Calm down! ;-)
All I am saying is that the "modem dialling" and "PPP" functions
should be considered separately. If there is a problem with the
"modem dialling" functions, this should be fixed, but does not
prevent us using the "PPP" functions, provided these work OK.
Personally, I have no interest in LSPPP's "modem" functions at
all - I would be just as happy if LSPPP had *no* dialling capability!
I also see absolutely no reason to discard Miniterm - what is the
benefit of doing that???
In conclusion, there are many possible dialler programs that
could be used (I even have one, that I wrote myself ;-). However,
there are few PPP packet drivers available, so this is where
LSPPP is most needed - as a compact, modern PPP packet
driver. Before you disagree - remember that I'm *not* saying
that LSPPP's "dialling" stuff need not be fixed; if it's going to
provide this stuff, then it *should* work properly ...
Joe.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, 8 January 2001 14:55
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: LSPPP dialling functions
>
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Da Silva, Joe wrote:
>
> > Sure, from a purist perspective, LSPPP's modem functions should
> > be made to work with any "standard" modem ...
>
> What kind of nonsense is this? There is nothing "purist" about making
> sure something actually works as intended before moving/rushing to the
> next step,
>
> >
> > From a practical perspective, however, it's somewhat irrelevant.
> > LSPPP's primary function is as a PPP packet driver. As such, it
> > has unique features such as low memory footprint and automatic
> > DNS resolution. OTOH, it's dialling capabilities are nothing special,
> > and it _is_ designed to optionally use other dialler programs.
> >
> > As for Miniterm, it makes perfect sense to use this as the
> > dialler with Arachne, since this is well integrated and well
> > supported by Arachne and provides additional features such
> > as an optional terminal window (for those that need it).
> >
> > Joe.
>
> This only makes sense if LSPPP was fully debugged and working, which is
> something I can assure you it's not.
>
>
