The discussion lately on BBS sysops and software got me thinking about that topic and looking at stuff I hadn't thought about in years. In my own archvies I found old versions of Searchlight, QuickBBS and the non-FOSSIL version of GT Power. Thankfully, my archive of QuickBBS included my old setup and Ray Gwinn's X00 FOSSIL driver and I was able to get it running under VPC enough to play around with it. Last night, a guy in Texas sent me the FOSSIL version of GT Power, which is what I used for my Model 2000. He told me of his experience running a Model 2000 under OPUS and then GT Power. Now I had never tried running OPUS on that machine but had played with it on standard XT clones. This caused me to go out and do a little search for some information on what happened to OPUS. For those of you interested in a fairly full-featured BBS program capable of running on machines such as the DEC Rainbow, Zenith Z-100, TRS-80 Model 2000, and Sanyo 550, check out the following URL, 'The Worldwide OPUS consortium': http://www.sentry.org/~trev/opus/ Jeff -- Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File http://www.cchaven.com http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757

Oh come on people.... me of all people wouldn't have a problem doing something purely for sentimental/historical/educational reasons, or for no reason at all. The only reason I asked why, is because when this initially came up a few days ago, they said it was discussed a few months ago, and I didn't remember that thread at all. So... I was just curious if this was being considered to solve a real pressing need or just to do it for the fun of doing it. By the way - we are expecting to have virtually nationwide dial access within the next few weeks. This would make a uucp dial connection feasible for some folks. Just a thought.... Jay West ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk> To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 12:18 PM Subject: Re: Classic Comp UUCP network. WHY? ...snip...

So, how's the young-un today? That's quite a fever, even for a youngster. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Merchberger" <zmerch(a)30below.com> To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 12:54 PM Subject: More stuff to a good home...

You wrote.... ----- Original Message ----- so Oh Paleeze... this sounds much more like a clique designed to keep some people out, or a toy for someone to play with, than something that solves a real need. Besides... I still subscribe to the libertarian ethos that the Internet was originally founded on, and keeping other idiots out is just too dictatorial for my tastes. That's my own 2 millidollars worth anyways. Jay West

On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Jay West wrote: I think the pursuit of this is motivated by many of the same reasons people are interested in vintage hardware. For me, it would be the opportunity to play with UUCP. I've always been curious about how the whole thing works. My first exposure to Unix and Usenet was on a system with a UUCP based Usenet feed. Since those days, I've had plenty of opportunity to configure almost every Unix based service under the sun due to work related neccessity. The primary expection being UUCP. Other people on the list may have used UUCP in the past on the types of systems they now collect. For them, it would be a matter of nostalgia and the ability to enhance their hobby by engaging in it with other people who have similar interests. e.g. The vintage computer hardware hobby, now runs vintage software which is used to communicate with like-minded hobbyists. Supporting something like this helps to preserve, and possibly highlight, yet another aspect of computer history. The world--especially the computer industry--has a very short attention span, and it has an even shorter memory. For the past year or so, industry figureheads are ranting and raving about the wonders of Peer-to-Peer (P2P) networking. Few of them seem to remember that UUCP is exactly that and that it has been around for a few decades. The details of current P2P implementations have changed, but the fundamental concepts are the same. Napster didn't invent P2P. I think the idea of having an independent netnews system is pretty interesting. Using sendmail to handle messaging over UUCP would be fun. I've no clue how to do this, as TCP/IP has always been present on all the systems I've used. Experimenting with filesharing over UUCP would likewise be educational, at least for me. Whether there are enough people with enough resources and interest to maintain this sort of endeavour, I don't know. My impression, especially after reading some of the _Managing uucp and Usenet_ book, is that UUCP died out in part because of there being too many different ways to configure a system depending on your hardware, your OS, your version of UUCP, and your modem type. Some of the can be eliminated by using simple, and now prevalent, TCP/IP connections. For those unable or unwiling to taint the purity of this experiment, dial-up gateways would be needed. So, if someone asks "Why?" what specifically do they mean? Is their question, "Why would you use UUCP when you can use TCP/IP?" Or is it, "Why would you used UUCP when you can't use it to access the web or FTP or to have realtime chats with people?" That sort of reasoning doesn't really follow with nature of the people who camp out here. You may as well be asking, "Why would you use that PDP-8 when you could be running Windows 2000 or Linux on a 1.6GHz Pentium IV PC?" Or, "Why do you run RT-11? There aren't any MP3 players for it and you can't play any of the new games on it." Actually, I'm sort of surprised we aren't already running an extensive UUCP network... The only reason I can guess as to /why that is/ would be that everyone's too busy collecting old computer systems to actually do something on a grander scale with them. -brian.

At 02:08 PM 9/02/2002 -0600, Jay West wrote: I'm sure it is. I have some manuals on how to set up UUCP on A/UX and have a nice A/UX box sitting here doing nothing, so at least I have some classic hardware to set up a UUCP node. Indeed, but it should help illustrate most of the issues that the Internet went through in the early days (well before it got called The Internet), which in itself may be educational. Of course, this raises some other questions, like why did TCP/IP win the Internet wars. Why were other protocols swamped. Two that "died" along the way would be the protocols that formed JANET and those we used in Australia developed at Sydney University. Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.Davies(a)kerberos.davies.net.au | "If God had wanted soccer played in the | air, the sky would be painted green"

On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Lawrence LeMay wrote: The points you make are valid, but what I think at least some of us are proposing is that no long-distance be used, unless somebody really wants to do that. Given the pervasiveness of ISP services, most people would be able to connect to the proposed network using UUCP over a TCP/IP connection to a local ISP number. Access to the internet is no longer the great obstacle it was in the mid-1980s to the early 1990s. Given that the long hauls are sorted out over over the internet, the only hurdle would be for those people unable or unwilling to run TCP/IP on their systems. In those cases, it's matter of finding at least one other person local to you who's willing to dial-up peer with you, who runs or has easy access to a TCP/IP gateway to the backbone. The resulting *practical* services offered by this UUCP over TCP/IP style network are redundant on top of the services normally offered on TCP/IP. The idea would be that it's for curious hobbyists. It's a little impractical in its aims, but there's certainly no technical or cost barrier to prevent it from happening rather easily. All it requires is a few people (even one person) to build a core and to make it easy for people to peer with the core. From there, the rest will naturally grow, given that an interest exists. -brian.

It was thus said that the Great Brian Chase once stated: In my experience, setting up UUCP is a bitch. There are two major UUCP systems, each with slightly different semantics and protocol support and the whole modem thing under Unix just sucks (sucks less now, but UUCP still probably wants things done the Old Bad Way (TM)). I remember spending hours trying to get UUCP working for clients (at an ISP years ago) and it was painful. On the plus side, once it was set up and worked, it worked and you never had to touch it again (thankfully!). But getting it working was way too difficult. Good thing it died. It's hard to configure and you have to work out UUCP routing are two things I can think of that make it not worth the hassle. At least for me. -spc (It always seemed more complicated than it needs to be)

If no one has asked for it I will take, let me know were to send the postage. My zip is 77082 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter C. Wallace" <pcw(a)mesanet.com> To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 4:41 PM Subject: Free Next Cable connectors it...

That would be the mono monitor cable for the Cube's or mono slabs that some on the list have been looking for. It also works great going between the Cube and the soundbox when using a color monitor attached to the Dimension board, that way you don't have to have a mono monitor hooked up at the same time. Jeff -- Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File http://www.cchaven.com http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757

I had to pick up a second one once I had made arrangements for my second cube. I ended up paying $20 for one from someone that routinely lists them. There seems to be a bit of demand for them. Jeff -- Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File http://www.cchaven.com http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757

Actually I don't think $20 for the 10' cable is that bad. It's a well made cable in a long length. As for the monitors, the shipping on the 21" badboy would be something, regardless of where it came from. The monitor is the only thing I don't have three of to match the three systems. As nice as even the 17" NeXT monitor is, if I decide I need the third monitor, I'll likely locate a more modern one that's compatible with the Dimension board. When I still had my first NeXT slab in '94, used 17" were going for about $300 or so in the newsgroups. I've dealt with Rob on a number of occasions but have only dealt with Randy once, and that was for the parts to repair my NeXT laser printer. Unless you happen to find an individual selling something though they're just about the only game in town at this point. Jeff -- Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File http://www.cchaven.com http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757

Quothe Jay West, from writings of Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 12:00:11PM -0600: Because the Internet has become popular with, and infested by, the common masses and, as a result, has caught the interest of those strange creatures called politicians resulting in its becoming the victim of SPAMmers (who are not all that dissimilar, intellectually, thought police, and similar cretins, who want to censor what people say via the 'net (take a look at the user-agreement for Yahoo, for example). It would be nice, as well as sensible, to, once again, have a network only for hackers, scientists, etc., where e-mail can be exchanged without SPAM or limitations on freedom of speech. While the source is still with us, why not use it to make life better? :-) Another reason: Usenet has degenerated into a fine mess as well, so, we can have our own independent Usenet (Classicnet?) via dialup UUCP, which could replace E-bilk as well. Surley most of us remember starting our collections by buying interesting-sounding equipment that we knew little to nothing about, which was sold on Usenet newsgroups; no auctions; a seller would sell an item to to the first person responding to an ad, and if no one was willing to pay the requested price, the item went to the best offer. Simple, easy, quick, sensible and convenient. -- Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals: All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature & rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.

On 9 Feb 2002, R. D. Davis wrote: And THAT is probably the most compelling reason to pursue this beyond it being an idle hobby. Sure, you can achieve all that without using UUCP, but there are a couple of things that could give this project a really nice dynamic. For one, most of the people here remember what the 'Net' was like before it was overrun with commercial traffic. Probably 95-99% of the people using the internet and Usenet now have no clue that it used to be at least somewhat more useful. Stupidity always existed for sure, but the S/N ratio was at least a lot better than 0.5. Now it's probably more like 0.001. Given the historical insight we possess, can we not create something better, based on that insight, than what currently exists? Secondly, we're a fairly technically savvy group and we're actually capably of building something like this. We've got plenty of spare computing power. Some of us have fast reliable network connections. And others have the experience and know-how to do it. And lastly, the bit probably most relevant to ClassicCmp, is that we can enlist the aid of our old systems in such a project. Hell, why not combine some other hobbies while you're at it? Take that idle PDP-11 with two dozen serial interfaces and build a packet-radio gateway to this network. -brian.

On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Sellam Ismail wrote: *cough* SPAM *cough* For the most part it's pull, but there's a good bit of push as well. Based on some recent exchanges, I'm fairly certain you're no fan of pushed information like spam. Either e-mail or newsgroup based, spam is not desirable. And then on the web it's not uncommon to have to deal with pop-up ads. Push happens. It's not so much a matter of turning back the progress, or even considering replacing the internet. It's a matter of clearing a small channel of sanity through it all, and we'd be utilizing the very same infrastructure that already exists. I see no technical reason it can't be done, it's more of a matter of there being enough people interested in such a thing to make it sustainable. Now... replacing the internet... hmm... MU HA HA HAHH!!! -brian.

At 11:08 PM 2/10/2002 +0000, Sellam Ismail wrote: Yes, but layering and nesting of protocols has a long history. In ten years, the $200 computer at BestBuy will be immensely powerful, but you'll still have a way to get to a C:\ prompt. - John

On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Owen Robertson wrote: I would prefer DECnet, but a lot machines don't grok DECnet. Most of mine do, though. Peace... Sridhar

At 07:11 PM 9/02/2002 -0600, Owen Robertson wrote: I know many years ago La Trobe University implemented networking between the DECsystem-10 and one of the VAXes via a home written suite of programs that used Kermit as the transport. I think this developed into the Kermit channel that's available in PMDF. Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.Davies(a)kerberos.davies.net.au | "If God had wanted soccer played in the | air, the sky would be painted green"

Because you like to watch? John A.

The Fido analogy doesn't really fit in this case though since the people on this list are of such diverse interests and capabilities while most SYSOPs who might try to connect to FidoNet should have all been considered to have a minimum amount of knowledge on the setup of a BBS, which wouldn't have been unreasonable. Setting up and getting the mailers and such working was hard enough to ensure the average teenager running a board for the fun of it didn't generally do it though. As for the UUCP connection, retrieving or writing such software and getting it running with older protocals on possibly unsupported hardware is considerably harder still. One thing I see as being a problem here would be choosing something that would be usable across a rather broad choice of systems, if it was to kept running on classic hardware. Not everyone has Unix machines, such as the NeXT's, or machines capable of DECnet, such as the PDP's and Pro series. I'd be interested in such an alternate network though, as like others, I miss the 'community' feeling of the earlier networks, such as FidoNet, and of BBSes in general. I'm one of those though that currently wouldn't be able to have a fulltime node, as I've yet to switch from a dialup. BTW, I finally saw reference to a figure of 35,000 systems worldwide being present on the FidoNet nodelist near it's peak. Jeff -- Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File http://www.cchaven.com http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757

Not sure how much of it would apply to other Unix systems, but the NeXTstep 3.3 'Network and System Administration Manual' talks about planning and setting up a UUCP network connection in Chapter 12. An online version of the manual can be found at Randy Rencsok's site: http://www.channelu.com/NeXT/NeXTStep/3.3/nsa/ Jeff -- Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File http://www.cchaven.com http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757

I thought it sounded like a pretty good guide for setting it up, though I've never actually tried following it to do so. I'd like to use my NeXTStation Color (NS 3.3, 32MB RAM, 1GB HD) for the project, but as mentioned before it wouldn't be available full-time due my still using a dial-up vice a constant broadband connection. Plus I can turn off the monitor while still leaving the CPU on, something I couldn't do if I used one of the Cube's unless I did it with the Dimension Cube. A thought on the idea of tunneling over the existing TCP/IP 'net connections: This sounds like a good enough idea but would still make this Classiccmp UUCP network dependent on the whims of change of the current 'net, as well as repercussions of major domain outages. Since the whole catalyst behind the creation of the Classiccmp network is a growing dissatisfaction with the current state of the 'net, I would think that at the very least there should be a non-Internet dependent backup built into the setup from square one, such as a fallback to dial-up connections between major hubs. Jeff -- Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File http://www.cchaven.com http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757