On Mon, 2024-01-15 at 20:32 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 08:08:36PM +0100, hw wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I don't understand why you involve a terminal emulator in the process. > > Do you need to see the data that goes through the COM port displayed > > in a terminal (like minicom)? > > People interact with the (remote) application by means of the terminal > emulator. Things get sent to/from the printer based on escape sequences > initiated by the application.
Desktop sharing works fine with gnome these days. Why not interact with the application through that kinda locally? > In the original (proprietary) application, the dispatching functionality Dispatching functionality? > is integrated in the terminal emulator, so it is understandable that > pheoebus phoebus wants to keep that structure in the replacement. I don't understand. > I proposed splitting off the "mux" functionality from the terminal > emulator functionality, but I fully understand that phoebus phoebus > favours the more "conservative" approach. > > By the way -- back then (TM), when terminals were real things, it was > not unheard of that they came with an attached printer and some bar > code scannery -- all handily multiplexed over the RS-232 (or something > more monstruous), orchestrated via intricate escapery. > > So the thing is just a natural evolution dating back to The Dinosaurs. Well, I'd have to be quit a bit older to have experienced "real" terminals like that. I do remember printers accepting some escape sequences to control their functionality, though. If this application is running on such a terminal, maybe it's time to find a more modern und thus more feasible replacement ... An ancient terminal may cease to work eventually and be very difficult to repair once it does ...
