OK..I've got my setup finalized with an official node, and all that...

So I setup a cron job based on my manual testing of some things.. and that doesn't seem to work nor what I did manually during my testing... :(

Only change was to add my official node number versus a testing one...

I've tried:

this whole "touch" thing:

touch ~/fido/binkd/outb/$(printf "%04x" 135)$(printf %04x 300).dlo


It creates the file, just binkd does NOTHING.

I tried another suggestion from here, which worked previously

binkd -nP1:135/300 ~/fido/binkd/binkd.cfg

This results in:
15:20 [2143] BEGIN, binkd/0.9.11/Linux -nP1:135/300 /home/rec9140/fido/binkd/binkd.cfg
! 15:20 [2143] Exit on option '-n'


$ binkd -pP1:135/300 /home/rec9140/fido/binkd/binkd.cfg
15:21 [2148] BEGIN, binkd/0.9.11/Linux -pP1:135/300 /home/rec9140/fido/binkd/binkd.cfg
15:21 [2148] clientmgr started
$ -i 1:135/300@fidonet call
c- 1:153/757@fidonet call
15:21 [2148] the queue is empty, quitting...


Neither "polls" as I expect......and want...

Ideas??????


* Origin: news://news.wpusa.dynip.com | acct req'd to post (1:3634/12)

Hi! rick,

On 18 Oct 16 15:23, you wrote to All:

15:21 [2148] BEGIN, binkd/0.9.11/Linux

Ideas??????

Get yourself a newer version of binkD to play with. That's a real old one you have there, so there's no guarantee the doover even understands the arguments you're feeding it.

FYI, I'm running a binkD 1.1a-94 thingy as a point on my Xubuntu 14.04 LTS. Keep experimenting, dood...

Cheers,
Paul.

... "Be excellent to each other", Bill & Ted 1989.
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20110213
* Origin: Quinn's Rock vBox - sunny side up on the bookcase (3:640/1384)

19 Oct 16 09:54, Paul Quinn wrote to you:

15:21 [2148] BEGIN, binkd/0.9.11/Linux

Ideas??????

Get yourself a newer version of binkD to play with. That's a real old
one you have there, so there's no guarantee the doover even
understands the arguments you're feeding it.

that's my first comment, too... i mean really... compiling stuff isn't that hard on *nix stuffings these days... sure, you may not like it because of problems you've run into in the past but still... once everything is in place and properly referenced, compiling it is nothing compared to setting up a FTN system from scratch... for example

once upon a time we were compiling Mystic from source.
we are compiling synchronet from source.
we are compiling a complete firewall distribution (smoothwall) from source.
we are compiling a complete flight simulator (flightgear) from source.
we are compiling a FTN mailer (binkd) from source.
we are compiling a FTN sysop's reader/editor (golded+) from source.
we are compiling a FTN mail tosser and utilities (hpt) from source.
we are compiling a complete IDS/IPS (snort and suricata) from source.

FYI, I'm running a binkD 1.1a-94 thingy as a point on my Xubuntu 14.04 LTS. Keep experimenting, dood...

absolutely... once the proper libraries are in place, compiling stuff is nothing...

)\/(ark

Always Mount a Scratch Monkey
Do you manage your own servers? If you are not running an IDS/IPS yer doin' it wrong...
... Total is $1000. $10 for the upgrade, and $990 s/h.
---
* Origin: (1:3634/12.73)

mark lewis wrote to rick christian <=-

that's my first comment, too... i mean really... compiling stuff isn't that hard on *nix stuffings these days... sure, you may not like it because of problems you've run into in the past but still... once everything is in place and properly referenced, compiling it is nothing compared to setting up a FTN system from scratch... for example

Agree. Most Linux software compilation is a 3 step process these days...

./configure [options]
make
sudo make install

Yes, there's variations, but they're usually fairly straightforward. The hardest thing about compiling from source is getting the dependencies sorted, especially since the packages requrired vary from distribution to distribution.


... Why does the Psychic Hotline have to ask for your name??
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
* Origin: Freeway BBS - freeway.apana.org.au (3:633/410)

Hi Rick!

18 Oct 2016 15:23, from rick christian -> All:

OK..I've got my setup finalized with an official node, and all that...

So I setup a cron job based on my manual testing of some things.. and
that doesn't seem to work nor what I did manually during my testing...
:(

I use this:
/usr/local/sbin/binkd -p -P $node /usr/local/etc/binkd.cfg

where $node is a nodenumber.

CU, Ricsi

--- GoldED+/LNX
* Origin: Crossposted in: alt.music.country&western.dumb.lyrics (2:310/31)

On 10/18/2016 06:58 PM, Richard Menedetter -> Rick Christian wrote:

I use this:
/usr/local/sbin/binkd -p -P $node /usr/local/etc/binkd.cfg

I am pretty sure I've tried that, and binkd just goes spastic! I keep a tail in
another ssh going to watch the log....ADDRESS IN USE.. etc...

I'll play with it some more...


* Origin: news://news.wpusa.dynip.com | acct req'd to post (1:3634/12)

On 10/18/2016 09:36 PM, mark lewis -> rick christian wrote:

that's my first comment, too... i mean really... compiling stuff isn't that hard on *nix stuffings these days... sure, you may not like it because of problems you've run into in the past but still.

Sorry, but that is NOT MY EXPERIENCE...

Compiling is a PITA, period.

I've gotten it to work ONCE, and ONCE only because detailed instructions were posted that listed what you REALLY NEEDED to compile it.. not just this grab TAR, ./configure... MAGIC.. run it...

I've been there done it.. 99.999% it is never that simple...

WHEREAS

apt-get install binkd

works...

Software distribution on Linux/*Nix/BSD is its major downfall... All this reliance on share libs needs to go!

Static compile it so all you need is some simple install stuff..

Download the zip, unzip to /usr/bin/ possibly chmod +x and move on!

.. once
everything is in place and properly referenced, compiling it is nothing compared to setting up a FTN system from scratch... for example

absolutely... once the proper libraries are in place, compiling stuff is nothing...

You've just proven my point!

All too often this is just grab the TAR, ./confire..... DONE!

BZZT!!!! The instructions fail to list that you need... dorqlib-dev, dorqlib, anotherlib-dev.. etc...SO all you get is a pile of error crap, and nothing compiles.

If COMPLETE AND FULL instructions are posted then it may work to compile....the
instructions I've seen or more aptly the LACK OF INSTRUCTIONS to get most of this to compile are deafening...


* Origin: news://news.wpusa.dynip.com | acct req'd to post (1:3634/12)

On 10/19/2016 07:46 PM, Tony Langdon -> mark lewis wrote:

Agree. Most Linux software compilation is a 3 step process these days...

DEFINITELY VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE!

./configure [options]
make
sudo make install

And it proceeds to spit out screens full of errors... that have NO MEANING to me... and nothing is compiled.

Yes, there's variations, but they're usually fairly straightforward.
The
hardest thing about compiling from source is getting the dependencies sorted,
especially since the packages required vary from distribution to distribution.

And there is the point!

VERY FEW of these list:

To compile:

sudo apt-get install somelib, somelib-dev.....

Now that you've got the needed files we can compile the real program

The Magic 3 Lines might work.... BUT they depend on YOUR SYSTEM HAVING ALL the LIBS already... Well you need to list them in the steps!!! Not ASS U me I have them OR ASS U I am going to decipher the cryptic output of gcc.

Don't ASS U me that my systems have 1000's of libs for development on them! They do not!


* Origin: news://news.wpusa.dynip.com | acct req'd to post (1:3634/12)

On 10/18/2016 07:54 PM, Paul Quinn -> rick christian wrote:

Get yourself a newer version of binkD to play with. That's a real old
one you have there, so there's no guarantee the doover even understands the arguments you're feeding it.

FYI, I'm running a binkD 1.1a-94 thingy as a point on my Xubuntu 14.04

I don't think the version really has much to do with it...as I had the line listed here of binkd -nP.... working when I set up my setup for testing.. now that I changed to real node number which was the only line I changed, it wants to have another hissy fit...

As for a new version I've surgically altered the DEB for the last release to install on 14.04.. I will update to that later, as it requires a little manual TLC to install on 14.04 since they horked up the DEB for their crappy systemd virus which makes an unneeded dependency on something which is different in 14.04 versus 15.x+ to get it to init...basically just doing a sudo update-rc.d binkd defaults resolves it...

The issue is something in the scripts/software used to do that 15.x+ that the later DEBS are dependent on that should not have been changed..I don't have time to dig through the scripts right now.. cursory looks found them to be similar.. but that one depending I removed must have some sort of change...like
I said I don't have the time to dig through that corpse...


* Origin: news://news.wpusa.dynip.com | acct req'd to post (1:3634/12)

Hello rick,

On 21 Oct 16 07:40, rick christian wrote to Tony Langdon:

The Magic 3 Lines might work.... BUT they depend on YOUR SYSTEM HAVING
ALL the LIBS already... Well you need to list them in the steps!!! Not
ASS U me I have them OR ASS U I am going to decipher the cryptic
output of gcc.

Don't ASS U me that my systems have 1000's of libs for development on them! They do not!

When compiling software on Linux, they are ASS U ME'ing you have the slightest idea on what you're actually doing with Linux (otherwise if there is a precompiled binary available, at least they choose to offer that to people that
don't know what they're doing). One of the whole points of Linux is to make it your own and have the freedom to do what you want with it.

Precompiled linux desktop's are made to invite Windows users to make an easy transition over, but most people really interested in Linux (and not just because it's free), tend to spend some time to learn how to do things - and probably one of the first things would be to compile on your own.

A lot of the time when GCC has an error, you can simply put that error into a Google search and find what you are missing, or what needs to be installed. Sometimes Linux (just like any other OS) needs a little patience and understanding.

All the time you've spent here talking down compiling software you could have easily found and fixed every issue (if any) in trying to compile binkd. But you
chose not to. Obviously the choice is yours to do so.

If you don't like it that much.. there's alternatives (like Windows) you can use.

Regards,
Nick

... "Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies."
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827
* Origin: thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (1:154/10)

rick christian wrote to Tony Langdon <=-

@MSGID: <580A073F.1043.fido-binkd@freeway.apana.org.au>
On 10/19/2016 07:46 PM, Tony Langdon -> mark lewis wrote:

Agree. Most Linux software compilation is a 3 step process these days...

DEFINITELY VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE!

No need to shout, and yes, as I said, the biggest problem with compiling from source is working out what libraries ( -dev/-devel packages) you need. A seconf potential issue for older systems is having the correct versions of dependencies. This is not as common, but is often harder to solve, because it usually means adding repositories to your distribution for third party additions, or sompiling some of those libraries from source.

But my point stands, for the most part, compiling from source is usually fairly straightforward, with the most common requirement being to install a few -dev (or -devel if you're on a Red Hat flavour) for your distribution.

If you think it's hard now, 20 years ago, there were often no package management systems, and what there were were less powerful (think dpkg without apt and rpm without yum), and you had to edit the Makefile directly to suit your own system, with limited knowledge of what you were doing. On those systems, even without having to compile from source, just installing a packagemeant manually having to look for dependencies from either the CD or the Internet.


... If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
* Origin: Freeway BBS - freeway.apana.org.au (3:633/410)

Hi! rick,

On 10/21/2016 07:52 AM, you wrote:

FYI, I'm running a binkD 1.1a-94 thingy as a point on my Xubuntu
14.04

I don't think the version really has much to do with it...as I had the line listed here of binkd -nP.... working when I set up my setup for testing.. now that I changed to real node number which was the only line
I changed, it wants to have another hissy fit...

It really starts to sound like binkD has a particular hate for you. Maybe you should try Qico? I haven't but it's an option I'm thinking of trying. I have five systems using some version or other of binkD: the point on X'u; another point running 1.0a-550 on my U'u 10.04 LTS; one VirtualBox (AKA vBox) running 0.94 IIRC; and, two vBox PCs running 1.0a-550... all compiled locally.

The exercise for me to compile binkD is nearly ingrained into my DNA. It's piss-easy with the instructions provided in the various source archives. I have even compiled late-model versions and never used them on some vBox PCs, since they insist on providing non-existent IPv6 support and prefer to extinguish themselves rather than run in an IPv4-only environment. I call them
PITA versions.

Notwithstanding all of the above I have to say that all of my binkD installs enjoy moving actual mail, being fed by a BSO-capable tosser. OTOH, these days I
like to config filebox options for important link systems... just for kicks

My two point systems only have binkD front ends; no other software! They fit into what I call my 'stargate' network. You do know what a stargate is, don't you... one dials up an address on the DHD and then walks through the stargate.
By the workings of some voodoo & wizardry one then gets disgorged from the connected startgate on the other end of the wormhole.

Same thing with filebox configurations: dump stuff into an outbound filebox and
it disappears into the ether, to arrive at the destination linked FTN system. If you could digitize a chunk of "concreta excreta" then even that would work with a filebox.

Short version: if the command-line arguments aren't working for you, then try an outbound filebox config. Caveat emptor: it gets messy moving mail this way,
and is not normally recommended (as it requires a tosser that is able to drop mail packets or bundles into the filebox _without_ the BSO file).

As for a new version I've surgically altered the DEB for the last

[ ...trimmed... ]

removed must have some sort of change...like I said I don't have the
time to dig through that corpse...

Whatever. I'm out of breath, and need another smoke. ;)

Cheers,
Paul.

--- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
* Origin: Quinn's Rock vBox - sunny side up on the bookcase (3:640/1384)

Hello Rick,

On 10/18/2016 09:36 PM, mark lewis -> rick christian wrote:

that's my first comment, too... i mean really... compiling stuff isn't
that hard on *nix stuffings these days... sure, you may not like it
because of problems you've run into in the past but still.

Sorry, but that is NOT MY EXPERIENCE...

Compiling is a PITA, period.

Compiling one's own software can indeed sometimes involve more work and effort.
But I simply look at it as a learning curve that will increase my abilities to have software that I run to work/run the way that I choose and since I am compiling it myself I can decide what capabilities I choose to include.

I've gotten it to work ONCE, and ONCE only because detailed instructions
were posted that listed what you REALLY NEEDED to compile it.. not just
this grab TAR, ./configure... MAGIC.. run it...

I agree that it is usually easier to simply follow specified directions. But I have also found that I learn and understand less if I simply follow directions
versus doing some of the work myself.

I've been there done it.. 99.999% it is never that simple... WHEREAS
apt-get install binkd works...

I have installed BinkD both running Windows as well as Linux. Using "apt-get" in Linux is a simple and quick way of install software. Which I have done many times. But it also doesn't as easily afford an individual the choice of tailoring the software to one's individual needs and desires. It also often times doesn't provide a choice of a particular version that is desired.

Software distribution on Linux/*Nix/BSD is its major downfall... All this reliance on share libs needs to go!

With dynamically linked libraries, if a particular library that you have linked is not available at the users system, the code crashes with the user wondering.

But, in the case of static libraries everything is incorporated into the executable, so one is less likely to have the above specified problem, but the executable however will be quite a bit larger.

But, if the required libraries are dynamically linked the above problem could be eliminated.

Static compile it so all you need is some simple install stuff..
Download the zip, unzip to /usr/bin/ possibly chmod +x and move on!

But as I stated above one is less likely to know how things work or have
the software run the way it is desired if one chooses to use packages that are "Pre-made".

.. once
everything is in place and properly referenced, compiling it is nothing
compared to setting up a FTN system from scratch... for example
absolutely... once the proper libraries are in place, compiling stuff is
nothing...

You've just proven my point!
All too often this is just grab the TAR, ./confire..... DONE!

When I chose to move to Linux as an OS I did so with the understanding that I would need to know more about the requirements of the OS and the software that would be used.

BZZT!!!! The instructions fail to list that you need... dorqlib-dev,
dorqlib, anotherlib-dev.. etc...SO all you get is a pile of error crap,
and nothing compiles.

If COMPLETE AND FULL instructions are posted then it may work to compile.. the instructions I've seen or more aptly the LACK OF INSTRUCTIONS to get most of this to compile are deafening...

Again... It boils down to a decision of whether one simply desires to simply follow directions. Or, if one chooses to know and understand.

I think it is a given that the reality is never the way one wishes it to be.


Jeff

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-2
* Origin: The OuijaBoard - Anoka, MN (1:282/1031)

Hello Paul,

On Saturday October 22 2016 10:56, you wrote to rick christian:

I have even compiled late-model versions and never used them on some
vBox PCs, since they insist on providing non-existent IPv6 support and prefer to extinguish themselves rather than run in an IPv4-only environment. I call them PITA versions.

While I agree that crashing in an IPv4 only environment is a bug, I may use the
opportunity to point out that with increasing penetration of IPv6 we may see more of these or similar problems in the future. Dual stack or DS Light will soon be the norm rather than the exception and as a consequence sloppy programmers will skip testing in an IPv4 only environment, resulting in bugs that do not emerge in a dual stack environment. Not good, but it will happen.

Having said that, this may be an incentive to upgrade your system for IPv6 capability. It is unavoidable in the long run, so why not start now?

See you in the IPv6 echo.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
* Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)

Hi! Michiel,

On 10/22/2016 09:46 PM, you wrote:

MvdV> Having said that, this may be an incentive to upgrade your system for
MvdV> IPv6 capability. It is unavoidable in the long run, so why not start now?

MvdV> See you in the IPv6 echo.

It's already hooked up. I don't have the smarts to deal with the maths requirement of its IP addressing scheme, so I don't read the echo.

Thanks, Michiel.

Cheers,
Paul.

--- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
* Origin: Quinn's Rock vBox - sunny side up on the bookcase (3:640/1384)

On 10/21/2016 09:41 AM, Nicholas Boel -> rick christian wrote:

When compiling software on Linux, they are ASS U ME'ing you have the slightest idea on what you're actually doing with Linux (otherwise if there is a precompiled binary available, at least they choose to offer

That view point of Linux that you outline as some elitist OS, has passed.

And I've worked on all sorts of things from 68HC11 to big iron to PC's and very
little of that over that span has involved compiling.

I've been on Linux for over 20 years, and still the amount of compiling I've done is minuscule, by choice and by the point it rarely works.

Right now most of what I do personally is python

Yes, I use Linux mainly because it is free! I don't give one hoot about the source code, I couldn't care less. If there is an issue I will file a bug report, the author will do their part fix it, release new program. Rinse, repeat.

If you don't like it that much.. there's alternatives (like Windows) you

There is the Linux Spirit! Don't like it leave! That ain't happening! I refuse to use windumber.

A computer is a tool to achieve a goal. Not the goal to get it be able to do the task. I don't work wise or personally have time to devote to incomplete instructions to compile stuff. And I am not polluting systems with 1000's of libs just in case I might some day compile something that needs it.

I've run into and put up with just the attitude you post in Linux areas for decades. Let me reiterate that your view as compiling as some litmus test precursor to the use of Linux is passe.

I do alot of things for work that probably are not up your alley be it SQL be it php be it python be it sync'ng tx sites for a simulcast P25 TRS over 4 counties. Or why does one radio work and another is just garbled in the same spot!???

I've had plenty of DBA's take a look at various SQL stuff and have no clue what
it does. So each has their skills...

I am not afraid to admit, that C is not in my wheelhouse, and I have no interest in learning it! Period. Nor is compiling.

If you list COMPLETE FULL INSTRUCTIONS, then I have no problem. I've seen that once. The rest just like you feel that I should do all the heavy lifting to figure out how to install stuff. Here's the source, you figure it out!

Ok.. heres your radio... you figure it out! Theres about 30 buttons on them, plus lets see the profiles have 200+ talkgroups on them, and not all of them are monitored by anyone 24/7/365, and may not be active in your area. Oh, and some are simplex mutal aid stuff.. But hey, heres the radio YOU FIGURE IT OUT! Your life just may depend on it!


* Origin: news://news.wpusa.dynip.com | acct req'd to post (1:3634/12)

Hello Paul,

On Sunday October 23 2016 08:57, you wrote to me:

MvdV>> See you in the IPv6 echo.

It's already hooked up. I don't have the smarts to deal with the
maths requirement of its IP addressing scheme, so I don't read the
echo.

Oh, c'mone. It's not rocket science. Join us in the IPv6 echo and the IPv6 gurus and sages will be happy to help you along.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20130111
* Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)

Hello rick,

On 23 Oct 16 09:29, rick christian wrote to Nicholas Boel:

When compiling software on Linux, they are ASS U ME'ing you have
the slightest idea on what you're actually doing with Linux
(otherwise if there is a precompiled binary available, at least
they choose to offer

That view point of Linux that you outline as some elitist OS, has
passed.

It's not an elitist OS, and I'm not outlining it as such. If you don't know how
to compile, then install via a package manager or try to find a binary package.
Plain and simple. This, however, will not guarantee you a specific version that
you're looking for, either.

And I've worked on all sorts of things from 68HC11 to big iron to PC's
and very little of that over that span has involved compiling.

I've been on Linux for over 20 years, and still the amount of
compiling I've done is minuscule, by choice and by the point it rarely works.

I'm not sure what you've been working with, but just about everything on my BBS/server machine has been compiled from source, and it "worked" every time. I'm only pointing out your own attitude towards the situation, and your own choice not to go that route.

While you talk it down and make sure everyone hears you, not many other people here seem to have the same problems that you do. Heck, we're even here trying to HELP you compile it, but since the README doesn't have ***EXACT*** instructions for you to follow, you have given it up completely and continue to
talk it down as impossible.

Right now most of what I do personally is python

Yes, I use Linux mainly because it is free! I don't give one hoot
about the source code, I couldn't care less. If there is an issue I
will file a bug report, the author will do their part fix it, release
new program. Rinse, repeat.

What does any of this have to do with compiling binkd or the husky project's sources?

If you don't like it that much.. there's alternatives (like
Windows) you

There is the Linux Spirit! Don't like it leave! That ain't happening!
I refuse to use windumber.

I'm not sure why you're referring to it as the "Linux Spirit" whatsoever. That "spirit" refers to anything you're going to sit online and cry about. If you don't like it, don't use it. As I said in my previous message, during this time
of all these negative comments towards compiling software that you've typed out
repeatedly, you could have figured out how to compile all this software with all the help that has already been provided for you (which you chose not to read or use because you were too busy telling us how much you hated it).

A computer is a tool to achieve a goal. Not the goal to get it be able
to do the task. I don't work wise or personally have time to devote to incomplete instructions to compile stuff. And I am not polluting
systems with 1000's of libs just in case I might some day compile something that needs it.

There is no need for 1000's of libs to do anything. Now you're exaggerating to try to prove a point you're never going to get across.

I've run into and put up with just the attitude you post in Linux
areas for decades. Let me reiterate that your view as compiling as
some litmus test precursor to the use of Linux is passe.

Double edged sword. Linux areas have put up with your talking negatively about something as effortless as compiling software. People compile software on every
OS. It is nothing new to the world, and you either do it or you don't. But you're going WAY out of your way to talk it down and if you notice, you're basically on your own on this (ie: No one seems to agree with you). Probably better to just move on, rather than continue your rants.

I do alot of things for work that probably are not up your alley be it
SQL be it php be it python be it sync'ng tx sites for a simulcast P25
TRS over 4 counties. Or why does one radio work and another is just garbled in the same spot!???

I've had plenty of DBA's take a look at various SQL stuff and have no
clue what it does. So each has their skills...

I am not afraid to admit, that C is not in my wheelhouse, and I have
no interest in learning it! Period. Nor is compiling.

Again, I do not see what this has to do with compiling binkd or husky's sources.

If you list COMPLETE FULL INSTRUCTIONS, then I have no problem. I've
seen that once. The rest just like you feel that I should do all the
heavy lifting to figure out how to install stuff. Here's the source,
you figure it out!

Perfection is not always achievable. Even in your own personal cases. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Ok.. heres your radio... you figure it out! Theres about 30 buttons on them, plus lets see the profiles have 200+ talkgroups on them, and not
all of them are monitored by anyone 24/7/365, and may not be active in your area. Oh, and some are simplex mutal aid stuff.. But hey, heres
the radio YOU FIGURE IT OUT! Your life just may depend on it!

If that were the case (and it usually isn't), someone with enough ambition would and could indeed figure it out. Trial and error is a method used in every
aspect of life.

Regards,
Nick

... "There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness.'"
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827
* Origin: thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (1:154/10)

Hi! Michiel,

On 10/24/2016 12:27 AM, you wrote:

MvdV> Oh, c'mone. It's not rocket science. Join us in the IPv6 echo and the
MvdV> IPv6 gurus and sages will be happy to help you along.

I knew that. That's why I'm not torturing myself with the mind-f@ck at present. Thanks again, Michiel.

Cheers,
Paul.

--- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
* Origin: Quinn's Rock vBox - sunny side up on the bookcase (3:640/1384)

On 10/21/2016 08:56 PM, Jeff Smith -> Rick Christian wrote:
, period.

Compiling one's own software can indeed sometimes involve more work and effort. But I simply look at it as a learning curve that will increase

You and I are in this for different reasons.

Why do I use Linux?

1) F-R-E-E, and that word has only ONE MEANING, no cost!

2) It is basically back to doing things the way I've done them most of my life via computers.. CLI. Yes I have tons of stuff running in X too, but I eschewed GUI's when they long had taken over the DOS world until I ran into something that forced my hand. As soon as possible I switched back to Linux, that was 20 years ago.

Things that do NOT MATTER to me in Linux

1) CODE
2) Uptight agendas like DFSG over things like MP3 etc..

When I am using a computer for LEARNING then maybe I want the code, in THIS CASE, fidonet.. I couldn't care less.

I want to install the stuff, do the setup of the config files, and get on with things. I don't care about the code.

If I have an issue I will file a bug report, the author fixes it, release a new
versions, makes DEBS, I pull the DEBS and update... done. Rinse repeat.

In THIS PARTICULAR case we are NOT IN A LEARNING MODE. This is install stuff get my task done, ie: send/receive Fidonet stuff.

Linux to succeed on the average desktop needs to find better ways to distribute
software.. DEBS are one of them.

Your view on things I've dealt with for a long time in the Linux world, and well I am not interested in the code, I never will be. It also, personally, one
of the big problems holding back Linux adoption en masse. I kicked out windumber from my department.. Servers to desktops. Cubeville uses LTSP setups.
There is not a windumber setup anywhere. I took all that savings and bought more and better hardware for the LTSP servers, desktops, etc... Others don't get why we don't have the issues with systems that wilt over time, etc.. Oh.. and all those documents for office work, float around just fine. We default to the ODx versions, but can ingest and then resave to the proper format. We taught our people to export for the unwashed masses

And in the case of several pieces of this.. the steps to compile it are lacking... Example: husky

I looked at it and found that the steps that listed in the documentation are not correct, how?

1) Leave out libs that are needed
2) Steps to compile it are out of order

How did I find that out??? Failure to compile and a post about it.

If the instructions to compile are not complete then there is no chance to complete the task... Simpling include accurate instructions on how to compile..
if grab tar, tar -xvf superapcakge, cd superpackage, magic 3 works, great! IF NOT then include that hey you need to do this

sudo apt-get install libs libs libs morelibs.... etc..

This is no different than including accurate documentation on using the software. And no don't tell me man pages are the end all to documentation! They
are often written like blah blah blah.. Sure if you wrote the software they make sense..Thats why I have NON PROGRAMMERS write documentation for stuff. I have a group of persons used to test things... I take their input and mold software to it, this mostly stuff in php/ECMAScript/SQL things like the interface, locations etc... Things they change versus the way I designed them, make no sense to ME. To the USERS its seems to make a big deal in using the stuff.. ie: Right versus left for location of something.

Again if I were in a learning mode on maybe writing FTN software I might/would need/want the code...

I am not in THIS CASE. I want to install stuff and get on with using it.

And compiling is not some right of passage to use an OS or a computer. We are past that! The 70's are over! I post this several times... YOU might be an expert in C and compiling.. Well I am an expert in SQL and RF systems.

So we are on different views of this..

If you have something along the lines of :

Hey, I tried to compile this too! And I found you need to do:

apt-get install lib1 lib2 lib3

Then do compile via magic 3

If you are just here to berate me for not being interested in the code and deeper inner workings of that code and the OS.. well then I am not sure what the point is...

Thanks!


* Origin: news://news.wpusa.dynip.com | acct req'd to post (1:3634/12)

25 Oct 16 13:01, you wrote to Jeff Smith:

When I am using a computer for LEARNING then maybe I want the code, in THIS CASE, fidonet.. I couldn't care less.

I want to install the stuff, do the setup of the config files, and get
on with things. I don't care about the code.

If I have an issue I will file a bug report, the author fixes it,
release a new versions, makes DEBS, I pull the DEBS and update...
done. Rinse repeat.

while i tend to agree with some of your statements, it should be pointed out that installaing from a package is one thing but when that package has bugs that have already been fixed years ago, then filing a bug report is not the proper thing to do... especially since some packages lag several years behind... especially when the maintainers have fixed the particular bug you may
be filing a report against...

no one is asking you to care about the code... many of us don't care about it, either... one reason why we compile our own binaries is specifically to stay up
with the current bug fixes to ensure they are fixed as well as possibly finding
new ones and reporting them for repair...

so down to the choice of installing buggy binaries from a package because it is
easy yet brings complaints and drives up our stress levels about the bugs OR quickly compiling from the sources plus the minor dealings with getting the few
-dev libraries installed? i'll take compiling from source any day of the week /specifically/ because it keeps my daily rant/rage level down as i'm not having
to deal with those known and long fixed bugs on top of the daily stresses that may already be borderline postal level...

i'm certainly not a C/C++ guy and i definitely do not dance to the tune of makefiles but even i was able to figure out how to acquire and compile the necessary husky, golded and binkd stuff... hell, binkd was the easiest one of all... the husky stuff was a bit of a twist because of having to build X before
Y finally followed by Z but the information is there and i had it done in a short hour or two and without going postal on anyone... it doesn't take very much to blur over a step written in a conversational tone or to simply miss something mentioned at the top of the given steps... we all know how easy it is
to miss a typo numerous times until someone sticks our nose in it ;)

)\/(ark

Always Mount a Scratch Monkey
Do you manage your own servers? If you are not running an IDS/IPS yer doin' it wrong...
... A good sense humor cures almost all of life's ills.
---
* Origin: (1:3634/12.73)

On 10/25/2016 02:23 PM, mark lewis -> rick christian wrote:

while i tend to agree with some of your statements, it should be pointed

My view point on compiling has been honed from many, MANY, *MANY* failed instances of it... and this situation has proven nothing different.

For you compiling is easy peasy... GREAT!

Plain and simple.. I only ever had ONE positive situation like that, where 100%
of the steps were spelled out, ONE!

We are not going to agree on compiling, its way off topic here, the main issue I've resolved with playing with command lines,which I had tested already. I don't know what the issue is with regards to why changing one line in the config fubard it up.. but...

-nP x

-pP x

No work here.

-p -P x

WORKS!

To those of you for whom compiling works, great. For me my experience is not pleasant, and from that you learn DON'T REPEAT IT! And I don't.


* Origin: news://news.wpusa.dynip.com | acct req'd to post (1:3634/12)

25 Oct 16 17:49, you wrote to me:

while i tend to agree with some of your statements, it should be
pointed

My view point on compiling has been honed from many, MANY, *MANY*
failed instances of it... and this situation has proven nothing
different.

For you compiling is easy peasy... GREAT!

i didn't say it was easy peasy... i said that i was able to figure it out with some applied time and not trying to push or rush things... certainly not when stressed out ;)

anyway, glad to hear that you got it sussed...

)\/(ark

Always Mount a Scratch Monkey
Do you manage your own servers? If you are not running an IDS/IPS yer doin' it wrong...
... We can't allow it to live.. everything we know would be in jeopardy.
---
* Origin: (1:3634/12.73)

mark lewis wrote to rick christian <=-

while i tend to agree with some of your statements, it should be
pointed out that installaing from a package is one thing but when that package has bugs that have already been fixed years ago, then filing a
bug report is not the proper thing to do... especially since some
packages lag several years behind... especially when the maintainers
have fixed the particular bug you may be filing a report against...

Yes, packages vary. I will use a package where it's suitable for the task. The reasons I may not use a package are either (1) bugs, (2) the package is simply too old, or (3) the package has been compiled with options unsuitable for my intended use. And of course, where there is no package.

no one is asking you to care about the code... many of us don't care
about it, either... one reason why we compile our own binaries is specifically to stay up with the current bug fixes to ensure they are fixed as well as possibly finding new ones and reporting them for repair...

Yep, for me the code is just a means to an end. The most I ever have to fiddle with normally is a Makefile, except for one application, where I do have to edit one of the C header files to change a definition to suit my setup. C/C++ was never my language. Pascal was more my thing back in the day, and is now the language I'm intending to relearn.

i'm certainly not a C/C++ guy and i definitely do not dance to the tune
of makefiles but even i was able to figure out how to acquire and

Join the club! :-)

compile the necessary husky, golded and binkd stuff... hell, binkd was
the easiest one of all... the husky stuff was a bit of a twist because
of having to build X before Y finally followed by Z but the information
is there and i had it done in a short hour or two and without going
postal on anyone... it doesn't take very much to blur over a step
written in a conversational tone or to simply miss something mentioned
at the top of the given steps... we all know how easy it is to miss a
typo numerous times until someone sticks our nose in it ;)

I haven't tried compiling Husky or GoldEd yet. Haven't had a need at this time. As my systems are headless, GoldEd is of less use than in the past, when the BBS ran on my main desktop. BinkD was dead simple to compile, I don't even really remember doing it, though I must have. Obviously, it was an unremarkable compilation. :)


... My day's ruined when I put my left sock on my right foot.
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
* Origin: Freeway BBS - freeway.apana.org.au (3:633/410)

Hello rick,

On 10/21/2016 08:56 PM, Jeff Smith -> Rick Christian wrote:

Compiling one's own software can indeed sometimes involve more work and
effort. But I simply look at it as a learning curve that will increase

You and I are in this for different reasons.
Why do I use Linux?

1) F-R-E-E, and that word has only ONE MEANING, no cost!

Agreed. Running Linux sure does beat the $100-$1000 USD depending on the version desired for Windows 10+. The same also applies to a lot of the software
that runs on Linux.

My #2 would be that (For Me) Linux is more flexible, configurable, and stable for what I need it to do.

2) It is basically back to doing things the way I've done them most of my life via computers..

Here I don't see your attitude as being any worse or better than mine. Just different. I look at Linux and a path to better understanding the OS and how it
and the software works.

Things that do NOT MATTER to me in Linux

1) CODE

I don't claim any particular degree of programming ability. Although I have dabbled in Pascal, Perl, and PHP when I was much younger. As a result I don't use Linux from a "CODE" point of view. I also don't think there is a need to understand "CODE" to any real degree to understand what a piece of software needs to have to run or to compile properly. Again I am looking at this from my
POV. There are a number of things in life that I look at just as you seem
to do. I want it to work without wanting or needing to understanding its inner workings. But things related to computers and electronics have always peaked my
interest. Ever since I was 10 or so and decided to take apart my mothers new BW tele to see how and what made it work. Mom had a rather direct and to the point way of instilling in me the desire to either learn or leave stuff ALONE.
<g> By 12 I was building my own test equipment to fix televisions and radios.

2) Uptight agendas like DFSG over things like MP3 etc..
When I am using a computer for LEARNING then maybe I want the code, in THIS CASE, fidonet.. I couldn't care less.

In my case I got into computers in school long before Fido when the "Computer" was comprised of vacuum tubes and completely filled the whole room at school.

I want to install the stuff, do the setup of the config files, and get on with things. I don't care about the code.

That ability is good to have. And I tended to look at it that way too when I use a Windows based PC (Which I still have a couple of).

If I have an issue I will file a bug report, the author fixes it, release
a new versions, makes DEBS, I pull the DEBS and update... done.
Rinse repeat.

I also do that for some software authors to help test software upgrades to their software.

[...]

I am not in THIS CASE. I want to install stuff and get on with using it.
And compiling is not some right of passage to use an OS or a computer.
We are past that! The 70's are over! I post this several times...

Linux IMHO has long been a more "Hands On" ever since the Unix days. Although today's Linux distros are a lot more user friendly than they used to be.

YOU might be an expert in C and compiling..

No... I don't claim any expertise in either.

Well I am an expert in SQL and RF systems.

Cool, now I know the DB man to go to. <g>

So we are on different views of this..

That is simply the primary point here. Two individuals looking at something from two different POV's.

If you have something along the lines of :
Hey, I tried to compile this too! And I found you need to do:
apt-get install lib1 lib2 lib3
Then do compile via magic 3

Umm.. That would have been my next suggestion. <g>

If you are just here to berate me for not being interested in the code and deeper inner workings of that code and the OS.. well then I am not sure
what the point is...

No berating intended. Just a suggestion to consider and an observation from an alternative point of view.


Jeff

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-2
* Origin: The OuijaBoard - Anoka, MN (1:282/1031)

Hi Rick!

25 Oct 2016 17:49, from rick christian -> mark lewis:

My view point on compiling has been honed from many, MANY, *MANY*
failed instances of it... and this situation has proven nothing
different.

What did you vary between your retries?
It gives you a reason why that particular command failed.
Usually some missing lib.

Just go and install that lib, and you are one step further.

If you are mentally incapable (not judging here!) to do that simply stick with precompiled binaries.

Plain and simple.. I only ever had ONE positive situation like that,
where 100% of the steps were spelled out, ONE!

The BinkD docu is quit OK.
If it is not enough for you to compile it, it is probably better you do not, and stick with ready made binaries.

We are not going to agree on compiling, its way off topic here, the
main issue I've resolved with playing with command lines,which I had tested already.

It was all pointed out in the docu.
You either did not read it, or are incapable of understanding and processing it.
Either of those cases is not the fault of binkd or its authors.

To those of you for whom compiling works, great. For me my experience
is not pleasant, and from that you learn DON'T REPEAT IT! And I don't.

No problem with that.
Then do not do it.

But do not blame YOUR incompetence on the authors of SW packages.

CU, Ricsi

--- GoldED+/LNX
* Origin: Indecision is the key to flexibility (2:310/31)

On 10/25/2016 06:03 PM, Tony Langdon -> mark lewis wrote:

Yep, for me the code is just a means to an end.

Same here.. All I want is the program. I don't care what or how its written, in
99.99% of cases.

And in the other 0.01% I probably wrote it, so I know what it does... ie: My program which deals with some WX info.

The most I ever have to
fiddle
with normally is a Makefile,

Did you get this from documentation, or you KNEW what to change...

Well in my case I would NOT KNOW what to change.. I don't touch those files... gawd only knows what will happen.. start spewing crap to disk till its full, erase data, or what ever... NOPE.. J'ne touche pas!

Even if I found it in an echo/ml/ng/forum...nope....

Why? When you learn that mistakes can cost lives, you learn that risk =0% in my
line of work risk is at least on my end is not allowed. Those in the field are
put at risk in a lot of situations, for which my systems must be risk free to ensure they are safe.

except for one application, where I do have to
edit one of the C header files to change a definition to suit my setup. C/C++

Again, how did YOU know that with out:

1) BEING TOLD

2) Knowledge of C/C++

I don't do C/C++ I never have, and never will.. Personally I think.. never mind..

was never my language. Pascal was more my thing back in the day, and is

now

the language I'm intending to relearn.

PASCAL was what I went to after BASIC, but having done so much in assembler for
a PDP8e, 6502/6510 based early PC's and then 68HC11.... I basically got assignment from class, turned in source and compiled program, collect my A, and
go on.

I can probably still dig out the COBOL and FORTRAN stuff for the PDP too! :)

I haven't tried compiling Husky or

I would strongly suggest that you review the thread in the husky echo on compiling it...

There are very specific libs both system and parts of husky, and steps which need to be followed... tldr; is 2 husky parts need to be done before doing any of the actual programs like tosser etc...which are NOT listed in the documentation, at least for one, and the steps listed in the documentation are out of order according to the thread too.


* Origin: news://news.wpusa.dynip.com | acct req'd to post (1:3634/12)

Hello rick,

On 25 Oct 16 17:49, rick christian wrote to mark lewis:

while i tend to agree with some of your statements, it should be
pointed

My view point on compiling has been honed from many, MANY, *MANY*
failed instances of it... and this situation has proven nothing
different.

For you compiling is easy peasy... GREAT!

Plain and simple.. I only ever had ONE positive situation like that,
where 100% of the steps were spelled out, ONE!

We are not going to agree on compiling, its way off topic here, the
main issue I've resolved with playing with command lines,which I had tested already. I don't know what the issue is with regards to why changing one line in the config fubard it up.. but...

-nP x

-pP x

No work here.

-p -P x

WORKS!

What Mark is trying to say is that this issue of yours may have already been resolved. The DEB package you speak of is quite old compared to the latest code. This is FTN, there isn't a dedicated person (or persons) in the what's left of FTN programming to make DEB packages, or send it over to Archlinux's AUR for easy install through a package manager. If you want the latest code of any FTN software still in active development, you will most likely have to compile it yourself.

is not pleasant, and from that you learn DON'T REPEAT IT! And I don't.

If you choose to report bugs from a DEB package that is probably more than a decade old, and get told it was already fixed 9+ years ago, don't complain that
the DEB package wasn't updated to reflect that bugfix, since you indeed have the option to fix it on your own.

Regards,
Nick

... "If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried."
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827
* Origin: thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (1:154/10)

Hello Jeff,

On 25 Oct 16 20:26, Jeff Smith wrote to Rick Christian:

No berating intended. Just a suggestion to consider and an observation from an alternative point of view.

There hasn't been any berating in this entire discussion from anyone.

He tried compiling, the instructions were wrong. We told him exactly what was wrong with the instructions and the exact way to do it (which seriously takes only about 10 minutes to compile all of the husky software). We can not do much
more than that when the help is refused. :(

Regards,
Nick

... "Politicians and diapers should be changed regularly for the same reasons." --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827
* Origin: thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (1:154/10)

Hello Rick!

18 Oct 16 15:23, you wrote to all:

OK..I've got my setup finalized with an official node, and all that...

So I setup a cron job based on my manual testing of some things.. and
that doesn't seem to work nor what I did manually during my testing...
:(

Only change was to add my official node number versus a testing one...

I've tried:

this whole "touch" thing:

touch ~/fido/binkd/outb/$(printf "%04x" 135)$(printf %04x 300).dlo

It creates the file, just binkd does NOTHING.

*.*lo file must be readable and writeable/deletable by binkd. Use chmod after touch or use touch under right sudoer.

Cyrill


--- GoldED+/BSD 1.1.5-b20160322-b20160322
* Origin: 忺¡∞ ¡Ñ Multi-Edit. UNDO ¡Ñ ßñѽáÑΦ∞ (2:5053/7.1)

rick christian wrote to Tony Langdon <=-

Same here.. All I want is the program. I don't care what or how its written, in 99.99% of cases.

And in the other 0.01% I probably wrote it, so I know what it does...
ie: My program which deals with some WX info.

Yep understand.

The most I ever have to
fiddle
with normally is a Makefile,

Did you get this from documentation, or you KNEW what to change...

Well in my case I would NOT KNOW what to change.. I don't touch those files... gawd only knows what will happen.. start spewing crap to disk till its full, erase data, or what ever... NOPE.. J'ne touche pas!

Like you, I rely on the documentation - usually the README or INSTALL text file that's often included. :)

Even if I found it in an echo/ml/ng/forum...nope....

Why? When you learn that mistakes can cost lives, you learn that risk
=0% in my line of work risk is at least on my end is not allowed. Those
in the field are put at risk in a lot of situations, for which my
systems must be risk free to ensure they are safe.

In my world, risk is unavoidable. Monitoring situations and making sound risk assessments is the key to saving lives - knowing when to play it safe and when you can go beyond being "safe" to achieve a better outcome, as well as having safe fallbacks when the risk level gets high.

except for one application, where I do have to
edit one of the C header files to change a definition to suit my setup. C/C++

Again, how did YOU know that with out:

1) BEING TOLD

Again, it was in the docs.

2) Knowledge of C/C++

I don't do C/C++ I never have, and never will.. Personally I think..
never mind..

I don't have the time to start a new language from scratch these days.

was never my language. Pascal was more my thing back in the day, and is

now

the language I'm intending to relearn.

PASCAL was what I went to after BASIC, but having done so much in assembler for a PDP8e, 6502/6510 based early PC's and then 68HC11.... I basically got assignment from class, turned in source and compiled program, collect my A, and go on.

I can probably still dig out the COBOL and FORTRAN stuff for the PDP
too! :)

Never touched COBOL. I did do a little Fortran at uni, quite enjoyed that language, and liked its depth of inbuilt mathematical/scientific operations. The only lanuage I never had to create a complex number type or functions and procedures to manipulate them.

I haven't tried compiling Husky or

I would strongly suggest that you review the thread in the husky echo
on compiling it...

Sounds like a good idea.

There are very specific libs both system and parts of husky, and steps which need to be followed... tldr; is 2 husky parts need to be done
before doing any of the actual programs like tosser etc...which are NOT listed in the documentation, at least for one, and the steps listed in
the documentation are out of order according to the thread too.

Sounds like someone needs to gather all that information and use it as the basis to improve the documentation for Husky. Someone who's been through it all and is good with written communication would be an ideal person.


... Elvis has left the echo.
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
* Origin: Freeway BBS - freeway.apana.org.au (3:633/410)