Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mstar!mstar.morningstar.com!bob
From: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: SLIP
Message-ID: <BOB.90Nov15104659@volitans.MorningStar.Com>
Date: 15 Nov 90 15:47:06 GMT
References: <1635@camex.COM> <1990Nov13.140336.10181@sctc.com>
	<11081@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <1017@toaster.SFSU.EDU>
	<ANDERSON.90Nov13195236@sapir.cog.jhu.edu>
Sender: usenet@MorningStar.COM (USENET Administrator)
Reply-To: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield)
Organization: Morning Star Technologies
Lines: 16
In-Reply-To: anderson@sapir.cog.jhu.edu's message of 14 Nov 90 00:52:36 GMT

In article <ANDERSON.90Nov13195236@sapir.cog.jhu.edu> anderson@sapir.cog.jhu.edu (Stephen R. Anderson) writes:
   Why no SLIP?

Because SLIP (RFC1055/1144) has been obsoleted by PPP (RFC1171/1172),
and NeXT had bigger things to worry about with 2.0 than including new
support for quaint protocols.  Nobody should bother putting the effort
into a new SLIP port these days, but rather should concentrate on a
solid PPP implementation.

   I'm REALLY unhappy about this... at least two of my colleagues
   would be happy to get a NeXT as their home machine if I could
   convince them they could put it on the net over their modems.

You can get implementations of SLIP and PPP via anonymous FTP, but
they'll need some work for a NeXT port.  There certainly seems to be
plenty of demand...