Eric Thomas <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> Try FTP-ing something from anywhere in Europe to Germany and you will
> understand immediately. We're talking about a dozen retries to get the
> package you wanted, and each time over a hundred keystrokes. Of course if
> you only FTP locally, or from dedicated machines on the T3 backbone, you
> may never have noticed how convenient FTP is if the line is just a tiny
> bit unstable or overloaded.
While I've never tried moving a file between two European hosts, I can
say that performance has been very good between those hosts and my system
here in the US.
> FTP can't even transfer a VMS saveset unless both systems run Multinet.
> SEND/FILE/VMSDUMP works.
I beg to differ. The homebrew FTP client and server I run on my VAX handle
this format quite well (they're written to the public specification developed
by the TGV (MultiNet) folks. I believe that CMU/TEK and several other TCP's
support this format as well.
As you've pointed out, /VMSDUMP is a proprietary format of the Jnet software
and they aren't to eager to give the specification out. Before anyone points
out (incorrectly) that VMS BACKUP is a proprietary format, and thus the Jnet
bit doesn't matter, I'll say that I can read and write VMS BACKUP savesets on
VMS (obviously), RSTS/E (also by DEC), Unix (by BBC) and MS-DOS (by me). These
systems can also run TCP/IP (except RSTS/E, the development work isn't done
yet).
> SENDFILE is limited to 4G columns, or maybe 2G, I'd have to check the
> code carefully, who cares anyway.
True, who cares? The maximum BITNET file size is 300K, which is smaller than
most GNU software these days. I also get my BITNET files delivered to me at
the lightning fast speed of over nine thousand bits per second! With FTP there
is no limit on file size and they arrive over a 56Kb line.
Yes, SENDFILE has its advantages. However, these things are being developed
for Internet hosts (possibly by BITNET users who miss them). Just last week I
retrieved a version of an RFC-compliant SEND program. While hosts that support
it are scarce at the moment, all of our (SPC) hosts will, and I expect it to
catch on. Likewise for sender-controlled file transfer.
> I am on BITNET and I can TELNET around. I must have missed something.
But that's an Internet service. Having BITNET doesn't affect it at all.
Nick Laflamme <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> If I use FTP to retrieve a package, I can't do anything with that
> session until the file is retrieved. If there's a slow TCP/IP link
> between me and the FTP server, that can take a while, leaving me to
> twiddle my thumbs unless I'm using a multi-tasking OS, which excludes
> CMS for now.
Way back when we ran VM/370 and later VM/SP3, we had a package called
"screen" (I think) which would let you flip between various virtual sessions
by using one of the unused function keys. With something like that it should
be easy to start up a background FTP session. I can't see such a useful util-
ity not being ported to newer versions of the operating system.
Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing
[log in to unmask] St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA
[log in to unmask] +1 201 915 9381
|
