I would say TBACK's PUT function looks like hands down the thing to
suggest along with Laddie. I will start adding that to my answers to
questions like that where I want to say all the available options.
The telcom way is just simply ridiculous. Yes it's possible. But so
what? You don't perceive it as inconvenient and you don't suffer
failures, because you are practiced. That doesn't change the fact that
it requires more steps, more understanding, and is more error-prone.
It's not only more difficult for the user asking for directions, it's
more difficult for anyone trying to offer directions. It's a big fat
pain on all sides, relative to what's possible, and the difference can
be quantified, not merely a matter of opinion or feeling. Telcom is the
option of last resort. It needs to exist in documentation and
references, which most people never need to consult.
I do agree that technically the bootstrapper and the tpdd emulator are
two different jobs that merely always just happen to go together. But
the only time you might need a tpdd server without also needing a tpdd
client installer, is when you have a REX or a real option rom. REX is
great and I recommend it to everyone, but it's not user-friendly to
actually require one. For dlplus, it's such a small function in terms of
lines of code, and requires the same serial port setup, that I decided
it makes sense to leave it right in the same executable, but just with
no hardcoding specific to any particular tpdd client. It comes bundled
with a bunch of client installers, but they are all external files and
so are their associated install directions, and it's not even hardcoded
to only use those bundled files.
You made the same decision yourself when you put an arbitrary .CO
installer into a full system backup & restore app. ;)
I actually agree it's a natural enough inclusion, the functions are
related enough, so I'm not saying I think it should be separate. I'm
saying anything you can say about a tpdd client bootstrapper in a tpdd
emulator violating the "Unix Way", applies exactly the same to the .co
installer in tback.
--
bkw
On 5/4/21 2:34 PM, John R. Hogerhuis wrote:
Actually my reasons for not getting around to an injector for
LaddieAlpha come back to me. I have added injectors before.
DLPilot, for example, has a text file injector, and was generally used
with TEENY.DO
But DLPilot is interactive.You can select a file from a drop down, and
tell it to transfer a file. Similar to Android mComm.
While LaddieAlpha is a command line utility, intended to be "headless."
And if I assume the user is at a prompt, the Unix Way is to have a
utility do One Job. So the natural thing is to use some other utility as
an injector, if it exists.
And those ways exist...
A terminal program like Hyperterminal or Minicom
http://bitchin100.com/wiki/index.php?title=Text_File_Transfer_using_Hyperterminal
<http://bitchin100.com/wiki/index.php?title=Text_File_Transfer_using_Hyperterminal>
TBACK.EXE
http://bitchin100.com/wiki/index.php?title=TBACK
<http://bitchin100.com/wiki/index.php?title=TBACK>
LAPTAP.EXE (this one is very clever... basically the Terminal Way with
Model 100-specific prompts so transferred content doesn't get slowed to
LCD speeds)
Someone could consider recreating this tool in a Python or Perl or
Node.js script.
http://www.club100.org/library/libeme.html
<http://www.club100.org/library/libeme.html>
TEENY in MP3 format
Comes with DLPlus
TEENY.EXE (was once the BEST way to install TEENY, since it can
configure TEENY image depending on need)
Will I ever add an injector to LaddieAlpha? Probably. But it will come
along for the ride with a interactive TELCOM based UI mode, so I can
actually deliver prompts to the user.
-- John.
--
bkw
