Text 336, 110 rader
Skriven 2004-11-09 13:11:00 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 8:

SH> ...pointing out and correcting any misinformation...
MS> ...you and your guru remain consistently silent relatively to the
MS> VERY WEAK INTERFACE between `SynchroNet' and `MS-Kermit'...
MS> ...misinformation?  ...I ASKED FOR LESS INTERFERENCE...  I couldn't
MS> avoid the need for an UpDate since at least two SysOps complained
MS> about Rob's setup lately, not to mention the BBSers...
SH> I still fail to see how including a setup that happens to do the
SH> job (ie:  transfer files) using Kermit is a form of sabotage.
MS> I already explained where the sabotage is:  `Hyper-Terminal'...
MS> ...can make `Kermit' transfers at least twenty-six times slower...
MS> ...Wayne Warthen's `Kermit for `Win-16/32'...  ...just hangs the
MS> session and reveals how *WEAK* `SBBS's *INTERFACE* to external
MS> (`Kermit') protocol drivers can be!  ...SABOTAGE...
SH> 1) Hyperterminal does kermit poorly.

     Right, the reference to MicroSoft only confirmed how archaic it is.

SH> 2) Wayne Warthen's "Kermit for Win-16/32" does not interoperate
SH> correctly with some other unspecified kermit implementation.

     Yes and no...  The other implementation is well identified as there
was no `SBBS/W32' testing with an external file-transfer protocol driver
other than `MS-Kermit';  it only seems appropriate to compensate for the
lack of versatility in `WWKfW-16/32' by using a proper *BBS SIDE* setup.

SH> 3) Because of these facts, Rob has shown himself to be purposely
SH> breaking "kermit" because the interface is somehow "weak".

     Wrong, he's been warned of the consequences of rejecting my .INI on
1st sight and hence his decision made him responsible for disabling some
of the `Kermit' features - SysOps & BBSers *DID* complain because of his
own draft, nonetheless...  I also informed him that hanged sessions fail
to be detected (the "CARRIER" signal may be stuck), that message-pointer
UpDating may be wrong and/or that users are at risk to be kept out of an
`SBBS' system for a day.  This matter of a weak external protocol-driver
interface only makes things worst as he won't even try to address it but
`Kermit' was made crippled because of "fluff" he has rejected, actually.

SH> It's well know that Hyperterminals Kermit...  ...frankly sucks.

     That's because a BBSer simply can't access his `Kermit' parameters.

SH> Every other protocol implemented in Hyterminal works better...

     That may be true now but i observed a strange improvement using the
old `OS/2' version with `VSPD XP v4' in a `W32' DOS box, to be honest...

     It reminds me that someone commented about old stuff working better
when mixed together, a long time ago (`C-Kermit v5A(189)' is from 1993).

SH> I have no data on Wayne Warthen's implementation.  I ignore anything
SH> I'm not interested in arguing about...  Learn to deal with it.
                          ^^^^^^^
     I can't expect excuses for your sustained objections, you mean?!...

     Preliminary tests shown it can fly at over 25K7 cps (and my limited
HardWare/SoftWare may be causing a slow-down).  It's a mid-nineties 3rd-
party version where the `Kermit' packet-size is a thousand bytes at best
but which also happens to support Type 3 ~CRC~ error detection/handling.

MS> Rob Swindell FORCED eventual `Kermit' users to run $hareWare...
SH> ...MS-Kermit comes without any documentation whatsoever...
MS> I'm the one who'll do misinformation?  And topic steering perhaps?!
SH> I'm still waiting to hear exactly what "$hareWare" Rob is "forcing"
SH> sysops to use.
MS> Forcing who!? 
SH> I'm not sure exactly what you mean by accusing me of topic
SH> steering...  I talk about things which interest me...

     When i wrote about "`Kermit' users" you argued about documentation,
when i reminded you that the documentation is available you made it look
like i had wrote something about forcing SysOps.  I'm allergic to what i
call systematic topic obstruction or steering since little will come out
of it, usually.  I just notice nothing significant emerged in your case.

SH> Mostly, this is because I'm not being paid to talk to you.

     Hummm...  Sounds like deja vu - you must have seen my post to Andy!

SH> The interference which you ask Rob to stop consists of including...
                                                           ^^^^^^^^^
     Bad guess again:  it consists in REJECTING the contribution of many
users and SysOps who worked together before he posed as the only expert.

SH> ...gives you the opportunity to tell...  ...here's how you fix it...

     I already submitted my .INI to the attention of `SynchroNet' SysOps
many times, including Gregg Somes ("SBBS/W32 Kermit install", October 3)
who had a peculiar/typical `DoveNet' way to express his appreciation!...

SH> Time after time...  Your goal as the kermit evangelist is...

     Here it goes again about evangelism!!!  Well, you fail to take note
that going back to the "Send" command DISABLES Transfer Recovery, that a
few more retries make `Kermit' aborts SLOWER, that it's about Rob's ego-
trip and that the preaching is when he mocks users on sites HE controls.

                                                           Salutations,

                                                           Michel Samson
                                                           a/s Bicephale


... Rob's SBBS/Kermit:  spend spare-time just to find out why his sucks!
--- MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.45 - Who will make TelNet OLMR BBSing UNIVERSAL?
 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-6036 (1:10/345)