Re: Is this possible under Linux?
  By: Maurice Kinal to Alan Ianson on Wed Sep 14 2005 02:46 am

Hello Maurice,

 >  AI> Actually, Maximus is multinode, even the dos version. I had two
 >  AI> nodes running at one time along with Binkleyterm.
 > 
 > Were they running from the same binary?  I never tried multi-anything on DOS
 > for the time I actually was using DOS.  I used DOS mostly for testing ideas 
 > did have Maximus on there (single node) but that was a long, long time ago. 
 > did briefly try it with dosemu when I first switched to Linux around a decad
 > ago.  I didn't much care for that so I abandoned the idea before it even had
 > chance on the 'airwaves'.

Yes, but you had to have a way of running the second node from another
window. I used DeskView for a while then started using DRSOS (When it
was freely available), it had something much like DeskView built into
it that you could switch tasks. DRDOS isn't 100% MSDOS alike though,
it wouldn't run everything but BT/Max/Doors worked well.
 
 >  AI> nodes. Must have cost them a fortune to buy all those modems and
 >  AI> the telephone lines to plug them into. I agree about dosemu. I have
 >  AI> wanted to but never have let it go public.
 >
 > Right.  Probably a good idea, especially considering the vast difference to 
 > way it was done back then to the way you're doing it now.  With Linux multin
 > is entirely possible with just the one connection.  :-)

True, wild horses couldn't get me off Linux at this point.

 >  AI> Yeah, the only problem is there is no linuxy alternative to a lot
 >  AI> of those wonderful old dos doors.
 > 
 > There are better networked games though.  ;-)
 > 
 > The trouble is that sysops are trying to replicate the old DOS-think mentali
 > on Linux and I for one think that is a HUGE mistake.  What is needed if
 > doorgames are required is a true Linux port of them, that takes advantage of
 > the multi-everythingness of Linux.  Anything short of that is DOS-think.  Th
 > same doorgames would be infinetely better if Linux-think were employed.

In my own case I can say that I can't write my own doors, so I have
to use what is available to me. There isn't much development in the
way of doors anymore. One of the Synchronet devs has ported quite a
few doors to linux, where he has been able to get the source. So that
is a big plus, no need for DOSEMU in that case..

 >  AI> Synchronet has become much more than a traditional BBS. But it does
 >  AI> what the old DOS BBSs did so if that's what you want to do it's a
 >  AI> good option, and there aren't many.
 > 
 > True but one of the major issues, for me anyhow, is that much of the
 > functionality ported BBS's provide, including Synchronet, isn't required on 
 > properly installed and configured Linux system.  Too much is redundant and m
 > often adds paler utiltities then the ones a Linux sysop already has at his/h
 > disposal.  Binkd I can see being a good addition if a more Fido-like envirom
 > is a must, but few other utilities are actually needed when considering FTN
 > compliancy.  So beyond that, a Linux system is mostly, if not fully, a BBS
 > package in itself.

Yep, very true. If you just want to read the mail binkd/husky/msged will
get the job done. In this area we do have a few choices, good choices
too. Very well done/behaved apps.

I know what your saying about Synchronet though, I would be happy with
a simple BBS package, basicly an ansi interface to the Msg Areas, File
Areas, and doors. On my linux box here I never run ftpd/webd/ircd or
any others, I just don't need them. That's why I'd like to get Max
going, if it can be done.

But I will say this for Synchronet (I'm glad they continue to develop it),
It looks good right out of the box, the BBS web page I mean. You can log
into the BBS from the web and download files, read/post messages just as
if you were logged in. Your users can up/download QWK packets by FTP. I
guess that is the reasoning behind the deamons, it's there to support
the BBS.
 
 >  AI> I took a look at MBSE BBS the other day. I really don't like the
 >  AI> way it gives your BBS users a unix account on your computer. Maybe
 >  AI> that is just me, but that is another alternative.
 > 
 > As far as security is concerned that is probably the best way to handle it
 > especially using telnet.  Hopefully nobody could access the root file system
 > let alone do any damage that way.  I run binkd from a user account and not f
 > the system itself.

Ahh, I might have to check my attitude on that one.
 
 >  AI> Do you mean Synchronet won't work with 2.6 kernels or DOSEMU?
 > 
 > I meant dosemu.  I have no idea about Synchronet since I haven't looked at i
 > lately.  I did compile it once successfully but never went beyond that.  If 
 > requires dosemu to run doorgames then that aspect won't work whether or not
 > Synchronet itself works.
 > 
 >  AI> I
 >  AI> can't get synchronet to build at the moment too, I wonder if it's
 >  AI> because of the kernel? At the moment I am trying to get it going
 >  AI> on an amd64 machine so I thought that might have something to do
 >  AI> with it, or maybe it's the 2.6.8-amd64 kernel??
 > 
 > Could very well be, as well as gcc, glibc, etc.  It wouldn't surprise me if 
 > those have a hand in it not compiling.  For sure not dosemu.  I doubt you co
 > even dream of installing DOS on the above hardware, nevermind emulation.

That was something that worried me about running an amd64, so far it
hasn't been a problem. At the moment the debian amd64 distro is missing
about 5-10% of the i386 packages because they don't build or misbehave
in some way. CDRDAO is about the only package I have noticed missing
that I usually need installed. So I scooped the sources from sourceforge
and built my own, I haven't had any problems with it. So far I haven't
had any problem building what I need although I am sure to be bitten
at some point I'm sure.

My build problem with Sync must have been something commited in cvs
recently. I built last night on the BBS machine from a cvs archive
and that went fine. Now that I know that package is OK, I'll try
that on the amd64 and see what happens.

My max problems might be related to the amd64, I'll try building
that on the BBS machine and see if I have better luck.

 Ttyl :-),
         Al

--- SBBSecho 2.11-Linux