From: gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net   
      
   On 8/18/20 9:58 AM, Marc Lewis wrote:   
   > Hello All.   
      
   Hi,   
      
   > Grant, I can give you a quick picture of how my traditional system   
   > works. It's capable of both answering a phone line as well as answer   
   > a telnet connection.  Note that there are a multitude of methods of   
   > handling multiple nodes on a single BBS "package". Normally all nodes   
   > are on one physical machine and are called into play as required;   
   > each one in its own "space" or virtual machine so to speak.   
      
   Would you mind elaborating on what you mean by "space" or "virtual   
   machine"?  I'm specifically wondering if you mean something like VMware   
   / VirtualBox / KVM / etc.  Or if they are just separate running   
   processes, each in their own window on something like Windows / OS/2 /   
   Linux / DESQview / etc.   
      
   > My system, that runs under OS/2, utilizes a "front end" that determines   
   > if the incoming is a data call or a human caller. There is a "front   
   > end" for each node.  It's the same program that's running in its   
   > own space (or instance as it were) - isolated from the other nodes   
   > with its own comm port (either real or virtual), depending on if   
   > it's a phone line or a telnet line coming in)  If it's a data call,   
   > the incoming data is received and stored for later operations. If   
   > it's a human caller, the front end has determined the incoming   
   > speed of the connection and a few other pertinent options; it then   
   > "spawns" an instance of the BBS program, passing to it the important   
   > connection data.   
      
   Okay.  You're using data and human a little big differently than I'm   
   used to.  I'm thinking "data" as in "modem" and "human" as in "voice".   
   Sort of like the voice / fax / modem(data) switch boxes of yore.   
      
   But it sounds like data would be something like mail transfer and human   
   is an interactive caller who will surf the board / play door games /   
   etc.  Correct?   
      
   > The BBS program then starts an instance of itself using that   
   > connection data. At the close of the call, either human or data,   
   > there is a "clean-up" routine that runs and prepares the system for   
   > another connection.   
      
   So, are these instances of your board aware of each other?  Or does each   
   largely run independently of each other and only focus on the port that   
   it's connected to?   
      
   Note:  I'm purposefully eliding complicating factors like multiple   
   instances trying to edit / update a given file / echo / etc.   
      
   > This system can in fact run without a front end, with each node of the   
   > BBS fully up and ready in its own space or "window" (not to be confused   
   > with the Windows operating system)... it's own virtual machine that   
   > has been set up to look at a specific comm port (again, either real   
   > or virtual).  This type of system does not take data calls normally.   
      
   *nod*   
      
   I take it that the purpose of the front end is to identify if it's an   
   interactive human seeking the BBS itself vs an automated process   
   exchanging data, e.g. email.   
      
   > The BBS initiates and asks the usual log-on questions and then starts   
   > its actual session with the caller.  The nodes are isolated from one   
   > another, but inter-node commication between callers (and certain data   
   > links) can be done   
      
   Are you doing inter-node communications?  If so, please elaborate on how   
   you are doing that.   
      
   > Newer, more "modern" systems running under Windows or Linux (like,   
   > for example, Synchronet) generally don't run a separate front-end,   
   > and have multiple nodes up and running concurrently in their own   
   > instance, window or virtual machine.  They are generally capable   
   > or taking a data as well as a human caller.  Again, each node it   
   > isolated from the others, and inter-node "chat" communication can be   
   > done between callers.   
      
   Synchronet means two very different things to me.  Chronologically first   
   /was/ the Synchronet of the '80s & '90s that was a more traditional BBS.   
     Chronologically second /is/ the package that is more a collection of   
   various components that make up a turn key web / message exchange / file   
   transfer system using contemporary components.   
      
   > DOS systems, though now few and far between, are either single-node or,   
   > if they're running a DOS based "multitasker" like DesqView (which I   
   > ran for many years before switching to OS/2) they can have a few nodes   
   > up (usually not more than 4 due to memory limitations.) With careful   
   > system set-up and a lot of config.sys and autoexec.bat manipulations   
   > and a good memory manager like QEMM (tricky to fine-tune). (Side note   
   > here: DesqView came BEFORE Windows 3.0 and was more stable, but since   
   > it could only run programs in Real mode, it had drawbacks. It could   
   > however run Windows 3 in it's own window. A decent review of DesqView   
   > can be found on Wikipedia.) DesqView could access files on other   
   > machines, but the networking drivers and software had to be loaded   
   > before DesqView started. It's was tricky but effective. Artisoft   
   > LANtastic was a favorite, but had NO TCP/IP capability, which was a   
   > severe limitation.   
      
   Please elaborate on this type of networking.  I assume this is where   
   NetWare Lite / Personal NetWare comes into play along side of LANtastic.   
     Or could likely be done with other peer-to-peer networking   
   technologies today.  (I suppose more traditional client-server could be   
   used too, but that requires the dedicated server.)   
      
   Did each board intuitively know that the other boards existed?  Or was   
   each board somewhat in a vacuum and saw files in a path.  Sometimes   
   those files changed in between when any given instance looked at them   
   last.  This seems to make sense for things like messages (~email) and   
   echos (~news(groups)).  But I'm not sure how user to user chat would work.   
      
   > Hopefully, this will give you at least an inview of how these BBSes   
   > can run multiple nodes concurrently.   
      
   Yes, it tells me a more than what I knew.   
      
   I can't find a picture that I'm thinking of, but it was something like   
   20 / 40 / 44 old IBM PC/XT/AT style systems that were networked via   
   something like NetWare / LANtastic / etc.  I'm wondering how those types   
   of -- what I think are called -- multi-node boards worked.  I naively   
   assume that it was something akin to multiple instances you mention,   
   just with one computer per instance given the hardware at the time.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Grant. . . .   
   unix || die   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)