Columbia Kermit/kermit.zip/newsgroups/misc.19950726-19950929/[e-mail]_Wed Aug 2 00:33:43 1995.msg

Internet Message Format | 2020-01-01 | 4KB

Received: from apakabar.cc.columbia.edu by watsun.cc.columbia.edu with SMTP id AA10330
  (5.65c+CU/IDA-1.4.4/HLK for <[e-mail]>); Tue, 1 Aug 1995 20:33:51 -0400
Received: by apakabar.cc.columbia.edu id AA06884
  (5.65c+CU/IDA-1.4.4/HLK for kermit.misc@watsun); Tue, 1 Aug 1995 20:33:50 -0400
Path: news.columbia.edu!watsun.cc.columbia.edu!fdc
From: [e-mail] (Frank da Cruz)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.kermit.misc
Subject: Re: personal note to Chuck Forsberg [was Re: Kermit download...]
Date: 2 Aug 1995 00:33:43 GMT
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 53
Message-Id: <3vmh57$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: watsun.cc.columbia.edu
Apparently-To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In article <[e-mail]>, Bud Huber <[e-mail]> 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.

In any case, it's been two years.  Let's bury the hatchet.  I think we can
all live in a world in which there are two major competing file transfer
protocols (not counting FTP :-), each one with its own strengths and
weaknesses, each with its own preferred (default) tuning and set of
assumptions behind that tuning, each with its own appeal to different
segments of the world's people.  I don't want to destroy ZMODEM -- I want
everybody to realize that the two protocols are pretty much on a par with
one another when examined objectively, rather than one (ZMODEM) being so
far superior to Kermit that one would only turn to Kermit as a "last
resort".

If we can all agree on that, then there is room for gentlepersonly
disagreement about details: what are the most appropriate default tunings
for various audiences and why, and on a more theoretical level about
windowing strategies, error recovery characteristics, and so forth (as if
anybody cares), but there should be no need for acrimony or fighting over
table scraps.  In any case, I think that both Chuck and I have
demonstrated our respective abilities to hold our ground - there will
never be a clear victor or vanquished, so why bother?

And truth be told, there are far greater threats to Omen and ZMODEM than
Kermit, and vice versa.

- Frank