Hey Roy!

Apr 08 04:05 04, Roy J. Tellason wrote to Maurice Kinal:

 RJT> Yeah,  well,  you oughta know darn well by now that we're on the 
 RJT> same wavelength when it comes to this sort of thing...

I know and you know but few others truly understand.  It always confuses
those people when you ask about stuff that does less then what they think
people want, no matter what we're talking about.

 RJT> I didn't think so.  But I have *no* idea how the serial port stuff 
 RJT> is handled under linux.

Same as every other OS.  No special magic there.  The difference is what
you do with the end result and in Linux you can interplay it with much
other networking and end up with something entirely different.  You don't
even have to be a programmer but the ability to script is extremely handy.

 RJT> Neither am I.  I remember somebody saying that he got it to compile, 
 RJT>  but that there were some hassles.  Maybe I oughta take it up in the 
 RJT> LINUXBBS echo once I decide to start moving on this.

Sounds good.  Personally I prefer binkd as it is more flexable.

 RJT> Ok,  and that's a protocol that I can use to deal with my uplink,  
 RJT> or if not him directly then _an_ uplink,  how do I handle incoming 
 RJT> calls?  Right now it's bink that watches the phone line,  answers it 
 RJT> when it rings,  and hands off to the bbs when that's necessary.  I'd 
 RJT> need something to do the same thing under linux.

mgetty.

 RJT> Yep,  that's what I have bink doing now.  Note that it doesn't have 
 RJT> to exit, necessarily.  The OS/2 version "spawns" the bbs program 
 RJT> instead,  and doesn't exit.

Yep.  No problem with Linux either.

 RJT> Yep.  But I haven't got a clue as to where to start with that stuff.

Yep.  That is a very good reason for these types of echoes.  Isn't it?

Life is good,
Maurice

--- Msged/LNX 6.1.1