Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!erbe.se!prc
From: prc@erbe.se (Robert Claeson)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: LAT
Message-ID: <1991Jan14.152400.23864@erbe.se>
Date: 14 Jan 91 15:24:00 GMT
References: <12578@hubcap.clemson.edu> <1991Jan11.170417.1732@yogi.fhhosp.ab.ca>
Sender: prc@erbe.se (Robert Claeson)
Reply-To: prc@erbe.se (Robert Claeson)
Organization: ERBE DATA AB, Jakobsberg, Sweden
Lines: 17


In article <1991Jan11.170417.1732@yogi.fhhosp.ab.ca>, henry@yogi.fhhosp.ab.ca writes:

|> 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.

What terminal server have you been using? The Annex IIe from Xylogics that
I occasionally use doesn't have any noticeable delay in handling control C.
Whenever I type it, the output stops immediately.

-- 
Robert Claeson                  |Reasonable mailers: rclaeson@erbe.se
ERBE DATA AB                    |      Dumb mailers: rclaeson%erbe.se@sunet.se
Jakobsberg, Sweden              |  Perverse mailers: rclaeson%erbe.se@encore.com
Any opinions expressed herein definitely belongs to me and not to my employer.