home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Columbia Kermit
/
kermit.zip
/
newsgroups
/
misc.19990725-20000114
/
000454_news@columbia.edu _Thu Jan 13 14:24:59 2000.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
2020-01-01
|
3KB
Return-Path: <news@columbia.edu>
Received: from newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.59.30])
by watsun.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA16805
for <kermit.misc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 14:24:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from news@localhost)
by newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA12247
for kermit.misc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 14:07:43 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu: news set sender to <news> using -f
From: jrd@cc.usu.edu (Joe Doupnik)
Subject: Re: MS-DOS Kermit, more capabalities
Message-ID: <7qW8C+KG8QyZ@cc.usu.edu>
Date: 13 Jan 00 11:46:22 MDT
Organization: Utah State University
To: kermit.misc@columbia.edu
In article <cPdf4.3607$KP.188008@tw12.nn.bcandid.com>, cangel@famvid.com writes:
> On 1900-01-07 jrd@cc.usu.edu(JoeDoupnik) said:
>
> JD>> FD> Is there no way to free the memory for additional
> JD>> FD> 'take' commands to be used or does it just load up one
> JD>> FD> time and thats it?
>
> JD>Take command files are literally Kermit commands, one after
> JD>the other. The file is not stored in Kermit, the lines are read and
> JD>processed one at a time. Macros and variables result in storage,
> JD>however, and there are limits on their quantity. Storage for values
> JD>of them are taken from DOS free memory. An MS-DOS Kermit command
> JD>line works in a buffer and hence has physical limits (1000 bytes
> JD>in round numbers).
>
> With such a rich macro language it would be `nice' to be able to reuse
> the available memory so that more complex macros could be written and
> used while online without an `exit / reload' being required.
As Jeff noted, undefine a variable or macro by giving it an
empty definition.
> While I have your attention: I've been compiling and fiddling with the
> WATTCP package which claims to have a part of it's code inside MSKermit.
Wattcp and MSK are now very different animals for TCP/IP work.
That divergence started when Erick very generously offered his code to
the project. The gulf spread very quickly very widely. Today there is
little resemblence. The MSK TCP/IP stack is modern and robust, but it
is not a library or other exportable form. Its internal applications,
such as say the DHCP client, are also modern.
> MSKermit is many times more stable than the demo apps that come with the
> WATTCP source (operation online is `intermittent' with send being exremely
> poor and receive seems locked into something less than 9k6). MSKermit
> OTOH seems to move right along using the same packet driver and achieves
> 90% of theoretical max transfers on a regular basis.
The MSK code is designed to work solidly with Packet Drivers and
Novell's ODI drivers. It's not a series of approximations. It is robust
by design.
> Question: could you direct me to any particular part of the WATTCP based
> code in the MSKermit source that would reveal how MSKermit seems to be
> so much better than the `origninal'?
Please see commments above.
Joe D.