Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!chinacat!chip From: chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Is there such a thing as a uucp daemon? Message-ID: <1991Jun15.012502.4989@chinacat.unicom.com> Date: 15 Jun 91 01:25:02 GMT References: <1991Jun11.183342.23051@chinacat.unicom.com> <1991Jun12.075244.26984@wimsey.bc.ca> <1991Jun14.105800.28984@swdsrv.edvz.univie.ac.at> Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Inc. Lines: 24 In article <1991Jun14.105800.28984@swdsrv.edvz.univie.ac.at> mah@wu-wien.ac.at writes: >Now if you could coerce uucico running the 'f' proto over a TCP socket, >througput should be much better. Unfortunately, few manufacturers have >picked it up (HP for sure, dont know about others). Definitely not the >PC unix crowd. SCO has `g' and nothing else. Interactive has `g' and `e'. One person mentioned they moved a copy of uucico from their ISC to SCO machine to eek out some better TCP/IP performance, and it worked. (This was done using the `uucpm' daemon - not the builtin TLI stuff ISC provides.) >I just inquired ATT Unix Europe for BNU source alone, to do such things. >They wont sell it without SystemV R4 attached to it, and at $100.000.- >thats beyond scope for the application in question. Seems like they are >dedicated to kill uucp. AT&T has done a fine job of driving a stake through the heart of any troff future with their DWB3.1 pricing strategy. Maybe the same folks are responsible for the BNU marketing. -- Chip Rosenthal | Don't play that Unicom Systems Development 512-482-8260 | loud, Mr. Collins.