Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!agate!darkstar!ucscb.UCSC.EDU!unknown
From: unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: .bsq revisited. . .
Message-ID: <8526@darkstar.ucsc.edu>
Date: 5 Nov 90 08:27:56 GMT
References: <1990Nov01.202314.24433@hoss.unl.edu> <8430@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <90306.153049UD169430@NDSUVM1.BITNET>
Sender: usenet@darkstar.ucsc.edu
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz; Open Access Computing
Lines: 23


In article <90306.153049UD169430@NDSUVM1.BITNET> UD169430@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Mike Aos) writes:
>I think his problem is that ProTerm doesn't handle binary kermit
>transfers correctly.  That's why we're forced to use Kermit v3.87
>(actually, it's really not such a bad program, and it seems to me it's
>faster than ProTERM or Kermit-65 v3.86 but perhaps that has to do with
>the way I have things set up.)

	But are you (and other people who insist on using Kermit) on
systems that ONLY support Kermit? I think Ymodem batch is the best
protocol I've used so far (haven't used Zmodem since I've heard you need
a hard drive to be able to keep up with it).. I like Ymodem batch since
you don't have to type filenames you are dealing with on the receiving
end of the transmission.
	But even Xmodem is better than Kermit.

	Some explanation would be helpful for my understanding of the
insistance of using Kermit when presumably better (and as widely used)
protocols exist.

-- 
/Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu MAIL ME FOR INFO ABOUT CHEAP CDs\
\"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa Simpson/