> On Mon, 16 Mar 1992 23:47:52 PST Malcolm Carlock <[log in to unmask]> > said: > > >> I frequently have sub-minute response to/from addresses in North > >> America, and the access time to Europe isn't much less. > > > >Er.. Compare this to sub-second response via the Internet to/from > >addresses in Japan and Europe from the U.S. > > Sub-second response time for mail? You've got to be kidding. He said he did a ping (vs. mail), based on a program he wrote himself. I assumed this was some BITNET analogue of Internet ping. > >At the risk of sounding flippant, I would strongly suggest you gain some > >before making further serious recommendations in this area. > > At the risk of sounding flippant, I would strongly suggest that you read > before flaming. He said he pinged a site. Right. See above. > >If there's any real "competition" between the two networks, it's due to > >the Internet offering the same sorts of services as, and many more than > >BITNET, > > You don't seem to have much knowledge about BITNET and the services it > offers. May I suggest that you heed your own advice and gain some > experience before wasting everyone's time on a stupid, misinformed flame? BITNET and Internet offer similar services in that file transfer, electronic mail, remote job execution, and a certain degree of interactive capability are possible. That some forms of BITNET file transfer may be more direct than some forms of Internet file transfer (while, on the other hand, other forms of Internet file transfer are more direct than BITNET) doesn't change the reality that BITNET is not real-time, and hence doesn't allow activities like real-time browsing of remote files, real-time remote login, real-time file-sharing a la NFS, Novell etc., all of which are common activities on the Internet. It would be a pity to decide to deny one's site access to the above capabilities simply because one did not like the "design" of the Internet, which was my original point. I did feel it necessary to support this statement, however, hence the "BITNET flame" to which you were reacting. > Now may we please get back to constructive, list-maintenance related > debates. Sounds good to me (and fair, too -- two "Internet flames" balanced by two rebuttals.) However, if one subscriber posts a message that another considers to be not quite consistent with the true state of things, you shouldn't be surprised if the second subscriber posts a response to that effect.