• Pure DOS TelNet/Kermit

    From MICHEL SAMSON@1:379/1200 to NANCY BACKUS on Wed Oct 20 00:35:00 2004
    Hi Nancy,

    About "Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem" of October 18:

    MS} Sorry to insist... ...neither of `WildCat!' (Hector Santos) or
    MS} `BBBS' (Kim Heino) are, euh... recommended for `Kermit' support...
    ...worked just fine in Wildcat 4 and* 5, giving me the option I
    otherwise didn't have, to upload... Softwares that didn't even
    have the kermit option didn't give me any* way to do uploads.

    It's much better to have an option than no option at all and one of
    the reasons why it often happens that you don't have the `Kermit' option
    is because most people are unaware of the difference between the ARCHAIC pre-1985 implementations (as in the BBS SoftWare packages above) and the
    modern version of `Kermit'. I know how nice it is to post everything in
    *ONE* transfer operation and not need to worry - On-Line: i find that's
    a lot easier to manage correspondants, titles, areas and such when there
    is no time limit, thanks to ~OLMR~ SoftWare!!! To depend on `WC-Kermit'
    sounds familiar here too but i also recall THE PERFORMANCE WAS MEDIOCRE,
    which is why `Kermit' is so unpopular - because of pre-conceptions which 3rd-party SoftWare have fed for nearly two decades now. Acknowledge how inconvenient 90 bytes `Kermit' packets are over ~TelNet~ by sharing with
    us your cps rates compared to what Craig Healy can support on his `WC-4'
    system where a post-1993 version of `MS-Kermit' is now being used (we've
    had correspondance together over the `Kermit' installation topic)... By default, `WC-4' SysOps can UpGrade their protocol driver, `WC-5+' SysOps
    can't because `Kermit' is internal only, it's Hard-Coded and Hector will
    refuse to support the post-1985 or post-1993 `Kermit' standards since he doesn't see the incentive for it and very few customers request `Kermit' because what they see is an inferior transfer protocol! Should you wish
    to break this infernal cycle, it would make sense to warn your comrades.

    And that's not all... Even when a proper protocol driver is at use
    it doesn't mean the SysOps and BBSers are not going to see other reasons
    than cps rates to believe `Kermit' isn't "suitable"!!! `SynchroNet/W32'
    BBSes, for example, interface *LOOSELY* with `MS-Kermit' and users who'd
    try to use Wayne Warthen's `Kermit for Win-16/32 v0.85' will most likely
    have their session hanged and are at risk not to be able to return for a
    whole day (i know, i've been there!)... The consequence of this is that
    SysOps and BBSers will both be made to conclude that `Kermit' is no good protocol for ~TelNettable~ BBSes while, in fact, it's the ERROR TRAPPING
    which fails in the BBS itself - and it's a SysOp's chore to handle that.

    `MS-Kermit' does support Error Trapping (and much much more) but if
    the author/SysOp doesn't care that one of the nodes is hanged for hours,
    euh... don't you agree that this too might hurt `Kermit's reputation in
    the long run?... Really, i don't know many BBSes with reliable `Kermit' support and even less BBSes where `Kermit' may feel like DialUp `ZMoDem'
    (in terms of features and speed) in a satisfying manner. `Kermit' as it
    is supported by Hector Santos or Kim Heino is a LAST RESORT when nothing
    else works, it's a worst-case scenario while `Kermit' should be best!...

    I understand your point all to well since i once had to deal with a
    lack of alternatives myself but i prefer not to favour BBSes where there
    is improper `Kermit' support because these SysOps just mean bad press...

    Salutations, :)

    Michel Samson
    a/s Bicephale

    ... I BBS using LEGACY DOS+TCP/IP+TelNet+ZMoDem/Kermit+.QWK technologies
    -!- MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.45 - Yes, TelNet OLMR BBSing COULD be UNIVERSAL!
    --- Mail-ennium/32 v2.0-beta-r1
    * Origin: Mail-ennium/32 v2 Beta Coming Soon! (1:379/1200.0)