SY.FDC@CU20B.COLUMBIA.EDU (Frank da Cruz) (01/08/86)
Info-Kermit Digest Wed, 8 Jan 1986 Volume 4 : Number 2
Departments:
MS-DOS KERMIT -
Feedback on H19 vs VT102 Support in Kermit-MS (several messages)
MISCELLANY -
C-Kermit VMS
IBM VM/CMS Kermit vs VM Optimizer
Kermit for Epson HX-20?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 7-Jan-1986
From: BRIAN@UOFT02.BITNET
Subject: H19 Support
H19 and vt102's -- The consensus here [at the University of Toledo] is that
since there are no H19's on campus H19 support would not be missed. In
light of the s/1, 7171 and VAX TPU support of vt1xx's and the lack therein
of h19 support, my users would certainly prefer vt1xx emulation.
brian
------------------------------
Date: Tue 7 Jan 86 13:16:53-EST
From: D. M. Rosenblum <DR01@TE.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: MS-DOS Kermit Terminal Emulation Query
Personally, I prefer H-19 emulation. But I'm not much of a heavy MS-DOS
Kermit user these days. My reasons may nevertheless be of some interest.
If VT1xx emulation is fast enough to avoid the incessant XON/XOFFing that
goes on with real VT1xx's (or, e.g., PRO/350's running PRO/Kermit or
PRO/Communications and emulating VT102s), then I have no objections. But
there's some software that isn't too kind to XON/XOFF flow control, notably
old versions of Gosling emacs on VAX/VMS's, which we run here at C-MU. If
the VT1xx emulation tended to generate lots of XON/XOFFs, this could be a
problem. H-19 emulation doesn't do this any more than real H-19s do, so it
might be good to keep H-19 emulation around.
On the other hand, though, as should be clear, I've had no experience working
with VT1xx emulators, so my concerns may be about non-existent problems.
Daniel M. Rosenblum,
Ph.D. candidate
School of Urban and Public Affairs
Carnegie-Mellon University
------------------------------
Date: Tue 7 Jan 86 14:48:35-EST
From: EXT1.FARHAD@CU20B.COLUMBIA.EDU
Subject: KERMIT terminal emulations
In reply to your request for comments re KERMIT terminal emulation:
I would like to see a single terminal with character/line/block
insert/delete capability as the emulation standard in all KERMIT vanilla
issues. Ideally, this capability could be supplemented with an option to
load any one of a number of independent terminal emulation drivers (residing
separately on disk) either via a switch at initial KERMIT load time or via
an internal KERMIT subcommand. The capability to switch among
(text/graphics) terminals while KERMIT is loaded would truly be a luxury.
/Farhad
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 86 17:06:35 pst
From: "Scott Weikart" <cdp!scott@glacier>
Subject: Re: MS-DOS Kermit Terminal Emulation Query
We definitely want insert/delete line/character; we use kermit a lot for
dialup access. I'd be happy to give up H-19 for VT102, but not for VT100.
Actually, I'd prefer VT102 over H19 (VT102 is more verbose, but more
standard). I don't have strong feelings about whether there should be one
or n terminal emulators built in.
-scott
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 86 17:02 EST
From: LBAFRIN%clemson.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Subject: Re: your digested query about dropping H-19 and adding VT102
Go for it! I say drop the Heath-19 emulation like hot lead and replace it
with a good VT102 emulator. If we're going to do something, let's do it
right, so choose the VT102, not the namby-pamby VT100. As for including a
bunch of different emulators in Kermit, forget it. The VT102 is so standard
nowadays that if you connect to a system that doesn't understand what a
VT102 is, then you're connected to either (1) a system that should have been
scrapped so long ago that the gold on its circuit boards is worth more than
it is, or (2) an IBM mainframe (not including the 1 or 2 of such beasts
which run that IBM abomination of UNIX), or (3) both (1) and (2).
A VT102 is all the emulation capability Kermit will need for the forseeable
future. ("Forseeable" in this industry being <= 10 years (maybe 5).)
-- Larry Afrin
Dept. of Computer Science
Clemson University
[Ed. - I wouldn't be quite so hard on the H19 -- it does most of what the
VT102 does, and it did it first, and it does it more simply and without all
the XON/XOFF craziness. It's just too bad it never "caught on" in the sense
that popular operating systems (other than Berkeley Unix) or front ends
support it as a standard terminal type. Are there any setups where dropping
Heath emulation in favor of VT102 (assuming it didn't send XOFFs all the
time) would do serious damage?]
------------------------------
Date: Mon 6 Jan 86 21:14:45-EST
From: Jin Au Kong <F.KONG%DEEP-THOUGHT@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Feedback on MS-DOS Kermit 2.28 and C-kermit VMS
Since VT100 is industrial standard, I would support VT100 emulation
in various implementations.
On VMS C-Kermit:
1) Terminal response is faster than Kermit-32, and requires less
BYTLM quota. We have Kermit-32 v3.1066 and C-kermit 4C present
on our system. While C-kermit suffer from data overrun problem
more often, one cannot type too fast when "connect"ed through
Kermit-32, or it will kick you back to kermit prompt level.
2) I like the script feature provided by C-Kermit. We have
implemented fileserver and printer server between two 750's
with this feature. Wish to learn of some other applications, such
as mailserver.
3) It would be great if somebody can incorporate a better
interruption capability for C-Kermit. Quite often we have user
tied up the line because of an incorrect operation in C-Kermit.
[Ed. - The VMS support was added to C-Kermit by some volunteers at DEC who
probably don't have time to do much more with it. I'm sure that C
compilers are pretty common at VMS sites (much more common, at least than
Bliss compilers), so VMS experts are more than welcome to add whatever
improvements they like to the VMS system-dependent modules.]
------------------------------
Date: 7-Jan-1986
From: BRIAN@UOFT02.BITNET
Subject: IBM VM/CMS Kermit vs VM Optimizer
The systems group for the IBM system here recently installed a package from
BMC Corp. called VM Optimizer, one feature of which is compression of data
to 3270 type terminals. Using this will cause CMS S/1 Kermit to fail. If
something like this is used, it should be disabled for 7171 and S/1 lines.
brian
[Ed. - Swell, I hope it comes with instructions about how to do that...]
------------------------------
Date: 8 Jan 86 9:26:00 EST
From: Frank da Cruz <SY.FDC@CU20B>
Subject: Kermit for Epson HX-20?
Does anyone have Kermit running on an Epson HX-20? I assume (but don't know
for sure) that this is a CP/M-80 machine (and if it is, I don't know if it
runs CP/M 2.2 or 3.0). I would be very grateful for information about this
system, or better still, a pointer to where to find Kermit for it, or still
better, an Epson HX-20 diskette with Kermit on it!
------------------------------
End of Info-Kermit Digest
*************************
-------