Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!inmos!rob From: rob@europa.inmos.co.uk (Robin Pickering) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: MNP vs. uucp 'g' - my solution Message-ID: <2109@ganymede.inmos.co.uk> Date: 27 Sep 89 11:27:53 GMT References: <125285@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> Sender: news@inmos.co.uk Reply-To: rob@inmos.co.uk (Robin Pickering) Organization: INMOS Limited, Bristol, UK. Lines: 22 In article <125285@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> shannon%datsun@Sun.COM (Bill Shannon) writes: >As "everyone knows", MNP and uucp's 'g' protocol just don't get along. >So, I decided there must be a better way. What does MNP give you? >MNP 5 gives you reliable data transfer (at least from modem to modem >if not from program to program) and data compression. Well, uucp's >'g' protocol already gives you reliable data transfer (from program >to program) so all that missing is compression. But, we have a pretty >good compression program in UNIX (compress 4.0) so why not just use >that? Why use up all that expensive CPU to do something the modem will already do for you?. Why not use one of the non error correcting protocols like 'f' or 't' over your MNP modems which will do the error correction (and compression) for you. Rob Pickering, Inmos Limited. -- JANET: ROB@UK.CO.INMOS | Snail: 1000 Aztec West Internet: rob@inmos.com | Almondsbury Path: ukc!inmos!rob or uunet!inmos-c!rob | Bristol BS12 4SQ Phone: +44 454 611517 | UK