Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!princeton!rocksvax!oswego!kinne From: kinne@oswego.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm Subject: Re: Punter protocol Message-ID: <346@oswego.UUCP> Date: Wed, 1-Apr-87 18:18:39 EST Article-I.D.: oswego.346 Posted: Wed Apr 1 18:18:39 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 4-Apr-87 10:26:53 EST References: <3372@rsch.WISC.EDU> <304@otto.UUCP> Reply-To: kinne@oswego.UUCP (Doc Kinne) Distribution: comp Organization: I doubt it... Lines: 58 Summary: Punter stuff... In article <304@otto.UUCP> rex@otto.UUCP (Rex Jolliff) writes: > > Are you sure you want to support Punter transfers? I have worked on and/or >built from scratch quite a few different Bulliten Board Systems, and out of all >them, two of them supported the Punter protocol. > There are a lot of problems with this software package. First, there is no >smooth way to abort from a transfer manually. If the commodore key is struck >during a transfer, it aborts from one side, but it does not inform the other >side that the transfer has been aborted. Very true. This fact is the single worst thing I find with the protocol. > Second, the block size is hard set to 254 bytes. WRONG! Perhaps this was true in C1 protocol but it IS NOT AT ALL true for C2! You may certainly have variable block sizes, however your upper limit (to my knowledge) is set to 254 bytes. You may not go higher then that though you may transfer less. > Fourth, if you get a copy of the PD support package, don't bother trying to >disassemble it. The package is one big kludge. Can't say anything about the PD package as I've not seen it... > Fifth, probably the biggest bummer about the Punter file transfer protocol is >that it is nowhere close to being a standard. Nobody uses it except a certain >number of cbm users that have the delusion that this protocol is better than >x-modem, or cbm users that don't know about other protocols. It is too bad >that Steve Punter (the inventor of the Punter protocol, of course) didn't think >about these things when he wrote this protocol. He doesn't seem to support his >protocol at all either, but I could be wrong. Here is where I have a lot of problems with your posting, Rex. Though I am no expert (I've worked with a number of boards and terminals from a consulting or Sysop's viewpoint. I've tried some limited programming. My big problem (like everyone else) is time.) I find C2 Punters to be as standard as any other aspect of telecommunications for microcomputers. I have never had any problem in any transfer involving the Punter FTP (except for the inability to abort the transfer. This is a gripe I TOTALLY agree with you on!!). I find that every C64/C128 user I talk to who engages in telecommunications knows of and uses Punter. I have found it to be at least TWICE as fast as transfers involving X-Modem (perhaps I'm using X-modem incorrectly???). Finally, as for support, Steve has written a few tutorial articles on his protocol and runs his own BBS network (don't know if this qualifies for support but...). In conclusion, Rex is right in a way when he says Punter is not a standard; I've yet to see it implimented on anything but a C64/128. However, from the Users point of view, for those machines its the best thing going. I suspect that Rex has only seen a very old or very kludged source code for it which may be the problem... --- UUCP: seismo!rochester!rocksvax!oswego!kinne Doc Kinne CIS: 72457,2450 Instructional Computing Center Q-Link: Doc Kinne SUNY College at Oswego BBS: Gary's BBS:(315)598-8106 "The Doctor" Oswego NY 13126 (315)341-3055 "This is my age! I'm in the prime of my youth and I'll only be young once!" -Teddy Duchamp to Chris Chambers: Stand By Me DISCLAIMER: You WANT these opinions?????