On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 08:55:22AM -0700, Charles Curley wrote: > On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 09:59:48 -0500 > Greg Wooledge <g...@wooledge.org> wrote: > > > The real problem here is that we're all blind men trying to grasp > > the elephant. > > A good summary of what we know so far. I suspect that the OP should > question whether it's time to scrap the elephant entirely, and re-think > the problem de novo. Remember that an elephant is a horse designed by a > committee.
The elephant would disagree. Ported back from the metaphor this means that there are two sides to this story and we might learn something new by trying to take up the OP's point of view. My guess was that the functionality exists in the Unix-y world, but the building blocks might be called differently. See, back then, Unix-y was "the mainframe" and PCs often played the terminals (reflected on the serial ports, back then when PCs had some: they have a terminal's gender). This was what led me to minicom (and friends): what did one use back then to talk to a modem? Sadly the OP hasn't had a look into that, so I won't know ;-) (To be fair: so many proposals to choose from, the OP has to prune things to come to an end). Cheers -- t
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
