home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Columbia Kermit
/
kermit.zip
/
newsgroups
/
misc.20000824-20010305
/
000365_news@columbia.edu _Tue Feb 27 10:16:35 2001.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
2020-01-01
|
4KB
Return-Path: <news@columbia.edu>
Received: from watsun.cc.columbia.edu (watsun.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.39.2])
by uhaligani.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20421
for <kermit.misc@cpunix.cc.columbia.edu>; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:16:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.59.30])
by watsun.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA10207
for <kermit.misc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:16:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from news@localhost)
by newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA24439
for kermit.misc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:01:54 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu: news set sender to <news> using -f
From: fdc@columbia.edu (Frank da Cruz)
Subject: Re: Linux as terminal emulator.
Date: 27 Feb 2001 15:01:52 GMT
Organization: Columbia University
Message-ID: <97gfh0$nrk$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>
To: kermit.misc@columbia.edu
In article <br9f79.jio.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>,
Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
: Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
: > In article <oend79.ju5.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
:
: [Minicom versus Kermit debate...]
:
Minicom is great for casual or novice users if it has been set up for
them in advance -- all its configuration files, etc. It's like the
"Windows" of communications software. The tradeoff is always between ease
of use and flexibility. When a Windows-like product works, it's great.
When it doesn't, it can be difficult or impossible for the user to find
out why and fix or work around the problem.
Kermit is for the non-casual user who knows what they want to do, doesn't
want anything happening by magic, needs detailed control of every facet of
the setup and connection, and might also want to automate all or parts of
the connection. For the experienced user (that is, somebody who spends 20
minutes figuring this out or reading the documentation), it's actually
*easier* to use than Minicom because multiple actions can be condensed
into macros.
The real tradeoff, then, is ease of learning versus ease of use. Going
back to the Windows example, Windows is as popular as it is because it's
easy to learn, easy to get started -- you don't have to read or study
anything. Unfortunately, once you're hooked you begin to notice how
labor-intensive certain common tasks are, and begin to wish for an easier
way to do them -- perhaps even a way to automate them. A good example is
entering user IDs in Windows NT. It's good that there is a nice GUI to
guide you through the process, and this is just the ticket for the 99% of
people who need to enter only a handful of IDs. But what if you need to
enter ten thousand IDs? That's an awful lot of clicking. If you find
youself in this situation, you are more than ready to read and study to
save yourself all that RSI-inducing and error-prone drudgery. Wouldn't
you be disappointed to learn there was NO WAY to automate the task? I
don't know if there is or there isn't, but the point is: there is room for
both kinds of tools -- the easy-to-learn ones and the powerful ones.
So too with Kermit and Minicom. If Minicom does everything you want, then
it's right for you. If there are things you wish you could do with it but
can't, maybe you're ready for a more powerful package. More about
Kermit-versus-Minicom tradeoffs here:
http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/kermit.html#complexity
- Frank