Text 322, 110 rader
Skriven 2004-11-05 08:06:00 av MICHEL SAMSON (1:10/345)
     Kommentar till en text av STEPHEN HURD
Ärende: SBBS/W32 Kermit SABOTAGE
================================
Hi Stephen,

     About "SBBS/W32 Kermit SABOTAGE" of November 4:

SH> Support for a platform has to come from users of that platform.  
SH> However, he seems to want a free utility for DOS...   ...the only
SH> free one he could find that handles telnet is Kermit, he then rips
SH} into myself and DigitalMan   for not supporting it   in Synchronet.
MS> ...i REPEAT, the `MS-Kermit' terminal is OK on `SBBS'...  ...`MS-
MS> Kermit' is free but few newbies would know how to use it, i believe;
MS> Wayne Warthen's `Kermit for Win-16/32' is free too but there was a
MS> major issue, the last time i was able to try it on `SBBS' systems...
MS> Rob Swindell FORCED eventual `Kermit' users to run $hareWare, which
MS> isn't a suitable way to promote it as an alternative to `ZMoDem'...
SH> ...MS-Kermit comes without any documentation whatsoever, and the
SH> manual costs something on the order of $45 US.

     This text is taken from the .INI you managed not to read all along:

------------------------[ http://public.sogetel.net/bicephale/MSK.INI ]-
;         ftp://kermit.columbia.edu/kermit/archives/msk314.zip
>          (677 Kb, November 7, 2002 - updated documentation)
                                             .-^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     Here's a tip, look for the magic word:  "DOCUMENTATION"!  Regarding
any book which is meant to $upport "The Team", i bought mine without any
obligation;  i NEVER use it for `Kermit' references so it's buried deep.

SH> My goal isn't to promote Kermit as an alternative to ZModem, it's to
SH> support kermit users who for some reason cannot use ZModem.  
SH> ...Kermit isn't a usefull alternative to ZModem for BBS use...

     It explains why you ignore that only `Zap-O-Com' work$ by now.  But
wait, does the nuanced sentence imply that i want `Kermit' to take over?
Well, it says it all!...  You guys want to pose as decent people when an
information, directly from the source, gets distorted even when it's put
under your nose!  `Kermit' as installed on `SBBS' is plain *SABOTAGE*...

SH> ...MS gets mad at DM and I for moving to existing standards and
SH} not supporting...  ...outdated non-standards...
MS> `MS-Kermit' is as standard as it can get...  ...my DOS setup gets me
MS> `Kermit' transfers as good as 13 Kcps - compared to 4-5 Kpcs...  
MS} I don't request your support, i provide my own!  Fifteen months have
MS> just past and they add to years of indifference (a decade!) during
MS> which `MS-KERMIT' WAS READY FOR ~TELNET~ ALL ALONG...  All you had
MS> to do was to read and wonder why my setup is like this:  ...MSK.INI
SH> ...MS-Kermit doesn't run on ANY of the systems comprising my BBS
SH} ...FreeBSD, Linux...  ...NetBSD, and OpenBSD...

     Perhaps if you had read `MSK.INI' and paid attention to my 1st line
you would have noticed that it says:  "`SBBS/W32' support for `Kermit'"!
                                             ^^^
SH> Vert, the OFFICIAL Synchronet BBS includes one Linux system...
SH> again, for some odd reason, MS-Kermit fails to run correctly.

     You mean you expect DOS SoftWare to work perfectly in `Linux'?  %-o

     I suppose a visit to Columbia's site could help:  the part where it
says `MS-Kermit' is for DOS is true...  Using it elsewhere is an option,
don't hurt your head if it happens that `MS-Kermit' won't do for you;  i
see nothing strange in the fact that you require a proper `BSD' flavour!

SH> I am interested however in pointing out and correcting any
SH> misinformation you accidently or purposely post.

     Let me guess, "misinformation" like bragging in public about a lack
of support for `MS-Kermit' when even *MY* numbers say otherwise?!  Well,
you can pretend that some sentences of mine aren't clear, like Andy Ball
did lately, but my posts are lengthy and there are enough of them for an
average objective reader not to put words in my mouth which are just the
opposite of what i express!!!  I can't but notice that you and your guru
remain consistently silent relatively to the VERY WEAK INTERFACE between
`SynchroNet' and `MS-Kermit' (on `SBBS/W32' BBS systems, mind you)!  %-b

     You guys correcting misinformation?  Here's where it goes DownHill!

                                  8-)

     The farce is when you confess you intervein just because you've got
bored.  Forget about the problem of finding a good ~IPv6~ stack for DOS,
decades of `Kermit' pre-conceptions in your SysOp world should be enough
to thrive on controversy for two additional decades...  MouHa!  Ha!  Ha!

                                8,-D  ))

     The deal has always been for a SysOp to provide me with information
about his BBS system since it's what he knows best and, once interfacing
with `Kermit' is done properly, to let ME handle any `Kermit' adjustment
which testing proves to be necessary.  I rely on no subjetive criterias,
like "fluff" or any other exotic concepts;  i need numbers, cps figures.

     Want to discuss about real misinformation?  Like when you argue i'm
expecting hours of work from you and I ASKED FOR LESS INTERFERENCE?  Try
this record collection - or read from Rob's BBS if he didn't erase this:

          http://public.sogetel.net/bicephale/Vert-801.QWK.ZIP  (284 Kb)

     I have ignored Rob Swindell's `Kermit' SABOTAGE for over a year, in
hope the situation would improve somehow.  I couldn't avoid the need for
an UpDate since at least two SysOps complained about Rob's setup lately,
not to mention the BBSers who are completely mystified by this SABOTAGE.

                                                           Salutations,

                                                           Michel Samson
                                                           a/s Bicephale


... Rob's SBBS/Kermit:  spend spare-time just to prove he went DownHill!
--- MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.45 - Trying to make TelNet OLMR BBSing UNIVERSAL
 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-6036 (1:10/345)