Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!yale!husc6!bu-cs!kwe
From: kwe@bu-cs.BU.EDU (kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent W. England))
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: U-B Terminal servers flame
Message-ID: <23841@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 13 Jul 88 21:45:36 GMT
References: <320@ucrmath.UUCP>   <9877@g.ms.uky.edu> <23731@bu-cs.BU.EDU> 
Reply-To: kwe@buit13.bu.edu (Kent England)
Followup-To: comp.dcom.lans
Organization: Boston Univ. Information Tech. Dept.
Lines: 48

In article  ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes:
>Anybody who bases their observations on terminal servers on any
>Ungergmann/Bass product is screwed up.  
> [flames regarding U-B performance deleted]

	Well, I won't dispute the fact that I am screwed up, but I
will dispute the basis of that observation :-)

	U-B terminal servers running on U-B developed XNS-based
protocols work well.  U-B's handling of serial port handshaking and
special quirks of specific terminals (like HP) is very good.  The
virtual circuit software works well and the broadband option was quite
valuable at one time (still is).

	U-B's commitment to telnet and TCP/IP is uneven.  The PC
software is ahead of the NIU software and U-B backed out of
development of IP routers, although there are still some running at
the New Jersey Institute of Technology on jvnc-net, I believe.

	I assume that Ron's flame was based on hard experience with
the first release of telnet software on the NIUs.  That frustration is
well earned.  I reserve judgement on the current release called
"TCP/IP Release 16" (to coincide with [XNS] Release 16 in name
convention).

	Please don't label me a U-B apologist, I can flame on about
U-B with the best of anyone, but I am not stupid or screwed up for
having recommended, used, or even liked U-B products.  Find me a
better [any!] broadband terminal server in the 1984 timeframe.  (Hey,
anyone can find a better terminal server in the 1988 timeframe, that's
not a really tough trick  :-)

	One thing the world could use right now is a definitive
evaluation matrix/document that we could use to rank and select all
the umpteen telnet servers out there.  Anyone done it yet?  I even
heard today that Sytek (remember the king of broadband networking back
in, what, 1982??) has a telnet server!!

	So, does anyone have a full-up telnet server evaluation
document that they would care to share?  I'm looking for something
that would let one evaluate a server initially on paper; weed out the
misfits (like anyone who doesn't support icmp :-) and select a
reasonable few that could be scrutinized in detail.

	How does one know ahead of time that the Sytek telnet server
isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread?

	Kent England, Boston University