Hello Maurice,

 AI>> I think this could be done with inet.d. I have run Maximus/Linux
 AI>> from inet.d before. I never got the thing to work multinode and
 AI>> so it would recycle after someone logged off.

 MK> Right.  Maximus is a DOS program.  No multi-anything.  It might be
 MK> possible to farm out each call to dosemu but why bother if each call
 MK> starts a process that is a bloated and independent as the first?  Also
 MK> that would make it virtually impossible to do multinodal activities
 MK> such as head-to-head gaming, chatting and the such.  Also there is
 MK> little security in dosemu so you're gambling putting stuff like that
 MK> up for grabs to a remote.  Also dosemu doesn't work on 2.6 kernels
 MK> (thank goodness ).

Actually, Maximus is multinode, even the dos version. I had two
nodes running at one time along with Binkleyterm. I didn't have
the system resources at the time to attempt anymore than that
but I think Bandmaster and Basic'ly Computers ran four or more
nodes. Must have cost them a fortune to buy all those modems and
the telephone lines to plug them into. I agree about dosemu. I have
wanted to but never have let it go public.

 AI>> I think that could
 AI>> be done but it would take quite a complicated runbbs.sh. There
 AI>> must be a telnetd also for linux but I don't have one here I'm
 AI>> sure there is one on the cd's if I looked for it.

 MK> Usually part of net-tools.  But then that can handle terminal logins
 MK> without any BBS.  You'd be better off writing bash scripts to handle
 MK> remote logins for telnetd.  Way simpler and then you could eliminate
 MK> the need for any DOS.

Yeah, the only problem is there is no linuxy alternative to a lot
of those wonderful old dos doors.

 AI>> Have you looked at Synchronet? There is a linux native version
 AI>> that you can build yourself (get the source from cvs). It's
 AI>> builds without any further ado and just works, and has support
 AI>> for dos doors under dosemu.

 MK> It won't work with 2.6 kernels.  Also much of the functionality of
 MK> Synchronet is better done by just employing the native Linux
 MK> equivalents of what Synchronet wants to give you, such as ftpd, irc,
 MK> etc.  I think Windows people require that fuctionality whereas a good
 MK> Linux install properly configured doesn't.  Where Linux lacks,
 MK> BBS-wise, is in the FTN stuff but then that can be rectified without
 MK> resorting to a bloated BBS package meant for a more networked crippled
 MK> system such as XP.  :-)

Synchronet has become much more than a traditional BBS. But it does
what the old DOS BBSs did so if that's what you want to do it's a
good option, and there aren't many.

I took a look at MBSE BBS the other day. I really don't like the
way it gives your BBS users a unix account on your computer. Maybe
that is just me, but that is another alternative.

Do you mean Synchronet won't work with 2.6 kernels or DOSEMU? I
can't get synchronet to build at the moment too, I wonder if it's
because of the kernel? At the moment I am trying to get it going
on an amd64 machine so I thought that might have something to do
with it, or maybe it's the 2.6.8-amd64 kernel??

 Ttyl :-),
         Al

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-31012