* Reply to a message in DOS_INTERNET.
 MB> Assuming you are not under the pressure of learning networking 
 MB> for your present job, 
 RJT> A fair assumption at the moment,  though at some point in the 
 RJT> near future I will be tying a few of the machines there 
 RJT> together with a copy of Lantastic 6. 
 MB> I'm no fan of Lantastic, to be perfectly honest.  I used to 
 MB> like it a lot more, but it has evolved from the bargain of 
 MB> networking into a relatively expensive solution.  As all major 
 MB> operating systems begin including networking capability free in 
 MB> the box, Lantastic is probably doomed. It has nothing to do 
 MB> with quality or features, just money.
Good point,  but at the moment the guy _has_ a package of Lantastic software 
on hand already.  This is sort of a situation that I walked into without 
having had much input before lots of things happened.
 MB> and that you have more than one computer, 
 RJT> Right now I've got this one,  and another one is in process,
 RJT> mostly waiting for me to come up with the funds for a hard
 RJT> drive.  (More on this below.) 
 MB> Having more than one computer is something of a requirement
 MB> for networking... 
I don't suppose the large number of cp/m systems around here count?  Or that 
there's any way to hook them in?    
 MB> the best way to go about learning this sort of thing on your 
 MB> own is to buy a couple of cheap Ethernet cards and try things.
 RJT> That's about what I had in mind.  It's always seemed rather 
 RJT> silly to me to duplicate resources on more than one machine 
 RJT> that are only in adjacent rooms when I can connect 'em up.
 MB> Sharing static resources, such as program files, are not 
 MB> usually a good motivation for a network.  Sharing transient 
 MB> resources, such as data files, is usually more worthwhile. 
 MB> Sharing printers is also a common use.
Then there's also the access to logging on to the bbs without having to tie 
up a couple of modems and a couple of phone lines...
 MB> You can buy clone NE-2000 Ethernet "combo" cards (both coax and 
 MB> unshielded twisted pair) for about $20-30. 
 RJT> I've seen prices like that.
 MB> A combo card is the right thing for home use, because you will 
 MB> want to start out with coax at first in order to save the 
 MB> expense of a concentrator.
 RJT> At first?  And change later on?  Why?
 MB> Coax is hard to wire for more than a very few machines because 
 MB> the coax must be threaded linearly through each of them.  With 
 MB> twisted-pair, you get a star topology with a wire between each 
 MB> machine and the concentrator box.  In exchange for the extra 
 MB> cost of the concentrator, you make wiring a lot easier. 
I suspect that what I end up with here will probably stay coax as I don't 
anticipate getting that big a network going here (though who can tell where 
it will ultimately end up?)...
 RJT> BTW,  I'll probably start out with either a serial or a 
 RJT> parallel cable between the two machines if there's any delay in 
 RJT> getting my hands on the network cards,  I figure that'd be 
 RJT> better than nothing...  
 MB> I suppose, but network cards are extremely cheap.  You can find 
 MB> used NE-2000 cards at flea markets around here for about $5.  
 MB> Go directly to Ethernet if you can afford it at all.
It's not the cards but the software that's involved that's going to cost me, 
initially.  Unless I stumble across a deal where someone has a package 
they've outgrown and want to dump cheaply,  or something similar...
 MB> Running DOS, you will be somewhat out of luck for the server.  
 MB> If you have at least one machine capable of operating as a 
 MB> NetBIOS/NetBEUI server -- running OS/2 Warp Connect, Windows 
 MB> for Workgroups 3.1x, Windows 95, or Windows NT -- then you can 
 MB> connect DOS clients to it using the free Microsoft Client for 
 MB> DOS. 
 RJT> I am considering OS/2 for this machine,  but not any of those 
 RJT> other options,  really.
 MB> OS/2 Warp Connect is a reasonable choice.
It's still going to be a lot of work,  first getting the package,  installing 
it,  and figuring out how to get things going without me having to disrupt 
the operation of the bbs too much.
 MB> This is a much cheaper option than something like Lantastic 
 MB> which, although it has its good points, is not supported 
 MB> natively by the operating system.
 RJT> I'm surprised that the prices are still as high as they are.
 MB> Lantastic's market is the existing base of customers who need 
 MB> to add a couple of nodes.  Despite the high prices, adding some 
 MB> Lantastic nodes to a Lantastic network is always a lot cheaper 
 MB> than replacing it entirely.  I can't see any reason to put in a 
 MB> Lantastic network from scratch these days.
Ok,  what would you recommend starting with,  then?  I'm only seriously 
considering Lantastic because of what's what at that job,  where I'm going to 
need to get familiar with it there.
 MB> If you really need a DOS server, the Microsoft Workgroup Add-On 
 MB> for DOS will provide a server much like Windows for Workgroups 
 MB> and costs about $50.
 RJT> Do you know if this will run under Desqview offhand?  If not,  
 RJT> then I'll probably end up having to wait until I move to OS/2 
 RJT> here...
 MB> I don't think any DOS peer server is compatible with DESQview, 
 MB> but I really have not used DV in over five years. It was a nice 
 MB> system in its day, but it was also doomed when OS/2 2.0 came 
 MB> out back in 1992.  We made KA9Q NOS compatible with DV so that 
 MB> it could be run in a DV window and operate gracefully in that 
 MB> environment, and it can run TCP/IP servers, but that was a fair 
 MB> amount of work. 
I know that there were things that you _couldn't_ do with earlier versions 
that are possible with later versions,  one example being running my Colorado 
tape software.  Trying to run that under my earlier dv 2.42 would invariably 
lock up the machine,  so I'd have to take the system down and back up outside 
of DV.  Since I upgraded to a later version,  I can now back up within DV no 
problem.  And I've seen some discussion in the DV echo about networking with 
Lantastic,  I guess I'll pursue it a bit in there.
 MB> If you want to play with TCP/IP networking specifically, 
 RJT> Is that what's necessary to tie into the internet stuff? What 
 RJT> "layer" is TCP/IP in the scheme of things?  That's where I have 
 RJT> a small problem figuring out what fits in where.
 MB> Right, TCP/IP is used on the Internet.  Many places use it 
 MB> privately, even if they are not connected to the Internet, 
 MB> because it is a very well proven system for wide area 
 MB> networking and an open standard that is supported almost 
 MB> everywhere.  It is also included with many operating systems.
What would this be a choice between?  TCP/IP and what else?
 MB> you should certainly look at one of the freeware Unix clones 
 MB> such as Linux or FreeBSD. 
 RJT> If I can get past the flakiness in my employment situation, 
 RJT> stay on top of the bills,  and am able to afford to keep on 
 RJT> buying hardware,  it's my intention to bring up a third machine 
 RJT> here that I'll probably be running Linux on.  I've heard of 
 RJT> FreeBSD,  but don't know anything about it.  Is there enough of 
 RJT> a reason for me to look into that too before I pursue this 
 RJT> option? Most of what I see going on with regard to this all 
 RJT> seems to be happening with Linux...  
 MB> For a home user?  I don't think FreeBSD is worth looking at in 
 MB> preference to Linux.  While Linux is just the operating system 
 MB> kernel and various people package it into a "distribution" so 
 MB> that it can be useful, FreeBSD has an official distribution 
 MB> that is the only distribution. FreeBSD tends to be more stable 
 MB> under heavy loads and is therefore an excellent choice for 
 MB> servers, but it lacks many of the bells and whistles of Linux.
Ok,  then I'll probably look into running Linux here on that machine as soon 
as I can...
 MB> OS/2 Warp Connect has rather good TCP/IP support, 
 RJT> I'd need _Warp Connect_,  though,  and not one of the other 
 RJT> versions? 
 MB> There are basically two options when buying the current version 
 MB> of OS/2.  If you want to use your existing Windows 3.1 
 MB> installation, you buy "red box."  If you want to buy Windows 
 MB> 3.1 in the box with OS/2, you buy "blue box." 
From what I understand from a lot of people the second choice is usually the 
better one for a number of reasons.  I have win 3.1 on this machine,  but 
would not mind making it unnecessary...   
 MB> Similarly, if you want LAN support, you buy "Connect."  If you 
 MB> don't want LAN support, you buy regular (non-Connect). 
 MB> For example, if you want LAN support and you want to use your 
 MB> existing Windows 3.1 installation, then you would buy "OS/2 
 MB> Warp Connect" ("red box"), IBM part 10H9800.  If you want LAN 
 MB> support but also need to buy Windows 3.1 in the box, you would 
 MB> buy "OS/2 Warp Connect with WINOS2" ("blue box"), IBM part 
 MB> 10H9810.
I'm sure those part numbers will come in handy,  particularly that last one 
since that's likely what I'll end up going with.  Now all I need to do is 
find a good deal on it somewhere.  
 MB> IBM has committed to simplifying this with the next release of 
 MB> OS/2, since there will be no longer be an option to buy a 
 MB> version without LAN support.
I saw something about becoming a beta tester with that new version,  but by 
the time I got to the appropriate site and looked into it,  there weren't any 
options of still getting into it.  I guess I didn't get on it in time...
 MB> If you want helpful sales advice with people who know what they 
 MB> are talking about on OS/2, call Indelible Blue, (800)776-8284.
Noted.
 MB> and most of the Windows versions (except for NT) have tolerable 
 MB> client-oriented TCP/IP support.
 RJT> I have no affinity here for windoze of any sort,  and only have 
 RJT> it on the machine to run some of the stuff that needs it to 
 RJT> function.
 MB> I know the feeling...
Yeah.  It's going to be interesting,  as I feel like I probably need to learn 
enough about Win95 to be able to deal with it when I have to,  and deal with 
customer's machines that are running it,  but I have no intention of putting 
it on any machine that *I* own.  Good thing I learn quick...   
 MB> There are no really good ways to connect a DOS machine to a 
 MB> TCP/IP network, primarily because the memory limitations of DOS 
 MB> make a rich protocol stack hard to fit.
 RJT> You mean because of having problems with doing that and having 
 RJT> enough memory to do anything else useful?  I wonder if this is 
 RJT> any different under dos/dv?  
 MB> DV makes things a little easier, but you have a miserable 
 MB> choice even there.  If you put the TCP/IP stack into a DV 
 MB> window, as we did with KA9Q NOS, you can't make use of it 
 MB> except from with that program.  If you put the TCP/IP stack 
 MB> outside DV, it eats memory like any other TSR or device driver. 
This seems to lead me to a choice of either using TCP/IP and not hooking in 
with any dos/dv or just dos setups,  or choosing some other protocol,  
en...
ttyl
--- 
---------------