit' SoftWare focusses on maintaining reliability
under a variety of environments, it will take you some .INI revisions if
speed is the key feature on which to compare the protocols but i can try
to help with that (i've got a few .INIs published since January 2000 and
i also work on SysOp "Ready-Made" kits when cooperation from a `Maximus'
(OS/2) or `SynchroNet' (W32/Linux) BBS SysOp happens to be available) so
don't hesitate to point me at any system where `Kermit' is being tested!

                                  8^)

     I can already suggest, from your previous post, that you revise the
configuration-file(s) in order to get an idea of `Kermit's potential;  i
don't suppose it's Off-Topic to mention that, in the case of `C-Kermit',
one would edit `CKermit.INI', and perhaps `CKerMod.INI' too...  Sorry to
intevein but i had to when i read about `Kermit' failing on `BBBS'/`WC!'
systems.  %-)  I convinced at least one `WC!' SysOp to remove the broken
`Kermit' option so far, `WC-Kermit' can't be fixed but it can be hidden!

                                    Salutations,  ;-)

                                    Michel Samson
                                    a/s Bicephale
                                    http://public.sogetel.net/bicephale/


... DOS+TCP/IP+TelNet+ZMoDem/Kermit+.QWK technologies on 8088s or higher
--- MultiMail/XT v0.45 - Numbers might make BBSing UNIVERSAL, not sugar!
 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-6036 (1:10/345)