Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!iboga!berger
From: berger@iboga (Mike Berger)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
Subject: Re: NCSA vs CUTCP. What's the difference?
Message-ID: <1991Apr15.184621.14336@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 15 Apr 91 18:46:21 GMT
References: <1881@manta.NOSC.MIL>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 28

psm@manta.NOSC.MIL (Scot Mcintosh) writes:

>I've been watching this newsgroup for a while, but haven't
>seen the answer to this question go by. Why are there two
>divergent lines of development going on for telnet?  Is
>there a reason I should pick one over the other (one
>reason could be that CUTCP doesn't seen to offer source).
>Can someone enlighten me on the history behind this
>seeming schism?
*----
Telnet doesn't seem to be a high priority for NCSA anymore.  Note
that the latest version is in its 13th or so Beta-test implementation!
Clarkson came out with a packet driver version much sooner.  NCSA is
unlikely to come out with 3270 support in the foreseeable future (we
need that even if everybody else doesn't).

Clarkson provides more active support and a more robust product.

The FTP Software PC-TCP package beats them both in functionality and
flexibility, but of course it costs substantially more.



--
	Mike Berger
	Department of Statistics, University of Illinois
	AT&TNET     217-244-6067
	Internet    berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu