| Author |
FTP server |
Alex044
Member
Posts: 20
Location: Mexico,D.F.
Joined: 08.04.10 |
| Posted on January 20 2012 09:12 |
|
|
How I can put my ftp server to operate in passive and active mode?
Thanks |
|
|
| Author |
RE: FTP server |
saq
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 24.05.08 |
| Posted on January 30 2012 16:42 |
|
|
Check out the documentation for either DIGITAL/HP TCP-IP services (UCX) or (better) MultiNet or TCPware from Process Software. It took me a bit of back and forth to figure out the MultiNet/TCPware difference, so here it is: MultiNet is configured in a more "VMS-ish" manner, whereas TCPWare is much more UNIX-y. Pick the one you're more comfortable with.
VMS predates large-scale acceptance of TCP/IP and so the TCP/IP stack and associated software are a layered product that must be installed. |
|
|
| Author |
RE: FTP server |
eMGee
Member
Posts: 87
Location: The Netherlands
Joined: 28.03.10 |
| Posted on January 31 2012 16:38 |
|
|
SAQ, the other way around (with MultiNet and TCPware).
|
|
|
| Author |
RE: FTP server |
saq
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 24.05.08 |
| Posted on February 06 2012 08:37 |
|
|
Ah, well it looks like I'll have to grab TCPWare instead, then.
Note if you have a VAX box or emulated VAX the DEC TCP/IP services is very probably a very buggy version, at least in Hobbyist 2.0. Don't bother with it.
I haven't worked with Hobbyist-VAX 3.0, so don't know if that changed. Supposedly the last VAX release of TCP/IP services was redone to be much more efficient/fast/etc., but it isn't on any of the hobbyist media, nor does HP have it available for download, so if you're lucky enough to have a friend in the biz you might be able to try it out. The rest of us use Process stuff - which is pretty good.
-- just looked again at the forum, you're not running VAX, but I'm not sure how the Alpha hobbyist versions compared. The HobbyistV3 version seemed OK, but not fantastic.
Edited by saq on February 06 2012 08:38 |
|
|
| Author |
RE: FTP server |
eMGee
Member
Posts: 87
Location: The Netherlands
Joined: 28.03.10 |
| Posted on February 09 2012 11:27 |
|
|
|
saq wrote:
Ah, well it looks like I'll have to grab TCPWare instead, then.
Actually, I should note (from what the good Hunter Goatley told me not long ago) that MultiNet's interfaces are based on TOPS-20-style interfaces. So, it's still founded on a ‘DEC OS’ and in that sense still more VMS-styled than the DEC UCX, or HP TCP/IP Services as it's called nowadays.
|
|
|
| Author |
RE: FTP server |
brad
Member
Posts: 134
Location: Hopedale, MA USA
Joined: 15.12.05 |
| Posted on February 10 2012 15:22 |
|
|
eMGee wrote:
saq wrote:
Ah, well it looks like I'll have to grab TCPWare instead, then.
Actually, I should note (from what the good Hunter Goatley told me not long ago) that MultiNet's interfaces are based on TOPS-20-style interfaces. So, it's still founded on a ‘DEC OS’ and in that sense still more VMS-styled than the DEC UCX, or HP TCP/IP Services as it's called nowadays.
I've used both TCPware and MultiNet, and I prefer the MultiNet interface slightly over TCPware. As has been noted above, both are light years ahead of UCX or TCP/IP Services for flexibility and functionality. |
 |
| Author |
RE: FTP server |
goathunter
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 30.09.14 |
| Posted on September 30 2014 03:57 |
|
|
There's also the free HGFTP, which runs under all the stacks. The current release has support for ODS-5 disks, which is something I've never gotten around to announcing.
HGFTP @ Process.com
Hunter |
|
|
