Hello Mr. Jones!

(A danish pop band did actually made a song there is named Dr. Jones, are
you a Ph.D? ;))

06 Oct 03 14:39, you wrote to me:

 BS>> But actually what the reason for a WFC screen under
 BS>> Linux? I talked to Janis this afternoon on the phone
 BS>> (I'm calling USA to a few cents pr. minute by Internet
 BS>> phone), and she said it was very anying to see it run,
 BS>> because you couldn't get it away..

 BJ> Based on how the telnet code is currently working (for as far as Wes
 BJ> has progressed the code to date), the WFC screen is needed.

Unfortionally it's.. Made because Wes, do only emulate the modem, by
implementing the write/get calls to the modem.

 BJ> The
 BJ> telnet code is only a single line support right now, and is like
 BJ> running a barefoot maximus or opus under DOS or OS/2 (or Windows).  To
 BJ> get to the point of multi-line, the telnet stuff will need to be
 BJ> changed.

Automatically it's multiline. (It's here..)

 BJ> To prove that you only have a single line BBS support, try
 BJ> to make 2 or more telnet sessions to the same maximus telnet port at
 BJ> one time.  Only the first will succeed.....  And if you bring up a
 BJ> second copy of max/Linux for handling a second telnet port, you will
 BJ> have to use a different TCP/IP port number.

Well yes it handles only one telnet port, but more than one can be logging
into the system at one time!

 BS>> The machine maximus is running on at my home, has not
 BS>> monitor so I didn't notice it.

 BJ> Well, if it wasn't there you would notice it, because the WFC screen
 BJ> is what is what does the initial handling of your connection with the
 BJ> BBS.

Yes I see.

 BS>>> Well at some time, maximus should be reverse engeeriered to
 BS>>> Windows.

 BJ>> Actually, Max could use a re-work for the multi-tasking
 BJ>> environment that Linux / Unix, OS/2 and newer Windows machines
 BJ>> support.....  But you have to watch out what you think when you
 BJ>> consider the differences between handling one (or more) serial
 BJ>> ports (with modems) vs TCP/IP based connections....

 BS>> Yes, but the most of the TCP/IP communication is like it's on
 BS>> UNIX afaik.

 BJ> Actually, not yet.  Under OS/2, I'm using the VModem (kludge) of SIO
 BJ> to have telnet (and VModem) TCP/IP sessions connect up to virtual com
 BJ> ports (and virtual modems) that each bink/max session connects to.

Well why don't write a natively TCP/IP connection module?


 BJ> I
 BJ> currently have only two "lines" setup for telnet / vmodem access.
 BJ> The
 BJ> third attempt at a telnet / vmodem with my main (OS/2 based) system
 BJ> will not succeed....  Yes, I can add more "lines" for
telnet sessions,
 BJ> but it is still one instanciation of bink/max per
"line".....  Under
 BJ> unix, one way would be to have each new telnet session to the BBS
 BJ> spawn off it's own copy of the BBS.

Yes I noticed so (I've been loging on to your BBS by using telnet).

 BJ> This might be done under inetd,
 BJ> or via how Max opens the telnet port....  But this is not how it is
 BJ> currently done due to Max (sysop) console issues.....  Which gets back
 BJ> to needing maxpipe (or similar) from OS/2 setup, along with a
 BJ> "virtual" console support added to maxpipe.....

I've not still understood why we just not can use STDIO.

 BJ> There are pieces of
 BJ> the max bbs code hard coded to expect (sysop) console support in
 BJ> addition to the user's terminal.

?

[IPC]

 BS>> Yes, but it would be nice as a multi line, because my
 BS>> default it's multiline because of the TELNET and POTS module.

 BJ> Yes it would be nice to have multi-line, but multi-line for telnet may
 BJ> need to be different than the multi-line support for POTS in the Unix
 BJ> environment.  And once that is done, we might be able to port native
 BJ> Telnet support back to the OS/2 environment (vs using the current
 BJ> VMODEM fix under OS/2).

Why actually using VMODEM? Why not natice TELNET?

 BS>> That's right.. But I guess most people would run it
 BS>> from a frontend mailer.

 BJ> Front end mail on the serial port (modem lines) makes sense.  Front
 BJ> end mailers to the BBS on TCP/IP ports, while do-able, is not
 BJ> necessarily the smartest thing to do.  Yes, that's how I have it
 BJ> running under OS/2, but with TCP/IP, we should be able to use one port
 BJ> for the front end mailer, and a different TCP/IP port for the BBS....

Yes I did only meant for POTS support :-)

Regards,
Bo

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.4.7