On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 22:43, fredex wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 08:58:37PM -0500, Scot L. Harris wrote: > > > > > > Why not use kermit? I believe it has good vt100 support and is part of > > FC2 and probably FC3. > > Kermit is great, I use it all the time. > > But it is not a terminal emulator. Well, C-kermit isn't. K95 is and MS-Kermit > is, but C-kermit is not. You get ONLY whatever the capabilities are of > the terminal you're actually using when you run C-kermit, no more, no less. > It is usually possible to make do that way, but sometimes you have a remote > app/system that demands some known terminal type other than the one you > have. > > Fred Heck! Why did they mess with kermit? That used to be THE tool to use across all kinds of systems. Wonder if you can still get the tape with all the different versions on it? If minicom won't do the job then I guess you are left to write one yourself. -- Scot L. Harris webid@xxxxxxxxxx Experience is the worst teacher. It always gives the test first and the instruction afterward.
