Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!UMDD!BRUCE
From: BRUCE@UMDD.BITNET (Bruce Crabill)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibmtcp-l
Subject: KNET vs FAL
Message-ID: <IBMTCP-L%90011319394578@CUNYVM>
Date: 13 Jan 90 22:09:59 GMT
Sender: IBM TCP/IP For VM List <IBMTCP-L@CUNYVM>
Reply-To: IBM TCP/IP For VM List <IBMTCP-L@CUNYVM>
Lines: 12
Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway
In-Reply-To:  Message received on Sat, 13 Jan 90  03:52:42 EST

I'd go with FAL, if I was you.  There are some rumors that the KNET people
may be starting to do some work on their product again, but it has been
a long time since they have done much with it.  Applications are not
directly portable between each.  I think Princeton's VMNET originally
supported KNET, but I think they have issued a statement that they would
only be supporting FAL.  Perhaps KNET can turn around and become a
reasonable product, but I think they have some work cut out from them.
Disclaimer:  I have never used KNET, nor am I positive about their current
product state, however I have seen lots of people dropping KNET and
picking up FAL and can't say I've ever seen the reverse to be true.

                                       Bruce