(c) Copyright 1993 by The Chicago Computer Society, All rights reserved. No portion of articles from the CCS Hard-Copy journal may be reproduced except as follows: CCS members may utilize programs listed herein. Permission to reprint articles is granted to other non-profit computer user groups for non-commercial use provided credit is given to the author and CCS and provided one copy of the publication containing the reprinted article is sent to The Chicago Computer Society managing editor. Please also send a copy of reprinted reviews to the vendor(s) discussed. Hard-Copy: The Journal of the Chicago Computer Society April 1993, Volume 9, Number 4 P.O. Box 27, Deerfield, IL 60015 Voice:(312)794-7737 BBS:(312)879-9021 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alternatives To A Lan Stephen Talmadge This article picks up where my first one about LANs (local area networks) left off: here we'll examine low- end alternatives to LANs and see where they might fit into small to medium sized organizations. As these solutions can involve somewhat non- conventional combinations of hardware and software, we will call these alternatives 'resource-sharing methods' to purposely disassociate them from more commonly-used labels. First, a brief review. We build LANs to achieve connectivity, internetworking, interoperability. These are grand words; but the underlying motivation for a LAN is to build a thread connecting our daily work activities. Done right, the LAN becomes the smooth, reliable, consistent, standard and appropriate backbone for our communication processes. Done wrong, all of those marvelous adjectives cannot apply to a collection of ineffective hardware and/or frustrating software. In order for the LAN to work properly, the underlying reasons for and implementation of the LAN also have to be done properly. The same can be said of LAN-like resource- sharing methods. I'm going to stay away from the ultimate low-end-- paper, pencils and metal filing cabinets; and the high- end--mainframe computers, and private metropolitan or wide area networks. For now we're going to explore the margin between personal computer connection and nonconnection; and make some sense out of deciding when to implement any of the alternatives. The distinction therefore is how the work processes are connected through the use of computers; not necessarily how the computers themselves may be connected. In The Beginning There Was Sneakernet.... Within our limited 'connection' spectrum three alternative paradigms have evolved: 'Sneakernet', resource-sharing methods, and LANs. 'Sneakernet' is a tongue-in-cheek description of copying (generally) data from an application onto a diskette and using that same diskette data on the same or another application in another computer. The transit media between the two computers is sneakers--presumably worn by the person carrying the diskette. This method probably represents the low-end of our 'connectivity' spectrum; and it's relative strengths and weaknesses don't seem to warrant much additional exploration. Resource-sharing methods sit in between 'sneakernet' and a true media-based LAN (discussed previously under the umbrella of the IEEE 802 standard); and can involve combinations of hardware and software-- or hardware or software alone. Things that can be shared within this category are: application software, data files, 'peripherals' and communications devices-- and are characteristics held in common with media- based LANs. Resource-sharing methods typically target one specific function. The realities of the market are this: if one builds a resource-sharing system that combines more than one function, the attendant costs can quickly exceed the price of a LAN without the power, speed and features that come with a true LAN. This is a blended spectrum, however, and some sophisticated, high-end, resource-sharing methods are in fact fully- functional (although relatively slow) 'zero-slot' networks. Also, some resource-sharing methods can be implemented off-network to perform specialized tasks which are 'local' to one group--saving or extending overall network capacity in the process. Printer Sharing Printers and other hard-copy output devices are one of the first, most visible candidates for resource sharing. True of most hardware in the computer business, the cost of printers continues to fall as their speed, features and reliability increase. Printers are rarely monopolized by one person or group; and therefore the slack time available on one printer can be used by another person or group without immediately forcing the purchase of an additional printer. There are a broad range of products available to accomplish this goal: from $12 mechanical, so-called A-B boxes (to switch a printer between two computers; or vice versa) to electronic multicomputer/multi- printer switching buffers complete with software costing upwards of $8,000. Higher-priced alternatives also offer sophisticated control of multiple print streams which can be routed to (or held for) several alternative printers, plotters and graphic output devices. So, if printer/plotter hardware sharing is the pressing need, and application/data or communications sharing is not, a printer sharing device or buffer may offer a good solution. Some prominent products in this market are Slimline Data Switches (Belkin Components), Logical Connection (Fifth Generation Systems, Inc.), Super Spooler II (Consolink), the NetCommander Series from Digital Products, Inc., and Printer LAN Plus (Grapevine LAN Products). Electronic Messaging And File Transfer The ability to share information electronically--as opposed to on paper--has grown rapidly along with increasing sophistication found in interconnecting desktop and laptop computers. Electronic messaging and file transfers free us from delays, time and place constraints (and natural resource consumption) associated with paper unless a true signatory document is required. Frequently grouped under the obsolete misnomer of 'electronic mail', some electronic information transfer tools are found in surprisingly inexpensive sources. With the advent of practical, high-resolution graphics and high-speed modems, electronic information transfer tools will probably (except for infrequent, low volume applications) make stand-alone facsimile machines virtually obsolete within five years. Most LAN operating systems either have an internal electronic messaging capability, or have compatible products developed by third party software publishers available for use with them. In a non-LAN environment, electronic information transfer also implies a central computer that is used as the focal point or repository of the messages or files. The hardware/software combination to set this up can be relatively simple: 2400 bps modems and communications software on the two computers. The communications software on the repository end is run in 'host mode'--possibly (but not necessarily) as a 'background' task on a system with a 386+ processor, enough memory, and an operating system or task- switcher that supports those capabilities. If all of this is implemented properly, the electronic information transfer processes could run at the same time that the host computer is also being used for other 'foreground' work by a person at the console. Modems that run at 2400 bps now cost about $25 and powerful shareware communications software packages that offer host mode such as Procomm (Datastorm Technologies) are available on many computer bulletin boards. With modems and a communications software package, users can dial into the target 'host' computer, leave and receive messages, upload and download files. Most of these software packages support 'local' log-in when running host mode, allowing a local user to respond or send messages to those users dialing in--as well as receiving or preparing files (such as reports) for either download or upload. In this way, for instance, true electronic information exchange can be implemented inexpensively between a field sales force and an organization's headquarters at a relatively low incremental cost. Some other packages which support remote mail and/or file transfer are cc:Mail (CC:Mail, Inc.), ConneXion-1 (Connex Systems), Cross+Point (Cross Communications), DaVinci eMail for DOS (Da Vinci Systems Corp.), PC-Hookup (Brown Bag Software), HotWire (Datastorm Technologies), File Shuttle (GETC Software) and LapLink (Traveling Software). If volume grows, this application can be enhanced in three ways: more sophisticated software, higher speed modem(s), and additional ports. Bulletin board shareware such as Wildcat! (Mustang Software), PCBoard (Clark Development Company), and the Major BBS (Galacticomm) provide messaging and file transfer features that compete favorably with most LAN-based packages. Good, reliable 9600 bps (and even faster) modems now commonly have street prices of less than $200; and add-on communications porting capability can enhance an existing system for prices between $220 and $750. Another alternative, frequently overlooked, is on-line electronic utilities such as CompuServe and MCI- Mail. These subscription-based systems offer a broad selection of dial-up services; but the prominent underlying technologies involve messaging and file transfer. Users pay for the time that they are logged onto the system and some options involve surcharges for increased communications speed or value-added services. Accounts on these utilities can be structured for commercial use, if required. One of my former clients ran a 100-person consulting firm that served the mainframe computer market with over 20 offices throughout the United States. They used CompuServe as their sole messaging and file transfer system; and their log-on sequences bound them to their private account area only. Each office was charged for the on-line connection time at local CompuServe nodes; but any consultant on assignment in the field could use a local node in or near their location. Consolidated billing was sent to the home office, with charges for each office or project broken out for easy allocation of costs. Functionally, this set-up worked great until (as business got much better) their need for an interactive scheduling system for the consulting staff drove them to install a LAN with dial-in access at their headquarters. What If We Want To Run Programs? Remotely executing programs--as opposed to simply transferring files--brings us very close to the functions of a LAN. The difference between: a) dialing into only one computer and being able to run a program only there and b) dialing into a network node and being able to access all of the LAN resources-- including those attached on other network nodes--is the distinction which parses LANs from non-LAN-yet- LAN-like entities. We can get to a) above by installing modems on the host and remote computers; and then using a remote dial-in product that will allow us to actually take over operation of the host from the remote computer. The key characteristic of this product type is that the remote computer keyboard and monitor function in complete echoed synchronization with those components on the host computer. With complete compatibility (not always easily achieved), it is just like being 'there'--at the host machine. The application program being executed must reside on the host computer and the input data upon which the program operates must also be at the host computer--even if that data is entered from the 'host' keyboard by pressing keys at the remote system. The output data, however, can usually be sent almost anywhere--including back to the remote computer. Players in this arena include pcAnywhere (DMA), Close-Up (Norton Lambert), Co/Session (Triton Technologies) and Remote Access (Ultinet Development). If the data can be on the host computer, the program can be on the remote computer (or vice versa) and the whole thing can run properly, that's a network. Not a local network but a network nonetheless. For example, Artisoft makes a 'zero-slot' (no adapter card) network product called LANtasticZ which allows a remote computer to dial into a network node and share its resources. This same product allows a true two-computer LAN connection over paired serial or parallel interfaces, again without the need for the network adapter cards. Whether the connection is at 9600 bps or over the interfaces, the transfer rate is a lot slower than it is over a conventional LAN; so moving anything other than data across the network is not recommended. Those cautions having been recognized, LANtasticZ is a product which bridges the gap between resource sharing alternatives and true LANs. (Mostly) Local And (Mostly) Non-Graphic Multi- User DOS Alternatives No discussion of resource sharing alternatives would be complete without mention of non-mainstream multi-user operating systems--and at least for now we'll consider native OS/2 and Unix (and its progeny) to be mainstream products. These other, less well- known alternatives include 386 MultiWare (Alloy Computer Products), Citrix Mulituser (Citrix Systems), 386-DOS (Concurrent Controls), VM/ 386 Multiuser (Intelligent Graphics), Remote-OS Mulituser OS/2 (The Software Lifeline) PC-MOS (The Software Link) 386 OS (THEOS Software), USMDOS (UltraSoft Atlanta) and PC Share/vm (Zaki Corporation. These operating systems typically place all of the intelligence for resource sharing on a (literally) central 386+ computer connected star- fashion via telephone-style cabling to stations which act as (predominantly) character-mode 'glass teletype machines'. There is generally some 'good' news and some 'bad' news about this kind of implementation. The good news is that the terminals can be relatively inexpensive, response time at the terminals is pretty good, and the failure of one terminal line does not normally take the entire system down. The bad news is that there just may not be a lot of choices for application software, those that are available may be quite expensive, and support for instruction or maintenance may be limited to one source. However, for a specialized situation, an application developed under these non-DOS operating systems may be just the ticket. The End! Well just about, anyway. What we have seen is that there is a broad range of resource sharing alternatives to local area networks that can be used in lieu of or as a supplement to a LAN. For the most part, if these alternatives are focused on accomplishing one or two goals they can be implemented in a cost effective manner with little negative impact on an organization's work processes. With rapid advances perpetually enhancing the LAN market, these alternative products and services will continue to fit into smaller and more specialized niches that cannot be served by true LANs. From that perspective they continue to hold real value for groups and organizations that can use them effectively. (Reference: PC Magazine Guide to Connectivity, Frank J. Derfler, Jr., Ziff-Davis, Emeryville, Ca., 1992.) Author Information: Stephen Talmadge is President of Optimal Systems Incorporated of Evanston, Illinois--a consulting firm which provides network support services for small to medium-sized companies. Mr. Talmadge has been associated with the computer industry for 25 years and is currently the Network Conference Moderator of the CCS Bulletin Board System.