Re: DOS virus - Day I can assure you that there were many DOS viruses because we saw them on my clients PC's as well as our own when we ran the clients software. It also took some time to figure out what the heck they were circa 1984.
Re: your Electronic Rube Goldberg solution to assure DOS is used - Let me know when you get your lash up working 24/7/365 without failure. That is what folks are getting using Linux, *BSD, Solaris, etc. In case someone doesn't understand Rube Goldberg check out http://www.rube-goldberg.com/ John O Day Brown wrote: > Bob George wrote: > >> Day Brown wrote: >> >>> [...] is run a signal out a com port telling a tranceiver what >>> frequencies to use. >> >> >> >> Sure. You push a character into the UART and tell it to send. Ok so >> far... It's digital data, so then what? Where's it go out that port? > > > I believe there are transmitter chips that will accept a 5vdc signal to > set the output frequency. > >>> And take the I/O thru the sound ports, converting the audio signals >>> into data. >> >> >> >> An interrupt is generated, all other processing stops (completely) until >> that I/O is completed. Well written software might quickly free up the >> system, then process the audio signals outside of the interrupt handler. >> Good. Still, as more data comes in, everything pretty much hangs for >> those durations while the decoding occurs. It works, within certain >> limits. A lot depends on the raw speed of the hardware, and the quantity >> of input signals. > > > The only time the com port signal would be needed is to change, or > establish the frequencies to be used. Nevertheless, there are setups > which run off preset crystals at designated frequencies, so then the com > port would not be needed. But if, as below you used more than one > antenna, or for whatever reason, like trying different setups out, being > able to conveniently change the frequencies would be useful. > >> And then there's the question: What the hell are you getting at? WHY are >> you taking audio input via the soundcard and doing what a modem does in >> but in software? Why are you pushing digital characters out the serial >> port, but receiving analog (?) via the sound card? > > > The soundcard expects analogue, the transmitter/receivers also expect > analogue. Seems reasonable to get them to work together. > >> >> >>> Now, if that data is for surfing, then you'd need a GUI OS that >>> supports Mozilla. >> >> >> >> What data? What are you doing here? You surely don't "need" a GUI to use >> the web! Lynx runs on DOS today. > > > There seem to be a variety of webpages which no DOS software will render. > >>> But many of us remember being online with DOS at a BBS, and with the >>> data rate nowadays, seems like COMMO would still download .gif or >>> .jpg, and that you could shell out to look at the images, or listen >>> to sound files. >> >> >> Wait, you're NOT using Mozilla/GUI now? > > > Of course, I'm using Mozilla; with XANDROS. > >> You mean shell out to an image viewer? Sure that works. 'Course the >> "download" stuff probably stops >> dead (unless there's more to this than COMMO you mentioned) but that >> works. > > > It never bothered me that the download stopped. I didnt come across that > many images I wanted to bother with. > >>> If menus required me to press a key to navigate a presentation, I'd >>> consider that a convenience. I can touch type. But in any case, you >>> could still us DOS as a portal that was too stupid to be crashed by >>> sabotage software. >> >> >> Viruses worked just fine with DOS. DOS systems were readily infected >> back in the glory days of the BBS. Downloading via any other network >> would be no different, and the same safeguards would be required as of >> any other OS. > > > All the saboteurs nowadays aim their weapons at windoz; nobody *cares* > what we are trying to do in DOS. As for viruses working fine with DOS, I > *never*, in a dozen years online with BBSes, had a virus problem. > {COMMO} and the other DOS termcoms *could not* respond to a virus. You > had to download an infected file, and then *run* it. With DOS, there was > no *background* for this to happen in. All the termcom did was render > the ANSI bbs menus and show you the available file lists and newsgroups. > Even the 'ANSI bombs' could be avoided by using an ANSI driver which did > not include the routines to reassign key codes. > >>> And rather than multitask, use, as the 70$ example showed, another >>> piece of hardware. Hardware is cheap enough. You can devote your >>> desktop to a multimedia presentation tool if you want, but not have >>> any failure of that system break down all communications. You could >>> still do email thru the DOS portal to ask for help. >> >> >> >> Realizing there are still many single points-of-failure in your path. >> Yes, your PC may work but you can't send email if the $70 device is >> down. Adding hardware bits doesn't make a "system" more robust, though >> the individual components might still work (though not as the "system") >> if part of it fails. If the goal of all the odd bits of hardware you >> describe is to "send email", it doesn't matter WHAT failed if you're >> still unable to send mail. >> >> Also, that $70 solution isn't being touted for being a robust DOS box, >> but rather an "appliance" that runs a multitasking OS (Linux) that lets >> it multitask to do all of the things described. Sticking an XT on the >> network with it doesn't take away from the fact that the magic is >> attributed to that little box. > > > I'm not suggesting that you use the 70$ box; but it is indicative of the > low cost of hardware that might be designed to accept a DOS wireless > connection. > >>> And if you have a problem with your service provider, there is >>> nothing to prevent you from having another antenna aimed at a >>> neighbor, or any other connection point. >> >> >> Which has NOTHING to do with DOS... > > > Which raises the question of what other systems DOS users could still > employ... another connection point built to work with DOS from the git go. > >>> The rapid expansion of the internet has resulted in lots of >>> incompetent people being hired. Which is why all of the ISPs that are >>> available to me have server crashes so often, dropped carriers, or >>> severed feeds. Other rural users report the same to me. >> >> >> >> Ditto here. What's this to do with DOS? > > > The incompetence of the local ISPs I have, all three, is such that no > DOS software will log on to any of them. > However, BBS systems and networks still exist which DOS can use; if > furthermore there is a wireless way to reach a DOS hub, then users would > still have a cheaper and more robost way to exchange data. Then, they > can us a local network which may have a GUI OS to view images or > whatever. I dont see much need for such a local server to need anything > more than DOS. Since hardware is so cheap, there is not nearly the need > for a multitasking platform to also handle the firewall. > >
