Subj : SBBS/W32 Kermit SABOTAGE To : STEPHEN HURD From : MICHEL SAMSON Date : Sat Nov 06 2004 10:01 am Hi Stephen (what now?...), About "SBBS/W32 Kermit SABOTAGE" of November 5: MS> ...the `MS-Kermit' terminal is OK on `SBBS'... ...`MS-Kermit' is MS> free but few newbies would know how to use it... Wayne Warthen's MS} `Kermit for Win-16/32' is free too but there was a major issue... SH} ...MS-Kermit comes without any documentation whatsoever... MS> This text is taken from the .INI you managed not to read all along: MS> "ftp://kermit.columbia.edu/kermit/archives/msk314.zip (677 Kb, MS} November 7, 2002 - updated documentation)" ...information, directly MS> from the source, gets distorted even when it's put under your nose! SH} ...MS-Kermit doesn't run on ANY of the systems comprising my BBS... MS> Perhaps if you had read `MSK.INI' and paid attention to my 1st line MS} you would have noticed that it says: "`SBBS/W32' support... MS> It's been tested with Kermit95, C-Kermit and G-Kermit. I'm the one who'll do misinformation? And topic steering perhaps?! Refrain from using absolutes when memory fails!!! You're unable to comment over free `Windows' SoftWare with suitable `Kermit' support just because you didn't test any. *I* did, yet here you are! You read about how rare the FREE and suitable `Windows' clients happen to be, long ago: ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ___________________________ [ "Kermit preconceptions" - July 24, 2003 ]_ SH> There is a Windows version... I think (but am not sure) that SH} the Windows version is not available without paying for it. `K95' (Columbia's *OFFICIAL* `Kermit' SoftWare for `W32' platforms) is available for a 21 days free trial period, `C-Kermit' is no `Windows' product and `G-Kermit' much less! Was this a topic-steering attempt?... 8-7 SH> I'm fairly certain that even you have managed to transfer files SH> using that setup and MS-Kermit... ...This is based on memory... The following is based on FACTS I'VE OBSERVED MYSELF: "...the `MS- Kermit' terminal is OK on `SBBS'...", how could you forget my statement? ^^^^^^^^ THIS APPEARED ON YOUR SCREEN RIGHT WHEN YOU WERE POSTING THE REPLY! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ %-b, Time-travel tourism isn't for you, it makes one dizzy after a time! 8,-D )) Seriously, what words or language must i use to prevent distortions and topic-steering? Go to the records, i already suggested you read it. SH> I'm *positive* that Winston Smith... another MS-Kermit user, has SH> managed to transfer files using the Kermit protocol as included... I'm very well aware of the situation since i contacted Rob Swindell on Winston's advice and submitted my .INI, as a result. `Windows' tests failed, `Kermit.INI' lacked clarity, Swindell became irrational and then many SysOps managed to disable `Kermit' (user UpLoads) somewhat later... SH> I'm still waiting to hear exactly what "$hareWare" Rob is "forcing" SH} sysops to use. Forcing who!? You're another 80 years old senile man or something? %-> Talk about misinformation accidently or purposely posted! Lets see what was on the menu lately (and which you carefully ignored, actually): SH> I am interested however in pointing out and correcting any SH> misinformation you accidently or purposely post. MS> ...you and your guru remain consistently silent relatively to the MS} VERY WEAK INTERFACE between `SynchroNet' and `MS-Kermit' MS> (on `SBBS/W32' BBS systems, mind you)! ...misinformation? Like MS> when you argue i'm expecting hours of work from you and I ASKED FOR MS} LESS INTERFERENCE? I have ignored Rob Swindell's `Kermit' SABOTAGE MS> for over a year... I couldn't avoid the need for an UpDate since at MS> least two SysOps complained about Rob's setup lately, not to mention MS> the BBSers who are completely mystified by this SABOTAGE. SH> I still fail to see how including a setup that happens to do the SH> job (ie: transfer files) using Kermit is a form of sabotage. I still fail to see what justifies your obvious voluntary blindness when i return to some posts you published on `DoveNet', not so long ago: ________________________________ [ "SBBS & MS-Kermit" - July 23, 2003 ]_ SH> Most other protocols are designed to work only on certain kinds or SH> qualities of connections, and/or between certain kinds of computers, SH> and therefore work poorly (or not at all) elsewhere and offer few if SH> any methods to adapt to unplanned-for situations. Kermit, on the SH> other hand, allows you to achieve successful file transfer and the SH> highest possible performance on any given connection. HyperTerminal SH> supports Kermit. Haven't tried it with HyperTerminal though... I already explained where the sabotage is: `Hyper-Terminal' (which is included in `Win-32') can make `Kermit' transfers at least twenty-six times slower than they should be while Wayne Warthen's `Kermit for `Win- 16/32' (which is FreeWare) just hangs the session and reveals how *WEAK* `SBBS's *INTERFACE* to external (`Kermit') protocol drivers can be! So, `Kermit.INI' by Swindell does the job: a `SynchroNet/W32' SABOTAGE job. ^^^ Salutations, Michel Samson a/s Bicephale .... Rob's SBBS/Kermit: spend spare-time to discover a form of SABOTAGE! --- MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.45 - Who will make TelNet OLMR BBSing UNIVERSAL? * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-6036 (1:10/345) .