Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!cunyvm!ndsuvm1!ndsuvax!nuteskey
From: nuteskey@ndsuvax.UUCP (Vlad the Impaler)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: kermit Q: ProTerm VS. UNIX
Message-ID: <2483@ndsuvax.UUCP>
Date: 30 Mar 89 15:45:43 GMT
References: <890329190357.185171@UNCAMULT.BITNET>
Reply-To: nuteskey@ndsuvax.UUCP (Vlad the Impaler)
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo
Lines: 28


In article <890329190357.185171@UNCAMULT.BITNET> CYLau@UNCAMULT.BITNET (The Ultron) writes:
>Well, in my experience, the Kermit in ProTerm is severely flawed!!  but
>before you start blaming ProTerm, check your transfers out again using
>Kermit65 (the ONLY way to go for Kermit transfers on the Apple...  you
>can get a copy from the KERMSRV at Columbia University..  (can't
>remember the exact address to there...)  (BTW, I use Kermit65
>exclusively when I need vt100 emulation (ProTerm's vt100 is flawed) and
>mainframe file transfer capability (As I've said before, in my
>experience, ProTerm's Kermit is also flawed, I don't know if they've
>fixed it in the latest release (I admit I haven't tried Kermit in the
>latest))) But just to check it out, get a copy of Kermit 65 and retry
>your transfers if you don't get any problems, then it was ProTerm, if
>you still do, then the Kermit on the Sun is bad (inform the local
>demi-gods (sysadm))

I've been using Proterm 2.1 to upload and download to both an IBM 3081
running VM/SP and a DEC VAX running BSD UNIX.  The Kermit protocol works
fine on version 2.1.  The amazing part is that the batch even works.
2.1 has a bunch of other nifty stuff like Zmodem, improved macros and
split screen chat that make it worth the $129 (or whatever) it costs.

Mark.

NU128123 @ NDSUVM1.Bitnet
NUTESKEY @ NDSUVAX.Bitnet
NU128123 @ VM1.NoDak.EDU (Internet)
NUTESKEY @ Plains.NoDak.EDU (Internet)

>Chris