Micnet
Jim O'Connor
jim at tiamat.FSC.COM
Tue Jan 24 15:57:59 AEST 1989
In article <3700019 at eecs.nwu.edu>, skrenta at eecs.nwu.edu (Richard Skrenta) writes:
> I had two Xenix machines around for a while, so I tried Micnet. I looked
> and looked, but couldn't find any kind of rlogin or such. So, all you
> get is two-way mail over one serial line, right? Seems like using a
> uutty would give you that plus being able to log in to the machine personally
> going either direction.
> If I've missed some of the capabilities of Micnet, please let me know.
Micnet, INHO, is easier to maintain and use in multi-site configurations. In
a two machine setup like yours, uucp is probably better. In multi-site
set-ups micnet has the advantage of:
1) hidden topology: rcp siteA:file1 siteB:file2 works exactly the same
whether the network looks like siteA ---- siteB or
siteA ---- siteC ---- siteB
uucp doesn't directly support multi-hop transfers, does it? (at least the
uucp supplied with Altos xenix never did)
2) two-way communications over one line - only very recent versions of Xenix
are coming out with dial-in/-out support that works. People stuck with old
versions of xenix have no easy recourse.
Micnet certainly isn't "God's gift to serial networking" but it has its
applications. As big a fan as I am, even I admit it needs improvements.
(See article posted two days ago.)
--jim
-------------
James B. O'Connor jim at FSC.COM
Filtration Sciences Corporation 615/821-4022 x. 651
More information about the Comp.unix.xenix
mailing list