Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix.sco:2655 biz.sco.general:125
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco,biz.sco.general
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!umich!sharkey!tygra!jp
From: jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer)
Subject: Re: SCO TCP/IP
Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing Network, Detroit, MI
Date: Thu, 30 May 91 22:43:20 GMT
Message-ID: <1991May30.224320.4758@tygra.Michigan.COM>
Keywords: tcp/ip
References: <22@pegasus.UUCP>

In article <22@pegasus.UUCP> root@pegasus.UUCP (Super user) writes:
"
"  I have recently worked with SCO's TCP/IP (version 1.0r) on both
"  SCO XENIX 386 2.3.2 and SCO UNIX 3.2 and I have noticed
"
"     a) telnet is missing the "binary" command
"        which is absolutely needed outside US
"
"     b) both rlogin and telnet have  a annoying "bumpy" feeling
"        as if transmitting data in big chunks
"

Add that to the growing list of items which makes LAI TCP/IP lame.
I tried to get hold of SCO regarding failure of their TCP/IP to 
adhere to accepted standards by providing support for UUCP connections. 

Last Friday, a tech support guy called me and suggested using SMTP. 
Sorry, but some of the sites I talk to require UUCP over TCP/IP -
PERIOD. It seems to me that they'd have to make a EFFORT to EXCLUDE
UUCP support instead of INCLUDE it. I mean, if they have a UNIX 
source code license, they already have the support in there. Why would
they intentionally cripple a piece of software?  Thats what irks me.

Anyways, my phone died in the middle of the conversation with the
SCO rep and he hasn't called me back. I can't get support for my
customers or my own systems. Thats why we'll be dropping our SCO
Reseller Contract soon and will be sticking with Interactive. 

-- 
CAT-TALK Conferencing System   |  "Buster Bunny is an abused | E-MAIL:
+1 313 343 0800 (USR HST)      |   child. Trust me - I'm a   | jp@Michigan.COM
+1 313 343 2925 (TELEBIT PEP)  |   professional..."          | 
********EIGHT NODES*********** |   -- Roger Rabbit           |