Re: Minicom binary for OS 5.0.5?
From: Bill Burns (billb_at_ftldesign.com)
Date: 12/24/03
- Next message: Tony Lawrence: "Re: Minicom binary for OS 5.0.5?"
- Previous message: Bill Burns: "Re: Minicom binary for OS 5.0.5?"
- In reply to: Tony Lawrence: "Re: Minicom binary for OS 5.0.5?"
- Next in thread: Tony Lawrence: "Re: Minicom binary for OS 5.0.5?"
- Reply: Tony Lawrence: "Re: Minicom binary for OS 5.0.5?"
- Reply: ubw: "Re: Minicom binary for OS 5.0.5?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 24 Dec 2003 20:05:52 GMT
Tony Lawrence wrote:
> Bill Burns <billb@ftldesign.com> wrote:
>>Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:
>
>>> Bill Burns typed (on Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 04:17:18AM +0000):
>>>| Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:
>>>|
>>>| > Bill Burns typed (on Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 02:48:03AM +0000):
>>>| >| Does anyone have a Minicom binary for OpenServer 5.0.5? I
>>>| >| don't have the 5.0.5 development system otherwise I would
>>>| >| attempt to compile Minicom from the source.
>>>| >|
>>>| >| For user compatibility with Linux systems at the same site
>>>| >| running Minicom, I need to install it on one SCO system.
>>>| >
>>>| > Are you referring to some atrocious communications program,
>>>| > which insisted on disabling a port before dialing out, and
>>>| > which also wanted to su to root?
>>>|
>>>| That sounds like it, but I believe the su problem has been
>>>| fixed on RedHat Linux at least.
>>>
>>> Communications programs should be su uucp.
>>>
>>I checked on RedHat 9 and it's set to uucp.
>
>>But does anyone have the Minicom binary for OS 5.0.5?
>
> Maybe somebody has ported it, but I tend to doubt it. The only
> reason I use it on Linux is that it's about all you'll generally
> find, but IMHO it's pretty awful stuff. Just give me a raw cu
> and get out of my way :-)
>
> The other problem is that there is less and less need for it. I
> only have a very few clients left where I can't get to them over
> the internet and I'll drop 'em at any additional provocation..
>
> If this is for users who are just expecting to see that interface
> and are used to typing certain keystrokes, it might not be
> all that difficult to put up a faux Minicom with a limited set of
> features that you'd write in Perl or whatever and just call cu
> appropriately..
>
It's for clients in one of the last dialup hold-out industries -
Medicare and Medicaid claim billing. None of the insurance carriers
that handle the claims have any batch upload modes other than dialup.
When these systems were installed years ago we used Mlink, which has a
proprietary scripting language that you need the developer's kit for,
long since lost. Now the carriers have switched to a new claim format,
the old Mlink upload scripts no longer work, and I can't change them.
Newer users are on Redhat Linux and I set them up with Minicom. I was
hoping to make all the systems work the same to simplify support.
Perhaps I'll just switch them all to Kermit. I haven't used it before,
but at least it's available for most platforms and has plain-text
scripting.
-- Bill Burns, Long Island, NY, USA mailto:billb@ftldesign.com History of Technology Websites: http://ftldesign.com
- Next message: Tony Lawrence: "Re: Minicom binary for OS 5.0.5?"
- Previous message: Bill Burns: "Re: Minicom binary for OS 5.0.5?"
- In reply to: Tony Lawrence: "Re: Minicom binary for OS 5.0.5?"
- Next in thread: Tony Lawrence: "Re: Minicom binary for OS 5.0.5?"
- Reply: Tony Lawrence: "Re: Minicom binary for OS 5.0.5?"
- Reply: ubw: "Re: Minicom binary for OS 5.0.5?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|