On Mon, 21 Sep 1992 18:08:52 +0200, Eric Thomas <[log in to unmask]>
replied:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 1992 10:39:03 CDT "George D. Greenwade" <BED_GDG@SHSU>
> said:
>
> >Conceptually, so long as BITNET focuses on being a "VM mainframe"
> >network, (...) This complaint extends to LISTSERV, which is exclusively
> >VM-oriented
>
> Could you please expand on this statement? I'm afraid I simply don't
> understand what you are talking about. ...
>
> ... When reviewing the recent changes volunteer
> developers like me introduced in their software, do you get the
> impression that these people are making the network more or less
> "VM-mainframe-oriented", and why?
The latest changes I am aware of appear to be much more platform
independent (and thanks for the recently announced introduction of support
for VMSDUMP from LISTSERV!). I guess my impression is biased for a few
reasons, but the main one is the historic ties of LISTSERV to VM-only
implementations for NJE transports (and, as previously noted, you and I
have discussed this; moreover, I fear that no one else is willing to
undertake the effort to create a reliable, if not true, interactive-capable
port of your Revised LISTSERV to anything else). Essentially, the
impression I have is to be a player on BITNET, you have to have VM or find
some alternate which provides less than full capabilities.
What CREN, EARN, NETNORTH, GULFNET, or any other network agency can
specifically do to change this impression I don't precisely know (indeed,
the impression may be imprecise anyway). What I don't see on BITNET that I
do see on the Internet is an abundance of multi-platform Working Groups
(unless they are well-hidden; in which case, I apologize for my ignorance)
attempting to move toward a more open system like approach. For example,
where are BITNET's equivalent to the Internet's RFC library? I know that
very few RFCs hold "standards" status; most are indeed requests for
comments, as titled, which serve to foster more research and development in
the use and development of the network (and more than a few are, to be
nice, junk).
I see the Internet as an evolutionary network which is continually
developing; alternately, I see BITNET as a somewhat fixed, possibly at its
technical limit, network. Given that the exisiting big players on BITNET
are VM/EBCDIC and the majority of players on the Internet are
something-else/ASCII, this may be an impossible gulf to overcome.
Please note that I am not anti-BITNET; I will argue to keep it as long as
practically feasible here simply because it is already up and running, and
it is easier to not have to re-train people who are already
BITNET-knowledgable (although I find SEND the preferable option between our
site and others on BITNET as opposed to ftp to that size, put, etc., or
putting the file in an ftp-able area for the user to retrieve).
If there is a list which can remove my ignorance on these issues, please
let me know what it is and where it is -- I would truly like to learn that
my impression is incorrect.
Regards, George
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
George D. Greenwade, Ph.D. Bitnet: BED_GDG@SHSU
Department of Economics and Business Analysis THEnet: SHSU::BED_GDG
College of Business Administration Voice: (409) 294-1266
P. O. Box 2118 FAX: (409) 294-3612
Sam Houston State University Internet: [log in to unmask]
Huntsville, TX 77341 [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
