Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!seismo!mcvax!jack
From: jack@mcvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix,comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: uucp source copyright status - IMPORTANT
Message-ID: <7326@boring.mcvax.cwi.nl>
Date: Wed, 1-Apr-87 06:12:53 EST
Article-I.D.: boring.7326
Posted: Wed Apr  1 06:12:53 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Apr-87 08:57:08 EST
References: <480@gouldsd.UUCP> <43183@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV>
Reply-To: jack@boring.UUCP (Jack Jansen)
Distribution: comp.os.minix
Organization: AMOEBA project, CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 24
Keywords: uucp uucico kermit
Xref: utgpu comp.os.minix:474 comp.mail.uucp:394

In article <122@njitsc1.UUCP> bc@njitsc1.UUCP (Bill Cheswick) writes:
>In article <7319@boring.mcvax.cwi.nl> jack@boring.UUCP (Jack Jansen) writes:
>>
>>The point is, why should we use those icky uucp protocols that are
>>hardly documented, and unused except in some proprietary sofware
>
>Because it is faster.  Compare the transfer speeds of uucp and kermit: you only
>get about half your baud rate in kermit file transfers.  uucp does better.
>
If you only count the time uucp takes to transfer bytes, this is true.
However, if you add the time taken to deposit files in the appropriate
places, *which kermit does during conversation*, things get far worse.

I'm not sure how fancy uucp's like honey-danber handle this, but one of
the gross misfeatures of most uucp's is that they deliver files while
they're still eating phone time. This, combined with the fact that, for small
files, the overhead is enourmous (two files transmitted for each tiny
mail message) makes me dislike uucp.

Moreover, although I said kermit, you could as easily think of zmodem,
or something else.
-- 
	Jack Jansen, jack@cwi.nl (or jack@mcvax.uucp)
	The shell is my oyster.