Ancient UNIX; was Re: [Gllug] loadavg

[Ian Northeast]

Nix wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Tethys moaned:
> 
>>Nix writes:
>>
>>>SNA: a term of mythic horror that those who have experienced it recoil
>>>from. I have not had this epochal experience myself.
>>
>>Try to keep it that way. I have, and I wish I hadn't. We've mostly managed
>>to migrate to IP, but there are still some areas where we deal with third
>>parties that only support SNA (still).

US Customs used to be one such. They are extremely security minded. So 
we had an SNA link from London to New York, managed by an ISP who 
actually of course tunnelled it over IP. Of course this was continually 
going down and they always said it must be us. It never was of course, 
we understand SNA. They appear to have one person who does and the link 
only ever got fixed when they got him on the case. It wasn't his job any 
more of course, so it always took ages to call him in.

US Customs accept IP now as long as it uses IBM's MQ. So we use that now.

There's nothing that much wrong with SNA really, it is a bit tricky but 
it's OK if you know it. It's just that virtually nobody does any more. 
We got rid of our SNA link to Sydney several years ago because that was 
also so unreliable. An Australian colleague told me that there were 
three people in Australia who understood it. Not in the company, nor in 
IBM - in the country.

> Do they understand modern English, or do you have to use Old English or
> Latin? :)

An interesting question where Americans and Australians are concerned:)

Regards, Ian

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug