- Cp m emulator mac os x how to#
- Cp m emulator mac os x mac osx#
- Cp m emulator mac os x free#
- Cp m emulator mac os x windows#
The reason for this is historical, when I You cannot connect with kermit, minicom and the like, but The auxin/auxout connections are named pipes, these are uni-directional, so one permissions? I would assume that if a user account can launch an app that the same user should be able to access a device that the app has hopefully attached to. I can't get that to work on osx or pi linux.Īre there any aspects of these ports on unix/linux which need additional configuration e.g.
Cp m emulator mac os x mac osx#
Would be nice if a virtual device could be created and accessed.ģ) Joyce 2.2.12 - This emulates an Amstrad serial board and appears to present by default as /dev/ttys0 which exists by default on my Mac osx but not on my raspberry pi linux.
I am guessing that there are points that I've missed or are not documented.Ģ) Yaze-AG - Only seems able to attach a CP/M device to a real physical serial device (e.g. Also as I understand it it is often additional SIO ports which are emulated out to the host and it doesn't seem as though common cpm devices con:, lpt:, aux: can be accessed from outside. I've not been able to make it work, never seeing data through minicom. Which isn't then accessible as one device from minicom for bidirectional access. Although that seems to present AUXIN and AUXOUT separately
Cp m emulator mac os x how to#
I am hoping that someone reading this group has made the journey before me and can share that experience.ġ) Z80pack 1.36 : It is documented how to attach the host software to the unix port e.g. I would also like to be able to run generic CP/M kermit (typically which uses IOBYTE under CP/M)) within the emulator to c-kermit running on a serial port on the host. be able to run teraterm serial connection(windows) or minicom (Linux or OSX) on host to the CP/M CON:, AUX: LPT etc. That would be very precious knowledge, especially if it can replaces the OS we use for our use cases, for example a FreeDOS alternative you can say it would have no one remaining bug.I have been experimenting with several CP/M emulators and wish to find a way to access the emulator serial ports on the same host system, not attaching the emulator to a real external serial cable, i.e. Interesting knowledge would be to tell us a mass use OS which you can stare it would have no one remaining bugs. So, on the contrary this is a platitude you don't have to prove. I'm myself able to list multiple OS but I'm not able to list a single one that does not have a single bug. On the contrary, saying it would still have bugs is not a strong statement, it's a common thing about software development, you don't have to prove it. If the one doing it does not do any formal demonstration to prove it, no one has to take this statement true (more precisely: everyone has to ignore the statement). But telling an OS has no bug at all or telling an OS is crippled with bugs is a very strong statement that requires a formal demonstration from the one doing it. I'm not saying there is no bugs, I just don't have the knowledge to either tell there is no bug at all either tell it's crippled with bugs. It's most likely riddled with bugs.> it's most likely riddled with bugs Your contributions to these observations of mine would be deeply appreciated.įor the sake of crystal clarity: precisely what point are you TRYING to make? I didn't know that the CP/M operating system was bug-free.
I'm actually old enough to remember Intel 4004 Assembly Language.
Cp m emulator mac os x free#
Unless you have used "FreeDOS", and are totally familiar with IT, then (1) being old enough to remember 'Dos 6.2' and 'Windows 3.1' and (2) ".your knowing, in general, that DOS PRODUCTS ARE NOT BUG FREE stretches whatever point you're trying to make to beyond the breaking point.
Cp m emulator mac os x windows#
So is FreeDOS so small that all the bugs have been worked out then? I'm actually old enough to remember Dos 6.2 and Windows 3.1 but I didn't know that DOS products were bug free.Not to put TOO fine a point on this, but it is DEFINITELY NOTED THAT WHAT YOU SAID WAS: ".I'm actually old enough to remember Dos 6.2 and Windows 3.1.".Īnd THEN you went on to say, ".but I didn't know that DOS products were bug free."Ī quick course in Aristotelian logic for you: the subject here, since you seem to have missed it, is "FreeDOS".