Anyone else doing remote TNC's or anything interesting like that?

Or any BBS's I should visit?

Kevin
KF7MYK


---
þ Synchronet þ PhantomRage Studios: Telnet://phantomrage.org

Re: Hello people
By: Summit to All on Mon May 28 2012 14:23:05

Anyone else doing remote TNC's or anything interesting like that?

Well, I just picked up a whack of old TNCs at the Dayton Hamvention. I've now got a fair bit of gear to test my packet radio stuff for Synchronet with the next time I'm in the mood for it (hopefully soon.) Not sure if what I'm doing is interesting or not, though. :D :D :D

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
þ Synchronet þ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Anyone else doing remote TNC's or anything interesting like that?

Well, I just picked up a whack of old TNCs at the Dayton Hamvention. I've now got a fair bit of gear to test my packet radio stuff for Synchronet
with the next time I'm in the mood for it (hopefully soon.) Not sure if what I'm doing is interesting or not, though.

Very nice....






PhantomRage Studios BBS!

---
þ Synchronet þ PhantomRage Studios: Telnet://phantomrage.org

Re: Hello people
By: echicken to Summit on Mon May 28 2012 10:50 pm

Well, I just picked up a whack of old TNCs at the Dayton Hamvention. I've n got a fair bit of gear to test my packet radio stuff for Synchronet with the next time I'm in the mood for it (hopefully soon.) Not sure if what I'm doi is interesting or not, though. :D :D :D

I was actually gonna ask if anyone set up Synchronet as a packet BBS on 2 meters, and if they did how well it worked.


---
þ Synchronet þ Diamond Mine Online - bbs.dmine.net - Fredericksburg, VA USA

Re: Hello people
By: Diamond Dave to echicken on Tue May 29 2012 20:52:21

I was actually gonna ask if anyone set up Synchronet as a packet BBS on 2 meters, and if they did how well it worked.

Yep - I have, and I've tried many different things. I'm getting a lot closer to having a decent packet setup for Synchronet. Allow me to elaborate in great detail. :D :D :D

Using Synchronet as a packet BBS seems like an obvious thing to do, but when you attempt to implement it with existing tools you run into a number of interesting problems and face a number of kludgey setups.

One option might be to join AMPRNet and just let people telnet in (or use various other protocols) using TCP/IP over packet. It would be slow and not really a conventional packet BBS, but OTOH your BBS would be accessible via packet without any need for modification. I've not tried this, can't get in touch with my "local" AMPRNet coordinator to even get an address, am not terribly interested. Really turned off by the whole thing.

Another option is for sysops running Linux. There's the kernel KISS and AX.25 drivers one could use, and a tool called ax25conv (I think that's its name) which basically gates between an ax.25 client on a KISS TNC and any IP based service. I could never get it to work properly, even though it seems quite straightforward. Anyhow, if that worked for somebody, they could easily tunnel between their BBS' telnet server and a packet client.

Yet another option would be to run something like JNOS, which is useful in itself and has a number of capabilities, including a telnet client. Packet users could connect, then issue a telnet command (or alias) and be connected to your telnet BBS. This actually works reasonably well, although there's no way that I could find to automatically run that telnet command when a user connects. This means that packet clients are connecting to one fairly full featured BBS/NOS in order to enter a command to connect them to another one. A bit annoying, perhaps a bit confusing for some.

My approach has been to add support for KISS TNCs and the AX.25 protocol to Synchronet itself. This way, your BBS can listen for connections on a packet interface (a KISS mode TNC) and handle all of that traffic itself, directly, cutting out the kludges. What I've got so far is a working library that brings support for these protocols, and a script to tunnel traffic between a packet client and any host/port on the internet. By default, it gates between the packet client and a service running on your BBS. What I'm working on now is that service, something that behaves like a traditional packet BBS.

This is the thing - I think what some people may want is to host their Synchronet BBS as-is (ie. with the exact look and feel that it presents to a user who's telnetted in) via packet. That's an understandable goal, and it would certainly look a lot nicer than most any packet BBS available at the moment. However, bear in mind that most TNCs don't send a packet until the user hits enter (or buffers in as much data as the spec allows in a packet.) This means that a lot of things that aren't line-based (full screen editors, editable input fields, lightbar menus and other cursor-positioning stuff) wouldn't translate very well at all.

Additionally, one thing that packet BBSs do is exchange mail with one another based on certain protocols which essentially mean logging in as if they were a user and issuing certain menu commands in order to read or post mail or bulletins. If you wanted this to work, you'd need to modify your login process and your menus, or somehow differentiate packet clients from regular (telnet) users in order to handle them differently. Once I started doing that, I realized that it might just be easier to write a new service that provides a user interface to packet clients (all basic menus and line based input, all output being passed through a (bleh) censorship filter to keep things clean and by-the-book on the air, menu commands compatible with other packet BBS software to make interoperation with other systems possible, etc.)

At the same time, I'd like to make something that's a bit flashier and more fun than the typical packet BBS. Synchronet gives us a lot of flexibility in this regard, and should make it more possible for us to customize and personalize our packet systems.

But it's not yet clear to me if I should care about Synchronet being able to communicate with other packet BBSs. I think there's some value in that, but I'm not sure if anybody else feels the same way. We could just make our own thing and ignore the rest. Would like to know what other people's thoughts are on this.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
þ Synchronet þ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: Hello people
By: Diamond Dave to echicken on Tue May 29 2012 08:52 pm

I was actually gonna ask if anyone set up Synchronet as a packet BBS on 2 meters, and if they did how well it worked.

I was wondering.... I hear folks can use packet on 2 meters, but best I
know of no one uses data on 2 meters around here... I'm assuming I'd hear
a beeping sound? I'm looking around for a used TNC after hearing you can
pick one up for about $20. Of course, there are other issues I'd have,
will have to find me a 4-pin connector and make me a proper cable for my
Baofeng UV-3R. But first the TNC and conector... Only thing about 2 meters, you won't be reaching many people ...

---
þ Synchronet þ Roach Guts -- kingcoder.net

I was actually gonna ask if anyone set up Synchronet as a packet BBS on 2 meters, and if they did how well it worked.

echicken has been working on some code.

I can't get my TNC to work in kiss mode. But I am using the first version of his script and people here seem to like it.

It give you full access to the TNC, so at times I have to reset it because it was placed in to a strange mode.

Once I get a TNC that works in KISS I can not wait to use the new version of the script, and maybe get the BBS on the RF side, even if it is black and
white since no one wants to move from 1200 baud.






PhantomRage Studios BBS!

---
þ Synchronet þ PhantomRage Studios: Telnet://phantomrage.org

Re: Hello people
By: John Guillory to Diamond Dave on Wed May 30 2012 10:24:26

I was wondering.... I hear folks can use packet on 2 meters, but best I
know of no one uses data on 2 meters around here... I'm assuming I'd hea
a beeping sound? I'm looking around for a used TNC after hearing you can

Tune to 144.390, where you'll typically hear a lot of APRS traffic. Most packet traffic on VHF uses the same mode (1200 baud Bell 202 AFSK) and will sound the same. (APRS is packet, albeit not a full implementation of
AX.25.) Some web searching should turn up info about any packet nodes, BBSs or other stations in your area, so you don't necessarily have to dial around listening for that sound. :D :D :D

pick one up for about $20. Of course, there are other issues I'd have,

Again, be prepared to do some digging around and waiting to find such a price. A lot of people are asking *way* too much for used packet gear. In fairness, they may have spent a lot of money on their TNC in 1988, but times have changed.

will have to find me a 4-pin connector and make me a proper cable for my
Baofeng UV-3R. But first the TNC and conector... Only thing about 2

There are some *REALLY* shitty TRRS connectors out there, so if you're going to be building a cable be very picky about which connectors you purchase. Some of them are extremely difficult to solder onto, while other ones have more useful terminals to hook wires through and solder onto.

meters, you won't be reaching many people ...

Deuce and I were just discussing this on Echolink the other night. We'll probably have a lot more fun when we start working on networking BBSs together on HF. That said, the amount of packet activity on VHF depends entirely on the amateur community in your area. It's definitely not the place to go for DX, of course, but there may be people around within spitting distance of your station.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
þ Synchronet þ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: Hello people
By: echicken to Diamond Dave on Wed May 30 2012 11:13 am

This is the thing - I think what some people may want is to host their Synchronet BBS as-is (ie. with the exact look and feel that it presents to
a user who's telnetted in) via packet. That's an understandable goal, and it would certainly look a lot nicer than most any packet BBS available at the moment. However, bear in mind that most TNCs don't send a packet until the user hits enter (or buffers in as much data as the spec allows in a packet.) This means that a lot of things that aren't line-based (full
screen editors, editable input fields, lightbar menus and other cursor-positioning stuff) wouldn't translate very well at all.

It's things like this that DM places into his "reasons to keep support for non-ANSI terminals" files.

But it's not yet clear to me if I should care about Synchronet being able
to communicate with other packet BBSs. I think there's some value in that, but I'm not sure if anybody else feels the same way. We could just make
our own thing and ignore the rest. Would like to know what other people's thoughts are on this.

I think there's some value in it, but I don't think that it should be the first
goal. As for making our own thing (presumably QWK) and ignoring everyone else,
that would assume a vast continent wide network of Synchronet systems in range of each other.

If I were doing it, I would likely do:
1) Telnet support (line mode)
2) "standard" message passing support
3) Kludge lines in standard message passing for Synchronet "stuff"
4) QWK packet over packet.

Number four I would likely do only when there was another Synchronet BBS around... I would be unlikely to set up two systems just so they could talk to each other.

---
http://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your privacy.
þ Synchronet þ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)

Re: Re: Hello people
By: Phantomrage to Diamond Dave on Wed May 30 2012 08:00:06

I can't get my TNC to work in kiss mode. But I am using the first version o his script and people here seem to like it.

It give you full access to the TNC, so at times I have to reset it because i was placed in to a strange mode.

That's the biggest problem with simply letting people use your TNC in terminal mode - they can dick around with the settings at will. That's what makes KISS mode ideal for your remote-TNC-access application: what a user can and can't do with the TNC is defined entirely in the script that you let them run, rather than by the TNC's built-in UI.

Once I get a TNC that works in KISS I can not wait to use the new version of the script, and maybe get the BBS on the RF side, even if it is black and white since no one wants to move from 1200 baud.

The KISS mode call-out script works well for me. Probably needs some more work, but I think you'll like it once you're able to get it going.

I'll try to make some more progress on the Synchronet-as-packet-BBS front sometime soon. Maybe I can put some work into it this weekend.

As for 1200 baud, well, I think a lot of people would like to move on. Unfortunately there are many reasons why it was the most common mode during packet's heyday. Moving up to even 9600 baud, many radios needed modification in order to work with a 9600 baud TNC. Moving beyond that often meant buying a proper data radio and/or moving up to UHF where more bandwidth is allowed. Being able to buy a 1200 baud TNC for "cheap" and just plugging it into your existing rig's mic port made the whole thing accessible, and so the used market remains flooded with 1200 baud gear and not much else.

I've been looking around here and there at transceiver and modem ICs and may eventually get to work on building cheap (ideally $100 or less) data radios for UHF. I believe that sort of pricing would be attainable. At this point there wouldn't be too much more to it than putting the hardware together and making it operate as a KISS TNC, since thankfully I've already done the whole AX.25 thing elsewhere. Then there might be some halfway affordable way of doing "high speed" packet.

At the same time, I'd like to mess around more with low speed digital modes on HF. Lots of fun to be had there, and with this BBS community being fairly geographically diverse, it may be easier to find people to work with on HF than elsewhere.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
þ Synchronet þ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: Hello people
By: Deuce to echicken on Wed May 30 2012 10:27:36

If I were doing it, I would likely do:
1) Telnet support (line mode)

Well, it would probably make things easier for me if I just wrote a packet command shell for the existing terminal server. Maybe I'll pursue that for a while.

2) "standard" message passing support

The above "packet command shell" could presumably first dump users to a packet menu that accepts the standard commands, but also keeping paths to other menus more typical of a telnet/dial-up BBS so that the standard run of BBS features would be accessible.

3) Kludge lines in standard message passing for Synchronet "stuff"

I imagine that in any event, we'll be looking at a lot of kludge lines. :D :D :D

4) QWK packet over packet.

Very doable.

Number four I would likely do only when there was another Synchronet BBS around... I would be unlikely to set up two systems just so they could talk each other.

I guess that depends on whether we want to do this on HF or not, and how feasible that is. If so, I'd certainly be interested.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
þ Synchronet þ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: Re: Hello people
By: Phantomrage to Diamond Dave on Wed May 30 2012 08:00 am

Once I get a TNC that works in KISS I can not wait to use the new version
of the script, and maybe get the BBS on the RF side, even if it is black
and white since no one wants to move from 1200 baud.

Dude, if I had the setup to contact your BBS via packet radio, I'd call it
no matter what the band, speed, etc. I'd definitely use ANSI at even 300 baud, for the nostalgia feel, but just to have fun with digital... ;-)
Either way, at the moment, unless you was located near Brookhaven, MS.
I wouldn't bank on me reaching you on 2 meters... So, until I get a 10 meter
and TNC, or something else to reach you...

---
þ Synchronet þ Roach Guts -- kingcoder.net

Re: Hello people
By: echicken to Deuce on Wed May 30 2012 01:50 pm

4) QWK packet over packet.

How about FTP over packet?

Also, would it possible to use the telnet gate and rlogin gate over
packet to link packet to internet?

---
þ Synchronet þ Roach Guts -- kingcoder.net

But it's not yet clear to me if I should care about Synchronet being able
to communicate with other packet BBSs. I think there's some value in that, but I'm not sure if anybody else feels the same way. We could just make
our own thing and ignore the rest. Would like to know what other people's thoughts are on this.

I say we forget what was done in the past, and make a packet BBS as close to a dial up system as we can.

Use the internet to link BBSes like they do not, and maybe in time make a packet tosser to call other BBS systems to pass mail etc.

No reason to stick to the old way of packet.

I plan on setting up a different frequency and running a digi-repeater at 7900 feet. No longer 200 baud, 2400 or 4800. Yeah, you might need to tune your radio/tnc. But wake up hams, and get back to building and playing with new stuff.
So my 2 cents. We have a killer BBS system now, no reason to reinvent how it works. Just make it work over RF..... People can learn how to use it. It is so much better then the commands and different junk you have to do now to connect and send messages over old packet style BBSes.






PhantomRage Studios BBS!

---
þ Synchronet þ PhantomRage Studios: Telnet://phantomrage.org

That's the biggest problem with simply letting people use your TNC in terminal mode - they can dick around with the settings at will.

This is true, but I don't think the TNC I have works in KISS mode. It just will not do it. The commands are there and it acts like it takes it. But
will not do a darn thing.

But I just leave the battery out, and if it gets hosed up. Unplug and just
put mycall back in. simple for now.

As for 1200 baud, well, I think a lot of people would like to move on. Unfortunately there are many reasons why it was the most common mode during packet's heyday. Moving up to even 9600 baud, many radios needed modification in order to work with a 9600 baud TNC.

Yeah, but even still 2400 baud can be done just as easy. If they are lazy,
and don't want to play with a radio. To bad I feel. 4800 just about any
radio can do it. Just need to pull discriminator audio and TX audio into the exciter.. or 100 other ways. Yeah maybe 9600 meh.. But no real reason to do 1200 other then it is the lazy mans way.

I've been looking around here and there at transceiver and modem ICs and
may eventually get to work on building cheap (ideally $100 or less) data radios for UHF.

I use a Motorola Radius or GM300 VHF radio, and have had luck at 2400 and 4800 using the mic jack and handset audio.

Cheap radios now.

At the same time, I'd like to mess around more with low speed digital modes on HF. Lots of fun to be had there, and with this BBS community being fairly geographically diverse, it may be easier to find people to work with on HF than elsewhere.

HF BBS would be killer!






PhantomRage Studios BBS!

---
þ Synchronet þ PhantomRage Studios: Telnet://phantomrage.org

Either way, at the moment, unless you was located near Brookhaven, MS.
I wouldn't bank on me reaching you on 2 meters... So, until I get a 10 meter
and TNC, or something else to reach you...

I can put a 10 meter radio and TNC at the repeater site.. Might be fun.






PhantomRage Studios BBS!

---
þ Synchronet þ PhantomRage Studios: Telnet://phantomrage.org

Re: Hello people
By: echicken to Diamond Dave on Wed May 30 2012 11:13 am

Re: Hello people
By: Diamond Dave to echicken on Tue May 29 2012 20:52:21

I was actually gonna ask if anyone set up Synchronet as a packet BBS on
2 meters, and if they did how well it worked.

Yep - I have, and I've tried many different things. I'm getting a lot closer to having a decent packet setup for Synchronet. Allow me to elaborate in great detail. :D :D :D

Thanks for that - I learned some things. I probably wouldn't have any useful input until I actually logged into some packet BBSes myself and got a feel for the way things are done traditionally.

digital man

Synchronet "Real Fact" #50:
Rob Swindell was introduced to BBSing in 1982 by his older brother, Dr. Seuss. Norco, CA WX: 59.9øF, 83.0% humidity, 2 mph NW wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ telnet://vert.synchro.net

Re: Hello people
By: echicken to Deuce on Wed May 30 2012 01:50 pm

Number four I would likely do only when there was another Synchronet BBS around... I would be unlikely to set up two systems just so they could talk each other.

I guess that depends on whether we want to do this on HF or not, and how feasible that is. If so, I'd certainly be interested.

Well, my current HF rig would not be very usable for any sort of automated work... if you can't support ALE, it's not likely you'll be able to have an automated sked.

Manually tuning up every X often and waiting out a 300bps transfer would be nightmarish I think.

---
http://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your privacy.
þ Synchronet þ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)

Re: Hello people
By: John Guillory to echicken on Wed May 30 2012 15:05:21

How about FTP over packet?

This goes a bit out of my depth, but I imagine that problems here would begin with most FTP servers wanting to bind to a TCP/IP socket to listen for connections. I'm sure it's doable, but would probably be a custom client/server job. Of course, if you were doing IP-over-packet stuff, any of your regular services would be available there.

Also, would it possible to use the telnet gate and rlogin gate over
packet to link packet to internet?

Sure. JNOS for example already has this functionality. My script that tunnels between AX.25 clients and the Synchronet terminal server should enable this, although you'll probably see mixed results depending on exactly what you're using telgate to connect to from there.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
þ Synchronet þ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: Re: Hello people
By: Phantomrage to echicken on Wed May 30 2012 18:28:12

I say we forget what was done in the past, and make a packet BBS as close to dial up system as we can.

I'm okay with that to an extent, but I think it would be good to keep a certain amount of compatibility with the other systems that are out there. It'd be nice to be able to use Synchronet as a conventional packet BBS in addition to whatever magical new features we bring to packet radio.

Use the internet to link BBSes like they do not, and maybe in time make a packet tosser to call other BBS systems to pass mail etc.

Well, the purist in me wants to do as much stuff on RF as possible, but yes, since Synchronet is the back end and has tons of existing functionality in this regard, that will likely come into play.

No reason to stick to the old way of packet.

Don't get me wrong - I don't want to remain mired in the past - but I think that there are plenty of reasons why we shouldn't abandon the old ways altogether just yet.

In my neck of the woods, for example, there isn't a hell of a lot of packet activity, and what there is is mostly of the old school. I could come up with some new system and then find that there's nobody around who cares to adopt it. Retaining compatibility means that I'd at least be able to interoperate with the long established boards in my area, which would bring some activity instead of potentially none.

There's also the cost barrier. Experimenting with new (and often expensive) gear is great, but I'd like to leave room for those who can only afford to get their hands on used packet gear.

I plan on setting up a different frequency and running a digi-repeater at 79 feet. No longer 200 baud, 2400 or 4800. Yeah, you might need to tune your radio/tnc. But wake up hams, and get back to building and playing with new stuff.

So my 2 cents. We have a killer BBS system now, no reason to reinvent how i works. Just make it work over RF..... People can learn how to use it. It so much better then the commands and different junk you have to do now to connect and send messages over old packet style BBSes.

Sure. My goal is something of a hybrid system, one that's accessible to people using traditional packet gear and software, but that can do more for those who want to use something different.

Bear in mind that baud rate, band and modulation don't really need to come too far into the conversation at this point. The stuff I've written for Synchronet doesn't care if you connect to it at 1200 baud, 9600, 56K, PSK31 or anything else - all it wants to see is an AX.25 packet coming from a KISS interface, and to be able to send things out similarly. Anyone can transport this data any way they want. (Then again, you'd be able to get a bit flashier if you had faster speeds to deal with, so I suppose it does have some impact.)

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
þ Synchronet þ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: Re: Hello people
By: Phantomrage to echicken on Wed May 30 2012 18:34:42

I use a Motorola Radius or GM300 VHF radio, and have had luck at 2400 and 48 using the mic jack and handset audio.

Yeah, I'm looking more at building stuff for UHF and at speeds about as high as I can push it there, 19200 and up I suppose. It'll be a while before I mess around with that.

HF BBS would be killer!

Indeed, and perhaps more likely to see some action than something limited to the local range. I honestly don't know what the uptake of a new packet BBS would be in my area, but I'm not expecting much.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
þ Synchronet þ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: Hello people
By: Digital Man to echicken on Thu May 31 2012 00:16:08

Thanks for that - I learned some things. I probably wouldn't have any useful input until I actually logged into some packet BBSes myself and got a feel f the way things are done traditionally.

I get the impression that the ham community in your region is fairly active, so hopefully there are a few systems to check out. Look for anything running F6FBB, as it's a common "full serivce BBS" for packet radio (a standalone application that you run on a host computer, a la BBS software as we know it, as opposed to a dinky BBS included in the firmware of somebody's TNC) as well as JNOS, which goes a bit beyond being a simple BBS and has some interesting features.

My AX.25 stuff isn't exactly to spec yet, but it's getting there. Implementing it in Javascript was probably a questionable decision, but ... it's what I know, and at least it "works."

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
þ Synchronet þ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: Hello people
By: Deuce to echicken on Thu May 31 2012 03:15:42

Well, my current HF rig would not be very usable for any sort of automated work... if you can't support ALE, it's not likely you'll be able to have an automated sked.

Manually tuning up every X often and waiting out a 300bps transfer would be nightmarish I think.

That's true. Then again, you'll be moving on to an SDR eventually, which should make this sort of thing easier. :|

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
þ Synchronet þ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: Re: Hello people
By: Phantomrage to echicken on Wed May 30 2012 06:28 pm

I say we forget what was done in the past, and make a packet BBS as close
to a dial up system as we can.

You got my attention! If I get this 10 meter I'm wanting to get and
later on get a TNC (and can make some kind of link up to it (6-pin DIN
mike connector), I'd love to put my laptop in the truck, park it where
I get the best signal, then connect to you...

Use the internet to link BBSes like they do not, and maybe in time make a packet tosser to call other BBS systems to pass mail etc.

Like a REXW for Packet Radio, or a BinkD for packet radio? Should not be
a big deal...

I plan on setting up a different frequency and running a digi-repeater at 7900 feet. No longer 200 baud, 2400 or 4800. Yeah, you might need to
tune your radio/tnc. But wake up hams, and get back to building and
playing with new stuff.

With Synchronet's Java, this could become better than ever! In fact, for
the guru's that expanded out the java before, why not create some TNC
commands for Java? If nothing else, sure we could just make a class and
have something like:

TNC.init('COM2:');
TNC.callsign('KF5QEO');
TNC.listen(myanswer());


or

TNC.connect('W5WQ');
if (!TNC.isconnected) {
writeln('can not connect!');
}

Setup something like this, or a command we can use like:

tncconnect('KF5QEO');
tncwrite('Welcome to Synchronet BBS');

We can then work on re-writing the menus and stuff to check for type of connection and if TNC use the tncwrite or TNC.write, otherwise use java's writeln, etc. to send to the serial port or internet....

---
þ Synchronet þ Roach Guts -- kingcoder.net

Re: Hello people
By: echicken to Deuce on Thu May 31 2012 10:58 am

Manually tuning up every X often and waiting out a 300bps transfer would be nightmarish I think.

That's true. Then again, you'll be moving on to an SDR eventually, which should make this sort of thing easier. :|

Yeah, but that's a big up-front investment over around $500... so "eventually" is likely measured in years.

---
http://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your privacy.
þ Synchronet þ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)

Re: Re: Hello people
By: John Guillory to Phantomrage on Thu May 31 2012 23:39:50

Use the internet to link BBSes like they do not, and maybe in time make a packet tosser to call other BBS systems to pass mail etc.

Like a REXW for Packet Radio, or a BinkD for packet radio? Should not be
a big deal...

Let's not forget that packet radio BBSs already do exchange mail with one another, so this wouldn't exactly be groundbreaking. However, we have been talking recently about doing QWK networking or similar over packet.

With Synchronet's Java, this could become better than ever! In fact, for

Javascript, not Java. :D :D :D

the guru's that expanded out the java before, why not create some TNC
commands for Java? If nothing else, sure we could just make a class and
have something like:

Yeah, somebody should really work on that, and post several messages in this sub to let people know about it. :|

TNC.init('COM2:');
TNC.callsign('KF5QEO');
TNC.listen(myanswer());
TNC.connect('W5WQ');
if (!TNC.isconnected) {
writeln('can not connect!');
}
tncconnect('KF5QEO');
tncwrite('Welcome to Synchronet BBS');

Wouldn't it be amazing if you discovered that such a class already existed in
a library in the Synchronet CVS? I know I'd be thrilled.

We can then work on re-writing the menus and stuff to check for type of connection and if TNC use the tncwrite or TNC.write, otherwise use java's writeln, etc. to send to the serial port or internet....

I swear, somebody was just talking about writing a more packet-specific command shell recently, and using a script that tunnels between AX.25 clients and the terminal server. :|

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
þ Synchronet þ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com