Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 04:30:06 PDT
From: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group <tcp-group@ucsd.edu>
Errors-To: TCP-Group-Errors@UCSD.Edu
Reply-To: TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: TCP-Group Digest V93 #225
To: tcp-group-digest
TCP-Group Digest Thu, 2 Sep 93 Volume 93 : Issue 225
Today's Topics:
Conference and Confusion....
JNOS40 V0.99
ka9q slip routing problem
NOS in NT VDM
What C++ Compiler to use?
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu>.
Subscription requests to <TCP-Group-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>.
Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu.
Archives of past issues of the TCP-Group Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives".
We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1993 22:00:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Brian A. Lantz" <BRIANLANTZ@delphi.com>
Subject: Conference and Confusion....
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
Hi, all! A few assorted ramblings.....
First, a reminder that the Digital Conference is next weekend. I have been
asked by several if the can still come. YES! Registration will be taken
at the conference. Just because you didn't previously register, doesn't
mean you can't come. Hope you can come. If you need more info, send me a
message.
Second, just when you thought that most of the loose ends in JNOS were
getting tied down....TNOS will appear! Not with as much docs as I would
like and with LIMITED time on my end for support/questions, but it will
be available somewhere other than my hard disk. I hope to have to ready
by the Conference, but it might not be till the next week.
[Johan and others... feel free to pick and choose.]
And last, OS/2 - a better DOS than DOS and a better WINDOWS than NT! I really
find it comical that IBM makes a better DOSbox than MSoft! I wonder, is it:
A) They don't care about their customers' software investments.
B) They wish to shoot DOS development in the foot.
C) They are going to try to SELL DOS to the highest bidder.
D) They forgot to put the REAL DOSbox on the disks.
E) They are less capable than IBM and just couldn't do it.
I know which answer I choose, and that's even without knowing that MSoft
is licensing a DOSbox from Insignia (makers of SoftPC for Mac and Next).
Wonder why the "developers" of DOS need to LICENSE DOS from others?!?!?!?
Makes you wonder, huh!
73 from Brian A. Lantz KO4KS@KO4KS.#TPAFL.FL.USA.NA 3100813105
Internet: brianlantz@delphi.com
Amprnet: ko4ks@ko4ks.ampr.org [44.98.0.167]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 93 22:13:04 -0700
From: (Johan K. Reinalda) <johan@ECE.ORST.EDU>
Subject: JNOS40 V0.99
To: nos-bbs@hydra.carleton.ca, tcp-group@ucsd.edu
Finally, but it's out !
I just uploaded it to wg7j.ece.orst.edu, in ~jnos40,
and to ucsd.edu in the incoming directory.
Filename is jnos4099.exe, a selfextracting arj archive.
This contains all that is necessary to get the code up and running,
including the reworked documentation by Doug, WG0B
(It coincidentatlly also contains a new command reference for JNOS
since JNOS40 and JNOS command reference are integrated into one document)
I will send a disk to Kantronics later this week, so it will be available
for phone dial-up sometime after that...
Feel free to distribute, upload etc. as you like; the more, the marrier :-)
Enjoy Labor Day holliday; i will be in Phoeniz enjoying the sun...
Johan, WG7J.
(PS. for those that don't know, JNOS40 is a version of JNOS running on
the Kantronics Data Engine (tm) . )
------------------------------
Date: 2 Sep 93 06:51:24
From: zambrano@sdnhq.undp.org
Subject: ka9q slip routing problem
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
We are trying to connect a remote lan to our main ethernet via dialup slip.
We have setup a ka9q on each side with zyxel modems running at 19.2k.
Our main lan has several unix boxes wheras the remote site is all pc based.
The problem we have is the following: we can telnet to any of our
unix boxes but we cannot telnet to the outside world (not ftp not ping).
Moreover, we cannot ping to our cisco in our main lan. We are also
using a 25/7 subnetting scheme. I am enclosing the .net files for
each site. We are using Zyxel 19.2k modems/
Thanks,
Raul Zambrano
UNDP, NY
******** KA9Q host lan **********
hostname slip.undp.org
ip address [192.124.42.47]
attach packet 0x60 lan 1500 1500
ifconfig lan netmask 0xffffff80
ifconfig lan broadcast 0.0.0.127
attach asy 0x3f8 4 slip slip0 1500 1500 19200 c
domain addserver [192.124.42.3]
route add 192.124.42.128/25 slip0
route add 192.124.42.0/25 lan
route add default lan 192.124.42.3
ip ttl 32
tcp mss 1500
tcp window 2892
log a:\nos.log
dialer slip0 slip.dia 60 3 [192.124.42.229]
start ftp
start echo
start discard
#start telnet
# THE END
******** KA9Q remote lan ***********
hostname ngls.undp.org
ip address [192.124.42.229]
attach packet 0x60 lan 1500 1500
ifconfig lan netmask 0xffffff80
ifconfig lan broadcast 0.0.0.127
#attach asy 0x2f8 3 slip slip0 1500 1500 19200 c
attach asy 0x3f8 4 slip slip0 1500 1500 19200 c
domain addserver [192.124.42.3]
route add 192.124.42.128/25 lan
route add default slip0
ip ttl 32
tcp mss 1500
tcp window 2892
log c:\nos\usr\nos.log
bootpd start
bootpd dynip lan 192.124.42.230 192.124.42.236
bootpd logscreen on
dialer slip0 slip.dia 60 3 [192.124.42.47]
start ftp
start echo
start discard
start telnet
# THE END
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 09:11:33 CDT
From: Jack Spitznagel <spitznagel@utmem1.utmem.edu>
Subject: NOS in NT VDM
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
Howdy all,
Fred.. Long time, no talk! I can't get to your email address (still!!)
Fred says:
> It hides the real
>hardare through a Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) and only allows NT
>native drivers to see it. So if NOS is looking for a 16450 or 16550,
>it won't find it.
I thought HAL was 'sposed to provide for a "virtual 16550" driver to be
written. At least when I was arguing with the MS NT spin-doctors about the
problem we had, that is what I was told would be there. I guess they found that
was not as easy to do as they wanted.
>Note that NT
>doesn't claim to run as many DOS programs as OS/2 does; too many DOS
>programs don't play by its rules.
That is a relatively recent "correction" by MS... the original claims were that
it would.
On the matter of security.... The trade off is obviously whether to make
security an internal matter (assume multiuser/mutitask/networked) or and add-on
(assume the OS is for single workstation with multitask only- security added
with the LAN extensions.... Does this sound like "Chicago" or maybe even
OS/2??) C2 security is nice and some of the OS/2 almost-beta material is very
interesting along these li nes..... hmmmm...
Now we gotta get Walt Corey to get his PMNOS back on track!
Jack KD4IZ
John Spitznagel D.D.S. | #1. Check the fuse!
College of Dentistry | #2. Turn it on.
UT-Memphis | #3. Kick it.
875 Union Avenue | #4. Drop it.
Memphis, TN 38163 | #5. Call the company.
(901) 528-6441 | #6. Read the Manual.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 4:58:41 MET
From: Walter Doerr <dg2kk@infodn.rmi.de>
Subject: What C++ Compiler to use?
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
What C++ compiler is currently "en vogue" for NOS compilation?
Is Turbo C++ 3.0 sufficient or do I really need Borland C++ 3.1?
If BC++ 3.1 is required: why? Is TC++ 3.0 to be considered buggy from a
"NOS point of view" or is BC++ 3.1 merely more convenient to use?
-Walter
--
| Walter Doerr Voice: +49 2421 66316 or +49 172 2086601 |
| dg2kk@infodn.rmi.de FAX: +49 2421 66910 PR: DG2KK@DB0MKA |
|"The poor folks who only have 100MBytes of RAM five years from now may not |
|be able to buffer a 16MB packet, but that's their tough luck." |
| (John Gilmore on Mon, 10 Oct 88 18:10:21 PDT) |
------------------------------
End of TCP-Group Digest V93 #225
******************************
******************************