Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!sunic!draken!perand
From: perand@nada.kth.se (Per Andersson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: XMODEM,YMODEM,ZMODEM,KERMIT Which is best and why?
Keywords: ZMODEM, KERMIT
Message-ID: <2644@draken.nada.kth.se>
Date: 2 Jan 90 18:57:00 GMT
References: <32428@news.Think.COM> <919@eecea.eece.ksu.edu> <9457@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <1990Jan2.173650.23642@uwasa.fi>
Reply-To: perand@nada.kth.se (Per Andersson)
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Lines: 24


There has been quite a lot of discussion of 'kermit' vs. Z-modem lately.
What almost everybody forgot to mention is what kind of kermit you are
running. This is most important, due to allowed differences in the 
implementation ( which, of course, doesn't mean they won't talk to each
other). When comparing with Z-modem you should choose C-kermit and MS-kermit,
which allow large packet-sizes etc. There is no reason to blame the kermit
protocol for bad implementations. These few percent I might loose running
MS-Kermit instead of Z-modem don't bother me, as I really like to have a 
transfer program available on my mini ( Norsk Data btw.). Kermit has yet
the absolutely greatest count of implementations.

I tend to run Z-modem, or rather TELIX, but then rather for its simplicity
on my 8-bit path, and it's auto-transfer starting. But maybe kermit allows 
that too, and nobody has yet implemented it ?. Apart from filetransfer,
MS-Kermit tends to be one of the greatest terminal emulators around ( as
someone also mentioned previously ).

Happy flaming, Per
-- 
---
Per Andersson
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
perand@admin.kth.se, @nada.kth.se