psm@manta.NOSC.MIL (Scot Mcintosh) (04/08/91)
I've been watching this newsgroup for a while, but haven't seen the answer to this question go by. Why are there two divergent lines of development going on for telnet? Is there a reason I should pick one over the other (one reason could be that CUTCP doesn't seen to offer source). Can someone enlighten me on the history behind this seeming schism?
srodawa@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Ron Srodawa) (04/09/91)
In article <1881@manta.NOSC.MIL> psm@manta.NOSC.MIL (Scot Mcintosh) writes: >Can someone enlighten me on the history behind this >seeming schism? NCSA began as just that, a program from the National Center for Supercomputer Applications at UIUC. Clarkson picked it up and added several improvements. These included support of the packet driver spec, 3270 emulation, Turbo C compatability, bug fixes, environment variable specification of the Config.Tel file location, etc. The real NCSA group chose to not accept all these improve- ments. That cast the die for two divergent products. Clarkson then renamed theirs CUTCP to avoid confusion. The lack of source from Clarkson happened independently of all that. It was available freely for the earlier versions. You can blame that on overzealous university attorneys. These are my personal impressions of what has happened. Perhaps others see it differently. It is too bad that NCSA and Clarkson can't combine their efforts for a single unified program. Being universities, they have meager resources. It would be nice if those resources could be conserved by joint program improvements. -- | Ronald J. Srodawa | Internet: srodawa@vela.oakland.edu | | School of Engineering and CS | UUCP: srodawa@vela.UUCP | | Oakland University | Voice: (313) 370-2247 | | Rochester, Michigan 48309-4401 | |
berger@iboga (Mike Berger) (04/16/91)
psm@manta.NOSC.MIL (Scot Mcintosh) writes: >I've been watching this newsgroup for a while, but haven't >seen the answer to this question go by. Why are there two >divergent lines of development going on for telnet? Is >there a reason I should pick one over the other (one >reason could be that CUTCP doesn't seen to offer source). >Can someone enlighten me on the history behind this >seeming schism? *---- Telnet doesn't seem to be a high priority for NCSA anymore. Note that the latest version is in its 13th or so Beta-test implementation! Clarkson came out with a packet driver version much sooner. NCSA is unlikely to come out with 3270 support in the foreseeable future (we need that even if everybody else doesn't). Clarkson provides more active support and a more robust product. The FTP Software PC-TCP package beats them both in functionality and flexibility, but of course it costs substantially more. -- Mike Berger Department of Statistics, University of Illinois AT&TNET 217-244-6067 Internet berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu
mer6g@fuggles.acc.Virginia.EDU (Marc Rouleau) (04/16/91)
berger@iboga (Mike Berger) writes: |Telnet doesn't seem to be a high priority for NCSA anymore. Note |that the latest version is in its 13th or so Beta-test implementation! |Clarkson came out with a packet driver version much sooner. NCSA is |unlikely to come out with 3270 support in the foreseeable future (we |need that even if everybody else doesn't). | |Clarkson provides more active support and a more robust product. But they *don't* provide source. From our point of view that's a crucial failing. Brad Clements has taken great pains to point out that he does not support this product in any official capacity. The official Clarkson attitude seems to be "use it at your own risk". In other words, if it's broken in your environment Brad'll fix it if he feels like it, but under no circumstances will you be allowed to fix it yourself. And if you need to modify it to do something that's important to your site but not to Brad, you're just out of luck. Sigh. -- Marc Rouleau
chapman@acf3.NYU.EDU (Gary Chapman) (04/16/91)
This would be a slightly more tolerable situation if Clarkson would release SOURCE! Has anyone ever received a definitive statement whether or not Clarkson would release source code? - Gary Chapman, New York University
jstern@orion.oac.uci.edu (Jeff Stern) (04/17/91)
In article <1991Apr15.170113@fuggles.acc.Virginia.EDU>, marc@Virginia.EDU writes: >But [Clarkson *doesn't*] provide source. From our point of view that's a >crucial failing. Brad Clements has taken great pains to point out >that he does not support this product in any official capacity. >The official Clarkson attitude seems to be "use it at your own risk". >In other words, if it's broken in your environment Brad'll fix it >if he feels like it, but under no circumstances will you be allowed >to fix it yourself. And if you need to modify it to do something >that's important to your site but not to Brad, you're just out of >luck. > >Sigh. (This is NOT directed at anyone in particular, PLEASE) BUT, I have paid alot more for software from "professional, supportive, (you fill in the blank)" companies, and gotten the same response! :) So for the money... ...Jeff Stern ------------------------->jstern@orion.oac.uci.edu<-------------------------
mer6g@fuggles.acc.Virginia.EDU (Marc Rouleau) (04/17/91)
jstern@orion.oac.uci.edu (Jeff Stern) writes: >(This is NOT directed at anyone in particular, PLEASE) BUT, I have paid >alot more for software from "professional, supportive, (you fill in the >blank)" companies, and gotten the same response! :) So for the money... So far, the support Brad Clements has given CUTE/CUTCP is comparable to that afforded many commercial products, but he explicitly disavows all responsibility to continue that support. I tend to think that the product is mature enough now that whether or not he'll continue to fix bugs and correct critical functional deficiencies is not such an important issue. But if you need to do something special-purpose with it (port whois or webster or finger or add a new way of getting the workstation's IP address or whatever), you can't. And with NCSA's product (that's what we were comparing it to, right?), you can. -- Marc Rouleau
erick@sunee.waterloo.edu (Erick Engelke) (04/18/91)
In article <1991Apr17.101536@fuggles.acc.Virginia.EDU> marc writes: >... >But if you need to do something special-purpose with it (port >whois or webster or finger or add a new way of getting the >workstation's IP address or whatever), you can't. And with NCSA's >product (that's what we were comparing it to, right?), you can. > People interested in developing new applications might wish to look at Waterloo TCP. It's BSD UNIX-similar and applications can be easily adapted to or from any of the commercial stacks. FINGER, REXEC, and several other applications have already been ported and typically with far less code that is necessary with NCSA. Our PING, LPR, FINGER, and other programs are also far smaller than NCSA, typically less than 30K. Source for the applications code is available via anonymous FTP to sunee.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.128.196] in pub/wattcp/*.arc and an in-depth manual is available at a fee. There is no licensing fee or royalties. Details of the mailing list are included in the archive files. Source code for the TCP libraries themselves is not available publicly, but the project is under active development so any bug reports are explored. Erick -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Erick Engelke Watstar Computer Network Watstar Network Guy University of Waterloo Erick@Development.Watstar.UWaterloo.ca (519) 885-1211 Ext. 2965