RE: SNADS over ANYNET TCP/ip

[Lurton Keel <Lurton.Keel@xxxxxxxx>]

I thought this thread was about something better than SNADS.  For me that
would mean a replacement for SNADS which I use between multiple IBM boxes.
FTP may be "better" than SNADS but it is not a "replacement" for SNADS.
Maybe there should be an IP/DS which would be a replacement for SNA/DS.

                -----Original Message-----
                From:   R. Bruce Hoffman, Jr. [mailto:rbruceh@ibm.net]
                Sent:   Friday, March 05, 1999 9:26 AM
                To:     MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
                Subject:        Re: SNADS over ANYNET TCP/ip

                Lurton Keel wrote:
                >                 But if you had to deliver 7 cars, would
you drive them one
                > at a time or load them on a truck and carry them all at
once.

                Yes, but most people don't own the flatbed truck.  More and
more
                installations are not using SNADS because SNADS is not
available on one
                end or the other.  SO...  why fight it?  I don't use OS/2
anymore
                because...  I use OS/400, Windose 95, NT, Linux and AIX.  Of
those,
                almost all of the systems other than OS/400 do not have the
SNADS
                option.

                
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---