MS-DOS Kermit: release 3.15 or 3.16? - Protocols

This is a discussion on MS-DOS Kermit: release 3.15 or 3.16? - Protocols ; Hi again! I want to run MS Kermit in a DOS computer (an old but excellent i80286, it is not a joke); this computer will be a DEC VT compatible terminal with file transfer functionality. My question is easy: what ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: MS-DOS Kermit: release 3.15 or 3.16?

  1. MS-DOS Kermit: release 3.15 or 3.16?

    Hi again!

    I want to run MS Kermit in a DOS computer (an old but excellent i80286,
    it is not a joke); this computer will be a DEC VT compatible terminal
    with file transfer functionality. My question is easy: what MS-DOS
    Kermit release must I run? MS-DOS Kermit 3.15 or MS-DOS Kermit 3.16?
    Some random thoughts:

    - MS-DOS Kermit 3.16 is beta, but has not been updated since 1999.
    It is for personal use, but I really prefer running a stable
    release if there is not a good reason for running a beta release.

    - MS-DOS Kermit 3.16 fixes some important problems (memory leaks,
    a serious problem related with sending incomplete Kermit packets
    over a serial port connections, a lot of minor bugs, and so on).

    - On http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/mskermit.html we can read "you
    can install this on top of 3.14 or 3.15". Well, the zip file
    that contains the overlay files for MS-DOS Kermit 3.16 has only
    two files, the overlay for 3.15 has more files. It seems that
    we will not get the same version installing 3.16 on top of 3.14
    than on top of 3.15.

    Should I stay at MS-DOS Kermit 3.15? Is it better trying 3.16?
    In this case, should I apply 3.15 on top of 3.14, and 3.16 on top
    of 3.15 + 3.14?

    Will be a final release of MS-DOS Kermit 3.16? If MS-DOS Kermit
    version 3.16 works and is a recommended one for MS-DOS computers,
    would not be better making a final release to show that it is not
    beta anymore?

    Best regards,
    Igor.

  2. Re: MS-DOS Kermit: release 3.15 or 3.16?

    Igor Sobrado wrote:
    > Hi again!
    >
    > I want to run MS Kermit in a DOS computer (an old but excellent i80286,
    > it is not a joke); this computer will be a DEC VT compatible terminal
    > with file transfer functionality. My question is easy: what MS-DOS
    > Kermit release must I run? MS-DOS Kermit 3.15 or MS-DOS Kermit 3.16?
    > Some random thoughts:
    >
    > - MS-DOS Kermit 3.16 is beta, but has not been updated since 1999.
    > It is for personal use, but I really prefer running a stable
    > release if there is not a good reason for running a beta release.
    >
    > - MS-DOS Kermit 3.16 fixes some important problems (memory leaks,
    > a serious problem related with sending incomplete Kermit packets
    > over a serial port connections, a lot of minor bugs, and so on).
    >
    > - On http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/mskermit.html we can read "you
    > can install this on top of 3.14 or 3.15". Well, the zip file
    > that contains the overlay files for MS-DOS Kermit 3.16 has only
    > two files, the overlay for 3.15 has more files. It seems that
    > we will not get the same version installing 3.16 on top of 3.14
    > than on top of 3.15.
    >
    > Should I stay at MS-DOS Kermit 3.15? Is it better trying 3.16?
    > In this case, should I apply 3.15 on top of 3.14, and 3.16 on top
    > of 3.15 + 3.14?
    >
    > Will be a final release of MS-DOS Kermit 3.16? If MS-DOS Kermit
    > version 3.16 works and is a recommended one for MS-DOS computers,
    > would not be better making a final release to show that it is not
    > beta anymore?
    >
    > Best regards,
    > Igor.


    MS-DOS Kermit has not been updated since 1999. Use 3.16 unless it
    causes a problem for you. In which case you can back off to 3.15.

    Jeffrey Altman

  3. Re: MS-DOS Kermit: release 3.15 or 3.16?

    Jeffrey Altman wrote:
    > Igor Sobrado wrote:
    >>
    >> Should I stay at MS-DOS Kermit 3.15? Is it better trying 3.16?
    >> In this case, should I apply 3.15 on top of 3.14, and 3.16 on top
    >> of 3.15 + 3.14?
    >>
    >> Will be a final release of MS-DOS Kermit 3.16? If MS-DOS Kermit
    >> version 3.16 works and is a recommended one for MS-DOS computers,
    >> would not be better making a final release to show that it is not
    >> beta anymore?

    >
    > MS-DOS Kermit has not been updated since 1999. Use 3.16 unless it
    > causes a problem for you. In which case you can back off to 3.15.


    Hi, Jeffrey.

    Ok, in this case I will consider MS-DOS Kermit 3.16 an stable release.

    Are there plans to label 3.16 as a stable release, in the same way 3.14
    and 3.15 are? And to provide the missing files in the 3.16 zip file?

    I do not know the current status of MS-DOS Kermit, does professor Joe
    Doupnik continue working on it? Ok, I guess I know the answers...
    DOS is an ancient operating system. In fact, my choice would be
    NetBSD and C-Kermit for that computer if it is somewhat better than
    a 286, but looking for a Unix or Unix-like OS for a 16-bit PC is a
    challenging task!

    Thanks again for your reply, I will try 3.16 then.

    Igor.

  4. Re: MS-DOS Kermit: release 3.15 or 3.16?

    Igor Sobrado wrote:

    > Are there plans to label 3.16 as a stable release


    In order for it to become a complete release someone is going
    to have to spend the time to finish the work of producing a
    final release. No one has had to time to do that work in seven
    years nor is there any significant demand, therefore at this
    point it is unlikely to ever happen. I won't say it will never
    happen just that it is unlikely.

    Jeffrey Altman

  5. Re: MS-DOS Kermit: release 3.15 or 3.16?

    Jeffrey Altman wrote:
    > Igor Sobrado wrote:
    >
    >> Are there plans to label 3.16 as a stable release

    >
    > In order for it to become a complete release someone is going
    > to have to spend the time to finish the work of producing a
    > final release. No one has had to time to do that work in seven
    > years nor is there any significant demand, therefore at this
    > point it is unlikely to ever happen. I won't say it will never
    > happen just that it is unlikely.


    Hi Jeffrey.

    In this case, I will follow your advice and use 3.16 in its current
    state. If I see something odd, I will downgrade to 3.15. Thanks
    a lot for the detailed description of the "stability" of this beta
    of 3.16. I hope that someone will finish that release some day.

    Sorry for the delay answering to your post, this weekend I assisted
    to a conference on associative and non-associative algebraic structures.
    The conference has finished right now.

    Best regards,
    Igor.

  6. Re: MS-DOS Kermit: release 3.15 or 3.16?

    On 2006-08-20, Igor Sobrado wrote:
    : Jeffrey Altman wrote:
    :> Igor Sobrado wrote:
    :>
    :>> Are there plans to label 3.16 as a stable release
    :>
    :> In order for it to become a complete release someone is going
    :> to have to spend the time to finish the work of producing a
    :> final release. No one has had to time to do that work in seven
    :> years nor is there any significant demand, therefore at this
    :> point it is unlikely to ever happen. I won't say it will never
    :> happen just that it is unlikely.
    :
    : In this case, I will follow your advice and use 3.16 in its current
    : state. If I see something odd, I will downgrade to 3.15. Thanks
    : a lot for the detailed description of the "stability" of this beta
    : of 3.16. I hope that someone will finish that release some day.
    :
    Back in the old days, people would pitch in. If anybody wants to do
    this, it's "just" a matter of putting 3.16 into the same form as 3.14.
    The directory tree with subdirectories, the help file and update notes,
    and so on. That is, updating all those text files.

    I'm not sure, however, if anybody still has the tools needed to
    build the program from source, so it would be a chore to remove
    the Beta notice (should that be desirable). Maybe the binary can
    just be patched.

    In any case, I'm not aware of any serious problems with 3.16.

    - Frank

  7. Re: MS-DOS Kermit: release 3.15 or 3.16?

    Frank da Cruz wrote:
    > On 2006-08-20, Igor Sobrado wrote:
    > :
    > : In this case, I will follow your advice and use 3.16 in its current
    > : state. If I see something odd, I will downgrade to 3.15. Thanks
    > : a lot for the detailed description of the "stability" of this beta
    > : of 3.16. I hope that someone will finish that release some day.
    > :
    > Back in the old days, people would pitch in. If anybody wants to do
    > this, it's "just" a matter of putting 3.16 into the same form as 3.14.
    > The directory tree with subdirectories, the help file and update notes,
    > and so on. That is, updating all those text files.


    I really want to help on this matter. But I certainly cannot write
    decent updates for notes; it would much better if a native english
    speaker helps on this stage. However, copying/pasting from the current
    information available from University of Columbia would be easy.

    > I'm not sure, however, if anybody still has the tools needed to
    > build the program from source, so it would be a chore to remove
    > the Beta notice (should that be desirable). Maybe the binary can
    > just be patched.


    I suppose that the only requirement will be a C compiler for DOS.
    As I said, I want to run this program on a 286 computer. I can
    look for my C compiler floppies; djgpp is not an option, as it
    will run on 32-bit computers only and produce 32-bit programs too.

    Certainly, editing the binary would be an easy task... we can overwrite
    the beta notice with spaces... much easier than adding text. But it
    will be cleaner building a new binary using the right compiler.

    > In any case, I'm not aware of any serious problems with 3.16.


    It is very nice to know!

    Igor.

  8. Re: MS-DOS Kermit: release 3.15 or 3.16?

    Frank da Cruz wrote:
    >
    > I'm not sure, however, if anybody still has the tools needed to
    > build the program from source, so it would be a chore to remove
    > the Beta notice (should that be desirable). Maybe the binary can
    > just be patched.


    Hello.

    I think that patching the binary is *not* a very good idea!
    The binary (from may 1999) is the 7th. beta release for 3.16:

    $ strings MSK316.EXE | grep -i beta
    MS-DOS Kermit: 3.16 Beta 7 4 May 1999$patch level 0 $

    (sorry, I do not have that 286 computer yet, no way to run the binary!)
    But the source code has this macro in MSSDEF.H:

    version equ 316 ; master version number
    verdef macro
    db ' MS-DOS Kermit: 3.16 Beta 10'
    ifdef nls_portuguese
    db ' Portuguese'
    endif ; nls_portuguese
    db ' 22 April 2001'
    endm

    If I finally contribute to a stable release, I will work on the
    code from april 2001... working on the 7th. Beta release would be
    unacceptable if we want to release the highest quality version of
    MS-DOS Kermit. What is the current status of the 10th revision?
    Is it a well-known (relatively bug free) revision? Are there more
    recent source-only revisions of MS-DOS Kermit?

    Best regards,
    Igor.

  9. Re: MS-DOS Kermit: release 3.15 or 3.16?



    Igor Sobrado wrote:
    ....
    > I suppose that the only requirement will be a C compiler for DOS.
    > As I said, I want to run this program on a 286 computer. I can
    > look for my C compiler floppies; djgpp is not an option, as it
    > will run on 32-bit computers only and produce 32-bit programs too.
    >
    > Certainly, editing the binary would be an easy task... we can overwrite
    > the beta notice with spaces... much easier than adding text. But it
    > will be cleaner building a new binary using the right compiler.


    I've compiled earlier versions of MS-Kermit with the Borland Turbo C and
    Turbo Assembler. The makefile in msk316src.zip indicates that the
    Microsoft C compiler and assembler are required.

    >
    >> In any case, I'm not aware of any serious problems with 3.16.

    >
    > It is very nice to know!
    >
    > Igor.


    Arthur.

  10. Re: MS-DOS Kermit: release 3.15 or 3.16?

    Arthur Marsh wrote:
    >
    > I've compiled earlier versions of MS-Kermit with the Borland Turbo C and
    > Turbo Assembler. The makefile in msk316src.zip indicates that the
    > Microsoft C compiler and assembler are required.


    Hi Arthur.

    Great! I have licenses for both Microsoft C 6.0 and MASM 6.x
    (do not remember the release, perhaps 6.1 or 6.2) yet. I got the
    licenses for these tools about ten years ago. I will look for
    the media as soon as possible (disks and manuals are stored in
    another part of the city now). Excellent documentation for these
    tools... but I certainly prefer the high-quality TeX manuals
    provided with MSC 5.x.

    Building MS-DOS Kermit will not be too difficult then.

    Cheers,
    Igor.

  11. Re: MS-DOS Kermit: release 3.15 or 3.16?

    On 2006-08-23, Igor Sobrado wrote:
    :...
    : If I finally contribute to a stable release, I will work on the
    : code from april 2001... working on the 7th. Beta release would be
    : unacceptable if we want to release the highest quality version of
    : MS-DOS Kermit. What is the current status of the 10th revision?
    : Is it a well-known (relatively bug free) revision? Are there more
    : recent source-only revisions of MS-DOS Kermit?
    :
    Of course the person who really knows about these things is Professor
    Joe Doupnik. If he's following this thread and not answering, it
    means he doesn't have time for this any more. At the point where
    work stopped on MS-DOS Kermit, nobody had time for it any more, in
    the sense that many other things were more urgent. By the late
    1990s, almost everybody was using Windows or Linux or whatever.
    In any case, I believe you can find the real stuff here:

    http://netlab1.usu.edu/pub/

    These would be the latest sources that Joe was willing to make public.

    MS-DOS Kermit 3.16 is quite interesting in that it is the first
    (and only) version of MS-DOS Kermit that implements many of the
    structured programming features of the Kermit language: FOR and WHILE
    loops, SWITCH statements, and so on. Explaining these things to
    MS-DOS Kermit users without referring them to C-Kermit documentation
    was another big task. And then there was the book. Etc etc...

    - Frank

  12. Re: MS-DOS Kermit: release 3.15 or 3.16?

    Frank da Cruz wrote:
    > Of course the person who really knows about these things is Professor
    > Joe Doupnik. If he's following this thread and not answering, it
    > means he doesn't have time for this any more. At the point where
    > work stopped on MS-DOS Kermit, nobody had time for it any more, in
    > the sense that many other things were more urgent. By the late
    > 1990s, almost everybody was using Windows or Linux or whatever.
    > In any case, I believe you can find the real stuff here:
    >
    > http://netlab1.usu.edu/pub/
    >
    > These would be the latest sources that Joe was willing to make public.
    >
    > MS-DOS Kermit 3.16 is quite interesting in that it is the first
    > (and only) version of MS-DOS Kermit that implements many of the
    > structured programming features of the Kermit language: FOR and WHILE
    > loops, SWITCH statements, and so on. Explaining these things to
    > MS-DOS Kermit users without referring them to C-Kermit documentation
    > was another big task. And then there was the book. Etc etc...


    Hi Frank!

    I think that professor Doupnik found the time to make a final (non beta)
    release of MS-DOS Kermit. In fact, there is a MSK316.CHG file with
    some changes, the last one is:

    MS-DOS Kermit v3.16 12 Oct 2003
    Revise version banner to remove word beta.
    Final release.

    Can you, please, update the ZIP files at Columbia University's anonymous
    FTP server? Must I upload the ZIP file to the /incoming directory?

    By the way, you can find the final release at:

    http://netlab1.usu.edu/pub/kermit/MSK316.ZIP (date: Oct 12, 2003)
    (MSK31610.ZIP is source code for beta 10!)

    Please, let me know if you want to update the ZIP file and if I must
    upload the final release to the anonymous FTP server of the Kermit
    project or you want to get it from netlab1.

    Cheers,
    Igor.

  13. Re: MS-DOS Kermit: release 3.15 or 3.16?

    Igor Sobrado wrote:
    >
    > By the way, you can find the final release at:
    >
    > http://netlab1.usu.edu/pub/kermit/MSK316.ZIP (date: Oct 12, 2003)


    It is not obvious how we can make a 3.15 or 3.16 release. For example:
    how can we install 3.15 on top of 3.14? Filenames are not the same
    (e.g., MSK315.EXE vs KERMIT.EXE) and other files are never replaced
    (KERLITE.EXE, KERMITE.EXE vs MSK315[MNL].EXE). In the case of 3.16,
    there are only a lot of C, assembler and header files and a single
    binary -KERMIT.EXE- in the ZIP file. Should we rename these files?
    What about files never replaced (KER[LM]ITE.EXE or the MSK315[MNL].EXE)?

    It seems that, even if we rename these files, there will be a mix
    of 3.14/3.15/3.16 binaries and documentation files.

    What is the recommended method for making the most up to date release?
    Certainly C-KERMIT is easier to upgrade.

    Cheers,
    Igor.

  14. Re: MS-DOS Kermit: release 3.15 or 3.16?

    On 2006-08-24, Igor Sobrado wrote:
    : Igor Sobrado wrote:
    :>
    :> By the way, you can find the final release at:
    :>
    :> http://netlab1.usu.edu/pub/kermit/MSK316.ZIP (date: Oct 12, 2003)
    :
    : It is not obvious how we can make a 3.15 or 3.16 release. For example:
    : how can we install 3.15 on top of 3.14? Filenames are not the same
    : (e.g., MSK315.EXE vs KERMIT.EXE) and other files are never replaced
    : (KERLITE.EXE, KERMITE.EXE vs MSK315[MNL].EXE). In the case of 3.16,
    : there are only a lot of C, assembler and header files and a single
    : binary -KERMIT.EXE- in the ZIP file. Should we rename these files?
    : What about files never replaced (KER[LM]ITE.EXE or the MSK315[MNL].EXE)?
    :
    This is explained in MSR314.ANN:

    KERMIT.EXE is the full version of 3.14.
    KERMITE.EXE is the medium version - no networking, no graphics.
    KERLITE.EXE is the "Light" version (remote mode only, no communications)
    (the Light version was for use in BBS's, to provide a decent Kermit protocol
    on the BBS end of the connection).

    MSK315[MNL].EXE correspond to those, more or less.
    I don't suppose these variants were ever built for 3.16.

    : It seems that, even if we rename these files, there will be a mix
    : of 3.14/3.15/3.16 binaries and documentation files.
    :
    It has been a long time since I looked at any of this. 3.14 was the last
    integrated release. We didn't have time to do all the updating of
    documentation and other files for 3.15, so instead we gave different names to
    the executables so the 3.15 files could be installed on top of the 3.14 ones
    without destroying anything. Then we did the same thing again with 3.16.

    Once you look at all the files that had to be updated -- HLP, BWR, ANN, UPD,
    DOC, etc etc, you'll see it's a big job. Not to mention the binaries for
    non-IBM-compatibles like the DEC Rainbow, NEC APC, HP-150, Heath/Zenith 100,
    etc (which are not much of an issue now, but you never know).

    I honestly don't recall 3.16 ever leaving Beta. Either I completely
    forgot, or somehow I never knew. I'll check with Joe.

    If a complete 3.16 package can be put together (in the form of a ZIP file,
    following the 3.14 directory structure), there is no particular need to
    keep the 3.14 and 3.15 binaries in it; they are always available in the
    archive here.

    Another thing to keep in mind; the full IBM PC distribution (the MSVIBM.ZIP
    file unzipped) for 3.14 fit on a 1.44MB diskette. I think there were only a
    couple bytes to spare! It could be used on a PC that had no hard drive (and
    no UNZIP program) simply by sticking it into the diskette drive and running it
    from there. That would also be a goal for any new release.

    - Frank

  15. Re: MS-DOS Kermit: release 3.15 or 3.16?

    Frank da Cruz wrote:
    > On 2006-08-24, Igor Sobrado wrote:
    > : Igor Sobrado wrote:
    > :>
    > :> By the way, you can find the final release at:
    > :>
    > :> http://netlab1.usu.edu/pub/kermit/MSK316.ZIP (date: Oct 12, 2003)
    > :
    > : It is not obvious how we can make a 3.15 or 3.16 release. For example:
    > : how can we install 3.15 on top of 3.14? Filenames are not the same
    > : (e.g., MSK315.EXE vs KERMIT.EXE) and other files are never replaced
    > : (KERLITE.EXE, KERMITE.EXE vs MSK315[MNL].EXE). In the case of 3.16,
    > : there are only a lot of C, assembler and header files and a single
    > : binary -KERMIT.EXE- in the ZIP file. Should we rename these files?
    > : What about files never replaced (KER[LM]ITE.EXE or the MSK315[MNL].EXE)?
    > :
    > This is explained in MSR314.ANN:
    >
    > KERMIT.EXE is the full version of 3.14.
    > KERMITE.EXE is the medium version - no networking, no graphics.
    > KERLITE.EXE is the "Light" version (remote mode only, no communications)
    > (the Light version was for use in BBS's, to provide a decent Kermit protocol
    > on the BBS end of the connection).
    >
    > MSK315[MNL].EXE correspond to those, more or less.
    > I don't suppose these variants were ever built for 3.16.
    >
    > : It seems that, even if we rename these files, there will be a mix
    > : of 3.14/3.15/3.16 binaries and documentation files.
    > :
    > It has been a long time since I looked at any of this. 3.14 was the last
    > integrated release. We didn't have time to do all the updating of
    > documentation and other files for 3.15, so instead we gave different names to
    > the executables so the 3.15 files could be installed on top of the 3.14 ones
    > without destroying anything. Then we did the same thing again with 3.16.
    >
    > Once you look at all the files that had to be updated -- HLP, BWR, ANN, UPD,
    > DOC, etc etc, you'll see it's a big job. Not to mention the binaries for
    > non-IBM-compatibles like the DEC Rainbow, NEC APC, HP-150, Heath/Zenith 100,
    > etc (which are not much of an issue now, but you never know).
    >
    > I honestly don't recall 3.16 ever leaving Beta. Either I completely
    > forgot, or somehow I never knew. I'll check with Joe.
    >
    > If a complete 3.16 package can be put together (in the form of a ZIP file,
    > following the 3.14 directory structure), there is no particular need to
    > keep the 3.14 and 3.15 binaries in it; they are always available in the
    > archive here.
    >
    > Another thing to keep in mind; the full IBM PC distribution (the MSVIBM.ZIP
    > file unzipped) for 3.14 fit on a 1.44MB diskette. I think there were only a
    > couple bytes to spare! It could be used on a PC that had no hard drive (and
    > no UNZIP program) simply by sticking it into the diskette drive and running it
    > from there. That would also be a goal for any new release.
    >
    > - Frank

    --------------
    As Frank noted, please visit
    netlab1.usu.edu or netlab1.oucs.ox.ac.uk (same IP number for
    both)
    If connecting via FTP then cd kermit.
    If using a web browser then "Complete File Archives" and then "kermit."
    Sources and binaries are there. There are only minor differences
    between the beta and final release of MSK 3.16.
    The top level directory listing is
    MSK315.ZIP 18-Sep-1997 04:07 480K
    MSK316.CHG 13-Oct-2003 09:08 6.7K
    MSK316.ZIP 13-Oct-2003 09:11 1.0M
    MSK31610.ZIP 04-Mar-2003 00:13 826K
    MSVIBM.TEK 03-Mar-1991 06:23 35K
    MSVIBM.VT 10-Mar-1998 03:52 73K
    [DIR] SOURCE/ 20-Sep-2004 11:49

    where we see that the binary distribution zip file fits onto a floppy.
    For many years there has been no demand to embellish MSK, thus it
    remains at the 3.16 level.
    Appologies for not plunging into the conversation earlier, but
    Usenet feeds were terminated at my previous establishment and I had not
    picked up a new feed at my present place. Thanks to Frank for alerting
    me to the current discussion.
    Joe D. (in Oxford)
    jrd@cc.usu.edu, joe.doupnik@oucs.ox.ac.uk


  16. Re: MS-DOS Kermit: release 3.15 or 3.16?

    Frank da Cruz wrote:
    > This is explained in MSR314.ANN:
    >
    > KERMIT.EXE is the full version of 3.14.
    > KERMITE.EXE is the medium version - no networking, no graphics.
    > KERLITE.EXE is the "Light" version (remote mode only, no communications)
    > (the Light version was for use in BBS's, to provide a decent Kermit protocol
    > on the BBS end of the connection).
    >
    > MSK315[MNL].EXE correspond to those, more or less.
    > I don't suppose these variants were ever built for 3.16.


    Hi again, Frank!

    Thank you very much for the detailed description of these files.
    I will carefully read MSR314.ANN. In any case, I guess I will
    continue with C-Kermit. The 286 computer (a Siemens PCD-2V)
    has arrived with a serious damage in the HDD and the LCD display
    broken even being protected in an aluminium case. I suppose
    there is no way to fix it now and, even if it is possible, it
    will probably not make sense these days. I think the logistics
    company did not manage the package with care.

    > It has been a long time since I looked at any of this. 3.14 was the last
    > integrated release. We didn't have time to do all the updating of
    > documentation and other files for 3.15, so instead we gave different names to
    > the executables so the 3.15 files could be installed on top of the 3.14 ones
    > without destroying anything. Then we did the same thing again with 3.16.


    In this case, it is better not renaming these files even if it means
    that 3.15/3.16 will not fit on a single 3 1/2" HDD floppy disk?
    Certainly, documentation should be synchronized with binaries. It is
    a good goal for any software product.

    > Once you look at all the files that had to be updated -- HLP, BWR, ANN, UPD,
    > DOC, etc etc, you'll see it's a big job. Not to mention the binaries for
    > non-IBM-compatibles like the DEC Rainbow, NEC APC, HP-150, Heath/Zenith 100,
    > etc (which are not much of an issue now, but you never know).


    Well, I am really interested in getting an HP-150 II as a terminal
    to my HP 9000 workstation. Kermit will probably not be very useful
    on one of these terminal but, as you say, you never know! :-)

    > I honestly don't recall 3.16 ever leaving Beta. Either I completely
    > forgot, or somehow I never knew. I'll check with Joe.
    >
    > If a complete 3.16 package can be put together (in the form of a ZIP file,
    > following the 3.14 directory structure), there is no particular need to
    > keep the 3.14 and 3.15 binaries in it; they are always available in the
    > archive here.


    You are absolutely right! We need a full distribution with the right
    directory structure before dropping earlier releases of MS-DOS Kermit.
    It would be a nice, but perhaps very low priority, task. Just avoiding
    the nightmare of lack of synchronization between docs and binaries is
    a good goal.

    I certainly have some doubts about how right is the decision of renaming
    the new binaries to overwrite the old ones on the current scenario.

    > Another thing to keep in mind; the full IBM PC distribution (the MSVIBM.ZIP
    > file unzipped) for 3.14 fit on a 1.44MB diskette. I think there were only a
    > couple bytes to spare! It could be used on a PC that had no hard drive (and
    > no UNZIP program) simply by sticking it into the diskette drive and running it
    > from there. That would also be a goal for any new release.


    It is certainly a requirement! Being able to run MS-DOS Kermit
    from a diskette is very useful for machines that do not have HDDs.
    These machines are usually XTs, and these systems do not support
    high-density diskettes in most cases, but it is an excellent goal
    in any case.

    Thanks a lot for the detailed description of the different file
    sets and why binaries are named in a different way. I will carefully
    read the MSR314.ANN now. In any case, I think that this excellent
    computer is now dead as a consequence of lack of care when shipping
    and getting an updated MS-DOS Kermit release is not an issue for me
    at this moment.

    I will continue running C-Kermit on NetBSD, OpenBSD, HP-UX, IRIX,
    Solaris and SINIX. By the way, I will try to build new binaries
    for SINIX-P 5.42A10 as soon as the new release is available.

    Best regards,
    Igor.

  17. Re: MS-DOS Kermit: release 3.15 or 3.16?

    jrd wrote:
    > As Frank noted, please visit
    > netlab1.usu.edu or netlab1.oucs.ox.ac.uk (same IP number for
    > both)
    > If connecting via FTP then cd kermit.
    > If using a web browser then "Complete File Archives" and then "kermit."
    > Sources and binaries are there. There are only minor differences
    > between the beta and final release of MSK 3.16.
    > The top level directory listing is
    > MSK315.ZIP 18-Sep-1997 04:07 480K
    > MSK316.CHG 13-Oct-2003 09:08 6.7K
    > MSK316.ZIP 13-Oct-2003 09:11 1.0M
    > MSK31610.ZIP 04-Mar-2003 00:13 826K
    > MSVIBM.TEK 03-Mar-1991 06:23 35K
    > MSVIBM.VT 10-Mar-1998 03:52 73K
    > [DIR] SOURCE/ 20-Sep-2004 11:49


    Thanks a lot for this information. I downloaded some of these
    files yesterday using ftp (nice to see that FTP is supported yet
    instead of being replaced with HTTP). Indeed, there are only
    minor differences between the 7th. beta release and the final
    release of MS-DOS Kermit (in fact, only a fix to avoid the status
    value of "END" being ignored in the 8th. beta release is documented).
    In any case, any fix is very valuable.

    > where we see that the binary distribution zip file fits onto a floppy.
    > For many years there has been no demand to embellish MSK, thus it
    > remains at the 3.16 level.


    But, as observed by Frank, that binary will require a lot of
    support files (mostly documentation files). Most files in MSK316.ZIP
    are the source code, not related with a binary distribution of
    Kermit for MS-DOS. Don't tried it, but it should fit on a single
    diskette when replacing the files in previous MS-DOS Kermit
    releases too.

    > Appologies for not plunging into the conversation earlier, but
    > Usenet feeds were terminated at my previous establishment and I had not
    > picked up a new feed at my present place. Thanks to Frank for alerting
    > me to the current discussion.


    Don't worry at all. By the way, thanks a lot for joining this thread
    from your current place! And thanks a lot to Frank too for alerting
    you. On MS-DOS Kermit issues you are the right person to contact!

    > Joe D. (in Oxford)
    > jrd@cc.usu.edu, joe.doupnik@oucs.ox.ac.uk


    I am looking for a post-doctoral position right now! ;-)

    Best regards and, again, thank you for joining this thread.
    Igor.

  18. Re: MS-DOS Kermit: release 3.15 or 3.16?

    On 2006-08-25, Igor Sobrado wrote:
    : Well, I am really interested in getting an HP-150 II as a terminal
    : to my HP 9000 workstation. Kermit will probably not be very useful
    : on one of these terminal but, as you say, you never know! :-)
    :
    MS-DOS Kermit was fully supported on the HP-150 up to a certain point; we did
    the port ourselves. We used it here extensively in the days when we had
    HP-150s on the desktop and HP-UX servers. The binaries are labeled MSVHP1 (as
    opposed to MSVHPX for the HP-110 portable). I believe 3.10 of March 1991 was
    the last release for both. Somebody with access to these platforms and the
    appropriate development tools could probably build the newer versions.

    The HP version of MS-DOS Kermit was interesting in that, like the DEC Rainbow
    version, it had no terminal emulation code. None was needed, the PC console
    itself was a real terminal -- HP2161 in this case, as I recall, and it also
    had graphics capabilities; you could connect it to an HP pen plotter to print
    the graphics in color. Of course you could also print them in monochrome on
    the little thermal printer imbedded in its "head".

    I believe, btw, the HP-150 was the first PC with 3.5-inch diskettes.

    : I will continue running C-Kermit on NetBSD, OpenBSD, HP-UX, IRIX,
    : Solaris and SINIX. By the way, I will try to build new binaries
    : for SINIX-P 5.42A10 as soon as the new release is available.
    :
    Believe it or not, I have a Siemens Nixdorf RM-200 with SINIX 5.42. It was
    one of the few machines I was able to save the recent "cleanup":

    http://www.columbia.edu/~fdc/museum

    I hope it still works! (A few years ago, after it was soaked in waterfall,
    it continued to work after it dried out.)

    - Frank

  19. Re: MS-DOS Kermit: on a 286 or 386?

    From somewhere in cyberspace, Igor Sobrado said:
    >[...] Ok, I guess I know the answers...
    >DOS is an ancient operating system. In fact, my choice would be
    >NetBSD and C-Kermit for that computer if it is somewhat better than
    >a 286, but looking for a Unix or Unix-like OS for a 16-bit PC is a
    >challenging task!


    Got any copies of IBM Xenix lying around? Actually it was written by
    Microsoft, just like the other operating system IBM offered for the PC-AT.
    I'm sure Kermit will run just fine on it...

    -- Ed "and I'm sure SCO will be willing to sell you a license for it..."
    --
    Ed Ravin | "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as
    | well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the
    eravin@ | streets, and to steal bread."
    panix.com | --Anatole France, Le Lys Rouge [1894]

  20. Re: MS-DOS Kermit: release 3.15 or 3.16?

    Frank da Cruz wrote:
    > MS-DOS Kermit was fully supported on the HP-150 up to a certain point; we did
    > the port ourselves. We used it here extensively in the days when we had
    > HP-150s on the desktop and HP-UX servers. The binaries are labeled MSVHP1 (as
    > opposed to MSVHPX for the HP-110 portable). I believe 3.10 of March 1991 was
    > the last release for both. Somebody with access to these platforms and the
    > appropriate development tools could probably build the newer versions.


    It is nice to know that there are binaries for these old but excellent
    computers available yet. If I get one of these in the future, I will
    do my best to build some updated binaries and upload them to the
    anonymous FTP area at the project.

    > The HP version of MS-DOS Kermit was interesting in that, like the DEC Rainbow
    > version, it had no terminal emulation code. None was needed, the PC console
    > itself was a real terminal -- HP2161 in this case, as I recall, and it also
    > had graphics capabilities; you could connect it to an HP pen plotter to print
    > the graphics in color. Of course you could also print them in monochrome on
    > the little thermal printer imbedded in its "head".


    Indeed, very nice machines. Without an operating system disk, these
    machines become excellent terminals for the HP 9000 series workstations
    and servers. In fact, the HP-150 II even had a touch screen.

    > I believe, btw, the HP-150 was the first PC with 3.5-inch diskettes.


    We have some HP-150 3.5-inch diskettes now. We are unable to read them
    because its format was not compatible with the standard choosed by PC
    manufacturers.

    > : I will continue running C-Kermit on NetBSD, OpenBSD, HP-UX, IRIX,
    > : Solaris and SINIX. By the way, I will try to build new binaries
    > : for SINIX-P 5.42A10 as soon as the new release is available.
    > :
    > Believe it or not, I have a Siemens Nixdorf RM-200 with SINIX 5.42. It was
    > one of the few machines I was able to save the recent "cleanup":
    >
    > http://www.columbia.edu/~fdc/museum


    Indeed, I remember that machine. It was a gift from Siemens Nixdorf
    for the development of C-Kermit on it. An excellent workstation.
    However, SINIX-P is not binary compatible with the RM-200. It runs
    on the RM 600 servers (SNI machines based on Pyramid technology).
    Building binaries for both platforms makes sense. These machines are
    very different computers.

    > I hope it still works! (A few years ago, after it was soaked in waterfall,
    > it continued to work after it dried out.)


    Well, it is a german machine. It should work reliably yet. :-)


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast