Subj : SBBS/W32 Kermit SABOTAGE
To   : MICHEL SAMSON
From : Stephen Hurd
Date : Mon Nov 08 2004 08:01 pm

  Re: SBBS/W32 Kermit SABOTAGE
  By: MICHEL SAMSON to STEPHEN HURD on Sat Nov 06 2004 10:01:00

 >      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.

Ok, let me see if I understand what you're saying then...
1) Hyperterminal does kermit poorly.
2) Wayne Warthen's "Kermit for Win-16/32" does not interoperate correctly with
some other unspecified kermit implemenation.
3) Because of these facts, Rob has shown himself to be purposely breaking
"kermit" because the interface is somehow "weak"

It's well know that Hyperterminals Kermit implementation is terrible... it's a
least common denominator implementation that frankly sucks.  Every other
protocol implemented in Hyterminal works better than the poor crippled kermit
they include.

I have no data on Wayne Warthen's implementation.

I ignore anything I'm not interested in arguing about... learn to deal with it.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by accusing my of topic steering... I talk
about things which interest me, and don't talk about things that dont.  Mostly,
this is because I'm not being paid to talk to you.

The interference which you ask Rob to stop consists of including support for
Kermit file transfers by default with Synchronet.  Your purpose as I understand
it is to get everyone to support kermit.  Even if you grant that the particular
configuration Rob includes is somehow flawed, it gives you the oppurtunity to
tell Sysops "Hey, I notice you have Kermit as a file transfer option... here's
how you fix it"  People are much more interested in fixing something that
happens to be broken than adding something they don't understand the need for.

time after time, when you made a specific point about a valid problem with the
Kermit support, it has been corrected in the default install... your goal as
the kermit evangelist is apparently not to get a working kermit implementation
on as many BBSs as possible, but to get YOUR WAY of having a working kermit
implementation on as many BBSs as you can contact.  There may be a basic
misunderstanding occuring here... all that is needed is plain and simple
instructions detailing the correct way to get kermit working in a default
Synchronet install.  Ones that verifyably work and manage to do something the
existing one doesn't.  If Rob won't commit those changes, I'd be willing to do
it for you.  I realise I'm speaking for Rob here, but I believe I can state
firmly that neither one of us is interested in carrying on a running battle on
FIDONet (I deduce this from the fact that Rob hasn't piped up lately).

I'll extend the offer once again... provide simple instructions for getting
Kermit to work with Synchronet... they will be included with a default install
of Synchronet... all the SysOp will have to do is add the protocol driver.

If you are not interested in having them included with Synchronet, stop ragging
on the Synchronet people for not doing that, and blindly including a broken
kermit install.  We are not knowingly sabatoging kermit.  Honest.  It's the
truth.  We are intested in including support for Kermit with Synchronet. 
honest.  It's the truth.  If it's actually broken, we will fix it.  Honest. 
it's the truth.  However, we're NOT going to spend days plugging away at it. 
You do... share your knoledge with us.
--- SBBSecho 2.10-FreeBSD
 * Origin: FreeBSD Synchronet - telnet://FreeBSD.synchro.net (1:140/17)

.