16 Jan
2018
16 Jan
'18
3:19 a.m.
Hello guys.
I am a passionate collector of old computerhardware (PDP8?s) and terminals from the very
early 70ies.
It has always been my aim to be able toconnect a modem or an acoustic coupler directly to
one of my ASCII terminals,dial a number and be connected?with Google!
Something like Google-interface but convertedto match ASCII terminals (only text, very
simple graphics).
I am aware that all searches that returnpicture sand graphics will not be displayed. But
at least search-page should bein plain text, and many websites may as well. Wikipedia
would be great?
Does anybody know if there exists such anaccess-number where this conversion is already
made, or is there a small deviceon the market that allows on one side connect to a dial-up
modem and on theother side to the terminal and doing the ASCII conversion stand-alone?
?It would be really cool to be able todemonstrate to folks that these terminals can
actually look up pages on Googleand (with limitations) also access some pages.
Something similar has actually been done in an artisticway a few years ago under:
http://www.masswerk.at/googleBBS/or http://www.masswerk.at/google60/
But I need the real thing working where I canconnect my terminals to??
Any help is appreciated
16 Jan
16 Jan
5:38 a.m.
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 08:19:34AM +0000, Martin Meiner via cctech wrote:
[...]
Does anybody know if there exists such anaccess-number
where this conversion
is already made, or is there a small deviceon the market that allows on one
side connect to a dial-up modem and on theother side to the terminal and
doing the ASCII conversion stand-alone?
I do this routinely, albeit with a terminal emulator and ssh session rather
than a physical terminal and modem.
My "small device" is a Debian Linux box in Germany on which I read mail and
Usenet, do IRC, etc. I wrote a trivial Perl script called "google" that
inspects its arguments, and constructs a search URL which it passes to elinks,
a text-mode web browser. A similarly-trivial "wikipedia" script could be
written. Some web sites such as Twitter recognise the elinks User-Agent and
switch to a non-Javascript "mobile" site. FaceBook doesn't work, but
there's
nothing of value there anyway.
A physical serial connection is simpler than a pair of modems, so start with
that. Run a null modem cable between your terminal and COM1 on the Linux box,
edit the inittab to add a getty for /dev/ttyS0 with the appropriate terminal
type (there's usually a commented-out example) and reload init. A similar
principle applies to USB-serial dongles, but they're a bit unreliable so try to
use a proper onboard serial port if possible.
Linux's "vt100" terminal type differs somewhat from DEC's in that it
includes
command sequences that an original VT100 does not and some full-screen
applications will render incorrectly, but a VT220 worked OK when I last tried,
back in 2003-ish. If the render is occasionally off-by-one -- you'll know it
when you see it -- it means that the terminal is configured for 24 lines and
the Unix box for 25 lines or vice-versa. Use the terminal's settings menu
and/or tweak $LINES/$COLUMNS on the Linux box.
Dialup is a refinement of this. You will need to use "mgetty" instead which
understands Hayes commands and other modem control signals, but it might not be
installed by default.
Note that 15 years ago we were running sysvinit, and now we have the Brave New
World of systemd, which is overcomplicated GUI junk and probably doesn't
support serial terminals. If you decide to build this, find a Linux
distribution without systemd, or use something like FreeBSD.
10:06 a.m.
On Jan 16, 2018, at 4:38 AM, Peter Corlett via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 08:19:34AM +0000, Martin
Meiner via cctech wrote:
[...]
I?m not even that advanced, I?m just trying to get OmniWeb on my NeXTStep 3,3 machine to
hit wikipedia. Wikipedia seems to have gone to https, and for some reason that is not
working. I can do ssh and sftp from that machine, so I must be doing something wrong with
the Omniweb settings.
- Mark
Does anybody know if there exists such
anaccess-number where this conversion
is already made, or is there a small deviceon the market that allows on one
side connect to a dial-up modem and on theother side to the terminal and
doing the ASCII conversion stand-alone?
I do this routinely, albeit with a terminal emulator and ssh session rather
than a physical terminal and modem.
My "small device" is a Debian Linux box in Germany on which I read mail and
Usenet, do IRC, etc. I wrote a trivial Perl script called "google" that
inspects its arguments, and constructs a search URL which it passes to elinks,
a text-mode web browser. A similarly-trivial "wikipedia" script could be
written. Some web sites such as Twitter recognise the elinks User-Agent and
switch to a non-Javascript "mobile" site. FaceBook doesn't work, but
there's
nothing of value there anyway.
A physical serial connection is simpler than a pair of modems, so start with
that. Run a null modem cable between your terminal and COM1 on the Linux box,
edit the inittab to add a getty for /dev/ttyS0 with the appropriate terminal
type (there's usually a commented-out example) and reload init. A similar
principle applies to USB-serial dongles, but they're a bit unreliable so try to
use a proper onboard serial port if possible.
Linux's "vt100" terminal type differs somewhat from DEC's in that it
includes
command sequences that an original VT100 does not and some full-screen
applications will render incorrectly, but a VT220 worked OK when I last tried,
back in 2003-ish. If the render is occasionally off-by-one -- you'll know it
when you see it -- it means that the terminal is configured for 24 lines and
the Unix box for 25 lines or vice-versa. Use the terminal's settings menu
and/or tweak $LINES/$COLUMNS on the Linux box.
Dialup is a refinement of this. You will need to use "mgetty" instead which
understands Hayes commands and other modem control signals, but it might not be
installed by default.
Note that 15 years ago we were running sysvinit, and now we have the Brave New
World of systemd, which is overcomplicated GUI junk and probably doesn't
support serial terminals. If you decide to build this, find a Linux
distribution without systemd, or use something like FreeBSD.
2:18 p.m.
I suppose one could emulate the telephone carrier dial tone and ring back
tone with a third device, then the modems would just act like a direct
connection after their handshake?
I'm so glad there are others who want to accurately recreate the whole user
experience!
=]
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:06 AM Tapley, Mark via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Jan 16, 2018, at 4:38 AM, Peter Corlett via cctalk
<
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
rather
--
Anders Nelson
+1 (517) 775-6129
www.erogear.com
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 08:19:34AM +0000, Martin
Meiner via cctech wrote:
[...]
> Does anybody know if there exists such anaccess-number where this
conversion
> is already made, or is there a small deviceon
the market that allows on
one
side
connect to a dial-up modem and on theother side to the terminal and
doing the ASCII conversion stand-alone?
I do this routinely, albeit with a terminal emulator and ssh session than a physical terminal and modem.
My "small device" is a Debian Linux box in Germany on which I read mail
and
Usenet, do IRC, etc. I wrote a trivial Perl
script called "google" that
inspects its arguments, and constructs a search URL which it passes to
elinks,
a text-mode web browser. A similarly-trivial
"wikipedia" script could be
written. Some web sites such as Twitter recognise the elinks User-Agent
and
switch to a non-Javascript "mobile"
site. FaceBook doesn't work, but
there's
nothing of value there anyway.
A physical serial connection is simpler than a pair of modems, so start
with
that. Run a null modem cable between your
terminal and COM1 on the Linux
box,
edit the inittab to add a getty for /dev/ttyS0
with the appropriate
terminal
type (there's usually a commented-out
example) and reload init. A similar
principle applies to USB-serial dongles, but they're a bit unreliable so
try
to
use a proper onboard serial port if possible.
Linux's "vt100" terminal type differs somewhat from DEC's in that it
includes
command sequences that an original VT100 does not
and some full-screen
applications will render incorrectly, but a VT220 worked OK when I last
tried,
back in 2003-ish. If the render is occasionally
off-by-one -- you'll
know it
when you see it -- it means that the terminal is
configured for 24 lines
and
the Unix box for 25 lines or vice-versa. Use the
terminal's settings menu
and/or tweak $LINES/$COLUMNS on the Linux box.
Dialup is a refinement of this. You will need to use "mgetty" instead
which
understands Hayes commands and other modem
control signals, but it might
not be
installed by default.
Note that 15 years ago we were running sysvinit, and now we have the
Brave New
World of systemd, which is overcomplicated GUI
junk and probably doesn't
support serial terminals. If you decide to build this, find a Linux
distribution without systemd, or use something like FreeBSD.
I?m not even that advanced, I?m just trying to get OmniWeb on my NeXTStep
3,3 machine to hit wikipedia. Wikipedia seems to have gone to https, and
for some reason that is not working. I can do ssh and sftp from that
machine, so I must be doing something wrong with the Omniweb settings.
- Mark
-- 
3:31 p.m.
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018, Anders Nelson via cctalk wrote:
I suppose one could emulate the telephone carrier dial
tone and ring back
tone with a third device, then the modems would just act like a direct
connection after their handshake?
I'm so glad there are others who want to accurately recreate the whole user
experience!
=]
The WHOLE experience?
howzbout BUSY signal, random drop of calls, noisy/static? on line, . . .
maybe even include human error, and randomly [rarely] dial wrong number
the ring signal, at least around here, is 90V 20Hz?
Howzbout acoustic couplers with the various phone handsets that did NOT
fit them?
I no longer have any of my Livermore modems.
4:02 p.m.
On 01/16/2018 12:31 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
The WHOLE experience?
howzbout BUSY signal, random drop of calls, noisy/static? on line, . . .
maybe even include human error, and randomly [rarely] dial wrong number
Or trying to call Los Gatos from Sunnyvale using an acoustic modem? (LG
was GTE, Sunnyvale was Ma Bell--connections were tenuous at best).
Although you can get a copper POTS connection in my neighborhood, it
terminates at a fiber-fed terminal. If you're going to get Internet
anyway, you might as well go to third-party VoIP.
I did, some time ago; I use one of the Obitalk boxes, so I can keep my
obsolescent telephones. No problem--*I'm* obsolescent myself.
Of course, when the power goes out during a winter storm, *everything*
goes out, even if you have emergency backup power for your home. Said
fiber-fed terminal has only about an hour of reserve power,
So a mobile phone, lousy coverage and all, is still a necessity.
--Chuck
4:07 p.m.
On Jan 16, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
Of course, when the power goes out during a winter storm, *everything*
goes out, even if you have emergency backup power for your home. Said
fiber-fed terminal has only about an hour of reserve power,
So a mobile phone, lousy coverage and all, is still a necessity.
Which of course also goes out if the power fails, perhaps not as quickly as a poorly
constructed POTS system but it will. Various emergency sitatuations (hurricanes etc.)
have demonstrated this repeatedly.
paul
4:19 p.m.
On 01/16/2018 02:07 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
Which of course also goes out if the power fails,
perhaps not as quickly
as a poorly constructed POTS system but it will. Various emergency
sitatuations (hurricanes etc.) have demonstrated this repeatedly.
That surprises me. In Missouri, analog (a.k.a. B1) phone lines are
considered "life saving devices" and have (had?) mandates to be
available for service even when the power is out.
This is one of the reasons that TelCo equipment had such massive battery
backups.
I expect that a true analog (B1) phone line should stay in service even
without power.
I've also seen a number of VoIP offerings that include a battery backup
both in the ATA and various equipment along the aggregation path for
this very reason.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
4:27 p.m.
On Jan 16, 2018, at 4:19 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 01/16/2018 02:07 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
Sure. That's why I said that a POTS that fails in an hour or so is "poorly
constructed".
Still, any telecom service is going to deal only with limited power failures. Once the
batteries drain, or the generators run out of fuel, *poof*. And any of them rely on quite
complex infrastructure that can, and sometimes will, fall apart. I still remember a small
NH telco which broke 911 service for a full day because their SONET loop wasn't a
loop. They had only bothered to connect one end, so when a squirrel chewed through a
fiber cable the supposedly fault tolerant connection wasn't, and the whole town went
off line.
Which of course also goes out if the power fails,
perhaps not as quickly as a poorly constructed POTS system but it will. Various emergency
sitatuations (hurricanes etc.) have demonstrated this repeatedly.
That surprises me. In Missouri, analog (a.k.a. B1) phone lines are considered "life
saving devices" and have (had?) mandates to be available for service even when the
power is out. This is one of the reasons that TelCo equipment had
such massive battery backups.
I expect that a true analog (B1) phone line should stay in service even without power.
It certainly does, which is why I still use them. Then again, mine is the only house of
about 20 on this one-mile stretch of line that still uses POTS.
paul
4:07 p.m.
On 01/16/2018 12:18 PM, Anders Nelson via cctalk wrote:
I suppose one could emulate the telephone carrier dial
tone and ring
back tone with a third device, then the modems would just act like a
direct connection after their handshake?
I doubt that will work quite like you are thinking. There is more to an
analog phone line than the audio that comes over it. Namely the loop
current and voltage are also additional bits of signaling.
I don't think there is such a thing as a cross over phone line.
You will quite likely need something like an old school PBX that
provides analog ports to pull this off.
My other email (which still hasn't shown up to the list) went into more
details. TL;DR: I think an old school AT&T / Lucent / Avaya 'Partner'
phone system would be a good candidate as they provide analog ports and
had relatively simple dialing plan. I've picked them up from swap meets
/ ham fests for ~$20.
As far as I know, ISDN is similarly difficult to emulate. You really
need an ISDN switch to do it. :-(
I'm so glad there are others who want to
accurately recreate the whole
user experience!
It's part of the fun. Learning and overcoming problems. It
really
makes you appreciate where we are now, compared to where we have been.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
4:21 p.m.
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 02:07:59PM -0700, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
On 01/16/2018 12:18 PM, Anders Nelson via cctalk
wrote:
Teltone and several other companies made/make phone line similators
which provide battery, dial tone, ringing, caller ID (sometimes), DTMF
(and maybe even pulse?) dialing between several ports. These are designed
for testing and demonstrating fax machines, modems, and other analog
phone gear. I'm not talking about the sophisticated bench testing gear
simulators which provide simulated line loss, delays, and noise, but
the simple small portable 2-8 line devices. A quick search on e-bay
produces lots of listings for these devices.
Mark
--
Mark G. Thomas (Mark at Misty.com), KC3DRE
I suppose one could emulate the telephone carrier
dial tone and
ring back tone with a third device, then the modems would just act
like a direct connection after their handshake?
I doubt that will work quite like you are thinking. There is more
to an analog phone line than the audio that comes over it. Namely
the loop current and voltage are also additional bits of signaling.
I don't think there is such a thing as a cross over phone line.
You will quite likely need something like an old school PBX that
provides analog ports to pull this off.
4:36 p.m.
On 01/16/2018 02:21 PM, Mark G Thomas via cctalk wrote:
Teltone and several other companies made/make phone
line similators which
provide battery, dial tone, ringing, caller ID (sometimes), DTMF (and
maybe even pulse?) dialing between several ports. These are designed
for testing and demonstrating fax machines, modems, and other analog
phone gear. I'm not talking about the sophisticated bench testing
gear simulators which provide simulated line loss, delays, and noise,
but the simple small portable 2-8 line devices. A quick search on e-bay
produces lots of listings for these devices.
Yep, such simulators will (should) work nicely.
I (mis)took Anders comment to be wanting to do something more akin to a
cross over cable, possibly with audio induced.
If I were ever to try to do something like this I'd likely use an old
'Partner' phone system or an Asterisk (FreePBX / FreeSWITCH) box with
the analog FXS ports. If I went the Asterisk (et al) route, I'd also
likely try getting soft modems to interface so that the devices
connected to the FXS could dial virtual (software) modems and their
associated TTYs on the box. - Seeing as how everything is local, and
likely using the u-law codec without worrying about bandwidth in box.
Hopefully that would work reliably enough to allow playing with things.
I do know that I've gotten (33.6?) fax to work across an IAXy ATA and
it's proprietary codec fairly well. So I expect that it would be
possible to get slower (14.4,or lower) modems to work fairly reliably.
Now I'm wanting to re-acquire some POTS devices to play. :-/ My wife
isn't going to like that.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
4:25 p.m.
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
I doubt that will work quite like you are thinking.
There is more to an
analog phone line than the audio that comes over it. Namely the loop current
and voltage are also additional bits of signaling.
I don't think there is such a thing as a cross over phone line.
A "Phone Line Simulator" is a small box that permits interconnecting two
POTs. The one that I had/have(if I find it), also can create a ring
signal.
If you can find a Type L handset, it will fit acoustic couplers, but is a
crude attempt to LOOK like an "antique" pre-type G handset.
5:15 p.m.
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 02:07:59PM -0700, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
[...]
I doubt that will work quite like you are thinking.
There is more to an
analog phone line than the audio that comes over it. Namely the loop current
and voltage are also additional bits of signaling.
The tightwad fix is to bodge a PP3 battery onto a line splitter, which is often
enough to convince modems that there is a phone line. There is no dial tone nor
ring signal, so you need to turn off dial tone detection on the calling modem
("ATX1", IIRC) and somehow tell the answering computer to send "ATA"
to answer
at the right time.
I don't think there is such a thing as a cross
over phone line.
It's just a bit of test gear, which you should be able to find on eBay. I
suspect it will be priced like obscure test gear as well.
With the kit I have available, I'd just spin up Asterisk or FreeSWITCH on a
handy Linux box, set up a minimal local-only PBX, and plug the modem into a
VoIP ATA. This eliminates four hops worth of latency and jitter via an external
VoIP provider and thus should reduce or eliminate retrains and disconnects.
I could try and order an analogue phone line, but I suspect that KPN doesn't
have a script for that and would get very confused. (I also don't care to pay
their extortionate tariff of 11 cents per minute for local calls.)
5:59 p.m.
On 01/16/2018 03:15 PM, Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote:
The tightwad fix is to bodge a PP3 battery onto a line
splitter, which is
often enough to convince modems that there is a phone line. There is no
dial tone nor ring signal, so you need to turn off dial tone detection on
the calling modem ("ATX1", IIRC) and somehow tell the answering computer
to send "ATA" to answer at the right time.
Sounds like an interesting hack. But should probably be good enough for
most of what is desired.
I'm going to have to look into this.
It's just a bit of test gear, which you should be
able to find on eBay. I
suspect it will be priced like obscure test gear as well.
That's what I've found.
With the kit I have available, I'd just spin up
Asterisk or FreeSWITCH
on a handy Linux box, set up a minimal local-only PBX, and plug the
modem into a VoIP ATA. This eliminates four hops worth of latency and
jitter via an external VoIP provider and thus should reduce or eliminate
retrains and disconnects.
Yep, that's the route that I'd go too. Or maybe even FXS ports in an
adapter in the PBX itself.
Link - Analog Telephony Cards for Asterisk | Digium
- https://www.digium.com/products/telephony-cards/analog
I could try and order an analogue phone line, but I
suspect that KPN
doesn't have a script for that and would get very confused. (I also
don't care to pay their extortionate tariff of 11 cents per minute for
local calls.)
I'm not surprised.
I think a number of analog phone lines are now really something digital
to the neighborhood / house (possibly ~> likely VoIP) and splitting it
out the B1 locally. So even those might not support modem / fax as well
as an old school B1.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
6:19 p.m.
> The tightwad fix is to bodge a PP3 battery onto a
line splitter, which is
> often enough to convince modems that there is a phone line. There is no
> dial tone nor ring signal, so you need to turn off dial tone detection on
> the calling modem ("ATX1", IIRC) and somehow tell the answering computer to
> send "ATA" to answer at the right time.
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018, Grant
Taylor via cctalk wrote:
Sounds like an interesting hack. But should probably
be good enough for most
of what is desired.
I'm going to have to look into this.
If you don't need the "handshake" for dialtone, ring, caller-ID, etc.,
then all you need is some electric power.
For MAXIMUM realism, then the "answer" end should also get occasional
random "wrong number", incoming fax, "I'm calling to offer you a great
deal on" (I don't listen past that).
6:27 p.m.
On 01/16/2018 04:19 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
If you don't need the "handshake" for
dialtone, ring, caller-ID, etc.,
then all you need is some electric power.
Now I'm wondering about superimposing ~90 VAC (at 20 Hz) to simulate ring.
I think that the ""dialing modem could be configured to ignore the
incoming ring while it's dialing. If not, some analog circuitry might
need to be applied.
I wonder if a momentary break between the two sides (still applying 9V
to each) while applying ringing voltage to the receiving side would work.
Now I need to figure out how to stop my brain.
For MAXIMUM realism, then the "answer" end
should also get occasional
random "wrong number", incoming fax, "I'm calling to offer you a great
deal on" (I don't listen past that).
LOL
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
6:24 p.m.
Would this be a good job for the Viking Electronics DLE-300?
It emulates a CO with a pair of POTS lines, so you can call from port to
port on it. It emulates all of the correct tones and CPC, both modems think
they are on POTS lines. Makes it very easy to connect a pair of modems
back-to-back, and fwiw it supports data to 112,500.
You might also be able to use a Viking DLE-200B but they are not nearly as
feature-full as the 300. Should work, though, but the data will be limited
to 14,400 or so IIRC.
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:59 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 01/16/2018 03:15 PM, Peter Corlett via cctalk
wrote:
The tightwad fix is to bodge a PP3 battery onto a
line splitter, which is
often enough to convince modems that there is a phone line. There is no
dial tone nor ring signal, so you need to turn off dial tone detection on
the calling modem ("ATX1", IIRC) and somehow tell the answering computer to
send "ATA" to answer at the right time.
Sounds like an interesting hack. But should probably be good enough for
most of what is desired.
I'm going to have to look into this.
It's just a bit of test gear, which you should be able to find on eBay. I
suspect it will be priced like obscure test gear
as well.
That's what I've found.
With the kit I have available, I'd just spin up Asterisk or FreeSWITCH on
a handy Linux box, set up a minimal local-only
PBX, and plug the modem into
a VoIP ATA. This eliminates four hops worth of latency and jitter via an
external VoIP provider and thus should reduce or eliminate retrains and
disconnects.
Yep, that's the route that I'd go too. Or maybe even FXS ports in an
adapter in the PBX itself.
Link - Analog Telephony Cards for Asterisk | Digium
- https://www.digium.com/products/telephony-cards/analog
I could try and order an analogue phone line, but I suspect that KPN
doesn't have a script for that and would get
very confused. (I also don't
care to pay their extortionate tariff of 11 cents per minute for local
calls.)
I'm not surprised.
I think a number of analog phone lines are now really something digital to
the neighborhood / house (possibly ~> likely VoIP) and splitting it out the
B1 locally. So even those might not support modem / fax as well as an old
school B1.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
6:46 p.m.
New subject: Cheap Analog PBX was: RE: Google, Wikipedia directly on ASCII terminal?
Would this be a good job for the Viking Electronics
DLE-300?
It emulates a CO with a pair of POTS lines, so you can call from port
to port on it. It emulates all of the correct tones and CPC, both
modems think they are on POTS lines. Makes it very easy to connect a
pair of modems back-to-back, and fwiw it supports data to 112,500.
You can pick up a cheap Chinese analog 8 port PBX on ePay for about $60. It will create
dial tone, ring, etc. and allow you to call from "extension" to
"extension" so you can even dial in and get a handshake tone. The only issue is
that I don't believe they can be daisy chained so eight ports is your max and there is
no way to connect one site to another (short of running very long wires).
-Ali
6:53 p.m.
New subject: Cheap Analog PBX was: RE: Google, Wikipedia directly on ASCII terminal?
On 01/16/2018 04:46 PM, Ali wrote:
You can pick up a cheap Chinese analog 8 port PBX on
ePay for about
$60. It will create dial tone, ring, etc. and allow you to call from
"extension" to "extension" so you can even dial in and get a
handshake
tone. The only issue is that I don't believe they can be daisy chained
so eight ports is your max and there is no way to connect one site to
another (short of running very long wires).
I would expect that such PBXs have a way to receiving incoming analog
lines. As such, I would expect that you could take an FXO (station)
port on one PBX and connect it to the FXS (CO) port on the other PBX,
and vice versa.
My brain stalls ever time I say FXS vs FXO and I have to verify what I'm
saying. - Here's an old but IMHO good reference from Digium.
Link - What are FXS and FXO?
- https://my.digium.com/en/docs/misc/fxs_fxo_desc/
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
6:59 p.m.
New subject: Cheap Analog PBX was: RE: Google, Wikipedia directly on ASCII terminal?
Silvertel makes POTS line interfaces (SLICs) that work on 3.3v or 5v
supplies. They do all the high voltage generation and impedance wizardry on
the POTS side, then expose audio in/out and simple control lines.
To complete the picture you'd have to generate the tones and decode the
numbers but that's it I'm guessing.
Practical? No. Awesome? Yes.
=]
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:53 PM Grant Taylor via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 01/16/2018 04:46 PM, Ali wrote:
--
--
Anders Nelson
+1 (517) 775-6129
www.erogear.com
You can pick up a cheap Chinese analog 8 port PBX
on ePay for about
$60. It will create dial tone, ring, etc. and allow you to call from
"extension" to "extension" so you can even dial in and get a
handshake
tone. The only issue is that I don't believe they can be daisy chained
so eight ports is your max and there is no way to connect one site to
another (short of running very long wires).
I would expect that such PBXs have a way to receiving incoming analog
lines. As such, I would expect that you could take an FXO (station)
port on one PBX and connect it to the FXS (CO) port on the other PBX,
and vice versa.
My brain stalls ever time I say FXS vs FXO and I have to verify what I'm
saying. - Here's an old but IMHO good reference from Digium.
Link - What are FXS and FXO?
- https://my.digium.com/en/docs/misc/fxs_fxo_desc/
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
10:39 p.m.
New subject: Cheap Analog PBX was: RE: Google, Wikipedia directly on ASCII terminal?
I wonder if one of the inexpensive VoIP-to-POTS adapters would do the job...
Otherwise, there should still be some cheap KSUs around on the surplus
market.
--Chuck
10:50 p.m.
New subject: Cheap Analog PBX was: RE: Google, Wikipedia directly on ASCII terminal?
On 01/16/2018 08:39 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
I wonder if one of the inexpensive VoIP-to-POTS
adapters would do the job...
I expect so. That's what I was referencing earlier when I said that I
had a fax machine working behind an IAXy (connected to Asterisk.)
Otherwise, there should still be some cheap KSUs
around on the surplus
market.
I took a gander this evening, and yes, I saw multiple 'Partner' systems
that had multiple FXS ports.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
11:05 p.m.
New subject: Cheap Analog PBX was: RE: Google, Wikipedia directly on ASCII terminal?
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Anders Nelson via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Silvertel makes POTS line interfaces (SLICs) that work
on 3.3v or 5v
supplies. They do all the high voltage generation and impedance wizardry on
the POTS side, then expose audio in/out and simple control lines.
I've worked with early versions of SLIC - circa 1990... even then,
they packed enormous amounts of telco stuff in a small package.
One place I worked for made a 2-line telco simulator product - the
primary use was testing auto-dialling software to replicate various
fault conditions.
To complete the picture you'd have to generate the
tones and decode the
numbers but that's it I'm guessing.
Practical? No. Awesome? Yes.
We did that with an 8749 (MCS-48) microcontroller. By dialling
different phone numbers from one of the stations, the MCU would
complete a connection or play a busy or fast busy signal.
-ethan
7:37 p.m.
New subject: Cheap Analog PBX was: RE: Google, Wikipedia directly on ASCII terminal?
I would expect that such PBXs have a way to receiving
incoming analog
lines. As such, I would expect that you could take an FXO (station)
port on one PBX and connect it to the FXS (CO) port on the other PBX,
and vice versa.
They do have access to outside lines (e.g. 9, number). However, I am not sure again if
daisy chaining is possible. Reading the manual I could not find a way to change extension
numbers so that even if you connected two units you still would have two sets of the same
extensions. An email to the company support address, unsurprisingly, went unanswered. Do a
search for sp-208M to see pictures and somewhat of a description.
-Ali
17 Jan
17 Jan
12:47 p.m.
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:15:48PM +0100, Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote:
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 02:07:59PM -0700, Grant Taylor
via cctalk wrote:
[...]
I used the following setup to allow a Sega Dreamcast modem to connect to a
non-public webserver locally:
+--+ +-----+ +------+ +-----+
|DC|--------|470 R|------|24V DC|--------|Modem|
| | +-----+ +------+ | |
| |-------------------------------------| |
+--+ +-----+
Just a 470R current limiting resistor and a 24DC power supply. On the
answering modem I had to use "ATDR", "ATA" was only allowed after the
modem saw a RING signal.
S?ren
I doubt that will work quite like you are
thinking. There is more to an
analog phone line than the audio that comes over it. Namely the loop current
and voltage are also additional bits of signaling.
The tightwad fix is to bodge a PP3 battery onto a line splitter, which is often
enough to convince modems that there is a phone line. There is no dial tone nor
ring signal, so you need to turn off dial tone detection on the calling modem
("ATX1", IIRC) and somehow tell the answering computer to send "ATA"
to answer
at the right time.
16 Jan
16 Jan
2:53 p.m.
On 01/16/2018 03:38 AM, Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote:
I do this routinely, albeit with a terminal emulator
and ssh session
rather than a physical terminal and modem.
Agreed.
My "small device" is a Debian Linux box in
Germany on which I read mail
and Usenet, do IRC, etc. I wrote a trivial Perl script called "google"
that inspects its arguments, and constructs a search URL which it passes
to elinks, a text-mode web browser. A similarly-trivial "wikipedia"
script could be written. Some web sites such as Twitter recognize the
elinks User-Agent and switch to a non-JavaScript "mobile" site. Facebook
doesn't work, but there's nothing of value there anyway.
Nice.
A physical serial connection is simpler than a pair of
modems, so start
with that. Run a null modem cable between your terminal and COM1 on
the Linux box, edit the inittab to add a getty for /dev/ttyS0 with the
appropriate terminal type (there's usually a commented-out example)
and reload init. A similar principle applies to USB-serial dongles,
but they're a bit unreliable so try to use a proper on board serial port
if possible.
I'm curious what sort of issues you've had with USB based serial ports.
Is it the fact that USB devices can change names? Or is it a race
condition between driver load and getty launching? Or something else?
Linux's "vt100" terminal type differs
somewhat from DEC's in that it
includes command sequences that an original VT100 does not and some
full-screen applications will render incorrectly,
That surprises me.
Is it actually the VT100 definition in termcap / terminfo? Or are you
referring to the fact that Linux uses the "linux" (?) term type in lieu
of the "vt100" term type?
but a VT220 worked OK when I last tried, back in
2003-ish. If the
render is occasionally off-by-one -- you'll know it when you see it --
it means that the terminal is configured for 24 lines and the Unix box
for 25 lines or vice-versa. Use the terminal's settings menu and/or
tweak $LINES/$COLUMNS on the Linux box.
*nod*
I feel like theses are issues that were prevalent back in the days of
serial terminals. Probably not new. If anything, new variants in an
existing messy soup.
Throw some DEC MMJs and LAT in for good measure. }:-)
Dial up is a refinement of this. You will need to use
"mgetty" instead
which understands Hayes commands and other modem control signals, but
it might not be installed by default.
Why is mgetty required? Are you referring to the fact that mgetty can
discern the difference between text / SLIP / PPP / FTN / fax / voice and
hand the connection off to the proper back end?
If the port is dedicated for this, then I don't think mgetty (or any
other fancy getty) is required.
Note that 15 years ago we were running sysvinit, and
now we have
the Brave New World of systemd, which is overcomplicated GUI junk and
probably doesn't support serial terminals. If you decide to build this,
find a Linux distribution without systemd, or use something like FreeBSD.
Why will systemd be a blocker? Shouldn't any self proclaimed init
system be able to launch a daemon (what ever it's dependencies /
arguments are) and re-spawn it when it exits? - Why does systemd need
to know anything about the serial port? Why can't systemd just launch
(m)getty which is monitoring the serial port. - Or are you saying that
the (systemd based) login program that (m)getty would call might have
issues.
Note: I am anti-systemd. But I don't see how Master Control Program,
ala Tron, can prevent (m)getty from working on a modern distribution.
Granted, the OP might need to create some custom systemd config files.
But I view that as more of a speed bump than an actual blocker.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
3:40 p.m.
I personally have had a hard time even trying to get a traditional
POTS phone line installed over here. The only offerings from atnt and
comcast are voip nonsense. Its kinda redundant and buggy trying to
dial up over a comcast voip line. ive tried it, it drops constantly.
The sales staff do not even know what i am asking for when i ask for a
traditional line over a voip line.
Being as it was so hard to get a phone line set up over here, i looked
into this as an option. Its called a wifi232.
http://biosrhythm.com/?page_id=1453
I tried one out on a tandy 1000 and it worked flawlessly. I had set up
linux system and made it remotely accessable via telnet, and was able
to reach it via the dos running tandy 1000. I did not have the correct
adapter at the time, but i dont see anything stopping you from
plugging it into a vt100 directly.
I was looking to use the phone line as a kind of last resort
connection to deliver mail and keep in touch, but ironically, it goes
down more often than any other provider, and is the first thing to go
in a storm. I personally have been looking into getting a cheap cell
phone under the provider "ting" which only bills you for the data
used. Set that up as a wifi hotspot and get it talking to the wifi232
connected to a dumb terminal and i think it would be a good setup. if
you telnet into a linux system that has the lynx web browser
installed, you can view google and wikipedia quite easily.
Let me know if you think that kind of setup would be of any use to you.
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 01/16/2018 03:38 AM, Peter Corlett via cctalk
wrote:
I do this routinely, albeit with a terminal emulator and ssh session
rather than a physical terminal and modem.
Agreed.
My "small device" is a Debian Linux box
in Germany on which I read mail
and Usenet, do IRC, etc. I wrote a trivial Perl script called "google" that
inspects its arguments, and constructs a search URL which it passes to
elinks, a text-mode web browser. A similarly-trivial "wikipedia" script
could be written. Some web sites such as Twitter recognize the elinks
User-Agent and switch to a non-JavaScript "mobile" site. Facebook doesn't
work, but there's nothing of value there anyway.
Nice.
A physical serial connection is simpler than a
pair of modems, so start
with that. Run a null modem cable between your terminal and COM1 on the
Linux box, edit the inittab to add a getty for /dev/ttyS0 with the
appropriate terminal type (there's usually a commented-out example) and
reload init. A similar principle applies to USB-serial dongles, but they're
a bit unreliable so try to use a proper on board serial port if possible.
I'm curious what sort of issues you've had with USB based serial ports. Is
it the fact that USB devices can change names? Or is it a race condition
between driver load and getty launching? Or something else?
Linux's "vt100" terminal type
differs somewhat from DEC's in that it
includes command sequences that an original VT100 does not and some
full-screen applications will render incorrectly,
That surprises me.
Is it actually the VT100 definition in termcap / terminfo? Or are you
referring to the fact that Linux uses the "linux" (?) term type in lieu of
the "vt100" term type?
but a VT220 worked OK when I last tried, back in
2003-ish. If the render
is occasionally off-by-one -- you'll know it when you see it -- it means
that the terminal is configured for 24 lines and the Unix box for 25 lines
or vice-versa. Use the terminal's settings menu and/or tweak $LINES/$COLUMNS
on the Linux box.
*nod*
I feel like theses are issues that were prevalent back in the days of serial
terminals. Probably not new. If anything, new variants in an existing
messy soup.
Throw some DEC MMJs and LAT in for good measure. }:-)
Dial up is a refinement of this. You will need to
use "mgetty" instead
which understands Hayes commands and other modem control signals, but it
might not be installed by default.
Why is mgetty required? Are you referring to the fact that mgetty can
discern the difference between text / SLIP / PPP / FTN / fax / voice and
hand the connection off to the proper back end?
If the port is dedicated for this, then I don't think mgetty (or any other
fancy getty) is required.
Note that 15 years ago we were running sysvinit,
and now we have the Brave
New World of systemd, which is overcomplicated GUI junk and probably doesn't
support serial terminals. If you decide to build this, find a Linux
distribution without systemd, or use something like FreeBSD.
Why will systemd be a blocker? Shouldn't any self proclaimed init system be
able to launch a daemon (what ever it's dependencies / arguments are) and
re-spawn it when it exits? - Why does systemd need to know anything about
the serial port? Why can't systemd just launch (m)getty which is monitoring
the serial port. - Or are you saying that the (systemd based) login
program that (m)getty would call might have issues.
Note: I am anti-systemd. But I don't see how Master Control Program, ala
Tron, can prevent (m)getty from working on a modern distribution. Granted,
the OP might need to create some custom systemd config files. But I view
that as more of a speed bump than an actual blocker.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
3:55 p.m.
http://biosrhythm.com/?page_id=1453
I tried one out on a tandy 1000 and it worked flawlessly. I had set up
linux system and made it remotely accessable via telnet, and was able
to reach it via the dos running tandy 1000. I did not have the correct
adapter at the time, but i dont see anything stopping you from plugging
it into a vt100 directly.
Now that is interesting. So how does it work? Once you plug it in to your modem do you use
your favorite term program (e.g. Procomm Plus, Telix, etc.) to dial into a telnet system?
At modem speeds? I assume it does not emulate the lovely modem handshake signs though?
-Ali
2:52 p.m.
On 01/16/2018 01:19 AM, Martin Meiner via cctech wrote:
Hello guys.
Hi,
I am a passionate collector of old computer hardware
(PDP8?s) and
terminals from the very early 70ies.
To each his / her own.
It has always been my aim to be able to connect a
modem or an acoustic
coupler directly to one of my ASCII terminals, dial a number and be
connected?with Google!
Okay.
Are you wanting to connect to Google, like you would a specific BBS? Or
are you wanting to connect to something, like an ISP, that you can then
use to connect to Google across the internet?
The difference is subtle from the terminal's point of view, but very
important.
Something like Google-interface but converted to match
ASCII terminals
(only text, very simple graphics).
I've seen a number of textual interfaces to Google, usually via TUI
based web browsers.
I am aware that all searches that return pictures and
graphics will
not be displayed. But at least search-page should be in plain text,
and many websites may as well. Wikipedia would be great?
I don't think that text only is strictly necessary.
1) There are programs that can convert images into ASCII art. (With
varying degrees of success.)
2) Some terminals support various types of graphics.
I have recently been playing with Sixel and ReGIS graphics, which both
come from DEC VT2xx / VT3xx / VT4xx days. So in theory, you could have
actual 4 or maybe 16 (?) color graphics show up on a DEC VT440 (?) terminal.
Does anybody know if there exists such an
access-number where this
conversion is already made, or is there a small device on the market that
allows on one side connect to a dial-up modem and on the other side to
the terminal and doing the ASCII conversion stand-alone?
I am 99.999% certain that Google has never had an access-number (ala BBS
style).
I think you're really talking about an old system that provides a shell
account and a text mode browser to the internet. - There are MANY over
the years.
You could do similar via null modem cable between a terminal and
something like a Raspberry Pi.
It's my understanding that the WiFi232 pretends to be a modem that can
initiate TCP connections and convert them to serial. (Think telnet /
netcat.)
You could obviously insert a pair of modems and phone lines between the
terminal and the dial up server. - I personally would not want to pay
for the two phone lines needed to do such.
That being said, I suspect that you could get slower modem speeds to
work across ATAs & VoIP, or even an old analog phone switch. (I've
talked with people about using an old AT&T / Lucent / Avaya 'Partner'
class phone system for this.
It would be really cool to be able to demonstrate to
folks that these
terminals can actually look up pages on Google and (with limitations)
also access some pages.
It should be relatively easy to have the terminal connect to a unix
system and have it run programs to connect.
Something similar has actually been done in an
artistic way
a few years ago under: http://www.masswerk.at/googleBBS/ or
http://www.masswerk.at/google60/
googleBBS seems to provide an example of the ASCII art graphic. 15
seconds of looking didn't show any telnet (et al) ability to access
googleBBS.
I've seen and messed with Google60 for different reasons (mainframe
predilections) before. - I'm sad to see that Google60 no longer works
because "Sorry, the Google Web Search API has been shut down in May 2016."
But I need the real thing working where I can connect
my terminals to?
The big issues that I see are:
1) Do you want the terminal to connect (dial) directly to endpoints,
ala BBS style? Or do you want to connect (dial) to an intermediary
system that can connect to things on your behalf.
2) I'm not aware of any dumb (or otherwise) terminals that support IP,
via SLIP or PPP. So I think you're going to need /something/ to gateway
between serial and IP via a dial up connection via SLIP or PPP.
I personally would be interested in something, like a Raspberry Pi that
can function as a shell account server that can accept the (dial up)
connection on a serial port, and then gateway to the internet via
standard text mode utilities.
I'd be very interested in text mode utilities that support (basic)
graphics via Sixel (or ReGIS).
Any help is appreciated
I don't know if it's help or not, but it's at least feedback.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
6 Feb
6 Feb
3:30 p.m.
On 01/16/2018 12:52 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
You could do similar via null modem cable between a
terminal and
something like a Raspberry Pi.
Watching Curious Marc's HP 264x Terminals - Part 3: Living the ASCII
Life video made me think of this thread.
Check out Marc's did video about 17 minutes into the video. The video
shows Ken using the HP 264x terminal to run Lynx on a Linux box to
access Google.
Is this what you were wanting to do?
P.S. Hi Marc, please keep making the videos, I enjoy them.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
7 Feb
7 Feb
3:45 a.m.
On Tue, 6 Feb 2018, Grant Taylor wrote:
Watching Curious Marc's HP 264x Terminals - Part
3: Living the ASCII Life
video made me think of this thread.
Check out Marc's did video about 17 minutes into the video. The video shows
Ken using the HP 264x terminal to run Lynx on a Linux box to access Google.
One needs a video for this? ;-)
That is one of the things we're doing casually for over 15 years here. May
it be a VT100, a HP 2648 or even the VT52 emulation within the IBM 5110
Kermit ;-)
(BTW all the equipment is connected to terminal servers)
Christian
16 Jan
16 Jan
3:40 p.m.
On 01/16/2018 01:19 AM, Martin Meiner via cctech wrote:
Hello guys.
Hi,
I am a passionate collector of old computer hardware
(PDP8?s) and
terminals from the very early 70ies.
To each his / her own.
It has always been my aim to be able to connect a
modem or an acoustic
coupler directly to one of my ASCII terminals, dial a number and be
connected?with Google!
Okay.
Are you wanting to connect to Google, like you would a specific BBS? Or
are you wanting to connect to something, like an ISP, that you can then
use to connect to Google across the internet?
The difference is subtle from the terminal's point of view, but very
important.
Something like Google-interface but converted to match
ASCII terminals
(only text, very simple graphics).
I've seen a number of textual interfaces to Google, usually via TUI
based web browsers.
I am aware that all searches that return pictures and
graphics will
not be displayed. But at least search-page should be in plain text,
and many websites may as well. Wikipedia would be great?
I don't think that text only is strictly necessary.
1) There are programs that can convert images into ASCII art. (With
varying degrees of success.)
2) Some terminals support various types of graphics.
I have recently been playing with Sixel and ReGIS graphics, which both
come from DEC VT2xx / VT3xx / VT4xx days. So in theory, you could have
actual 4 or maybe 16 (?) color graphics show up on a DEC VT440 (?) terminal.
Does anybody know if there exists such an
access-number where this
conversion is already made, or is there a small device on the market that
allows on one side connect to a dial-up modem and on the other side to
the terminal and doing the ASCII conversion stand-alone?
I am 99.999% certain that Google has never had an access-number (ala BBS
style).
I think you're really talking about an old system that provides a shell
account and a text mode browser to the internet. - There are MANY over
the years.
You could do similar via null modem cable between a terminal and
something like a Raspberry Pi.
It's my understanding that the WiFi232 pretends to be a modem that can
initiate TCP connections and convert them to serial. (Think telnet /
netcat.)
You could obviously insert a pair of modems and phone lines between the
terminal and the dial up server. - I personally would not want to pay
for the two phone lines needed to do such.
That being said, I suspect that you could get slower modem speeds to
work across ATAs & VoIP, or even an old analog phone switch. (I've
talked with people about using an old AT&T / Lucent / Avaya 'Partner'
class phone system for this.
It would be really cool to be able to demonstrate to
folks that these
terminals can actually look up pages on Google and (with limitations)
also access some pages.
It should be relatively easy to have the terminal connect to a unix
system and have it run programs to connect.
Something similar has actually been done in an
artistic way
a few years ago under: http://www.masswerk.at/googleBBS/ or
http://www.masswerk.at/google60/
googleBBS seems to provide an example of the ASCII art graphic. 15
seconds of looking didn't show any telnet (et al) ability to access
googleBBS.
I've seen and messed with Google60 for different reasons (mainframe
predilections) before. - I'm sad to see that Google60 no longer works
because "Sorry, the Google Web Search API has been shut down in May 2016."
But I need the real thing working where I can connect
my terminals to?
The big issues that I see are:
1) Do you want the terminal to connect (dial) directly to endpoints,
ala BBS style? Or do you want to connect (dial) to an intermediary
system that can connect to things on your behalf.
2) I'm not aware of any dumb (or otherwise) terminals that support IP,
via SLIP or PPP. So I think you're going to need /something/ to gateway
between serial and IP via a dial up connection via SLIP or PPP.
I personally would be interested in something, like a Raspberry Pi that
can function as a shell account server that can accept the (dial up)
connection on a serial port, and then gateway to the internet via
standard text mode utilities.
I'd be very interested in text mode utilities that support (basic)
graphics via Sixel (or ReGIS).
Any help is appreciated
I don't know if it's help or not, but it's at least feedback.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
22 Jan
22 Jan
3:17 a.m.
On 16 January 2018 at 09:19, Martin Meiner via cctech
<cctech at classiccmp.org> wrote:
It has always been my aim to be able toconnect a modem or an acoustic coupler directly to
one of my ASCII terminals,dial a number and be connected?with Google!
Something like Google-interface but convertedto match ASCII terminals (only text, very
simple graphics).
Your question is nonsensical. An internet connection is an Internet
connection. What you run over it is up to you.
Whereas I doubt a '70s mini will have a text-mode browser such as
Lynx, Links or W3M, many will have TCP/IP. Just telnet to a Linux box
and run one of those, or something akin.
From your question, I suspect you don't understand
how TCP/IP and the
WWW work. You need to learn that first before you can do this.
It's
not very hard or super-complex.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lproven at gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven ? Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 ? ?R (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
9:44 a.m.
Martin's question is not nonsensical, and I imagine he understands the
applicable networking concepts.
His goal is to replicate the original dialup user experience and add a
useful modern component - it's hard to justify keeping large machinery
around if it's only there to look at. By adding the Google part, even if
text-only, he can bring a bit of modern use to ancient but nostalgic
hardware.
=]
--
Anders Nelson
+1 (517) 775-6129
www.erogear.com
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 3:17 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 16 January 2018 at 09:19, Martin Meiner via cctech
<cctech at classiccmp.org> wrote:
It has always been my aim to be able toconnect a modem or an acoustic
coupler
directly to one of my ASCII terminals,dial a number and be
connected?with Google!
Something like Google-interface but convertedto match ASCII terminals
(only text,
very simple graphics).
Your question is nonsensical. An internet connection is an Internet
connection. What you run over it is up to you.
Whereas I doubt a '70s mini will have a text-mode browser such as
Lynx, Links or W3M, many will have TCP/IP. Just telnet to a Linux box
and run one of those, or something akin.
From your question, I suspect you don't understand how TCP/IP and the
WWW work. You need to learn that first before you can do this. It's
not very hard or super-complex.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lproven at gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven ? Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 ? ?R (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
2357
days inactive
2379
days old
34 comments
16 participants
participants (16)
-
abuse＠cabal.org.uk -
anders.k.nelson＠gmail.com -
cc＠informatik.uni-stuttgart.de -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cctalk＠gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net -
cctalk＠ibm51xx.net -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
drlegendre＠gmail.com -
ethan.dicks＠gmail.com -
lproven＠gmail.com -
lyokoboy0＠gmail.com -
Mark＠Misty.com -
martin＠meiner.ch -
mtapley＠swri.edu -
paulkoning＠comcast.net -
sgust＠ithh.informationstheater.de