Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!think!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!sdsu!crash!pro-europa.cts.com!dkl From: dkl@pro-europa.cts.com (David Leikam) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: Kermit and vt100 Message-ID: <1639@crash.cts.com> Date: 24 Feb 90 07:56:22 GMT Sender: root@crash.cts.com Lines: 36 In-Reply-To: message from jetzer@studsys.mu.edu re, well, the subject: Kermit emulations and VT100 emulations. (So the first is an oxymoron. So sue me.) The thing is this: The current production model is the VT-300 series. Yep. We've already passed the VT-200 into history. Yet most terminal programs are still doing a stumblebum job of emulating the 100. Somebody must tell me why this is, some day... But anyway, the point is not the Kermit protocol, in the first place. Kermit is in the second place. That is, the desiderata is "Good VT100 emulation with Kermit", not "Good Kermit with vt100 emulation". Kermit386 is entirely adequate, under those circumstances, for 98% of most purposes. The emulation is not. There are better emulations, but they are still marginal. Snowterm _almost_ gets there, but for the lack of 132 col support and the inability to change fonts - but the lack of Kermit kills it. Why the emphasis on the emulation? Mostly because those of us who need it, need it to talk to a DEC machine. And there ain't no substitute for a servicable emulation, unlike those of, say, ProTerm, Microphone, or ProComm. We need the emulation to communicate with the machine, and we need the Kermit to move files back and forth. And the greatest of these is both of them. (BTW, and in response to a comment, 'I preferred my emulator to a VT100 terminal', I am unsurprised. On the other hand, VT-100's go for about $50 these days, if you can find one of these antiques.) ---- | UUCP: [ucsd, nosc] !crash!pro-europa!dkl | INET: dkl@pro-europa.cts.com ARPA: crash!pro-europa!dkl@nosc.mil | "The great way is not difficult - just cease to cherish opinions" | - The Third Zen Patriarch