From: muta...@gmail.com   
      
   On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 4:55:02 PM UTC+10, Grant Taylor wrote:   
      
   > > The modem is going to look identical to a Windows computer with   
   > > Cygwin installed.   
   > >   
   > > Because it is going to be a Windows computer with Cygwin installed.   
      
   > What does that even mean.   
      
   Cygwin provides Unix, so you can write crappy Unix   
   programs on Windows. Windows is crappy too, so   
   no matter which way you turn, you need to write crap.   
   Or someone needs to, anyway.   
      
   I've found a way of isolating myself from the crap.   
      
   Even if I put on another hat and write crappy Unix   
   code for a while.   
      
   > > Cygwin supports fork().   
   >   
   > How does that help the system(s) that are connected to the modem via   
   > {serial,Ethernet} and {PSTN,DSL,DOCSIS}?   
   >   
   > What does the magical modem's ability to fork() actually mean to the   
   > connected computers? How does the modem's ability to fork() help the   
   > connected computers?   
   >   
   > I don't care if the modem can magically fry me an egg exactly the way   
   > that I like it, or not, because that doesn't actually have anything to   
   > do with the data I send out the {serial,Ethernet} port to the   
   > {PSTN,DSL,DOCSIS} connection.   
   >   
   > What does the modem's ability to fork() do for the connected device?   
      
   No, this is not my point. Did you know that even GCC,   
   a friggin compiler, that could have been (and now, is)   
   written in pure C90, managed to create a dependency   
   on "fork"? I don't use Unix crap like that myself, but   
   others plaster their code with it.   
      
   So long as this code that deals with TCP/IP, wall to   
   wall Unix crap, full of forks and opens and god knows   
   what else, is isolated to the modem (virtual modem   
   running under Cygwin under Windows), I don't really care.   
      
   So long as it just looks like a really fast modem, doing   
   100 Mbps via INT 14H, I don't care.   
      
   > > Telstra even ripped up the copper wire. You have no choice but to   
   > > use fiber or 3G.   
      
   > Sure I do. I always have a choice. There are always options to convert.   
   >   
   > You didn't answer what "all I want is my modem back" means either.   
      
   I only recently found out that INT 14H even existed, and   
   also that MSDOS supports fopen of COM1 (but not "COM1:").   
      
   So I have only recently found out "the rules".   
      
   Now that I know the rules, I am retrospectively rewriting all   
   my software. Otherwise it would be unreasonable to   
   carpet bomb Taiwan.   
      
   But if I obey the rules, and the Taiwanese don't, it is justified   
   to carpet bomb them.   
      
   So, I have no problem with manufacturers bumping the speed   
   of my comms link up to 100 Mbps, but unless there's some   
   technical barrier, like the speed of light, I expect INT 14H to   
   give me some of that 100 Mbps. Currently INT 14H on my   
   Dell gives me crickets.   
      
   If INT 14H is restricted to 1 Mbps by the speed of light, no   
   problem, I'm happy to call INT 14H function 55 instead   
   which does a block write instead of a character write.   
      
   And my OS will gracefully check to see if function 55 exists   
   or not (not sure how to do that, but other interrupts have   
   the same issue), and if 55 (which would enable 100 Mbps)   
   doesn't exist, then it will fall back to function 1, which is   
   (allegedly) restricted to 1 Mbps.   
      
   > > I had assumed that a "virtual modem" didn't entail a physical phone   
   > > line.   
      
   > I'll rephrase slightly: how are the computers connected to your modem   
   > going to change what they are doing to be in sync with the modem's change?   
   > What happens to the data that the two computers are exchanging when your   
   > modem does it's fork()?   
   >   
   > Does the data stream get interrupted?   
   >   
   > Does the modem switch to a different data stream?   
   >   
   > How are the computers connected via your modem supposed to deal with   
   > this atypical behavior?   
      
   Your question is too complicated for me. What I know   
   is that my modem is already working. You can see it here:   
      
   https://sourceforge.net/p/mvs380/mvssrc/ci/master/tree/ozpd/c/modem.c   
      
   It's not pretty though.   
      
   > > I have no knowledge of certificates,   
      
   > I strongly suggest that you get at least some knowledge of certificates.   
   > Especially seeing as how certificates are the data that SSL / TLS   
   > encryption is based off of.   
   >   
   > I can highly recommend TLS Mastery by Michael W. Lucas. N.B. the "W."   
   > is important.   
      
   I don't want prior art to put me into a rut. When my (working)   
   modem and my (working) BBS need to be enhanced to   
   handle "casual snooping", I'll consider what to do about   
   security.   
      
   The first thing I'll ask is why my ISP doesn't encrypt data   
   if there are so many snoopers between my ISP and the   
   other guy.   
      
   And if my ISP refuses, and I can't get the Australian   
   government to arrest them for indecent behavior, I'll   
   instead ask the US to carpet bomb Australia to get   
   some decent laws enacted.   
      
   And if the US is unwilling to bomb Australia, but is   
   willing to bomb Taiwan, I'll request my firmware to   
   take care of this instead of my ISP.   
      
   I sure as hell can't see (at this stage) why this has   
   anything to do with me.   
      
   > > but I assume Windows has a way of doing that,   
      
   > Contemporary Windows does. You don't have to go back too far to find   
   > Windows that doesn't have commands to manage certificates.   
      
   And the command can't be added by a 3rd party?   
      
   > > and the virtual modem will be running under Windows or Linux or BSD   
   > > or MacOS.   
      
   > Didn't you say "Because it is going to be a Windows computer with Cygwin   
   > installed." a moment ago? So ... why the change to now include Linux,   
   > BSD, or macOS?   
      
   Most of this Unix crap works on all of those environments.   
   Even the IBM mainframe claims to be POSIX compliant.   
      
   PDOS/386 isn't POSIX compliant though. It uses some sort   
   of MSDOS API called Pos*, as distinct from Bos* which is   
   the IBM hardware interface standard.   
      
   > > Yes, I'm throwing that in too.   
      
   > I'm not sure what's more complicated, a TCP/IP stack or OpenSSL.   
      
   These GNU asshats can do both.   
      
   > > One day someone may produce a physical modem that meets the above   
   > > criteria and that is the size of a matchbox, but until then, it will   
   > > look exactly the size of a PC.   
      
   > How is it going to look (exactly) the size of a PC if it's /virtual/?   
      
   I'm lost. The virtual modem needs to run on *something*.   
   Why not a PC?   
      
   > > Virtual anything still needs something physical, like RAM.   
      
   > I would normally say that people know what I mean. But I'm not sure   
   > about you.   
      
   No, I probably need something like that spelled out.   
   Don't assume that I have prior knowledge of anything   
   in particular, or am familiar with any particular   
   terminology.   
      
   I was surprised when I was doing Amiga work that   
   someone said that all programmers know how to   
   do 32-bit multiplication using 16-bit instructions.   
   I'm missing some code I need to support the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)