bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (07/04/86)
Besides the Bridge TCP/IP terminal concentrators you might want to compare the Annex made by Encore Computers (Something, Mass.) I don't know much about the Bridge, I hear they are good, we got involved with the Annex when we got an Encore/MultiMax. The Annex has 16-ports, uses either rlogin or telnet, can listen to rwho packets (is that right? I'm pretty sure) to build its own host table or you can just set things up yourself. It requires software on a host to download it (it's written in C, we ported it to a SUN/3 in about 30 minutes, should work on any reasonable 4.2 system, they've already ported it to a number of systems, I think all we had to do was fix a minor portability glitch for them which they took back.) They also have some project that should be available soon to front-end to GNU Emacs in the Annex box, ask them. -Barry Shein, Boston University Disclaimer: if I worked for Encore I probably wouldn't spend all this time in news :-)
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (07/07/86)
In article <890@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: > >Besides the Bridge TCP/IP terminal concentrators you might want to >compare the Annex made by Encore Computers (Something, Mass.) >I don't know much about the Bridge, I hear they are good, Having used both extensively, I recommend the Annex. >The Annex has >16-ports, uses either rlogin or telnet, can listen to rwho packets >(is that right? I'm pretty sure) to build its own host table or you >can just set things up yourself. Yes, the Annex does seem to understand rwho. It can build a host table and I assume rwho is how it does it. The Annex also listens to routed for sites like us who have more than one internet router to remote networks. The Bridge CS100 does not have printer ports, rlogin, rwho, or routed. >It requires software on a host to >download it (it's written in C, we ported it to a SUN/3 in about >30 minutes, should work on any reasonable 4.2 system, they've already >ported it to a number of systems This is an advantage. Much better than running around updating forty or fifty floppies like the CS100 requires. (We don't have Ethernet terminal servers in large scale use but when we do we'll have that many to maintain.) -- Bring back The Phone Company! Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
krus@diku.UUCP (07/15/86)
In article <12236@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP writes: >In article <890@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: . . Various comments on Annex . >>It [Annex] requires software on a host to >>download it (it's written in C, we ported it to a SUN/3 in about >>30 minutes, should work on any reasonable 4.2 system, they've already >>ported it to a number of systems >This is an advantage. Much better than running around updating forty >or fifty floppies like the CS100 requires. (We don't have Ethernet >terminal servers in large scale use but when we do we'll have that >many to maintain.) If you have non diskbased cs100 with a NCS150 control server, you will only need one copy of the software for cs100's or cs1's on the network. But still, you have little control over booting a box, and it would be nice to have the Bridge boxes to try various boot servers on failure, like the primary and secondary nameserver method. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lars Povlsen, diku!krus/diku!postmaster Institute of Datalogy, University of Copenhagen --------------------------------------------------------------------------
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (07/18/86)
In article <2529@diku.UUCP> krus@diku.UUCP (Lars Povlsen) writes: >In article <12236@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP writes: >>This is an advantage. Much better than running around updating forty >>or fifty floppies like the CS100 requires. (We don't have Ethernet >>terminal servers in large scale use but when we do we'll have that >>many to maintain.) > >If you have non diskbased cs100 with a NCS150 control server, you will >only need one copy of the software for cs100's or cs1's on the >network. We have multiple Unix boxes which can make perfectly good boot servers. Why should I buy a proprietary solution like an NCS150 when Encore supplies free boot server source code? And don't forget you're not just buying one NCS150, you have to buy two for each site if you don't want all your terminal servers down when the NCS150 is down. (The NCS150 is used for name service and boot service, I think?) There is also a limit on the order of 20 to 40 terminal servers an NCS150 can serve based on the amount of configuration information stored on their little floppy. >But still, you have little control over booting a box, and it would be >nice to have the Bridge boxes to try various boot servers on failure, >like the primary and secondary nameserver method. The Annex sends out a broadcast boot request so you can have an arbitrary number of boot servers. Bridge Comm boxes are a closed architecture and proprietary, like IBM MVS/VTAM/CICS. The Annex is open and allows you to use any Unix box as a boot server. The Annex conforms to standards, like full TCP/IP with ICMP echo, 802.3 style Ethernet transceiver connectors, 4.2 BSD rlogin, RIP and rwho (BCI boxes have none of this). Choose what you want. (ask me about how Bridge Comm violates the 802.3 AUI cable connector spec, causing AUI connections to be unreliable.) (I thought about comparing BCI to System V, but at least System V is like Unix. I think BCI is more like MVS.) -- The US Army uses 22 caliber size bullets in their assault rifles (M-16). Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
michaels@hplabsc.UUCP (07/20/86)
In article <890@bu-cs.UUCP>, bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: > > Besides the Bridge TCP/IP terminal concentrators you might want to > compare the Annex made by Encore Computers (Something, Mass.) I have noticed in the discussion of tcp/ip terminal concentrators that a new company called cisco Systems has not been mentioned. Their box, ASM has 32 lines for $8K which is cheaper per port than Bridge or Encore. It is a diskless system which can be configured manually or via some server(s) on the network. It uses standard arpa protocols to accomplish its configuration ( ie: bootp, RARP, tftp, domain name server, IEN-116 name ). It will also have non-volatile RAM so that once configured it will not depend on a server in the event of a power loss. The disadvantage is that it doesn't support things like rwho or gnu-emacs like the Encore. I haven't had an Encore in here to test so I can't comment on its merits. I have tested both a CS/1 and CS/100 and found them to be not all that great. I'm not crazy about Bridge's command language, the maximum packet size on the CS/100 is a pain, and they tend to do strange things like send out bogus arp replys. cisco Systems is located in Menlo Park CA. - Robert (michaels@hplabs)
schoff@rpics.uucp (Martin Schoffstall) (07/22/86)
> In article <890@bu-cs.UUCP>, bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: > > > > Besides the Bridge TCP/IP terminal concentrators you might want to > > compare the Annex made by Encore Computers (Something, Mass.) > > I have noticed in the discussion of tcp/ip terminal concentrators that > a new company called cisco Systems has not been mentioned. Their box, ASM > has 32 lines for $8K which is cheaper per port than Bridge or Encore. > It is a diskless system which can be configured manually or via some > server(s) on the network. It uses standard arpa protocols to accomplish > its configuration ( ie: bootp, RARP, tftp, domain name server, IEN-116 name ). > It will also have non-volatile RAM so that once configured it will not > depend on a server in the event of a power loss. > > The disadvantage is that it doesn't support things like rwho or gnu-emacs > like the Encore. I haven't had an Encore in here to test so I can't comment > on its merits. I have tested both a CS/1 and CS/100 and found them to be > not all that great. I'm not crazy about Bridge's command language, the > maximum packet size on the CS/100 is a pain, and they tend to do strange things > like send out bogus arp replys. > > cisco Systems is located in Menlo Park CA. > > - Robert (michaels@hplabs) > > > People interested in CISCO should investigate the COMPANY. Technically I see no problems, but it truely is a garage-shop operation, how many full time employees do they have? (< 5). -- marty schoffstall schoff%rpics.csnet@csnet-relay ARPA schoff@rpics CSNET seismo!rpics!schoff UUCP martin_schoffstall@TROY.NY.USA.NA.EARTH.SOL UNIVERSENET RPI Computer Science Department Troy, NY 12180 (518) 271-2654
krus@diku.UUCP (Lars Povlsen) (07/25/86)
In article <12364@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP writes: >In article <2529@diku.UUCP> krus@diku.UUCP (Lars Povlsen) writes: >>In article <12236@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP writes: >>>This is an advantage. Much better than running around updating forty >>>or fifty floppies like the CS100 requires. (We don't have Ethernet >>>terminal servers in large scale use but when we do we'll have that >>>many to maintain.) >> >>If you have non diskbased cs100 with a NCS150 control server, you will >>only need one copy of the software for cs100's or cs1's on the >>network. >We have multiple Unix boxes which can make perfectly good boot >servers. Why should I buy a proprietary solution like an NCS150 when >Encore supplies free boot server source code? And don't forget you're >not just buying one NCS150, you have to buy two for each site if you >don't want all your terminal servers down when the NCS150 is down. >(The NCS150 is used for name service and boot service, I think?) Yes, its used for both, but they will be down anyway, since the doubled service only applies to the nameserver, not software & configuration info. >(ask me about how Bridge Comm violates the 802.3 AUI cable connector >spec, causing AUI connections to be unreliable.) The connector is a tragedy, agreed, we had a lot of trouble, and still has. But since we were only aware of the connection to be unreliable, not what being the cause, please follow this up. I think its necessary to stress that I'm not trying to sell anybody anything from BCI (other than 20 CS100's at certain bad days ;-). In fact, I would probably believe *anybody* saying they had a better box than the CS100 and related products. I was just commenting on the boot service that IS available. I am sad to say I haven't any knowledge of the Annex. From what I hear in this forum this is clearly a handicap. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lars Povlsen, diku!krus/diku!postmaster Institute of Datalogy, University of Copenhagen --------------------------------------------------------------------------
michaels@hplabsb.UUCP (Robert Michaels) (07/25/86)
> People interested in CISCO should investigate the COMPANY. Technically > I see no problems, but it truely is a garage-shop operation, how > many full time employees do they have? (< 5). > > -- > marty schoffstall Yes, it should be pointed out that cisco is a startup company which I believe currently has 8 full time employees. It is a spinoff from Stanford University - just like SUN Microsystems. robert michaels (michaels@hplabs)
elg@usl.UUCP (Eric Lee Green) (07/27/86)
In article <58@rpics.uucp> schoff@rpics.UUCP writes: >> In article <890@bu-cs.UUCP>, bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: >> I have noticed in the discussion of tcp/ip terminal concentrators that >> a new company called cisco Systems has not been mentioned. Their box, ASM >> has 32 lines for $8K which is cheaper per port than Bridge or Encore. >> >> cisco Systems is located in Menlo Park CA. >> >> - Robert (michaels@hplabs) >> >People interested in CISCO should investigate the COMPANY. Technically >I see no problems, but it truely is a garage-shop operation, how >many full time employees do they have? (< 5). >marty schoffstall >seismo!rpics!schoff UUCP Wow. This guy must not buy any computer besides IBM, because "Nobody wants to buy anything from some LITTLE company, right?". It is thinking such as this that stifles technical innovation.... you build a better mousetrap, then nobody wants to buy it because you're not as big as Imperial Business Machines. In other words, I find it a disgusting attitude... though I'd want to make darn sure that schematics and software source code could be obtained in the event that the company failed. {-- -- Computing from the Bayous, -- Eric Green {akgua,ut-sally}!usl!elg (Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509)
schoff@rpics.uucp (Martin Schoffstall) (07/28/86)
> Wow. This guy must not buy any computer besides IBM, because "Nobody > wants to buy anything from some LITTLE company, right?". It is > thinking such as this that stifles technical innovation.... you build > a better mousetrap, then nobody wants to buy it because you're not as > big as Imperial Business Machines. > > In other words, I find it a disgusting attitude... though I'd want to > make darn sure that schematics and software source code could be > obtained in the event that the company failed. > {-- > -- Computing from the Bayous, -- > Eric Green {akgua,ut-sally}!usl!elg > (Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509) What a foolish position. I believe that we own 3 IBM pc's. We own things like Balance8000's, a 21000 and a few SUN's with serial numbers under 100. My posting was to allow people to have more of the story than the "warm technological glow" that others posted. -- marty schoffstall schoff%rpics.csnet@csnet-relay ARPA schoff@rpics CSNET seismo!rpics!schoff UUCP martin_schoffstall@TROY.NY.USA.NA.EARTH.SOL UNIVERSENET RPI Computer Science Department Troy, NY 12180 (518) 271-2654
hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer) (07/29/86)
>... > ... though I'd want to > make darn sure that schematics and software source code could be > obtained in the event that the company failed. > {-- > -- Computing from the Bayous, -- > Eric Green {akgua,ut-sally}!usl!elg It turns out that this is not simple to do. A simple escrow arrangement won't necessarily work. You need real good legal advice if you want to count on obtaining schematics and source in case of company failure. (The way it works is that the bankruptcy trustee of the company sees this escrow of schematics and source as an asset of the company and so can't let it go to you!) --henry schaffer n c state univ