Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think.com!mintaka!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!jik
From: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Updated rz/sz (Zmodem) for Unix and VMS now available
Keywords: modem,xmodem,ymodem,zmodem,unix,vax,vms,omen,forsberg
Message-ID: <1991Apr14.204427.12168@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 14 Apr 91 20:44:27 GMT
References: <22317@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <75@omen.UUCP> <1991Apr12.213654.12032@athena.mit.edu> <77@omen.UUCP>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 26

In article <77@omen.UUCP>, caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes:
|> I support and enhance rz/sz to promote the use of full
|> featured ZMODEM programs.  An XMODEM program cannot take
|> advantage of ZMODEM's Crash Recovery; why not upgrade to
|> ZMODEM?

  This simply does not answer the question I asked.

  If people want to use xmodem, they will use xmodem; perhaps they should
upgrade to zmodem, but then again, perhaps it is easier for them to keep using
what has worked in the past, rather than having to change their software every
time somebody comes up with something that they think is new and improved.

  Now, please answer the question I asked -- for people who either want to or
have to continue to use xmodem, how are they supposed to get around the fact
that you have removed (for no apparent reason) certain features from your
xmodem support?  What possible reason could you have for removing features
that are off by default and that some people need to be there?

  The phrase "backward compability" seems relevant here.

-- 
Jonathan Kamens			              USnail:
MIT Project Athena				11 Ashford Terrace
jik@Athena.MIT.EDU				Allston, MA  02134
Office: 617-253-8085			      Home: 617-782-0710