Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!spool.mu.edu!olivea!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!tuegate.tue.nl!rc6.urc.tue.nl!rwa.urc.tue.nl!rcstack From: rcstack@rwa.urc.tue.nl (Harry Stox) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc Subject: Re: TELNET daemon for MS-DOS anyone? Message-ID: <670@rc6.urc.tue.nl> Date: 20 Jun 91 16:28:58 GMT References: <9106191238.AA20987@ftp.com> <1991Jun19.204430.48165@cc.usu.edu> Sender: news@rc6.urc.tue.nl Reply-To: rcstack@urc.tue.nl Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands Lines: 24 In article <1991Jun19.204430.48165@cc.usu.edu> jrd@cc.usu.edu (Joe R. Doupnik) writes: > Hmmm. I wonder if folks know what they are asking for with a PC/DOS >based telnet daemon. Let's see. To remove all opinion I suggest a simple test. >Plug a terminal (remember those things?) in to the serial port of a PC and >tell DOS CTTY COM1. That's as good as Telnet is every going to be, usually >Telnet is only 7-bits wide. Ok, now run some nice application and see how >far that terminal can go (an inch or two). Why? Because the DOS application >is not written to run via stdin/stdout, no way, but that's all one gets with >Telnet. Or: Let's look at DOORway, which does the very same thing as Carboncopy (at least for text screens) and enables you to use a VT100 at the other end. It works like charm, so incorporating such a scheme into a telnet server for DOS wouldn't be such a bad idea after all. -Harry -- ============================================================================= Email: Internet: rcstack@urc.tue.nl Bitnet: rcstack1@heitue5 Computer Association STACK, Computing Centre RC 1.82, Eindhoven University of Technology, POBox 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, Holland.