Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!ked From: ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: Tenex mode Message-ID: <24994@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: 29 May 89 16:47:36 GMT References: Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 34 In article WANCHO@WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL ("Frank J. Wancho") writes: >Earl, > >I have not seen the original message(s) which prompted your message. >So, quite possibly the answers below are out-of-context. Nonetheless, >they beg for comment and explanation... Marc Crispin has given a detailed response. Part of the problem is apparently an archaic version of ftp that is on the SUN I use. > given its apparent function, TOPS20 must be near, if not dead on, > the poorest OS choice for the system that could have been made. > >Berkeley VAX Unix machines were on the net. The primary purpose of >SIMTEL20 is to function as a very reliable mail host for various Army >and other federal agencies and their contractors. Key word in my posting is apparent. In terms of gaining access to material for downloading to **IX and **DOS environments, a system with a file structure similar to **IX or **DOS would be far more congenial. uunet.uu.net is easier to work with. >TOPS20 is still by far THE best I have ever had the pleasure to use >and maintain. I'm curious: why does TOPS20 seem to be going nowhere or am I mistaken in this impression? >unused disk space. We could have run another OS on this machine, but >the filenames would have been severely contrained, among other >limiting factors. Compared to BSD **IX? Although there are other considerations in a file system, case insensitivity hardly seems a plus.