4 ms·
My impression of zmodem and kermit, from 13 years ago (remembering then from a decade prior's use): http://dmd.3e.org/2003/12/zmodem-vs-kermit/ http://dmd.3e.o
by dmd 10y ago
My impression of zmodem and kermit, from 13 years ago (remembering then from a decade prior's use):
http://dmd.3e.org/2003/12/zmodem-vs-kermit/ http://dmd.3e.org/2003/12/zmodem-vs-kermit/
- jejones3141 10y agoKermit's design accommodated connections that zmodem couldn't (half-duplex, connections that don't let one send some control characters. seven bit connections, or connections between systems using ASCII and systems using EBCDIC), and the basic protocol was easy to write. You could use Kermit to send data between your C-64 and a Cray 1 or Burroughs Large system--and it was used to send data from the International Space Station to earth. Later versions supported sliding windows and large packets where possible and let one selectively quote characters, while still providing backwards compatibility with earlier versions.
- dmd 10y agoWell, yeah, exactly. Kermit was slow and careful and pretty well guaranteed to get your data across correctly, eventually. Zmodem was more of a fast motorcycle. Your data might not always make it there alive in a rainstorm, but it was quick and and had fun doing it.
- spc476 10y agoMy impression? Kermit worked (if slowly) when other protocols wouldn't. Back in college, when I dialed into the University and attempted to download files, Kermit was the only one that would work across the insane university network (you dialed into a DEC terminal server, then you would issue a connect command to the actual computer you wanted. You could attempt to get an 8-bit clean path by sending a break character to get back to the terminal server, issue another command, then resume the connection, but for some reason, that almost never worked in my case).