Text 144, 128 rader
Skriven 2004-09-28 09:00:00 av MICHEL SAMSON (1:10/345)
     Kommentar till en text av MAURICE KINAL
Ärende: BBBS UpLoad
===================
Hi Maurice,

     About "BBBS UpLoad" of September 27:

MS> ...`BBBS-Kermit' and `WC-Kermit' are...  PRACTICALLY USELESS!
MK> Have you tried them?

     Yes, of course i have or such affirmative statement would have been
unjustifiable on my part!  ;-)  I tried transfers using `Kermit' BOTH on
`BBBS' and `WildCat!'.  Since `BBBS-Kermit' and `WC-Kermit' both failed,
i also made contact with the authors - both of them.  When my story came
to the attention of Warren Hrach, euh...  he invited me to try `Kermit',
(again) despite that there were no UpDate one might have heard of, ever!

     It turns out that i complied, obtained ludicrous results and, after
i made the comment that Warren's insistance about retrying `BBBS-Kermit'
only served to make me loose my time, euh...  flames filled the echo for
a month!  So, yes...  I do recall about trying it, as one might imagine.

                                  ;->

MK> I can't say I have so I have absolutely no idea if it works or not.

     I won't pretend there's anything wrong with you.  :)  No later than
this summer, Shannon Talley was informing me that 82% of his .QWK BBSers
were using the ~WEB~ interface (and that all of those who still used the
~TelNet~ client depended on `ZMoDem', not `Kermit')...  In his reply, he
exposed the fact that only newbies try `WC-Kermit', euh...  and that's a
one-time event or he would have mentioned that i wasn't alone to ask for
it.  %-)  Even when `ZMoDem' fails and the victim is able to find a nice
~TelNet~ client with decent `Kermit' support, euh...  the poor guy won't
get satisfaction from using `WC-Kermit' because it's just like SABOTAGE!

     Shannon concluded:  "the only time I see someone use kermit is when
they are new and really don't know what they are doing" - and i can only
accept this particularily sound statement, given the circumstances!  %-)

     `FidoTel' is where i was able to have `WC-Kermit' removed (hidden),
if i'm not mistaking.  Anyone who's interrested should ask him how to...

MK> I do know that zmodem on a plain-Jane telnet session does not work,
MK> or at least never used to when I bothered trying it last.

     Yes, that's another frustration the LEGACY BBS users are facing.  I
have tried `ZMoDem' via ~TelNet~ often enough to be aware that it can be
giving random results depending on what connection types the two parties
are using and what HardWare/SoftWare configurations they happen to have.

                                  %-(

     Usually, `WC-ZMoDem' works relatively well (despite a drop in speed
which is due to REPEATED ERRORS - and that's exactly why `Kermit' has an
edge over it, by the way)...  As far as i'm concerned, i got a mix which
closely matches my humble needs so i guess i must consider myself lucky!

                                  ;-)

MK> The situation here is that unless I install their BBS software on a
MK> machine there is none I can connect with to try it out.  Given the
MK> nonexistance of DOS boxes, and the fact I don't care much for BBBS
MK> due to it doing too much of what I'd rather do for myself (I can say
MK> this about all BBS software I have seen thus far), then the
MK> likelihood of testing sits at nil at the moment.

     I refuse to install proprietary clients (i simply give up) when the
BBS's files are innaccessible for a failure to stick to some established
standards like `ZMoDem' or `Kermit'...  Your position is understandable.

MK> ...I have tried kermit and can honestly say it works fine...

     My impression is that it worked because you went to the source then
installed one of Columbia's OFFICIAL `Kermit' packages on BOTH ends.  In
the average ~TelNet~ terminal `Kermit' is useless and, even if it's not,
chances are the other end's corresponding transfer protocol is crippled.

     A typical newbie will be out of luck as no distinction between 3rd-
party and genuine code seems to be made in `BBBS' or `WC!' - which means
more anti-`Kermit' preconceptions.  Some crutial information is missing,
that's why `Kermit' is a matter of luck unless one knows what he does!!!

MK> ...I'd imagine the programmers you mention have no interest in
MK> having kermit working properly.  Simple economics I would imagine.

     I testify that THEY DON'T or, to the least, they didn't when i made
contact with them.  Most SysOps never heard about the severe limitations
of 3rd-party pre-1985 code, they can't suspect that a performant version
of the protocol even exists!...  :(  These persons don't fail to mention
that `Kermit' support is included in their SoftWare but, if you complain
about it, well...  you'll be told how "marginal" it has become!  8-o  In
reality, it's unpopular because they got it crippled in the 1st place!!!

     These guys get negative feedback in return, naturally, which simply
justifies that `Kermit' is left "as is".  Convenient, isn't it?!  Not to
mention that, should one author want to UpDate his `Kermit', it might be
difficult to manage with author right$ owned by Columbia:  i believe the
`Kermit' team, at Columbia, would confirm that they got tired of all the
requests to fix CrippleWare which was 3rd-party, actually.  So, early in
`Kermit's history (the `Kermit' project started around '81) they decided
to make `Kermit' *FREE* but it remains under CopyRight Law protection...

     The suitable solution on `DOS' or `Win-16/32' systems with ~FOSSIL~
support is to install `MS-Kermit' as an external protocol driver.  There
was a lack of fund$ when the `Windows' frenzy arrived so Wayne Warthen's
`Kermit for Win-16/32' is the only free client for the `Windows' BBSers;
`COM/IP' makes `MS-Kermit' work but `COM/IP' is $hareWare just as `K95',
the `W32' `Kermit' ver$ion.  Finally, `C-Kermit' is available at no cost
to Linuxies and only needs configuration so lets spread the good news!!!

                                  ;-)

                                     Salutations, 

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


P.S.:  If `WC!' had been made to accept `MS-Kermit', a decade ago, there
       would be no whining because `ZMoDem' via ~TelNet~ isn't reliable:
       our community would have shifted to `Kermit' and Shannon Talley's
       ~WEB~ fans would amount to much less than 82% of his users!  It's
       hard to blame the Columbia guys because SysOps (or BBSers) happen
       to be dependent on internal support, too bad i can only wonder!!!


... I BBS using LEGACY DOS+TCP/IP+TelNet+ZMoDem/Kermit+.QWK technologies
--- MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.45 - Help TelNet OLMR BBSing to become UNIVERSAL
 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-6036 (1:10/345)