[Freedos-user] Change of email
Hello there, is it possible to change the email in this mailing list? I am switching from outlook to yahoo, can you remove this email and add the new one? the new email is mattia.limo...@yahoo.com Thank you and best regards -- Mattia Limonta ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Some networking present
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 07:48:33PM +0200, Mateusz Viste wrote: > They are indeed - I've spent more nights than I can count debugging EtherDFS > and EthFlop while battling with random freezes, memory corruptions, suddenly > hanging games and such. TSRs are truly a toxic environment. But it's part of > the challenge, after all. ...provided that such programming work required for networking is appealing to the DOS hobbyist, of course ;) -- regards, Zbigniew ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Some networking present
On 07/09/2020 18:15, Michael Brutman wrote: Others have provided small utilities to let WATTCP apps use the mTCP DHCP program. I think that is a reasonable solution given the history. Interesting. Any links? mTCP seems to be quite popular nowadays - at least as much as Wattcp-based applications, so it could be nice to have such "glue" add-ons onboard in FreeDOS. That is assuming their licenses are compatible of course. On a more positive note (which I think we all need) reinventing the wheel is fun. Competition is part of a healthy ecosystem. Absolutely. Bridges are also nice things, when possible/applicable, so the ecosystem does not appear too much fragmented to end users. :) Next up for mTCP - IPv6 That would be very nice indeed. Sooner or later IPv6 will replace IPv4, it'd be really cool to have a working networking solution then, without needing to rely on external 4to6 contraptions. I managed to build picoTCP with IPv6 support once, and it somewhat worked (at least it was exchanging ICMPv6 neighbor discoveries with peers) - but the added bloat was horrible (hundreds of KiBs), not much memory being left for the actual application. I ended up disabling IPv6 in the default build. I am curious to see how small you will be able to get. I'm also thinking about a network drive for DOS. EtherFlop is intriguing but I really want to go with something over UDP so that it is routable on a network and can be hosted on the server side by a Windows or a Linux machine. I have added provisions to the EtherDFS protocol so it can be compatible with UDP. It would actually be relatively easy to make it work over UDP. I was planning to at one point, but then didn't really need it so it went into backlog for an indefinite time... Perhaps I'll revisit this in some near future. That being said I wouldn't use such drive over internet myself - DOS is very picky about timing and lost packets when it comes to I/O operations... But a routeable home LAN with a few different subnets could be a good use case. small doses I'm still working my way up to TSRs, which are a lot harder to debug than the C programs I've been writing. They are indeed - I've spent more nights than I can count debugging EtherDFS and EthFlop while battling with random freezes, memory corruptions, suddenly hanging games and such. TSRs are truly a toxic environment. But it's part of the challenge, after all. Mateusz ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Some networking present
Thanks for the dictionary definition, but I think you missed the point here. mTCP != WATTCP, and I have no interest in WATTCP. WATTCP is a library and a set of programs from many contributors while mTCP is all my work. Being compatible with something that I originally had no knowledge of an no interest in is not a reasonable expectation. Except for the 32 bit version I generally find the WATTCP based apps to be horribly out of date and wildy varying in quality, which is why I keep writing my own versions. Others have provided small utilities to let WATTCP apps use the mTCP DHCP program. I think that is a reasonable solution given the history. On a more positive note (which I think we all need) reinventing the wheel is fun. Competition is part of a healthy ecosystem. We're all scratching some sort of itch by continuing to use DOS and do retro programming. Next up for mTCP - IPv6, a lighter/smaller web server, and a Telnet BBS. The Telnet BBS was the actual origins of the whole project; I wrote my Netcat, Telnet client and FTP client as proofs of concept that got a bit out of hand. One day I'm going to get back to the BBS, which exists but needs to be rewritten - I've learned a lot in the last 10 years. I'm also thinking about a network drive for DOS. EtherFlop is intriguing but I really want to go with something over UDP so that it is routable on a network and can be hosted on the server side by a Windows or a Linux machine. While my x86 assembly language is reasonable in small doses I'm still working my way up to TSRs, which are a lot harder to debug than the C programs I've been writing. (And I might not go the TSR route. A shell would be fine except for the extra memory consumption.) -Mike ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Some networking present
On 07/09/2020 05:31, Michael Brutman wrote: "Exotic" is a strange word ... Let me help. Quick web search suggests such definition: "Intriguingly unusual or different" WATTCP uses its own configuration file, mTCP uses its own configuration file. My point exactly. There are users now that configure the mTCP config file and wonder why Wattcp isn't catching it. After WATTCP came to my attentioned I looked at it and determined that I would continue to do my own thing. Nothing wrong with that - on the contrary: the more the merrier! But some sort of compatibility layer would be most welcome. If not at the (ABI) library level, then at least sharing the same configuration file and directives (or subset/superset of). One good reason not to share the configuration file that I can think of from the top of my head would be if mTCP used a leaner (binary) configuration format to avoid implementing a full blown text parser, hence saving a little bit on memory. But IIRC, mTCP's configuration file is ini-style, just like what Wattcp/Watt-32 use. Are there other reasons I missed? You did write picoSNTP even though SNTP clients already exist, right? Isn't this another example of a wheel being reinvented? picoSNTP is (was) part of a larger proof of concept that aimed to show "something" working in DOS with a hacked version of the picoTCP. Not really a production-ready replacement for any existing TCP/IP stack. I didn't pursue this as I lost interest in the mean time, but I did have plans to implement a wattcp configuration generator within my 'ipcfg' picoTCP configuration tool (possibly extended further to generate mTCP configurations as well, in the spirit of "one tool to rule them all"). Mateusz ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
