I'm more interested in fixing the current software and standards.
That's a good intention.
I hope that eg. OpenXP would still be compatible with your ideas.
Because, as I see it, many of the original authors of this (really
great and superior to most other similar) program aren't part of the current development team. And as I understand it, the current team
mostly only fixes small bugs - but there won't be much progress eg.
for new platforms (arm...) and there won't be big rewrites eg. of the
BinkP part.
I guess something like this might be true for other parts of FTN software...
Is downloaded OpenXP and tried to compile it on my Raspi,
which didn't work out of the box. Is there anything that
would make a port hard to achieve? It's FreePascal, little
endian, 32 bit. There was some assembler, but I don't know
how much of it is non-optional and needs to be ported to
Pascal.
Is downloaded OpenXP and tried to compile it on my Raspi, which didn't
work out of the box. [...]
Hello Oli!
** On Saturday 11.09.21 - 19:24, Oli wrote to acn:
Is downloaded OpenXP and tried to compile it on my Raspi,
which didn't work out of the box. Is there anything that
would make a port hard to achieve? It's FreePascal, little
endian, 32 bit. There was some assembler, but I don't know
how much of it is non-optional and needs to be ported to
Pascal.
There is an extra library that is needed for the compilation to
work. I forget the details. I'll ask around.
acn wrote (2021-09-11):
I hope that eg. OpenXP would still be compatible with your ideas.
Because, as I see it, many of the original authors of this (really
great and superior to most other similar) program aren't part of the
current development team. And as I understand it, the current team
mostly only fixes small bugs - but there won't be much progress eg.
for new platforms (arm...) and there won't be big rewrites eg. of the
BinkP part.
I downloaded OpenXP and tried to compile it on my Raspi, which didn't
work out of the box. Is there anything that would make a port hard to achieve? It's FreePascal, little endian, 32 bit. There was some
assembler, but I don't know how much of it is non-optional and needs to
be ported to Pascal.
I gave it another try and was able to compile an run OpenXP
on my Raspi. This doesn't mean its fully functional,
because I cheated a little bit [...]
If someone wants to help the project: the documentation for
compiling on Linux (and maybe on other platforms too) could
need some cleanup. There are several readmes and scripts in
different directories and most of them are outdated. The
RPM build file openxp.spec was the most helpful one.
Is downloaded OpenXP and tried to compile it on my Raspi, which
didn't work out of the box. Is there anything that would make a
port hard to achieve? It's FreePascal, little endian, 32 bit. There
was some assembler, but I don't know how much of it is non-optional
and needs to be ported to Pascal.
I guess something like this might be true for other parts of FTN
software...
.... and most of the other other old software is abandoned and
doesn't compile on modern systems or is closed source and there is
no hope of any update. I guess unmaintained FTN software will
become irrelevant at some point.
It's amazing that CrossPoint / OpenXP has been ported to Linux and
has still a development team. Anyone running Z-Netz or Maustausch
software?
Does OpenXP binkp mailer work in server mode too or is it client only?
Am 11.09.21 schrieb Oli@21:3/102 in FSX_NET:
Hallo Oli,
I downloaded OpenXP and tried to compile it on my Raspi, which
didn't work out of the box. Is there anything that would make a
port hard to achieve? It's FreePascal, little endian, 32 bit. There
was some assembler, but I don't know how much of it is non-optional
and needs to be ported to Pascal.
As I've seen in the other messages, you managed to compile it on ARM.
Very nice!
I hope that you can help a little in making OpenXP future-proof :)
It's amazing that CrossPoint / OpenXP has been ported to Linux and
has still a development team. Anyone running Z-Netz or Maustausch
software?
I don't know if these networks are still online...
I used to connect to a MAUS in Stuttgart, Germany, but that was back
in ~2005 - and I've used a MAUS point software on a Macintosh SE/30 :)
As I've seen in the other messages, you managed to compile
it on ARM. Very nice! I hope that you can help a little in
making OpenXP future-proof :)
Not really. It was a nice point software at the time, but
the UI is just a bit too weird from my today's perspective.
Not really. It was a nice point software at the time, but
the UI is just a bit too weird from my today's perspective.
What specifically is weird? OpenXP is a console program. It
looks not unlike the main message window of a BBS.
I think most BBS are horrible when it comes to usability ;-).
XP's menu are not well organized. Configuration options are
all over the place. The behavior of the UI is different
from what one usually expects. I used CrossPoint before and
I find my way around, but I only would recommend it for
someone who already knows how Fidonet works (and the
meaning of Z-Netz / ZConnect, etc...)
XP's menu are not well organized. Configuration options are
all over the place. The behavior of the UI is different
from what one usually expects. I used CrossPoint before and
I find my way around, but I only would recommend it for
someone who already knows how Fidonet works (and the
meaning of Z-Netz / ZConnect, etc...)
There is an internal F1-Help system that is pretty good!
The Z-Netz/ZConnect stuff is baggage from its origins.
On 24 Sep 2021 at 08:26a, deon pondered and said...
I guess "ftn" could be changed to "fido" - but keeping it short and
suite.
I'd build it with 'fsx' in mind :)
As I've seen in the other messages, you managed to compile it on ARM.
Very nice!
I hope that you can help a little in making OpenXP future-proof :)
Not really. It was a nice point software at the time, but the UI is just a bit too weird from my today's perspective.
I'd build it with 'fsx' in mind :)
Which is an FTN (FidoNet technology network) or in short a
fido-net(work), but an FTN is not a message/packet/bundle. FTN is often used to say Fido-something without the meaning of FidoNet (Zone 1-4 / Policy 4), like in FTN technology (FidoNet technology network
technology) or FTN network (FidoNet technology network network). You
But we are talking about something that has no existing
precedence in the "FTN" world; "FSX" would be cool.
On 25 Sep 2021 at 03:34a, tenser pondered and said...
But we are talking about something that has no existing
precedence in the "FTN" world; "FSX" would be cool.
I'm glad you said that because that's where I was going with it too.
I understand what FTN is, means etc.
I also know fsxNet has been set up
to be experimental as part of it's reason to be, so I can't see why it should remain wholly as a FTN network. Who knows in years to come it
might be a mix of a bunch of things, that would be kinda neat in my books :)
I guess "ftn" could be changed to "fido" - but keeping it short and
suite.
I'd build it with 'fsx' in mind :)
On 24 Sep 2021 at 08:51a, Oli pondered and said...
I'd build it with 'fsx' in mind :)
Which is an FTN (FidoNet technology network) or in short a
fido-net(work), but an FTN is not a message/packet/bundle. FTN is
often used to say Fido-something without the meaning of FidoNet
(Zone 1-4 / Policy 4), like in FTN technology (FidoNet technology
network technology) or FTN network (FidoNet technology network
network). You
But we are talking about something that has no existing
precedence in the "FTN" world; "FSX" would be cool.
But we are talking about something that has no existing
precedence in the "FTN" world; "FSX" would be cool.
Cool for what?
I don't doubt that. Should I put everything in big <IRONY> tags next
time? ;)
should remain wholly as a FTN network. Who knows in years to come it might be a mix of a bunch of things, that would be kinda neat in my bo :)
I thought we were talking about the fido part and how to name the content-type of a fido packet.
FTX.
It's like FTN, but X is cooler.
The Z-Netz/ZConnect stuff is baggage from its origins.
AFAIK OpenXP's message base is still based on the ZConnect format.
The Z-Netz/ZConnect stuff is baggage from its origins.
AFAIK OpenXP's message base is still based on the ZConnect format.
In the now almost 3 yrs of using OpenXP, I haven't encountered
any messagebase issues. Do you percieve a problem with the
ZConnect format?
It's always possible that a network could be formed (or
switch to) a non-FTN technoloy.
However, before anything "new" is proposed, I suggest a
careful examination of what is wrong with the current
technology (FTN). I've started my own list here:
Yeah, probably a dead end. There's the occasional
discussion of the same subject on FidoNet proper (e.g.
Future4fido echo), but I don't think it's ever going to
amount to much because of the compatiblity issue.
Hello Digital Man!
** On Friday 31.12.21 - 21:22, Digital Man wrote to apam:
It's always possible that a network could be formed (or
switch to) a non-FTN technoloy.
Or.. perhaps FTN2 could be something that only supports modern
and still-in-development software?
However, before anything "new" is proposed, I suggest a
careful examination of what is wrong with the current
technology (FTN). I've started my own list here:
Didn't know that existed. I have some questions. I'll probably
build that up in FUTURE4FIDO.
Yeah, probably a dead end. There's the occasional
discussion of the same subject on FidoNet proper (e.g.
Future4fido echo), but I don't think it's ever going to
amount to much because of the compatiblity issue.
Again.. perhaps the answer is to retire the support for
abandoned software. It's not unlike the progression in www with
html to html5 and other layers. Many sites would simply not
work with Netscape for example, and not many users of Netscape
would stick to using it.
Or.. perhaps FTN2 could be something that only supports modern
and still-in-development software?
And "still-in-development" is a dynamic state (what's in-
development today may not be tomorrow), so it's more of a
sign of the times.
In any case, I'd look closely at other network
technologies (e.g. WWIVnet, NNTP, QWK, PostLink) before
inventing a new noe.
At the very least, you can take away the best ideas to be
utilized in a new network technology. I would not
recommend trying to tying anything "new" to FidoNet
however. That's just asking for trouble. :-)
Again.. perhaps the answer is to retire the support for
abandoned software. It's not unlike the progression in www..
Nobody's stopping old web sites using old versions of HTML
from still working however. If you have a retro computer
with Mosaic, it's still gonna work on those sites, which
is pretty cool. I can see similar arguments being made
about FidoNet. Dust off that old IBM XT from the 1980s and
its still possible to get it on FidoNet using (much of)
the software of that era. --
Hello Digital Man!
** On Saturday 01.01.22 - 12:48, Digital Man wrote to Ogg:
Or.. perhaps FTN2 could be something that only supports modern
and still-in-development software?
And "still-in-development" is a dynamic state (what's in-
development today may not be tomorrow), so it's more of a
sign of the times.
I think it could be very straightforward. Just stipulate that
in order to participate in FTN2, certain NEW minimums (and in
this case a higher bar) must be met.
In any case, I'd look closely at other network
technologies (e.g. WWIVnet, NNTP, QWK, PostLink) before
inventing a new noe.
JamNNTP is fairly impressive. It affords reading echos from
one's own mail program. I think the vision ought to be what can
support the average non-sysop/user.
At the very least, you can take away the best ideas to be
utilized in a new network technology. I would not
recommend trying to tying anything "new" to FidoNet
however. That's just asking for trouble. :-)
Aww.. where's your sense of adventure?
Again.. perhaps the answer is to retire the support for
abandoned software. It's not unlike the progression in www..
Nobody's stopping old web sites using old versions of HTML
from still working however. If you have a retro computer
with Mosaic, it's still gonna work on those sites, which
is pretty cool. I can see similar arguments being made
about FidoNet. Dust off that old IBM XT from the 1980s and
its still possible to get it on FidoNet using (much of)
the software of that era. --
The novelty to try Fido 1.0 might be interesting, but is it
practical and useful on a regular basis or in the long run?
Probably not. Same thing with Mosaic - it might be fun as a
curiosity to re-experience its limitations, but then the
limitations can get old fast. ;)
| Sysop: | digital man |
|---|---|
| Location: | Riverside County, California |
| Users: | 1,043 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 92:13:19 |
| Calls: | 500,956 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 109,377 |
| D/L today: |
1,394 files (256M bytes) |
| Messages: | 304,729 |
| Posted today: | 1 |