doug@giaea.OZ.AU (Douglas Thomson) (12/11/90)
The latest version of my shareware TeleReplica program is now available from
SIMTEL20:
pd1:<msdos.modem>
TR3-6.ZIP Operate PC from a remote location, or monitor
TeleReplica: Remote control/surveillance of one PC from another
Purpose:
- TeleReplica allows two IBM PC-compatible computers to be connected
together (via telephone lines and modems, or via a direct cable, or
via a common mini- or main-frame computer), and arranges for input
to be accepted from either keyboard, and for both displays to
appear identical
Common Applications:
- access to a local area network from a remote site (for example,
we do much of our Novell system administration (backups etc) from
home outside normal working hours)
- software support (to avoid the need for site visits)
Features:
- small memory overhead on PC running applications (total around 9K)
- common screen patterns (such as a repeating block of the same
character or attribute) and common changes (such as scrolling) are
encoded to improve update speed
- obsolete screen changes are not transmitted (thus typing several
commands without waiting for the display to catch up is possible)
- password protection, with password transmitted automatically
- partial automatic baud rate selection
- support for both color and monochrome displays
- support for hardware (CTS/RTS) and software (XON/XOFF) flow control
- support for packet network links
- support for COM1-4 and custom ports
- ability to perform file transfers in the background while the
replica PC is used for other tasks
- support for unattended hosts, including call-back and auto-reboot
- TR is "DESQview-Aware" and will run in a small DV window
- detailed documentation (almost 100K) with examples of TR/TRHOST
installation for some common applications
Limitations:
- cannot replicate graphics displays
- only works with text page 0 and in 80x25 mode
- uses the standard keyboard buffer (in segment 0040)
- causes bad "snowing" on older CGA displays
- slows normal PC operation
- requires DOS 3.0 or later
- does not cope with very noisy lines
Software Compatibility:
- almost all text applications, including:
- WordStar, WordPerfect
- Lotus-style spreadsheets
- dBase, Foxbase, Dataflex
- Turbo Pascal and C
- WordPerfect Office
- Novell utilities
Software Incompatibility:
- all graphics programs (e.g. WordPerfect preview)
- communications programs installed to use the same interrupt!
- programs using text pages other than 0 (e.g. Turbo Debugger?)
============================================================================
Doug.
(doug@giaea.oz.au)doug@giaea.gi.oz (doug thomson) (12/28/90)
I recently made TeleReplica version 3.6 available for FTP from chyde.uwasa.fi
and SIMTEL20. I also sent Timo an announcement that included both a summary
of the changes since the previous version, and a full overview of what the
package did (I also sent a copy of this announcement to Keith, so that he
would have the full announcement regardless of the selection that Timo
decided to post). I was not sure that it was appropriate to use net
bandwidth on the full overview, so I asked the archive site moderators to
use their own judgement about what (if anything) should be posted here.
Timo subsequently posted an announcement including just the summary of
changes. At about that stage I went off on leave.
When I came back, I was most surprised to find a posting claiming to be
from me, including the full overview of TeleReplica! A closer inspection
of the headers revealed the message id to be:
<1637.w8sdz@WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL>
which seems to suggest it was actually posted by Keith.
Now naturally, as a shareware author, I am grateful for any publicity,
but I wonder if it is common knowledge that not all the postings in this
group are actually made by the person indicated in the "From:" line? I
subsequently checked the message id field of other messages of the form,
"my program is now available from SIMTEL20," and found several, from
various different authors, all originating from w8sdz@WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL.
I can see some advantages in doing things this way: anyone who replies to
the posting sends mail to me rather than Keith; and indeed, the bulk of the
message did originate from me, even though I did not post it. Nevertheless,
I feel a little uncomfortable that I appear to be using the net to
advertise my own product - I would feel better about it if it was clear
that the posting was being made by an archive site moderator who had
independently decided that my product warranted such an announcement (I
guess this is why I am posting this message...).
If this is a common practice that everyone else was aware of, then please
excuse my ignorance and ignore this posting. In any case, this posting is
not really relevant to this group, except in so far as the original posting
was in this group, so I ask anyone posting a follow-up to consider carefully
which group would be most appropriate.
Doug.
(doug@giaea.oz.au)
...!munnari.oz.au!goanna!giaea!dougw8sdz@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Keith Petersen) (01/02/91)
doug@giaea.gi.oz (doug thomson) writes: > When I came back, I was most surprised to find a posting claiming to be > from me, including the full overview of TeleReplica! A closer inspection > of the headers revealed the message id to be: > <1637.w8sdz@WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL> > which seems to suggest it was actually posted by Keith. It was reposted by me, and clearly marked as such when it left SIMTEL20. Apprently the news software at ucbvax striped the line I added to the header which said: Comment: Reposted by Keith Petersen In the future I will use the "Summary:" line instead, since that line seems to pass through ok. All messages will have a "Message-Id:" in the general form of: <1637.w8sdz@WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL> with slight variations in format depending upon which mailer I use. I'm sorry you were upset by my reposting. When uploaders provide a longer description in addition to the usual one-liner, I frequently repost their upload announcements. Early last year I had been including their messages in a posting with my name on it. That resulted in questions coming to me which really should have been sent to the author of the program. Since I receive as many as 50 messages per day I had to do something. The repostings have solved that problem and I would like to continue with them. In the future please do not include information in your announcements which you would not post under your own name. That should solve the problem. In my opinion, users appreciate knowing what features program offers so they can decide whether to take the time to download it. If the readers of this newsgroup would rather not see detailed descriptions I will just stick to posting the recent uploads and the monthly uploads listing. Keith -- Keith Petersen Maintainer of SIMTEL20's MSDOS, MISC & CP/M archives [IP address 26.2.0.74] Internet: w8sdz@WSMR-SIMTEL20.Army.Mil or w8sdz@vela.acs.oakland.edu Uucp: uunet!umich!vela!w8sdz BITNET: w8sdz@OAKLAND
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick) (01/04/91)
In article <743@giaea.gi.oz>, doug@giaea.gi.oz (doug thomson) writes: > When I came back, I was most surprised to find a posting claiming to be > from me, including the full overview of TeleReplica! A closer inspection > of the headers revealed the message id to be: > <1637.w8sdz@WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL> > which seems to suggest it was actually posted by Keith. > > Now naturally, as a shareware author, I am grateful for any publicity, > but I wonder if it is common knowledge that not all the postings in this > group are actually made by the person indicated in the "From:" line? I > subsequently checked the message id field of other messages of the form, > "my program is now available from SIMTEL20," and found several, from > various different authors, all originating from w8sdz@WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL. > > I can see some advantages in doing things this way: anyone who replies to > the posting sends mail to me rather than Keith; and indeed, the bulk of the > message did originate from me, even though I did not post it. Nevertheless, > I feel a little uncomfortable that I appear to be using the net to > advertise my own product - I would feel better about it if it was clear > that the posting was being made by an archive site moderator who had > independently decided that my product warranted such an announcement (I > guess this is why I am posting this message...). > > If this is a common practice that everyone else was aware of, then please > excuse my ignorance and ignore this posting. In any case, this posting is > not really relevant to this group, except in so far as the original posting > was in this group, so I ask anyone posting a follow-up to consider carefully > which group would be most appropriate. > > Doug. > (doug@giaea.oz.au) > ....!munnari.oz.au!goanna!giaea!doug I'm a net newcomer who just read RFC 822. It provides a header Sender: for the situation in which the account putting something into the mail is different than the text provided with the From: header. There is a very specific advantage in having the announcement posted by the keeper of the archive - the files are in the archive when the announcement appears. Just put into your transmittal letter the things people need to know to decide whether they want your program. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
system@syzzle.UUCP (SYSTEM 0PERATOR) (01/04/91)
w8sdz@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Keith Petersen) writes: > If the readers of this newsgroup would rather not see detailed > descriptions I will just stick to posting the recent uploads and the > monthly uploads listing. I find it very usefull when any additional information about a program is available. Especially any comments by the author of the program! +---------------------------------+----------------------------+ |Al Oomens awol@syzzle.UUCP | Simplicity is the ultimate | | uunet!ddsw1!infopls!syzzle!awol | form of sophistication! | +---------------------------------+----------------------------+
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (01/08/91)
In article <NBB0u2w163w@syzzle.UUCP> system@syzzle.UUCP (SYSTEM 0PERATOR) writes: | I find it very usefull when any additional information about a program is | available. Especially any comments by the author of the program! Yeah, I find it very helpful to get comments from the submitter of the program, too! (hint). -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
doug@giaea.gi.oz (Douglas Thomson) (01/08/91)
In article <4497@vela.acs.oakland.edu> w8sdz@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Keith Petersen) writes: >doug@giaea.gi.oz (doug thomson) writes: >> When I came back, I was most surprised to find a posting claiming to be >> from me, including the full overview of TeleReplica! A closer inspection >> of the headers revealed the message id to be: >> <1637.w8sdz@WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL> >> which seems to suggest it was actually posted by Keith. > >It was reposted by me, and clearly marked as such when it left >SIMTEL20. Apparently the news software at ucbvax striped the line >I added to the header which said: > >Comment: Reposted by Keith Petersen This possibility did not occur to me, although with the benefit of hindsight it probably should have. My complaint then is purely against the relevant news software, and not directed at Keith at all (my apologies to Keith for not giving him the benefit of the doubt)! As I said in my first posting, I was happy to see the information posted, just surprised that it appeared to have been posted by me... >I'm sorry you were upset by my reposting. I was not so much upset as embarrassed: although I think the information was worth posting, I feel that as the author I am unlikely to be sufficiently objective in making that judgment, and I prefer to leave the final decision about whether and how much of the information I provide gets posted to someone less biased. It is for this reason that I would not have posted such a long summary myself, even though I am pleased to see similar information posted about other people's programs. >When uploaders provide a >longer description in addition to the usual one-liner, I frequently >repost their upload announcements. Early last year I had been >including their messages in a posting with my name on it. That >resulted in questions coming to me which really should have been sent >to the author of the program. Since I receive as many as 50 messages >per day I had to do something. The repostings have solved that >problem and I would like to continue with them. I can quite see the logic in this, and fully approve - provided the news software does not strip the line that lets people know this has been done! >In the future please do not include information in your announcements >which you would not post under your own name. That should solve the >problem. In my opinion, users appreciate knowing what features program >offers so they can decide whether to take the time to download it. Unless I clearly state otherwise, anything I send to any kind of moderator is intended to be posted *if the moderator agrees with me that the information is worth posting*. Since it was Keith's intention that this should have been clear, and the problem was merely caused by some faulty news software, perhaps the sooner the topic is dropped the better! >If the readers of this newsgroup would rather not see detailed >descriptions I will just stick to posting the recent uploads and the >monthly uploads listing. Count my vote in favor of posting the detailed descriptions - the less time, effort and bandwidth I have to waste obtaining programs that prove to be not quite what I wanted the better! Doug. (doug@giaea.oz.au)