🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9103250340.AA23380@lilac.berkeley.edu> BITNIC IBM-NETS List <IBM-NETS%BITNIC.BITNET@lilac.berkeley.edu> writes:
>Is anyone else out there using Interlink's TCP/IP, is there a list for
>this implementation? Technically we've found it blows IBM's MVS/XA
>implementation out of the water.

We're using it, but it could be better.
1) When they say to stick their 37x2 Ethernet box on a channel by itself,
BELIEVE THEM. It soaks up 45% of the channel, no matter what the traffic going
through it.
2) The documentation is unclear at best, and opaque at worst. I still have
problems with the DNR configuration, and can't seem to do an FTP GET to
save my life.
3) The mailer doesn't do MX records. This is nearly a fatal flaw, especially
when the DNR problems mean that perfectly good addresses with A records
fail at times as well - thus, a manual TSO DNRGET is required to determine
the cause of bounced mail.
4) The API is baroque. They modeled it after the VTAM interface...itself not
exactly a model of simplicity. The thought of writing an NNTP reader client
for it gives me cold chills.
5) The only mail user agent for it appears to be UCLAMAIL. Besides needing
an experienced systems programmer to customize and install, this introduces
the inefficiency of a TSO address space just for users whose only use of the
MVS system is mail - hardly the way to go. I'd like to use something like
MEMO, from Verimation, but that requires applications programming - see 4).

Yes, when it works, it's nice and fast. It's just a pain to deal with.

-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu  | adequately be explained by stupidity.
  "You can even run GNUemacs under X-windows without paging if you allow
          about 32MB per user." -- Bill Davidsen  "Oink!" -- me

In article <9103250340.AA23380@lilac.berkeley.edu> BITNIC IBM-NETS List <IBM-NETS%BITNIC.BITNET@lilac.berkeley.edu> writes:
>
>> From IBM announcement letter 290-589:
>>
>>           STATEMENT OF GENERAL DIRECTION
>>           It is IBM's intention to provide Network Computing System (NCS (1)),
>>           Kerberos, REXEC and LPR/LPD support in the TCP/IP MVS environment.
>>           Announcement of this capability will be based on IBM's
>>           business and technical judgement.
>
>What is this supposed to mean? Is IBM announcing it or will they announce
>if their 'business and technical judgement' so indicates?

This is not an announcement of LPR/LPD; rather, it says that IBM
intends to announce such function.  The "business and technical
judgement" phrase is boilerplate, always included in a "statment of
intent".  IBM intends to announce LPR/LPD, but something unforeseen
might happen to change IBM's mind.


Sam Drake / IBM Almaden Research Center 
Internet:  drake@ibm.com            BITNET:  DRAKE at ALMADEN
Usenet:    ...!uunet!ibmarc!drake   Phone:   (408) 927-1861