Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mandrill!gatech!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!interlan!backman
From: backman@interlan.UUCP (Larry Backman)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
Subject: Re:  OS/2 TCP/IP, anyone?
Message-ID: <541@interlan.UUCP>
Date: 21 Jun 88 13:31:43 GMT
References: <8806201234.aa16881@Louie.UDEL.EDU>
Reply-To: backman@interlan.UUCP (Larry Backman)
Organization: MICOM-Interlan, Boxborough, MA (1-800-LAN-TALK)
Lines: 62

In article <8806201234.aa16881@Louie.UDEL.EDU> snorthc@NSWC-G.ARPA writes:
>Phil Karn's code is the only PCIP I have found that runs in the
>DOS compatibility box, The FTP SW INC and CMU drivers are rejected
>by the OS/2 operating system at boot.
>

  Forget the "penalty box" box for OS/2 networking solutions.  Running
  networking code in the compatablity box defeats the whole purpose
  of networking underr OS/2, providing a networking interface that is
  an integrated part of the OS.

>OS/2 without networking and SW applications is rather like UNIX
>system 5 rel. 2, a lot of potential, if only there was something
>it would actually DO.
>

	Having spent the last 5 months chasing Microsoft's moving target
	with LAN Manager, Protocol Manager, and OS/2, I have to agree.
	We have OS/2 networked in house using the SDK LAN Manager.  Is it
	usable?  Yes, I am compiling across the network as I write this.
	Is it a finished product?  No, LAN Managar and Protocol Manager are
	still evolving.  Are wwwe selling it?  Well... I don't really want to
	answer that one!

	Two examples:

	We received that OS/2 SDK kit LAN Manager betat with .exe's dated 5/6/8
	Up till then we had been happily running LAN Manager under DOS & OS/2
	with exe's dated 3/15/88.  DOS MSNET talked to OS/2 LM and everyone was
	happy!  Now, upon my doorstep sits a box of disks, pretty Microsoft
	labels, nice documentation indicating that everything is going to
	work better than before.   So we plug in the disks, and to our surprise
	DOS no longer talks to OS/2.  I do some Sniffing, find some SMB 
	no-no's, and send off a Technical Assistance Report (TAR) to Microsoft.
	Lo and behold, a day later the answer back; "Yes DOS and OS/2 do
	not talk to each other.  Is that a major problem for you?".

	Example #2.  There is a thing called the protocol manager, designed by
	a comittee of Microsoft & 3Com.  It allows protocol modules to talk
	to MAC modules which talk to wires.  It demands that not only does
	the protocol module leave space for a MAC header in a transmit buffer,
	but worse yet, the protocol module actually build the MAC header into
	the ttransmit buffer.  NNo so bad you think, but...  The point of the
	protocol manager is to isolate protocol's from MAC's.  Now my humble
	little protocol has to know how to build an ethernet header, a Token-
	ring header, an FDDI header, an SDLC header, et. al.  So off went
	another TAR to Msoft suggesting some sort of interface that passed
	a MAC structure as well as a transmit buffer.  Nothing was heard from
	Washington state forr a day, a week, and then..., We reviewed your 
	TAR, and have FAXED it to 3COM since it is their problem".

	In all seriousness, I am not trying to fault Microsoft or 3COM, only
	have a little fun at their expense.  OS/2 & LAN manager are neat to
	play with today; in a year they are going to be a full fledged product
	with awesome possibilities.  It's not a bad product today, it's an
	alpha or pre-beta product with 3,000 beta sites.  It's going to be
	a slow year until the product is complete, when it's complete it
	will be a barnburner.


						Larry Backman
						Micom - Interlan