home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Columbia Kermit
/
kermit.zip
/
newsgroups
/
misc.20000114-20000217
/
000018_news@columbia.edu _Sun Jan 16 12:55:41 2000.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
2020-01-01
|
2KB
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 MAA12494
for <kermit.misc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:55:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from news@localhost)
by newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA16345
for kermit.misc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:45:46 -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: <bNhyoq8CLjEp@cc.usu.edu>
Date: 16 Jan 00 10:19:46 MDT
Organization: Utah State University
To: kermit.misc@columbia.edu
In article <4Iag4.2679$NU6.52105@tw12.nn.bcandid.com>, cangel@famvid.com writes:
> On 1900-01-14 jrd@cc.usu.edu(JoeDoupnik) said:
>
> JD>Newsgroups: comp.protocols.kermit.misc
> JD>In article <xuyf4.3236$0l4.86605@tw12.nn.bcandid.com>,
> JD>>cangel@famvid.com writes: On 2000-01-13 jaltman@watsun.cc.
> JD>columbia.edu(JeffreyAltman) said: >
>
> --8<--cut
>
> JD>> CA> While I have your attention I've been compiling and fiddling with
> JD>> CA> the WATTCP package which claims to have a part of it's code inside
> JD>> CA> MSKermit.
>
> JD>> JA> WATTCP and Kermit's TCP stack parted company many Moons ago. they
> JD>> JA> are hardly compatible anymore.
>
> JD>> CA> Did the author of WATTCP assist when the code _was_ used many moons
> JD>> CA> ago or was it a `maintainer' of the code?
>
> JD> Please read what we said.
>
> I did read what "we" said. "Parted company" in the USA implies that there
> was some unpleasantness in the separation. The word "hardly" implies that
> there are similarities in the code.
>
> JD> Erick donated his code, bless him, I rewrote from that point forward. A
> JD> fork in the road.
>
> Possibly a more specific answer to the question would aid in my being able
> to understand the answer. "Parted company", "hardly", and "fork in the road"
> are poetic but not in any way specific. In a technical discussion they are
> no answer at all.
You infer too much, and incorrectly. Why you pursue this point is
beyond me, and my suggestion is don't.
Joe D.
>>
>> , ,
>> o/ Charles.Angelich \o ,
>> <| @AngelFire.com |> __o/
>> / > USA, MI < \ __\__
>