sdussin@daitc.daitc.mil (Steve Dussinger) (09/14/89)
I have several questions regarding the Communications Toolbox that APDA offers. Any assistance from netland would be greatly appreciated. First, is the comm toolbox capable of communicating over ethernet cable to a UNIX box?? Secondly, to use the Comm Toolbox, must I use MPW 'C' or can I use it from TC or other langauges (eg Allegro Common LISP). Any other info you could gice me regarding the Comm Toolbox would be warmly received as well, such as how easy is it to use, any known problems with it, etc... If there is enough interest, I'll post a summary to the net. Thanx in advance. -Steve- _______________________________________________________________________ ! Addresses: Steve Dussinger ! InterNet: sdussin@dgis.daitc.mil Systems Consultant ! dussing@cmf.nrl.navy.mil Control Data Corporation ! ATTNet: (703) 998-3490 (w) 1800 N. Beauregard St. ! (703) 751-2179 (h) Alexandria, Virginia 22304 ! _______________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer: I'm a consultant. Whatever I say doesn't mean anything, anyway. _______________________________________________________________________
kazim@Apple.COM (Alex Kazim) (09/15/89)
In article <627@daitc.daitc.mil> sdussin@daitc.daitc.mil (Steve Dussinger) writes: >First, is the comm toolbox capable of communicating over ethernet >cable to a UNIX box?? Yes, as long as someone writes the connection tool to do it. For instance, a tool that sits on top of MacTCP would be neat. Hopefully we'll see a lot of 3rd party tools soon. > >Secondly, to use the Comm Toolbox, must I use MPW 'C' or can I use it >from TC or other langauges (eg Allegro Common LISP). Should be fine. I haven't heard of any serious problems with LSC aside from some interface massaging. If anyone has problems, let DTS know, or post a message. > >Any other info you could gice me regarding the Comm Toolbox would be >warmly received as well, such as how easy is it to use, any known ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Of course, I'm biased, but it better be easy to use or we've screwed up. Actually, we've been getting a lot of good feedback of people who've implemented tools in a couple of weeks. A basic application starting from a shell is about 10K and takes an afternoon. Of course, I've written several test apps... ==================================================================== Alex Kazim, Apple Computer These opinions are mine, of course ====================================================================
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (09/15/89)
In article <34737@apple.Apple.COM> kazim@Apple.COM (Alex Kazim) writes: >In article <627@daitc.daitc.mil> sdussin@daitc.daitc.mil (Steve Dussinger) writes: >>First, is the comm toolbox capable of communicating over ethernet >>cable to a UNIX box?? > >Yes, as long as someone writes the connection tool to do it. For instance, >a tool that sits on top of MacTCP would be neat. Hopefully we'll see >a lot of 3rd party tools soon. In other words, No, you can't use the Communications Toolbox to talk TCP/IP over ethernet. I find it disappointing (not to mention ironic) that both the Communications Toolbox and MacTCP are Apple products, but Apple thinks that third parties should provide the software necessary to tie them together. If it's just a matter of Apple's product not being ready, that's one thing. But I've heard this "third party" business from more than one source, so I'm wondering if Apple is punting on this issue. -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: {convex,uunet}!uiucuxc!dorner IfUMust: (217) 244-1765
alan@Apple.COM (Alan Mimms) (09/16/89)
In article <1989Sep15.135231.3726@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes: >In article <34737@apple.Apple.COM> kazim@Apple.COM (Alex Kazim) writes: >>In article <627@daitc.daitc.mil> sdussin@daitc.daitc.mil (Steve Dussinger) writes: >>>First, is the comm toolbox capable of communicating over ethernet >>>cable to a UNIX box?? >> >>Yes, as long as someone writes the connection tool to do it. For instance, >>a tool that sits on top of MacTCP would be neat. Hopefully we'll see >>a lot of 3rd party tools soon. > >In other words, No, you can't use the Communications Toolbox to >talk TCP/IP over ethernet. > >I find it disappointing (not to mention ironic) that both the Communications >Toolbox and MacTCP are Apple products, but Apple thinks that third parties >should provide the software necessary to tie them together. > >If it's just a matter of Apple's product not being ready, that's one thing. >But I've heard this "third party" business from more than one source, >so I'm wondering if Apple is punting on this issue. >-- >Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office >Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: {convex,uunet}!uiucuxc!dorner >IfUMust: (217) 244-1765 It is a matter of public record that a product called MacX is under development at Apple which (a) uses the Comm Toolbox, and (b) works with MacTCP and with ADSP. You'd sortof imagine that some connection tools might come out of that effort, wouldn't you? Unfortunately, they won't be available (necessarily) as separate products just yet, but that might happen if enough people ask for it... -- Alan Mimms My opinions are generally Communications Product Development Group pretty worthless, but Apple Computer they *are* my own... "The company has new jobs and Jobs has a new company" -- Harry Anderson
amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (09/16/89)
In article <4192@internal.Apple.COM>, alan@Apple.COM (Alan Mimms) writes: > It is a matter of public record that a product called MacX is under > development at Apple which (a) uses the Comm Toolbox, and (b) works with > MacTCP and with ADSP. You'd sortof imagine that some connection tools > might come out of that effort, wouldn't you? Only if we're lucky :-). A telnet stream is not the same as a vanilla TCP stream (which is what X wants, as I remember). In particular, handling option negotiation and doing stuff like mapping a request for a break signal to a Telnet "Interrupt Process" IAC sequence are needed for a Telnet tool, but not for something like X. If Apple doesn't release a Telnet tool, though, there are probably third parties that are looking very closely at the issue... -- Amanda Walker amanda@intercon.com
kazim@Apple.COM (Alex Kazim) (09/16/89)
In article <1989Sep15.135231.3726@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes: > >I find it disappointing (not to mention ironic) that both the Communications >Toolbox and MacTCP are Apple products, but Apple thinks that third parties >should provide the software necessary to tie them together. > Let's step back and look at some of the reasons: 1) Resources: Sometimes we just don't have the people to work on a needed product. 2) Evangelism: tool development is a marketplace for developers. Apple is in the business of empowering and leveraging 3rd parties. The initial tools released in the CommToolbox will be the minimal that we can both show the power and utility of the toolbox. 3) Marketing: We are a hardware company -- it's where we make our money. It's why we don't do applications anymore :-) Let's face it: if we wrote it, a lot of people wouldn't consider doing one because they think we have a lock on the market. Apple came under a lot of pressure to axe the free MacWrite & MacPaint. What I'm hoping is that we don't just see one of these tools, but a whole slew of: "hey, look what I hacked up over the weekend" ====================================================================== Alex Kazim, Apple Computer Phone Repair Man ======================================================================