Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!evax!cs4344af
From: cs4344af@evax.arl.utexas.edu (Fuzzy Fox)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm
Subject: Re: Kermit Question
Message-ID: <1991Apr7.073823.27225@evax.arl.utexas.edu>
Date: 7 Apr 91 07:38:23 GMT
References: <"910405094335.72560.3467.EHE27-1"@CompuServe.COM> <1991Apr5.175215.23763@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <1991Apr5.201357.7658@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Organization: Computer Science Engineering Univ. of Texas at Arlington
Lines: 27

In article <1991Apr5.201357.7658@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> iachetta@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard N Iachetta) writes:
>What is the latest version of Kermit 64/128?  Basically what I need to know
>is, is there a version that will support packet lengths longer than 94 bytes
>(I think that is the length.  If its not, it is close).  Is it just me or does
>that seem to be a ridiculous packet length.  The overhead between packets is
>longer than the packet transmission time.  Thanks in advance.

Yes, but Kermit is the only protocol that can be used over 7-bit lines,
which is the only connection we have to our university.  Better a bad
connection than no connection.

The latest Kermit is 2.2sp, which is speed-patched for 2400, and
available at Milton.  It does not support long packet lengths, and even
if it did, the other Kermit (ie, the one on your host computer) probably
wouldn't either.

I have found that one of the reasons that Kermit is slow is because the
Commodore version is slow.  My IBM PC sends and receives files much
faster with Kermit, although still only about 120 cps on a 2400 line.

When will 7-bit Zmodem get here?

-- 
David DeSimone, aka "Fuzzy Fox" on some networks.          /!/!
INET:    an207@cleveland.freenet.edu                      /  ..
Q-Link:  Fuzzy Fox                                        /   --*
Quote:   "Foxes are people too!  And vice versa."         /  ---