Subject:
|
Re: VT100 over the web
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:11:22 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@mattdmANTISPAM.org
|
Viewed:
|
144 times
|
| |
|
|
Sproaticus <jsproat@io.com> wrote:
> > Another solution if you didn't want to have a Java applet on the client
> > (with the security and download time considerations you get with that)
> > would be to have an "interposer" which accepted and spoke VT100 but which
> > rendered html forms to the user (and processed the resulting responses by
> > emitting VT100 keystrokes).
> You mean something like a dedicated telnet / HTTP gateway? I still think lag
> would be be a huge obstacle. How thin do you need your thin client to be? If
I assume that this would be specific to the program they're using, not a
generic telnet<->http....
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: VT100 over the web
|
| (...) I have a few thoughts about this. If the telnet / VT100 throughput has a well- defined format, then such a gateway could use expect (or something like it) and serve HTML forms instead of relying upon the user to enter keystrokes. A side (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: VT100 over the web
|
| (...) Hmmm. I wonder (strictly for the sake of wondering) is it illegal to use the entire Mindterm package in the U.S., or just the bits that use the RSA algorithm? i.e., if a USian uses just the VT320 stuff and not the ssh stuff, is it legal? What (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
