Text 147, 110 rader
Skriven 2004-09-29 09:13:00 av MICHEL SAMSON (1:10/345)
     Kommentar till en text av MAURICE KINAL
Ärende: BBBS UpLoad
===================
Hi Maurice,

     About "BBBS UpLoad" of September 28:

MS> ...`BBBS-Kermit' and `WC-Kermit' are...  PRACTICALLY USELESS!
MK> Have you tried them?
MS> ...Warren Hrach, euh...  he invited me to try `Kermit', (again)...
MS> flames filled the echo for a month!  So, yes...  I do recall...
MK} ...now that you mention it.  I also recall backing you up...

     I remember hostilities from all sides but vaguely.  I had forgot it
but the human in me must have welcomed background support though...  ;-)

MK> I can't say I have so I have absolutely no idea if it works or not.
MS> No later than this summer, Shannon Talley was informing me that 82%
MS> of his .QWK BBSers were using the ~WEB~ interface...
MK> No surprises there.

     We'll watch TV on NetWork-ready sets, eventually, but lets keep the
old ones in the meantime...  I think the same of ~WEB~/~OLMR~ interfaces
which will make `Kermit' totally obsolete, if one can be patient enough,
euh...  How many more years would you say our hobby is going to last?  I
wonder if my old TV set might require a replacement before NetWork Video
and its future infra-structures are of as much quality as `Kermit'!  8->

     What i'm saying is that i favour inclusion:  some of us can push on
newer technologies while others BBS using HardWare/SoftWare which served
them well.  I keep thinking `Kermit' was ~TelNet~-ready a decade ago so,
i bet on its maturity - also, i'd rather not rely on Error Detection and
Correction done elsewhere!  :>  ~WEB~/~OLMR~ interfaces aren't my cup of
tea, i guess it's my turn to Sit & Wait while it gets fixed.  I know you
wouldn't imply that i must change but i saw an opportunity to write that
i favour protocols like `ZMoDem'/`Kermit' since these can help to reduce
the risk of false message-pointer UpDates, if used correctly.  Thanks!!!

                                  P-)

MS> Shannon concluded:  "the only time I see someone use kermit is when
MS> they are new and really don't know what they are doing"...
MK> He should explain that to NASA and other scientific/engineering
MK> types.  Perhaps he could sell them on zmodem.  ...flakey for sure.

     No human is shielded against mistakes.  %-)  The authors of our BBS
community failed to develop a durable solution for the ~TelNet~/`ZMoDem'
problem but the worst issue of all isn't technical...  :>  A lost cause!

MK> ...flakey...  ...everything that follows isn't worth the bytes...

     I'm not ready to conclude that ~TelNet~ and `ZMoDem' are faulty but
it's clear few authors can make ~TelNet~+`ZMoDem' work as a whole.  Some
of them focuss on ~ANSI~ fonts/colours, others on script engines, a cool
~GUI~, etc.  Many years/minds were required to get `Kermit' to maturity,
how can solitary authors provide us with ideal "Do-it-All" packages?!...

                                  %-b,

     I'm not one of NASA's think-tank guys but i suggested a fix for the
whole BBS world years ago:  don't ask to terminal emulator authors for a
file-transfer protocol at all!  Is it possible?  Yes:  lets imagine some
Virtual ~TelNet~ MoDem with its own `ZMoDem' support, publish builds for
all major OSes (there ain't that many!) and have the user-control escape
sequence handle the stub if necessary (the old-timers may remember about
register `S2' defining it as "+++" for Hayes compatibility), euh...  You
can have Virtual ~TelNet~ MoDems and synthetic serial-ports for `Linux',
right?  ;^)  Anyway, this may sound proprietary but no terminal emulator
would need internal `ZMoDem' support anymore:  it would fix every single
broken application and preserve the *LEGACY* BBS experience in one shot!

     Of course, we're not giving our programmers any incentives for that
sort of innovation at the moment.  But lets suppose, one second, someone
who gets the picture works on a set of `W32' & `Linux' ~TelNet~/`ZMoDem'
stubs and releases them, all the sudden...  Does it make any sense?  B-)

     No matter what the end application is, a file transfer would always
work (and look) the same...  That method would also open the door to new
protocols which could very well be based on a dedicated ~TCP~/~IP~ port!

     More wild dreaming?  Euh...  Try this!  Lets envision some *SECURE*
INet protocol running in the background while it feeds a LOCAL `ZMoDem',
to make it look remote (to remove all ~TelNet~/`ZMoDem' interactions)!!!

                                  %-)

     Well, reality being what it is...  some guys may find objectionable
to discuss this any further so i'll conclude by writing that it helps to
have complex problems broken into smaller pieces - as long as we can put
it back together again, euh...  :)  Line 87...  A few more and i'm done!

                                  %->

MS> ...it's unpopular because they got it crippled in the 1st place!!!
MK> It isn't unpopular...  It is in wide use.

     `Kermit' is unpopular in our own peculiar BBS world, i mean...  :-)

                                 -=*=-

     No wall is shaking yet but i'll sound like i taken over this thread
so thanks for your patience.  ;-D  It's been a pleasure, see you around!

                                     Salutations,  8-)

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


... Using:  `MS-DOS v7.10a'+`LSPPP v0.8'+`RLFossil v1.23'+`{Commo} v7.7'
--- MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.45 - TelNet OLMR BBSing *SHOULD* be UNIVERSAL!!!
 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-6036 (1:10/345)