On Wednesday 10 August 2005 01:27, Chris Palmer wrote: >Gregory Seidman writes: >> Actually, I'm pretty happy with minicom. Are you unhappy merely >> because it was written in the 90s? Or because it is text-based (as >> is its purpose, after all)? > >As Unix-like-system afficionados, we can't afford to get uppity > about what decade our software was designed and implemented in. :) > >Like Gregory, I find minicom entirely sufficient. In fact I very > nearly like it.
And I'm the other side of the fence here folks. It needs help IMO, lots of it. It doesn't handle screen functions well when run from an x screen so the screen is always contaminated, and accessing its functions is also difficult if one doesn't memorize the whole man page. We had a much better term program on the coco, Supercomm2.3, and on the amiga's, term-4.7. Both of those were written to take advantage of the native gfx available on their repective platforms. Minicom apparently hasn't been touched in 15 years, and seriously needs to be brought uptodate, with the ability to operate on an xwindow equipt system in whatever size shell screen its given. -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) 99.35% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
