Thanks for your corrections, i'm feeling kind of melancholic every time i talk/think/read about uucp. Maybe i should dig up that uucp manual and start playing around :-)
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 11:51 PM To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: [OT]: UUCP In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joris Lambrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >UUCP stands for Unix-to-Unix-CoPy > >I've used it nearly 8 yrs ago in a specific situation, even then it was >considered out-dated. I figure it's mostly replaced by TCP/IP on all >devices. From what i remember (did not use it since then) it's easy (what's >in a word) to set up but only support serial/modem lines, hence is rather >slow. Hmm. In fact, UUCP runs fine _over_ TCP/IP. It just needs a transport, a serial line will do, a TCP connection will do too. Actually running UUCP over a serial line is probably a lot faster than running PPP over it and TCP/IP on that. >NFS is also one of the protocols wich started replacing UUCP back then in >19993/1994. NFS relaced UUCP? Hmm. That's like saying the microwave has replaced the bicycle. >I must add this has been a real long time and i'm not up-to-speed with >eventual current UUCP features/implementations but i suggest you take a look >at it from an historical point of view :-) UUCP still has it's merits, even today. The only problem is that people _view_ it as outdated and forget about it. So there's not much expertise around, unfortunately. Mike. -- I live the way I type; fast, with a lot of mistakes. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
