> 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.