 | | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) Not necessarily. I played on SouCon MUSH and PernMUSH for MONTHS using telnet only. (It was at least a year before I had access to tf) Sure, now that I have tf I would be hard-pressed to go back to plain telnet. But it CAN be done. ANd it is (...) (26 years ago, 9-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) I dunno. Many (most?) ISPs these days don't even give out shell accounts, let alone being cool enough to install useful programs.... (...) :) Yes, of course Unix has it by default. The telnet client that comes with Win95 is utter crap -- (...) (26 years ago, 9-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) In Your Opinion IMO, WIn95's telnet does EVERYTHING I need it to. It is better than most, in fact. It has copy+paste capability, and logging. :) I don't know what more is needed. (I've never sent anything over telnet that needs encryption. If (...) (26 years ago, 9-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
Perhaps a Princess.... <sarah@eskimo.com> wrote in message 36208bba.79678367@20....63.236... (...) Many ISPs these days don't have shell accounts. Many aren't even based on Unix. The largest ISPs in the country (AOL, Worldnet, MSN, Compuserve, etc) (...) (26 years ago, 9-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) Well. It's not a baseless opinion. It has very limited terminal emulation capability, has trouble understanding that a standard terminal screen size is 80x25, doesn't let you create an address book.... Not to mention simple aesthetic issues (...) (26 years ago, 9-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) *shrug* The argument is probably moot. Likely, I would not use an IRC server. There is not much ttle more probability that I would use a talker either. I simply don't have the time for either. News provides me plenty of reason to talk as is :) (...) (26 years ago, 9-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) Yes I don't encrypt my password when I telnet in from other sites either. Sarah (26 years ago, 9-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) My head is starting to spin with all this info... Could someone who's experienced with all or most of these be really nice and post a summary (starting a new thread) where things are listed in an advantages/disadvantes format? News vs. IRC vs. (...) (26 years ago, 10-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) I started to do this, but really, it can all be condensed to this, IMHO. Any of the more advanced systems will consume more of your time than this is worth -- I'd rather you concentrate your effort on other parts of LUGnet. If there's a (...) (26 years ago, 10-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) That's a good summary, thanks... --Todd (26 years ago, 10-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) For address book, do you mean a list of servers? Win95 telnet compiles this automatically as you visit servers. You can change the colors by going to Terminal | Preferences. Background Color has its own button, foreground color is changed in (...) (26 years ago, 12-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) Uh... Hyperterminal replaces Terminal in Win 3.x, NOT telnet.exe And yes, Hyperterminal works MUCH better than Terminal. I had to buy ProComm Plus in Win 3.X In Win95, I just used Hyperterminal until I finally went SLIP/PPP (forget which I (...) (26 years ago, 12-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
[Followup set to lugnet.off-topic.debate] (...) An address book is better than that. Win95 just remembers where you've been last. A real address book will let you specify which hosts to save, and lets you do things like specify different options (...) (26 years ago, 12-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
