Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!alberta!cpsc.ucalgary.ca!yogi.fhhosp.ab.ca!henry
From: henry@yogi.fhhosp.ab.ca
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: LAT
Message-ID: <1991Jan11.170417.1732@yogi.fhhosp.ab.ca>
Date: 11 Jan 91 23:04:16 GMT
References: <12578@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Lines: 15

> Would anyone in this forum care to comment on these claims?
> 
> -Mike
> 
> *********** LAT/ TELNET comparison ***********

I can't comment from a technical point of view, but from a real-world
user's point of view, LAT has one distinct advantage - it handles
buffering in a non-annoying way.  Control-C's are have very little
latency as compared to TELNET.

If you're considering buying a terminal server, I'd buy one with both..

Cheers,
-Henry Bland