home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
kermit.columbia.edu
/
kermit.columbia.edu.tar
/
kermit.columbia.edu
/
newsgroups
/
misc.19950726-19950929
/
000086_news@columbia.edu_Sat Aug 5 09:26:28 1995.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1995-12-25
|
4KB
Received: from apakabar.cc.columbia.edu by watsun.cc.columbia.edu with SMTP id AA16482
(5.65c+CU/IDA-1.4.4/HLK for <kermit.misc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>); Sat, 5 Aug 1995 05:56:16 -0400
Received: by apakabar.cc.columbia.edu id AA17087
(5.65c+CU/IDA-1.4.4/HLK for kermit.misc@watsun); Sat, 5 Aug 1995 05:56:15 -0400
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.kermit.misc
Path: news.columbia.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!omen!caf
From: caf@omen.com (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX)
Subject: Re: personal note to Chuck Forsberg [was Re: Kermit download...]
Organization: Omen Technology INC
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 1995 09:26:28 GMT
Message-Id: <DCtzK4.F8r@omen.com>
References: <DC095G.Dp3@omen.com> <bhuberDCLE75.9p@netcom.com> <DCnFFL.4q3@omen.com> <3vmh57$6ja@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>
Lines: 59
Apparently-To: kermit.misc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu
In article <3vmh57$6ja@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
Frank da Cruz <fdc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu> wrote:
>In article <DCnFFL.4q3@omen.com>, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <caf@omen.com> wrote:
>>In article <bhuberDCLE75.9p@netcom.com>, Bud Huber <bhuber@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>Dear Chuck,
>>[snip snip]
>>
>>Dear Bud,
>>
>>Your observations about discussing the merits of ZMODEM and Kermit
>>are duly noted. When Frank da Cruz at al. cease to unjustly and
>>incorrectly attack ZMODEM, directly or by reference, it will no
>>longer be necessary for me and others to respond.
>>
>This is a vicious circle, and it's an enormous waste of time for both
>Chuck and me. I could rephrase the above sentence, switching names
>around, and it applies equally to Kermit. Perhaps the real question is
>"what constitutes an attack"?
>
>Chuck and some other people believe the Kermit News article from 1993 to
>be an unfair attack because it didn't compare Kermit with some things they
>thought it should have compared it with. We could go on and on about this
>forever (and it feels as if we have :-), but at bottom the article was
>published to counter "unjust and incorrect attacks" against Kermit over
>the years that had the cumulative effect of making everybody believe it
>was intrinsically slow. I think the article achieved its purpose, and I
>do not believe this was done at Chuck's or Omen Technology's expense. If
>it was done at anybody's expense, it was the companies that make the
>software with which Kermit was compared. The article is very explicit
>about this.
Yes, the article achieved its intended purpose, to increase the
movement of Columbia University's Kermit product at the expense
of ZMODEM solutions.
When I first complained to Mr. da Cruz about the Kermit News
hit piece on ZMODEM, I only raised the issue of fairness. The
article made sweeping generalizations about Kermit and ZMODEM by
comparing the latest and greatest Kermit with inferior third
party ZMODEM implementations.
As discussion on these points heated up, technical flaws in the
"True-Life Benchmarks" became apparent. The "True-Life
Benchmarks" were disproven in the public Protocol Shootout.
Since then I have repeatedly challenged Frank to allow a fair,
public repeat of the so-called "True-Life Benchmarks".
>
>In any case, it's been two years. Let's bury the hatchet. I think we can
If Frank agrees to remove the discredited "True-Life Benchmarks"
from Columbia's FTP site, or agrees to a fair public rerun of
those benchmarks, we can bury the hatchet.
--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX caf@omen.COM 503-621-3406 FAX:-3735
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, GSZ and DSZ
TeleGodzilla BBS: 503-621-3746 FTP: ftp.cs.pdx.edu pub/zmodem