Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!haven!umd5!dschuetz
From: dschuetz@umd5.umd.edu (David Schuetz)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Dosgate - is this new?
Message-ID: <5061@umd5.umd.edu>
Date: 27 Jun 89 17:27:39 GMT
References: <1722@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>
Reply-To: dschuetz@umd5.umd.edu (David Schuetz)
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 28

In article <1722@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> @aplvax.jhuapl.edu:mjj@stda.jhuapl.edu (Marshall Jose) writes:
>I'm having difficulty appreciating the value of "dosgate".  Isn't the
>PC-DOS command "CTTY" adequate for this purpose?  I've had to use
>it when I was debugging screen drivers, and it worked quite well.
>
>The only advantage I can see (from reading Keith's description) is
>that dosgate will accept commands from both COM: and keyboard, and send
>responses to both COM: and screen.


Well, that's about all it does, I think (accepts commands from both COM: and
keyboard).  I am surprised by the size of the posting (it's five articles,
so it must be big, right?) for what it does.  In the FidoNet BBS Community,
we have had a couple of programs that do the same thing for about two years
or so now.... GATEWAY and IBMAUX1 both do the same thing as dosgate...and I 
think they both support ansi output as well (though it has been a while since
I used these).  

But believe me, the "only advantage" you refer to is very important to 
Sysops who wish to be able to drop to DOS remotely, or who wish to let
their users run ouside programs while still allowing "snooping" at the

console....these are a hot item.


David Schuetz
University of Maryland
dschuetz@umd5.umd.edu