Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!pollux.usc.edu!kjh
From: kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Mskermit 3.00
Keywords: review
Message-ID: <23587@usc.edu>
Date: 20 Mar 90 08:11:00 GMT
References: <19686@mephisto.UUCP> <654@sixhub.UUCP> <7217@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Sender: news@usc.edu
Organization: EE-Systems, Univ. of So. Calif., Los Angeles
Lines: 17

I have also had MS-Kermit 3.00 for a couple of months now.  I have been
using Kermit for only about a year, and I do have experience using both
Procomm and Qmodem.  In my opinion, the scripting language for Kermit is
comparitive to the other program's scripting languages.  The terminal
emulation of Kermit is _FAR SUPERIOR_ to the other programs.  The only
thing I miss is some kind of telephone directory in Kermit.  Since I
only call a limited number of systems, this is not too much of a
limitation for me.  In short, I really like Kermit, and I choose to use
it in preference to the above mentioned communication programs.

I think that Kermit has a significant advantage in that it is FREEware,
and source is available on the net by anon ftp if you want it.  No other
communication program that I am aware of can boast of these advantages.

P.S.	I have Telix, but I haven't had time (or the need) to try it out.

Ken Hendrickson N8DGN/6      kjh@usc.edu      ...!uunet!usc!pollux!kjh