Text 440, 111 rader
Skriven 2004-11-10 08:54:00 av Michel Samson (1:106/2000.0)
     Kommentar till en text av Stephen Hurd
Ärende: SBBS/W32 Kermit SABOTAGE
================================
Hi Stephen,

     About "SBBS/W32 Kermit SABOTAGE" in two parts of November 9:

MS> ...each...  ...was supposed to contribute with what he knew best...
SH> Not sure what the deal was...

     You should find some clues in the *1* week record i made available:

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

SH> ...I only know of two people with any real hands-on kermit...
                          ^^^^^^
     I wrote it before:  i'll discuss the `Kermit' protocol, preferably.

SH> My use of kermit...  ...faster to use something else.

     Believe me, _your_ use of `Kermit' isn't involved!  I just react to
a situation where SysOps (like Gregg Somes, for example) can't manage to
install Rob's .INI without getting `Kermit' aborts ("UnKnown FileSize");
one may also conclude you experienced no proper `Kermit' setup just yet.

SH> ...provide a useable Kermit file transfer to those people who use
SH> Kermit because they want to.  Personally, I would believe that these
SH> are the people who would have a sane Kermit...  not people using
SH> HyperTerminal for example which has a terrible Kermit...

     When Swindell wrote about `HyperTerminal' he didn't care to mention
*NUMBERS*;  the chances are he was getting below 600 cps even in a local
~TelNet~ session because he didn't say otherwise when it was on topic...

     But reality is even more complex!  We're aware that practically all
`Kermit' transfers in `HyperTerminal' are bound to crawl but i also made
comments about a very controversial information here:  when i tested the
`C-Kermit 5A(189)'/`HyperTerminal' duo side-by-side via `VSPD XP v4', it
revealed excessive errors and a failure to terminate on completion but i
observed transfer rates which went FAR BEYOND MY EXPECTATIONS (3K5 cps),
nonetheless!  I didn't have much time to invest for discovering a "magic
spell" which brings it back to life, euh...  so, `HyperTerminal' remains
unfit for `Kermit' sessions until further notice but it doesn't mean the
issue can't be solved just because i have my own limits as a human.  ;^>

SH> If HyperTerminal is their terminal of choice, it would be silly...

     Boths sides must be suitable, `MS-Kermit' for a `WilCat!' or `BBBS'
session is DECEIVING and the reverse is also true because i never got it
right when `HyperTerminal' connected to suitable remote systems, so far.

SH> ...I have a bit of resistance to providing a 7-bit slow kermit...

     It differenciates us:  i don't.  My system may be the bottleneck so
i won't say `Kermit' can reach beyond 25K7 cps but even if using Control
Character Escaping costs a lot in terms of overhead, it seems probable a
`Kermit' transfer will be better than an hesitating `ZMoDem' transfer or
none at all.  I regret no sturdy `Kermit' has been put to test just yet!

SH> ...there is no reason to use a 7-bit paranoid Kermit.

     There's even less to care about anthropomorphism over a protocol...

SH> ...I personally feel the best bet would be to have the choices
SH> something like this:  ...Compatible...  ...  ...Modern...  So the
SH> new user has a resonable chance of picking the appropriate protocol.

     Liberty of choice is a topic which does get my attention, under the
circumstances...  I've done more than my share in order to dissociate my
name from Swindell's `Kermit' setup by making `MSK.INI' self-documentary
and by addressing the problem of SysOps failing to get his configuration
to work.  The guys who would disagree to offer the whole set of `Kermit'
features as found in the `MSK' setup are left the CHOICE to only support
the BASIC configuration, i'm not liable for Rob's decision to render his
`Kermit' support restrictive and the responsability isn't mine since the
additional `Kermit' features are OPTIONAL BUT YET PROVIDED in `MSK.INI'.

     Anyway, i expect no change with `SBBS' anytime soon and i believe a
sequence such as the one you suggested wouldn't reflect reality neither.

MS> `MSK.INI' was more "Ready-Made" in 2003 than Rob's setup is now!...
SH> I didn't bother reading the .INI file at all...

     I noticed.  I confess my creterias of quality differ:  Rob pretends
he can find the FINAL answer while having lapses of inspiration on a hot
summer day, not me...  Don't bother, i'll know it if more people fail at
the task after another fifteen months but feel free to refer them to me!

SH> ...I'm wondering about users...  Could it be reduced...

     Stop wondering, Winston and i are the only `Kermit' users you heard
of, right?...  Don't expect me to add an ~APC~ remote configuration or a
"8.3" to ~LFN~ FileName reconversion mechanism in a breeze, i'm sorry if
assymetry fails to meet esthetical standards but those comments below my
"Suggested Presentation" also display when `UlProt.ASC'/`DlProt.ASC' are
used and i cared to COLOUR-diffentiate too!  See `Kermit' documentation.

     It's mission accomplished for me so i'll be leaving Borg space soon
since there's no opportunity to discuss issues related to `Protocol.LOG'
or else and you've required too much of my patience, if you ask me!  The
http://public.sogetel.net/bicephale/MSK.INI setup will remain available,
refer to it any `SBBS' SysOp (or BBSer) who requires help - if you mind.

                                                           Salutations,

                                                           Michel Samson
                                                           a/s Bicephale


... Rob's SBBS/Kermit:  spend spare-time just to prove he got it trashed
___ MultiMail/XT v0.45 - If only TelNet OLMR BBSing could be *UNIVERSAL*

--- Maximus/2 3.01
 * Origin: COMM Port OS/2 juge.com 204.89.247.1 (281) 980-9671 (1:106/2000)