I am convinced, with factual evidence, that ZC1 processing cannot operate
on any other platform than DOS.
MAKENL for DOS is this the only reliable option? I thought it could be built/compiled for the other OSes.
On 30 Jan 20 19:56:00, August Abolins said the following to Nick Andre:
MAKENL for DOS is this the only reliable option? I thought it could b built/compiled for the other OSes.
It can, but the way it runs and returns the first-matching segment operates differently than it does on Linux. Thats not the fault of
MakeNL but really the difference between DOS and Linux when it comes to how files are treated.
Its not the only problem... Linux is just not designed to run Fido
stuff. The software available is just hokey-pokey in my opinion, needs
all kinds of work to get going and scripting together. On MS-DOS you
have far more options.
So on a Linux system, you need to have all kinds of scripting and
trickery to run ZC1. On MS-DOS you really do not. I have two batch files that run everything and call "standard" DOS Fido software such as
Allfix, Gus and some others. DOS is by far the easiest platform to write Fido stuff for.
Pardon? What, precisely, do you mean by "the difference between DOS and Linux when it comes to how files are treated"?
Perhaps a more accurate statement is that Fidonet software clearly wasn't designed to support Unix-style systems. Indeed, in that world, Fidonet was
great. But that hardly means that one couldn't build a robust environment under a Unix-like system given sufficient technical know-how.
On 31 Jan 20 16:02:10, Dan Cross said the following to Nick Andre:
Pardon? What, precisely, do you mean by "the difference between DOS a Linux when it comes to how files are treated"?
In a call by MakeNL to return the first matching file matching a
wildcard, the result can be different under Linux than it is in DOS.
Perhaps a more accurate statement is that Fidonet software clearly was designed to support Unix-style systems. Indeed, in that world, Fidone
There is significantly more tried-and-tested-true Fidonet software
written for DOS and Windows than there is for Linux. When I say Fidonet software on Linux is hokey-pokey, I mean it. The options on Linux are
slim or appear just cumbersome, half-assed or as per below:
great. But that hardly means that one couldn't build a robust environ under a Unix-like system given sufficient technical know-how.
Yes, very true. If someone wants to take on the challenge of building a Fido hub or nodelist-production system on Linux, who am I to criticise.
But I'll try. 8-)
For many years until July 2018, sometimes Zone 1 RC segments would
process correctly, sometimes not. The story we were always told was BBBS this, BBBS that, Linux this, Linux that. This is not a crackpot opinion, this is fact.
The second is that for many years, my BBS software did not include the MSGID/REPLY kludge. Just like TBBS/Flame and many other BBS programs of the 80's and 90's did not carry that kludge set. And for the 90's and actually well into the 2000's, nobody made any stink about it. Until
some tosser program called Hpt came out which did not correctly handle messages without the kludge set. Then I had Linux Sysops nail me to the cross over something that was never an issue but suddenly "is" an issue.... because Linux.
The third is for two solid decades I've dealt with Linux Sysops who proclaim DOS sucks, Windows sucks. As passionate and intelligent as they were, they just could seem to never be able to get things "right" on
Linux with their BBS or system. Always posting test messages, always discussing configuration, always experimenting, tinkering. Rarely
getting things to "just work".
Usually they ended up vanishing off the face of the earth months down the road... but I'm still here since '94 on largely the same DOS setup and
as mentioned, Windows for multi-tasking.
At work I manage several Linux VPS's that work perfectly fine with excellent uptime. I do have a strong IT background. Linux has its
purpose. Just not for running a Fido ZC system in my opinion... and not for an Elist system.
MAKENL for DOS is this the only reliable option? I thought it
could be built/compiled for the other OSes.
It can, but the way it runs and returns the first-matching
segment operates differently than it does on Linux. Thats not
the fault of MakeNL but really the difference between DOS and
Linux when it comes to how files are treated.
Its not the only problem... Linux is just not designed to run
Fido stuff. The software available is just hokey-pokey in my
opinion, needs all kinds of work to get going and scripting
together. On MS-DOS you have far more options.
Yes.. even viewing text files generated in a unix environment can
display differently in a DOS environment because of the way end of lines are designated. Could that be a problem when passing around the DOS-created NL segments to unix-based systems?
Dan Cross made a fine point about glob expansions. DOS/Win and unix environments just do things differently.
To turn your argument on it's head, perhaps a different interpretation
is that people who are interested in experimenting are drawn to Linux
and Unix because it's much more open and one can do more with it.
Whether unix or DOS, I see that the ELIST processing ought be
accomplished successfully in either unix or DOS.
It can, but the way it runs and returns the first-matching
segment operates differently than it does on Linux. Thats not
the fault of MakeNL but really the difference between DOS and
Linux when it comes to how files are treated.
Yes.. even viewing text files generated in a unix environment can
display differently in a DOS environment because of the way end of
lines are designated. Could that be a problem when passing around the DOS-created NL segments to unix-based systems?
Dan Cross made a fine point about glob expansions. DOS/Win and unix environments just do things differently.
IMHO, and from my programming experience, I have found the unix environment to be quite more versatile in many ways. Even just
switching to a different shell would yield new (good) wonders.
On 01 Feb 20 03:18:52, Dan Cross said the following to Nick Andre:
To turn your argument on it's head, perhaps a different interpretation is that people who are interested in experimenting are drawn to Linux and Unix because it's much more open and one can do more with it.
Sorry, no disrespect, I do enjoy conversing with you - but I refuse to nitpick/quote-rant. Thats not my style of replies and anyone who writes replies to me in such a way just looks like trying to "win" some arguement... theres nothing to turn on its head, because I'm not arguing.
BBS'ing on Linux never really bothers me, Mystic and Synchronet bring newcomers to the hobby. Its the operation of Fido and FTN stuff on Linux that I have seen for over two decades being hit-or-miss. Largely a miss, and having Linux shoved down my throat for two decades by a few of the most insufferable zealots imaginable. So I do have a right to this
opinion after all this time.
"Insufferable zealots" being the most polite way to describe them. It takes a special kind of insufferable zealot to whine at me about MSGID/REPLY because the *lack* of that kludge causes problems for that person's Linux tosser.
When I start a friendly conversation or reply to someone, and that
person replies with "Your DOS software is shit" or experiments with
their system in a way that affects the operation of the network; my disdain for Fido-on-Linux I really believe is valid and logical
especially after all this time.
It seems some obnoxious jerks drank the Linux koolaid and were, well, obnoxious about it. However, it does not follow from that that Linux
is bad software, or incapable of supporting high-quality Fidonet
software.
"Insufferable zealots" being the most polite way to describe them.
It takes a special kind of insufferable zealot to whine at me
about MSGID/REPLY because the *lack* of that kludge causes
problems for that person's Linux tosser.
the funny thing is that that same tosser would have the same problems if it compiled for DOS, macOS, or OS/2... seems to me that the tosser dev(s) has
assumptions that are not always true and thus the tosser has this particul defect...
Sysop: | Nelgin |
---|---|
Location: | Plano, TX |
Users: | 612 |
Nodes: | 10 (1 / 9) |
Uptime: | 13:26:11 |
Calls: | 9,836 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 80,559 |
D/L today: |
1 files (43K bytes) |
Messages: | 1,079,682 |
Posted today: | 1 |