[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Serial terminal in testing?



On Monday 16 August 2004 20:31, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> minicom looks like just what I want, thanks!
>
> But is there a way to avoid "initializing the modem" when it starts up?
>   When my device receives any input from the serial line, it enters a
> little homebrew debugger.  I'd like to just connect.

Someone else mentioned the --noinit option.  

You can also remove the initialization string in the default setup with 
minicom -s .

> Also, the status line says "offline" all the time.  Do I need to do
> something to put it online?

It always connects to your serial port -- it's just telling you that it never 
dialed the modem into a system and got a connect message. 

Remember, it's basically a "Telix" clone from the DOS BBS days.  It thinks 
you're using it to set up a list of 20 BBS's to dial to get your messages and 
chat with other online users on (gasp) Compuserve!  (GRIN)

Today, it gets used because it has "reasonable" terminal emulation and 
time-tested serial port code for things like you're using it for... to talk 
to a small serial device.  But that wasn't its original purpose.

I like firing up minicom just for the nostalgia!  Recently I dug up "evidence" 
of the main BBS I frequented in 1986!  I'm very sure the guy who used to run 
it probably doesn't have the phone number anymore, but I'm highly tempted to 
go do a reverse lookup on the number or just to call it to see if Ron 
answers.  ;-)

300 baud with no dialer... man, those were the days.  Programs like minicom 
and 1200 baud came later.  (GRIN)  I still remember drooling over a friend's 
REAL Hayes modem... in all it's 300 baud auto-dial glory.  I had to wait a 
year until an overseas company started making knockoffs -- 300/1200 baud 
auto-dial and auto-answer was a luxury I was dying to have by that point!

(And some dude who remembers his 75 baud teletype interface is going to get 
all nostalgic here now and call me a "young whippersnapper" I'm sure.)

--
Nate Duehr, nate@natetech.com



Reply to: