root@pegasus.UUCP (Super user) (05/30/91)
I have recently worked with SCO's TCP/IP (version 1.0r) on both
SCO XENIX 386 2.3.2 and SCO UNIX 3.2 and I have noticed
a) telnet is missing the "binary" command
which is absolutely needed outside US
b) both rlogin and telnet have a annoying "bumpy" feeling
as if transmitting data in big chunks
Now in my major system (a 486 with SCO XENIX 386 2.3.2) I have an
old faithful Excelan (now no longer produced I think) with Excelan's
software that even though is non ARPA-standard, is certainly slower
and has bad mail implementation yet its rlogin and telnet are very smooth
and both work fine in binary mode.
I want to replace the Excelan with WD8003 and SCO's TCP/IP. Is there
a configuration so that telnet works in binary and communication
gets smooth ?
P.S. Is there a XENIX 386 2.3.3 ? I have seen references for it
in many places.
Please answer with e-mail since we are slow in receiving news.
Thanks in advance,
E.Sarmasjp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) (05/31/91)
In article <22@pegasus.UUCP> root@pegasus.UUCP (Super user) writes:
"
" I have recently worked with SCO's TCP/IP (version 1.0r) on both
" SCO XENIX 386 2.3.2 and SCO UNIX 3.2 and I have noticed
"
" a) telnet is missing the "binary" command
" which is absolutely needed outside US
"
" b) both rlogin and telnet have a annoying "bumpy" feeling
" as if transmitting data in big chunks
"
Add that to the growing list of items which makes LAI TCP/IP lame.
I tried to get hold of SCO regarding failure of their TCP/IP to
adhere to accepted standards by providing support for UUCP connections.
Last Friday, a tech support guy called me and suggested using SMTP.
Sorry, but some of the sites I talk to require UUCP over TCP/IP -
PERIOD. It seems to me that they'd have to make a EFFORT to EXCLUDE
UUCP support instead of INCLUDE it. I mean, if they have a UNIX
source code license, they already have the support in there. Why would
they intentionally cripple a piece of software? Thats what irks me.
Anyways, my phone died in the middle of the conversation with the
SCO rep and he hasn't called me back. I can't get support for my
customers or my own systems. Thats why we'll be dropping our SCO
Reseller Contract soon and will be sticking with Interactive.
--
CAT-TALK Conferencing System | "Buster Bunny is an abused | E-MAIL:
+1 313 343 0800 (USR HST) | child. Trust me - I'm a | jp@Michigan.COM
+1 313 343 2925 (TELEBIT PEP) | professional..." |
********EIGHT NODES*********** | -- Roger Rabbit | chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) (06/01/91)
In article <1991May30.224320.4758@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes: >I tried to get hold of SCO regarding failure of their TCP/IP to >adhere to accepted standards by providing support for UUCP connections. To which standards are you referring, pray tell? SVID? POSIX? FIPS? Maybe you are making this up as you go along, and don't really know what the fuck you are talking about. >Last Friday, a tech support guy called me and suggested using SMTP. >Sorry, but some of the sites I talk to require UUCP over TCP/IP - Then tell them to get their SMTP fixed. SMTP is a recommended part of the TCP/IP protocol suite. uucp isn't even granted elective status. >It seems to me that they'd have to make a EFFORT to EXCLUDE >UUCP support instead of INCLUDE it. I mean, if they have a UNIX >source code license, they already have the support in there. How can one boy have room for so many feet in a single mouth? >Thats why we'll be dropping our SCO Reseller Contract soon and will >be sticking with Interactive. Good. I hope that means we won't be seeing you around this group anymore. -- Chip Rosenthal <chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM> | Don't play that Unicom Systems Development 512-482-8260 | loud, Mr. Collins.