Re: Telnet to conserver

Bryan Stansell wrote:
> i'd certainly like to know why you're trying to avoid the client, 'cause
> if something is lacking, it might be possible to add an enhancement.
> but i can imagine edge cases that would require it...

In my case, I was avoiding the client because of support issues: most of
the organization at my location uses Windows, and although a number of
users have Cygwin, most of them didn't install the compilers and
libraries necessary to build the client.  It also turns out that
distributing a Cygwin binary from my box requires a very similar Cygwin
install on other people's machines.  Or something.  It's complicated.

A standalone, Win32-native (non-cygwin) build of console would be
lovely, if someone could instruct me in doing it.

Meanwhile, the *bigger* issue is time and education.  Nearly everybody
uses Terra Term (ugh!) connected to their own box, and the only
advantage most people see in conserver is the ability to centralize the
logging of all the QA terminals to our fileserver, and adding timestamps
every minute.

I'm wearing my QA hat at this job, not the sysadmin hat.  It's been
easier for me to sell the idea of installing Ruby and using automation
scripts I've written, rather than having people build stuff on cygwin.
That said, nobody but me has bothered using this anyway, even though
I've written internal documentation.  I get the feeling that this is an
uphill and mostly pointless battle now.

Any suggestions are quite welcome.

-- 
     Chris Riddoch
epistemological humility